Well I decided to cheat again by reposting an old article. I got such a great comment on it from someone named G. that I wanted to re-post the whole thing again, not just her comment.
I'm glad my blog helped some woman proceed with caution...it kind of makes it all worthwhile to know at least some young women are reading and taking the stories that I post here seriously.
Frankly, I feel that due to this blog the world is a slightly safer place for women and children.
*************************************************************************************
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Like They Say: The Truth will Set You Free
Following article is located at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/julyweb-only/128-42.0.html
SOULWORK
We Are Not Pregnant
The glory of men and women lies in their unbridgeable differences.
Mark Galli | posted 7/12/2007 08:55AM
A male friend, married to a lovely women, comes up to me beaming and says, "We're pregnant!"
"Wow!" I reply, with inappropriate sarcasm. "When I was a young man, only women could get pregnant."
I've heard this phrase—"We're pregnant"—too much recently, but it's time to move beyond sarcasm. The intent is as understandable as the execution is absurd. It arises out of the noble desire of men (and future fathers) to participate fully in the childrearing. And I understand that for many men, it simply means, "My wife and I are expecting a baby."
But the first dictionary meaning of pregnant remains, "Carrying developing offspring within the body." Whenever a word is misused, it means the speaker is unaware of the word's meaning, or that the cultural meaning of a word is shifting, or that some ideology is demanding obeisance. Probably all three are in play, but it's the last reality that we should pay attention to. It is not an accident that this phrase, "We're pregnant," has arisen in a culture that in many quarters is ponderously egalitarian and tries to deny the fundamental differences of men and women.
This phrase is most unfortunate after conception because it is an inadvertent co-opting of women by men—men using language to suggest that they share equally in the burdens and joys of pregnancy. Instead, pregnancy is one time women should flaunt their womanhood, and one time men should acknowledge the superiority of women. Men may be able to run the mile in less than four minutes and open stuck pickle jars with a twist of the wrist, but for all our physical prowess, we cannot carry new life within us and bring it into the world. To suggest that we do is a slap in the face of women.
*************************************************************************************
Exactly, this author has it exactly right.
The really unfortunately thing is that women went along with this kick in our teeth so easily and, as usual, had to wait for a man to bring it to our attention.
The only point of disagreement with the author I have is that he's too easy on other men. As I don't agree for a moment that men did this due to 'noble desires'. In fact, it's just what it would appear to be if anyone else was doing it, an attempt to usurp womens' more significant role in the creation of life and for men to try and claim it as their own.
The male role in this area is minimal and this 'we're pregnant' business is another of their long-running, age-old, jealousy attempts to deny this reality.
posted by NYMOM | Sunday, July 15, 2007
6 Comments:
PolishKnight said...
Hello NYMOM,
Maybe you're on summer vacation, but the blog almost seems to have tumbleweeds due to the lack of activity.
Anyway, my response to this is that it's rather cynical to say that men who embrace the notion of "we're pregnant" to participate more fully in their wife's pregnancy (often due to condescending lectures that men are not being sympathetic enough to their wife's pregnancy) are also "slapping them in the face" by trying to co-share their glory.
This is kind of like men lecturing their wife for not bringing home an income and then if the wife tries to work also screaming that she's emasculating him.
This leads to a larger issue I'm sure will generate waves and goes to the core of NYMOM's thesis:
I'm honestly not jealous of women's ability to gestate for a variety of reasons including that parenthood is more than just 9 months of walking around with a big tummy. It's a bit more obvious for men, but the saying "any man can father a child but it takes a man to be a father" also applies to motherhood. If the HIGHLIGHT of a woman's parenting is the 9 months of pregnancy and birth of her child, then she probably was a really cruddy mother.
In addition, us menfolk have the ability to father children into old age allowing us to engage in some family planning that women can't enjoy. Consequently, I was able to take time to develop myself emotionally and financially so that my (younger) wife could have a healthy, well supported child.
On the other hand, young women gestating children into poverty OR older career women having genetically damaged children because they waited until the last possible minute are, IMO, almost criminal acts and only a sick society tolerates and even encourages them.
This goes against NYMOM's claim that society is undermining the woman's madonna like role as baby-making machine. On the contrary: They've allowed women to exploit this role to the point where it's become warped into child exploitation.
In closing: I'm reminded of the Verizon commercial where a woman calls her husband to announce "WE'RE PREGNANT!!!" and fails to hear his silly response of running around the room sceaming about how happy he is to be an expectant father (sheesh! as if nobody has ever been a father before!) and she says snidely to him because she can't hear his response due to the inferior other mobile carrier:
"Way to step up there... Rick."
What a... **itch. I feel sorry for men like this AND their children.
Notice that most of these commercials have the women telling off men and belittling them because if a man belittles a woman on a television commercial the feminists and women consumers can't handle it.
5:01 PM
NYMOM said...
Well I've been sick if you must know; thus I have not been posting as much these days.
BTW, I've never said that womens' ONLY contribution to life is gestating a child; but it is an inherently unique one to women, which many men spent much time trying to belittle...or claim as their own.
BTW, this wasn't me saying this. I just agreed with the author. Our difference of opinion came in as to man's motives for doing this as I don't see it as innocent as he does. I find it very planned on the part of men to do this, very calculating.
4:10 AM
NYMOM said...
Last point: I don't compare having a child with having a career. As women achieve careers who invest the same time and energy into a career as a man does: ie., getting degrees, training, etc., Society doesn't allow women to become lawyers for instance if they don't graduate law school and take the bar. Nor does it allow women to become doctors w/o going to medical school.
Yet it appears okay to allow men to become 'mothers' w/o investing anything whatsoever.
That's the basic problem.
You contribute NOTHING, risk nothing, do nothing; yet 2 seconds after a baby's birth, you have given yourselves the exact same legal rights as the child's mother...
4:15 AM
Anonymous said...
Reading this article has inspired me to comment on this interesting topic.
I am recently pregnant (four months), and have found that men and women have very differing perspectives on pregnancy and child rearing.
My partner has been my rock, through out many insane emotions and transformations my body has gone through, in such a short space of time.
Though it has to be said, although he can sympathise and be empathetic to an extent he can never really know exactly how I feel, and how strange and out of control one’s body feels whilst pregnant.
He hates when I say I am pregnant, or when I accidentally say MY baby to friends or family. He pipes up and says OUR BABY!!!!!!! (I cannot help it though as at this time it is developing in me)
This is true, that it is indeed a creation that has taken place because of us both contributing an element of ourselves. However, for obvious physiological reasons I as the female am contributing a whole lot more.
My partner too has experienced many emotions since finding out I am pregnant, and although both very happy I have been very poorly due to morning sickness and nausea. To which he can never really understand how much I have been ill, and although has an idea of how depressed at times I felt through being incapacitated by the nausea, he really does not have a clue as to the extent of my suffering.
This is of course not his fault. However he has experienced symptoms of what I would call womb envy. He often says he wishes HE was the pregnant one, and that I am experiencing the baby growing, and how HE wishes he could feel it move just as I can, and how HE would rather be the one pregnant, and how he would swap places with me in a second, just to experience what I am. This actually makes me feel guilty, as he actually gets quite bitter and at times moody over the whole thing…at least that’s how he comes across. I have really tried to be sensitive to his needs, during this time, and share every aspect of how I feel and how IT feels to be the pregnant one.
It has actually brought out some strange colours in him that I never knew were there. He gets angry that most pregnancy books are female focused, and that there are only small sections dedicated to the man, which he says he finds patronising and insults his intelligence. When I suggested finding a book specific for men in pregnancy, he said, “he should not have to”, and says we are EQUAL in this process, that he is just as important as I am.
He is of course right; I think children do benefit from two parents.
However only one of us can grow the baby.
He also is determined to cut the cord. A symbol I am now paranoid represents severing the child from my body for good.
Anyway, apologies for rambling on so much. It just feels good to get this off my swollen sore chest.
3:22 AM
NYMOM said...
Frankly, he sounds like an insecure moron who is going to give you and your baby nothing but grief from the moment he 'cuts the cord'...
Do yourself a favor and race down to the courthouse as soon as possible after the birth of your child and get custody legally established in your name. As your partner sounds like the kind of jerk who will sneak down there shortly after he gets the baby's birth certificate and try to get it in his name and steal your baby.
Trust me on this one.
1:54 AM
Anonymous said...
I am a 30-year-old European married to an American. I don not have any children. Lately I have decided that I do not want to have any children from my husband because I have come to regard pregnancy as the worst Ponzi scheme out there: You go through nine months of pregnancy, through labor, etc. and suddenly someone else can claim (at least equal) legal rights over the fruit of my labour (literally)!? Over the child I gave birth to! No, thank you! I am European and moving to the (very legalistic) United States has been a huge eye-opener for me: I once told an American fellow student that I would not want my husband to be present during the birth of my child (I see it as a very private moment, and I would like to be assisted by a doula or a trusted female friend) and he became very angry, claiming that it is a father's right to be there and see the child exit the mother's vagina (actually, he called it "witness the child's first moments")!!! I am a woman, a separate free individual, and NOT a mechanical child-bearing vessel / child-birthing machine. Therefore, I will not have any children, especially from my husband (I could always go to Denmark and undergo artificial insemination). I would love to have a child from my husband, but I am too afraid to do so in this upside-down world.
Unfortunately, also many formerly feminist European countries, such as Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia, are now starting to embrace this questionable gender neutrality... When the heck did we switch from "women's rights" to "gender equality"? Sad!
Thank you for a wonderful blog!
G.
12:21 PM
202 comments:
1 – 200 of 202 Newer› Newest»G sounds like she has a piss-poor marriage. In which event I heartily applaud her not bringing a child into the mix.
But once again we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we want to witness the birth of our kids we're controlling bastards. If we don't then we're insensitive, uncaring bastards. Bastards always.
Remember that we men didn't force our way into the delivery room. It was you women who wanted us there to share the birth experience. And now after a generation or so it's accepted by almost everybody as the obvious and natural thing.
It's a marginal issue since it's quite a rare and peculiar woman nowadays who would deliberately exclude her partner whom she ostensibly loves from his child's birth just because. The desire to exclude generally comes later when everyone's angry. But it's amusing how some of you diehards fall all over yourselves trying to justify cutting out dad and filling his natural place with something inferior.
Do you really not realize that when you exclude dad, whatever the context, you're excluding the only other person who could really care about that child as much as you do and would do as much for him/her as you would? Your doula won't give a crap about that child, relatively speaking. Neither will your "trusted woman friend," or any other outsiders you bring into that child's life. They almost certainly won't be there when that child is ill, in trouble, or in need of something major. And that's who you really want to share that "private" moment with so you don't feel like a "machine?"
To a doula, a birthing machine is pretty much ALL you are. One of a long line of them. Your partner sees you quite differently. It's hilarious that anyone could not see this.
Not that I think anyone should be required to have someone in the O.R. with them that they don't want there, but it would be crazy to try to start a family with a woman who had that need to exclude from the very outset. It bespeaks a small and grudging heart.
So yes indeed, a wise decision. And when you go to Denmark for your insemination, perhaps you could do your poor husband a favor and stay there so you can be separate and free and he can find a woman who loves him and wants an actual family.
Richard
"Do you really not realize that when you exclude dad, whatever the context, you're excluding the only other person who could really care about that child as much as you do and would do as much for him/her as you would?"
At leasst until, the kid comes home and starts spitting up, crapping, screaming and keeping everyone up. Than mom is trying to meet the demands of a newborn with little sleep, doing most of the housework that has tripled in size now that dad suddenly decides he shouldn't have to help. Hey, being the provider doesn't excuse dad either because in most cases mom has to work a full-time job to bring in an extra salary to make ends meet because dad's salary doesn't cover all the bills. And dad gets to hold the baby when friends come over so that he can brag about all the stuff he does as a father despite the fact that he doesn't think he should have to get up at night with a screaming kid, change diapers, do the housework that he use to do before the kid came, and wants mom to clean up after him as well as give him sex on demand. Yeah, he really cares about that kid as much as mom when he doesn't even give a shit about mom let alone the kid. Oh, and any childcare dad may do no matter how little is dubbed "babysitting" because you know the real parenting is done by mom.
"Not that I think anyone should be required to have someone in the O.R. with them that they don't want there, but it would be crazy to try to start a family with a woman who had that need to exclude from the very outset. It bespeaks a small and grudging heart."
You know Nicole Simpson banned O.J. Simpson from the delivery room when she gave birth to their second child. I guess all those beatings, threats to kill Nicole, calling her a "fat pig" when she was pregnant, and all his adulterous affairs speak about her"small and grudging heart". But hey, I guess it was her fault because Simpson was only trying to show his love for Nicole and her kids when he slit her throat and left her body outside her house while the kids were upstairs sleeping. He was really thinking of his kids when they could've wandered downstairs at any time to find their mother and her friend.
Yeah, Dick, I guess EXCLUDING DAD, WHATEVER THE CONTEXT, IS EXCLUDING THE ONLY PERSON WHO CARES THAT MUCH ABOUT THAT CHILD AS MUCH AS MOM. And you said WHATEVER THE CONTEXT. I guess Nicole should've let OJ in the delivery room WHATEVER THE CONTEXT.
From a purely medical standpoint, the woman is the one who gives birth, or has to go through a c-section. Her physical and mental well-being as well as that of the child are what is at stake. If the father's presence, interference, or actions cause any kind of distress for the mother, she can ban him from the delivery room or anyone else for that matter. The mother's wishes prevail because she is THE PATIENT. In fact, if the father's presence, interference, or actions cause any kind of distress for the mother or medical staff, the doctor can ban him or anyone else from the delivery room. I've worked in labor and delivery, and in 99% of the cases, the father was present because the mother wanted him there. However, I saw a case where the doctor had to tell the father to leave the delivery room because he was literally trying to prevent the hospital staff from doing their job. The wife was a foreigner, and the husband spoke for her because he said she didn't know enough english, and the husband couldn't speak her language. He was literallly tryiing to answer questions for his wife instead of letting her try to tell us. He still interrupted even when we found an interpreter. When he left the room to go to the bathroom or whatever, his wife could talk to us just fine. Her english was better than he told us it was. He tried to keep the staff from putting the baby in a warmer because he "didn't think it was good". It's crucial that newborns are to be kept warm. He made such a nuisance that the doctor told him to get out, and the wife was a lot happier. She was so afraid of him she didn't know how to voice her own feelings or whatever. Another case, the mother wanted her husband and her mother in the delivery room with her. The father told her that if his mother-in-law could be in the delivery room than his mother could be as well. He even had the nerve to start a huge arguement with his wife while she was in labor. In the meantime, the the father's mother was outside the delivery room telling the staff what a "bitch" her daughter-in-law was, and how her daughter-in-law was probably going to be a "shitty mother". The wife ended up kicking out everyone except her own mother until after her child was born. Not to mention the cases where the father refused to be in the delivery room because he "got sick to his stomach", or because he didn't want to be present because his wife was having a girl (talk about seeing your wife as a birthing machine to give you sons). It's great for the father to be in the delivery room to provide comfort and support for the mother and to witness the birth of his own child, but his "rights" as a father don't override the mother's rights as a PATIENT TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT HER OWN MEDICAL NEEDS AND COMFORT. In some cases, it's better for the mother to have a doula.
Sonya
Dick says:
"It's a marginal issue since it's quite a rare and peculiar woman nowadays who would deliberately exclude her partner whom she ostensibly loves from his child's birth just because."
Not so fast Dick,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-385102/Men-banned-delivery-room.html
"Many mums would prefer that dads stayed out of the delivery room. This is the finding of a survey undertaken by The Royal College of Midwives."
Dick says:
"To a doula, a birthing machine is pretty much ALL you are. One of a long line of them. Your partner sees you quite differently. It's hilarious that anyone could not see this."
Not quite Dick:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3135084.stm
"Expectant fathers may not be the best option to support women in labour, say researchers.
Mothers who had continuous support from a trained or experienced woman are less likely to need a caesarean, or powerful pain relief treatments.
The study, by researchers from Toronto University, goes against the present status quo which pushes for men to always be present at the birth."
Dick says:
"But it's amusing how some of you diehards fall all over yourselves trying to justify cutting out dad and filling his natural place with something inferior."
Hell, even a top obstetrician, Michael Odent, says dads shouldn't be in delivery room.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-559913/A-obstetrician-men-NEVER-birth-child.html
"For many years, I have not been able to speak openly about my views that the presence of a father in a delivery room is not only unnecessary, but also hinders labour.
To utter such a thing over the past two decades would have been regarded as heresy, and flies in the face of popular convention.
But having been involved in childbirth for 50 years, and having been in charge of 15,000 births, I have reached the stage where I feel it is time to state what I - and many midwives and fellow obstetricians - privately consider the obvious.
That there is little good to come for either sex from having a man at the birth of a child.
For her, his presence is a hindrance, and a significant factor in why labours are longer, more painful and more likely to result in intervention than ever."
However, I agree that it should be the mother who decides who should be in the delivery room, and men who don't want to be shouldn't be forced to be in the delivery room either even if it's against the mother's wishes. That said, fathers shouldn't have a say about who is and who isn't in the delivery room-whether it's themselves or someone else.
Hi again, Anon, with the exceptions which say nothing about the vast majority of the rest of us.
Sonya, of course the wishes of the patient should come first, as I already said. I'm talking about something else.
"Many mums would prefer that dads stayed out of the delivery room."
Probably there are some women who might prefer that their partners not see them in that condition, but most are generous enough to share the experience with dad anyway. What's unusual is to hear someone say that they want to keep the moment "private" so they don't feel like a "baby-making machine" or somesuch. That's what bespeaks a self-centeredness that foretells grief for father and child later.
Richard
Richard, I think we had a similar discussion regarding joint custody. At that time I said I was supportive of joint custody as long as the mother voluntarily agreed to it. I am not supportive of dragging a mother into court and a judge court ordering it.
This is the same principle.
Men like you don't appear to get this. Women are 'first amongst equals' as far as birthing and babies are concerned. If mother wishes to allow someone into the delivery room with her, fine. If not, tough, it's her call, not anyone else's.
I can understand where a mother might not wish other family members to be there, including the father. My husband could not be in the delivery room with me, he had to work. Frankly I was glad as I was a complete mess and was happy no family member saw me in that condition. I was very annoyed with a nosy nurse who kept calling him at work to try and get him to show up...
Oh, those not-so-fond memories! [Am I the only non-anonymous commentator?!?]
All I should say is, if I personally had it to do over again, I would have banned the father of my child [who is now, ahem, my EX-husband] AND his GF from my delivery experience... I'd have much rather had my BF & my mother as my attendants...
Thanks for the "new" post even if it's recycled, NYMom!
& wow! just read the Dr Odent article (thanks, uh - is it Sonya?) & he is absolutely spot-on: a human female is the only species who has her sex partner witness childbirth.
[I also was not completely truthful in my last comment - my ideal birthing situation would have been a big blanket in my pasture w/my favorite mare, but they'd have never let me get away w/it ;-)]
NY, I've already said I agree about the delivery room. Sure the patient's wishes come first. It is a medical situation, after all.
All I'm saying is that this woman's preoccupation with her self and her separateness is so out there that if I were her husband I would get out now while the getting is good and work on building a real family, which has nothing whatever to do with "separateness."
Joint custody IS a different matter of course, so I'll not comment on that here.
Richard
Richard,
What exactly are you trying to achieve by insulting me? It will certainly not help you to convince me, nor will it increase your popularity among most women. It seems to me that my comment has frightened you, and that your insults and attacks (overt and covert) are but a typical frightened reaction: anger to protect you from your fears. Why? Why do you find what I wrote so unsettling? Why do you interpret it in a way that causes you to feel so offended or indignant and to react in such an angry, irrational manner?
"G sounds like she has a piss-poor marriage. In which event I heartily applaud her not bringing a child into the mix."
I think that it is important to think and plan ahead, basing one's plans on long-term considerations: People change over time and so do relationships. Your best friend could turn into an enemy, and your loving spouse could change, tire of you or fail to accept the fact that you have changed. Therefore, it would be foolish to ignore these possibilities when planning one's parenthood and one's future -- not to mention the future of one's children, who should not be involved in lengthy and acrimonious custody battles.
"I were her husband I would get out now while the getting is good and work on building a real family, which has nothing whatever to do with 'separateness.'"
If you did I would respect your decision. I have never made a mystery of my convictions and I do nothing to keep them a secret.
To me this is a matter of dignity and privacy. At any rate, it is a matter of individual, personal priorities: different strokes for different folks.
"But once again we're damned if we do and damned if we don't."
I find it particularly ironic that the same distorted reasoning could apply to women as well, although I strongly disagree with both versions: "When women first asked their men to be present, they were considered 'demanding bitches', and now that some of them desire to be alone, they are labelled as 'selfish bitches'. Bitches nevertheless!" :) Please, Richard, stop thinking in such a distorted, anger-inducing way!
"It was you women who wanted us there to share the birth experience."
"You women" sounds very much like the questionable epithet "you people" used by the racist to address African Americans! Hateful, hostile generalization warning - code red!!!
Not all women agree on all points. I, for one, have never wanted it: That's all I know. Since I have never wanted it, I should not be expected to experience it or be induced to accept it just because someone else wanted it in the past. Please, stop this "collective blaming" nonsense!
"If we want to witness the birth of our kids we're controlling bastards. If we don't then we're insensitive, uncaring bastards. Bastards always."
You are jumping to conclusions: The fact that I would prefer to keep such a medically and emotionally sensitive moment (and such a QUINTESSENTIALLY FEMININE event) private (and share it only with trained professionals and other women) does not mean that I think anyone is a "bastard", let alone men. You are trying to read my mind, and you are wrong. I respect and admire men and women equally. Moreover, I tend to judge individuals separately, on a one-to-one basis, and I make it a point not to extend my judgments to entire demographic groups.
1) "it would be crazy to try to start a family with a woman who had that need to exclude from the very outset. It bespeaks a small and grudging heart."
My wish (not "need", but wish) is NOT to exclude anyone, but simply to be on my own, surrounded only by trained professionals and other women, with whom I would feel more confident and relaxed. Only someone with a very low self-esteem would take such a preference so personally. Moreover, not being there AT the onset does not necessarily mean not being there FROM the onset! You are erroneously introducing an element of duration and permanence into the future. The fact that one is not there during the first seconds does not mean that he will be prevented from being there during the rest of the child's life! Again, you are over-generalizing in an irrational manner.
2) "It's a marginal issue since it's quite a rare and peculiar woman nowadays who would deliberately exclude her partner whom she ostensibly loves from his child's birth just because."
Could you please complete your sentence? Just because WHAT, precisely? What are you trying to imply? I have read that anxiety makes labour harder and tends to prolong it, and it would be much more relaxing for me if my husband were not around. I would find it more reassuring and dignified. I would also prefer if my mother were not around.
My father was not present in the delivery room when I was born (which was common practice at the time, at least in my country), but he was never excluded from anything, from any aspect of my upbringing: In fact, I can state that I have always felt a little closer to my father than to my mother! The fact that he did not see me emerge from my mother's dilated vagina has not changed ANYTHING for anyone. Not a single thing! It seems to me that you put too much emphasis on the biological aspects of parenthood. (See also my comments to point 4.)
3) "The desire to exclude generally comes later when everyone's angry."
The desire to EXCLUDE perhaps does. But the desire to feel relaxed and confident and to enjoy one's privacy has nothing to do with intentional exclusion, it is nothing personal whatsoever, so your comment is off-target again.
I wonder why it is so vitally important for you to see your child exit his mother's dilated vagina. Because otherwise you would feel left out? It seems to be that you suffer from an intense, irrational fear of rejection and exclusion. Well, even if you are watching, unfortunately the vagina is still not yours: Men ARE NOT a part of the biological act of childbirth and they never will. I am sorry to disappoint you: Nature has been unfair, but one could always try to sue it. :) However, fathers can be an important part of the act of childrearing, which, in my opinion, is MUCH more important, interesting and rewarding than biological procreation in itself. Again, you seem to overestimate the significance of the biological aspects of parenthood, as opposed to nurture, childrearing and education.
4) "Do you really not realize that when you exclude dad, whatever the context, you're excluding the only other person who could really care about that child as much as you do and would do as much for him/her as you would?"
I fail to understand your point here. The father will still be able to be there and do all those wonderful things (care, help, support, etc.) starting from five minutes after I have given birth! He would NOT be excluded from all those wonderful experiences or from the future life of his child. What difference does it make whether he witnesses the actual act of childbirth?
I have my theory: You and the men who share your attitude seem to feel that being there will make you an active part of labour and childbirth, as if you, too, had given birth. Sorry, but that is not the case! It seems to me like a symbolic act of appropriation, which I find very disturbing.
Witnessing an event does NOT automatically make you an active participant in that event, UNLESS you actively contribute something. If the mother finds his presence HELPFUL and welcomes it, then the father has contributed something. If, on the other hand, the mother finds the man's presence DISTURBING, then not only has he contributed nothing, but he has also made things harder for her!
5) "Neither will your "trusted woman friend," or any other outsiders you bring into that child's life. They almost certainly won't be there when that child is ill, in trouble, or in need of something major."
Ok, here comes the covert blackmailing! :) "If you don't let me see the baby come out of your vagina, you will live and die alone, forlorn and helpless, isolated and with no support: an outcast! You will be on your own!" So what?! I will be on my own, no biggie. A mother and a woman has more strength than you think, and luckily we live in the modern world, where (in spite of the many injustices that are still hindering us) women can be independent and take care of themselves AND of their children. Hurray! So spare me your pitiful attempts at blackmailing women.
When I read your replies, all I see is fear, anger and distorted, irrational thinking.
Regards,
G.
Clarification: My critical comments refer to those future fathers who cannot accept the mother's wish to be alone while giving birth, and NOT to those who are willing to support her if she so wishes -- the latter are to be commended.
Richard,
One last thing (I just thought about it, so I apologize for the delayed appendix):
You seem not to understand why I wrote "childbearing vessel" and "birthing machine". You also seem not to understand why I mentioned the mother's separateness and individuality.
I will try to explain it to you:
As we all know, it is generally assumed that an individual's rights cannot legitimately prejudice another individual's rights. In the case in which the mother does not welcome the presence of the father, this hypothetic "right of the father to witness the child's birth" comes in conflict with the mother's individual rights over her own body. (*)
So why would certain men assume, even for a second, that they still have an imaginary (moral and/or legal) "right" to witness the delivery of their child even if the future mother objects to it? Why would they think, even for a second, that she is being selfish or ungenerous if she rightfully insists on asserting her individual rights over her own body?
Do you define "generosity" and "selflessness" as unwillingly relinquishing or alienating one's fundamental, defining individual rights?
The only plausible justification of the future father's indignation is the following: He thinks that, while a woman is pregnant, her individual rights over her own body have been temporarily and conditionally suspended.
But a person's rights over her own body are what define the entity known as a "separate individual". If you suspend this defining feature, you deny a person's individuality and separateness. So, the father who claims such right sees the pregnant woman as a non-individual.
Now, what does he see instead? What is a non-individual?
A person who is a non-individual is a utilitarian tool, just like a slave. Therefore, "our" future father temporarily sees the pregnant woman as a USEFUL TOOL, a "baby carrier", a "life vehicle", a "childbearing vessel/container", a "birthing device" -- in other words, he sees her as something COLLECTIVELY USEFUL, a tool that SERVES A PURPOSE for life / him / society / her family / mankind (the human species), etc. Tus, the pregnant woman is no longer an end in itself (i.e., an individual), but has become a subordinated means to reach some other end, and has thereby lost her individuality and separateness – and, with it, her human dignity.
Forgive me, but I cannot accept such an oppressive, inhumane and callous view without a fight. :)
Regards,
G.
(*) N.B.: I mean this first and foremost from an ethical standpoint, but I think it is also true legally (although I am no jurist, so my reasoning may sound simplistic from a legal perspective).
FINAL THOUGHT
Oh, sorry: Now that I have read most entries in this blog I have come to the realization that Richard's mission is to fight against women's rights and feminism! If I had realized that sooner, I would not have wasted my time by taking him so seriously, replying to his criticism and assuming that his objections to my comment were in ernest! He is a male activist, not someone open-minded and interested in a serious discussion. The other comments were much more useful and filled with interesting information. Therefore, they were much more deserving of my time and energy that the endless, trite propaganda of a crusader.
I thank their kind authors and apologize for not giving their contributions the (written) attention that they deserve.
At least, I hope that my (otherwise utterly useless) replies to him will help some other women to assert their rights.
Believe it or not, G, my intent is not to insult. My reaction is mainly one of amazement that a person who is this preoccupied with their separateness and with their relative property rights to their hypothetical children would actually be in a legally married relationship. Why not cohabit?
But of course you're jumping to the same conclusions and over-generalizations that you attributed to me. For one thing I'm not an activist. I'm a bystander with interest in some of NYMOM's topics. I was actually invited over by her from another site and I'll shove off anytime she asks.
No fear here, either. I've been married a long time to a woman who has even stronger opinions against divorce than I do, and my kids are of an age where it would be very difficult for our relationship to be damaged by anyone.
I'm not obsessed with witnessing birth. I was present at both my kids' births but neither of us ever gave it any thought. It was just assumed that we would be together there just as we usually are anywhere else.
"I fail to understand your point here. The father will still be able to be there and do all those wonderful things (care, help, support, etc.) starting from five minutes after I have given birth! He would NOT be excluded from all those wonderful experiences or from the future life of his child. What difference does it make whether he witnesses the actual act of childbirth?"
If it were only that simple! I'll wager most guys would gladly trade witnessing birth for the assurance that they will always be there for all the "wonderful experiences" in the lives of their children.
Most break-ups by far are initiated by women, and while most respect the bonds between father and child, a woman who is this perturbed about a father having equal rights to the "fruit of her labor" can not help but be seen as a prime candidate for a mother who would jeopardize her kids' relationship with their father if it conflicted with her own interests.
It's not just the delivery room business. That's relatively minor. It's the whole view of the child as your "fruit" and not as an individual human being with two parents and needs that are independent of theirs. I've got no reason to "fear" women such as you but a lot of young men just starting out sure do. They and their future children have too much to lose.
And I'm baffled that you could interpret any of my comments as "covert blackmailing." What does pointing out the value of another parent to a child have to do with YOU dying alone or being an outcast? If you can make it on your own good for you and please do so. And like I already said if a woman with hangups about her separateness must have a child, better to go the insemination route than to crap out on a phony family commitment and break the hearts of a father and his child.
The pity of that is not that YOU are without support but that the child has only half the love, support and extended family ties that a child in a real two-parent family has. Maybe your ownership rights are worth that to you. To most smart women they aren't. They wouldn't be to me either.
I'm not on any crusade or mission but NY here claims to be. I hope that doesn't make her uninterested in "serious, open-minded discussion." :-)
Richard
Richard,
1) "Believe it or not, G, my intent is not to insult."
If that is not your intent, why did you do it?
2) "My reaction is mainly one of amazement that a person who is this preoccupied with their separateness and with their relative property rights to their hypothetical children would actually be in a legally married relationship. Why not cohabit?"
- I never, ever wrote "property rights". Where do you get that from? If I had written "property rights", which I have not, my whole reasoning would be absurd. Either you still have not understood what I mean, or you maliciously pretend not to have understood it.
- A "legally married relationship", I believe (excuse my bad English), is normally referred to simply as a "marriage". I think that marriage has its merits, but, probably, different merits from the ones that you ascribe to it. Growing up I never imagined that one day I would get married, nor was I opposed to marriage. When my husband proposed to me, I accepted his proposal because I consider marriage as a poetic symbol of our mutual commitment, a meaningful historical ritual, a symbolic way to formalize a promise of mutual dedication. However, I did not get married in order to "build a family". I was not radically opposed to the idea of having children, but "creating a family" was not the reason why I got married. I got married as a way to formalize and ritualize my promise of loyalty and support to the man I love. No more, no less.
- Now, you may wonder what happened that might have caused me to grow so cautious about the idea of creating a nuclear family in the traditional sense. The answer is "specious, malicious legalism".
I come from a predominantly Catholic country where, even if divorce has been legal and socially acceptable for a very long time, people basically get married for life. Deep inside, even most of my left-wing, radical, libertarian, progressive, etc. fellow countrymen consider marriage as a pretty serious, final and irreversible deed, except in case of domestic violence, spousal abuse, and so forth. Another important feature of my culture is that it is not at all legalistic. This is both positive and negative, but it is a fact: We strongly dislike courts and judges and try desperately to settle our conflicts (sort of) amicably. Growing up in such an environment, I had never considered the implications of a possible custody battle. Although it is a phenomenon on the increase, in my country it is still very rare for people to ask a judge to decide in the matter: Normally, we try to find an amicable agreement and not to involve our children in our marital conflicts. Generally, mothers are regarded as the primary custodian (is that the right term?) and the privileged parent ("first among equals", as NY Mom rightfully put it), but, in turn, only abusive fathers would be denied the opportunity to spend time with their children and contribute to their upbringing: We try to be as accommodating as reasonably possible. Similarly, nowadays most fathers are present during the delivery, but I honestly think that most of my male compatriots would actually feel quite relieved not to attend. At any rate, only very few of them would care either way, and even fewer of them would consider it a "moral right" to personally witness the delivery. Mostly they would try to accommodate the future mother, instead of judging her negatively for wishing them to leave.
Among American men (and, increasingly, among Scandinavian men), on the other hand, I have noticed a peculiar and relatively widespread form of reversed legalism. The men who hold this view seem to contradict themselves: On the one hand they often accuse feminists of having forced their agenda down everybody's throat by manipulating the legal system, and to have forcefully revolutionized society and traditional values from the courtroom, but then they have no qualms whatsoever about engaging in the very same kind of behaviour that they so vehemently decry and disapprove of.
Traditionally, women were seen mostly from a utilitarian perspective: They were perhaps valued and cherished, but only in function of what they could GIVE to others and to society: They could GIVE life, they could NURTURE children, they could DEDICATE THEMSELVES to their family, they could PLEASE their husbands, they could SACRIFICE THEMSELVES and DEVOTE THEMSELVES to this and that, and so forth. Feminists reacted also to this: Women should be valued first and foremost as separate individuals, as an end in themselves, and not as a means to achieve something else (including life itself). Family courts became a way to protect the weaker party (in this case, women and, especially, mothers) from the dominant, privileged one.
Now some men seem to think that this went too far and that, from a legal standpoint, women have become as strong as (if not even stronger than) men, and that fathers are being unjustly penalized.
Instead of arguing this point in a civilized manner (after all, in theory democracy is based on convincing others rationally), some bitter, pissed-off, angry man (who have just been left by their wives) decide to manipulate the whole family law/family court system in order to once again weaken the legal status of mothers. Moreover, constant attacks are being directed against mothers in the media, and soon mothers will have to keep detailed records of everything they have said and done in order to be able to prove on short notice their fitness and "professional" suitability (seeing parenting, and especially motherhhod, as a "profession" is another related aberration -- just think of the horrible expression "mothering skills"!).
These men seem to say, "You wanted us to be equally responsible, equally committed, equally responsible? Very well, if you force us and if we have no option we will, but IN RETURN we expect something: We want, we DEMAND to be parents in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as mother are, to become "male mothers": After all, the fact that women give birth, breastfeed, etc. is not "equal", just or fair. If you expect us to be equally responsible and equally involved as mothers are, in return we demand to become some sort of male mums, and we will not hesitate to manipulate the court system to do so."
Besides the obvious stupidity of delusional men/fathers who demand to be equal to women in the only field in which the differences between the sexes are factual, unavoidable and undeniable, this attitude has another basic flaw.
What flaw is that?
The flaw I am referring to is that you should not expect anything in return for doing your duty, for doing the decent thing, for doing what is right and respectful of others!
Respecting women, treating them as equals, as separate individuals (with everything it entails) is the bare minimum a man (anyone, really) should do!!!
Cops usually do not pay you to drive at speed limit, but they will fine you if you speed! There is no reward for doing the right thing, and it would be illegitimate to expect something in return for driving at the legal speed, respecting the other motorists and their rights, and not endangering or bullying others.
Likewise, men should not expect anything whatsoever in return for being worthy, respectful, modern, proactive, civilized and equal companions. That is the VERY MINIMUM that can be reasonably and legitimately expected. BY NO MEANS does doing so entitle fathers to claim HONORARY MOTHERHOOD!!! That only allows them to claim "correct, decent, basic, acceptable fatherhood"!
3) "I'm not obsessed with witnessing birth. I was present at both my kids' births but neither of us ever gave it any thought. It was just assumed that we would be together there just as we usually are anywhere else."
Still, you consider a mother who wishes the future father NOT to be there as a selfish, ungenerous, self-centred, unreasonable woman who will probably prove unfit to be a mother.
Why does this simple preference (that is also a basic individual right) fill you with such outrage and indignation, as well as suspicion?
4) "I'll wager most guys would gladly trade witnessing birth for the assurance that they will always be there for all the "wonderful experiences" in the lives of their children. [...]
Most break-ups by far are initiated by women, and while most respect the bonds between father and child, a woman who is this perturbed about a father having equal rights to the "fruit of her labor" can not help but be seen as a prime candidate for a mother who would jeopardize her kids' relationship with their father if it conflicted with her own interests."
Why? I mean, let's be reasonable! Why would a mother's interests conflict with her children's relationship with their father? In which case? A mother's primary interest is that her children shall be happy and receive a good, sound and loving upbringing. Children are also separate individuals (although still in need of guidance), and there is only so much that you, as an adult, can and should do to try to control them: If their relationship with their father is good and healthy, why try to ruin, oppose or hinder it?
One instance is a little trickier, i.e., when the mother is convinced that the father is doing something objectively wrong.
For instance, let's assume that their father, whom they love and adore, is telling his children that it is an excellent idea for men to put women in their place with their fists. Or that education is worthless. This kind of teaching does NOT conflict with the MOTHER's interests, but with the CHILDREN's (since it may turn them into violent, aggressive social misfits).
All in all, I cannot think of a single legitimate instance in which a child's relationship with his father would come in conflict with the mother's interests: With the child's interest, perhaps, but not with the mother's.
And yes, what I really want is that simple: Acknowledge my right to deliver the baby as I prefer, in a way that I find both dignified, comfortable and relaxing (whatever that may be), and I will be satisfied. :)
Also, have you ever wondered why most separations are initiated by women? Maybe because men are very happy and satisfied with what they are getting out of the relationship, while women feel that they are being exploited / humiliated / abused / ignored / disrespected in the process of (willingly or unwillingly) providing the man with what he wants from their relationship!!!
5) "It's not just the delivery room business. That's relatively minor. It's the whole view of the child as your "fruit" and not as an individual human being with two parents and needs that are independent of theirs. I've got no reason to "fear" women such as you but a lot of young men just starting out sure do. They and their future children have too much to lose."
Ok, you have expressed an excellent point here (children are individuals, not property), which I have already addressed above (see my comments to point 5).
However, keep in mind that young women, in turn, are scared of pushy, intrusive men who expect to be awarded the title and the role of "honorary mothers" just because they are being decent and equally responsible partners and parents. Men ARE NOT and CANNOT BE mothers. Men have nothing whatsoever to do with motherhood, and should not EVEN TRY to go there. Equal rights do not mean that men can be mothers. Sorry.
Children actually ARE the outcome, the "fruit" of a woman's pregnancy and of her labour (as well as her life-sustaining breast milk, at least before they invented these questionable baby formulas). This fact is undeniable, and it lays at the bottom of a mother's special bond with her child.
Fathers can witness the child's birth and imagine to have contractions, they can wear strapped-on rubber breasts in order to pretend to "breastfeed", they can become self-proclaimed experts in all things baby, they can even call themselves "mummy", but they will NEVER be equal (or even remotely similar) to women when it comes to procreation: Children ARE the fruit of a woman's labour.
Being equal partners is EXPECTED and it does NOT equate men to women in their role in procreation.
6) "And I'm baffled that you could interpret any of my comments as 'covert blackmailing.' What does pointing out the value of another parent to a child have to do with YOU dying alone or being an outcast? If you can make it on your own good for you and please do so. And like I already said if a woman with hangups about her separateness must have a child, better to go the insemination route than to crap out on a phony family commitment and break the hearts of a father and his child."
There you go again!
In which way do you equate not wanting a given man to see an infant exit your dilated vagina to denying that fathers play an essential part in a child's upbringing?
Once again, you seem to mix up the biological aspect or procreation with the nurture component of parenting!!!
What prevents a man from "being there" for his child (and for the MOTHER, yes Sir!) just because he has not seen the child exit her vagina? Are you trying to suggest that there is a intrinsic correlation between the two things? I do not expect my obstetrician, midwife or doula (or trusted female friend) to parent my child: I simply expect them to assist me during the delivery! I (hopefully with support from the father) will parent the child.
Now I understand that yours might not have been a threat/blackmailing, but then your reasoning makes no sense at all: You keep mixing up two different things: "assisting the mother during delivery" and "parenting the child"!!! Why????
PS: I agree: I, too, jumped to some conclusions and overgeneralized here and there. I sincerely apologize.
Regards,
G.
"it LIES at the bottom" - sorry.
G -
Do you mind telling me what country you ARE from? (forgive the bad grammar as well as my ignorance, but I cannot think of any "Scandinavian countries" that are predominantly Catholic)
- "another lapsed Catholic"
Happy New Year everyone! (Especially NYMOM)
G's response is a typical world-owes-women-a-living worldview. She thinks that women shouldn't be judged by what they do. Well, that's how the world works, honey. Go to a store and see if they give you high end designer shoes because of who you are...
