Andre Lieven wrote:
> "Ben" (ArGee45{at}hotmail.com) writes:
> > Andre Lieven wrote:
> >> "Ben" (ArGee45{at}hotmail.com) writes:
> >> > Hyerdahl3 blathered:
> >> >> >Subject: Re: The Slattern Single Mother
> >> >> >From: knoxy knoxy{at}post.com
> >> >> >Date: 1/26/2005 12:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >> >Message-id:

> >> >> >
> >> >> >In article
,
> >> >> >gf010w5035{at}blueyonder.co.uk says...
> >> >> >> http://batr.org/view/021403.html
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >I tried to read all this crap, but it almost
made me >fall
> >> > asleep. Why not cut
> >> >> it short and just say that all >single mothers are evil and
> >> >> they're the reason
> >> >> for >everything bad that's happening in the world?
> >> >
> >> > I personally wouldn't go that far.  I was raised by a
> > divorced/single
> >> > mother, and I know how difficult it can be.  She wasn't single
by
> >> > choice, but because my father abandoned the family.
> >>
> >> Which is the minority of cases involving single mothers, and the
> >> minority of cases involving divorce ( See Braver ).
> >
> > The time period I'm referring to for me is the late 50's/early
60's.  I
> > haven't read Braver so I don't know if he includes that era in his
> > work, but in my own personal case, what difference does it make if
it
> > was in the minority?
>
> 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, 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.
>
> >> > 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?

> 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...

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.

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.

> 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.

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 think if a given man really doesn't want to be an active father,
he
> > should make that decision early on.
>
> How about society give him the *legal* means to do that ? Right now,
> only SHE gets that " right ".

He doesn't have to be an active father in the sense that he's required
by law to have a relationship with the child.  He can choose to stay
away permanently.  He can still be hit financially, but that's not what
I'm talking about.  I'm talking about those cases where he chose to
take on the role of Dad and then decided to walk away from it.

>
> >> " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. "
>
> Indeed.

(nudging with elbow)  Psst, you're responding to yourself here.  :)

>
> >> > In other instances, the women effectively bar the fathers from
the
> > lives
> >> > of the children out of vindictiveness, spite, whatever.  And
then
> > there
> >> > are those cases where both mother and father are too selfish or
> >> > self-absorbed to see past their own issues with each other and
> >> > prioritize the needs of the children.
> >>
> >> Yet, who chose for them to be, again ?
> >
> > Once the parental roles are accepted and established, barring some
sort
> > of fraud, what difference does it make?
>
> When paternit fraud rates are at least 5%, and as high as 30%,
> it makes a great deal of difference. Is it good for society to tell
> men: " If she can manage to fool you for X time period, then she gets
> to get away with the *fraud* " ?

I think I specifically said "barring some sort of fraud".  I'm pretty
much with you when it comes to paternity fraud.

>
> Can you imagine the oucry were we to tell women such a thing ?
>
> > We can debate some of the fine
> > points of ethics and morality here and we can be right all day
long,
> > but in the real world with real children and real responsibilities
that
> > go along with real choices--well, I'm sorry, but if you as a man
get
> > past the circumstances of the pregnancy and the birth and decide
you
> > want to be an active father, you've just accepted the
responsibility
> > that goes with it.
>
> Yet, we don't tell women that: Legal Abandon Laws, Legal Unilateral
> Adopting Out Laws.

Do we want to be feminists, or do we want to be better than them?
Besides, don't those laws concern primarily extremely young children?

>
> > You perhaps haven't read the posts, but I've pointed out repeatedly
to
> > Hyerdahl that men who flatly walk out on their families are in the
> > minority.  It's my own observation that most men want to be fathers
to
> > their children, even if they don't want anything to do with the
> > mothers--I believe the research bears me out on this.
>
> Sure. I quite agree with that, and I fully support that men be
granted
> an *equal* right to be involved fathers, when they have had a legal
> right to choose, either way.
>
> > I'm pretty much convinced that most of the time, if a man has
> > absolutely no contact with his children, it's pretty much for
reasons
> > outside his control (no knowledge of them, he's dead, the mother
told
> > another man he was the father, etc).
>
> Indeed. Braver's work points out that most " deadbeat dads " are
> really " dead broke dads ".

Ah, okay.  I'm familiar with his work, I just didn't know the name of
the researcher.

>
> >> Why is it OK to have Choice For Women, and NO Choice For Men, and
> >> then to try to equally share out the *responsibility*, when the
> >> *authority* is *solely with the women* ?
> >
> > I'm not arguing here about choice, my comments are concerning men
who
> > abandon their families in situations similar to the example I used
> > above.
>
> OK: Note that such men are hounded by a plathora of gov't
> agencies. I dare say that this is a solved issue.

But they're hounded for child support.  None of these agencies, to the
best of my knowledge, can force the father to re-establish contact with
the children.

>
> The other issues of Equal Choice For Men, however, isn't.
>
> >> >> That was pretty much what was being said.  Some simply have a
> >> >> vested interest in blaming the mother who stays
rather than the
> >> >> father who abandons.
> >> >
> >> > You surely are a simplistic creature when it comes to making
sure
> >> > that no woman ever carries any responsibility for any action,
aren't
> >> > you?
> >>
> >> Sure. But, lets not fall for any of her " traps ".
> >
> > You don't read many of my exchanges with her, do you?   :)
>
> I have. But, that doesn't prevent some from slipping through.
> Like this one. Surely there are millions of places to discuss
> dads who leave. How many discuss the far more numerous women
> who leave ?
>
> Lets let that issue gain some more... equality.

I agree.  Most of my own reactions here are due to personal
experiences, and I don't pretend to make it more than that.




"The greatest percentage of poverty is found in female-headed
households. Over 70 percent of female-headed households are poor. A
large percentage of poor people are children (17 percent); fully 85
percent of black children living in poverty reside in a female-headed
household." -- Walter Williams

"Having children is not an act of God. It's not like you're walking
down the street and pregnancy strikes you; children are a result of a
conscious decision. For the most part, female-headed households are the
result of short-sighted, self-destructive behavior of one or two
people." -- Walter Williams



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/26/05 10:48:54 PM ---