lukne wrote:
> > > Because, when deciding on things such as policy, in the macro, or
> > > personal beliefs, in the micro, if one uses as a default " This
is
> > > the common way ", a thing that is NOT the common way, you will
run
> > > afoul of GIGO: Garbage in, garbage out.
> >
> > If I was talking policy, I'd agree 100%.  My overall point was that
> > single motherhood per se shouldn't be demonized because some women
> are
> > there due to circumstances beyond their control--I know it, I lived
> it,
> > but I wouldn't attempt to set public policy with just my example.
I
> do
> > remember the stigma attached to my family and those like us,
because
> we
> > were "broken", and I'm simply not going to condemn single mothers
as
> a
> > group, any more than I'd condemn fathers who weren't in contact
with
> > their children as a group.
> >
> > >
> > > If men are not the prime destroyers of marriage and family,
> If that statistic is true, then how do you know that husbands' poor
> behavior are not driving women to seek a divorce?  You know the
> routine, drinking too much, affairs with the secretary, etc. You
should
> know (Ah maybe not) that one statistic doesn't tell the whole story.
> In the past, women felt societal pressure to stay in bad marriages or
> she lacked the education, training and skills to make it on her own.
> Now that many women are educated and can make it on their own, they
can
> leave a bad marriage.

Sure, I agree.  It all goes towards my reasoning why I won't just go
with a blanket condemnation of one group or another.  There are all
kinds of reasons why women or men are raising their children by
themselves.  Men behave badly, women behave badly, circumstances beyone
the control of either, and so on.



>
> then
> > > it is not only sexist and absurd, but Bad Policy Making, to
> > > behave as if they were.
> >
> > Agreed.  I have my own theories and observations regarding what's
> > happened to men and families, but that's a whole 'nother thread.
> >
> > >
> > > Braver does cover more recent time, but Wallerstein's work does
go
> > > back some, as the title of her book makes clear that the time
> period
> > > in study is at least 25 years.
> Are they also fellows of the American Enterprise Institute or
spokesmen
> for Concerned Women for America?
>
> > > >> > Now, having said that, I can also say that
single women as a
> > group
> > > > are
> > > >> > not exactly doing a bang-up job raising their kids,
especially
> > > > boys.
> > > >> > There's a whole host of issues that are found
in boys raised
> by
> > > > single
> > > >> > women.  However, I don't attach blame to just
the women.  I
> > think
> > > > that
> > > >> > those men who abandon their families are at
fault in those
> > cases.
> > > >>
> > > >> Oh ? Did they have *any* final say over whether
there would BE
a
> > > > child?
> > > >
> > > > Couple of things.  First, though I didn't specifically say it,
> I'm
> > > > referring to those cases where a man just walks away from his
> > family
> > > > he's been with a number of years.  Seen it happen, it's kind of
> > > > irrefutable that it does.
> > >
> > > Sure: Just as it's irrefutable that *more* women do the same
thing.
> >
> > Which, of course, is why I say I won't blame one side or the other
> > entirely.
> >
> > >
> > > > Second, whether or not he had "final say" on
if there would be
a
> > child
> > > > or not, once he walks away after establishing his paternal
role,
> > he's
> > > > damaging that child.
> > >
> > > So ? If I walk away from paying you for your choice to buy a new
> car,
> > > I am " damaging " your finances, but of what claim
to my infinite
> > > support do you have?
> >
> > Andre, you're not seriously going to try and compare a financial
> > transaction to  paternal responsibility to your child, are you?
>
> Surehe is. To Andre they're the same . . . children/cars whatever as
> long as they serve only his purposes under and fall under his
ultimate
> control.
>
> > > Have you considered that, not only do men leave
> > > families far less often than do women, women's departures often
are
> > > lauded as being " about personal growth ", while
men are derided
> > > for refusing to act as the ATM card for the little woman...
>
> That is utter crap Andre no matter what right-winged reactionary
Birtch
> Society buddies of yours says it is.
>
> >
> > I can consider lots of things (and again, I don't necessarily
> disagree
> > with you), but my comments here concerning men who abandon are just
> > that...about men who abandon.  They really are just that limited.
> >
> >> > > For example, they're unmarried, she gets pregnant when he
hadn't
> > > > expected it.  She decides to keep the baby.  Assuming for this
> > example
> > > > that the baby is his, if he decides to become an active father,
> > then as
> > > > far as I'm concerned, he's made a commitment.  If he decides
five
> > years
> > > > down the road he doesn't like being a daddy and leaves and cuts
> off
> > all
> > > > contact, I call that abandonment.
> > >
> > > Feel free to show any proof that even 10% of single mommy
> situations
> > > happen like this.
> Feel free to show that even 10% of single mother situations are not!
>
> > I don't have to.  I was offering you an example of what type of
> > scenario *I* had in mind when I talked of abandonment.  I don't
know
> > why you're deriving from this that I think it constitutes one
> > percentage or another of single mother situations.