She thinks men are "privileged" and that's why family court is baised against them. The opposite is true: Most men are working class and my grandfathers died early deaths to provide the best they could for their families. My grandmothers loved their memory until they joined them. Her attitude is insulting while at the same time laughable. If women were so "privileged" and worked like men did, then welfare and "child" support wouldn't be necessary to keep children from starving to death (even as single mother households, even adjusted for income, produce most of the nation's criminals anyway.)
That leads us to her next smug proclamation: That police don't reward us for doing the right thing. She's obviously never heard of "safe havens". So many mothers throw their babies into dumpsters each year (hundreds!) that the state gave up and just let them abandon them and their financial obligations. "Do what I say, or my baby gets it!" It's not the "media" making these mothers look bad (pardon the pun, but they do their best to sweep this ugly truth under the rug). It's just difficult even for the chivalrous media to portray women as perfect mothers when so many dead babies pop up.
I honestly laughed my head off reading her claim to 9 months worth of "work." At best, it's a medical disability. The woman gets "paid" for this "work" via the man supporting her to stay at home or the state making other men (and childless women) work harder so she can stay home. If you want an idea of which role is more valuable, check out how many women consciously have stay-at-home fathes while they pay all the bills...
That said, I find your husband's obsession with the female biological role wierd including cutting the cord. But then again... I wouldn't get involved with a woman such as you to begin with. Whipped men are a product of emasculating socialist systems that punish hard work and reward laziness and irresponsibility. You're lucky to have him.
PolishKing,
My husband is perfectly ok with my overall beliefs (and the decisions that stem from them) and shares them. As I had originally stated, the one about the presence of fathers in the delivery room is a discussion I had with an American male fellow student a few months ago, and NOT with my husband!
---
Val,
Although I studied for five years at a Scandinavian university (Stockholm University, in Sweden) I come from south-central Europe, namely from the very north of Italy, a stone's throw from the Austrian border. I did not receive a Catholic upbringing because my parents are not religious, but it is fair to say that I grew in a predominantly Catholic culture, the one of south-central Europe.
PolisKing,
You brought up politics. From a non-legalistic perspective one could say that, to a point, most democratic countries choose to spend their revenue money (and base the fiscal burden and taxation rates) on projects, entitlements, benefits, etc. that most people deem worthy of being implemented and funded.
There is a lot of parasitical bureaucracy and wasteful spending going on everywhere, but the allocation of these respources basically depends on a fundamental choice, on some fundamental cultural or ethical values.
I think that most European "men and childless women" think that it is a good idea, a good selfless deed to pay taxes in order help mothers though welfare, free childcare, and so on.
In fact, even the vast majority of European fiscal conservatives would not want to cut down on such (in their opinion useful, essential) support structures. There are several other things they would love to downsize, but not these. This preference, these priorities do not make them weak, whipped, exploited or emasculated.
I guess we simply have different priorities: You consider it as being "whipped", while in Europe we (both right- and left-wingers, both progressives and traditionalists, both liberals socialists and conservatives) see it as being "socially responsible", "compassionate", "generous", and "altruistic". It is just an entirely different set of underlying values and priorities.
In Europe there is a good level of agreement on these priorities, while in the States there is an extremely wide and varied range of views and positions. In Europe this topic is not controversial, while in the States, apparently, it is (once again).
My husband and I will return to Europe in August, but it has been very interesting and instructive to live here for a year and a half and being able to compare our two respective world views: It is true that we are different cousins! :)
G.
"BY NO MEANS does doing so entitle fathers to claim HONORARY MOTHERHOOD!!! That only allows them to claim "correct, decent, basic, acceptable fatherhood"!"
Bingo, G! I agree completely! We do NOT want to be mothers. We never have. We recognize that our role is distinct from that of mothers. What we want is for OUR role in our children's lives to be respected and protected!
What gets in the way of this is the modern female notion, probably rooted in feminism itself, that fatherhood is nothing particularly special or important and that mothers can fill all the gaps themselves. Instead of us wanting to be honorary mothers, it's women wanting to be not only mothers but honorary fathers as well.
But of course we're not interchangeable parts. You can take dad out of the family and produce one set of pathologies in the children. Take mom out and you produce another, distinctly different set of pathologies. We each bring something different to the parenting table.
"All in all, I cannot think of a single legitimate instance in which a child's relationship with his father would come in conflict with the mother's interests: With the child's interest, perhaps, but not with the mother's."
I can think of several.
1. One lies in divorce itself. Surveys show that approximately two-thirds of divorces are low-conflict and are sought for reasons of "incompatibility." In such cases it is in the child's interests for his/her parents to work out the marital difficulties and remain together as a family so that both parents can best fulfill their parental roles. The mother's (or father's as the case may be) interest is to find a more pleasing partner for herself.
2. Financial. Many a mother goes into a divorce willing to work out a mutually satisfying joint custody agreement, which is in the child's best interests of course. Her lawyer informs her that she will receive a better divorce settlement and a higher child support award if she demands sole custody and keeps dad's visitation to the statutory standard (4 days a month). Her own interest is to get the highest dollar amount.
3. Geographic. Women often divorce promising their exes that they will stay close by so that dad can have regular contact with his kids. That tends to change when they want to move across the country to follow a new love interest or to move in with mom and dad to get free room, board and babysitting. I think the difference in the child's interests and the mother's is obvious here.
4. Personal. It's no secret that custodial mothers often withhold access to the children to punish their exes for whatever went wrong in the relationship. Problems frequently arise when dad moves on to a new relationship or remarries. Others do it because they're angry that they're not getting more money. Surveys of custodial mothers reveal that 40% of them admit to having interfered with visitation in order to punish the father, and 50% see no value in their kids' continuing contact with their fathers even if they don't interfere with it. Whose interests are being considered first here?
Clearly people are not completely selfless with regard to their kids and we can not just simply give one parent complete power over both the former partner and the kids. Which is one reason why I support presumed joint custody.
"Now I understand that yours might not have been a threat/blackmailing, but then your reasoning makes no sense at all: You keep mixing up two different things: "assisting the mother during delivery" and "parenting the child"!!! Why????"
Perhaps I did confound the two. If so I apologize. I'm just amazed that anyone would want to ban from the birth the one person, other than the mother, to whom it would mean the most. It simply comes across as an insult to the father's role in general. That's usually the drift around here. Actually you've displayed less of it than most of this blog's contributors.
"Also, have you ever wondered why most separations are initiated by women? Maybe because men are very happy and satisfied with what they are getting out of the relationship, while women feel that they are being exploited / humiliated / abused / ignored / disrespected in the process of (willingly or unwillingly) providing the man with what he wants from their relationship!!!"
In a nutshell, I believe women go into marriages with higher expectations than men do. Also, women have far less fear of losing their children as a result of divorce and are usually on the receiving end of any divorce-related settlements or payouts. Add to that the approving "you go girl!" attitude towards divorcing women that is prevalent today, while a man who walks out on his family is still mostly seen as a bastard.
Believe me, there are many men out there who are not happy with their marriages but are doing what they can to keep it going because they know what would happen otherwise.
I enjoyed your detailed response. Thank you.
Richard
Fathers in the delivery room usually make it more difficult for the mother during delivery according to obstetricians like Michael Odent. The medical community should just revive the old practice of banning fathers all together from the delivery room. Than mothers don't have to be stressed out by fathers throwing a tantrum about not being in the delivery room. End of arguement.
Nicole
Dick and P.k.,
Yawn! Same crap, different day. All your arguments about joint custody, pregnancy, feminism, etc., has been repeated by you guys ad nauseum, and no one here but an MRA/FRA buys into that bull shit. Your not changing anyone's mind, and attitudes like yours is just going to make things worse for women AND children. In fact, they already have. Way to go! What else do you think women should do? Wear a corset? Footbinding? Chastity belts? How about automatic full physical and legal custody to the father the minute a child is born in order to keep the mother in an shitty marriage or relationship so she doesn't lose her child? Hell, how about a mistress or a second wife to give you sons in case the first wife is barren, or to dump the kids from the first wife on after she gets divorced and loses custody? You guys claim fathers love their kids, but half of those kids are girls. If the MRA/FRA's get their way, those girls are going to grow up being nothing but breeding machines for the patriarchy. Remember that Dick when your daughter has children someday, and you have to explain to her why you supported a group like the FRA's who want to strip your daughter of all her human rights and give automatic legal and physical custody of her children to their father. Yeah, that is Daddy Dick's legacy to his little girl. OTOH, your son will be able to keep custody of any children he fathers even if he doesn't lift a finger to take care of them or their mother. I guess those are the grandchildren that really count to you Dick because they'll most likely carry on your family name, and your son can dump them on YOUR WIFE to raise until he gets another girlfriend or wife to do all the hands-on childcare he doesn't want to do.
Anon
Halloween was months ago. Who left the strawmen out?
"If the MRA/FRA's get their way, those girls are going to grow up being nothing but breeding machines for the patriarchy."
Um, no. If MRA/FRA's (as well as the clear majority of the population) get their way there'll be a rebuttable presumption of joint custody for both parents in all cases in the absence of evidence or agreement that it should be otherwise. Hopefully it will also bring about the bonus of a reduction in divorce rates.
I don't think MRAs will have anything much to do with it, either. I think it will slowly come about by itself as the generations raised on the expired Victorian fantasy of the "angel in the house" pass on and whole new generations come of age with less indoctrination, myths and hangups about gender limitations.
Thanks for all the dire warnings about my family's future, but it suffices to say we don't operate that way.
A-OK by me if I'm not changing your mind. I think NY invited me and P.K. here to liven things up and encourage debate, not to chant preachitsister like on the million and one boring fem blogs that can't stomach critique.
Richard
Richard,
--- CUSTODY-RELATED CONFLICTS ---
First of all let me tell you I do not envy serious family judges who have not been indoctrinated one way or another: In these matters it is much easier to think and decide along ideological and legalistic lines than to face these complex situations with an open mind and try to sort them out fairly. The most important thing, in these cases, is accepting the idea that some decisions MUST be made strictly on a case-to-case basis. Once again, you and most man/father activists are doing the EXACT SAME THING that presumably made you resent feminists in the first place (here I am try to empathize with your way of thinking, not to share or justify it): You are trying to apply legalistic, absolutistic all-or-nothing, black-and-white principles to these complex custody-related decisions, instead of trying to see them in terms of shades of grey. It is my firm belief that, in these matters, there is not one single, generally valid principle: These marital conflicts must be resolved on an individual, case-by-case basis. In other words, they should be resolved using the decision-making methods of a JUDGE, and NOT of a LEGISLATOR (I hope I gave formulated this statement clearly). Therefore, in my opinion, one should steer clear of all absolute statements containing the expressions "presumed", "always", "never" and "in all cases". Examples of this thinking are 1) "In all cases shall custody be presumed to be joint, except in case of abuse"; or 2) "In all cases shall custody be assigned to the mother/father, except in case of abuse".
The basis of my opinion is the following: A certain behaviour or arrangement does not always prejudice someone else's rights, so we need to decide whether it does in each individual instance. We should bear in mind that the judiciary system and the law (including the concept of "rights") are supposed to be about justice and freedom for real human beings. They are not about the installation of a mechanical rule that offers a golden opportunity for any scoundrel who knows "how to play the system". John Locke wrote, "For by the Fundamental Law of Nature, Man being to be preserved, as much as possible, when all cannot be preserv'd, the safety of the Innocent is to be preferred." Personally, I share Locke's concern for the innocent much more than certain "X rights" activists' concern for the legalistic "rights" and the interests of rogues to do whatever they can get away with, short of physically violating another person or their property.
Therefore, my response to you and to men/fathers right groups is that it is extreme legalism, and NOT feminism, that has made things so surreal and conflictual among us all, not only concerning custody contentions, but also in life in general.
Now on to commenting your points!
1) You wrote to me:
"We recognize that our role is distinct from that of mothers. What we want is for OUR role in our children's lives to be respected and protected!"
But then you wrote to anon:
"I think it will slowly come about by itself as [...] whole new generations come of age with less indoctrination, myths and hangups about gender limitations."
Oooops! :) Possible contradiction allert - code red!!!
Justify/explain this apparent contradiction, please!
2) "Instead of us wanting to be honorary mothers, it's women wanting to be not only mothers but honorary fathers as well."
With the fundamental difference that a man cannot give birth, while a woman can raise a child alone in a successful manner (in spite of the claims made by His Majesty King Stanislaw above that single mothers breed criminals, and of your claim that they breed sick children who are affected by "pathologies").
The only "problem" with single mothers in the U.S. is that they are NOT receiving enough help from society. As we can see from His Majesty's comments, some Americans (also some Europeans, but the percentages are radically different) are more than happy NOT to help single mothers and to punish them for not having conformed to some nuclear family model they have in mind. I, too, like "traditional families", but I don't want to shove them down anyone's throat or to abandon the weak and the needy to their destiny just because they have not chosen a certain path: some compassion, please, gentlemen!
Yours and King Stanislaw's is but a self-fulfilling prophecy: People assume that single mothers breed criminals and troubled children, that they are irresponsible and that they should have known better. As a consequence, they are unwilling to allocate financial resources or to establish any legal exceptions in order to support them. As a result, some of them end up struggling and feeling/being perceived as outcasts. Consequently some of their children end up experiencing some maladaptative problems. At that point, you and His Majesty will read some stats and proudly exclaim, "I WAS right, single mothers DO breed criminals! They ARE irresponsible and unworthy of our help! They DO end up as outcasts! They do cause 'pathologies' and make their children sick!"
However, even if single mothers can successfully raise healthy children alone, I am still in favour of involving the father as much as possible -- not necessarily "in all cases", not as an "assumption", not "fifty-fifty", but as much as reasonably possible.
Not because the presence of the father is necessary in order for the child to be psychologically healthy, but because it might make the child happy: It is a matter of fairness to the child, who would probably like and request to spend some more time with his father in order to get to know him better.
On the other hand, giving birth to a child has a deep emotional and physical impact on a woman: Her body changes permanently, she is affected for months by the pregnancy (even post-partum -- people tend to forget this) and, especially in the U.S., where maternity leave is a not-so-humorous joke, she is often forced to sacrifice something (either her career or the necessary post-partum recovery time). A mother makes all these sacrifices for her child! And, in spite of this fact, male/father activists still seem to think that mothers do NOT have a special, deeper and UNIQUE bond with their child, and (more importantly) that they ARE NOT DESERVING of special contributions or exceptions when resolving custody conflicts. That is plain cruelty.
I suppose that the ideal custody allocation should be something like a 70-30% in favour of the mother. The exact division, however, should NOT depend on parental wishes, but should be structured in such a way as to minimize the frequency at which the child has to move, change households, city and living environment. Continuity for the child is essential.
3) "One lies in divorce itself. Surveys show that approximately two-thirds of divorces are low-conflict and are sought for reasons of "incompatibility." In such cases it is in the child's interests for his/her parents to work out the marital difficulties and remain together as a family so that both parents can best fulfil their parental roles. The mother's (or father's as the case may be) interest is to find a more pleasing partner for herself."
What you are saying here does contain a small grain of truth, although I am most unwilling to admit it. ;)
I am not suggesting to make "saving marriages" a goal in itself (I personally don't care whether marriages or divorces increase or decrease, whether people have more or fewer children, whether the national population swells or dwindles, and so on), but it is true that, more often than not, getting a divorce is not the key to achieving personal happiness and fulfilment, nor is it a guarantee that our future relationships will be better than our current one.
Sometimes, however, getting a divorce is necessary (even when no real abuse is taking place): Not everybody is inherently good and wants to get along with their spouse in a loving and intimate way. If you have married someone like that (and it is not as rare as we are used to believing thanks to those optimistic "deficit theories"), good luck trying to make the marriage work!
However, if both partners are somewhat willing to change, why not give it a serious shot? I think it is definitely worth it, both for the sake of the spouses' and of the children's. Of course, thinking long-term would be even better: It is best to spend some time together before bringing a child into this world. During this time one should ask himself/herself, "Is this really a partner and a situation that is suitable for children?" Some more responsible thinking and less impulsivity would not hurt, especially now that we have contraceptives.
But what to do when a divorce IS necessary, when a marriage cannot be "saved" so that it truly is a loving and intimate relationship? In fact, I assume that you are not suggesting staying in a hopelessly unhappy marriage for the sake of the children, are you? In this regard, Anon has made an excellent point, to which you have not responded: "How about automatic full [or even joint - my note] physical and legal custody to the father the minute a child is born in order to keep the mother in an shitty marriage or relationship so she doesn't lose her child?"
In my opinion, hers is a very serious and valid objection.
"Believe me, there are many men out there who are not happy with their marriages but are doing what they can to keep it going because they know what would happen otherwise."
But is this the rational, wise, psychologically healthy thing to do? I mean, do you seriously recommend feeling trapped in a situation we cannot stand, even if it has become evident that things are completely hopeless? Is it a worthy, dignified way to live? To me it seems most unwise and not particularly beneficial to the child.
"Add to that the approving "you go girl!" attitude towards divorcing women that is prevalent today, while a man who walks out on his family is still mostly seen as a bastard."
This is because, in traditional nuclear families, men are the sole or the main providers. If the man leaves, the woman will experience financial hardship. In such families, also if the woman leaves she will experience financial hardship, so it takes a lot of courage to choose freedom/dignity/integrity over financial security. The reasoning you cite, however, makes little sense in dual-income households where both partners have similar salaries: In that case, I believe that you are right.
"Women have far less fear of losing their children as a result of divorce and are usually on the receiving end of any divorce-related settlements or payouts."
But traditionally that is because women depend on the man's (total or partial) financial support even while they are married! When they finally get a divorce, these women have been outside or at the outer edges of the work market for YEARS! We do not automatically become financially independent the moment we get a divorce! Married women, and especially mothers, must compromise a lot career-wise in order to be in a serious relationship and have children. After years of penalizing their careers in favour of their family, they will obviously have a hard time getting back on their feet again and earning a decent salary while working a dignified, satisfactory job AND raising a child alone (in the U.S. with virtually no help from society)! In this case, "child support" is also a compensation for the fact that oftentimes a married woman (especially a mother) cannot prioritize her career and maintain full financial independence (we could call it "mother-and-child support".) This is a condition that men implicitly consent to when they get married and build a family!
If, on the other hand, the woman is financially independent, has a successful careers and holds a well-paid job, then child support should be kept to a minimum, and really be only for the child.
4) "Financial. Many a mother goes into a divorce willing to work out a mutually satisfying joint custody agreement,[...]. Her lawyer informs her that she will receive a better divorce settlement and a higher child support award if she demands sole custody and keeps dad's visitation to the statutory standard."
In this case, I think it is yet another case of specious, malicious legalism. Once again, it is extreme legalism, and not feminism, that lies at the bottom of the problem.
5) "Geographic. Women often divorce promising their exes that they will stay close by so that dad can have regular contact with his kids. That tends to change when they want to move across the country to follow a new love interest or to move in with mom and dad to get free room, board and babysitting. I think the difference in the child's interests and the mother's is obvious here."
First of all, there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG if a single mother moves back with her parents to get some support!
The only "problem" with such a practice is that it helps break your "wonderful" cycle of misery, your self-fulfilling prophecy of defeat. In fact, the child and the single mother would receive some support from her family (even though she is receiving virtually NONE from society) and the child is surrounded by different role models, even male ones (even if the father is not there), so all this BS about these children growing into pathological criminals goes out the window, and you have no more stats to confirm your prophecy, which is no longer fulfilled and no longer seems to "prove you right!"
Moreover, trying to isolate a spouse from he original family is typical of domestic abusers and people with control issues.
That said, the geographic problem, with all its complexities and possible variables, is yet another example of why these conflicts should not be decided in a legalistic way, but on a case-by-case basis.
6) "Personal. It's no secret that custodial mothers often withhold access to the children to punish their exes for whatever went wrong in the relationship. Problems frequently arise when dad moves on to a new relationship or remarries. Others do it because they're angry that they're not getting more money. Surveys of custodial mothers reveal that 40% of them admit to having interfered with visitation in order to punish the father"
You are right, that does happen, but what assures you that custodial fathers wouldn't do the same thing? Anger, resentment, greed and a thirst for revenge are not solely feminine attributes!
Also, you wrote that "50% see no value in their kids' continuing contact with their fathers even if they don't interfere with it."
So what??? You can mandate that someone DO something, but you cannot mandate the way people THINK!!!!!! If they comply and do not interfere, that is enough.
7) "Clearly people are not completely selfless with regard to their kids and we can not just simply give one parent complete power over both the former partner and the kids. Which is one reason why I support presumed joint custody."
I agree: Peolpe are not entirely selfless or inherently good, and giving complete power to one parent in all cases is not entirely fair.
However, in my opinion presumed joint fifty-fifty custody is NOT the answer: It is not reasonable and pragmatic, nor is it fair to mothers.
As I said, an ideal 30-70% in favour of the mother would be fair and just, considering that mothers invest more than fathers in a child (and have no option to do otherwise), but always with the caveat that these percentages are an indication, a guideline, and that these conflicts should be resolved on an individual case-by-case basis, taking into account individual circumstances, needs, and so forth.
Also, if the father tries to disrupt the educational/extracurricular activities organized by the mother (such as taking their son to a baseball game instead of dropping him off for his scheduled piano lessons), their allotted custody should be reduced: Custody is not a way to sabotage the other parent's educational plans.
--- FATHERS IN THE DELIVERY ROOM ---
"I'm just amazed that anyone would want to ban from the birth the one person, other than the mother, to whom it would mean the most. It simply comes across as an insult to the father's role in general."
There are several delicate "circumstantial" (not ideological), practical and psychological reasons why a woman may wish such a thing. Some of them are very private and a women should NOT be expected to justify her wish, which incidentally is also her basic, natural legal right.
However, even if I do not feel that I should be asked to justify my preference, I will do so in order to show you that it has absolutely nothing to do with feminism, ideology or the whole "role of the father" debate.
I politely ask you to be respectful and not to mock my explanation.
During my adolescence I suffered from severe eating disorders. Although I have now been cured, I still have a rather conflictual relationship with my body, and I have a very hard time accepting it as it is even under ordinary circumstances, let alone during delivery! Being assisted by professionals who have seen thousands of pregnant women (and who do not have to find me attractive, approve of my looks or judge me based on my appearance) confers a matter-of-fact, impersonal, unemotional and "scientific" feel to the entire process, which I find most reassuring. Besides, if I awere surrounded by women I would feel much less body-image-related pressure.
This, in turn, would diminish my anxiety and make me feel relaxed, which (I have read) speeds up delivery, makes it easier and reduces complications.
I would also like to associate positive feelings and memories to the birth of my child, instead of associating it with my worst fears and anxieties!
And, please, don't reply, "Get over it for the child's and the father's sake!"
For the child it will make no difference whatsoever whether his father is there or not, and the father should understand (my husband does) that these issues are not easily overcome, even after having seriously tackled and addressed them for years, even with professional help. Pregnancy and delivery are very sensitive issues for those women who suffer or have suffered from eating disorders, and this is a serious issue, and not some "PMS hormonal whim" or a "feminist crusade"!
Thank you for mentioning all those interesting examples. I apologize for writing that you are not interest in a serious discussion: Even if we have few points of agreement and if our discussion did not start out in the best of ways, now you seem to be open to a civilized confrontation.
Regards,
G.
"Interested", not "interest"orekery - sorry! :)
"Justify/explain this apparent contradiction, please!"
Certainly. I wrote to another poster not too long ago that I think mothers and fathers bring different qualities to the parenting table. I am of the opinion that on average mothers are superior nurturers and teachers and have a good deal more patience. I think fathers on average are better protectors, motivators and disciplinarians. During the last several generations, while our society gradually shifted from rural to urban and employment removed the father from the home for much of the time, people tended to lose sight of the importance of the natural paternal contributions and childrearing came to be seen as a near-exclusive female business. This is one aspect of the "angel in the house" ideal of femininity which the Victorians created and which is still with us today although it is steadily dying.
It is only in the last generation, with skyrocketing divorce and illegitimacy rates, that we have rediscovered the importance of the paternal role in childrearing. This has led to desperate attempts by government to reverse the tide and get the lower classes married and self-sufficient again.
And among all classes dual-income families have become the norm. For most families child-rearing simply can not be conducted by only one person. Some, like our friend Anon, will scream that men still don't do their fair share of childcare and she's probably right to some extent. But it's undeniable that today's fathers are more involved in childcare than they have ever been since the Industrial Revolution, by pure necessity if nothing else, and the trend is toward ever-greater involvement. The next generations will come of age remembering fathers who changed diapers, washed bottles, cooked meals, and in sundry other ways fully participated in childcare and will expect the same going forward, never imagining it to be the sole responsibility of mothers.
"The only "problem" with single mothers in the U.S. is that they are NOT receiving enough help from society."
I disagree. They probably are not receiving enough options for affordable formal childcare, I'll grant you that (neither are married parents, for that matter). But single mothers are granted quite generous child support (when allowances for childcare and health insurance is taken into account), and depending on income are eligible for WIC, free legal assistance, government assistance in housing, education and health care and numerous other avenues.
Nor do I believe that there is any disabling stigma against single motherhood today. It's certainly not enough to deter it much.
But the main reason I disagree is that the "pathologies" produced by single parenthood which you're dismissing are observable without regard to class or race. In America as well as in Europe, single mother homes of all incomes and ethnic backgrounds produce more crime, delinquency and promiscuity than married ones. Similarly, single father homes produce more substance abuse and accidental deaths resulting from risky physical activity.
Forgive me but I'm out of time right now. Your other points I'll have to address tomorrow or the next day.
Richard
Richard,
By reading your reply, I am starting to realize that, behind all these bogus talks about men/fathers rights, there is simply a hidden socio-political agenda to force or induce people to live in nuclear families and to accept and live by a whole set of so-called traditional values even if they dislike them.
Yet another attempt at social engineering from the courtroom!
Just take a look at the authoritarian, reactionary, hateful words you are using: "disciplinarian", "illegitimacy", "[social] pathology", "promiscuity"... Who speaks like that anymore???? Seriously! Who THINKS those concepts anymore?
Thank you for making me understand that, behind all this BS about "rights" there is simply a hidden reactionary, hateful and absurdly socially neo-conservative political agenda. Forcing the mum/dad/child model down everybody's throat.
Unfortunately, I will not come back to read or write on this blog anymore because I have no time to waste (I do have a lot of free time, but I am selective about how I use it), and I cannot stomach such anachronisms. Here all my energy goes into debating with intellectually dishonest people who seem to have come out of a time machine, instead of being able to exchange ideas with like-minded individuals.
Also, final answer to His majesty King Stanislaw of Poland: Yes, I AM lucky to have met my husband!!! He is the living proof that not all men are stuck in some authoritarian time warp, and that there is hope for the future!
Good-bye and best of lucks to all the ladies! :) Thank you again for linking to those interesting articles.
G.
Sorry you're no longer interested in the discussion, G. I'll make quick work of my response to the rest of your points and then be on my way, too.
"First of all, there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG if a single mother moves back with her parents to get some support!"
I might be more sympathetic to this point if women were not so quick to jump all over custodial dads who do this same thing, claiming that they're using their families or "dumping" their kids off on their mothers or whoever.
"The only "problem" with such a practice is that it helps break your "wonderful" cycle of misery"
No, the main problem with it is that it often effectively severs the child's relationship with the other parent by sheer distance. If you were the child or the left-behind parent you could more easily see the problem.
"...and the child is surrounded by different role models, even male ones (even if the father is not there), so all this BS about these children growing into pathological criminals goes out the window,"
This is the old idea of other male "role models" being able to fill the bill for an absent dad. It became popular back in the 70s when it was meant to reassure divorcing mothers. But we now know that such "role models" have little affect on child outcomes. That's not surprising. Kids generally want their dads, not substitutes, and few people are as interested and invested in kids' well-being as their own parents are.
"You are right, that does happen, but what assures you that custodial fathers wouldn't do the same thing? Anger, resentment, greed and a thirst for revenge are not solely feminine attributes!"
Agreed. That's why I support both parents' rights being fully protected.
"For the child it will make no difference whatsoever whether his father is there or not, and the father should understand (my husband does) that these issues are not easily overcome"
Agreed. That's why I consider the delivery room to be a minor issue compared with parenting.
"Anon has made an excellent point, to which you have not responded: "How about automatic full [or even joint - my note] physical and legal custody to the father the minute a child is born in order to keep the mother in an shitty marriage or relationship so she doesn't lose her child?""
You added joint custody, which of course differentiates you point from Anon's. In joint custody neither parent need lose their child.
But you continue on to say...
"By reading your reply, I am starting to realize that, behind all these bogus talks about men/fathers rights, there is simply a hidden socio-political agenda to force or induce people to live in nuclear families and to accept and live by a whole set of so-called traditional values even if they dislike them."
Not necessarily. Many MRAs are unconcerned about the issue of marriage preservation, feeling that as long as parent/child relationships are fully protected it's enough. I don't happen to be of this persuasion.
I'm of the opinion (and I've stated it before on this site so I'm hardly dishonest about it) that in the absence of abuse, marriage preservation is in children's best interests. The main reasons I support presumed joint custody are A because it's more humane in that it keeps children from losing parents and B because it has been shown to reduce divorce rates.
I'm aware that many people don't like the nuclear family model but that doesn't change the fact that society has an enormous interest in it. It is the safest and best environment for the rearing of healthy and productive children, it generates wealth (except for lawyers, judges and social workers, of course) and it reduces crime.
"Just take a look at the authoritarian, reactionary, hateful words you are using: "disciplinarian", "illegitimacy", "[social] pathology", "promiscuity"... Who speaks like that anymore???? Seriously! Who THINKS those concepts anymore?"
Where have you been, G? I'll agree that "illegitimacy" is a bit out-of-date since the legal term for such a child today is "child with no presumed father" (which is hardly more attractive anyway and requires more typing). But as far as the rest of it goes, hell yes seriously, those in the know are talking and thinking all of it.
Why do you think our government is suddenly into "marriage promotion?" Why do you think the clear majority of college-educated women today (twice as many as in the 80s) turn up their noses at "single motherhood by choice" and believe that divorce should be harder to get?
It's because the results of a generation of easy divorce and unwed childbearing have been observed and studied in every country and at every level of society, and there is no longer any debate among social researchers that the antiquated "mum-dad-child" model that you seem to find so absurd is indeed the best. That's why our government is spending a great deal of money trying to get us back on that track and are having little success because this has all gone on so long that the sense of marriage-childbearing connect has been completely lost on the group that needs it most, the lower class.
"But is this the rational, wise, psychologically healthy thing to do? I mean, do you seriously recommend feeling trapped in a situation we cannot stand, even if it has become evident that things are completely hopeless? Is it a worthy, dignified way to live? To me it seems most unwise and not particularly beneficial to the child."
Of course that's a value judgment and people differ. Being that we get to choose our spouses while our kids don't get to choose their parents, I can not help but to come down on the side of family preservation.
It's not that I don't sympathize with the situation. My father-in-law experienced something like this and my wife appreciates his sacrifices today. Like she told me when we married, people who are happy and in love usually stay together without any marriage vows. Vows are for when you don't want to stay together anymore. She's a marriage purist, while I'm not sure vows themselves are worth sacrifice but I'm sure that children are.
Enjoyed talking to you, G. While I can sling profanity just like anyone else, it's nice to debate without it once in a while.
Richard
"It's not that I don't sympathize with the situation. My father-in-law experienced something like this and my wife appreciates his sacrifices today. Like she told me when we married, people who are happy and in love usually stay together without any marriage vows. Vows are for when you don't want to stay together anymore. She's a marriage purist, while I'm not sure vows themselves are worth sacrifice but I'm sure that children are."
Dick, something about your past descriptions of your picture perfect happy nuclear family just never rang true. Now I know why. "Marriage purist" is code for "Stepford Wife", and "vows" is just another word for "covenant marriage". Just another way to trap women in abusive marriages. So much for your "opinion" that marriage should only be preserved in the absence of abuse.
Anon
Oh really, Anon? I thought I just made that term up to try to describe my wife's views on marriage and divorce. She thinks the vows are sacred in and of themselves, while I take them seriously too but tend not to be that upset about divorce where there are no kids.
What is it with liberals and seeing "code" everywhere they look and reading everybody's minds? You and Amanda Marcotte would get along swimmingly.
No, we don't have what's known as a "covenant" marriage. We just try to do what we promised we would. No, we're not perfect although we're pretty happy.
Is what doesn't "ring true" to you perhaps the fact that there exist functional nuclear families where people tend to their business and no one abuses anybody?
Richard
"Is what doesn't "ring true" to you perhaps the fact that there exist functional nuclear families where people tend to their business and no one abuses anybody?"
No, it doesn't ring true to me that YOU have a functional nuclear family where YOU mind your own business and no gets abused. I'm not talking about "people" in general Dick. I'm talking about YOU.
As for covenant marriages, it's the so-called "marriage purists" who are trying to force covenant marriages on everyone else in states like Louisiana.
"What is it with liberals and seeing "code" everywhere they look and reading everybody's minds?"
Perhaps code is the wrong word. Red flag is more like it. Conservatives are always trying to force legalistic, narrow-minded, one-size-fits all solutions on everyone else in the name of "marriage preservation". It's the conservatives who want to play the mind reading games. Take you for example. You think a woman who works a full-time job, does the majority of the childcare and housework, and is treated like a domestic servant by her lazy slob husband should "just stick it out for the sake of the kids" just because there isn't "any physical abuse." All that matters to you is that it's "a two-parent household" just like most conservatives. Mom's doing ALL the sacrificing, and if Dad doesn't change, tough luck lady! Well, I'll tell you something, Dick, that's a situation that most men are NOT going to find themselves in, and for most women that do, it's UNBEARABLE. That's mental and emotional abuse right there. And if you don't think that effects the kids, your wrong. I lived in that kind of household as a child, and we were much better off after our parents divorced. The idea that YOU THINK you know what's best for a woman and her kids in this situation over the woman herself is a lot of nerve. You and your wife think that just because you have a "so-called happy two-parent nuclear family" (and I doubt that), you have the right to tell EVERYONE WITH KIDS THAT THEY SHOULD STAY IN A MISERABLE MARRIAGE BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR EVERYONE ELSE AND THEIR KIDS ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS A WOMAN. And trying to read minds is exactly what conservatives do. Instead, conservatives are unrealistic, legalistic (G was right about that), backwards, and arrogant.
Ok, Anon. Because I don't have permissive attitudes towards divorce (along with 65% of college-educated women and even 40% of all other women) I can not possibly have a functional family. Whatever the fuck all.
Ever since one of the resident loons at Pandagon expressed the belief that Republican women don't lubricate during sex, liberal delusions fail to surprise me much.
"That's mental and emotional abuse right there."
A word to the wise for the future, which you can pass on to NOW because they don't get this either: you want to be careful about labeling every sort of interpersonal difficulty as some form of "abuse." One reason is that the term will completely lose it's meaning and eventually will get as many eyerolls as "sexual harassment" and other buzzwords that liberals have done to death.
The other reason is that the "abuse" net will catch just as many women as men. OMG, can't have that, can we?
"Mom's doing ALL the sacrificing, and if Dad doesn't change, tough luck lady!"
I'm not going to presume to tell you about your own family, like you are trying to tell me about mine, but here's where you can color me skeptical. I've never heard of a marriage where one partner did ALL the sacrificing or where both partners could not use a bit of positive change. Life and experience have taught me that a claim of being a blameless partner in a failed relationship is a red flag if ever there was one. FWIW.
"You think a woman who works a full-time job, does the majority of the childcare and housework, and is treated like a domestic servant by her lazy slob husband should "just stick it out for the sake of the kids" just because there isn't "any physical abuse.""
Fine, so let her pack it all in so she can continue to work full-time, do ALL of the childcare and housework instead of just the majority of it, deal with visitation and extra scheduling hassles, fret because there's less money to go around now that there's two households to support instead of one, worry about the kids' behavioral and academic problems that will crop up because they miss the lazy slob and don't feel sure of anything anymore, and be an easy mark for new guys who'll be statistically far more likely to abuse her than the lazy slob and, having no biological or emotional investment in the kids, will likely be resented by them at best and pose a danger to them at worst. And at the same time she can free up the lazy slob to form a new family who will divert even more of his energies and resources away from the kids he already has. There's an A-one solution right there.
No wonder poverty and dysfunction are concentrated in single-parent families, for fuck's sake.
Maybe you feel you were better off. Hell, for all I know maybe you were. My wife thinks she was better off that her folks kept it together for their kids. Most kids would choose that the home is kept together.
All I can say is, the best protection for both men and women is to use that birth control you're so worried about conservatives taking away from you (will never happen) and take some time to find out about your mate before making kids. Real jerks can't hide their true colors for very long.
I read up a little on that covenant marriage stuff you mentioned. It doesn't sound like it's being forced down anyone's throats. It's a choice, and the majority of the population of the states that have it support keeping it available as a choice. It sounds a bit silly to me, though. Marriage is by definition a covenant already. It doesn't matter what extra label you slap on it. What matters with whether you're lying when you make the promises or not.
Therefore, covenant marriage doesn't interest me.
Richard
Fine, so let her pack it all in so she can continue to work full-time, do ALL of the childcare and housework instead of just the majority of it, deal with visitation and extra scheduling hassles, fret because there's less money to go around now that there's two households to support instead of one, worry about the kids' behavioral and academic problems that will crop up because they miss the lazy slob and don't feel sure of anything anymore, and be an easy mark for new guys who'll be statistically far more likely to abuse her than the lazy slob and, having no biological or emotional investment in the kids, will likely be resented by them at best and pose a danger to them at worst. And at the same time she can free up the lazy slob to form a new family who will divert even more of his energies and resources away from the kids he already has. There's an A-one solution right there.
Yeah, it's an A-one solution. One full grown lazy slob husband actually creates more work for mom IN ADDITION TO THE WORK SHE IS ALREADY DOING TAKING CARE OF THE KIDS/HOUSEWORK/FULL-TIME JOB. MOST WOMEN FIND THAT IT'S A LOT EASIER TAKING CARE OF KIDS AS A SINGLE MOTHER THAN TO PUT UP WITH CLEANING AFTER THEIR HUSBANDS AS WELL. The trade-off is worth not having as much money that can be gotten through child support anyway. And as for kids missing the lazy slob? I doubt it when the lazy slob spent most of his free time sitting in front of the TV instead of with said kids anyway. Besides that's what weekend visitation is for anyway if the lazy slob even bothers to show up. Despite, fathers whining about not seeing their kids enough, they usually have some excuse why they can't show up at the visitations that they already do have. Oh, and about her "freeing up" lazy slob to start a new family? It's lazy slob's attitude thinking he should have all this free time, while his wife cleans up after him, who is actually responsible for the actual divorce. That's what men like you, Dick, can't understand. The divorce could have been avoided if lazy slob changed his damn ways. But no like other MRA/FRA, just blame it all on mom as usual. And whatever second family the lazy slob finds after wife #1 cuts him loose isn't going to last very long after wife #2 discovers what the lazy slob is really like anyway. And the blame for the entire situation should be place exactly where it belongs- on the lazy slob and men like him. Well, good-bye Dick, I'm leaving on vacation for a month, and I'm not coming back to this thread either. Adios.
Anon
But no, like every other MRA/FRA just blame it all on mom as usual.
And like every feminist/woman-firster, just blame it all on dad as usual.
If you truly believe that all breakups are all men's fault, then I'm glad marriage is not in your plans.
Have a nice vacation. Adios.
Richard
Wow, reading all these comments makes me feel that my decision for an anonymous sperm donour is the best way to go.
Nicole
Richard,
Since you took the time to reply to my comments so carefully and extensively, I have decided to reconsider my decision and to send you my personal manifesto of what I think would be fair in these situations.
These are my personal conclusions and proposals, and, although inspired by the basic tenets of feminism, they may not fully coincide with any established feminist ideology, orientation or doctrine.
My basic assumption is that, at the time when no-fault divorces were (rightfully) established, several deep social changes were taking place, which led us to the naive assumption that total gender equality was within reach in the near future. Therefore, the new, no-fault divorce was designed as a clean-cut separation in which the husband has no responsibilities towards his ex-wife - only towards his children. Unfortunately, gender equality did not happen and traditionally disadvantaged, dependent women did not become fully independent and equal overnight.
PART 1 -- Responsibilities of the husband towards his wife
This section is based on the empirical observation that gender equality is but an ideal, abstract, fictional condition that is NOT being realized in today's society (which is something most feminists would agree upon, regardless of their specific ideological orientation, and of whether or not they think that striving to reach such equality is possible or even desirable.) Therefore, I am convinced that real justice can only be made by applying a corrective double standard, a system of fair, equalizing compensation, of gentle and pragmatic affirmative action.
In my personal opinion, it is important to distinguish between the two kinds of marriage that exist today:
a) "Traditional, gender-diversified marriages": There is a founding agreement between the spouses that the man will be the sole or primary financial provider and the woman will be the primary housekeeper, nurturer, support, and caregiver (also towards her husband, as well as towards the children);
b) "Ideally gender-neutral marriages": There is a founding agreement between the spouses that both spouses will aim to share ALL three kinds of responsibility (financial responsibilities, housekeeping, and nurture, which includes mutual support and child rearing) equally.
Progressives and liberals may dislike the former kind of marriage, while traditionalists and conservatives may dislike the latter, but it is a fact that not all people are alike, that different people get married for different reasons, and that both kinds of marriage are actually occurring in today's real world, whether we approve of them or not. It would be fundamentally intolerant (and an attempt at social engineering) to declare either one unacceptable, as long as they stem from a fundamental, conscious agreement of intents between the spouses.
When a divorce occurs, the judge should first of all determine which kind of marriage is being dissolved.
a) In traditional, gender-diversified marriages, the husband/father has FULL, lasting responsibilities not only towards the child, but also towards his wife. This means equally shared income, property, retirement, investments, dividends, etc. for life, or at least for a period of time that equals or exceeds the effective duration of the marriage.
