More Slanting of Statistics to Smear Mothers

More Slanting of Statistics to Smear Mothers

"A 1988 Department of Health and Human Services study found that at every income level except the very highest (over $50,000 a year), children living with never-married mothers were more likely than their counterparts in two-parent families to have been expelled or suspended from school, to display emotional problems, and to engage in antisocial behavior."


"except the very highest (over $50,000 a year)

"never married"

Well throwing those qualifications in leaves a whole segment of single mothers out there that were just all smeared with the same brush...NOT that I accept, for even a minute that never-married mothers making less then $50,000 a year are the root of all evil in this society...but this is another good example of what I'm talking about. Trying to pick apart and 'torture' the real numbers to make a point against millions of mothers who might not fit into those narrow walls constructed in that study is another attempt to smear all mothers, not just single mothers, as let's be clear these attacks are NOT just against single mothers, but all mothers...

All women in their role as mothers are being smeared by allowing these lies to continue being put out there as scientific fact...ALL...

It is very difficult to fight a smear-campaign when all the 'facts' appear stacked against you. When in spite of a society's historical memories, biological evidence, your own everyday living experience and basic gut instinct, every media source, along with governmental and private foundation lackeys (including many women) continue trying to convince you that the opposite of what you believe is so.

MOST of the single mothers you know are good and loving mothers who raise fine children. Not every man you know is a bad father, but on average they do not appear to be as concerned with children as mothers are and history backs us up in this assumption by the way. Men as fathers do not come off very well in the historic record, from ancient times right through to our own...I mean let's face it just examining US history, how does a Thomas Jefferson or Frederick Douglass's father come across in the historic record? Jefferson was a wise and wonderful man in many ways, as might have been Douglass's father, yet, as fathers to the children they sired, well frankly they sucked...

Of course they are only two men, but sadly enough, if you read enough history, you'll pretty much find the same universal picture painted throughout...uninvolved, disinterested fathers is actually the BEST case scenario in many cases...The worse situations were the children who were linked to provision of some sort of financial benefit to their fathers, ie., inheritance, or profit as in sale of slaves.

Now not every man, of course, but a large enough group of them to paint a pretty effective picture of historic fatherhood and remember, these were the men who CONTROLLED the societies they resided within. The ruling classes of their times...they could have worked to change things for children, but didn't...let's keep that in mind...No matter what they say about mothers of our historic past, women did NOT control the societies they lived in, as men did.

Actually if you contrast what it took men thousands of years to do for children, compared to what women have done in just the last 40 years for children in the West, there's no comparison...Life in the last 40 years for most children in our society has improved dramatically and we can thank women in their role as mothers for that...In spite of the 'spin' put out there by those who would continue to try to convince us of how poorly children fare today and to blame MOST of that on women...

Anyway, to make a long story shorter, from the information I provide above, it really would NOT be too hard to classify more MEN as uninvolved or disinterested parents then women...

YET the media, our government, religious leaders, private educational and public policy foundations, many of them other women, KEEP trying to convince us of just the opposite...that contrary to what we know from our own historic memories, everyday living experience and just plain common sense, that mothers, especially single mothers, are somehow not up to the challenge of raising their own children. That fathers and mothers are and should be treated as 'gender neutral' participants where children are concerned since they are both equally invested in said children and both equally concerned about childrens' best interest...

To this I have to say, when did this historic change happen? What evidence do we have to show that fathers are just as invested in children as mothers are? Because they say so now? Excuse me but I need a LOT more information on this historical abnormality before I sign off it...

Since life first crawled out of the primal mist, in every species including our own, MOTHERS have always been nature's first, logical and best choice for raising the young. Included within that biologically unchanging fact, we have to add our own history and collective everyday living experiences...yet now, we are just expected to ignore all this 'history' and start listening to the opinions of 'experts' and social engineers intent upon recreating a 'Brave New World' for us and our children. That everything we believed in the past and experience right now in our everyday lives should be tossed out the window.

Mothers have always been and should continue to be the primary parent in their childrens' lives whether they are single or not...Women invest more in bringing forth life, thus their greater investment will always make them the more 'invested' involved and thus usually better parent. Being a single mother is NO deterrent to being a good mother...and if finances are the problem...well then let's give single mothers access to more of them.