> No proof! Motion denied prick!

???

>
> > > OTOH, we do know, from a plethora of books on the
> > > topic, that it is WOMEN who, often repeatedly, make the sole
choice
> > > to become mommies.

> Even if that statistic is true - and I doubt it is - then perhaps
these
> women see no hope for further education or a career as a result of
> being part of the misandrist school system.

I guess I don't entirely get what you're trying to say here.  Did you
mean misogynist?

>
>
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > >
> > > Today's news included an item on child poverty. Where the mommy
> > > was a 24 year old, with four kids, and nowhere in there was it
even
> > > suggested that she might have considered getting a man to agree
> > > to be a part of a familial relationship with her, *first*.
> >
> > lol  I'm not laughing at you, but this reminds me of a bunch of
Maury
> > episodes.  I was laid up recently for a couple of weeks with an
> injury,
> > and spent way too much time watching Jerry Springer and Maury.
> >
> > Maury appears to be specializing in trying to help single mothers
> > determine who the father of their children are.  One woman was up
to
> 10
> > men and still didn't have the right one.  The alarming thing is
that
> > with each guy, this woman would SWEAR he was the ONLY possible
father
> > (after the first four, she was reduced to swearing that she didn't
> have
> > sex with any other men).  A picture of the baby would go up on the
> > monitor alongside a picture of the accused(?) father, and the
mother
> > would scream about how the baby looked just. like. HIM.  The
> potential
> > dad would come on the stage, and the audience (mostly women) would
> boo
> > him for being such a cad and not admitting paternity.  Then Maury
> would
> > open the envelope and tell her that the roulette wheel boyfriend
was
> > NOT the father.
> >
> > Mom would run off the stage screaming while Maury chased her to
> console
> > her and tell her they'd continue the hunt.  At no point did I ever
> see
> > Maury express any disapproval.  I'm sitting in my chair throwing my
> > arms up in the air and yelling at him to just tell her to her face
> that
> > she was a tramp and he wasn't going to waste any more time with
her.
> >
> > And it wasn't just this one woman; this scenario played out far
more
> > often than not, though not with 10 or more men involved each time.
> My
> > wife watched a couple of these episodes with me, and I told her to
> > remember them if some young lady showed up swearing our son was the
> > father of her baby.
>
> I hope you don't assume that the trailer trash clowns on Maury Povich
> speak for all American men and women.

I don't think *anything* on television is representative of any group
as a whole.  I do think that there are some cautionary notes there,
however, with regards to simply accepting assertions of paternity at
face value if there are any reasons to think otherwise.  But the most
interesting thing to me was the audience reaction...almost without
exception, the woman's assertion that a given guy was the father "and
there was no possible way it could be anyone else" was accepted as
gospel.  The men denying paternity were roundly booed and jeered,
especially by the women in the audience, even with those cases where
the women had already been mistaken, several times.

 (snip)



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/27/05 2:45:37 PM ---