Fault should not be taken into account because such a marriage involves a huge risk for both spouses: The wife loses her presence and future independence, and the husband may end up losing 50% of all his assets, and they are both fully conscious and aware of it. Do it at your risk and danger!
b) In ideally gender-neutral marriages, the responsibilities of the husband towards his wife are based on the extent to which he actually shares ALL three kinds of responsibilities with her.
In his case it is important NOT to consider ONLY financial contributions, because they may have been achieved at the cost of neglecting the other two responsibilities (i.e., by working harder and earning more than his wife while neglecting the house and/or the children.)
- In the (at present most common) occurrence that the sharing was not ideal and that the husband (totally or partially) neglected one or more of the three basic responsibilities (typically housekeeping and, to a lesser extent, involvement with the children), then he should be held responsible to support his wife (not only his children) and to compensate her in proportion to his lack of involvement.
- In the rare event that the sharing was perfect (e.g. exactly 50% of ALL three responsibilities), then he owes her nothing except her part of their existing joint property, and he is only responsible to provide for his children adequately.
The only exception to this rule it if the wife is still a college student or decides to go back to college, and the husband agrees to support her. In that case, he should be responsible to support her for the duration of her studies.
PART 2 -- Responsibilities of the father towards the mother and the child
It must, however, be noted that, even in the second kind of marriage, the responsibility of being pregnant, giving birth, breastfeeding, and going through the tough and demanding post-natal phase (all of which contribute to creating the unique mother-child bond) CANNOT be shared equally, so women should be compensated and rewarded accordingly, in an affirmative manner, for carrying it out.
In my opinion, the appropriate compensation is that a fit mother should be entitled to choose between joint custody and sole custody of the child (by custody I mean the legal power to make binding decisions about the child's future, etc.). Residence should be ideally (although not rigidly) divided as follows: 70% with the fit mother and 30% with the fit father.
Child support should be generously determined in proportion to the child's needs and the father's ability to pay.
The only way to ensure adequate child support in the case of an insufficiently wealthy father would be the institution of a national child subsidy, such as "Kindergeld" in Germany, or "barnbidraget" in Sweden. In case of divorce, the custodial parent (usually the mother) shall receive the entirety of that check, thus lessening the pressure on the non-wealthy father and ensuring adequate support to the mother and child.
PART 3 -- Divorce and the nature of marriage
I am a firm believer in the necessity to institute mandatory secular, evidence-based (and additionally also religious, if requested) prenuptial education and counselling, which should include prenuptial mediation and psychological, sociological, legal and ethical education and awareness.
The best way to assure a lasting, healthy marriage is to make it VERY hard to get married, and to make it an extremely serious, well-pondered choice!
At the end of this compulsory mediation, counselling, awareness and educational phase, the two spouses should write an agreement/declaration of intents that makes their founding agreement explicit, specifying what kind of marriage they are choosing to pursue.
Additionally, those who chose the second type of marriage should also stipulate a prenuptial agreement (to be revised and updated every so often, e.g. every five years) to be adopted as a guide (not a strict, literal contract) in case of divorce. Actual circumstances, however, should be considered as well.
Both documents would help the couple to clarify what they want and expect from life and from marriage, and to determine if their personalities, values and expectations are compatible. Such documents shall also help the family judge in case of divorce or separation.
Pretending that divorce does not exist (or that "JUST YOU" are immune from it) is, quite frankly, very stupid.
Note that all these provisions would apply to legally binding partnerships, as well as to traditional, full-fledged marriages.
PS: In spite of our deep disagreements, I think that you are a more patient and calmer debater than I am. Thank you for your time and your patience.
Regards,
G.
PPS: Ladies, if you find any possible faults with this manifesto, please, do not hesitate to point them out! I am still very ignorant of all these gender issues, so I would love to receive your honest feedback. :-)
"Immune TO it," sorry! :)
I wasn't going to come back to this thread, but I had to comment. Actually, G, I think that your response is well thought, and I agree with you.
Anon
The day babies will be fabricated in artificial wombs will be the day this madness ends.
There will be no fathers
There will be no mothers
Both are obsolete concepts.
Anonymous,
actually, although you did make an excellent point, there is no intrinsic need for this madness to continue even with mothers and fathers.
The propblem is that, during the last 10-15 years, society has become much more authoritarian than in the recent past. I can clearly see this as an obvious, continuing trend.
Just another example:
In Sweden (one of the few countries where spanking and corporal punishment for children are ILLEGAL,) there has been an 134% increase in "discipline-related" child abuse (such as long "time outs" and forcing the child to sit in a corner, spanking, hitting the child's fingers with a fork, slapping, etc.) during the last ten years. This figure was the increase for small children (aged zero to six years) - the increase rate for older children (aged 7 to 14 years) is 80%.
Another example is the use of "child time-outs" in the English-speaking world (the U.S., England, etc.): just another authoritarian novelty!
Society is slowly becoming more and more authoritarian, but most people don't notice it. People don't even take notice because they have gotten so used to taking the social justice and progress of the recent past for granted.
That's precisely how Hitler and Mussolini came to power!
Needless to say, I am very, very worried about this sneaking trend.
So, in the meantime, all one can do is protect oneself (a child in vitro is a good idea for mothers -- children, unfortunately, cannot do much to protect themselves from abuse) and continue to discuss these topics relentlessly in public, even if someone is as shy as I am.
My very best regards,
G.
PS: A well-known short poem to remind us of how easy it is to accept sneaking authoritarianism when it does not affect us personally:
"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."
(Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1892–1984)
Sorry, I keep making mistakes. I should have written "authoritarism" - authoritarianism is something else entirely. I should hire a full-time proofreader!
Wow, I'm happy to see that this post stimulated an almost semi-civilized discussion without me having to step in...
Hi Val...hope you are well.
Thanks G, for returning to clarify your thoughts on these issues.
Sorry that one of our commenters felt the need to immediately attack you.
G, I liked everything you said especially the comment about childbirth being a 'quintesential feminine' experience. AND I think that's the very point that drives men nuts and why they are struggling so hard to negate that premise. Giving birth is basically an event that doesn't totally revolve around men like 99% of much of the rest of life.
AND Happy New Year Polish Knight, Val, G, Sonya and even Richard. Hope everyone is well and not hurt too much by our current financial crisis (I lost half of my pension contribution this year)...
NYMOM, before I respond to the other provocative posts, I want to restate that, I swear, most men don't obsess over the childbirth experience. Really. If you're interested, allow me to explain how most men think (apart from Alan Alda types)
Men are sometimes criticized by society and by women for not connecting the sex drive to procreation. That right there should show you that men don't jealously obsess over women's childbirth experience since THEY DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT most of the time. Most men enjoy sex in and of itself. When they do want children, they view them in an abstract way similar to how women don't necessarily associate attractive leather jackets or bags with how they are made in the factories. Nor do they need to.
Obsessing about childbirth (from either gender) is a bad idea because most of the care that goes into a child comes about after it's born. Provided a woman doesn't do drugs or smoke while pregnant, that task can be done somewhat easily or even, pun intentionally, naturally. On the other hand, raising a child to 18 and providing for it financially is a far larger challenge. And even during pregnancy, someone has to provide financial support to take time off of work and for hospital care. I'm sorry to toot our own horn here, but us men are not bound by those limitations.
In addition, it was great for me to enter my 30's and be able to date without concern about a biological clock. Women need to think about that issue when they reach the age of 22 or so and consider that the carriage starts changing back into a pumpkin, at least socially, by about 30. That's an 8 year window or so to work with yet American women play passive-aggressive waiting games as if they have all the time in the world.
In conclusion, NYMOM, when I support my wife and want to have children with her, it's because I love her and want to leave a part of myself, shared with another person, after I move on. I'm willing to do what it takes to help her with her challenges, but I also want respect and even emotional support for what I do. That's where I'm coming from.
I know not all men lived up to that role but then again government hasn't produced a rose garden either.
G says of the welfare state: "I think that most European "men and childless women" think that it is a good idea, a good selfless deed to pay taxes in order help mothers though welfare, free childcare, and so on." and "This preference, these priorities do not make them weak, whipped, exploited or emasculated."
With all due respect, G, I consider the notion that people are "selfless" especially in this context to be poppycock. A society that cradles grown adults like children unable to handle basic adult decisions without government largesse means they are weak by definition. Men that label themselves as conservatives or right wingers but are terrified of being charged with a "hate crime" or called bigots are acting in a wimpy manner. (Yes, I see the irony of calling people afraid to be called names like bigots as wimps is also namecalling.)
In addition, to European socialism's credit, not only welfare queens are able to crawl into the taxpayer's colon but also many childless people as well including young men. It's created massive unemployment and class warfare that the socialists then exploit their advantage. It's quite a good game they've got going there.
Ironically, in the states, we've had a large immigrant system that both has been exploited by the socialists to get votes but at the same time limited overall popular support for their cause among the working masses. Europe is now experiencing a similar problem as the welfare masses that kept the system going in the past, at least politically, are now threatening to drag the whole thing down.
What's mine is mine, what's yours is mine...
Rereading G's comments, I had an epiphany that she is outraged at the notion of someone else laying claim to the fruits of her labors (pregnancy) even as she talks about Sweden and socialist European nations?
I hate to break it to you, G, but that's what socialism is all about! When the nice, sugar daddy politician offers to break into your neighbor's place to take their stuff and give you a share, there's always the chance that YOU might be one of the neighbor's he's referring to someone else for the same thing. Socialism is the triumph of amoral greed over logic.
Unless the single mother is gestating the child without taxpayer assistance and the taxpayer doesn't have to foot the bill for her time off and to raise the child afterwards in a welfare state if she can't support it, then the taxpayers do have a legitimate claim to take away your kid. Welcome to the Real World!
"On the other hand, raising a child to 18 and providing for it financially is a far larger challenge. And even during pregnancy, someone has to provide financial support to take time off of work and for hospital care. I'm sorry to toot our own horn here, but us men are not bound by those limitations"
Oh, puke! Not impressed. In the majority of two parent families, both parents work full-time nowadays with wives bringing in half or more of the income. And a lot of wives work because the family can't survive on just the husband's income. And in the current economic situation, more men are losing their jobs than women making the wife's income that much more important to the family. In addition to this, there are more and more families where the wife is the breadwinner and the husband stays home with the kids (and I'm talking about husbands that actually do housework and childcare while their wives work not lazy slobs who sit in front of the TV all day because they are too lazy to work). Yet, despite women's so-called "limitations", women in dual earner couples manage to work full-time, bring in an income, and STILL ends up doing the majority of the housework and childcare while husbands do very little. That's the real limiatations that women have to put up with. And husbands that are the breadwinners while their wives stay home have absolutely no excuse. Breadwinning wives come from their full-time jobs, and they STILL DO their share of the childcare and housework. They don't leave it all and expect their husbands to pick up after them. So, P.K., while you and all the other men like you whine about wanting "respect and emotional support" from your wives, the majority of wives are bringing home a paycheck, doing the majority of the housework/childcare, and are being told that they have to kiss their husband's ass just because he feeds the kid a bottle once a week.
"...the majority of wives are bringing home a paycheck, doing the majority of the housework/childcare, and are being told that they have to kiss their husband's ass just because he feeds the kid a bottle once a week."
Well I do agree with this comment.
It's simply ridiculous the kudos men expect (and get) for doing things that women have been taking in stride for decades now...
I also agree that the majority of the work of children takes place AFTER they are born; however, my point, is that we, as a society, are not going to get to that place where any children are born IF women are under constant threat of losing custody of them.
It's a pretty simple concept actually.
I don't understand why it's so difficult for Polish Knight and others to grasp...
"Socialism is the triumph of amoral greed over logic."
As is taking custody of a child from it's mother. It amazes me that you and the rest of your buddies don't admit this.
It's the SAME THING...triumph of amoral greed over logic...
Okay, just thought I'd let you know.
Hello NYMOM and Anonymous. We can look at this as a glass half empty versus full scenario. Saying a "majority" of women in two parent families work is rather misleading. It means that at least 51% of women are working full-time and ignores the fact that nearly all men in such families work full-time nearly ALL the time!
Yes, there are women who now, gasp, HAVE to work to help families make ends meet begs the question: what benefit has feminism really bought women, hmmm? If families now are just one layoff away from a family crisis, how are they better off than before? And while anonymous accused me of whining, she gripes that married men supposedly are couch potatoes for not helping out more around the house even as the woman works. Well, what message did these women send during courtship when they didn't want to spend the money they earned to help pick up the dinner check, hmmm? What priorities did these women have in the men they picked? If you bring home a cat, don't expect it to bark.
NYMOM, I chuckled a bit at your notion that somehow women are going to stop having children if there is a threat that they might lose custody of them. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
Turn on the TV and you will see news stories about women having children without regard to any of the consequences whatsoever. It doesn't matter if she knows the child will be born into poverty, or if the child won't have a father and support system, or even if it will be healthy.
Yeah, the child's interests rank very very very low on many women's priorities of what matters in the decision to have them. But the risk of HER losing her custody of them? Well, that's different.
And you blame us for the rotten rep that motherhood has gotten lately?
NYMOM, I invite you, with an open mind (on my part) to explain how taking away a mother's child is greedy and amoral. Does this include situations where the mother is a danger to the child? Isn't it the father's child too if he's legally financially responsible for it? Is it greedy for you to want to live in your own house if you pay the rent or mortgage?
"It means that at least 51% of women are working full-time and ignores the fact that nearly all men in such families work full-time nearly ALL the time!"
Boy, are you an imbecile! Firt of all, most dual income families are middle-class. Most of those men come home from full-time jobs to sit on the couch in front of the T.V. Most of the wives come home from a full-time job AND make dinner, do the dishes, go grocery shopping, pick up the kids from daycare, help them with their homework, do the bed and bath routine, do laundry, do what housework they can get done, PICK UP AFTER THEIR HUSBANDS WHO CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO HELP, in addition to paying half the household expenses. It's called the double shit, asshole, and it isn't the guys who are doing it. In working class two parent families, it usually doesn't pay for the wife to work because she usually is working in low paying jobs, and she doesn't make very much once taxes and daycare costs are subtracted. So, basically, it isn't worth her time being away from the kids all day with little or no financial compensation. In fact, SHE'S SAVING THE FAMILY MONEY BY NOT WORKING AT AN OUTSIDE JOB. And the labor that she's doing inside the home FOR FREE on behalf of her husband and kids in the way of childcare/housework has an economic value that far exceeds the cost of supporting her by the husband. And her job doesn't end after an 8 hour day. It's 24/7. It's usually the middle class that has two-parents working full-time. And in wealthy families, stay at home wives INCREASE THE WEALTH OF THEIR HUSBANDS because they are usually doing the social networking that gets husband's more business contacts, hosting business parties for the corporation. And she frees him from all the domestic duties so that he can concentrate on his career. Didn't you ever hear of the term CORPORATE WIFE? A stay at home wife is an ECONOMIC ASSET to a wealthy man. It's no secret that big corporations prefer their executives to be married with a stay at home wife. Men who are single, or have wives with careers aren't as successful making their way up the corporate ladder. Yet, in a divorce, these husbands don't want to give their wives a share in the wealth that the stay at home wife helped to increase. In contrast, women who are executives don't have the same kind of support from their husbands as far as their careers or family obligations go. That's why, it's very rare to see a married woman with children as a top executive in a corporation. So, WOMEN MORE THAN EARN THEIR KEEP WHETHER THEY WORK OR STAY HOME.
"Yes, there are women who now, gasp, HAVE to work to help families make ends meet begs the question: what benefit has feminism really bought women, hmmm?"
Women ALWAYS WORKED to support their families for centuries. In the old days, before the industrial revolution, most production to support families took place IN THE HOME, and BOTH HUSBAND AND WIVES WORKED IN THE HOME. Wives worked side by side with their husbands on farm by working in the fields, milking the cows, or worked with them in their shops. The ENTIRE FAMILY WORKED EVEN THE CHILDREN. It was rare for families to be able to live just on the income produced by the husbands. After the industrial revolutions, many women worked in factories, took in boarders, and extra sewing work because usually only the wealthy could afford a wife that didn't earn money. Unfortunately, any money that both a husband and wife earned was LEGALLY OWNED BY THE HUSBAND ALONE. Today, that's not the case anymore. That's one of the benefits that feminism has brought to women.
"Well, what message did these women send during courtship when they didn't want to spend the money they earned to help pick up the dinner check, hmmm? What priorities did these women have in the men they picked?"
Most marriages with dual career couples start out on equal footing with the household chores and expenses divided equally among the couple in a egalitarian relationship. Unfortunately, WHEN CHILDREN ARRIVE, HUSBANDS SEEM TO THINK THAT CHILDCARE AND HOUSEWORK BELONG TO THE WIFE ALONE. That's a well known fact.
"Turn on the TV and you will see news stories about women having children without regard to any of the consequences whatsoever. It doesn't matter if she knows the child will be born into poverty, or if the child won't have a father and support system, or even if it will be healthy."
Better yet, look at all the deadbeat dads that aren't paying their child support, or all the men who are having several different children by several different women and aren't supporting those kids. These are just planting their seed all over the place without regard for the consequences.
PK said: "NYMOM, I chuckled a bit at your notion that somehow women are going to stop having children if there is a threat that they might lose custody of them."
It's a pity that this fear of "losing the children" doesn't seem to deter procreation very much in the inner city, where a woman has only to look around her to know that she stands a more than substantial risk of "losing" her kids to drugs, violence and prison before they reach adulthood.
NY said: "As is taking custody of a child from it's mother. It amazes me that you and the rest of your buddies don't admit this. It's the SAME THING...triumph of amoral greed over logic..."
The triumph of greed over logic actually consists more of depriving the CHILD of either of its biological parents where it's not absolutely necessary.
Children have a greater need for the presence of both of their own parents than either individual parent has for exclusive control over the children.
Oh, and Happy New Year to you, too, NY.
Richard
Sticks and stones, Anonymous. Anyways, there's the saying about the biggest lie being statistics and you claiming that most dual income families are middle class is a specious point since a "dual income" household is, by definition, one that has a man present and most men who are able to marry are going to be productive breadwinners. Actually, your observation only emphasizes the point that unwed mothers tend to be poverty stricken and putting their children at risk. Good going!
Your portrayal of men as total couch potatoes is misleading and incorrect. Who mows the lawn in most households? Who takes care of the family car? Who cleans the gutters? Of course, there are exceptions to this where women do those things too but not all men don't cook or clean either. Next, you contradict yourself in several ways by both claiming that poor widdle women are paid low and quit their jobs half the time to stay-at-home yet when they do work they pay at least half the bills. Do you see the contradiction there? Then you argue that when the women stay home they're doing all this work for "free" that far exceeds what it costs to support her. The hidden premise behind that statement is that the woman is a lousy breadwinner and it's cheaper to just have her stay home. This helps to explain why men are great breadwinners but lousy at housework: Because most women would never consider marrying a SAH husband even if he is great at cooking and cleaning. So if you want to blame society for dismissing the work of these women, blame women when they judge men as bums when they do such work in leau of income!
Next, the claim that SAH mothers somehow do the monetary work of an executive is easy to debunk. For one thing, if such work was so valuable such women wouldn't need alimony or child-support if she could make that much money doing it for someone else's kids, yes? And that's where it all comes apart: These are her kids too, you know. Your argument only works when it's assumed that all the bills and childcare are his responsibility and she does the work for "him" for "free." During all the time Mrs. Executive is playing tennis and ordering servants around, is she paying any bills? Hmm? Shouldn't she be making sandwiches for her kids (or ordering someone else to do so) because they're her kids, not just his? And if she built up these social connections to help his career, she's going to take them when she leaves hence this claim is moot. And besides, that's a gas since most such women spend most of their shopping and blowing money rather than helping him earn it. This is like a couch potato guy saying that he deserves compensation for researching history on the History Channel.
Your claim that women had no inheritance rights or even access to the family income before feminism is false. Look up the case of Napolean and Josaphone. She had plenty of legal rights and this was more than 200 years ago. But that said, I agree with you: If women have always worked to support their families then this pleasure of career that women have today is nothing new. Other than women acting badly and raising future criminals at taxpayer expense, feminism has achieved zip.
YOu totally blew off my point that women start off relationships judging men by the size of his wallet and mooching off of him to send the message that his role is as a breadwinner. You claim that it's a "fact" that men and women start out egalitarian in a marriage is not backed by either statistics or common experience. I'm married and my wife does most of the household chores. And the reason why the wife does most of the childcare is because most of the women insist upon it. It's rather funny for you women to argue that the child is "your" property on this forum and then complain he doesn't rush to pitch in under your terms? Hilarious.
Sure, there are some men who are wimps who put up with those terms but more and more men are saying no and aging "world owes me a living" career women are winding up raising criminals and creating a bad reputation for feminism. Keep up the good work.
Question for you Anonymous: Who chooses to sleep with all those deadbeat dads and then gestate their children into poverty? And if those fathers are responsible to pay "child" support, then doesn't that mean he should have equal access to those children and even fight for custody? See NYMOM! THAT'S why men will forever be a threat to women: Because they need us so so much least they and their children starve to death. Other than that, unwed mothers can do anything!
Richard, in neighborhoods where the crime rates are high and make life miserable for everyone, including single mothers and their children, most of the children are raised by unwed mothers. I drove though one of these neighborhoods in D.C. on Sunday onetime and there was not a business to be seen (they were robbed on a regular basis and driven out of town and then taxed by the local city council if they survived.) It looked like a warzone. However, the local church was full of attendees and especially women and children. I was puzzled because if so many people in that neighborhood went to church, why would the crime rate be so high?
The answer was when I saw Reverend Wright's idea of what "Christianity" is: Bashing white people and demanding government welfare to pay for them to act irresponsibly. Jesus would be rolling in grave if he actually had one.
Richard, in neighborhoods where the crime rates are high and make life miserable for everyone, including single mothers and their children, most of the children are raised by unwed mothers. I drove though one of these neighborhoods in D.C. on Sunday onetime and there was not a business to be seen (they were robbed on a regular basis and driven out of town and then taxed by the local city council if they survived.) It looked like a warzone. However, the local church was full of attendees and especially women and children. I was puzzled because if so many people in that neighborhood went to church, why would the crime rate be so high?
The answer was when I saw Reverend Wright's idea of what "Christianity" is: Bashing white people and demanding government welfare to pay for them to act irresponsibly. Jesus would be rolling in grave if he actually had one.
"Sticks and stones, Anonymous. Anyways, there's the saying about the biggest lie being statistics and you claiming that most dual income families are middle class is a specious point since a "dual income" household is, by definition, one that has a man present and most men who are able to marry are going to be productive breadwinners"
Did you even read my post? My entire post is on dual income families where both mom and dad work. Duh, of course that means there is a man present! I never said there wasn't, and my post is on two income families not single unwed mothers.
"Who mows the lawn in most households? Who takes care of the family car? Who cleans the gutters?"
Yawn, the lawn doesn't need to be cut everyday. Maintenance for the family car doesn't happen every day, nor do gutters get cleaned every day. However, taking care of children, making dinner, doing dishes, and general housework is usually done everyday. Cleaning up after a house full of kids and a husband who doesn't help out (and who generates even more work when he doesn't pick up after himself) is a DAILY JOB. And if a woman works full time on top of this, anything the husband does is minimal.
"Look up the case of Napolean and Josaphone. She had plenty of legal rights and this was more than 200 years ago."
Ha! You know nothing about history you moron. Did you ever hear of the Code Napoleon 1804:
The Napoleonic Code also defined the space women would occupy in the new regime as marital, maternal, and domestic—all public matters would be determined by men. This circumscription was made more effective by the way the property law undercut the possibilities for women’s economic independence and existence in a world beyond the home. In general, a woman had no control over property. Even if she was married under a contract that ensured a separate accounting of her dowry, her husband still had administrative control of funds. This administrative power of the husband and father replaced arbitrary patriarchal rule and was more in tune with modern ideas of government. In stead of serving the king’s whim, governmental officials served the best interests of the nation just as the father increased the well-being of the family. This kind of economic control of women held in all classes. Women’s wages went to their husbands, and market women and others engaged in business could not do so without permission from their husbands. Once a woman gained permission she did acquire some kind of legal status, in that a business woman could be sued. On the other hand, she had no control of her profits—these always passed to her husband, and court records demonstrate the continuing enforcement of this kind of control. Moreover, the husband’s right to a business woman’s property meant that the property passed to his descendants rather than hers. All of these provisions meant that, in the strictest sense, women could not act freely or independently.
"And the reason why the wife does most of the childcare is because most of the women insist upon it."
Oh bullshit, the reason women are stuck with most of the childcare/housework is that men resist doing it. Women who are highearners still do most of the childcare/housework.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1484162/High-earning-mothers-do-most-of-the-housework.html
What is the unpaid labor of a housewife worth to the economy?
Economics: Paid and Unpaid Work
It is difficult to compare women’s economic contributions to men because the unpaid work that women perform has not been taken into consideration. Women everywhere have almost total responsibility for housework and childcare. When assessing the productive contribution of societies it is important to factor Unpaid Work into the equation as it is absolutely necessary for the functioning of the rest of society,
⇒ When unpaid housework is taken into account than it becomes apparent that women work an equal or greater amount than men.
⇒ If given economic value, unpaid labor of women in the household would add an estimated one-third
⇒ UN Study of women worldwide do 75% of work, receive 10% of the pay and own 1% of property.
⇒ In Canada a 1994 study done by Stats Canada found that women still do 2/3 of the unpaid housework whether or not they work outside the home. In dual income families over half of the women 52% were shown to have all the responsibility for daily housework—only 10% of duel income couples shared the house work equally—in 10% of men had all or most of the responsibility.
⇒ Of the 828 Million women officially estimated to be economically active 56% live in Asia
⇒ Within the industrial and services sector, the gap ranges between 53% and 97% with an average of 78%.( UNIFEM Biennial Report. Progress of the World's Women, 2000.)
In Canada:
While women make up nearly 40% of the global paid workforce, they earn only 26% of the world's income. In Canada, women earn an average of 72 cents for every dollar that a man earns. Female-dominated professions in general are valued much lower than male-dominated professions. Child care workers are paid on par with parking lot attendants, plumbers earn more than nurses. Men outnumber women in each of the ten highest paid occupations in Canada while women outnumber men in all but one of the ten lowest paid occupations in Canada. In both the highest and lowest paid occupations in Canada, women in these occupations earn less than men in the same occupation. For example, female food and beverage servers earn 76% of what male servers earn while female dentists earn 66% of what male dentists earn. 1
In Canada unpaid work is estimated to be worth up to $319 in the economy or 41% of GDP; globally the numbers skyrocket to $11 trillion US.
Source: http://unpac.ca/economy/paidwork.html
Statistics Canada States:
Women tend to do more unpaid work than men, most of it around the house. In 1998, women spent 15.2 hours on unpaid housework per week—almost twice as much time as did men (8.3 hours). Parenthood can add significantly more time to a woman's unpaid work schedule: mothers aged 25 to 44 who were working full time spent nearly 35 hours a week at unpaid work. Statistics Canada - http://142.206.72.67/02/02d/02d_004_e.htm
It's the unpaid work of women that supports the entire economy, and the free and underpaid labor of women is exploited.
"Who chooses to sleep with all those deadbeat dads and then gestate their children into poverty?" And if those fathers are responsible to pay "child" support, then doesn't that mean he should have equal access to those children and even fight for custody?"
Who chooses to sleep around and carelessly impregnate any woman out there without bothering to support them. Men are just as responsible if not more so.
"And if those fathers are responsible to pay "child" support, then doesn't that mean he should have equal access to those children and even fight for custody?"
No, since men don't want to do an equal share of childcare, they aren't equal parents to begin with. If the only reason a guy wants custody of his kid is so that he doesn't have to pay childsupport, that doesn't make him a good candidate for custody in my book. NY Mom has a point when she said this is the same thing as "triumph of amoral greed over logic."
Anon
Polish Knight says:
"aging "world owes me a living" career women are winding up raising criminals and creating a bad reputation for feminism. Keep up the good work."
"in neighborhoods where the crime rates are high and make life miserable for everyone, including single mothers and their children, most of the children are raised by unwed mothers"
THE TRUTH IS:
Myth -- The increase in single mother households over the past 25 - 30 years has contributed to increased violent crime among children and adolescents.
Fact: "Violent crimes committed by young people have dropped sharply. In 1998, the serious violent crime offending rate for youth was 27 crimes per 1,000 adolescents ages 12 to 17, totaling 616,000 such crimes involving juveniles -- a drop by more than half from the 1993 high, and the lowest level since data were first collected in 1973."
Child Stats, America's Children 2000, http://www.childstats.gov/ac2000/highlight.asp
Fact: "[As of 1999] the nation's crime rates have dropped for the seventh straight year... arrests for serious and violent crimes dropped 5.4% from last year and 12% from the previous year. In addition, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports for 1998 indicates that the reduction in crime is a national phenomenon; it is lower in every region of the United States."
http://voxcap.com/content/pc/db/item361.asp
Propaganda -- Children growing up without a father in the home are more than twice as likely to end up in jail.
Fact: "The salutary effects of being raised by two married, biological parents depend on the quality of care parents can provide. Using data from an epidemiological sample of 1,116 5-year-old twin pairs and their parents, this study found that the less time fathers lived with their children, the more conduct problems their children had, but only if the fathers engaged in low levels of antisocial behavior. In contrast, when fathers engaged in high levels of antisocial behavior, the more time they lived with their children, the more conduct problems their children had. Behavioral genetic analyses showed that children who resided with antisocial fathers received a "double whammy" of genetic and environmental risk for conduct problems."
Sara R Jaffee, Terrie E Moffitt, Avshalom Caspi, Alan Taylor (2003) Life With (or Without) Father: The Benefits of Living With Two Biological Parents Depend on the Father's Antisocial Behavior Child Development 74 (1), 109-126.
Fact: The most significant predictor of criminality is having a parent or other close relative who exhibits anti-social behavior or has been incarcerated.
DiLalla, L. F., & Gottesman, I. I. (1989). Heterogeneity of causes for delinquency and criminality: Lifespan perspectives. Development & Psychopathology, 1 (4), 339-349.
Fact: "Taking all the evidence together, marital discord has a stronger relation with delinquency and aggression than parental absence."
Loeber, R. and Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986) 'Family factors as correlated and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency', in: M. Tonry and N. Morris (Eds.) Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, Vol.7, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, p. 77-78
Comment: "The single greatest predictor of who will wind up in prison is whether his father was in prison."
Ivins, Molly, column August 30, 2000, re Bureau of Justic Statistics, commenting on the astounding growth of the Texas prison population. mollyivins@star-telegram.com
Propaganda in action -- Seventy percent of men currently incarcerated in prison grew up in a "fatherless home."
Fact: Seventy percent of men currently incarcerated in prison also are not "caucasion." (Would you also be implying that there is some kind of cause-and-effect relationship between skin color and proclivity for law-breaking? Or is it only politically correct these days to to bash women?)
Bureau of Justice Statistics 1994, Corrections Compendium, and The Sentencing Project.
Fact: "Using data from four national surveys, Biblarz and Raftery (1999) show that mother-absence is much more detrimental than father-absence to children's educational and occupational attainment. They find that once parents' socioeconomic status is taken into account, children raised by single mothers are much better off than children raised by single fathers or fathers and stepmothers, and are just as likely to succeed as children raised by both birth parents. Biblarz and Raftery conclude that the pattern of effects across family types and over time is consistent with an evolutionary perspective which emphasizes the importance of the birth mother in the provision of children's resources (Trivers 1972). According to this view, children raised by their birth mothers do better than children raised apart from their birth mothers. Furthermore, being raised by a single birth mother is better than being raised by a birth mother and step-father since step-fathers compete with children for mother's time and lower maternal investment."
Case, Anne, I-Fen Lin and Sara McLanahan. Educational Attainment in Blended Families, August 2000.
Fact: "[H]ypotheses posit that the impact of family structure on adolescent behavior is, in part, explained by the different types of communities within which families reside and that community characteristics moderate the impact of family structure on drug use. The results of multilevel regression models fail to support these hypotheses; adolescents who reside in single-parent or stepparent families are at heightened risk of drug use irrespective of community context. Moreover, adolescents who reside in single father families are at risk of both higher levels of use and increasing use over time. A significant community-level effect involves jobless men: Adolescents are at increased risk of drug use if they reside in communities with a higher proportion of unemployed and out-of-workforce men."
John P Hoffmann (2002) The Community Context of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (2), 314?330.
Fact: "[A] large study in New Zealand found that both children whose married mothers had stayed married and children whose single mothers had stayed single had fewer behavioral problems than children whose mothers had changed partners."
Id., re J. M. Najman, B. C. Behrens, M. Andersen, W. Bor, M. O'Callaghan, and G. M. Williams. 1997. Impact of family type and family quality on child behavior problems: A longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 36: 1357-1365.
Myth -- The factor that creates risk to the wellbeing of a child reared in a "fatherless home" is the child's lack of a relationship with the father.
Fact: "[M]ost children who grow up with a single parent do quite well... Why would the loss of a biological father reduce a child's chances of success? We argue that when fathers live apart from their child, they are less likely to share their incomes with the child, and, consequently, mothers and children usually experience a substantial decline in their standard of living when the father moves out. We estimate that as much as half of the disadvantage associated with father absence is due to the economic insecurity and instability. Another quarter is due to the loss of parental time and supervision, and the rest is probably due to a loss of social capital attributable in large measure to the higher incidence of residential mobility among single mothers and remarried mothers. Stated differently, if parents who decide to live apart were able to cushion their child from the economic instability and disruptions in neighborhood ties that often accompany the breakup of a family, and if single mothers were able to establish and maintain regular routines and effective systems of supervision, their children would likely do just as well as children raised in two-parent families."
Sara McLanahan, "Father Absence and the Welfare of Children", on-line paper, available at Network on the Family and the Economy, http://www.olin.wustl.edu/macarthur/working%20papers/wp-mclanahan2.htm
Yes, Anonymous, I read your ENTIRE post. And you read mine but continue to blow off my points (which is ok, I love repeating them). To repeat your duh, both mom and dad work in dual income families because, by definition, that's what one is. It's called a tautology. I pointed out that stating a majority of women work is a cheap misdirection since there's a huge difference between 51% of women working most of the time is a far different obligation than that of men whom almost all work full time for nearly all their working lives. You blew it off. Yet, you then turn around and argue that, hey, men cleaning out the gutters doesn't count because it's not a "daily job." If men are working more hours and consistently AND footing the bills early on the relationships, they're more than making up for slacking off later.
I brought up career women winding up becoming unwed single mothers or childless spinsters to illustrate that no matter how unfair a situation may seem (even though the situation you portray isn't unfair, you're just cherry picking what suits you), there's worse things that can happen. That's life. A couch potato husband who leaves laundry on the floor is work, granted, but he's a lot less trouble than that single mothers go through when then don't have a man's income AND most women would prefer such a man to an egalitarian man who earns less. Pardon the pun, but women made their bed and sometimes they don't like lying in it.
I hate to admit I'm wrong but I believe in cutting my losses. You're right about Napolean: He did create abolish a lot of the women's rights from the revolution. That said, women's divorce rights have existed all along in the states and England: www.divorcenet.com/states/nevada/alimony_weakest_link
"The origins of alimony, as we know it in the United States, can be traced back to the ecclesiastical courts in England.1 Because the husband was the property owner, and the wife depended upon him to provide for her sustenance, the English ecclesiastical courts consistently ruled that the husband had the duty to provide for the wife after divorce.2
[...] At common law, a single woman was considered a whole person with rights as such, but once married, a woman could not enter contracts or be sued.5"
Note that the origins of alimony have nothing to do with marital sacrifices of women for losing their careers as waitresses while partying on their doctor's salary or throwing lavish parties to chat with their friends and claiming to network. It was pity money, nothing more.
About your claim that women who are high income earners can't get men to help with childcare. I tried to go to the link but telegraph's site jammed. Anyways, I have an easy answer for that: If such women earn a lot of money then they can afford to spend it on daycare and even a nanny. In addition, they have the option to marry down as men do. I know, I know, you're going to say that oftentimes they do and the man is still couch clicker, right? By the same token, plenty of men marry pretty girls who aren't useful for much either. That leads us to:
You threw out a lot of statistics but they are largely meaningless or biased. UN? Yeah, that's the same agency that has Syria running the security agency. Want to see how women's rights would fare if they got their way? For that matter, go to nations where the UN are "peacekeepers" and where the peacekeepers themselves violate women's rights on a regular basis... You blew off my point yet again: Women's housework isn't "unpaid" since they clearly survive quite well in such homes despite not having an income. The reason is that they get a share of the marital assets which are usually a lot more than the "unpaid" work they did OR even the job they quit. That's why alimony is usually awarded as MAINTENANCE rather than a sacrifice.
You didn't answer my question about who slept around with these bad men but just answered my question with another question. But that said, I'll answer it: Not all "men" act this way. I certainly don't. These are a subset of men that unwed mothers chose to sleep with. If single mothers women choose to reward such behavior with not only sex, but also procreation don't blame me! And even if you blame these men, you are still ignoring the financial irresponsibility of the millions of these women who go on welfare. They're known as welfare queens and they give single motherhood a bad name.
As they should.
Finally, even as you whined with a massive quote about the lack of rights of women under the original Napoleanic code, you then turn around and argue that men should give over THEIR property to women for "his" children they don't have equal access to. Hilarious. Let's take your argument even to the extreme you use that only direct childcare should count. Wouldn't this mean that wealthy women who use nannies don't deserve alimony or custody of their children since they didn't do that work? Hmmm? Or career women who use daycare? SAH mothers like to jab that such women don't love their children as much as their job. Isn't it neat how that works out? It's called The Mommy Wars.
"If the only reason a guy wants custody of his kid is so that he doesn't have to pay childsupport, that doesn't make him a good candidate for custody in my book."
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Your "book" has nothing to do with the rights of another parent and his/her child. A legal, biological parent does not need a "reason" approved by some outsider for wanting the equal care, custody and control of his/her own child. That is his/her fundamental right.
Where one parent's fundamental rights are not respected and protected, neither will the other's be in the long run.
I read all your factoids about what a great job single moms can do "if only." In fact, most of what I saw was a series of "if onlys." Mom can do it all if only she has enough money, if only she had enough outside support, if only there were enough people around to watch the kids, if only she didn't have to move a lot, if only...
In sum, moms can do it all by themselves as long as they don't have to do it all by themselves.
We used to have a system that took care of all those if onlys quite neatly and we called it marriage. It served us well for thousands of years and we built a very nice civilization on it.
But for a generation now women have been busy as bees trying to destroy it and replace it with shoddy substitute components like serial live-in "uncles", minimum wage babysitters, half-assed male "role models" drafted from the extended family or community, tired grandparents drafted to pick up Mom's slack and so and so on.
Anything rather than providing their children with a committed, invested male who actually gives a damn about those kids, aka a married biological father.
It would be hilarious to watch if it weren't hurting so many children and running up our taxes.
"Who chooses to sleep around and carelessly impregnate any woman out there without bothering to support them. Men are just as responsible if not more so."
Care to weigh in on that, NY? I believe you're of the opinion that women control reproduction?
Richard
Anonymous, do you know the difference between a non-sequitur and shooting oneself in the foot? It's rather hard to tell which applies to the response you made about the high crime rates of children of unwed mothers. Your response is that crime rates are lower across the board. All that implies, in and of itself, is that the crime rate of children of two parent households went down so quickly that it took MASSIVE high crime of children from unwed mother households to make up the difference! It's like a serial killer saying that the court should let him or her go because, hey, murder rates are down overall so what's the problem? "Math is hard" -- Barbie
The next response is to claim that some fathers who are anti-social or bad eggs who stick around the home are worse than a father who just leaves altogether. This is a red-herring. It seeks to distract attention away from the FACT that children from single mother homes are a crime wave.
The next argument is that there's a genetic connection to the father the saintly unwed mother can do nothing about. Perhaps, but as I pointed out she did have the option to not procreate for these men in the first place, yes? Note, I didn't say "have sex with", I said procreate for. Feminism got women all these rights to get an abortion or choose their mate and they use them about as responsibly as a drunk with a handgun. If there's a bad boy within a 20 mile radius, these women will rut with them. Octomom is a great example of that.
Next, you drag in the racial angle to try to tar me with the label as being racist when feminism threw non-white men under the bus to create more opportunities for white women. But then again, you laud women for gestating children into poverty and blame men for not running up with condition-free "child" support so it's no surprise you expect me to clean up that mess too! Black families before the so-called civil rights movement (I call it the civil wrongs movement) had a 90% marriage rate according to the census before feminism helped out. So all those black men going to jail while women get welfare checks should say a big thank you to the left and feminism!
Finally, you blame money. Boo hoo, unwed mothers often don't have money apparently because gestating children into poverty, which you and the UN laud as "work", doesn't pay the bills. Cleaning up one's own home and cooking one's own dinner doesn't count as paid work either. You can't seem to figure out why. Men are so useless and unimportant except when women need them to pay the bills.
Finally, you and your study closes with a paradox: Single mothers do a great job of raising kids after all after accounting for everything else such as the unwed mother's financial irresponsibility, sleeping with bad boys, and doing drugs. Other than that, they're great parents so whatz the problem? When a two parent household is doing drugs, going to prison, and not earning money they're lousy too. Well, I agree with that but the point is that this is the EXCEPTION for two parent families and single fathers while for single mothers it's the NORM. For the record, a texas bar association study showed that women where 60% likely to not pay child-support when they lost custody but, hey, criticizing men as "greedy" for not paying "child" support is different than HER paying HER money to someone else, eh? Cough, hypocrite, cough. Men who are single fathers are less likely to go on welfare (otherwise they wouldn't have custody in the first place) and not get support. So they do just as good a job but for a lot less money. Other than that, you gals are doing a gang bang, er, I mean bang up job!
