Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Why do men sink to the bottom?
> >From: "Ben" ArGee45{at}hotmail.com
> >Date: 1/11/2005 1:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: 
> >
> >
> >Hyerdahl1 wrote:
> >> >Subject: Re: Why do men sink to the bottom?
> >> >From: "Ben" ArGee45{at}hotmail.com
> >> >Date: 1/1/2005 9:52 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id:

> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Denise noe wrote:
> >> In many ways, men are more likely to sink to the bottom of
> >society.They are
> >>  the majority of the alcoholic, the drug-addicted, the homeless,
> >> the>imprisoned,> the  condemned and the executed. Why is this?
What
> >can be
> >> done to help men so they don't sink to the
> >> >bottom?
> >> >
> >> >I've thought about this myself, as I've dealt with delinquent
boys
> >over
> >> >the years.  I've come to the conclusion that one huge factor in
> >all>this is
> >> that boys suffer quite a bit from the lack of positive male>role
> >models in
> >> their lives.
> >>
> >> I agree with you, here Ben.  Why so many men have abandoned their
own
> >>families,
> >> including sons, is a mystery.
> >
> >Hy, sometimes that's exactly what it is, abandonment.  My own father
abandoned
> his wife and children when I was of pre-school age, so I know>it
happens.  What
> I've *always* objected to in your remarks is that you>have never--not
once, as
> far as I can recall--acknowledged that
> >sometimes they're pushed away by vindictive, manipultive ex's, which
> >I've also seen happen.
>
> Sure;  I think women don't always want men around them, sometimes
even the men
> they married.   I had a friend who's husband raped two of their three
kids.
> The way she found out was another child reported a rape.  They were
divorced.
> He was kicked out of the police force and incarcerated.  She left the
state and
> never tried to collect child support because she didn't want to see
him near
> her family.
> However, not all cases are like that, and it is my personal feeling
that
> children cannot have too many people who love them.  So if a woman
does try to
> distance a good father from her children, she would not be acting in
the best
> interests of her children and should be challenged in court.

Sometimes they are, but usually not very successfully.  In general,
women are given wide latitude to behave as poorly as they like with
regards to interfering with contact between the father and his
children.

>
>  Why so many men choose roles that are less >than>> that of primary
parenting
> is also a mystery.
> >
> >It's not really a mystery, given what you use for a definition
of>"primary
> parenting"  Both parents can't be home doing the majority of>child
care;
> someone has to be bringing in the money.
> >
> Well,then if that role is important to him he should marry a woman
who supports
> that.
> I can't speak for you, but when I formed a partnership with the other
parent of
> my three children, we decided from the get-go who would stay home and
when.

We didn't have that option--both of us had to work.  Fortunately, we
decided to work shifts opposite one another so that our son always had
at least one parent at home most of the time.  Which would have made
for an interesting time if a divorce occured--try distinguishing
primary parent between two people sharing child care and breadwinning
roles.  But the easy answer is:  my wife would have gotten custody by
default, because she was the mother.  "Primary parenting" really means
little.


>
> I think a real world definition of primary parenting would
acknowledge>the
> efforts of the person bringing in the money that allows the>household
to
> function, get health care, etc...
> >
> No.

Of course you'd disagree--a real world definition wouldn't
automatically give women a default advantage.

>  The courts want the parenting to continue on as it has,

Then the courts would have to force the parents to live together if
that was really the goal.  hehe

> to make fewer
> changes in the lives of the children as possible.

It can't get any clearer that children as a group are being handicapped
by being raised by a single mother, especially boys.  The "best
interests" of the child apparently don't include being raised by a
single mother.  Would single fathers do any better?  I don't
know--maybe we should find out.

>  AND, the courts recognize
> the sacrifice of career of the SAH spouse as well,

Sorry, but it's not a sacrifice if it's something the *want* to do.

> and that continuing that
> role is what should occur.

No, this is really just feminism using children to shelter women.

>
>   I think girls also suffer from the same
> >lack, but it manifests itself differently.
> >>
> >> Sure.  I'm reminded of that country-western song, "looking for
love
> >in all >the>> wrong places...."
> >
> >That, and, more recently, social pathologies that are becoming more
> >similar to boys (though I don't think they'll ever equal the levels
the>boys
> reach).
> >
> Well, that's because you're a sexist.  :-)

So it's sexist to think girls in general will never become as violent
as boys?  Okay...

> Girls are indeed doing things that were once only ascribed to boys.
The more
> opportunity girls have the more you will likely see from girls on
both ends >of
> the spectrum.

So now you're trying to insist that women are as capable as men of the
same levels of violence?  Okay, but you realize this shoots down your
arguments about how women don't rape and don't commit domestic assault.


>   Plus, there was a study a few years back showing that girls
> from single female headed homes were more successful.

I'm also aware of a study that the KKK released that showed blacks
didn't have the intellectual capacity of whites.  I didn't believe that
one, either.

If this was a study conducted by or for a feminist group, we already
know that it was designed to reach a predetermined conclusion.  But,
just out of curiousity, who were these girls supposed to be more
successfult than?  Boys from single mother families?  Girls or boys
from single father families?  Boys or girls from two-parent families?
And how was success defined?  How big was the sample group, over how
long a period of time?

>
>
> There are other reasons, but this one is a big one.  Now, as
to>*why*>the>
> children are lacking male role models--well, that one would occupy>us
for a
> while.
> >> >
> >> Sure; you would tend to blame the parent who stays while I would
tend
> >to >blame>> the parent who leaves.
> >
> >Sorry, but I don't generally think in such simplistic terms,
regardless>of how
> you'd like to see it.
>
> Well, I've seen a lot of women blaming on this NG.

You've seen me hold men's feet to the fire plenty of times.  Most of my
disagreements with you occur over your refusal to hold women
accountable for anything while doing the reverse for men.  That, and
some of the wild, women-aggrandizing statements you make.

>
>  The bottom line is that there is more
> >than one reason why fathers don't have regular contact with
> their>children--some are his fault, some are hers.
>
> The fact that divorced mothers tend to stay with their children while
fathers
> tend to leave shows us clearly that the abandonment is mostly his
fault.

See, here's another of those statements of yours.  You take a fairly
complex issue and boil it down to one statement that faults men and
aggrandizes women.  The reality is that most men won't fight for
custody because they believe--correctly--that the odds are stacked
badly against them.  And, most men who don't get physical custody would
still like more contact with their children than they get.

  >After
> all, regardless of mom's issues, he doesn't divorce the children when
he
> divorces the wife.   However, some women do make things more
difficult than
> they need to be.

Okay, we're making progress.   :)



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/3/05 10:19:03 PM ---