Single mothers do better than single fathers and almost as well as two parent families when they have the RESOURCES TO INVEST IN THEIR FAMILIES:
Fact: "Using data from four national surveys, Biblarz and Raftery (1999) show that mother-absence is much more detrimental than father-absence to children's educational and occupational attainment. They find that once parents' socioeconomic status is taken into account, children raised by single mothers are much better off than children raised by single fathers or fathers and stepmothers, and are just as likely to succeed as children raised by both birth parents. Biblarz and Raftery conclude that the pattern of effects across family types and over time is consistent with an evolutionary perspective which emphasizes the importance of the birth mother in the provision of children's resources (Trivers 1972). According to this view, children raised by their birth mothers do better than children raised apart from their birth mothers. Furthermore, being raised by a single birth mother is better than being raised by a birth mother and step-father since step-fathers compete with children for mother's time and lower maternal investment."
Case, Anne, I-Fen Lin and Sara McLanahan. Educational Attainment in Blended Families, August 2000.
Mothers invest more in there children which benefit the ENTIRE ECONOMY:
Fact: "Recent work on the determinants of children's human capital investments suggests that the absence of a child's birth mother puts the child at risk. Those investments that are typically made by a child's mother -- in food, health, and education, for example -- are made at a lower level when the child is raised by a non-birth mother."
Case, Anne, I-Fen Lin and Sara McLanahan. Educational Attainment in Blended Families, August 2000.
Single fathers don't invest their money and resources in their children like single mothers do:
Fact: Children living with custodial fathers are more likely to be without medical insurance.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-224.pdf
Fact: "This study uses Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study data (N= 1,073 couples) to analyze how mothers versus fathers controlling money affects U.S. children's food insecurity. Results show children are far less likely to experience food insecurity when parents' pooled income is controlled by their mother than when it is controlled by their father or even when it is jointly controlled."
Catherine T. Kenney, Father Doesn't Know Best? Parents' Control of Money and Children's Food Insecurity, Journal of Marriage and Family Volume 70 Issue 3, Pages 654 - 669 (2008)
Fact: Single fathers spend more money than single mothers on eating out, alcohol ,and tobacco, and they spend less on children's education. They also spend a larger portion of their total expenditures on eating out, alcohol, tobacco, and recreation, and a smaller share on children's education.
Ziol-Guest, Kathleen M. A Single Father's Shopping Bag: Purchasing Decisions in Single Father Families, presented atBoston, MA, Population Association of America Annual Meeting, April 2005. Also see: http://www.human.cornell.edu/pam/seminars/ziolguest.pdf Cohort(s): Children of the NLSY79 ID Number: 5042 , pub. by Population Association of America.
Fact: [A]dolescents from single father households are judged by teachers to be less well behaved and to show less effort in class. They also score slightly less than their single-mother counterparts on standardized tests, both verbal and math, and are perceived to be less academically qualified for college. Children raised by single fathers attain on average six months less education.
Downey, D. B., Ainsworth-Darnell, J. W., & Dufur, M. J. (1998). Sex of parent and children's well-being in single-parent households. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(4), 878-893
Custodial fathers want all the control, but THEY DON'T DO MOST OF THE CARE:
Fact: Remarried custodial fathers are no more involved with their children than they were when married to the children's mothers; while somewhat more involved when still single, when married, they revert back into a pattern of letting the mother-figure in the household rear the children. "Repartnered resident fathers are located in the multidimensional space about halfway between unpartnered resident fathers and resident fathers who are married to resident mothers, indicating that repartnering may pull resident fathers back toward the parenting patterns seen in biological two-parent families."
Daniel N. Hawkins, Paul R. Amato, Valarie King (2006) Parent-Adolescent Involvement: The Relative Influence of Parent Gender and Residence Journal of Marriage and Family 68 (1), 125?136.
Myth -- Single custodial fathers who have remarried are the primary caregiver of their children in the household.
Fact: Stepmothers are. "The general picture that emerged is that stepmothers and mothers had been the lead actors in the monitoring and directing of activities and the nurturing and disciplining of these children. This finding about stepmothers was somewhat surprising, given that the children's longer term primary ties were to their biological fathers and that most participants only visited their stepmothers and fathers part time when they were minors. One might imagine that in a visitation or coresidential situation with biological fathers and stepmothers, fathers would take the lead over stepmothers in the guiding and care of their children. This did happen for one of the interview participants, Victoria, reflecting an organization of family practices along a biological/step distinction. Yet, gender imbalances in father-stepmother guidance and daily care of children tended to dominate in these interview findings despite biological fathers' longer term relationships and biological ties with their children that their current wives did not have... fathers' work obligations sometimes created situations in which children were left for long periods under the sole care of the stepmother."
Maria Schmeeckle (2007) Gender Dynamics in Stepfamilies: Adult Stepchildren's Views Journal of Marriage and Family 69 (1), 174?189.
Fact: "Children raised in families with stepmothers are likely to have less health care, less education and less money spent on their food than children raised by their biological mothers, three studies by a Princeton economist have found. The studies examined the care and resources that parents said they gave to children and did not assess the quality of the relationships or the parents' feelings and motives. But experts said that while the findings did not establish the image of the wicked stepmother as true, they supported the conclusion that, for complex reasons, stepmothers do invest less in children than biological mothers do, with fathers, to a large extent, leaving to women the responsibility for the family's welfare."
"Differences Found in Care With Stepmothers," by Tamar Lewin, Tim Shaffer for The New York Times Susan Sasse, vice president of the International Stepfamily Association, with her husband, Erik, and their children in Chesapeake City, Md. (August 17, 2000) http://www.geocities.com/thesagacontinues2000/stepmoms.html
Also see http://www.geocities.com/wellesley/9204/custody.html; and "What's Normal In a Stepfamily"? by Peter K. Gerlach, MSW. Board member Stepfamily Association of America http://sfhelp.org/04/reality3.htm
Also, when women are educated and have control of financial resources they invest far more in their families than boys. EDUCATING GIRLS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT BENEFITS THE ECONOMY:
"Educating girls yields a higher return in improving the local economy than any other type of investment. For example, an educated girl will use 90% of her future income towards her family, while boys invest only 35%. As Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Managing Director, World Bank, Washington DC, told participants: “Investing in women is smart economics. Investing in girls – catching them upstream – is even smarter economics"
http://www.weforum.org/en/knowledge/KN_SESS_SUMM_26667?url=/en/knowledge/KN_SESS_SUMM_26667
Even Larry Summers who made comments about women in science sypported this:
“Educating girls yields a higher rate of return than any other investment in the developing world. “ Lawrence Summers, then Chief Economist of the World Bank, said in 1992.
"Why? Study after study shows that getting and keeping girls in school reduces child mortality and malnutrition; improves family health; delays the age of first marriage; lowers fertility rates; enhances women’s domestic role and their political participation in society; improves their functioning in the wage labor force; strengthens a family’s survival strategies; and probably most intriguing to governments, increases economic growth. Even when various studies define these effects differently, the findings still hold. The pattern of causation is clear: as the work of Abu Ghaida and Klasen (World Bank, 2004) shows, improvement in girls’ education is the cause of increase in economic growth, not the effect."
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/0,,contentMDK:21054645~menuPK:617572~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:282386,00.html
When women have the education, financial resources, and CONTROL of financial resources, they invest in their children FAR MORE THAN MEN DO. It doesn't matter of the women are married, single, divorced, unwed or whatever. CHILDREN DO BETTER WHEN THEY ARE WITH THEIR MOTHERS THAN THEIR FATHERS. Fathers want to have a good time and dump their kids off on women who aren't the kids mother and doesn't care for them like their biological mothers do.
"Single mothers do a great job of raising kids after all after accounting for everything else such as the unwed mother's financial irresponsibility, sleeping with bad boys, and doing drugs. Other than that, they're great parents so whatz the problem?"
It's ironic that underclass single mothers of this variety are quite vocal about what "great moms" they are. Married middle class moms don't generally go around bragging about their great mothering, preferring to wait and see how their kids turn out first.
"For the record, a texas bar association study showed that women where 60% likely to not pay child-support when they lost custody but, hey, criticizing men as "greedy" for not paying "child" support is different than HER paying HER money to someone else, eh?"
The standard response to this is that those poor widdle moms don't have any money to pay child support. However, women don't have dibs on that excuse. Ninety-one percent of child support is owed by men, and seventy percent of unpaid child support is owed by those making less than $10,000 a year.
If he's that bad a child support prospect, is it unreasonable to expect that a woman might opt not to breed with him? Or alternatively, perhaps use some of that BC that you're so afraid of conservatives taking away from you?
"Men who are single fathers are less likely to go on welfare (otherwise they wouldn't have custody in the first place) and not get support."
Only about a third of these fathers even HAVE a child support order at all. And of those who do, almost half get absolutely nothing. They know better than to push it, too, since most of them have custody via mutual consent and they know that mom's consent will vanish PDQ if they ask her to chip in.
Mystical magical mother-child bond notwithstanding, women are even less eager than men are to pony up for their kids if it involves funding another household besides their own.
Anon said: "A stay at home wife is an ECONOMIC ASSET to a wealthy man."
What we're all dying to hear, then, is why high-earning women aren't out searching for such a great economic asset as a stay at home husband? Why do most of them openly dismiss such men as parasites and moochers and instead insist on men who work as much or more than they do?
Richard
"When women have the education, financial resources, and CONTROL of financial resources, they invest in their children FAR MORE THAN MEN DO. It doesn't matter of the women are married, single, divorced, unwed or whatever."
Listen Anon, I'll agree with you about the education of women being a great thing for society, but what you don't seem to understand is that when "women have the education, the financial resources and control of the financial resources," THEY MARRY! And they tend to stay married, and they have kids who do the same. And even when they don't stay married, they tend to work out equitable custody arrangements and don't fuck with their kids' relationships with dad. That's why they're so great for society.
The overwhelming majority of them don't dick around with this half-assed single-mom crap because they're smart enough to know what a shit pie it is for them and the kids.
While they give lip service to single moms and all their "sacrifices" because it's the PC thing these days, their actions belie their words. They actually look down their noses at all this tomfoolery that you girls are celebrating around here. It's OK for "other people's kids," but not for their own of course.
That's why we have two Americas today: one of married couples who are sending their kids to school and generating wealth for society and one of poor single-mother families doing stupid shit and looking around wide-eyed wondering why they don't have stuff.
All topped off by a government making hilariously feeble attempts at restoring the family and "promoting marriage" after doing everything they could to ruin it.
Brilliant!
Richard
There is no statistical difference in the number of custodial mothers and custodial fathers who receive full child support payments.
-U.S. Census Bureau, Custodial
http://www.divorce360.com/divorce-articles/statistics/us/child-support-facts-and-figures.aspx?artid=662
According to the U.S. Census Bureau report, non-custodial fathers pay some or all of their support obligations 77% of the time, and non-custodial mothers make full or partial payment 75% of the time. Based on these statistics, men are equally as likely as women to comply with their child support obligation.
http://www.newsli.com/2009/01/29/sometimes-the-deadbeat-dad-is-a-mom/
Wow, the U.S. Census Bureau found only a whole 2% difference. Big whoop! Maybe fathers aren't as deadbeat as portrayed, but neither are mothers. However, you've yet to hear of a deadbeat mom who kills her husband and kids because she doesn't "want to pay money to that bastard". However, there are a hell of a lot of men who kill their wives and kids for that reason.
That said, most men get custody when they fight for it. Most men who fight for custody are abusers who make false allegations of parental alienation, stalk, beat, harass their ex-wives through their visitation with the children, drag the mother through court through costly litigation in an effort to prove that she is an unfit mother when it isn't true, thereby; bankrupting her in the process because she can't afford the lawyer fees and court cost even though she needs that money to support the kids, and ends up losing custody because she can't afford the litigation anymore. Of course, this puts her in poverty, and she is forced to make child support payments to a man who abused her and most likely the kids as well, stole HER CHILDREN WHOM HE WAS NEVER THE PRIMARY CARETAKER OF, and is now allowed to deny her visitation because of false claims of parental alienation. That is the circumstances that most most non-custodial mothers are paying child support in. And hardly any man (if any) are paying child support in these same kind of circumstances. The fact that there is only a 2% difference is remarkable when women are faced with those odds. So, even if non-custodial moms (which is a bunch of bullshit)aren't paying as much child support as non-custodial dads, there are usually extenuating circumstances for them that just doesn't exist for dads.
Anon
Interesting that the Census Bureau would say that, when the Dept. of Health and Human Services says differently. However, if they can't make up their minds about default rates, they do agree that only about a third of custodial dads have any kind of support order at all, far less than custodial mothers.
I'm afraid the rest of your post is baloney. Not just feminist propaganda, but distortion of feminist propaganda.
"Most men get custody when they fight for it."
Actually the statistic that fems like to quote goes like this: When fathers fight for custody, they get some form of it 70% of the time, most often joint legal.
In other words, fathers who fight for custody most often get virtually nothing. Joint legal means noncustodial with access to medical and school records. Yeah, big whoop.
"bankrupting her in the process because she can't afford the lawyer fees and court cost even though she needs that money to support the kids"
Custodial arrangements reached by mutual consent (the majority) don't bankrupt anyone. For contested cases, judges have the discretion to assign mom's legal fees to dad, particularly when the custody dispute occurs in the context of divorce. Make sure their buddies get paid, ya know. Wonder how many times the reverse occurs with high-earning women?
"That is the circumstances that most most non-custodial mothers are paying child support in."
Oh bullshit. These are NOT the circumstances that "most" NC mothers are paying child support in. By far most NC moms are NC by mutual consent, not because anyone "took the kids away," and two-thirds of these are neither paying child support nor being ordered to. Yeah, they're really investing a lot in those kids.
And as for men killing their kids to avoid paying child support... well, we don't have safe haven laws to protect kids from murdering fathers, you know. We have them to maybe save a few babies from being strangled, drowned, smothered, or left to die in dumpsters, toilets and what-have-you by moms who could easily give them up for adoption if not for the possibility that dad might show up and claim custody and maybe (God forbid) get her on the hook for child support. Nice try but not impressed.
"The fact that there is only a 2% difference is remarkable when women are faced with those odds."
What's remarkable is that over 85% of men still wish to get married today.
Richard
"However, if they can't make up their minds about default rates, they do agree that only about a third of custodial dads have any kind of support order at all"
"By far most NC moms are NC by mutual consent, not because anyone "took the kids away," and two-thirds of these are neither paying child support nor being ordered to."
Well, Dick, in order to get a support order, these guys have to go to COURT to get one. If most mothrs are giving their children to the fathers by "mutual consent", it's probably for financial reasons, and THEY KNOW THAT THE FATHERS OF THEIR CHILDREN ARE ACTUALLY COMPETENT PARENTS WHO WILL ACTUALLY TAKE CARE OF THE KIDS AND NOT DUMP THEM ON SOMEONE ELSE. If it's a mutual agreement, the fathers probably have an agreement NOT to get child support from the mothers until these women can get back on their feet financially. After all, if the mother stayed home with the children, she will probably have less earning power than her ex, and he knows it. AND A LOT OF THESE MUTUAL AGREEMENTS ARE PROBABLY TEMPORARY UNTIL THE MOTHER GETS BACK ON HER FEET AND CAN BETTER SUPPORT HERSELF AND THE KIDS BECAUSE THE MOTHER TRUSTS HER EX-HUSBAND NOT TO DOUBLE CROSS HER WHEN SHE WANTS THE CHILDREN BACK. Also, child support agreements DO NOT always have to be paid through some government agency. A lot of times, child support is mutually agreed upon privately, and the parent who pays it sends a check every month on his/her own. I suspect that a lot of custodial dads don't bother going to court to get a support order is because THE NON-CUSTODIAL MOM IS PAYING THE SUPPORT ON HER OWN WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO.
"And as for men killing their kids to avoid paying child support... well, we don't have safe haven laws to protect kids from murdering fathers, you know. We have them to maybe save a few babies from being strangled, drowned, smothered, or left to die in dumpsters, toilets and what-have-you by moms who could easily give them up for adoption if not for the possibility that dad might show up and claim custody and maybe (God forbid) get her on the hook for child support."
Yeah, you can really compare a person, who is usually a young, scared, lonely TEENAGE GIRL who throws her newborn in a dumpster AND who most likely is suffering from some kind of POST-PARTUM PSYCHOSIS to an ADULT MALE who is TWICE HER AGE AND KILLS HIS ENTIRE FAMILY. AND let's not forget those guys who don't even wait until the kids born, THEY JUST KILL THEIR WIFE/GIRLFRIEND WHILE SHE'S STILL PREGNANT. After all, HOMICIDE BY A HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND, is the NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH OF A PREGNANT WOMAN.
"I'm afraid the rest of your post is baloney. Not just feminist propaganda, but distortion of feminist propaganda."
Oh, please, you've been giving me MRA/FRA propaganda throughout this entire thread and than some. And joint legal custody is the vehicle that men usually use to get FULL PHYSICAL AND LEGAL CUSTODY. And apparently, you don't have a clue because THE NON-CUSTODIAL FATHR WITH JOINT CUSTODY USUALLY GETS TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION IF THE PARENTS CAN'T AGREE BECAUSE ALL THE FATHER HAS TO DO IS GO TO COURT AND MAKE FALSE CLAIMS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION, and the COURT USUALLY SIDES WITH HIM. It happens all the fucking time.
"Wonder how many times the reverse occurs with high-earning women?"
I don't know, but my sister, who makes LESS than her ex, was court ordered to pay HIS COURT FEES, and she's the custodial parent. And this was after her ex smashed her windshield in with a baseball bat. Go figure.
"Yeah, they're really investing a lot in those kids."
Well, non-custodial mothers are actually BETTER PARENTS than their non-custodial father counterparts:
Fact: "Research has indicated that nonresident mothers do a better job in maintaining close contact with their children than nonresident fathers (Stewart, 1999) and are engaged in as wide a range of activities with their children as are most resident fathers (Hawkins, Amato, & King, 2006)."
Kei M. Nomaguchi, Gender, Family Structure, and Adolescents' Primary Confidants, Journal of Marriage and Family Volume 70 Issue 5, Pages
Fact: "Becoming the noncustodial parent resulted in severe deterioration of the father-child relationship. Noncustodial mothers, in contrast, enjoyed relations with adult children that were nearly as good as those of custodial mothers... In custodial father families, the father's remarriage sharply reduced the quality of adult children's relations with nonresidential biological mothers. In custodial mother families, in contrast, mother's remarriage had only a slight negative influence on adult children's relations with nonresidential biological fathers."
William S. Aquilino, Department of Child and Family Studies, 1430 Linden Drive, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 (U.S.A.) Impact of childhood family disruption on young adults' relationships with parents (p. 295-313)
Fact: "Adolescents' ratings of closeness were much higher among resident than among nonresident parents, although nonresident mothers scored significantly higher on this variable than did nonresident fathers."
Daniel N. Hawkins, Paul R. Amato, Valarie King (2006) Parent-Adolescent Involvement: The Relative Influence of Parent Gender and Residence Journal of Marriage and Family 68 (1), 125?136.
"To focus directly on investments made in individual children, Case and Paxson (2000) uses
data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey Child Health Supplement (NHIS-CH) to
examine the health investments made in step, foster and adopted children relative to birth children. They find, controlling for household size, income and other characteristics, that children living with step mothers are significantly less likely than children living with birth mothers to have routine doctor and dentist visits, or to have a place for usual medical care, or for sick care. If children living with step mothers have regular contact with their birth mothers, however, their
health care does not suffer relative to that reported for children who reside with their birth mothers."
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/case_blended_families.pdf
"And joint legal custody is the vehicle that men usually use to get FULL PHYSICAL AND LEGAL CUSTODY."
Not really. Custody orders are hard to change. Most states have statutes that require (in absence of an emergency) a certain minimun amount of time to pass before you can request a modification and substantial changes in circumstances even then.
"HOMICIDE BY A HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND, is the NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH OF A PREGNANT WOMAN."
I've addressed that before. It's a complete misquote of that article in the Washington Post. And even the article itself was malarkey.
"Noncustodial mothers, in contrast, enjoyed relations with adult children that were nearly as good as those of custodial mothers... In custodial father families, the father's remarriage sharply reduced the quality of adult children's relations with nonresidential biological mothers. "
This is contradictory on its face.
"I suspect that a lot of custodial dads don't bother going to court to get a support order is because THE NON-CUSTODIAL MOM IS PAYING THE SUPPORT ON HER OWN WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO."
You can suspect all you want, but it's merely your opinion. In my own opinion, since the census bureau in not concerned with who technically has custody but with who actually has the kids the greater part of the time, I "suspect" that many of these dads defined as custodial are not technically custodial but ended up with most of the parenting time anyway because mom doesn't want it but is getting her money from him just the same.
But since I don't have any more proof of my opinion than you do of yours, I won't belabor the point.
You've gone to an awful lot of trouble to make a case that moms are better nurturers than dads. And hey, I'll even go so far as to concede that point. Because in my opinion it doesn't matter in the least.
I'm no more sold on father custody than mother custody. Shared parenting is preferable not because it's particularly better than any other custodial arrangement but because it's the only one that protects a child's right to relationship with both parents (thus being more humane), the only one which protects each parent's fundamental right to the care custody and control of their own children (thus being Constitutional) and far more importantly, because it's the only one which demonstrably reduces the divorce rate. Which is best of all for kids.
When a bunch of outsiders can determine which parent's relationship with their OWN CHILD is less important and may be safely minimized, then that child does not belong to either parent but to Uncle Sam instead. When women become as attractive financial pickings to government and family court robbers as men currently are, I imagine they'll no longer be OK with this.
Richard
Anonymous denies the nose on (her?) face and opens a can of worms: "When women have the education, financial resources, and CONTROL of financial resources, they invest in their children FAR MORE THAN MEN DO. It doesn't matter of the women are married, single, divorced, unwed or whatever."
Indeed, Anon, you helped prove my point for me! When WOMEN spend money irresponsibly, you demand that they have perfect control before holding them accountable. Yet, you can't seem to figure out why men don't rush up to pay "child" support to women for children they either don't want or aren't allowed equal access to. Hmmm? You expect men to act like saints while giving women every possible excuse.
When most men support their children in their (or shared) custody, they don't need the stars to align perfectly and to have a PhD. I know men who lost their jobs and they FIND a way to support their kids even if it means working at jobs that pay less or cashing in their 401K or even changing careers.
What's funny is that even when the stars align perfectly, most career women who can't find a man who earns more than them winds up going out on their own and then complaining that the employer or her colleagues should foot the bill for HER daycare, healthcare, etc. that HER children run up. That's why unwed mothers are quickly gaining a bad reputation even with most married women. Keep up the good work!
Anonymous hypothesizes: "I suspect that a lot of custodial dads don't bother going to court to get a support order is because THE NON-CUSTODIAL MOM IS PAYING THE SUPPORT ON HER OWN WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO."
Richard answers: "You can suspect all you want..."
I got a chuckle out of this. Yeah, women, especially single mothers, have a real reputation for rushing to give money to men and pick up the tab without being asked or forced to. Hahahahaha! This isn't just denying the nose on her face, it's like denying her whole head!
The whole paradigm of women being liberated and independent and not needing pesky men like a fish and bicycle all falls apart the moment the word "money" comes up. Other than that, it all works great.
It doesn't even matter if the woman has a PhD. They always find some way to outspend themselves. I know of career women who bought million dollar 2 bedroom condos during the last real estate boom. Now they're back to moving in with their fathers. Nothing has changed since the 1950's except that a CNN poll shows that most women think women were better mothers back then. Don't blame the messengers.
Richard says: "Listen Anon, I'll agree with you about the education of women being a great thing for society..."
I hate to be unPC (ok, I love it!) but women's education while having a correlation with marriage due to class and the welfare state, it doesn't necessarily mean that women marry because of it. After all, back in the bad ol' days, working class women married all the time, yes?
Richard, without intending, you give the women's goodies coalition ammo to claim that if only women had all everything perfect, then they'd be great mothers. That's a lousy paradigm because it gives them an excuse to be bad mothers that men don't have. There are PLENTY of working class men who marry and raise families quite well. It's about personal responsibility and while PhD's generally understand that better than a welfare recipient, it's missing the point.
A reliable plumber will probably be a better father and husband than a dozen unmarried career women because he'll SHARE his income with his family rather than just use it as a bargaining chip to try to marry up.
"I hate to be unPC (ok, I love it!) but women's education while having a correlation with marriage due to class and the welfare state, it doesn't necessarily mean that women marry because of it. After all, back in the bad ol' days, working class women married all the time, yes?"
Yes, PK, but we're no longer back in the day. To cut to the chase, a lot of well-intended government policy has backfired on us and now poor and uneducated women have lost their grasp of the connection between marriage and parenthood. The educated women of the middle-class and higher mostly have not.
An educated woman is a much better bet for a stable marriage and family than an uneducated one for the following reasons:
1. They tend to come from intact families themselves and thus have a good understanding of how marriage works. And in academia they mainly associate with other people from intact homes.
2. It takes them a while to get through school, making them older and wiser when they do marry (yeah, I already know you don't believe this one! Sorry but I do.)
3. They're much more likely to have restrictive attitudes about divorce (about two-thirds).
4. If they divorce, they're far more likely to opt for equitable joint custody arrangements.
"A reliable plumber will probably be a better father and husband than a dozen unmarried career women because he'll SHARE his income with his family rather than just use it as a bargaining chip to try to marry up."
Yes, but the unmarried career women know this too. Hell, they aren't stupid. They can see what fatherlessness has done to our society. That's why the vast majority of them don't do this unwed mom crap. Only about five percent or so of unwed births occur among educated women. The few who choose it mostly don't even want it but they're desperate because they haven't found a man to build a family with (which says something about their personalities, but never mind).
Funny thing about educated middle-class women these days is that they'll mouth all the right PC baloney about there being nothing "morally wrong" with single motherhood, but in real life they laugh at women who are dumb enough to actually do it.
Case in point, we have a neighbor who's smart, educated, good job and all that. Supports all the usual liberal perks and handouts for the poor widdle single moms. And yet when she and her husband first took their kids to register them for our public school (which is actually quite good) they happened to stand in line behind a mom who was having to get a fat sheaf of custody papers copied and filed with the school because all her kids had different fathers.
What did they do? They turned around and walked out and put their kids in parochial school.
When my wife asked her about it, she just shrugged and said, "There's too much of that in the public school, and we don't want our kids getting too comfortable with it."
That's what they really think of women like our friends here. They'll feel sorry for them but they sure don't want THEIR daughters listening to them.
That's why I'm all for more educated women. They're good for families, and families are good for the economy. Larry Summers was right.
Richard
This is an interesting thread. I work in a child support office and it has been my experience that single fathers default on their child support more than single mothers.
Of COURSE, virago, statistically, single fathers default on their child support more than single mothers. Statistically, there are more single mothers with custody than fathers.
Speaking of statistics, Richard, where do people come up with stuff like 5 percent of unwed births are to uneducated women? Isn't that a rather round number? 87% of statistics are made up you know. Also, I work in a statistics office so I know that for a fact.
Seriously, in the book "Creating a Life" by a feminist, Sylvia Hewlett, she discusses how ultra educated women are winding up childless because of their inability to marry up. These women don't just "fail" to find men, they usually play traditional waiting games until they hit their 30's, panic, and then drive away most responsible men. More and more of such women are having children out of wedlock and last time I checked it was getting into the 50% range.
For a time, such hypocrisy was tolerable because they could still find older guys who "oppressed" women and still earned a good living. Now that more women are in the workplace and men have become a 40% minority in many universities, such women are having to practice what they preach. Think about it for a second: Do hypocrites make good parents? Hey, who knows? In many cases ok, but I wouldn't trust liberal women who turn around and golddig for 10 seconds.
Finally, there's a saying that correlation isn't causation. Educated women from well-to-do families tend to not become single mothers in comparison to VERY poor women, but in comparison to working class women who are not well educated but more sensible, they tend to marry less. I know of several well-to-do families whose daughters are in their 30's and childless while the men are ALL married (often when they're in their 40's, they can wait, after all.)
I'm sorry to break it to all of you (actually, I am, I wish everyone could all have ice cream and stay up late everynight) but reality is that women can't have equality because they don't really want it. That's just the way it is. Some things will never change. That's just the way it is...
"I'm no more sold on father custody than mother custody. Shared parenting is preferable not because it's particularly better than any other custodial arrangement but because it's the only one that protects a child's right to relationship with both parents (thus being more humane), the only one which protects each parent's fundamental right to the care custody and control of their own children (thus being Constitutional) and far more importantly, because it's the only one which demonstrably reduces the divorce rate. Which is best of all for kids."
Yeah, Dick, shared parenting is so much better for kids:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24626307-5016679,00.html
Shared parenting for divorce couples 'harmful to children'
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24729425-5016679,00.html
Equal parenting for divorced couples may be scrapped
Richard says :"That's why I'm all for more educated women. They're good for families, and families are good for the economy. Larry Summers was right."
Polish Knight says:
"Indeed, Anon, you helped prove my point for me! When WOMEN spend money irresponsibly, you demand that they have perfect control before holding them accountable. Yet, you can't seem to figure out why men don't rush up to pay "child" support to women for children they either don't want or aren't allowed equal access to. Hmmm? You expect men to act like saints while giving women every possible excuse."
While I agree with you Dick, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. Yes, educating women is good for the economy, but it's also good for the FAMILY. I quoted in an earlier post:
" an educated girl will use 90% of her future income towards her family, while boys invest only 35%. As Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Managing Director, World Bank, Washington DC, told participants."
http://www.weforum.org/en/knowledge/KN_SESS_SUMM_26667?url=/en/knowledge/KN_SESS_SUMM_26667
Educated girls will grow up to be mothers who use more of their income to invest in their children's health, education, and overall well-being. In contrast, educated boys will grow up to be fathers who invest LESS of their income in their children's health, education, and overall well-being. It has nothing to do with the mother being a "better nurturer". Larry Summers and other economists recognize that WOMEN INVEST MORE IN CHILDREN, AND THIS BENEFITS THE ENTIRE ECONOMY BECAUSE HEALTHY, EDUCATED CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE WORK FORCE. In other words, WOMEN BENEFIT THE ENTIRE ECONOMY IN THE FORM OF HUMAN CAPITAL WHICH IS OUR MOST IMPORTANT NATURAL RESOURCE. And since women PROVIDE MOST OF THE HANDS-ON CHILDCARE, women benefit children AND THE ECONOMY even more by the QUALITY of the childcare they provide. So, it's a fact, women WHO HAVE ACCESS AND CONTROL OF RESOURCES PROVIDE MORE FOR THEIR CHILDREN THAN MEN DO ALL AWAY AROUND.
Polish knight, you are a stupid moron. Obviously, you either haven't read my posts, or you have trouble with reading comprehension. Since, when is women SPENDING MORE MONEY ON THE HEALTH AND EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN IRRESPONSIBLE? The fact that FATHERS, WHO MAKE MORE MONEY, SPEND LESS ON THE HEALTH AND EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN IS WHAT IS IRRESPONSIBLE YOU STUPID ASS. Men paying child support to women is far more beneficial BECAUSE CUSTODIAL MOTHERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO USE IT TO BENEFIT THEIR CHILDREN THAN CUSTODIAL FATHERS.
Fact: Children living with custodial fathers are more likely to be without medical insurance.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-224.pdf
Fact: "This study uses Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study data (N= 1,073 couples) to analyze how mothers versus fathers controlling money affects U.S. children's food insecurity. Results show children are far less likely to experience food insecurity when parents' pooled income is controlled by their mother than when it is controlled by their father or even when it is jointly controlled."
Catherine T. Kenney, Father Doesn't Know Best? Parents' Control of Money and Children's Food Insecurity, Journal of Marriage and Family Volume 70 Issue 3, Pages 654 - 669 (2008)
Fact: Single fathers spend more money than single mothers on eating out, alcohol ,and tobacco, and they spend less on children's education. They also spend a larger portion of their total expenditures on eating out, alcohol, tobacco, and recreation, and a smaller share on children's education.
Ziol-Guest, Kathleen M. A Single Father's Shopping Bag: Purchasing Decisions in Single Father Families, presented atBoston, MA, Population Association of America Annual Meeting, April 2005. Also see: http://www.human.cornell.edu/pam/seminars/ziolguest.pdf Cohort(s): Children of the NLSY79 ID Number: 5042 , pub. by Population Association of America.
Fact: [A]dolescents from single father households are judged by teachers to be less well behaved and to show less effort in class. They also score slightly less than their single-mother counterparts on standardized tests, both verbal and math, and are perceived to be less academically qualified for college. Children raised by single fathers attain on average six months less education.
Downey, D. B., Ainsworth-Darnell, J. W., & Dufur, M. J. (1998). Sex of parent and children's well-being in single-parent households. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(4), 878-893
"I'm sorry to break it to all of you (actually, I am, I wish everyone could all have ice cream and stay up late everynight) but reality is that women can't have equality because they don't really want it. That's just the way it is. Some things will never change. That's just the way it is..."
Yeah, that's why women made SUCH HUGE STRIDES IN EQUALITY IN THE LAST 100 YEARS DESPITE THE OBSTACLES PUT IN OUR PATH BY ASSHOLES LIKE YOU. That's why your on this blog whining about women's equality because YOU CAN'T COPE WITH A CHANGING WORLD. YOU WOULD RATHER THAT WE ALL STILL LIVED IN THE DARK AGES WHERE WOMEN WERE CHATTEL. OTOH, men in general can't cope with the equality issue AT ALL. They want to be "equal parents" without doing ANY OF THE CHILDCARE OR spending their money to benefit their children the way they should. By contrast, women use their money to benefit children, provide the actual parenting and childcare/housework, and still manage to work full-time to support their families.
"More and more of such women are having children out of wedlock and last time I checked it was getting into the 50% range."
And if more men have attitudes like you, it's going to be even higher. It's not worth being married. Dick stated that he's surprised that 85% of men want to get married. Of course, they do. They get free housework/childcare provided AND another person to bring home a paycheck to pay the bills as well as sex. And you guys wonder why women end up having children out of wedlock or leave their husbands? Your both clueless.
Anon
Anon, you throw out statistics from biased sources including the UN and WorldBank. Here's a way of putting it: Most of the countries representing these women in their statistics have women living in poverty and their children along with them. You're asking us to praise the fantastic work women do raising kids we see on late nite TV when they beg for money to keep their kids from starving. Say what you like about men, but not too many male headed households parade their kids around or demand "safe havens" to keep them from dying in their care. And FYI, even the UN says that the most affluent person in the world is the white American woman. So if you're a white woman, then the UN says you have too many goodies. Share them with us please....
A statistic such as 90% of the women's money going to their children is so dishonest that it undermines ALL of your other claims. Really? Yet, why is there so much money spent by women at shopping malls, on cars, etc? If 90% of their money went to the kiddies, wouldn't they barely have the shirt on their own backs?
Accusing men of sharing less with their families goes beyond insulting to the laughably implausible. Everyone knows that women marry up and that men are the ones who support their families when two parent families exist. If two parents are working, the man will be expected to earn close to or more than the woman and if one person quits, it's the woman. Now you can get statistics to deny that obvious fact, go ahead. Maybe it even convinces a few naive students. But really, does it CHANGE anything? Does it change the fact that even liberal women, as Richard points out, seek to live as far away from single mothers as possible so they don't get attacked in the night? You can deny the nose on your fact, but it isn't going to change the attitudes that NYMOM is protesting against. Even with all these agencies giving women goodies with two hands and at the same time punishing the bad boys that single mothers seek out, it isn't improving their reputation in the media because even the media can't cover that mess up.
PK, the statistics come from the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University and The Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and The Brookings Institution. And actually I misstated it. What their data shows is that only 4% of the children of college-educated mothers are born out of wedlock.
I read a bit of Sylvia Ann Hewlett's book too, but she uses a lot of old data. There was indeed a time in the not-too-distant past when college-educated women were less likely to marry and have children. Today that's no longer true. Today's college graduates are far more likely to marry than uneducated women, and once married are less likely to divorce.
What's essentially happened is that we've evolved what Charles Murray predicted about twenty-five years ago. A cognitive elite of smart men and women who would marry each other and raise successful and productive children together while the rest of society falls further and further behind. It ain't a pretty picture, but hey, it was women who wanted to do it this way.
Anon, I didn't miss your point. Educated women are good for our society and economy but not for the reasons you give.
You're throwing out a deluge of minutia about this and that which mothers and fathers do and don't do and completely missing the larger picture. Which is that educated women MARRY AND BUILD STABLE FAMILIES AND HAVE SUCCESSFUL CHILDREN WHO DO THE SAME. Because they're savvy enough to understand that raising a successful child who can compete in modern society is a monumental task that requires two parents to do it right. Unlike the poor single losers who think they're doing a great job of mothering by raising clean, well-fed and healthy children for the welfare office and the juvenile hall.
THAT'S why we want more educated women.
"Yeah, Dick, shared parenting is so much better for kids:"
Anon, you can find all kinds of studies that say this that or the other form of custody is better for kids. I can too. But according to the Washington State Parenting Act Study, which analyzes the data from numerous different studies, the truth most likely is that there is no particularly significant relationship between the type of custody arrangment and child outcomes.
What the experts DO agree on, however, is there is a huge relationship between divorce and single parenthood and child outcomes, and it isn't good.
Once again, that's why I support shared parenting. It reduces the divorce rate. Along with the little detail of constitutionality.
"That's why your on this blog whining about women's equality because YOU CAN'T COPE WITH A CHANGING WORLD."
Anon, this is too funny. We cope with the changing world just fine, and so do our wives. And so do our kids, who will inherit the reins drive the growth and produce the wealth of this changing world.
Who can't cope? The half-assed "families" that single women cook up and then ask for money from the rest of us to help them "cope."
"And you guys wonder why women end up having children out of wedlock or leave their husbands?"
I don't wonder why. All signs point to most of them just not knowing any better.
Richard
Anon, on a personal level, I chuckled about you calling me a dark-ages asshole. Yet, when I reached my 30's and had a good job, I had biological clock ticker career women lining up around the block to date me! Ahahahahaha! There were liberal, new age sensitive guys that would have been happy to change diapers and be Mr. Equal but they weren't ambitious enough and these women referred to them as LOSERS. I even told these women I don't think they should be allowed to vote and even if it irked them, they sucked it up and took it because they NEED men such as myself.
And that's really what this comes down to. You sound amazingly miserable and hate men and at the same time complain and gripe that they're such "deadbeats." I'm ok with women being helpless damsels in disdress. OK, that's what YOU are! I accept that. I don't pretend that you're equal to me however nor am angry at you for it. You are what you are. Go ahead and try to pretend otherwise and bash me for it.
Hello Richard,
I have another link: www.banderasnews.com/0809/hb-outofwedlock.htm that claims 16 percent of out-of-wedlock children are born to college educated mothers. I'm amazed by that figure. Let me give you an example of how correlation doesn't necessary equal causation: The statistic that married men live longer. Does that mean that married men live longer because of their wife's great cooking OR that men who tend to be more affluent and healthy tend to marry more often than poor, sickly men?
Hewlett's focus wasn't on college educated women, necessarily, but rather high income, successful college educated women. Actually, as time has moved forward during her book and afterwards, the marriage rates for THOSE women have declined precipitiously ALONG WITH (emphasis here) FERTILITY. And that's the missing link (as a neanderthal, I know a lot about those) Maybe fewer children are born out of wedlock to ultra-demanding career women because so many of them don't have children at all and wait too long?
Ironically, I married a college educated woman myself. She's better educated than I am, but I make a lot more. She has a degree she will almost certainly never use. I have a friend who married a chemical engineer and she was a housewife and later got work part-time in data entry. Now imagine... if the resources that went to educating these women went to minority men to help them become head-of-households rather than their women and children on welfare. Imagine... if all these women working at hobby jobs and deflating wages were working part-time close to home and off the roads during rush hour. This faux equality has cost society a lot and what benefits has it given us? Octomom? Women acting a little more slutty? Harpies who screech at their husbands the second he gets home to start doing housechores after he comes home from a 60 hour work week avoiding sexual harassment suits and reverse discrimination policies? Gee, shucks, thanks bunches!
Regarding the ultra-elites: They always married each other and that has been the case throughout history. Nothing new to see here, Charles Murray. Move along. Here's a statistic from Hewlett for you: While half or so of ultra-successful career women were childless, almost none of the men their age were. Care to figure it out? Hint: Men are willing to marry down! They probably marries an MRS degree holder or a woman with a less demanding schedule. But the point is that the women's education didn't make a big positive impact.
I am looking at the larger, larger picture and that's this: It's not "educated women" building these families. Got that? Here's why: It's the MEN who do! IF the men aren't educated, then most of these women won't marry them. Get it? These women's educations are a sign of CLASS but not in the same, er, class (in a different way) that the man's education is. His is a source of income for two parent families, not mere status.
Sadly, more and more of these college educated women are degenerating into the same as the welfare state. I know of several aging career women that trolled to get "accidentally" pregnant and get child-support. It's amazing how the gender roles have reversed with many men seeking to AVOID sex before marriage with such women and take things slow. These women aren't as smart as you might think: Play "find" the profe$$ional man by waiting around to be asked out (into her 30's) and then panic and demand he commit to marriage (or at least children) by the time the dessert tray rolls around on the first date. And yes, I had that happen to me. Several times!
Funny "coping" story for anon regarding college educated women: I crashed a CEO/women's group seminar and the women griped that promotions were being handed out for silly things like long work hours, business results, etc. and that they didn't get help balancing "home and career". The CEO shot right back at them that HE took time off of work to spend with his children and look after the house while his ultra-successful career wife did what she wanted. He enjoyed it but understood that there was a personal and financial cost for both of them and the wife wanted him to go back to work. So that shows that it's not men holding the women back. They want it all, but without the icky responsibilities.
"Actually, as time has moved forward during her book and afterwards, the marriage rates for THOSE women have declined precipitiously ALONG WITH (emphasis here) FERTILITY."
I don't see any evidence that their marriage rates have declined precipitously. According to the Current Population Survey of 2005, a larger percentage of high-achieving women in the 35 to 39 age group have married than uneducated women in the same age group.
High-achieving women aren't any less likely to have children by their early 40's than uneducated women, but they DO have fewer children. IMO that's more than OK.
"Hint: Men are willing to marry down! They probably marries an MRS degree holder or a woman with a less demanding schedule. But the point is that the women's education didn't make a big positive impact."
We're certainly more willing to marry down, but most of us prefer not to! Check out "Half a Century of Mate Preferences: The Cultural Evolution of Values," Journal of Marriage and the Family 63 (May 2001). Back in the 1930, the qualities men wanted most in women were dependability, pleasantness, attractive, chaste, a good cook. Intelligence ranked 11th. Her finances ranked second to last of 18 characteristics.
In 1996, similar surveys show that education and intelligence now rank 5th place, behind love and attractiveness, dependability, maturity, and pleasantness.
One thing that's pretty consistent across the board is that people seek and marry equals.
"Regarding the ultra-elites: They always married each other and that has been the case throughout history."
Sure, but up until recently elite status was mostly a matter of birth and "breeding" and "suitable" marriages were made within that pool of families. Today being elite is far less a matter of birth than of education and achievement. People still want to marry equals, and that means smart high-achievers of both sexes want to marry other smart high-achievers.
Hey, I lived through the dating scene too. I know what I was looking for and what I avoided. No divorcees, no previous kids, no liberals or radical feminists. Smarts and education and a sense of responsibility required. In my mid-thirties I found a woman of comparable age who was all of that. Now, thriving family, no complaints.
"Imagine... if all these women working at hobby jobs and deflating wages were working part-time close to home and off the roads during rush hour."
Sure, it would be great if half the labor pool disappeared so that unemployment would go away and one salary could support a family again and everyone could have a slower-paced lifestyle. But those days are gone. Most guys no longer want to marry an uneducated woman anyway, and smart middle-classers want their kids to have the best opportunities and that means a nice house in a good school district (or private school) and a college fund to defray the skyrocketing costs of college. All that usually requires two earners, sorry to say.
Richard
Polish Knight,
"Yet, when I reached my 30's and had a good job, I had biological clock ticker career women lining up around the block to date me!"
Oh, in your dreams LOL. I think the loser they were referring to is you.
Well, Dick, your right that we could go on all day with studies saying this or that. However, I think shared parenting is a disaster all the way around, and you don't. That's your opinion. And while I do think two-parent marriages are better, it depends on the QUALITY of the relationship between the parents. Two parent families where the parents are fighting all the time have a worse child outcome than single mother homes. It's as simple as that. Well, I'm leaving again on a business trip out of the country so I won't be coming back to this thread. Maybe next time Dick. Adios!
Adios, Anon. Take care
Richard, comparing marriage rates of high achievers to the ultra-poor and uneducated is an apples and oranges comparison and similar to the red-herring ploy anonymous and NYMOM use to shift blame from single mothers for raising future criminals into poverty such women seemingly find themselves in due to their own personal choices. Plenty of working class women in the past (and today) married and raised healthy, productive children. The fact remains that marriage rates have plummeted ACROSS THE BOARD with middle class women being the least affected and ultra-high income women and ultra-uneducated women sinking to the bottom in that order.
And, with all due respect, I think you're wrong about high achieving women not being less likely to have children by their early 40's than uneducated women. Just the opposite, actually. Uneducated women, especially those on welfare, have a stronger motivation financially and personally to have children early than ultra-successful women will who put off marriage in the hopes of finding Mr, er, DR right! (Hmmm, Dr. Right. That would make a great title for a James Bond film parody, don't you think?)
Even if you're ok with ultra-successful women having less children, the demographics of the situation is harmful to society and undermines, in Darwinistic fashion, women's equality. Ultra-successful men are historically (literally) known for having lots of kids and their children carry on their vision in their own business and social enterprises. We have statues everywhere to great men for achieving great things not only for men, as a demographic group, but for humanity. These men's legacies live on also in their children. Ultra successful women, like the fabled scrooge, get all their goodies divided by their chinese orphan children or their attorneys and the rest auctioned off and that's the end of them.
Certainly, I PREFERED to marry up, where reasonable, but usually it was not. Hmmm, there's a thought: We often hear how women's golddigging impulses supposedly make them more practical than men, but how many women complain in divorce court that their surgeon husband didn't pay enough attention to her or that their CEO husband was always away at board meetings? Men not only produce income but we also make balanced personal choices. Aren't we amazing? Anyhoo, I think you're mistaking education for social class and common interests. In addition, middle and upper class women WERE educated back in 1930. They were called "finishing schools" and taught such things as basic manners, etiquette, home economics (including how to balance a checkbook), etc. It's amazing that some of the worst mannered and least financially stable women I met were highly educated workaholics and party animals. Outside of those two things, they weren't terribly interesting, quite frankly. The same applied for many men, of course, but the men shared their income with their family while the woman's income was literally mad money (used for her to plan going out the door if the man got too uppity or to blow on more goodies such as bigger suburban homes, etc.)
Regarding cultural evolution, consider that intelligence (or the appearance thereof) has become an important status symbol in modern times similar to religious faith was in the 1930's. Our culture is full of people who would rather be smart than successful or even happy! In addition, cooking is further down on the list today perhaps because of the availability of microwaves and instant meals and restaurants. In other words, this cultural evolution where women's "intelligence" seems important isn't due to any real evolution progress between the genders but other factors.
I have to quote you literally here because I laughed my head off: "One thing that's pretty consistent across the board is that people seek and marry equals." What a crock! I'm sorry to be so derisive, but do you know how laughably false that is? People often wind up marrying so-called equals because they SETTLE! The men try to chase after women out of their league or the women wind up settling for a geek like, well, me after they've waited too long for Dr. Right. The very notion of having a list of priorities you list above is indicative of people not seeking out their equals so much as figuring out what they can get with what they have. And THAT'S when people behave rationally.
There's a kind of quantum mechanics in dating where plain looking women get hit on a lot by low self-esteem men (which is most of them in this culture) because they don't want to risk rejection AND those women also tended to be the most demanding and often angry that they only got losers to ask them out. I found that the ultra-attractive women were often the most well adjusted and easy to talk to. I really thought out of the box.
Next, I think you're engaging in a red-herring by pointing out the distinction between family pedigree status and income and political connections. My point, which transcends that observation, is that such people tend to run in the same circles and go to the same films and restaurants, and on the same cruises. It's not due to the men deliberately seeking out "educated" women but rather such women share his experience and background and this is more comfortable than dating a woman from a farm even if her family is as well off as his (or better.) Here's another out-of-box moment: I did date such women and ultimately married one. A woman from a culture literally half a world away from mine. A lot of men, including high educated and financially enabled men, weren't willing to go to those extremes and they wound up with, IMO, very mediocre women. Sure, they know the same films, etc. but I view the challenges of someone from a different background to be very engaging. In addition, she treats me a zillion times better than most American men enjoy. Unlike you, I do have complaints. Not big ones, because I don't think life has to be perfect, but that's my point: American men who play the game and grab one of the few decent women in their 30's are still rolling the dice. Sure, all is great if he brings home the mullah and doesn't get in a nasty fight, and does the right dance, but I would rather hang myself than live life like that, thank you. I call them McRelationships. Ironically, they're more choreographed than the 1930's mating rituals and arranged marriages in the east but without the honesty those cultures have.
Your statement "those days are gone" comes across as a bit youthful and naive. It's like kids saying that old fogeys don't have anything to teach them and that they have microwaves and then the power goes out. No kidding, I had to explain to a kid that was starving that soup could be cooked by GAS when the power is out! Before you toss these old notions out the window, consider that women's equality only appears to function because of a massive welfare state and anti-male bureacracy that drags the rest of society down with it. People thought the Soviet Union was going to be around forever too.
Your closing paragraph reminds me of an old mid-20th century expression: The rat race. The shrinking middle class should work both their fannies off to earn a lot of money to put both their sons and daughters through college and hope that the son doesn't drop out (which kills his chances) or the daughter doesn't become TOO successful (and wind up childless) and if he gets uppity his wife will kick him out to the street. Why, thank heavens the bad old days are gone and we have this great equality, yes? What progress! On the other hand, a single high earner and a part-time worker can get by with less (no daycare costs, etc.) and lower taxes (keep paying them for us, thanks!) and send their sons to college (preferably oveseas) and daughters to less expensive finishing schools and have both of them marry and have families. We'll see which system works better in the long run, won't we?
Anon, to paraphrase Obi Wan Kenobi (yes, I know, geek alert), if aging career women had to date losers such as myself out of desperation, what did that make them?
It's amazing, Richard, that people who claim to "care" about the environment so much and carefully put their soda cans in the recycling bin can't seem to figure out that if society punishes hard working men with alimony, "child" support and taxes to fund a welfare state that there will be a shortage of childless, non-indebted, profe$$ional men in their 30's just as these women are looking to settle down.
It's like a cowboy getting drunk and shooting at buffalo for fun during the day and then, at night, when he gets hungry, there are none of them around to provide fresh meat. What's going on?!?!
"Uneducated women, especially those on welfare, have a stronger motivation financially and personally to have children early than ultra-successful women will who put off marriage in the hopes of finding Mr, er, DR right!"
That's one reason why they have MORE of them. They're not more likely to HAVE them at all. Educated women are just as likely to have them but they have fewer because they marry and get started later, and even if they start early they want their kids to be successful and thus won't have more than they feel they can properly educate. Underclass women don't have those concerns.
"In addition, middle and upper class women WERE educated back in 1930. They were called "finishing schools" and taught such things as basic manners, etiquette, home economics (including how to balance a checkbook), etc."
C'mon PK, quit kidding me! Finishing school? You call that education? It was nothing that their mamas couldn't have taught them at home if they hadn't been too busy with their social obligations. It required no intelligence, no talent, and was irrelevant to marriage. Girls of the "finishing school" class were just as easily married off whether they went or not. It was a matter of family connections.
If it was irrelevant then, it's a joke today. I mentioned what you said to my wife and she told me something I didn't know about finishing schools. She attended a private high school with a lot of rich kids, and she actually knew a few girls who were sent off to finishing school. She said none of them had the smarts or the inclination to do well in college, weren't very well-adjusted, and were sent to finishing school to keep them busy and out of trouble while their parents felt out a decent marriage for them. In other words, an upper-crust holding tank. Think I want that for my daugher? Uh, no. I'd rather she go to a real school and become just like her mom and marry a guy just like me. ;-)
You said: "We often hear how women's golddigging impulses supposedly make them more practical than men, but how many women complain in divorce court that their surgeon husband didn't pay enough attention to her or that their CEO husband was always away at board meetings?"
You also said: "....and send their...daughters to less expensive finishing schools and have both of them marry and have families."
I say: the latter sounds like a perfect candidate for becoming the former.
"Your statement "those days are gone" comes across as a bit youthful and naive."
Forty-five this month. Still youthful I hope.
Regarding those "quantum mechanics" of dating...perhaps you had more dating experience than I did because I'll admit to having wasted a good deal of time in my 20s in comfortable but going-nowhere relationships. But your description just doesn't sound like what I remember. Women in their 30s with educations and careers were no more or less pleasant, demanding, difficult, or you-name-it than any other women.
They WERE a little short on free time, and yes some were a little more interested in getting on with the business of starting a family but so was I by then. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, the wife and I were in the interesting position of ME trying to get HER to commit to having kids because by then she had discovered that there are a lot of things to do with life besides raising children.
What's your great alternative, after all? There were a lot of 30ish divorced women with kids out there about the time I met my wife and I avoided them like the plague. But who were they a decade before? Young, probably attractive women with little ambition and not much on the ball, and some poor joe thought they were "unspoiled" so to speak and would be a good bet to start a family with. Then she decided they had "grown apart" and she "needed to find a soulmate" or she "felt unappreciated" or any other crap that people who never learned what the hell life's all about tend to come up with.
How many women who've actually achieved something when they marry end up pulling this stunt? The statistics say not very many, and they ring true to what I've seen.
"American men who play the game and grab one of the few decent women in their 30's are still rolling the dice. Sure, all is great if he brings home the mullah and doesn't get in a nasty fight, and does the right dance, but I would rather hang myself than live life like that, thank you."
We're ALL rolling the dice, pal, you no less than me. Because the problem isn't women, who aren't any better or worse than we are, but a system that gives women rights without responsibility. That kind of set-up can bring out the worst in even the best women.
Yeah, we get rational when we pick a woman from the group proven LEAST LIKELY to crap out on her responsibilites (and we've already seen what group that is) and then decide if having a family is worth the remaining risk. For some guys the answer is no. For me it was yes. It's been a good many years and don't think I was wrong.
"Before you toss these old notions out the window, consider that women's equality only appears to function because of a massive welfare state and anti-male bureacracy that drags the rest of society down with it."
If I seem to "toss them out" it's because I don't see them going anywhere. The generation now entering productive adulthood takes female equality for granted, young women are showing less of their mothers' old expectation of being supported by their husbands. And fewer young men are interested in supporting them, too. Think that's going to change? I don't.
What I think MIGHT happen in the short term is that in the face of inescapable reality the old fantasy of women's moral superiority and lesser ability will die a long-overdue death. Thus women's responsibilities will finally catch up with women's rights.
But in the long term, I dunno, I think the western world will go the way of Islam.
Richard
Hello Richard. For starters, I'll reiterate that there is a distinction between less educated women (and men for that matter) with mere high school or trade school educations and welfare recipients or the ultra poor in a category all on their own. In addition, working class men earning a decent living such as plumbers or even landscapers often do a better job contributing financially to their families (or starting families for that matter) than aging career women who either don't marry because Dr. Right doesn't roll along or insist upon a higher consumption lifestyle thereby making the double income go less far.
You aren't telling me anything I haven't already said. I'll repeat: "educated" women (as I think you define them) tend to be more responsible than the welfare or ultra-poor underclass but that isn't saying much since many of the upper income women are jumping on the unwed mother bandwagon from sleeping around with foolish men to try to get child-support from them. (and that scam is working less effectively as the wealthy saps avoid it.)
It's funny that your objections to finishing school as just a matter of family connections is PRECISELY the same point I made about MRS degrees at college! Indeed, a woman with a women's studies or English Lit degree isn't really going to make a big difference in society or the family income and you know it. In addition, while you scoff at finishing school a lot of them taught manners and etiquette that are solely lacking in women today and undermine their ability to get married. Hint: Treating men with ambivalence isn't a turn on. If you want men to stick with you after a third date, try cooking a home cooked meal and that doesn't mean something out of a microwave. It's funny that these women love to watch shows such as Martha Stewart and the Food Channel when finishing school would have given them those same skills! Do you really think a TV Studies course at an expensive school is really that different than finishing school?
In addition to finishing school, there are also trade schools that are a lot cheaper than college and get women jobs that will pay about as much as what most college educated women wind up with. Why send a daughter to English Lit at an Ivy League University for $200K when a $15K associates degree in paralegal studies will make her MORE money in the long run? Hey, I don't want to be insulting (you did bring up your personal life) but you can bust a moo sending your daughter to such a school but the chances of her marrying, statistically, a guy like you are now about a coin flip. At best. And the older she gets the worse the odds are. Note: I never said that women shouldn't work, ever. Just that they should be realistic about their expectations and respecful of the demands they make of men.
My point about women's impracticality in choosing a mate for money and then complaining when he isn't at home more applies just as much to career women as it does to finishing school girls. If not moreso. And you know it. The more a woman makes, the more she'll demand her husband make. A plumber's income which would have satisfied the "finishing school" or tradeschool girl will be viewed as a loser by an aging career woman with a six figure salary seeing her dating options (and fertility) shrink by the day.
Other than it failing miserablely and totally artificial, women's equality is doing just great though.
I think you are still very youthful and naive in that you buy into this women's equality stuff despite all evidence around showing how it doesn't work. Women could only compete with special goodies and treatment that were given by upper class men to get their sons through school and into a corporate board positions. I chuckled at the left bashing GW Bush as a spoiled, stupid rich kid who needed to be handheld his whole life. Doesn't that apply to nearly ALL career women? And now the career women are winding up having children out of wedlock or going childless because there are less wealthy men available and THEN griping that the men don't do housecleaning. The hypocrisy is flabbergasting.
Whether you noticed, or not, PEOPLE (not just women) in their 30's are in a different place than in their 20's. Many of them are married, those who are single often have kids from a previous, but failed, marriage. The men are hitting their stride in their careers (or seeing them bottom out.) The 30's is a time of reckoning where the party is literally over. Simply because you don't live in New Orleans doesn't mean the Mardi Gra didn't happen. The statistics and social trends are pretty clear and obvious and if you didn't see them at the same level as I, and most men and women, did then good for you. I consider it fortunate when I turn on the TV and see a tornado that didn't hit my home. But that doesn't mean I deny that tornados exist.
Regarding nothing being wrong in your view with women in their 30's rushing to have kids. It's funny that you said your wife didn't want to rush to have kids because my wife is the same way. On this blog, we hear about how women are going to threaten to stop making babies and yet my traditional wife is less of a rush to have one than career women I met were. My concern about biological clock tickers was that of trust. There's nothing wrong with sex, either, but women aren't turned on when it's clear that the man is pushing for her to have it as soon as possible. I worried that their reasons for having children so quickly was clouding their judgement and integrity and in many cases, I was right. These women didn't get along well with men for most of their lives so it's possible they would divorce their husband soon after getting their prize. That's all. In addition, it wasn't just my wife that wanted some time to relax before having children. It was nice to be married for 5 years and have time for us to honeymoon, get to know each other beyond the dating/courtship scenario, etc. That was possible because she is 10 years younger than me.
I appreciate your point about the women with kids both in their current situation AND what they were like in their 20's. Something to consider is that these women comprise only 1/2 of women who marry young. Think about it: You were looking at the rejects. That's like judging a TV by the open boxes returned to the store. (Some of those are great deals though!) On average, therefore, 50% of the great women in their 20's were a lot better than the 90% of unwed, childless women in their 30's. They were single FOR A REASON just as the divorced women were divorced FOR A REASON.
In addition, and I hate to poke blame at our fellow men (since so many feminists and entitlement queens will do that for us), but many of them weren't ready to marry. Hell, _I_ wasn't ready to marry in my early 20's.
My great alternative, "after all", is that instead of a minority of men feeling "lucky" that they aren't divorced and out on the street or working 80 hours a week to keep the socialist fake-equality illusion going, maybe we could have most women married and off the highways during rush hour and the welfare state a fraction of it's present size and women and men a hell of a lot happier. Note: I'm not saying that ALL men and women will be PERFECTLY happy. Just better off than this social experiment mistake. THAT IS ALL!
You ask: "How many women who've actually achieved something when they marry end up pulling this stunt? The statistics say not very many, and they ring true to what I've seen." I just love it when someone makes unsupported statistics claims and nebulous ones at that. "Not very many" What the hell doesn't that mean? 1? 2? 10? 100? Not very many such statistics turn out to be true... statistically. Seriously. I found in my personal observation that such women had a difficult time marrying not only because they priced themselves out of the market but also because they were very independent and ready to run off at a moments notice. Maybe they might settle down and get more reasonable after marriage, but I didn't want to take that chance.
Here's some food for thought for you: As you have just picked holes at the choices of other men and these women who got divorced and you met, consider that these men usually followed the same game plan you did: Earn good money, say the right things, don't forget to flash money, and don't be too sexist. You got LUCKY. Good for you, but as Neitzche put it, luck is with the man who doesn't include it in his plan. I didn't.
You claim: "We're ALL rolling the dice, pal, you no less than me." I will respectfully say, speak for yourself. I appreciate your point about the system being mostly at fault, but I chose to live my life very differently than most men including yourself. I don't buy into the same paradigms of the system even as I decry them. The fact is that you have to give women rights without responsibility in order for them to appear "equal" because that's the only way that their double dipping lifestyle can work.
You said: "If I seem to "toss them out" it's because I don't see them going anywhere. The generation now entering productive adulthood takes female equality for granted, young women are showing less of their mothers' old expectation of being supported by their husbands. And fewer young men are interested in supporting them, too. Think that's going to change? I don't."
Listen, I'm about your age and in my generation I've seen that when succe$$ful career women have lowered their expectations, a little, (they don't insist upon men supporting them fully) but they still insist he earn in the same class as them. Many men can't do that. This then creates a paradigm where everytime a succe$$ful man doesn't marry due to the risks you mention, a succe$$ful woman will go childless or unwed motherhood. In the meantime, pressures on the middle class increase as more and more of the poor breed for profit due to the welfare state. Do you think THAT story is going to have a happy ending? That suddenly, career women will start being as reasonable about money in men as men are in women? That's what REAL equality is! And until women stop viewing work as a hobby, you're going to see the system trash men because that's what is needed to make that fiction work.
You close by saying that you think western society may be taken over by Islam. That seems about as constructive as someone saying that if Jim Jones isn't the greatest leader around, they'll drink cool aid. I'm only proposing something that has been known to work for eons, with some modifications for basic rights, instead of an unsupportable equality that you cling to even as you know it will fail. Who is on more solid ground?
"Hey, I don't want to be insulting (you did bring up your personal life) but you can bust a moo sending your daughter to such a school but the chances of her marrying, statistically, a guy like you are now about a coin flip. At best. And the older she gets the worse the odds are."
How do you arrive at this conclusion, PK?
There was a time when that was true. Around the turn of the century an educated woman had only about a 50/50 chance of marrying and having children. Those odds have improved steadily over the last hundred years and now the most recent data we have, the 2005 CPS, shows that women with advanced degrees or high earnings are just as likely to be married as any other group of women and are more likely to be married to men with advanced degrees or high earnings.
78% of these women ages 36-40 have kids, the same percentage as all other married women who work full-time.
"And until women stop viewing work as a hobby, you're going to see the system trash men because that's what is needed to make that fiction work."
That's what I'm talking about, PK. Fewer young women are seeing work as a hobby. I'm not talking about women of our generation but women who are just starting out.
"On average, therefore, 50% of the great women in their 20's were a lot better than the 90% of unwed, childless women in their 30's."
What's your basis for that conclusion?
"consider that these men usually followed the same game plan you did: Earn good money, say the right things, don't forget to flash money, and don't be too sexist."
That wasn't my game plan. When I met my wife in the course of a mutual hobby, I earned good money but didn't flash it (I actually lived in a one-bedroom apartment and drove a used Honda) and I doubt that I said all the right things since I was just like I am around here. ;-)
"Not very many" What the hell doesn't that mean? 1? 2? 10? 100?"
A woman who is over 25, has a college degree, and an independent income have only a 20% (some studies find as low as 16%)probability of her marriage ending in divorce; a woman who marries younger than 25, without a college degree and lacking an independent income has a 40% probability of her marriage ending in divorce.
"Not very many such statistics turn out to be true... statistically."
Got a better way of finding the facts? You say you observed one thing, I observed another.
"I found in my personal observation that such women had a difficult time marrying not only because they priced themselves out of the market but also because they were very independent and ready to run off at a moments notice. Maybe they might settle down and get more reasonable after marriage, but I didn't want to take that chance."
Careful, PK! You're going to have the girls around here screaming that men ARE intimidated by strong independent women, after all! Which is bullshit in its purest form.
Independence has jack to do with it. As long as we have a system where women's irresponsibility is rewarded, a "dependent" woman can always find someone or something else to "depend" on. What matters is a sense of responsibility, and I don't know about you but a woman who's been to school, lived some life, achieved something and taken care of herself just DOES tend to be more responsible and realistic than a "finishing school girl" (I think we've just coined a new buzzword here!) who never did any of that and might wake up one day a couple of kids later and decide she needs to find herself or find a soulmate and knows she can stick poor old outgrown husband with the tab for it.
"maybe we could have most women married and off the highways during rush hour and the welfare state a fraction of it's present size and women and men a hell of a lot happier."
How do you propose to do that, PK? In the face of current demographics and trends, how will you convince educated parents to stop educating their daughters so much and marry them off early so they don't get too "independent?"
I'm the father of a daughter and you'd have a hard time convincing me.
I'll write more another time about Islam and dropping birth rates but no time right now.
Richard
"My point about women's impracticality in choosing a mate for money and then complaining when he isn't at home more applies just as much to career women as it does to finishing school girls. If not moreso. And you know it."
No, PK, I don't. A woman who's done it herself expects those time crunches and understands them and works around them. A "finishing school girl" will whine about how bored and "neglected" she is. And if she's young enough to figure she has reasonable prospects in the remarriage market, and not experienced or savvy enough to understand the impact her decision will have on her children if there are any, what's stopping her from emptying the joint account and bailing? Wash, rinse, repeat.
"I chuckled at the left bashing GW Bush as a spoiled, stupid rich kid who needed to be handheld his whole life. Doesn't that apply to nearly ALL career women?"
I don't know but I haven't seen any reason to think it does. It didn't apply to my wife, at least. She's a professional and nobody pulled any strings for her because her family didn't have the money or connections to pull any. She earned scholarships, worked hard, and was taken seriously and treated respectfully by those she came in contact with because they all knew she was there to take care of business. Which is why she has no patience with radfem nonsense about sexual harassement and good ol' boy networks and glass ceilings and wage gaps and crap like that.
My baby sister is also a professional who did it on her own hard work and smarts. And married down, BTW, not in her 30s but in her 20s.
"And now the career women are winding up having children out of wedlock or going childless because there are less wealthy men available."
A few are, the majority are not. In the case of having children out of wedlock, the OVERWHELMING majority are not. They leave that to the trailer trash. The few who do it are getting a disproportionate amount of media attention these days because they're such freaks. Even their own peers snicker at them.
"On average, therefore, 50% of the great women in their 20's were a lot better than the 90% of unwed, childless women in their 30's. They were single FOR A REASON just as the divorced women were divorced FOR A REASON."
Whichever group is "better," the fact is that by their early 40s those unwed childless women in their 30s will be just as likely to be married as those "great" women in their 20s and will be less likely to divorce.
Look, PK, you married a younger woman and I guess it's working out well for you so far. So good for you. But by the time I reached my early thirties I just didn't see any women in the early twenties age group that appealed to me.
They were attractive, yes, but to put it bluntly many were quite silly and flighty and obsessed with things I had never heard of and/or had no interest in.
Maybe I was flakier at that age too and don't remember it but when I was ready to marry I was looking for more of an equal. In age, in education, in experience. So were most of the guys I knew who weren't already married. No shit here. That's the way it was.
That I ended up with everything I wanted wasn't pure luck. I took a wife from the most solid and promising category of women. I know damn well there's always an element of risk but you're fooling yourself if you think you've completely insulated yourself from it, pal.
"You close by saying that you think western society may be taken over by Islam. That seems about as constructive as someone saying that if Jim Jones isn't the greatest leader around, they'll drink cool aid."
The reason that I think the western way of life might fall to Islam is because the existence of effective contraception, coupled with our affluence, has changed the game rules completely. For the first time in history we can have sex without reproduction.
Where reproduction is not the necessary outcome of sex, a large proportion of people will choose not to bother with raising children. Unfortunately these are usually the same class of people who do the best job at childrearing. And not just women but men too. Maybe men even more. Why should they bother, after all? In many ways it's a thankless job and for those with means there are many other pleasant and fulfilling activities to spend your life on.
That all makes for a dwindling upper and middle class birthrate over the long term. Europe is a lot farther down this road than we are but I don't know what's to stop us from following.
The underclass will continue to breed right along because they can't do anything else, most of them out of wedlock, but generally they don't turn out kids who do society much good.
At the same time we've got an eastern patriarchal religion and culture that's growing and spreading like wildfire and is characterized by higher birth rates.
So what do you do to stop it? You can't make people procreate.
I'm open to ideas.
Richard
Richard asked regarding my claim of his daughter marrying being a coin flip: "How do you arrive at this conclusion, PK?" I could ask the same thing Richard. You didn't provide a URL for your claim that educated women at the turn of the 20th century were having a coin flip chance of marrying. I wish anon was around because the very existance of such women at the time shows that women didn't need feminism to become educated. Woo hoo! Seriously, what do you mean by "educated". Are schoolteachers educated? It was my impression that such women had an easy time marrying since they were considered to be valuable members of the community and their jobs had very easy hours.
I like to go to a source that will be somewhat biased in the opposite direction from my conclusions for my statistics. Does Women's Enews fit the bill? www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1777/context/archive This article claims that educated women are LESS likely to marry than a woman with a high school diploma (but they say that gap is shrinking.) So I was right and you were wrong! Woo hoo! In addition, they claim that women are less likely to marry overall (thanks feminism!) This is an article from 2004 and they were projecting into 2010 so it would be interesting to find a more recent article to see how things went. In addition, here's another reference to a source of the debunked study that claimed that women in their 40's had a similar chance of being attacked by terrorists as getting married: www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977307194
To show I'm fair, saying your daughter has a coin flip chance of getting married, based upon from what you have told me about how you'll raise her, is probably pessimistic based upon the statistics I have seen. Apparently, the odds from the first study claim a rate of about 90% or so. However... note that this doesn't imply that the women will be married in their 40's because, as you and I know, plenty of young women had starter marriages and were divorced (even multiple times), by their 40's. That leads me to the next question from you about how I base my conclusion that most single women in their 40's are of lower quality than single women in their 20's.
The answer is obvious and I already explained it. I don't mean to be obnoxious, but I would like you to reread my comment. I'll explain, again: When you have a market goods, and dating works much like a market, then a wider variety of goods early on will have more quality than the shop groped stuff at the end of the line. This goes for both genders. Hell, I'll even say it applied to me! By paper standards, most women didn't think I was much of a catch. I'm short, didn't earn a lot of money, and didn't play their little games. I was the Nintendo64 of the Christmas dating world. But... as time went by and the supply of non-child-support paying, profe$$sional, tall men dried up, they had to come to me.
You claim: "That's what I'm talking about, PK. Fewer young women are seeing work as a hobby. I'm not talking about women of our generation but women who are just starting out." I honestly can't speak for these women. Most of them will claim they don't see work as a hobby, but the fact is that most of them judge men as income providers while not demonstrating their own income worthiness (she dosn't foot the bill for a date) and most young men and women tell me this is still the case. I think things might have loosened up, a little, but the basic paradigm has changed little in 100 years!
Don't sell yourself short (regarding saying and doing the right things). If you paid for a date, then you flashed it. One woman on the washingtonpost style page said she got turned on by a man pulling out his wallet to pay for a date the way men get turned on by breasts. You may be radically unPC by the standards here, but overall I'd say you're a softee (but I'm hardcore, granted.) You reject the radical excesses of feminism but still buy into the basic unconcepts even if you don't provide a way to show they are workable. The fact remains that educated women's illegitimate child rates are catching up to welfare mothers.
You claim: "A woman who is over 25, has a college degree, and an independent income have only a 20% (some studies find as low as 16%)probability of her marriage ending in divorce; a woman who marries younger than 25, without a college degree and lacking an independent income has a 40% probability of her marriage ending in divorce."
I looked it up on google (31.415926535% of statistics can be found there...) Here's a URL: www.divorcereform.org/nyt05.html
What it says is that 16% of these marriages don't end in divorce WITHIN THE FIRST 10 YEARS. Using lifetime statistics, they project it at 25%. They project non-college graduates divorcing at 50%. That said, however, your overall point is intriguing (I want to make sure it's not bogus like the women dying from terrorism rather than marrying and women being beaten on superbowl sunday claims). On the other hand, forbes published a story that claimed that women who outearn their husbands are more likely to divorce them. This is like publishing a story that the earth revolves around the sun... in Galileo's time. It's obvious but highly unPC. Forbes has pulled the story from what I can tell. What this means, ergo, is that as more women outperform their men then their divorce rates will skyrocket.
Richard says: "Got a better way of finding the facts? You say you observed one thing, I observed another." It wasn't just about what you or I observed, you cited statistics. While I have found some of what you said intriguing, I have shown that you were just plain wrong. I also concede that my off-the-cuff statistical guesses were also wrong. But overall, my main point is correct in that ALL women are seeing marriage rates and childbirth within marriage fall.
Richard says: "Careful, PK! You're going to have the girls around here screaming that men ARE intimidated by strong independent women, after all! Which is bullshit in its purest form." What I like about that expression is that it says as much about the woman making the claim as much as the men they're belitting. Women claim not to like "bad boys" but rather 'confident' men. Men who are strong, but use that strength in a manner to PROTECT women. By the same token, when a woman is intimidating and harsh, they offer little for the men. These women like to think that men should be happy to live their lives to please her. To work his butt off to compete with her and to help her buy more goodies. This is like men thinking that women love a slob because it gives her more stuff to clean up and enjoy housework.
I'm going to repeat, again, that there aren't only TWO types of women out there: "Finishing school girls" who are all totally helpless and ready to go on welfare, or PhD candidate women. Even so, my point remains that most men, educated or not, are a hell of a lot more responsible than the average woman, educated or not. The paradigm for equality for women is that every woman has to have a PhD and $100K a year before they think about paying their water bill. OH, and make sure that Obama gives them free daycare, healthcare, and 2 years paid leave off too while the men do the real work. How do you think that's going to work out? And you think that's "equal responsibility?"
I propose: "maybe we could have most women married and off the highways during rush hour and the welfare state a fraction of it's present size and women and men a hell of a lot happier." And you respond: "How do you propose to do that, PK? In the face of current demographics and trends, how will you convince educated parents to stop educating their daughters so much and marry them off early so they don't get too "independent?""
Good question! Here's my answer: I don't have to convince them. It's called REALITY! Let me use an analogy for a moment: The real estate market. Did you know that real estate ALWAYS goes up? That it's an unfallable bet? That they aren't making anymore land and therefore buying a home is a guaranteed win? Didja know? I sure heard that 5 years ago because they said since the price went up, it would ALWAYS go up! STatistics don't lie! I saw these parents in this area buying 2 bedroom condos for their daughters at a million bucks a pop. Lemmings and sheep are so smart, right?
Get the point? If they want to work their butts off to put their daughter through college, go right ahead. _I_ will send my son to school, as I said, or even away (the schools here are shabby) and the daughter to tradeschool and become a paralegal. She can marry a lawyer in her 20's while the career women maybe marry bad boys that turn them on and divorce in their 40's and find the good lawyers are married off. The son will make good money and... marry a paralegal. See how that works?
Which plan sounds more workable? Get all women bachelor degrees and hope that they find men who are similar situated and hope the welfare state doesn't blow up out of proportion or what I just suggested?
I wish I hadn't mentioned finishing schools because you're now generalizing that all non-bachelor degree women are either finishing school, on welfare, or working for minimum wage. Anyways, I have a funny anecdote for you. I met a woman at a wedding whose a 40 year old lawyer and she complained to her brother in law (my friend who was getting married) that, get this, eek, she only wanted to date lawyers (because she's "traditional" you see) and they were too busy to be liberated and help her with cooking and cleaning (traditional when it suits her, and liberated when it suits her. What's hers is hers and what's his is hers.)
So, get this, she was thinking about hitting the sperm bank and having a baby because she was too busy to date such men and so why not have a kid on her own? Heaven knows, they don't require much work! Yes, this was her thinking! Thank GOD she didn't go through with it for some reason. Darwin would be proud!
Richard, honestly, didn't you read Anon's rants about how awful men are for not helping around the house enough? Do these women sound reasonable and understanding when a man comes home from his job to get laundry and childcare dumped on him? Amazing!
I have met conservative career women who really are intelligent and hard working, but the fact remains that they get special privileges us men don't whether they agree with them in principle or not. Men need not apply for many positions and the HR department doesn't say it directly but they advertise in women's magazines and have quotas. On a general level, women's success is due to government mandate rather than their ability. Let's take off their training wheels and then we'll be able to say how well they're doing.
I said: "And now the career women are winding up having children out of wedlock or going childless because there are less wealthy men available." and you responded: "A few are, the majority are not. In the case of having children out of wedlock, the OVERWHELMING majority are not."
When I hear the term overwheling majority, I expect at least 90%. Statistics I found showed that professional women, at best, have only 14% out children out of wedlock (no mention on how many wind up childless.) www.truthout.org/article/more-than-half-young-mothers-give-birth-out-wedlock
Let's pause and reflect upon these stastistics for a moment: More and more children are being born out of wedlock BUT women are getting better educated. Do you see a problem with that paradigm? Imagine, say, if you went to the doctor more and but was getting more sick. Would that imply that going to the doctor more isn't necessarily going to make you better?
Here's what appears to be happening and I think you touched on it on our first exchange: Educated women probably are more likely to be sensible (in a general way) about getting married and having kids on a statistical level (including the class of family they are from) BUT such women shove out men to marry and push the middle and working classes down. It's a zero sum game. At best, the systems works, for now, but it's a pyramid and you know how that works out.
Richard writes: "They leave that to the trailer trash. The few who do it are getting a disproportionate amount of media attention these days because they're such freaks. Even their own peers snicker at them." I came from that background, FYI, and we weren't freaks. Yes, lots of trailer trash but most of the bad bad behavior comes from the welfare crowd. You continually generalize that non-degree equals welfare recipient. It comes across as shortsighted and naive. Ironically, some of the biggest freaks come from suburbia such as lesbian man haters, global warming nuts, etc. They're crazy and they have degrees. Yes?
Richard claims: "Whichever group is "better," the fact is that by their early 40s those unwed childless women in their 30s will be just as likely to be married as those "great" women in their 20s and will be less likely to divorce."
Richard, you don't know how statistics work. If 3 out of 10 apples are red and you take out 2 apples which are red, that doesn't mean you can then pick 3 out of the remaining 8 apples and hope to get the same odds. Get it? The first pickers get the best choice in this scenario.
Richard says of the 20something girls: "They were attractive, yes, but to put it bluntly many were quite silly and flighty and obsessed with things I had never heard of and/or had no interest in."
PK responds: Yes, Richard, weren't many of these women "well educated?" Hmmm? I thought that education made them super great. Yes? Hmmm, who said that education didn't make someone interesting or well mannered by default... hmmm, who said that here? Guess! Indeed, educated women in their 20's and 30's, IMO, were often boring and either workaholics who didn't have much to talk about other than their office politics OR bimbo party girls outside of their career. That's the problem. You're confusing education with social class.
Richard says: "Maybe I was flakier at that age too and don't remember it but when I was ready to marry I was looking for more of an equal. In age, in education, in experience. So were most of the guys I knew who weren't already married. No shit here. That's the way it was."
I'm sorry, Richard, but I kind of chuckled there. Do you think women were the same way? That if a guy was rich, for example, and interested in them they would have said: "I want an equal! So I'll instead date Richard. I hate it when men have fancy expensive cars and big houses!" Yes? Whose fooling oneself? I never said I completely insulated myself nor that I was promising a perfect society. Merely that my vision WORKS for most people and is sustainable.
I'll say outright I didn't want an equal. Really. I wanted a gorgeous, great conversationalist, good character, and sensible woman and that's what I got. In addition, I can express myself and she is understanding (by the same token, I have to fulfill her needs and I give her a lot of freedom to express herself too.)
Richard says: "The reason that I think the western way of life might fall to Islam is because the existence of effective contraception, coupled with our affluence, has changed the game rules completely. For the first time in history we can have sex without reproduction."
The condom has been around in it's present form largely since the _1840's_. It is the most effective form of contraception other than abortion. My point is that the notion of most women having to be well educated (and having educated men to marry) is an unworkable social paradigm. The fact that muslims can reproduce in greater numbers in a culture that is self-hating and in so much denial is evidence even to you that women's equality is a farce.
Your point about reproduction being a thankless job is well taken. But at the same time, it was a good job back when women were less educated, by your definition. This is a function of the two parent family you laud, not contraception.
The underclass having lots of kids is a modern function of the welfare state and marxist politics that seeks to destroy society in order for a power grab by it's believers and politicians. It's the political equivalent of a chemical company that dumps PCB's into the river to poison the community and then the CEO moves to another country and lives off the wealth. Thank heavens for women's equality and leftism making our life so much better, eh?
Richard asks: "So what do you do to stop it [radical islam/growing underclass]? You can't make people procreate. I'm open to ideas."
I already gave you the answer. You just don't like it.
Polish Knight: births in western societies have been falling since the 1970/80s...some say it's due to the regulation of abortion. Well that could be true, but I think all these custody fights play a role in the fall as well. Actually US birth rates are declining, immigration is what keeps them higher then other western nations.
I have an article on here about how states with high rates of child support enforcement have lower birth rates as well...although according to your friends states with stricter child support enforcement should be overflowing with single welfare moms pumping out kids for that child support money...
"You didn't provide a URL for your claim that educated women at the turn of the 20th century were having a coin flip chance of marrying."
That's because I didn't get it off the web. It comes from Marriage: A History by Stephanie Coontz, one of my wife's books. It's not my usual cup of tea but it was a somewhat interesting read.
"Seriously, what do you mean by "educated". Are schoolteachers educated? It was my impression that such women had an easy time marrying since they were considered to be valuable members of the community and their jobs had very easy hours."
Educated usually means a four-year college degree or more. Early on schoolteachers didn't need to be "educated" in this sense although they did have to pass a teachers' examination and demonstrate a minimum level of competence. They often couldn't continue as teacherxs after marrying, either, as there were many state and local laws that required these jobs (considered "respectable" for women) to be reserved for single women who had to support themselves.
"What this means, ergo, is that as more women outperform their men then their divorce rates will skyrocket."
Maybe. OR it might mean that women might get more comfortable with outearning their men. It's revolutionary that they find themselves married to lesser-earning men at all.
"This article claims that educated women are LESS likely to marry than a woman with a high school diploma (but they say that gap is shrinking.) So I was right and you were wrong! Woo hoo!"
I looked at the article. In 2004 they estimated that college-educated women were 5% less likely to marry using 2000 data. Now using 2005 data it seems that the gap has disappeared as expected:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/weekinreview/21zernike.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
"The fact remains that educated women's illegitimate child rates are catching up to welfare mothers."
I'm a bit skeptical of the 14% figure your article cited because it's very different from what I keep finding everywhere else. I'm used to seeing 4% or 5%. Nevertheless it will have to increase a lot to catch up with welfare mothers. If it ever does, we can kiss the middle class goodbye, no shit.
"I came from that background, FYI, and we weren't freaks."
You misunderstood me. I didn't say the trailer trash were freaks. I said "single mothers by choice" are freaks among their peers (women with college-educations or better). They're far from the norm, and they don't want to do it unless they're desperate, unlike the lower classes who think it's some kind of a cool thing to do.
"Yes, Richard, weren't many of these women "well educated?" Hmmm? I thought that education made them super great."
Some were, some weren't. It was a matter of maturity.
"Hmmm, who said that education didn't make someone interesting or well mannered by default..."
It doesn't. But it does tend to make them wait longer to marry and to marry other educated people which are marriage-protective factors. Hell, a college-educated 20something is probably just fine for another college-educated 20something.
"You may be radically unPC by the standards here, but overall I'd say you're a softee (but I'm hardcore, granted.) You reject the radical excesses of feminism but still buy into the basic unconcepts even if you don't provide a way to show they are workable."
You nailed me! I'd happily be a "feminist" in the classic sense of the word if it were still all about equal rights and responsibilities. But instead I find that radical feminism has gone so far to the left that it's bumping up against the far right. It now seems to have more in common with Victorianism in its belief in female moral superiority and its constant demand for more goodies and protections for the poor widdle ladies. They claim to hate old gender stereotypes but will milk them for all they're worth. That's what's so entertaining about it.
"I'll say outright I didn't want an equal. Really. I wanted a gorgeous, great conversationalist, good character, and sensible woman and that's what I got."
I think you know what I mean. I wanted AT LEAST an equal. I wanted the same things you mentioned except I didn't require a great conversationalist since I'm not one myself and I might easily bore someone who is. I'm a decent enough looking guy so I tended to attract women who were about the same. It wasn't a big deal.
"Your point about reproduction being a thankless job is well taken. But at the same time, it was a good job back when women were less educated, by your definition."
It wasn't necessarily a good job but it was mostly the only one available. When society was agricultural it was a necessity. When society became urban it began a steady decline (briefly interrupted by the post-war baby boom). In Europe that decline is reaching dangerous proportions. I don't believe you can reverse that without removing contraception, which western democracy won't ever do but Islam sure will.
But when it does you might get your utopia with educated and high-earning men and women in finishing school. Fair enough?
"_I_ will send my son to school, as I said, or even away (the schools here are shabby) and the daughter to tradeschool and become a paralegal. She can marry a lawyer in her 20's while the career women maybe marry bad boys that turn them on and divorce in their 40's and find the good lawyers are married off. The son will make good money and... marry a paralegal."
Well, good luck with that. I hope the paralegal doesn't move one of those bad boys in while your son is working long hours and support him in high style on the massive child support she'll receive because she's only a paralegal and she's sacrificed so much so he could be a lawyer. ;-)
Richard
Hello Richard. I appreciate you at least defining what you mean by educated. I find your definition to be rather condescending (Abraham Lincoln was self-educated, for example, as was Thomas Edison). But hey, I'll concede your point that 'educated" (college educated) women appear to be about as likely to marry as high school educated women. Fair enough for starters?
But you know that's not all, of course (the rest isn't just filler!) As I pointed out, marriage rates overall have been dropping for EVERYONE so saying that college educated women are doing only slightly better, or worse, than a high school graduate or the "uneducated" is hardly a stellar review for educating women, isn't it? On the other hand, educating men makes an obvious BIG DIFFERENCE. Even minor amounts of education makes a bigger difference for men compared to a full blown degree for a woman!
I was about to say that your point that schoolteachers and other "educated" (or not) women lost their jobs sometimes if they were hired is a red-herring but then... I saw a possibility in that: Women who wanted to remain single and without a man in their life had an option and without the massive bureaucracy and culture crushing system that leftism imposed to get the job done. Isn't that a riot?
Saying that it's revolutionary for educated women to marry down "at all" is simply flabbergasting. In order to get these women to that point, society had to put in more of an effort than to eradicate poverty, get a man on the moon, and harness electricity combined (ok, I know I pulled that out of my fanny but toss me a small bone here.) Do you see the point? These women got 6 figure salaries and it's a huge progress to get them to marry a little down? And you dare to refer to them as your equals? And you claim that this demographic trend is going to last long? Hell, we've seen major changes in the past 2 decades and many of them are not that great as we discussed with the growing underclass. It's possible that we've hit some point in one curve that's peaking (career women marrying) and it will go down again (as I pointed out with real estate trends, for example, they go on forever until they don't)
Richard says: "You misunderstood me. I didn't say the trailer trash were freaks. I said "single mothers by choice" are freaks among their peers (women with college-educations or better). They're far from the norm, and they don't want to do it unless they're desperate, unlike the lower classes who think it's some kind of a cool thing to do."
Richard, crack open an NYT sometime. Granted, it's irrelevancy is becoming more clear as it has literally (pardon the pun) gone broke, but the mainstream media and liberal women are gaga, pardon that pun, over unwed motherhood and there's a billion dollar trend for aging career women to use fertility services including unwed mothers. Octomom gave such women a bad name, but I know of a few such women with careers living around here and there. I concede that the statistics indicate things may not be that bad, but these women are really feeling the pressure.
Granted, much of that pressure may be... that they are having to marry down and they are. Perhaps that explains our different perspectives on the matter: You marrying a woman as an 'equal' and getting basic decent treatment probably is a far cry from that of men, well, in my position whom such women treated less enthusiastically. You could flash some dough on the first few dates and they would be polite to you. I decided that even with those statistics you're touting, I still had to be careful. Someone saying that shark attacks off the florida coast are rare, but you would think twice before diving in with a swim with a few just offshore, wouldn't you?
Richard, your language as follows: "It doesn't. But it does tend to make them wait longer to marry and to marry other educated people which are marriage-protective factors. Hell, a college-educated 20something is probably just fine for another college-educated 20something." is dishonest, quite frankly. Women care about income, education, and class more than men. We both know it. And as I pointed out, marriage rates going down across the board and stabilizing somewhat is hardly an endorsement of two educated people being just fine with each other.
Richard writes: "You nailed me! I'd happily be a "feminist" in the classic sense of the word if it were still all about equal rights and responsibilities. But instead I find that radical feminism has gone so far to the left that it's bumping up against the far right. It now seems to have more in common with Victorianism in its belief in female moral superiority and its constant demand for more goodies and protections for the poor widdle ladies. They claim to hate old gender stereotypes but will milk them for all they're worth. That's what's so entertaining about it."
Richard, you sound like someone who raised a pit bull from vicious stock in his basement and is surprised when it goes out and mauls the neighborhood children. Affirmative action has been around for about as long as we have both been alive. Almost none of the goodies for women have been eliminated (in fact, they've been EXTENDED) It's never been about anything other than a goodie grab! Maybe a little smoke and mirrors and some nice feminists "taking one for the team" and picking up a check here and there (and acting, like as you said, it's a big deal for them to do so.) But when a man, for example, does all the dishes, etc. he's told "Well, get all your friends to do it and get back to us."
I talked to normal, educated women and they told me that the plan is THEY would marry up and the rich guy, because they're "traditional" in that sense but they want a guy who will also be "liberal" and cook and clean and share duties too. And OTHER women out there can marry down and do more housechores. It's like Al Gore preaching about global warming while flying around in a private jet and running his A/C on 4 homes at once.
Richard says: "I think you know what I mean. I wanted AT LEAST an equal. I wanted the same things you mentioned except I didn't require a great conversationalist since I'm not one myself and I might easily bore someone who is. I'm a decent enough looking guy so I tended to attract women who were about the same. It wasn't a big deal."
I think you're doing pretty good with conversation here (but I draw that out of people! (I took MANY classes even if it didn't count towards my education!)) Seriously though, if you truly met a woman whose your equal, good for you, but the fact is that I met few women who were for me (and I'm probably not as high up as you are! (another pun!)) Honestly. IMO, most of them got where they were because they had it soft. Their parents paid for their education, or they got a scholarship that was slanted towards women, their social life was pretty easy (they got to go out on dates for free while us men had to scrape up the money), and employers would bend over backwards to hire them and universities admit them.
If you think about it, the advantages your wife and other educated white women had in our lifetimes, compared to us, is about as significant as that between black and white men. I remain unimpressed. That said, tell me something between us, er, boys, er, men: Did you wife foot the tab for the first date or didya split?
Richard says: "[childbearing] wasn't necessarily a good job but it was mostly the only one available. When society was agricultural it was a necessity. When society became urban it began a steady decline (briefly interrupted by the post-war baby boom). In Europe that decline is reaching dangerous proportions. I don't believe you can reverse that without removing contraception, which western democracy won't ever do but Islam sure will."
First, most women didn't just do childbearing. They were "educated" as it were and worked either as single (which was actually a somewhat historically recent innovation by labor unions to try to help raise wages) or worked in the fields or the family business. Yes? But that said, women had more time for such an endeavor because it was easier for them to marry by class and the welfare state didn't reward unwed motherhood.
When Bill Clinton signed off on welfare reform after vetoing it twice, unwed motherhood and poverty motherhood statistics shot down. Apparently, not paying people to bear children out of wedlock had a significant effect!
Richard says: "But when it does you might get your utopia with educated and high-earning men and women in finishing school. Fair enough?"
I emphasized that it wasn't a utopia. But hey, it would be close if we didn't have to dedicate so much of our media to all the problems and concerns of all women including educated ones who think it's awful to do a little more housework and the welfare and criminal underclass left behind by the fake equality.
Really, Richard, let's discuss that for a moment. Looking only at comparing educated women to "non educated" women and saying, well, they're SLIGHTLY better is like looking at a fresh war battlefield and saying, well, at least the K rations for US soldiers are better than the Brits. (Or vice versa, stay with me here!) All the working class and minority men that have been left behind, along with the children and even the women themselves is heart breaking. But hey, a woman getting to pretend to be equal after finally settling for a man who merely earns about what she does makes it ALL worth it, yes? And they say war is insanity. This whole fake equality experiment is a total waste. You know the difference between marxists, feminists, and scientists? Scientists test out their theories on lab rats (and college students) first. Well, we did test ours out first on college students...
PK says: "_I_ will send my son to school, as I said, or even away (the schools here are shabby) and the daughter to tradeschool and become a paralegal. She can marry a lawyer in her 20's while the career women maybe marry bad boys that turn them on and divorce in their 40's and find the good lawyers are married off. The son will make good money and... marry a paralegal."
Richard responds: "Well, good luck with that. I hope the paralegal doesn't move one of those bad boys in while your son is working long hours and support him in high style on the massive child support she'll receive because she's only a paralegal and she's sacrificed so much so he could be a lawyer. ;-)"
Somehow, Richard, I sense some sarcasm there. You don't think massive post-divorce income transfers can't happen between so-called equals? I have heard of a case where two x-ray technicians (yes, the same profession) divorced, she marries new guy, and then becomes a SAH mom. Kaching! I also know of career women who blow the money on boondoggles (diamond rings the size of a grape!) or bigger houses, etc. It's funny, I earn less than many people because I spend my money wisely but the smarter folks who know that real estate ALWAYS goes up, are having problems paying off their McMansion.
I need to make sure that when I pick up one for pennies on the dollar, that they don't have one of those darn atooting homeowner associations. I want to put pigs and chickens in the backyard...
Hello NYMOM. Take this as a compliment, I don't know of too many women with your views.
Anyways, high rates of CS enforcement often go after deadbeats, literally, guys who are dead or broke. Consequently, the supply of sugar daddies dries up for these women and the welfare reform act Clinton signed off helped to discourage a lot of the more sensible poor women from going on welfare.
Obama has suggested eliminating those constraints making having children into poverty a dollar spree extravaganza! However... that's only as long as the economy itself doesn't peter out.
Hello, PK.
"Hell, a college-educated 20something is probably just fine for another college-educated 20something." is dishonest, quite frankly."
I'm not sure why this is dishonest. You called me on why I wasn't especially interested in 20-something women while in my 30s even if they were college-educated and I answered that it was simply a matter of being at different stages of life and maturity. When I was in my 20s myself I liked them just fine.
"That said, tell me something between us, er, boys, er, men: Did you wife foot the tab for the first date or didya split?"
Ya got me again! Yes, I paid for the first date. I also asked for the first date, so I thought that made me the one who was supposed to pay. She often suggested the date and did the paying herself. We're homebodies at heart so as time went on we fell into a habit of cooking at home, me on one night and her on another and then going out for coffee.
"IMO, most of them got where they were because they had it soft."
Well...I had it softer than my wife did because my parents paid for all my my education and that of my sisters. My wife made the most of her high school education by amassing a lot of college credit by examination, then started college on half scholarship based on her SAT scores and high school GPA, and then moved to full scholarship that she retained for two years because of consistent high grades. None of those scholarships were tied to gender, she said. She was awarded only one scholarship that was reserved for women and she got exactly $200 from it. She said it took care of one semester's books.
See why I'd like my daughter to be like her mom?
"...and the welfare and criminal underclass left behind by the fake equality."
Are you sure that the welfare underclass is the result of a fake equality between men and women? It looks more to me like the result of government unsuccessfully trying to equalize CHILDREN born inside and outside of marriage.
IMO, the greatest damage we ever did to marriage was not the adoption of no-fault divorce but the decision to equalize the rights of legitimate and illegitimate children via the equal protection clause.
This completely destroyed the traditional raison d'etre for marriage and while it certainly helped some kids in the short run, it harmed far, far more in the long run by removing many of the prime motivations for marrying.
Why sign on the dotted line when you're going to be assigned the same rights and responsibilities for kids anyway, and when the government stands ready to make sure your kids don't do without even if you don't bother to prepare a proper home for them?
The preservation of traditonal distinctions between legitmate and illegitimate should have been upheld based on the state's compelling interest in preserving marriage. Of course, back then we took marriage so for granted that we had no idea yet how compelling our interest in it was.
We might be able to get rid of the welfare underclass without disturbing "women's equality" at all if we had the stomach to allow unwed procreation to again be the financial disaster it once was. At this point we don't have the stomach to allow such widespread child poverty. I'm not sure I do, either. But removing opportunities for women wouldn't cure this particular problem.
"Somehow, Richard, I sense some sarcasm there. You don't think massive post-divorce income transfers can't happen between so-called equals?"
It's not so much sarcasm as concern for my own son's future. Divorce CAN transfer wealth between equals (especially when we still have a lot of old graybeards on the bench who still believe in June Cleaver) but hell, most states' family codes explicitly state that inequality of earning power between spouses SHALL be taken into account in the division of the marital estate.
When a lawyer and a paralegal go in for a divorce the judge is almost obligated to hand over the lions' share to the paralegal. Are you really comfortable with this?
If current trends continue, probably your daughter will actually end up marrying another paralegal, and your son will probably turn up his nose at one.
"Richard, honestly, didn't you read Anon's rants about how awful men are for not helping around the house enough?"
It seems that Anon had a dad who was useless around the house and with the kids and of course that means we all are and so ipso facto our kids don't need us. Never mind that that we guys today, especially educated men (there I go again!) do a lot more childcare than our dads did and our sons will do more than we did. We'll probably catch up completely about the time that NC mothers have as many child support orders as NC dads, ya think? ;-)
"I need to make sure that when I pick up one for pennies on the dollar, that they don't have one of those darn atooting homeowner associations. I want to put pigs and chickens in the backyard..."
Don't come to our subdivision, then. We don't have any McMansions but still you'd get a note from the homeowners' association if the kids' toys got left on the porch overnight. Some people don't have enough to worry about.
Richard
Hello Richard. My issue with stating 20 something educated people dating in a gender neutral manner is that women still are more concerned about status than men. I don't want to flood with URL's again (for now) but I did a lot of online research and it appears that men are still willing to marry down a lot more than women. It's possible that educated men are marrying a lot more educated women simply because so many of them are available than in the past.
I'm going to keep doing research but it's difficult especially when you and the author you cited stick to recent statistics making a google search all that much more narrow. On the other hand, it does lead me to suspect that when we need up-to-date statistics to look at this trend that this may be due to some secondary statistical causation we hadn't considered (such as baby booms, influx of immigrants with high school diplomas tending to marry and divorce more, etc.) I'm not drawing a conclusion yet, but just saying that it warrants more study and I'm having fun with it.
"Asker pays" is a BS rationalization. When it doesn't apply (such as colleague lunches or on blind dates) the women still expect men to foot the bill. If the women are generally refusing to do the asking out and dumping that on the man as well, it's just lumping one sexist expectation on top of another such as the person who gestates children should also change all the diapers. See? No sexism involved since it's gender neutral!
Richard, your wife saying the grants weren't tied to gender is nebulous. As you well know, they often don't outright prohibit men from applying but say "women and minorities encouraged to apply" in small print at the bottom. I know someone and his wife who worked in HR and admissions and scholarships at a major university and they told me that they quietly would pick out candidates based upon merit (often white men, but also white women) and then would tell them there were "paperwork problems" and would quietly try to find a minority and/or woman to fill the slot (referred to in the industry as a "two-fer".) After 2 months, if they didn't find someone with an acceptable lower set of scores in the latter group, they'd give it to a woman and then maybe to a man as a last resort.
Indeed, consider how your example proves my point: Your parents stepped up which was a function of your family but when someone's family couldn't make ends meet, the establishment stepped in for your wife. Young men in a similar situation probably get told tough noogies more often than not.
Richard asks: "Are you sure that the welfare underclass is the result of a fake equality between men and women? It looks more to me like the result of government unsuccessfully trying to equalize CHILDREN born inside and outside of marriage."
This sounds like a classic case of confusing causation with correlation. The government didn't create a trend of unwed motherhood although it certainly exacerbated the problem, I grant you. It merely treated a symptom of a demographic trend of women winding up single as there were fewer breadwinner men available to marry although this certainly fed into a feedback loop.
I don't think the equal protection clause of the constitution (if that's what you're referring to) is responsible for the illegitimate children legal boom (although that's possible. As you know, the "living document" interpretation means that the great constitution is about as reliable an authority as a burning bush.) That said, I think that paternity suits go hand-in-hand with palimony and the notion of making sure men don't get away with having sex without women being able to make them pay for it in some way. That's largely the rationalization that comes out when I discuss this with people.
Richard asks: "Why sign on the dotted line when you're going to be assigned the same rights and responsibilities for kids anyway, and when the government stands ready to make sure your kids don't do without even if you don't bother to prepare a proper home for them?"
This certainly had a major impact in the welfare state and it was Ronald Reagan who thought that cracking down on so-called deadbeat dads would eliminate the motivation for families to go on welfare (it backfired and it sanctified the welfare mother state.) On the other hand, it also tainted welfare with a reputation for irresponsible motherhood and undermined unwed motherhood in the long run.
Your claim that removing opportunities for women wouldn't cure this problem seems rather specious, don't you think? In addition, it's a very one sided view. I'm reminded of feminism claiming to be a civil rights theology because it seeks equality for women. Well, by that definition EVERY lobbyist is a "civil rights" proponent for their particular cause. Equal rights for oil barons. Equal rights for the milk industry. Equal rights for casino owners. Here's the thing: While giving women equal opportunities has had only a speed-bump effect on marital problems (their divorce rates and unwed motherhood rates are slightly better than high school graduate women, but still awful), giving men more work as women were pushed out would have massive benefits. I chuckled at anon's claim of women giving money to their family (when this is probably because the women didn't need to move out like the men did).
Richard says: "It's not so much sarcasm as concern for my own son's future. Divorce CAN transfer wealth between equals (especially when we still have a lot of old graybeards on the bench who still believe in June Cleaver)"
What's strange, though, Richard is that a lot of these graybeards believe in the notion of women's equality at the same time. It's a paradoxical notion that women are innocent, pure-of-heart maidens deserving of money because they're victims and at the same time xena princess warriers entitled to respect and equality because it was denied to them by men who regard them as, er, helpless victims. We've seen family court bias get worse as time goes by, not better.
Richard claims: "but hell, most states' family codes explicitly state that inequality of earning power between spouses SHALL be taken into account in the division of the marital estate."
I'm chuckling here because a friend of mine was laid off and technically, he should get child-support from his working ex. So I'll wait and see on that. As you just said, court bias shows that a man still gambles no matter what he does although I'll concede that the more money the woman has the better off he probably is. I'll also concede that their divorce statistics, as I have seen from these limited sources, also implies they are safer than high school women at least statistically (with the caveat I mentioned above.)
The problem though is that we live in a culture where women have such an entitlement attitude at ALL levels. "Asker pays. Your new name is asker!" So, granted, high school graduates are often as bad as graduate school women. Generally speaking, women in this culture treat men like men treat women in Islamic cultures. (It's funny how these two cultures are coming to a clash, isn't it?)
I find your notion of making your son "more" safe by going along to get along is a very passive-aggressive stance that a woman might use. Women tend to wait for men to provide leadership to figure stuff out while they take the safest route. So, in a way, many men today are equal to women but not in a good way, IMO.
Richard asks: "When a lawyer and a paralegal go in for a divorce the judge is almost obligated to hand over the lions' share to the paralegal. Are you really comfortable with this?"
I don't know if alimony would be ordered in a case where the paralegal is working and earning a decent income. I'm sure it can happen, but this has occurred, as I said, with any income disparity even between two similarly educated professionals. Aside from that, yes, it will impact child-support. I disagree with the notion of children being exploited as child-support tools or even the notion of compensation alimony when marrying up is a privilege, not a burden, but these issues aren't going away due to equality between the genders. If anything, the legal system is always finding new ways to track down the deer that try to run to a different section of the woods. What if you son has sex with an aging career woman whose on a biological clock ticker route and she decides she wants a kid and CS, but doesn't necessarily want a son around when she's "equal" and independent? I hear of this happening ALL THE TIME. Some career women are even going the route of lying about being on the pill or even sabotaging the condoms.
Richard claims: "If current trends continue, probably your daughter will actually end up marrying another paralegal, and your son will probably turn up his nose at one."
Now THAT'S a declaration with a lot of meat in it! Indeed, if 2006 real estate trends continued then houses would all be worth a million dollars now and the world markets would be doing great. I didn't bet on that horse, though. Trends continue, until they don't. And this particular trend doesn't even imply it's going in that direction.
Unwed mother by choice statistics continue to rise in ALL demographics. It just turns out that the educated women have slowed down a little. That's not digging them out of the hole by any shot. It's like the French putting in speed bumps to slow the panzers down and saying: "Look! We won the war!" There is no indication that men are snubbing lower earning women. It just appears that they have more options and are using them. You and I know that there's a HUGE difference between a woman marrying a man who earns a single dollar less than her or maybe a grad student marrying a man with a mere 4 year degree and outright marrying working class guys or even SAH husbands.
Regarding NC mothers paying child-support. Statistics from the bar association of Texas show that when women are ordered to pay they default and get away with it much of the time. If anything, legal trends show that as women get more goodies, they'll just demand that much more to make up for what men are unable to provide them in the future. That's what national daycare is about: Making men pay for daycare as more and more unwed career women are unable to get a man to foot the bill. You can run, but you can't hide!
Richard says: "Don't come to our subdivision, then. We don't have any McMansions but still you'd get a note from the homeowners' association if the kids' toys got left on the porch overnight. Some people don't have enough to worry about."
My wife had a fight with the association manager in our rented condo and now she's rethinking getting a townhome. We like them because they're cheap, they usually have enough of what we need, and they're usually of good construction. On the other hand, it's like living in the former USSR. Single family homes are going down in price. In addition, I wonder if as the economy worsens whether many associations will just go bankrupt, outright.
"That's what national daycare is about: Making men pay for daycare as more and more unwed career women are unable to get a man to foot the bill. You can run, but you can't hide!"
Ha! More funding for daycare is one of the few "feminist" goodies that I MIGHT support. Because it would help families as much as, or more than, it would help unwed mothers and encourage them to have more children. Yeah, it would be nice if the moms would all "get off the roads" as you put it and stay home so we wouldn't need daycare at all but I don't see it happening.
Interesting thought. What if the unwed moms got free daycare and a job instead of a check? Maybe we could shave the illegitimacy rate a little more.
"That said, I think that paternity suits go hand-in-hand with palimony and the notion of making sure men don't get away with having sex without women being able to make them pay for it in some way. That's largely the rationalization that comes out when I discuss this with people."
"Slut-shaming" in reverse! Amanda Marcotte, are you listening? Consequences is a dirty word when applied to women, but it seems we can't get enough of it when it applies to men.
"What if you son has sex with an aging career woman whose on a biological clock ticker route and she decides she wants a kid and CS, but doesn't necessarily want a son around when she's "equal" and independent? I hear of this happening ALL THE TIME. Some career women are even going the route of lying about being on the pill or even sabotaging the condoms."
Man-o-man, this isn't a hypothetical hazard that's out there in the future somewhere! It's uncomfortably close. High school girls love this game. Our son is right on the edge of adolescence, and we plan to do everything we can do to make him understand that one good screw with a loser can completely wipe out his chance for a good education, a comfortable income and retirement, marriage to a decent woman and legitimate kids he can actually raise.
My wife likes to put it in terms that a teen can understand: If you make a baby, you'll have to give all your money away to a girl and you're not going to have any stuff.
They'll roll their eyes at things like "responsibility" and "morality," but "stuff" is something else.
Richard
Richard, I'm intrigued if you can explain to me how national daycare would "help families" (or namely 2 parent families) more than unwed mothers overall since the taxes to fund such programs would come at the expense of men including fathers and the unwed mothers would qualify. It's similar to the paradigm of working women "helping" to make life easier for men that was promised 40 years ago but turned out that with wage deflation and infrastructure costs, men have to work harder than ever.
I hate to be on NYMOM's side (even indirectly) but not all unwed mothers are on welfare. Many if not most of them work and still get "child" support and other benefits. Adding taxpayer funded daycare would only give them that much more of an incentive to not bother with an icky taxpayer-wageslave-serf, I mean, man. Your proposals only sound like digging us into a hole deeper to get out.
"Slut shaming" has been going on for some time now, especially after the Madonna era, when women viewed acting slutty as empowered while at the same time decrying men as abusers if they looked. It's like a reverse veil: The men are expected to look away and avoid taking advantage of the sex that women throw at them. This is also due to a feedback-loop mechanism that as men are penalized for being sexually aggressive via sexual harassment legislation then they become more passive and the women have to slut it up to get attention that they previously could get with a tight sweater.
Richard, please don't be offended but I would advise you to take your son out to a brothel either to Germany or Eastern Europe. It's truly a mind blowing experience to have sex as an adult experience without feeling a need to put on an act and play a game or worry about what will happen afterwards. Don't get me wrong: I love sex from the perspective of a relationship too, but it's fantastic to not have had my relationship choices driven by my hormones.
I've had some women express disgust at what I did but, by the same token, isn't having to treat women as honeytraps out to trap sperm and exploit babies while at the same time trying to form a strong enough emotional bond to have sex dangerous and filthy as well (but on an emotional level)?
As a side benefit, the ugliest Eastern European prostitute was better looking than most women in the states. Men here were amazed when, in college, I didn't get tricked into putting up with crap from flirtatious women. They were all 7's at best for me so it was remarkably easy.
I wonder when NYMOM is going to start blogging about all the mothers who are murdering their children?
Mothers are not always the best choice for parent.
"I wonder when NYMOM is going to start blogging about all the mothers who are murdering their children?"
Why bother when more fathers kill their children?
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/02/stats-fathers-slightly-more-likely-kill-their-young-children
I happened to run across this blog a few weeks ago, and I can't help but comment when I see all the single mother bashing. There seems to be the idea that all single mothers are alike, and children from fatherless homes are doomed to become criminals. Well, single mothers are not all alike, and when there is a comparison between the different groups-unwed mother,divorced mother, and widowed mother, there is a lot of difference. Guess what? The fatherless homes that do the best are the ones that are truly fatherless-widowed homes. And not only do they do the best, but they are comparable to two-parent families in most childhood outcomes:
The first is that single-mother family structures per se may not be detrimental to children. With the exception of a small effect on the odds of not completing high school, the outcomes of children from widowed single-mother homes are not significantly different than those who were raised by two biological parents. The second is that given a single-mother structure, children whose fathers died do substantially better than children whose fathers moved out of the residential household but (typically) continued some ongoing presence in the children's lives" (539).
http://www.familyscholarslibrary.org/content/readingrooms/jmf/detail/detail.aspx?article_id=244
Why is this? I have to agree with some posters that it has to do with poverty level and parent conflict that a lot of single mother homes have poor child outcomes. Widows are better situated financially than most other single mothers due to social policies, and there isn't any parental conflict.
The fact that some posters seem to think that single mother homes produce criminals because of lack of a father is laughable. I suppose I should tell my son, who never knew his father, that instead of graduating with honors and going to college on a full scholarship, he should join a gang and commit liquor store robberies and drive by shootings. Also, I think divorced mothers and unwed mothers would do just fine if there is little or no parental conflict with non-custodial fathers, and the fathers pay their child support.
Anonymous asks: "Why bother when more fathers kill their children?"
Er, that's not accurate, Anonymous. Did you READ the cite you provided? It claims, and I quote, "But the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in a report covering 1976 through 2005, said that of homicides involving children 5 and younger, 31 percent were killed by their father and 29 percent by their mother."
This statistic only looks at a certain segment of children (under 6 years old) and the difference is a mere 2 percentage points (and no source URL either.) This government HHS website shows that mothers are TWICE as likely to kill children (not just a segment) as fathers: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure4_2.htm
One the reasons why men may be accused in higher numbers of killing infants is because SIDS is often misdiagnosed and the justice system is willing to prosecute men more readily than women. Consider this URL:
http://www.woodmed.com/Shaken%20Baby%20Web%202002.htm
"One of the main reasons for my opinion as to the their innocence is a rather strange pattern that often takes place in hospital emergency rooms, where once a suspicion of SBS or non-accidental injury arises, all thought of further diagnostic investigation ceases. I know of no other situation in medicine where the usual diagnostic thoroughness one finds in such centers is abandoned. For this and other reasons, I have not seen a single case where, in my opinion, the prosecution has met the standards of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” standards which are supposed to apply in criminal cases. Most do not even come close."
It's likely, therefore, that the rates of women accused of committing these crimes increases with age since the father is simply not present and therefore a credible target for prosecutors. This also means that many of these mothers may actually be innocent.
WidowedMom, you're absolutely right that the term single mother is a gross overgeneralization hence the reason I and other critics of the "single mother" lifestyle prefer to use the term "unwed mother" to clarify that a certain segment of single mothers raise most of the criminals.
As you pointed out, much of this has to do with financial circumstances but that's also a red herring. Just because single mothers have problems with finances doesn't let them off the hook. Men who have problems with money are told to work harder and stop being deadbeats. In addition, many welfare recipients get more money than working class two parent families and the latter tend to be better citizens. I know because I was raised in a working class neighborhood and while there was crime, it was NOTHING compared to that of welfare areas which are war zones to put it politely.
Indeed, the segment of single mothers (single mothers by choice, welfare mothers, divorced mothers who insist upon primary custody) figuratively dump their problems into your lap by lumping themselves into the category of "single mothers" to then milk all the collective hardships of each segment: Deadbeat dads, widows, male abandonment, etc. Sure, in theory, lots of women are victims but, hey, life isn't a bowl of cherries for men either. Not all of us are CEO's.
Widowed mom says: "Also, I think divorced mothers and unwed mothers would do just fine if there is little or no parental conflict with non-custodial fathers, and the fathers pay their child support."
This is worth addressing on it's own because it's so paradoxical. Here's what you seem to be asking: One parent should be ordered to give the other parent money and, at the same time, there shouldn't be parental conflict between the parents?
Divorce is, by definition, a failure of an oath between two people who promised to love and honor each other for the rest of their lives. For them to break that oath, there had to be a severe conflict that would drive one or both of them apart from each other. That doesn't sound like a good situation to start with and it's no surprise that widows and widowers and their children are often emotionally better off with death than a feeling of lifelong betrayal and failure.
I would like to ask you to try to conduct a thought experiment: Imagine if your husband, instead of dying, had instead hooked up with another woman and using a hotshot lawyer got to take your children away from you and THEN demanded you pay for the privilege with about half of your take home pay. Would you enthusiastically sign off on that check, each and every month, for years? Would you visit him and his new girlfriend with a smile on your face, pick up the kids for weekend visitation, and not say a bad thing about the father or his new girlfriend even as they tell you all weekend about all the cool things they do together(probably with your money) while you live like a pauper? Hmm?
I'm interested to hear your perspective.
"Widows are better situated financially than most other single mothers due to social policies, and there isn't any parental conflict."
Conflict isn't all that isn't present in widowed homes.
For those kids there is no sense of deliberate abandonment by one parent and resulting feelings of unworthiness.
No shattering of trust in those who are supposed to be providing a firm foundation but instead are putting their own wants first.
No failed marital template to follow the kids into adulthood and undermine their ability to form and maintain successful marriages and families of their own.
And often there's even an idealization of the departed parent and a desire to honor them by living up to their expectations. That's a POWERFUL influence that a deceased parent leaves behind.
"Also, I think divorced mothers and unwed mothers would do just fine if there is little or no parental conflict with non-custodial fathers, and the fathers pay their child support."
The article you cited emphasized that widowed mothers are financially better situated because they tend to have BETTER JOBS, then went on to attribute that to maybe some vague "social policies".
To my conservative pig self, though, that's no big revelation, since those who managed to make a stable marriage and keep it together until a death happened to intervene are likelier to be from a better, more productive class of people.
So why don't women get some education and a job and get a decent income flowing first if they want all these great child outcomes, instead of sticking the hand out for someone's money?
We need to finally face the fact that we're never going to "equalize" unmarried families with married ones by pouring money on them. That only motivates the least desirable mothers to make more kids and create more dysfunction.
Richard
"I would like to ask you to try to conduct a thought experiment: Imagine if your husband, instead of dying, had instead hooked up with another woman and using a hotshot lawyer got to take your children away from you and THEN demanded you pay for the privilege with about half of your take home pay. Would you enthusiastically sign off on that check, each and every month, for years?"
First of all, if my husband left me for another woman-good riddance. It's a rebound relationship, and it probably wouldn't last anyway. However, my focus would be on MY CHILD. NO MATTER WHAT THE SITUATION, my child still needs food, clothing, and shelter. If I am the non-custodial parent, I have an obligationn to help provide for him. Instead of obsessing over being "forced to pay the ex", I would focus on if my child's basic needs are being met. Does he have clean, decent clothes? Is he fed nutritious meals? Does he have a nice, clean house to live in? Does he have good medical care? Is he going to a good school? Is he going to his doctor appointments? If my ex-husband is taking good care of him, than my child support is being used as it was intended to be.
"Would you visit him and his new girlfriend with a smile on your face, pick up the kids for weekend visitation, and not say a bad thing about the father or his new girlfriend even as they tell you all weekend about all the cool things they do together(probably with your money) while you live like a pauper? Hmm?"
First of all, I wouldn't be there "visiting him and his new girlfriend", I would be there to pick up my child and leave. I'm not going to waste time listening to them tell me about all the "cool things" they did. Who cares? My concern is WHAT I DO WITH HIM. The only communication need be concerning the child's needs, and I would certainly attempt to be civil especially if I was still in the middle of a custody battle. Anything else would be counterproductive.
"Conflict isn't all that isn't present in widowed homes. For those kids there is no sense of deliberate abandonment by one parent and resulting feelings of unworthiness. No shattering of trust in those who are supposed to be providing a firm foundation but instead are putting their own wants first. No failed marital template to follow the kids into adulthood and undermine their ability to form and maintain successful marriages and families of their own. And often there's even an idealization of the departed parent and a desire to honor them by living up to their expectations. That's a POWERFUL influence that a deceased parent leaves behind."
Richard, not every widow with minor children had a marriage that was free of parental conflict. I was happily married, but about half the widows that I met in my widowed/divored mother support group (and there was a lot of them) had marriages that were as bad or worse than any of the divorced women in the group. A lot of these women told me that they would've ended up divorced if they hadn't been widowed early. They and their children may have genuinely grieved the loss of a husband/father, but they AND THEIR CHILDREN WERE ALL RELIEVED TO BE FREE OF THE CONFLICT. The same can be said for the divorced women and their children who had high conflict relationships with their husbands while married, but when the husbands dropped completely out of their lives after the divorce, they were relieved not to have to deal with that situation anymore. Both groups of women had more problems with their children when the husbands were alive or still in their lives.
"The article you cited emphasized that widowed mothers are financially better situated because they tend to have BETTER JOBS, then went on to attribute that to maybe some vague "social policies"."
Most widows who have minor children can get social security benefits for their children based on their deceased husband's previous income. A lot of widows are paid enough so that they can afford to stay home with their children especially those that were homemakers. I had a good job, but I still was paid social security benefits just like any other widow because I had a dependant child, and it was probably more than most child support award. I got a regular check, on time, every month, unlike divorced/unwed mothers who have ex-husbands/fathers who pay little or no child support. And I didn't have to pay a lawyer to chase down an dead beat dad for child support money. I also didn't have to put up with the stigma of being divorced or an unwed single mother. Job or not, widows are usually financially better off than divorced/unwed mothers. Posters complain about having to pay welfare to women to sit at home, but that's not the case anymore. There isn't anymore AFDC, and low income single mothers usually have to have some kind of job in order to get ANY BENEFITS. In contrast, a lot of widows with small children are paid enough social security benefits to stay home.
"So why don't women get some education and a job and get a decent income flowing first if they want all these great child outcomes, instead of sticking the hand out for someone's money?"
Didn't you ever hear of "mothers by choice"? Murphy Brown wasn't just a tv character. There are a lot of Murphy Brown type women out there who are educated, career women who decide to have a child without a father, and they aren't asking for any handouts or childsupport. First, you people complain about fiancially secure, educated career women having children without fathers, than you complain when they don't. You can't have it both ways, Richard. Like I said, I was happily married, but if I had a child today, I would go to a sperm bank rather than risk losing my child in a custody battle to an abusive, vengeful father. I have a good job, and I can afford it.
But that's just it, WidowedMom, someone else having custody of your kids isn't "good riddance". Not only does the NCP have to deal with the other parent (and indirectly, their new shackup), but they PAY for the privilege. Listen, I asked you if you would sign the check enthusiastically. Just a simple (heartfelt) yes or no. And FYI, I dated a woman lawyer who told me that she commonly saw custodial mothers appear in court with their children in rags to justify more child-support from the court. That's right, being a bad mother actually was profitable! You don't get a day-to-day say in how the money is spent unless you can demonstrate gross negligence on their part and, even then, it may be used to make you pay more.
Your next answer clearly shows that you don't get the point. You said, "I would certainly attempt to be civil especially if I was still in the middle of a custody battle." Whatever happened to ending "parental conflict?" Oh, wait, when the shoe is on the other foot it's different! I THOUGHT so! Thanks for showing that your sentiments were about as deep as Lake Havasu.
I didn't mean to imply that you should visit with the new couple but rather listen to the child talk about all the good stuff going on in the home while you live in relative poverty. It's not easy and clearly from your sentiments about a sperm bank being better than risking losing custody, you wouldn't enjoy the shoe on the other foot.
WidowedMom says: "but when the husbands dropped completely out of their lives after the divorce, they were relieved not to have to deal with that situation anymore. Both groups of women had more problems with their children when the husbands were alive or still in their lives."
I chuckled a bit here. On the one hand, it's good the men are pushed out of the children's (and the mother's lives) to avoid pesky conflict but, on the other hand, the child-support and insurance payouts should keep flowing. Pack mules are treated more humanely. WidowedMom, conflict is a part of life. That's the world men live in to make that precious money that women so do love to spend and their children starve to death without.
WidowedMom plays a violin: "I got a regular check, on time, every month, unlike divorced/unwed mothers who have ex-husbands/fathers who pay little or no child support."
For the record, most NCP men pay their "child" support. Actually, statistics from the texas bar association show that women tend to be deadbeats more than men when they are ordered to pay! Whatever you, and such women might say about fathers, most of them EARN MOST of the money to support their children AND THEMSELVES. They don't just CASH CHECKS or work part-time for AFDC.
WidowedMom says: "Didn't you ever hear of "mothers by choice"? Murphy Brown wasn't just a tv character."
It's funny that when Dan Quayle brought this up, he was made fun of by the media for confusing TV with real life. Of course, they were just using a double standard even as Dan Quayle was exposing double standards. The irony... Anyways, yes we do hear about these women and I go to open high level executive meetings where women executives whine that the corporations should pay for their childcare and daycare so they can "balance" work and home. I laughed my HEAD OFF when the male executives replied: "I had to live with sacrificed to be an executive, you should too." Welcome to the REAL WORLD ladies!
WidowedMom, I laughed at your sperm bank threats. You just got done railing at men for not paying mommy, er, "child" support checks yet we're to think you would have gone to a sperm bank and gotten NO money from the state or men? Yeah, right. Sure! Hahahaha! I'll believe that! In addition, an abusive, vengeful father? Oooh! The boogyman! Most men today, sadly, are more like puppies rather than rotweilers. The women don't leave them because the men are jerks. They leave them because they're WIMPS.
Evidently WidowedMom doesn't see the contradiction of waxing eloquent on how gracefully and unselfishly she would play the NC parent role, then in the next breath declaring that she would willingly deprive her child of half a family in order to avoid that role. One assertion neatly cancels out the other, I'm afraid.
Does your son know that you consider him worth as much dead as alive to his own future family?
"They and their children may have genuinely grieved the loss of a husband/father, but they AND THEIR CHILDREN WERE ALL RELIEVED TO BE FREE OF THE CONFLICT. The same can be said for the divorced women and their children who had high conflict relationships with their husbands while married..."
It's worth pointing out here that parents (mostly mothers, unfortunately) are altogether too blithe about lumping in their children's interests with their own and assuming that the children are as "relieved" as they are to be rid of Dad.
This is actually a myth left over from the 70s when no-fault divorce was a new, neat thing to do and everyone was trying to soothe their consciences about trashing their kids' families.
The truth is that the kids' best interests are radically different from those of their parents.
Even Judith Wallerstein, who is one of your own and doesn't support joint custody, has studied and followed children of divorce for decades and has become convinced that parents in unhappy but relatively low-conflict marriages where no actual abuse is involved (which constitute the large majority of divorces) would be well-advised to stay together for the sake of the children.
Children in such families are surprisingly unaware of unhappiness or conflict in their parents' marriage. They are free to concentrate on their own growing up without having to deal directly with their parents' problems. And more importantly they carry that template of a functioning marriage into adulthood where it drastically improves their chances of forming and maintaining solid families of their own.
"In contrast, a lot of widows with small children are paid enough social security benefits to stay home."
No contrast here. A lot of divorced moms with small children are paid enough child support to stay home. The kids still suffer.
"I got a regular check, on time, every month, unlike divorced/unwed mothers who have ex-husbands/fathers who pay little or no child support."
70% of unpaid child support is owed by men who make less than $10,000 a year. Unwed mothers in particular, who come largely from the lower classes, freely choose to have children with men who can pay little and then must ask Uncle Sam pick up the slack. That's one of the main reasons why we want less of this behavior. If there's still any stigma attached to it, it's well-placed. But little stigma actually remains, as unwed single motherhood has become part of lower-class culture, so to speak.
"There are a lot of Murphy Brown type women out there who are educated, career women who decide to have a child without a father, and they aren't asking for any handouts or childsupport. First, you people complain about fiancially secure, educated career women having children without fathers, than you complain when they don't."
Murphy Brown is mostly an urban myth. Women who can actually afford to have a child alone account for a very small percentage of unwed births. The percentage may have increased a bit recently as Polish Knight has pointed out, but "financially secure, educated career women" are using speed dating and matchmaking a lot more than sperm banks because they want their kids to have the best foundation possible.
But hey, I haven't done any complaining about your "Murphy Browns." Like I told G up above, if women can afford kids but are so damaged for one reason or another that they can't commit to building a proper home for them and making it work for the long haul, then by all means they should remove themselves from the marriage market, go to the sperm bank and keep the resulting problems to themselves.
At least this will free up more men to build real homes with decent family-minded women and use their resources efficiently for their own families, which is as it should be.
"Also, I think divorced mothers and unwed mothers would do just fine if there is little or no parental conflict with non-custodial fathers, and the fathers pay their child support."
Once again, mothers can do it all by themselves as long as they don't have to do it all by themselves. It's a common theme around here.
Richard
Richard, you restated a lot of the points I made, but you did so more eloquently. So it's all good.
Regarding your point about career women resorting to speed dating and matchmaking: I preferred such techniques in the early 90's myself but it was frustrating when there were sometimes a 5:1 ratio between men and women. The women back then still thought they could wait for men in the workplace to ask them out. Thanks to Anita Hill, however, that market dried up.
So what I'm wondering then, is, if maybe the result of the spike in marriage rates for college educated women you cited may be due to a short term flood of traditionally eligible men the women had been neglecting. The question is, will such a development sustain a long term demographic trend or even ratio? As these men find that they have more choices than before, will they continue to settle and put up with double dipper demands from these women?
I myself found in my mid-30's that despite not being a grade A prime candidate, that I was able to suddenly meet a lot of women in these services as compared to when I was in my 20's. So just as your tastes changed as an adult as compared to college, I got more discriminating myself. (I got up and did something about it.) But still, there is a feedback loop present that may see the numbers turn the other way. Especially in a culture that recently allows men shackups as compared to traditional dating.
Polish Knight:
"But that's just it, WidowedMom, someone else having custody of your kids isn't "good riddance". Not only does the NCP have to deal with the other parent (and indirectly, their new shackup), but they PAY for the privilege. Listen, I asked you if you would sign the check enthusiastically. Just a simple (heartfelt) yes or no"
And like I told you, paying child support is a PARENTAL OBLIGATION. Kids need food, clothing, shelter and being the NCP doesn't relieve me of those obligations just because I don't live in the same home as my child. AS LONG AS MY CHILD'S BASIC NEEDS ARE BEING MET, I wouldn't have a problem with paying child support.
"Your next answer clearly shows that you don't get the point. You said, "I would certainly attempt to be civil especially if I was still in the middle of a custody battle." Whatever happened to ending "parental conflict?" Oh, wait, when the shoe is on the other foot it's different! I THOUGHT so! Thanks for showing that your sentiments were about as deep as Lake Havasu."
I think that you don't get the point. I believe that it was Richard up thread who said that most custodial dads get custody by mutual agreement with the mother. I would have to agree with him there. The scenario you gave me has a "hotshot lawyer who took my kid away" presumably unfairly. Well, I have to agree with other posters that the majority of women do most of the actual hands-on raising of the child in the marriage, and they are the ones who should get physical custody. If I became the NCP unfairly, it would probably be because I was most likely the one who actually raised the child the most during the marriage. Therefore, it would be in my child's best interest to BE WITH ME. Most non-custodial fathers do not fall in this category, and most likely, their children are in the custody of the person who took care of them the most to begin with-the mother. Back to your scenario. Being UNFAIRLY DEPRIVED OF MY CHILD BY A HOTSHOT LAWYER WHEN I WAS MOST LIKELY THE PRIMARY CARETAKER, I would definitely go back to court in an effort to get custody back. HOWEVER, I wouldn't stop paying child support, nor would I go over the the ex's house to pick up my child for visitation with a chip on my shoulder and deliberately start an arguement because I'm jealous of the ex and his new girlfriend. My aim would be to keep the parental conflict IN THE COURTROOM WHERE IT BELONGS. I would attempt to be civil to the ex/girlfriend in front of my kid because I WOULDN'T WANT TO MAKE IT WORSE FOR HIM. I would pick up my kid and LEAVE. And paying my child support and taking the high road as far as parental conflict goes (as long as my child was taken care of) would work much better in my favor to the courts than to engage in petty, vindictive, jeaousy every time I saw my ex. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. However, if I mutually agreed to custody to my ex, or lost custody fairly because MY EX ACTUALLY TOOK CARE OF MY CHILD MORE THAN I DID, than it would be petty ass jealousy to go over to his house and start some stupid fight. If my child was being taken care of, that would suffice.
"I didn't mean to imply that you should visit with the new couple but rather listen to the child talk about all the good stuff going on in the home while you live in relative poverty."
Let's get this straight, I should be upset because my kid is being taken care of and gets to do "cool things"? And because I live in "relative poverty", I should want to punish my ex by wanting him to live in poverty WITH MY CHILD just so I can feel better about my situation? What kind of ass backward logic is that? God, your sick. I can't believe that you think I should want to punish my child, for a situation beyond his control, just because I'm not happy. That wouldn't say much for me as a parent if that's what I wanted to do. In fact, it doesn't say much for you as a parent or a person. That's what the father's right advocates really want, isn't it? What a sick, bunch of twisted, disgusting excuse for men! And for the record, the non-custodial parent usually has a better chance of getting out of so-called poverty than the custodial parent anyway. The non-custodial parent does not usually pay "half their wages for child support". The average child support award is about $300.00/month. The non-custodial parent hasw more mobility to find a better job than the custodial parent, and THEY AREN'T HELD BACK WITH THE EVERY-DAY CARE OF THE CHILD. The custodial parent is already spending 100% of their income to pay for their child's expenses, and all the overhead that is involved in running a household that the child is part of (more children involved, the higher the cost of running a house), a AS WELL AS THE ACTUAL DAILY, HANDS-ON CHILDCARE. The ncp is actually paying child support to reimburse the cp for money that is already being spent on the child. And the child support that the ncp pays doesn't even cover a third of what it actually costs to raise that child. The fact that you seem to think that any "cool things" that is being done with the child by the cp is being paid for strictly by child support from the ncp is laughable. Get a reality check!
"That's the world men live in to make that precious money that women so do love to spend and their children starve to death without."
God, forbid if a man has to help support his child. Boy, there's some real cognitive dissonance going on here. You make it sound like the child support (a parental obligation on the part of the man) that a woman uses to feed her child is the same as buying jewels, furs, and luxury vacations. Boy, you don't have a clue.
"WidowedMom plays a violin: "I got a regular check, on time, every month, unlike divorced/unwed mothers who have ex-husbands/fathers who pay little or no child support." For the record, most NCP men pay their "child" support. Actually, statistics from the texas bar association show that women tend to be deadbeats more than men when they are ordered to pay! Whatever you, and such women might say about fathers, most of them EARN MOST of the money to support their children AND THEMSELVES. They don't just CASH CHECKS or work part-time for AFDC."
I was talking about the men WHO DON'T PAY THEIR CHILD SUPPORT. And for the record, I don't have any sympathy with women who don't pay their's either. However, the majority of women ARE financially supporting their children, AND PROVIDING MOST OF THE ACTUAL CARE. Not many men are doing that even for a weekend visit. NC fathers are more likely to have a live-ingirlfriend doing it all for them.
"I laughed my HEAD OFF when the male executives replied: "I had to live with sacrificed to be an executive, you should too." Welcome to the REAL WORLD ladies!"
Yeah, this is just the point that I already made. These male executives have STAY AT HOME WIVES that are relieving them of all DOMESTIC OBLIGATIONS so that THEY CAN CONCENTRATE ON THEIR CAREERS:
"With the rise of dual-career couples, more and more women are putting all their energy into their own careers, leaving their husbands on their own. In the old days, ''it was easier for a male who was in a high-level position to utilize his spouse to help further his career,'' said Jeffrey Kaye, chief executive of Kaye/Bassman International, an executive search firm based in Plano, Tex., ''It was not outlandish to say: 'Honey, I'm bringing three couples home tonight. Make steaks and wear that nice blue dress.' ''
Mr. Kaye says a man can be successful without a corporate wife at home. But some still feel shortchanged, especially if they are competing with men who do have stay-at-home wives."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/24/business/as-wives-move-up-men-fend-for-themselves.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/E/Executives%20and%20Management
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24614062-662,00.html
Most female executives don't have supportive husbands that are willing to help them advance in their career. Male executives reap the financial rewards for their work AND THEIR WIVE'S WORK. THAT'S THE REAL WORLD.
"WidowedMom, I laughed at your sperm bank threats. You just got done railing at men for not paying mommy, er, "child" support checks yet we're to think you would have gone to a sperm bank and gotten NO money from the state or men? Yeah, right. Sure! Hahahaha! I'll believe that!"
I said that if I was going to have another child TODAY, I would go to a sperm bank. And yes, I can afford one without child/support or state help. I said this because most of the men I see aren't what I would want to have for a father for any child of mine especially if they have attitudes like yours and Richards. However, I raised one child, and I really don't want another one. Been there, done that.
WidowedMom, as Richard pointed out, the credibility of your claim that you wouldn't have a problem paying "child" support is strained when you later say you would go to a sperm bank and make a radical change in your life just to avoid even the very small possibility of that happening. Come now, be honest: Women aren't losing custody of their children to abusive fathers, en mass, and paying child-support. It probably happens sometimes but highly rarely.
And yes, the scenario of an "unfair" father taking custody while you get stuck paying is appropriate because you made a self-serving justification for custody that applies mostly to women as caregivers. So you wouldn't mind paying child-support to a father because in that scenario it wouldn't apply to you anyway. By that definition, then, career women are inferior mothers to SAH mothers because they spend less time with the kids. Good going! I refer to that as the parenting contest or the mommy wars.
It's amusing how quickly you sweep what men do to support their families under the rug (work) and take away their kids and then complain when the men don't pay the support. Yeah, what men do isn't important other than the kids possibly starving in the great care of the mother. Gee, with a responsible attitude like that it's amazing that these women do such a gang-bang, er, bang-up job of raising criminals isn't it?
I love your statistics claiming that NCPS are only paying $300 a month in CS and that the custodial parent puts in 100% of their income into the household. How does mommy dearest pay for the clothes on her back? Does she spend any money on anything for herself? Are you telling us that these women never hit the shopping mall or starbucks or any personal pleasures?
We can also turn this logic around and say that when the man gets custody of the kids, then HE'S putting HIS income and time towards raising them, right? Doesn't that automatically make him a great father from the get go?
Yes, I would say that getting child-support to raise a child when the other parent wants shared custody is just as selfish as buying furs and jewels, here's why: YOU view custody as a benefit, yes? You would even go to strong measures to avoid losing custody. Yet, you expect someone else to pay for something you desire. It doesn't matter WHAT you're making someone else pay for, you're talking about taking away someone's kid and making someone else pay for it. When it's mostly women doing it, it's okey dokey but you gripe when a few men do so. It's a wonderful double standard!
You then next try to downplay the NC fathers and executive men for having girlfriends or SAH wives providing childcare. As I pointed out, plenty of women have daycare or even nannies. Perhaps you couldn't afford either. Rather than you actually making value judgements about what's best for children, you just self-servingly elevated your role as superior without thinking about how that would impact career women not similarly situated. You shot yourself in the foot. Congrats! NOTHING stops career women from marrying nice SAH men except their own sexism. Don't blame the messenger.
Men have the option of waiting into middle age (or even old age) to have kids. So it's great that when aging career women gave me gaff about how I should respect motherhood and work full time while she comes and goes as she pleases and then risk losing custody because of her being the "primary parent" I told them that wasn't a good deal and walked. Lessee: I'm married and on the family track while many of them are childless. Sometimes, life is fair!
I never said that SAH corporate wives were worthless. Just that their job is pretty comfy. Do you really think that cooking steak dinners for three couples is that difficult?!?! For the record, I know how to make pierogies, cake, pie, as well as cook a great ham. What I don't know, I can do using this device known as a COOKBOOK or even just download recipies online.
It's a sweet job and no surprise that when the hubby leaves, the wife needs alimony because apparently there aren't too many jobs that pay 6 figure salaries to hang out at home and order servants around and do a little cooking while taking care of one's own kids. That's where your logic fails: You seem to think that the kids are "his" when the bills need to be paid or childcare done but "hers" when cashing the checks. The SAH mom is 1/2 responsible too, in case you forgot, in addition to her share of her own expenses. Didja ever wonder how executive wives are able to send their children to fancy schools and go to lavish shopping malls? It's not magic. It's the BENEFIT from marriage to a rich guy. A benefit most career women would not offer men. Hence, that's the reason they just jerryrig and get cheap daycare and dump their kids rather than caring for them. Hmm, isn't it neat how society is beginning to regard modern mothers as inferior to the good old days even as fathers, according to CNN polls, have new respect?
Yep, I love those attitudes widowed mom. I just told women with them to pack their bags. This included career women with "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" and expected me to work full time while she came and went and got all the privileges of custody in case of divorce AND the working class women with entitlement attitudes "I should work as a waitress and go to parties while you bust your butt to be successful and then you'll give me a big home and then the judge and society will regard it as MY sacrifice for having gone to the mall while the nanny looked after the kids!" Yeah, that didn't fly either.
What's neat is that I could afford to be CHOOSY. I had TIME! And the smart women, as Richard points out, irregardless of class are figuring that out. As you point out, even getting "child" support doesn't work if the man doesn't pay it or he loses his job or she has other problems getting by. Oh, my heart just BLEEDS! Tee hee.
In closing, I don't take your threats OR claims serious that you would go to a spermbank and forego mommy support OR pay support to a man if you lost custody (but only if the law didn't take it away from you anyway). It's clear from your logic that you regard men as necessary to make women's lives comfortable while complaining about how oppressed they are. You're fere to try to believe otherwise. Good luck. Deny the nose on your face if you like too.
Listen, the women I told to bugger off sometimes found men (suckers) or even improved their attitudes to become decent wives but from what I know, none of the career women I know about who wound up being overdemanding and winding up alone went to the sperm bank. NONE. They just couldn't pull that trigger. I'm sure there are some around though. Most I think just hope to get some sucker in a bar to impregnate them with a bastard child to get mommy support from. Good luck to 'em, but I was smarter than that and if that attitude, to you, is not an attitude you looked for in men then great. I was happy when such women moved on hoping to get that white buffalo.
In the meantime, the reputation of women as mothers continues to erode as rotten neglectful career moms, spoiled corporate moms whining about tennis elbow, or welfare criminal breeders. Look in the mirror for whom to blame!
"Most female executives don't have supportive husbands that are willing to help them advance in their career. Male executives reap the financial rewards for their work AND THEIR WIVE'S WORK. THAT'S THE REAL WORLD."
If they don't have them they could easily get them, if they wanted them more than an equal or greater earner.
There is no shortage of men out there who would be happy to take care of the domestic end for high earning wives. I believe surveys are currently showing that about 62% of college-educated men would be willing to do this, though I would have to look that figure up to be sure.
Tell me why aren't women scrambling to acquire one of these domestic men who will support them in their careers so they can reap the rewards of their work and their husbands' work too?
Richard
Richard, there's a new reality show on VH1 called "Tough Love" and it's about overly fussy women going through bootcamp to set more realistic expectations.
In the program, the women criticized the men for being shallow and judgemental when they said some of the women needed to lose weight, for example. The matchmaker then asked them: "How about if I set you up with a 5'7" guy?" and the woman immediately said: "No way!" He laughed and said that women were more deluded than men about their actual attractiveness and demands.
Consequently, any poll that asks women what they are willing to do, versus what they actually do (and back up with some raw documentation) is suspect.
I thought about your earlier point and I think that I have an explanation for how these college educated women are seemingly "marrying down". My wife has a college degree, but doesn't really use it and I have a great job, but no college degree. Hence, she married up but this was a class thing more than anything. I'm a working class guy who climbed up but I earned it. The same rules of sexism as the 1950's still apply.
Doh! You said college educated MEN not women! Doh!
Anyways, even though college educated men continue to tend to marry women in their social class who have college degrees (even if they're in women's studies or English lit, etc), the men are also probably willing to marry down including H.S. degrees and women who work as dental assistants, etc.
I suspect the 40% of men unwilling to give up their jobs are concerned, rightly, that their rights and appeal as men would be compromised. If they got a divorce, a judge might still give custody to the woman AND even order him to pay child-support and he wouldn't have a job to do so. So if 60% of men are willing to take that risk, it shows how amazingly openminded they are!
"So if 60% of men are willing to take that risk, it shows how amazingly openminded they are!"
No shit! And you could have counted me among that percentage, too. That's why I've always laughed my ass off at the popular baloney about men being afraid of strong successful women. In my whole life I never knew a single guy, myself included, who minded being with a more successful woman if she was otherwise pleasant and attractive. More money, more stuff, no problem!
This is merely a platitude with which women console themselves and each other when they get dumped probably for personality-related reasons.
You know, sometimes it's easier to respect women like NY here who are at least open and honest about wanting to hang on to traditional feminine privilege, than women who sing the blues about all the sacrifices women make and how easy we men have it but would never dream of trading places.
Richard
Mo' Stuff
Richard, if you have a chance, check out that show ("Tough Love"). It's very relevant to much of what we talk about here.
One career woman is having a hard time finding decent, committed, professional men and it turns out that her problem is that ALL she has to talk about is her job. Every date she goes on that's videod, she changes the subject to her work. The primo men get bored to tears.
What's revealing is her reason for why she obsesses about work: "If I don't work, I don't pay the bills!"
I was thinking that in my life, the definition of success was the ability to put work into perspective. If you're a CEO and work your whole life and don't have time with your family or relax outside of work, how is that any better than a taxicab driver pulling down 16 hour shifts? What's the point?
This is a problem with both men, and women, of course but with the career woman who brings more stuff to the table, as you point out, that's all EXTRA stuff. Yeah, it's nice and all but she's unlikely to view the money that she busted her butt for as something to just share with him. She'll POOL the assets and you get mo' vacations in Europe or the Bahamas, etc. But overall, our role as breadwinners isn't that different than the 50's. In some cases, the men will have to work harder to compete with her.
My wife refers to me as the social butterfly of us two. I not only have lots of stuff to talk about such as pop culture, but also have traveled, go to museums, thrift stores, opera, ballet, and ethnic delis and try my hand at cooking.
This is all stuff that women were previously masters at but now often have the charm of a CPA at tax time.
Anyways, it's ironic, Richard, that after being married I don't feel as much stress to earn a lot of money or to impress my wife with stuff because we have a rich life in the way I mentioned above. Sure, in theory, she could have gotten a guy with mo' money and a bigger house but she has more fun with me and she knows it. I get the job done (even if it takes a week to fix the furnace.) I know I'm a neanderthal (not that that's a bad thing) but in many ways I'm like middle class men of the past who were more rounded than the suburbanite barbarians I come across so often today.
Polish Knight:
http://www.articlearchives.com/crime-law-enforcement-corrections/criminal-offenses/1500946-1.html
Richard,
"Does your son know that you consider him worth as much dead as alive to his own future family?"
Actually, I raised my son to be EXACTLY LIKE HIS FATHER. I was married for five years before we had a child, and there wasn't a better man alive. It's been relatively amusing reading the comments from you and Polish Knight about what great husbands and fathers you are, ad nauseum, but really, my husband didn't have the HATRED AND FEAR OF WOMEN that you both seem to have. And that was because he saw women as PEOPLE. Neither of you seem to have a grip on that concept. My son was 9 months old when my husband died, but in that short of time, I knew exactly what kind of father he was, and would've been had he lived. After my son was born, I had 3 months of maternity leave. Basically, I did the stay at home mom thing where I took care of a newborn and yeah, I did do most of the housework since I was at home. However, I NEVER and I do mean NEVER did I have to ask my husband for help in the childcare/housework department. He worked more than fulltime, and he came home and WE TOOK CARE OF OUR SON AND THE HOUSE TOGETHER. He certainly never expected me to wait on him, nor did I expect him to wait on me except when I was intially recovering from a very bad c-section. However, I went back to work full-time, and we worked opposite shifts for a while so that we didn't have childcare costs. We didn't see a lot of each other, but I didn't have to come home to a dirty house and baby because he thought that I should do it all. We equally divided EVERYTHING-CHILDCARE AND HOUSEWORK A LIKE. The last three months, we both worked days, and again, we WERE A TEAM as far as childcare/housework went. He certainly didn't act like he was king because he made more money than I did. We had an egalitarian relationship the entire time we were married and not just when our son arrived. I'll tell you this much, I didn't have any complaints about being too tired from doing all the childcare/ housework on top of a full-time job, and he never had an complaints about lack of sex. Those are the usual complaints husbands and wives have about each other. I guess Polish Knight would consider my husband a "wimp", but hey, your kind of macho never turned me on. And besides, there is an entire department of law enforcement officers who would disagree with you anyway. My husband was a police officer in one of the worse cities in the country, and he was killed while on duty in a drug raid. It's because of this that I left the police department to become a probation and parole agent. The hours are much better when it comes to being a single mother. You see, my son was raised doing everything my husband and I use to do. We went hunting, fishing, camping, and he played just about every sport there is in school. My son also learned from an early age, much like my husband, that he's expected to do housework, and I mean ALL housework-inside and out. He wasn't going to get a free pass in my house because he is male. I also made him babysit his younger cousins several times, and he learned how to do basic childcare because of this, and I mean everything, from changing diapers to feeding a bottle. Did he like it at first? He hated it, but he started volunteering on his own to babysit (probably because he got paid, but hey so do girls). Anyway, he'll definitely make a great husband AND dad someday because he knows that the TWO GO HAND IN HAND. In the meantime, he's going to be graduating from high school with honors, and he's got a full scholarship to college. Is he going into law enforcement? NO, he's interest lies more in math and science. HOwever, I raised him to be very respectful to the girls that he dates, and I told him that he is RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN BEHAVIOR. Birth control is his responsibility as well as hers, and he should wear a condom to avoid getting a girl pregnant and prevent STDs. He's knows not to come whining to me if he gets a girl pregnant and has to pay child support. That's life. He'll have to deal with it. And that's exactly what my husband would've said as well.
A nice picture, WidowedMom. And we're very sorry for your loss. But none of this changes anything. No matter how good a husband and father you've raised your son to be, by your own logic he is worth as much to his children as a silent corpse generating a social security check as he is as a loving, parenting father. Or as an absentee dad who drops out of his kids' lives to avoid "causing conflict" because his ex decided that he's not her "soulmate" after all and she'd prefer to replace him with someone else (but don't forget to send the check, please).
"It's been relatively amusing reading the comments from you and Polish Knight about what great husbands and fathers you are, ad nauseum, but really, my husband didn't have the HATRED AND FEAR OF WOMEN that you both seem to have."
Evidently you haven't been reading very carefully. I can only speak for myself but I for one have no problem with women themselves. I'll venture to say that I see them more as whole people than your average feminist/woman-firster does. That is, equally good, equally bad, deserving of equal rights and equal responsibilities.
What I DO have a problem with is a system that purports to give women equal rights while still assigning them responsibilities comparable to those of children.
And what I find amusing is how PK and I supposedly hate and fear women so much, but you've yet to hear either of us condone depriving kids of their MOTHERS to keep from having to share them while we pursue our own interests because we're PEOPLE after all.
Only the females around here have been condoning such things. I think it's clear where the hatred and fear lie.
Richard
"No matter how good a husband and father you've raised your son to be, by your own logic he is worth as much to his children as a silent corpse generating a social security check as he is as a loving, parenting father. Or as an absentee dad who drops out of his kids' lives to avoid "causing conflict" because his ex decided that he's not her "soulmate" after all and she'd prefer to replace him with someone else (but don't forget to send the check, please)."
Richard, what you don't get, is that in order for a man to be worth more than a social security or child support check, he has to actually BE A LOVING, PARENTING FATHER. And a lot of those absentee dads weren't that to begin with. IN fact, these men weren't loving husbands either. And that's the reason that most single mother homes exist today not because of some idea about a "soulmate". The chances of them suddenly becoming loving, parenting fathers is pretty slim after a divorce. The kids are much better off without these guys in their lives. And as for child support? Yeah, they should pay it. Why should the kids suffer because DAD DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE. And if mom is widowed instead of divorced, she is spared a lot of the parental conflict that dad would've most likely have continued if she tried to divorce him. The concepts still the same.
"I'll venture to say that I see them more as whole people than your average feminist/woman-firster does. That is, equally good, equally bad, deserving of equal rights and equal responsibilities. What I DO have a problem with is a system that purports to give women equal rights while still assigning them responsibilities comparable to those of children.
The majority of men DO NOT have the primary responsibilities of raising children.
The majority of women DO have the primary responsibilities of raising children.
Ergo, women have responsibilities comparable to children,
Well, gee whiz, Richard, if having the primary care of children is a responsiblity comparable to a child, maybe we should just let the little brats raise themselves, and tell them to stop wasting their mother's time. That way, maybe mom will have all the time in the world to sit in front of the TV with a beer like dad does. God, Richard, that is the stupidest thing that you've ever said. Thanks for the laugh! I think I just peed my pants. HA! HA! HA!
"The majority of women DO have the primary responsibilities of raising children. Ergo, women have responsibilities comparable to children,"
Children bear and raise children all the time, WM. Maturity not required.
And if a child/woman can not handle the job then she can drop the child off at a "safe haven" specially created to relieve the poor little thing of the burden, with no questions asked.
Or she can strangle said child and leave it in a dumpster and walk away with counseling and maybe community service if the judge is particularly strict. Hell, she can probably off the dad too while she's at it and not suffer much more if she can come up with a good abuse story.
And if all else fails and she ends up a NC mom, she has pretty good odds of never being ordered to pay any CS.
A man, in contrast, can only "man up." What exactly we're supposed to "man up" to, though, is a fluid concept, mainly consisting of whatever it is that women/children need/want.
Strange how women are seldom told to "woman up." They're just lumped in with children as a group to be protected/supported/sympathized with. And by God if the bastard isn't manning up to her satisfaction, out with him and you go girl.
Different responsibilities. You bet.
"Richard, what you don't get, is that in order for a man to be worth more than a social security or child support check, he has to actually BE A LOVING, PARENTING FATHER. And a lot of those absentee dads weren't that to begin with. IN fact, these men weren't loving husbands either. And that's the reason that most single mother homes exist today not because of some idea about a "soulmate"."
WidowedMom, your naivete is astonishing. You actually believe that if a man can just be a good enough husband and father that he will not be betrayed by his wife and have his family destroyed and therefore deserves no protection for his fundamental parental rights to his own children?
What a sucker's game you've set your son up for.
Do you also believe that if a woman can just be a good enough wife that she won't be betrayed by her husband, either? And if he leaves with her kids she should just pay her support and slink away because obviously she doesn't know how to behave and so her kids are better off without her? You've already said that you wouldn't slink away in this manner.
What nonsense. I'd be laughing my ass off too if this weren't so pathetic.
Richard for a reality check read:
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/reconciling2.htm
"What a sucker's game you've set your son up for"
And what a fool you've set your daughter up to be. There's a good chance that she may end up a divorced single mother someday. If you tell her the same crap that your spouting at me, God help her when her father won't.
"Do you also believe that if a woman can just be a good enough wife that she won't be betrayed by her husband, either? And if he leaves with her kids she should just pay her support and slink away because obviously she doesn't know how to behave and so her kids are better off without her? You've already said that you wouldn't slink away in this manner."
And exactly what do you mean by betrayal? Just because a woman decides to divorce her husband? Sorry, the betrayal started long before the actual divorce, and chances are, it was the husband who was the betrayer. I've been a police officer, and I'm currently a probation/parole officer. My caseload is full of guys who think that their wives "betrayed" them and who say that their wives lie about everything. The trouble with these guys is that there is usually tons of physical evidence and witnesses to support the accusations against them. And believe me, I'm in a unique position to deal with them. I won't hesitate to revoke their probation/parole and send them back to jail or prison when they violate their restraining orders. If they try to bully me by threatening my life or the life of my family, all the better to get their asses off the the street and back in jail where they belong.
Well, Richard and Polish Knight, it's really great that you guys feel so strongly about a man's right to be a father. Tell me, which one of you made the following comment?:
“I have noticed in your coverage of the Josef Fritzl case that when you refer to the children he had with his daughter, you only refer to them as Elisabeth’s children, and not Josef’s as well. You may not like the means, but he is their faither and should be given that respect. I would think that you of all people, a woman who rants about sexism all the time, would see just how terribly sexist you are being in trying to exclude him from his children’s lives. He has said himself that he provided well for both of his families, so he should be given the respect of “father”.”
http://sableverity.com/2008/06/15/because-josef-fritzl-is-not-fit-to-be-called-father/
Yup, a father's rights advocate strikes again! I suppose Elizabeth Fritzl should be tarred and feathered for teaching her children to call Josef Fritzl "grandfather". The bitch! How dare she not show the proper respect for the "father of her children" (and her "father"). I guess all those beatings, rapes, 24 years lack of sunlight, and forced to give birth to children out of incest in a rat invested cellar just went to her brain. God, the father's rights crowd sickens me.
WidowedMom, I went to the URl of the archived Humanist article you provided and it provides statistical arguments I already debunked previously. To repeat: Crime statistics going down even as single mother households going up doesn't change the fact that children of single mother households are still responsible for a majority of violent crime. On the contrary, single mother households are so good at producing violent criminals that their statistical increase has made it clear that they cause a majority of crime. (It was possible to hide this before when the greater numbers of two parent families previously would have committed crimes by sheer overwhelming numbers.) What the author and you, don't want to see is that even if crime rates went down for the progeny of single mother homes, they went down for ALL homes as well. A rising tide lifts all boats so to speak. But that doesn't make a hole filled canoe the same as a yacht...
The Humanist also introduced two other misleading statistics I got a chuckle over. One was to claim that 80% of Americans are "white." They did this by lumping Hispanics and Europeans in together. It's rather amusing that "diversity" becomes less of a pressing issue to progressives when trying to blame whites for someone else's crimes. Next, it was outragious when the author tried to say that violent crime is not a big deal since white collar crime involves more money. Well, there you have it. As Richard pointed out, it's ok to push your son and men out of the home as along as the checks come in. Thank heavens women are so much more noble than us men, right?
You claim that we have a hatred and fear of women and then turn around and smugly claim that if your son were to get a woman pregnant (as if she was just knitting a sweater at the time she had sex) then he deserves to be milked by her for "child" support. You don't regard women as PEOPLE, you regard them as innocent damsels in distress when not cheering them on for bad grrl behavior. That image of them is far less flattering than anything Richard or even I could come up with.
You claim to have had an egalitarian relationship and act as if you deserved some kind of medal for going to work full-time. Here's the thing: Most men are expected to do that by default. It's not some kind of "choice" they get if they don't want to do all the housechores or are unable to find a woman to foot most of the bills. A truly egalitarian relationship isn't a one-sided set of demands that, when not met, have one person raise the children alone. Of course, that will never happen because no matter how you tried to huff and puff like the big bad wolfette about going to a sperm bank, there would be no "child" support money and most women aren't up to that. Take away welfare and special treatment and that's the end of the women's equality movement. Richard and I disagree on that, but I leave it up to all of you to look at what women have accomplished outside of a strange form of equality chivalrous handholding for women. Not a hell of a lot!
Projection is an amusing thing. You accuse us of being the whiners even as this whole blog is dedicated to whining about mothers problems that are either their own fault (have sex with and procreate with bad boys) and a negative societal perception of unwed mother homes (breeding criminals will do that), and finally a notion that women are losing custody of their children to abusive men (when the reality is that these unwed mothers are such lousy parents that even a chivalrous biased court system can't deny the nose on it's face.)
Richard, you didn't catch NYMOM not getting your point: That a woman who seeks to get rid of a couch potato or abusive husband and be independent isn't really on her own as long as she needs "child" support. She then goes on and on about how "primary" care for the child is all the stuff she did (hands on care). She didn't address the point I made that many career women hire daycare or nannies. Does that mean that they aren't "caring" for their children? Heck, think about it, couldn't nannies and daycare providers make the case that THEY'RE the effective parents of the children?
This is one of my favorite catchphrases: Financial support IS "primary" care. Baking pies, telling the kids to brush their teeth, and reading them nursery rhymes are all very nice, but the children can survive and get by without those little perks. A roof over their head and food in their tummies, however, is basic survival. And the lesson taught by someone who is able to earn a living is a far greater one than someone who cashes checks even if the former isn't there. Living off of someone else, whether as a CS recipient or on welfare is probably the most dehumanizing thing imaginable. They're basically living in a BEGGAR'S home!
I hate to agree with widowedMom, but she has a point that you are a whiner in that you "have a problem" with women not living up to equal responsibilities. Of course they don't because their "equality" is fake to begin with. Even when they apparently succeed on their ability, they have the safety net to become a housewife of the state or to exploit bastard children for fun and profit that a man doesn't have. Now don't get me wrong, I don't want that "right" extended to men either. I'm not jealous of women's "ability" to do such a thing. I would rather remain childless and poor than exploit a child in such a fashion. But the fact remains that women are who they are and, for good and bad, both you and WidowedMom don't want to accept women for they are.
Ironically, on the other hand, WidowedMom, you, and NYMOM all regard men as practically saints. When threatened, have you noticed how WidowedMoms runs to daddy, er, the police? Because she knows that men are largely protectors as the police, taxpayers, and ATM machines. If we weren't, then she'd be living in a grass hut with her son starving. Ironically, most of the bad boys that she criticizes are products of single mother homes. Neither you, Richard, or I, are a problem as far as society is concerned. On the contrary, we're the most valuable resource they have even if they only give us a back-handed acknowledgment of this with shaming ploys to keep working and shut up.
I remember when I was young how the future was supposed to be about megopolis, shining cities with people living in luxury, having short work weeks, and technology not only having solved basic human problems but even moving further and going into new frontiers. Now, due to single mothers having made cities into crime ridden office parks that empty at night, people sit in congestion for 2 hours a day on average to flee to the suburbs and build fences to keep their neighbors at bay. That's the "equality" paradise utopia we have.
FYI, WidowedMom, I had an argument with a girlfriend once and she got angry and decided in a rage to call the police. They came and of course were sympathetic to her and she claimed I shoved her. As it turnd out, she had backed me into a corner while yelling at me and when I gently pushed by her (not with my hands, just to get away), she lost her temper.
When asked by the police for details, she finally agreed that my version was correct and, technically, she was guilty of false imprisonment (but of course, the biased legal system wouldn't have a woman being held to the same standards as a man). They told me I had to either kick her out of my apartment or risk problems with another call so I chose the former.
I have also been attacked by women on previous occasions (I never raised a hand to a woman myself.) When I have sat on juries and heard women say that it was ok to hit a man but not be hit back, I was pleased when I told the judge my story and then the whole jury heard about the bias in the legal system. I think I may have had a hand in getting an acquittal for a poor Hispanic guy charged with DV and child-kidnapping (even though he technically had custody that day.) I really got the woman judge irked with me (she dismissed me which was what I needed at the time.)
WidowedMom, I'm sorry but I couldn't possibly go to Liz Kates' site for anything but a cheap laugh after a hard day.
I remember that woman from when she used to post on the now-defunct Family Scholars blog. A typical lawyer afflicted with verbal diarrhea. She'd pontificate for paragraph after paragraph to make one simple but absurd point and then someone would call her on it and she'd back up and attempt to "clarify" what she meant, and start all over again. God, what a bore!
I guess what she's trying to say in her floundering fashion is that women should be free to breed like rabbits without any interference from men and, I don't know, maybe we should therefore replace child support with government handouts so their "rights and autonomy" aren't constrained by the economic practicalities that the rest of us have to deal with. Or something.
I don't know what planet she's living on but we have the system that have not because anybody wants to punish single mothers but because they swamped our social services with their demands and the majority of our citizens no longer value the "autonomy" of unwed breeders enough to want to keep paying for their kids. Everyone wants parents to take care of their own.
If Liz doesn't like it she should take her case to the people if she can hold their attention longer than a couple of minutes, that is.
"And what a fool you've set your daughter up to be. There's a good chance that she may end up a divorced single mother someday. If you tell her the same crap that your spouting at me, God help her when her father won't."
Odds are even better that she won't. She'll be given sufficient education and training to take care of herself, and she'll have the example of mutually respectful parents who honored their commitments and responsibilities to show her how to pick a partner and make it work once she does.
But if she beats the odds and manages to become a divorced single mother anyway, she'll simply have to "woman up" and deal with the father she picked for her kids and whom those kids will almost certainly love and need. If she's in some sort of danger we'll do all we can to protect her but otherwise we won't be condoning any parentectomies just because she doesn't want to be bothered.
I think this will all go without saying, though. Smart women have mostly figured this out for themselves over the last thirty years or so, while the ignorant continue to spin their wheels. See the NYT article I referenced above.
"And exactly what do you mean by betrayal? Just because a woman decides to divorce her husband? Sorry, the betrayal started long before the actual divorce, and chances are, it was the husband who was the betrayer."
Betrayal occurs anytime a spouse repudiates their freely-assumed marital and familial responsibilities without a serious cause. Failing to live up to all of someone's expectations or not being sufficiently appreciative/attentive/considerate/or-you-name-it does not constitute betrayal but it accounts for at least two-thirds of the divorces that break our kids' hearts.
Like I pointed out somewhere up above, women seldom live up to all our expectations but we don't usually see that as an excuse to break up our kids' homes.
"Tell me, which one of you made the following comment?"
Well gee, WM, I dunno, maybe some idiot comparable to the one who let a mom off with two years house arrest and a little probation for keeping her daughter in filthy solitary confinement for her first six years and damaging her for life:
http://news.aol.com/article/dani-raised-like-an-animal/367749
Now that we've duly noted the freaks, maybe we can get back to talking about ordinary people.
PK said: "Heck, think about it, couldn't nannies and daycare providers make the case that THEY'RE the effective parents of the children?"
Yes, but only when men hire nannies and daycare, PK. Not when women do it. ;-)
Richard
PK said: "Richard, you didn't catch NYMOM not getting your point:"
There are a lot of points she hasn't gotten. But I'm still waiting for her to tell me why career women aren't beating the bushes looking for domestic men who will stay home and take care of children and cook steaks and be such an asset to their demanding careers.
Not holding my breath on that one, though. Women have a great little scam going with this SAH thing and they know it.
The ones who get to do it protect themselves by portraying it as a demanding and time-consuming job, and the ones who DON'T get to do it (career women) by God make sure that their mates don't get to do it either even if it means farming the kids out to strangers. They ain't puttin' up with no "parasites" like us poor dumb guys do, no siree!
Puts me in mind of how my wife never tells anyone about her favorite consignment shop. The more people know about it, the more the prices will go up.
Richard
Richard, you forgot about a piece of low hanging fruit offered by WM to us (so did I, so don't feel bad.) She claimed that we hated and feared women yet here she is scaring up a vision of your daughter winding up a single mother someday, unhelped by the father of her children. The horrors!
Even if that worst-case-scenario were to happen, she'd be a lot better off than many fathers who lose their children and is then forced to pay for the privilege. WidowedMom made the threat that she'd go to a sperm bank to avoid the relatively tiny possibility of that happening to a woman. Yet you and I, on the other hand, are married. So whose the brave, here?
Your claim that "everyone wants parents to take care of their own" is interesting because we are entering an era when many career women are now facing the baby (pardon the pun) of the feminist policies that got them that bigger salary to begin with: Do they want to work longer hours to support the children of leftist voting illegal aliens and welfare mothers? But at the same time, with so many women now working and/or unwed mothers, many of them view "free" daycare as a slam dunk. Most will have to pay for daycare anyway, so why not ask the guy-behind-the-tree to foot the tab? It's a mental battle between greedily grabbing from one's neighbors while trying to lock up and keep someone else from pilfering the fruits of their labor!
I agree with you that educated women are probably 'smarter' if only due to social class. Something occurred to me: Maybe HS educated women are acting more dumb lately because HS's have gone south. (pardon the pun). When my father graduated from HS, he spoke four languages (Polish, Latin, English, and German), knew advanced calculus, could mix up stuff in the basement that would make Breaking Bad proud (knew chemistry), and didn't need a calculator to figure out a grocery store tab or balance his checkbook. As you can tell, I'm proud of him but at the same time, he would be the first to say that he was not untypical in his class.
When I went to college 25 years ago, it was jokingly referred to as the 13th grade. My wife is attending college English classes here and is flabbergasted at how low the academic standards are. So I'm chuckling a bit at my example of "Finishing school." Those women (back then) probably were more classy and educated than most college graduate women of today! This isn't their fault, of course, but rather the leftist system that is concerned more about slicing up for their buddies an ever shrinking pie rather than making the pie bigger.
Then there's the cost. I know parents of daughters (nearly all of our friends have daughters. Must be something in the water) and the cost of, your words, "sufficient education" is now hitting 6 figures. I know men who have had to mortgage their house to the hilt (goodbye retirement!) Yep, another bonus of the "equal" rights movement! One father said his daughter (whose smart and beautiful) was going to be a lawyer someday. My wife chuckled (to me). She said that there was no way they were going to be able to afford that. But let's say for a moment that it happened. What then? She blows the money on... stuff such as lavish vacations and a big home to impress her buddies and, if she's lucky, she gets one of the shrinking pools of educated men available and marries "down". Or not. The parents at best work until they die or maybe wind up having to help raise her kids as a single-mother-by-choice.
Sounds like a big rat race.
Anyways, while I disagree with you on some things I'm happy that things appear to be working out (for both of us.) When I dated college women, they found out I didn't have a lot of money and was having problems with school (long story) and that was that. When I dated the H.S. graduated girls many of them were the same way but knowing their options were limited, they would be willing to date me if I showed off money on dates. I found either option repugnant. Even if I had a decent college education, I didn't like the side of was seeing of these women. You know the saying about watching how they treat the waiter. I was the waiter, literally! Anyways, that's my perspective.
Richard, I chuckled about NYMOM's preaching about how tough "women's work" is as well and the criticism from her and WidowedMom about men drinking beer when they get home (sheesh! How working class is that? Us more enlightened men drink WINE while our wives do housework!) Anyways, I just told you about my background and that living as a bachelor and even as a working class child I knew how to do chores. Not just the outside stuff and fixing things, but also cooking, cleaning, laundry, and even childcare.
EVERY American woman I met couldn't care less about those qualities. Didn't matter if they had a master's degree or were a HS dropout. It was about how much money I made or, maybe, social status. In addition, most of them were incredible boors. They could talk about work OR how to spend money (as much as mine as they could get their pretty hands on, of course.) I laughed when they said that men should pay for the pleasure of their company. I'd rather go out with an IRS auditor (which one of them was so I got that sarcastic wish!)
What got a sincere laugh at me between them grilling me about my income and assets or just sitting around waiting to be entertained was when they said they wanted to make a "sacrifice" and become a SAH wife or take time off of work! I laughed and laughed and laughed. I responded I didn't want to "oppress" them and then the shaming ploys began: "A REAL man would want to support a woman to raise HIS children!" (Yeah, my children when the bills are to be paid and hers to take if I get uppity. And REAL man when paying the bills but not REAL enough to have her appreciate me in that role like REAL women did in the past!)
Richard, I don't care if I did ditches to support my family. And yes, I pretty much did just that. I do what it takes to get the job done and all I want is respect and acknowledgment of what I do. Cancel that, that's what I need, not want. I don't care if I have a PhD or a dig ditches, I require respect and full emotional support and I think women need a man who insists she give it.
Regarding your wife's secret consignment shops. We're both anti-consumers and try to avoid buying too much stuff so we don't mind sharing with our friends our great finds. If that helps the store owner stay in business that helps us in the long run plus they know we send them referrals and helps us get better deals.
"I responded I didn't want to "oppress" them and then the shaming ploys began: "A REAL man would want to support a woman to raise HIS children!""
I hope you told them that it was not their business to define what REAL manhood is or isn't. Because that's exactly what they would have told you in a flash if you had tried to tell them what REAL women do or don't do.
But I gotta admit, in my dating days I wouldn't have bothered to be so confrontational. I would have just dropped out of sight and let them trash me for being unable to commit and afraid of strong women lol.
"One father said his daughter (whose smart and beautiful) was going to be a lawyer someday. My wife chuckled (to me). She said that there was no way they were going to be able to afford that."
Maybe she should do what the guys usually do and get a student loan that she can spend the next twenty years paying down. Seriously, I remember from my university days that the law students were some of the poorest, most ragged people on campus, many of them living hand-to-mouth on student loans and driving cars that were one break-down away from the junkyard.
Of course these loans are probably going to be harder to get from now on. Maybe that will help bring down tuition costs in the long run. Whenever my alma mater calls me for money I tell them point blank that they will get nothing from me until they quit building luxurious new buildings and recreational facilities and put more of their endowment toward student financial aid.
"I agree with you that educated women are probably 'smarter' if only due to social class. Something occurred to me: Maybe HS educated women are acting more dumb lately because HS's have gone south."
Could be. But less education usually (not always) means less prospects for ever having much money, and it's easier to make dumb decisions when you have little to lose AND when we've also tossed out the social and family values that used to keep the lower classes on the right path regardless.
I personally think educated women are increasingly less approving of divorce and liberal divorce laws not because they've gotten more moral or anything but because they've seen what a wealth-destroyer it is.
"Us more enlightened men drink WINE while our wives do housework!"
These days I'd probably fall asleep with my head in my dinner plate if I did that. Ah, to be 25 again!
Maybe just a small shot of Starbucks liqueur? I'll even let my wife stop and have one too. :-p
Richard
Richard, confrontation isn't a bad thing. Done well, it's the way to expose and resolve conflicts and facilitate communication. Usually, putting off confrontation only makes the situation worse! I like to know how my sausages are made, so to speak (yes, I actually do enjoy watching the food channel and seeing how they are made!) If I had just paid for the date and made chit-chat, I'm sure these women wouldn't have shown their true colors for months.
I found your claim that people who have "little to lose" tend to act more reckless to be counter-intuitive to popular wisdom. It's also delightfully elitist (I'm not using that term to be insulting, hear me out.) Maybe a trailer and old Chevy doesn't mean much to you or to most in your social circle, but if someone has those assets chopped in half then it will mean possibly going homeless or living on a food-to-mouth basis. "Little to lose" also means "EVERYTHING" to lose. In the past, working class couples probably were the most stable because divorce was so expensive. Alimony was largely something that only middle and upper class woman could enjoy.
Here's perhaps the reason why the lower classes may be divorcing more: My wife knows several working class women from her classes and work and many of them gripe they want to leave their husbands. One of them looks, and acts, like the character "Luanne" from "King of the Hill". None of these women have gotten divorced because they worry that even with a small amount of alimony, they would still have a hard time getting by. They would be ok, but sacrifices would need to be made. They might have to get a roommate or use public transportation, for example. Also, most of these women don't have kids! And THERE you have it: when a hostage, er, child is involved then divorce becomes very desirable for working class women. It's a tool they can use to suck away nearly every dime the man has to the point that sometimes these men are ordered to pay more in child-support than their actual take home pay. That may sound incredible but consider that when miscalculations are made, the man has to hire a lawyer to prove to the court that the "child" support liens are excessive but if he's working class and doesn't have several grand lying around, that's rather difficult, isn't it?
On the other hand, as you know, maybe professional women realize that the man has money to fight them in court and, as you point out, without justification for alimony then the professional women will wind up running up her own legal fees. Also, thanks to the "primary parenting" argument, a career woman dumping, er, dropping off her kid at daycare undermines their claim to primary parenting fame. Don't get too smug though, you know that the court system has adapted against men since the 70's and there are now palimony and paternity suits in addition to middle and upper class women having the option to make false allegations of abuse. To put it another way: just because you buy your sausages at a nice supermarket with plastic wrap doesn't mean that there's less rat meat in them.
Throwing out some statistics, even if they're valid (in my research, I found statistics that implied otherwise), doesn't make me feel any better when I observed the entitlement attitudes of aging professional career women. Maybe a trained rotweiller might make a great pet statistically but when I see one snarling at me in the pound, I think twice! And as I said, you and this feminist author maybe only looked at half the equation: Maybe it's the educated men who make the marriage more stable because the remaining educated men are marrying more. Yes, it's amazing, but statistics I found showed that something like 87% of educated men married compared to 77% of educated women. I suppose what that means is that the educated men have a wider variety of choices (able to marry down) and so they are able to decide based upon character. This is good news since it means that educated men are darwinistically selecting out the bad apples. But it doesn't mean that the educated women are necessarily higher quality. It also means that lower educated men are marrying less and the pool of men in that category that lower educated women settle for are not satisfying these women.
Your solution to the education problem of having the kids go into debt for decades sounds rather Sophie's choiceish. It's also pollyannaish to hope that law and medical schools will lower their tuition if student loans become harder to get. For one thing, student loans are the safest loans to make because they are almost impossible to discharge via bankruptcy court. But even so, with more and women entering school in greater numbers than men the schools can afford to pretty much demand whatever price they like, yes? That's the problem with going along with the crowd. In case you haven't noticed, I'm a contrarian investor.
"FYI, WidowedMom, I had an argument with a girlfriend once and she got angry and decided in a rage to call the police. They came and of course were sympathetic to her and she claimed I shoved her. As it turnd out, she had backed me into a corner while yelling at me and when I gently pushed by her (not with my hands, just to get away), she lost her temper."
Polish Knight, you are full of shit. I've been on enough domestic violence calls when I was a police officer, and the "I gently pushed by her" is the biggest lie that abusers use. Somehow, the "I gently pushed by her" crap usually turned out to be "I violently pushed her down the stairs and broke a bone" or something to that effect. Funny thing is that in a lot of dv cases, there are usually children present when it happens. We learned to ALWAYS question the children really well because they are usually the ones who are actually telling the truth about what REALLY happened between their parents. Somehow, that "I gently pushed by her" becomes "Daddy shoved mommy down the stairs". In fact, a woman, out of fear of what her husband would do to her, said that her husband didn't hit her, and she got a black eye because "she walked into a door". Well, guess what? Her children saw the whole thing, and they certainly didn't have any problems with saying that "Daddy punched mommy in the face." Of course, I'm sure that you'll probably say that the evil wife brainwashed her children to lie about their dad so that she could commit so-called parental alienation syndrome even though the wife originally lied to protect her husband out of fear for her safety. Well, it didn't work cause hubby was charged with domestic violence.
"When asked by the police for details, she finally agreed that my version was correct and, technically, she was guilty of false imprisonment"
OMG, thanks for the laugh, Polish Knight. Your so-called false imprisonment certainly didn't meet these requirements:
False Imprisonment
Before a person can be convicted of the crime of false imprisonment, the prosecutor must prove the following two things beyond a reasonable doubt:
The person charged with false imprisonment forcibly, secretly, or by threat confined, abducted, imprisoned, or restrained the alleged victim against his or her will; and
The person charged with false imprisonment had no lawful authority to do what he did.
http://www.justiceflorida.com/2007/08/promo/ronald-chapman-florida-false-imprisonment-lawyer-attorney/index.html
"I have also been attacked by women on previous occasions"
Polish Knight, your full of crap. The fact that you refer to women here in the plural tells me that you have a long history of getting into domestic conflicts with women. That sounds really suspicious to me. And here's why:
Research on dual arrests indicates that: 1) women’s use of force is most often a response to ongoing abuse from male partners (Finn et al., 2004; McMahon & Pence, 2003); 2) charging abused women with domestic violence increases their risk of subsequent victimization by abusive partners (Das Gupta, 2001; Hirshel & Buzawa, 2002; Martin, 1997); 3) the legal definition of ‘domestic violence’ focuses only on a single incident, rather than the presence of ongoing efforts to control, coerce, and exert power over a partner (Hirshel & Buzawa, 2002; McMahon & Pence, 2003; Miller, 2001); 4) enhanced knowledge of how the criminal justice system operates allows abusive men to ‘use’ the criminal justice system against their female partners (Bohmer, Brandt, Bronson, & Hartnett, 2002); and 5) there are serious consequences when women’s responses to violent partners are criminalized, such as loss of employment, deportation, child custody issues and increased numbers of incarcerated women (Chesney-Lind, 2002; Das Gupta, 2001).
http://www.wlu.ca/documents/30249/Womenchargedfinal.doc.
" When I have sat on juries and heard women say that it was ok to hit a man but not be hit back, I was pleased when I told the judge my story and then the whole jury heard about the bias in the legal system."
How interesting! You make it sound like you've sat on several juries. Most unusual. I also find it funny that you "told the judge your story and an entire jury". Most unusual for someone who is just "on the jury". Or maybe, the most likely scenario is that you were the defendant? All this stuff your telling me actually reveals more about you than you want me to believe. You want me to believe that in addition to being some kind of macho studmuffin who has career women lining up to date you, you also have hordes of women who are out to get you and attack you for no reason. Oh, please, don't make me puke. Sorry, I've been in law enforcement and corrections too long to fall for that crap. Something tells me that your an abuser with a LONG HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN. Ha! I'll bet the Mexican guy was a polish knight who was let off on a technicality for kidnapping his kid in a custody dispute.
"You claim to have had an egalitarian relationship and act as if you deserved some kind of medal for going to work full-time. Here's the thing: Most men are expected to do that by default. It's not some kind of "choice" they get if they don't want to do all the housechores or are unable to find a woman to foot most of the bills"
Are you an idiot or what? My husband worked full-time, AND he still did his share of the childcare/housework because it's called BEING A PARENT. Not because of some "choice". Being the breadwinner doesn't excuse a man from being a parent like you seem to think. The majority of women have to work full-time because their husbands can't support the family on one salary, not because of some choice. And the majority of women end up doing the majority of the childcare/housework on top of all this because, BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE BECAUSE DAD THINKS HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY BE A PARENT. So, go on and cry me a river because you think you should get "emotonal support" and "respect" from your wife. Is that before or after you beat her?
"Anyways, I just told you about my background and that living as a bachelor and even as a working class child I knew how to do chores. Not just the outside stuff and fixing things, but also cooking, cleaning, laundry, and even childcare."
God, like you ever did any of that shit. If you did, you wouldn't be on this blog complaining about those "evil women".
"When threatened, have you noticed how WidowedMoms runs to daddy, er, the police? Because she knows that men are largely protectors as the police, taxpayers, and ATM machines."
Ah, dude, I was the police, and now I'm a probation/parole agent who has the power of the state to put abusive men back in prison or jail.
"If we weren't, then she'd be living in a grass hut with her son starving."
I probably have made and am making more money than you ever made in your miserable life.
"Ironically, most of the bad boys that she criticizes are products of single mother homes."
Most bad boys that I criticize are the cause of most single mothers homes to begin with.
"Neither you, Richard, or I, are a problem as far as society is concerned. On the contrary, we're the most valuable resource they have even if they only give us a back-handed acknowledgment of this with shaming ploys to keep working and shut up."
With your views and problem with women, your one of the worse speciman of men out there. The most valuable resource men like you have is the women WHO ACTUALLY RAISE YOUR CHILDREN BECAUSE YOU SURE AS HELL DON'T.
Richard:
"I remember that woman from when she used to post on the now-defunct Family Scholars blog. A typical lawyer afflicted with verbal diarrhea."
Yeah, I suppose you didn't want to hear from Liz Kates especially after she quotes Warren Farrell, a leading father's rights advocate, from his 1977 interview with Penthouse:
WARREN FARRELL, interviewed in Penthouse, December 1977, "Incest: The Last Taboo" by Philip Nobile
"the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection..."
"When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200," says Farrell, "the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve -- and in one or two cases to join in."
"Incest is like a magnifying glass," he summarizes. "In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of the relationship..."
"In a society where men are powerful and exploitive and insensitive to women's feelings, which is reinforced by female adaptiveness and a daughter's lack of power, data like these can be used as an excuse for the continuation and magnification of that exploitation. When I consider that, I almost don't want to write the book.
It's no wonder a lot of pedophiles and wife beaters are attracted to the father's rights crowd.
"But if she beats the odds and manages to become a divorced single mother anyway, she'll simply have to "woman up" and deal with the father she picked for her kids and whom those kids will almost certainly love and need. If she's in some sort of danger we'll do all we can to protect her but otherwise we won't be condoning any parentectomies just because she doesn't want to be bothered."
Brve words Richard, but if your daughter's in danger, there isn't going to be a whole lot you'll be able to do about it because most it's the abusive husbands who kill their wives when they leave, use their paternal rights, and visitations to harass your daughter rather than actually visit with the kids. And if she tries to protect herself and her kids, he can claim parental alienation syndrome and get custody. But, hey, she should just "woman up" and deal with it. After all, her dad thinks abused women lie all the time, and her kids are automatically going to be criminals because she's a single mother. Well, you know what they say. Girls usually end up marrying men like their fathers.
WM, Warren Farrell's musings mean about as much to me as Andrea Dworkin's drivel about all men being rapists. I'm not an FRA and I'm not interested in the extremes of either side here but in what's actually relevant to the majority of people.
And the fact is that the vast majority of family breakups have jack shit to do with abuse.
Liz's ramblings on FSB were not about Warren Farrell but about reproductive technology, and she was as verbose and delusional on that as she was in the article you referenced. That's why I'd just as soon not waste any time reading her.
"Well, you know what they say. Girls usually end up marrying men like their fathers."
True. I guess that's why I'm not very worried.
Richard
WidowedMom, for someone who claims that we're the ones who hate the opposite sex, you reveal a prejudiced, negative attitude towards men as abusers, deadbeats, and lazy bums Or at least men who dare to get uppity with you. For the record, there wasn't a mark on her and we lived in an apartment so how I could break her bones throwing her down the stairs, I don't know? She even told the police she was calling them because she was angry at me for being a jerk (in her opinion) and then came up with the "he pushed me" justification to get out of charged with making a BS 911 call. Even though they, like you, look for any excuse to lock a man up and throw away the key, they had to let me go. Or are you saying that the O.C. cops were incompetant?
I was constrained against my will via force (she stood in my way so I couldn't move. If a man had yelled at a woman while blocking her way to leave, would that be false imprisonment? (Hint: I'm switching genders to demonstrate a clear double standard.) You then use an argument that when I claim to have been attacked by women, it must be "suspicious" on my part. Talk about blaming the victim! You're saying that a victim is, by definition, under suspicion for making the claim! If only THAT legal argument was allowed by use of the defense in, say, rape trials...
Continuing with the "he had it coming" argument you make, check out: tinyurl.com/c6xyth "Kelly Killoren Bensimon, 40, was arrested last week for misdemeanor assault after 30-year-old Nicholas Stefanov called cops saying she punched him. Benismon, who appears on Bravo's hit reality show "The Real Housewives of New York City," socked him "with a closed fist causing lacerations below the left eye and substantial pain," according to the criminal complaint he filed with cops."
Note, it was never referred to as "DV" and she faces a misdemeanor. Would a man punching a woman with a closed fist in the eye and sending her to the emergency room get off so easy? Your cites are hilarious because it sounds like soft-pedaling DV by women because, gasp, it might make things tough on them. For the record, I don't think men should get away with DV or beating a woman to a pulp and then claiming "she started it". That's your thinking and it's sad, but unsurprising you work for the police. Yeah, the same paragons of ethics that enforced Jim Crow and "driving while black" with enthusiasm... I laugh at those bumper stickers that say "There is NO excuse for Domestic Violence!" I would like to get a sticker printed up that says: "Except when done to men! Then it's funny!" The more you brag about background in law enforcement while making accusations against me, the more you sully the reputation of your force as a bunch of corrupt hooligans. I'm sure you know how to get "free" donuts. (wink wink) It's arrogant behavior like yours that caused juries to let OJ off.
You're now throwing out baseless accusations that I was a defendant, rather than a juror (briefly) on a DV case? You're REAL desperate, aren't you? For the record, I used to live in L.A. and Orange County and got called about once every 2 years or so. I lived there for 10 years. Do the math. I don't think that's exceptional although now that I live in DC metro, I haven't gotten called once in about half that time. Or maybe I'm just not in the right jurisdiction.
When I said I had career women lining up to date me, I hardly said it in the context that I was putting on a maucho front. I said that such women were so desperate that they had to lower their standards out of aging desperation to date the likes of me. It was clearly self-deprecating but also convincing because I was not making the point to puff myself up. It's known as an anti-authority credible argument: Something that someone wouldn't bother to make up. Why would I brag about being so low on the dating scale if not to make an honest point? The subtlety apparently went over your head.
My point, WidowedMom, is not that being the breadwinner excuses men from doing household chores but rather YOUR double standard that women who do their own household chores are excused from earning a living and cashing checks. For men, working is not a hobby. It sounds to me like sour grapes when you whine that, gasp, the women were unable to land a man to pay her way and now she "has" to work and do the household chores. How is that whining or asking you to cry a river for me? It seems like you're doing enough for the both of us! And if women's liberation is so wonderful, why do women seem to keep going back to the bad boys, hmmm?
For the record, when women in my life committed DV I handled it like an old time gentleman. I told them the relationship was over or that they had to be responsible for their actions and emotions in the future and they did. Society taught them to be hypocritical tramps but I showed them a better way. I'm ok with that.
As an aside, I loved your "is that before or after you beat her" question. Didja ever hear the loaded question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Maybe you have. You probably HAVE asked women supposed victims of DV "So what the did guy do to deserve what he had coming?"
Listen, WidowedMom, I hate to break it to you, but you aren't a genius or saint for doing laundry or cooking and cleaning. I'll prove it to you: I merely sort the clothes by color and texture into the hot and cold piles (I don't bother with warm) and delicates and permanent press. (I do the wife's fragile stuff too.) I then take each basket, dump it in appropriately, and set the timer and walk off and play with the cat and watch some TV. I don't see why this is supposedly worth alimony as judges claim. Cleaning the cat box, also easy. I go to the littermaid, open the receptacle, dump the poo into a bag, double bag it, and take it to the trash. Hmmm, this segways neatly into cooking: peel, cut, and boil potatoes, drain, and mix with a stick of butter and 2 tbl of milk and a dash of salt. My wife says I make them better than she does.
Is that proof enough for you, or do you want me to tell you how to change a diaper and vacuum a floor?
For the record, I am happily married as Richard is as well. YOU are single from what I know so whose not getting along? Hmmm? You're still running to the state because you need to call backup to take out your grudge against the gender that earned your social security checks. Yeah, you're so brave and noble. Don't forget to give women thinking about killing their babies directions on how to legally abandon them. You have to have SOME ethical standards for women, I guess. How often do abandoned babies from the wonderful mothers you laud turn up dead? STILL? Even with a total get out of jail free card, literally?
For the record, I make six figures a year. If you can beat that, then I'll become a probation officer! Oh, wait, you won't believe me. Nevermind. You make up whatever claims you like though, tee hee.
You claim: "Most bad boys that I criticize are the cause of most single mothers homes to begin with." Do you think that babies pop out of these bad boy's penises or something? It's amazing how women's wombs are suddenly no longer the magic immaculate conception machines we read about here when blame (or expense) is being dished out. Yep, it's the bad boys' fault that the liberated women chose to sleep with them, chose to gestate their baby for 9 months, then chose to not give the baby up for adoption, then didn't legally abandon (or kill) it, and then it's his fault that she raised the kid at his or the taxpayer's expense to be a criminal. Yep, it's all his fault for that single sex act for ALL of that! Yeah, sure. Just think of that next time you take another victims' report.
Oh, wait, it's time for you to discover that women raise children again. This deserves quoting: "With your views and problem with women, your one of the worse speciman of men out there. The most valuable resource men like you have is the women WHO ACTUALLY RAISE YOUR CHILDREN BECAUSE YOU SURE AS HELL DON'T." Yeah, so who raised all those criminals, again?
For the record, I don't have any bastard children and I took my time getting married and while not exactly the best looking or earning guy on the planet, the tortoise wins the race. If you want to take that as bragging, go ahead.
I see you go after Warren Farrel for his penthouse interview. It's clear you took it out of context because you didn't even quote the whole sentence! He was talking about incest in the context of families that are comfortable with that lifestyle and not condoning it himself. It's rather funny that in modern times, it's considered bigoted to be against gay marriage because it's just sex between consenting adults. So if a father, mother, brother and sister are adults, then shouldn't that be legal using that logic? Does National Geographic endorse incest and polygamy by merely reporting on the lifestyles of those peoples?
FYI, NOW and feminist leaders regularly encouraged mothers to MASTURBATE while breastfeeding their babies to strengthen the mother/daughter bond.
Finally, you have obviously seen "sleeping with the enemy" on lifetime too many times! Why don't you try watching the Adventures of Octomom for some equal coverage! They're even thinking of giving her her own reality TV show! I'm sure you'll find a way to blame her crazed child endangering stunts on a man somehow...
Richard says: "I'm not an FRA and I'm not interested in the extremes of either side here but in what's actually relevant to the majority of people."
Richard, you bring to mind the great Zapp Brannigan who said: "I hate these filthy neutrals, Kif! With enemies, you know where they stand, but with neutrals - who knows. It sickens me."
Are you denying that FRAs have a point that the so-called family court system is unfair towards fathers? Or are you afraid to speak up for fear of being labeled, gasp, an extremist?
Extremists are responsible for what our society is today. Abraham Lincoln and the extremist notion of outlawing slavery. Susan B Anthony. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. What a bunch of nuts!
Being a "moderate" seems like a big cop-out (pardon the pun, Widowed Mom) to me. If something is wrong, or right, just say so. Don't take a popularity survey first!
But if you DO actually care about what's "relevant to the majority of people", then you maybe should put aside the popular religious idea of the day of women's equality that's out of whack with the choices of the vast majority of women. Other than women having changed little in their demands for men to bring home money, they are totally different than 100 years ago. Except for griping he doesn't cook and clean too. Yeah, real progress there.
"The most valuable resource men like you have is the women WHO ACTUALLY RAISE YOUR CHILDREN BECAUSE YOU SURE AS HELL DON'T." Yeah, so who raised all those criminals, again?"
For the record, I was happily married as well, and I would still be married if my husband had not been killed on duty. However, I was much too busy raising my son by myself to care about a relationship with another man. Just because most single dads shack up with a girlfriend or get a second wife to raise their kids doesn't mean I was going to do the same. I raised my own child, not a stepdad. FYI, children in stepfamilies usually do worse than children in two-parent biological families AND single mother homes. And btw, you can go on and on about single mother homes breeding criminals and being responsible for all of societies' ills, but that doesn't really address my original point. The single mother homes that show the best child outcomes comparable to two-parent homes are WIDOWED HOMES. I've seen that statistic quoted on feminist and FRA websites (though usually glossed over by the FRA's). However, the FRAs, with all their talk about how "fatherless" homes are bad for children, they can never fully explain why THE ULTIMATE FATHERLESS HOMES (and the only truly fatherless homes) do just as well as two-parent families. Of course, we can go on and on (and we have throughout this thread)about high parental conflict being responsible or not responsible for the poor child outcomes of single mother homes, but to FRAs, this point is actually irrelevant. Their whole agenda is built up around the idea that the MERE ABSENCE OF A BIOLOGICAL FATHER is the cause of most poor childhood outcomes in single mother homes. In their view, father absence is the main cause of poor childhood outcomes in single mother homes based solely on the fact the bio dad isn't in the household. They don't care if bio-dad was father of the year, or a an abusive drunk because they think that as long as bio-dad isn't in the home, the children are automatically doomed to become criminals and failures. However, widowed homes are a paradox to them because they can't give a satisfactory explanation why widowed homes are doing just as well as two-parent homes without the presence of a bio-dad. They can't explain it, so they ignore this fact, or they gloss it over. In fact, widowed homes directly contradict what they are saying about the mere absence of bio-dad being automatically the cause of all poor childhood outcomes. In fact, widowed homes are really the only true fatherless homes, and most children of divorced/unwed mothers still have some kind of contact with their non-residential biological fathers. By the logic of the FRA crowd, widowed homes should be the ones with all the poor childhood outcomes and not divorced/unwed mothers with children who still have contact with bio-dad. That's why FRAs are hypocrites because they quote statistics about widowed homes being comparable to two-parent homes, but they don't see how this totally contradicts their whole idea that the MERE ABSENCE OF BIO-DAD is the cause of poor childhood outcomes in single mother homes. They don't see the contradiction because they don't want to. They know that it contradicts everything that they say about two-parent families being the only successful way to raise children. Well, it's been fun, but I'm not coming back to this thread. I'm leaving on a trip with my son to take a tour of the campus at Yale where he's going to college this fall on a full scholarship. Ciao!
It's ultra-contradictory, WidowedMom, that you're enraged about being lumped in with "single mothers". which are mostly unwed or divorced women, as breeding grounds for criminals yet at the same time you both try to push off blame on the absent fathers (whether they pay their "child" support or not) while claiming that there isn't really a problem to begin with. What a tangled web you weave! Richard did provide an explanation for why widowers are different than other single mothers who are usually single due to inability to find an acceptable man, sleeping around, divorce or have a grudge against men. That leads us to:
Joan Rivers made a controversial joke that the firemen who died in 911 wasn't that big a tragedy since many of their wives were victims of DV and would have divorced them anyway. You claim to have had a happy marriage but you act as if you're a bitter divorcee, not a widow. It's good that you made raising your son a priority and didn't just settle for a bad stepfather that would have made the problem worse, but, pardon the pun (again), that comes across as a copout for not getting married again, doesn't it? Not all stepfathers or stepmothers are bad just as not all men who disagree with you are wife beaters. You've recklessly accused Richard and I of beating our wives which is amazingly unprofessional. It's officers like you which is why Internal Affairs exist!
Let's go back to comparing widows to other single mothers: You didn't raise your children on your own. Your husband, even in death, helped out via his pension and social security and other benefits in addition to being a role model that you, and your son, enjoyed. You threw his contributions under the bus even as you gnash your teeth that we're not respecting you! Amazing!
Recap: You've loosely thrown around accusations and blame at Richard and I, men in general, and thrown your husband overboard to defend the bad results of single mother homes just because you're one of them. Your sentence rambles on with redundancies and open lies including that Richard didn't have an explanation for widowed mother households doing well which is amazing because you claim to have worked in law enforcement and know how to write reports. You're about as coherent as junior high schooler!
In closing, congratulations on your son going to Yale. I'm sure he'll make a wonderful locksmith.
Hello PK.
"It's also delightfully elitist..."
Oh, don't hesitate to charge me with elitism. I've heard that before and I've got a tough hide. I'll even admit to a bit of it.
"Maybe a trailer and old Chevy doesn't mean much to you or to most in your social circle, but if someone has those assets chopped in half then it will mean possibly going homeless or living on a food-to-mouth basis. "Little to lose" also means "EVERYTHING" to lose."
But that's just my point. If anyone loses the trailer chances are it will be Mr. Luanne, not Luanne herself.
And there are other things that Luanne probably won't worry about losing in a divorce, either. Are they saving for retirement? Probably not much if any. Are they saving for college for the kids? Probably not.
But a middle/upper class woman is more reluctant to cut retirement and college investments in half, not to mention the sheer waste of paying for the housing and maintenance of two homes instead of one and pissing away resources on lawyers and court costs and experts and you-name-it when you could be using them to grow those investments instead.
Smart women also think about a big chunk of their husbands' resources going to second families instead of to their own kids. Luanne just knows she'll get her flat percentage of his income as child support for X number of years no matter what and he probably won't accumulate anything more anyway so what the hell.
Of course a divorce is still a poor choice in the long run for Luanne's kids (if it's the typical, low-conflict divorce) but it's an easier choice for Luanne if SHE'S not losing much.
If your family has accumulated any wealth, what could be more stupid than to bring it all, plus your kids, into a family court and let some strangers tell you how your property will be divided and spent and how and where your kids will spend their time and then bill you for arranging your life for you?
I mean damn! Is it any wonder that it's now mostly the have-nots who do this shit?
But I like using "Luanne" as our prototype here. My wife likes King of the Hill a lot. She had an uncle down south that I've never met who she says sounds just like Boomhauer.
"Your solution to the education problem of having the kids go into debt for decades sounds rather Sophie's choiceish."
Well yeah, but if the girl really wants that legal education better that she should borrow and pay it down herself than have her parents mortgage away their retirement. She won't like the payments but she'll like even less for her elderly parents to show up on her doorstep with their suitcases someday.
"Are you denying that FRAs have a point that the so-called family court system is unfair towards fathers? Or are you afraid to speak up for fear of being labeled, gasp, an extremist?"
Somehow I knew you'd call me on that, PK! Let me explain. I've said before that I'm not a real FRA because I've never had a dog in this fight. I am a sympathizer, though, and the reason I sympathize is because the unfair treatment that men admittedly get in family court weakens marriage by rewarding women for copping out (sorry!) on their family commitments.
FRA's spend a lot of effort playing up single mothers' child abuse/neglect/poor child outcomes and WM and her ilk similarly play up men as batterers and pedophiles. The truth really IS in the middle ground. Children of broken homes fare more or less the same regardless of which form of custody they're in. Mother, father, joint, it's all roughly an equal amount of bad.
Where the outcomes turn bad (not just in childhood but later when the kids are trying to form homes and families of their own) is when the home breaks up or is never properly formed in the first place. That's why I support presumed shared parenting. Not because it's a great option but because it demonstrably reduces the divorce rate. That's what children need.
In a nutshell, because evidently WM didn't hear the first time, children can accept their family being cut up by a tragic twist of fate such as the death of a parent, but they do not easily recover from having it destroyed by the parents themselves. That is a deliberate betrayal that not only puts them at risk for all the textbook varieties of childhood and adolescent behavioral problems but also follows them into adulthood and ruins their ability to choose wisely, to trust, to commit, to hang in there when it's tough, all the things they must do in order to form stable families that raise healthy and productive children for the future.
"Richard did provide an explanation for why widowers are different than other single mothers"
PK, WidowedMom isn't reading or listening. The beliefs she's attributed to me, at least, did not come from anything I wrote. But that's liberalism for you. It's much easier to put a statement of your own choosing into your opponent's mouth and THEN attack it, than to attack what's actually been said.
Oh, and have a nice trip, WM. New England is a beautiful place to visit.
Richard
Richard, perhaps I shouldn't have used Luanne and a trailer as an example since many if not most working class families don't fit in that category. Actually, looking back it's amazing that my working class parents had a nicer home than most middle class educated families I know today. Perhaps you have a point about "smart" women after all since it's not uncommon to hear lower class women simultaneously say that single mothers struggle to get by without child-support while chuckling that they can throw out their husband if he gets uppity and make him into a wage slave. My wife knows many of these women and she splits them into two categories: The "smart" ones who know to let sleeping dogs lie and the stupid ones who think they can win the lottery and wind up struggling to make ends meet. A friend of mine divorced his wife who works checkout at Safeway and in the end, even though she did get some money and CS, wound up realizing that she was better off with him around.
You didn't address my response point which was that the best indicator of a marriage's existance and stability is the man's income and educational level. Educated men marry at a rate of 10% more than educated women (and far more than lesser educated men) meaning that educated men today, more than ever, are in the driver's seat. Educated women have compromised a lot more than in the past because, hey, did I mention they were desperate enough to date me? They are even willing to use matchmaking services rather than the traditional route: sitting around doing nothing. These women didn't compromise either of those standards for nothing: The ability to send a message to educated men that they had to behave or wind up single and rejected helped to generate a strong chivalrous impulse even up to our generation. I wonder if young men are becoming misgynistic or at least more demanding than we were. They don't even have to take out women on dates. They can just get hook ups or "Lewinsky"s.
So it will be interesting to see if educated women will be up to the next challenge of making more than token offers of egalitarianism, marrying horizontally or even having to compete in a buyer's market, pardon the pun, when the average educated man has not only many educated women competing for his attention, but top grade lesser educated women as well. My wife and I are amazed at how lesser educated women still haven't caught up to the rules changing and they don't use matchmaking services or play silly games. You may see statistics take a quick change (if not already) as the conclusions educated women are drawing filter down to the rest of the working class.
"Richard did provide an explanation for why widowers are different than other single mothers who are usually single due to inability to find an acceptable man, sleeping around, divorce or have a grudge against men."
Ah, I remember Richard providing an explanation for why WIDOWS are different. But if your confused Polish Knight on how WIDOWERS differ from other single mothers, I can enlighten you: Widowers are men, and single mothers are women.
Does that it explain it enough for you to understand? Should I draw you a picture next time? LOL.
"Let's go back to comparing widows to other single mothers: You didn't raise your children on your own. Your husband, even in death, helped out via his pension and social security and other benefits"
FYI, Polish Knight, I could afford to raise my son without widow's benefits because I had (and do have) a good salary. However, the question is, WHY SHOULD I? My son is entitled to support from his father whether his father is deceased or not. AND HIS FATHER WOULDN'T HAVE HAD IT ANY OTHER WAY. There is a reason that we both had things like life insurance policies,etc., on each other so that if one of us died, the one left behind would've been able to support our son in a FINANCIALLY STABLE AND COMFORTABLE HOME AS POSSIBLE. It's called planning ahead for a possible disaster which unfortunately, in our case, happened sooner than he or I would have expected. And by law, I'm entitled to his pension and social security benefits as his widow, HE WOULD'VE BEEN ENTITLED TO THE EXACT SAME BENEFITS IF I HAD BEEN THE ONE WHO DIED INSTEAD OF HIM. I certainly wouldn't have been petty enough to begrudge him this after my death.
Well, Polish Knight, you just shot yourself in the foot with this kind of reasoning. You claim that I didn't raise my son myself because I received benefits from my husband after his death. Well, this is all the more reason that divorced/unwed fathers should pay their child support so that they can "help raise their children". You want to minimize the importance of the primary caretaking responsibilities that most mothers provide for their children while pumping up the father's role as primary breadwinner. Well, it's definitely in the best interests of the child to be "raised" by both parents. Therefore; the children can be raised" by both parents the way they always were during their parent's relationship. They'll receive the same hands-on care from the parent who always provided it (the mother) through full physical custody, and they'll be "raised" through the financial contributions of the parent (the father) who always provided most of it via child support. That way children will continue to be "raised" by both parents. I'm so glad you agree with me Polish Knight.
"and other benefits in addition to being a role model that you, and your son, enjoyed. You threw his contributions under the bus even as you gnash your teeth that we're not respecting you! Amazing!"
Your right! My son and I did enjoy my husband as a role model. AND THAT'S BECAUSE HE ACTUALLY WAS ONE! I told you that my husband and I both worked full-time, and I NEVER HAD TO ASK HIM FOR HELP WITH HOUSEWORK/CHILDCARE. Somehow, you warped this into my saying I wanted a medal for working full-time while you missed the actual point. My husband was a role model because he didn't expect me to do most of the childcare/housework on top of a full-time job. In other words, HE DIDN'T USE HIS FULL-TIME JOB AS AN EXCUSE TO DO NOTHING WHILE I DID EVERYTHING LIKE THE MAJORITY OF MEN DO TO THEIR WIVES. My husband even did his share of housework/childcare while I was off from work for maternity leave. DO YOU GET THAT? DOES THAT COMPUTE? My husband was a great role model as a HUSBAND AND FATHER as well as being a terrific police officer. IN FACT, THE MAIN REASON HE WAS A GREAT ROLE MODEL WAS BECAUSE HE KNEW HOW TO TREAT WOMEN AT HOME AND IN HIS JOB AS A POLICE OFFICER.
"It's officers like you which is why Internal Affairs exist!"
That's funny because most of what I learned as a police officer was learned from my husband considering I met him
as a rookie cop, and he was someone who took me under his wing to learn the ropes of being a police officer. Oh, and it's mostly the police officers with macho attitudes like you who end up in trouble with internal affairs.
"Your sentence rambles on with redundancies and open lies including that Richard didn't have an explanation for widowed mother households doing well which is amazing because you claim to have worked in law enforcement and know how to write reports. You're about as coherent as junior high schooler!"
Web definition of redundancy:
"repetition of messages to reduce the probability of errors in transmission"
Do you get that Polish Knight? I know reading comprehension isn't exactly your strong point, but I suppose I can try to explain it to you. If I was redundant, it was because you seem to miss the same point over and over and over and over, etc., ad nauseum while jumping to your own conclusions that don't even really address the point I was making. IS THAT COHERENT ENOUGH FOR YOU? I guess if I'm as "coherent as a junior high schooler", that makes makes you as coherent as a kindergartner. After all, even a kindergartner knows the difference between a man and a woman.
Now, let's get back to this idea that Richard had about widowed homes that you CLAIM that I'm lying about. Richard said:
"For those kids there is no sense of deliberate abandonment by one parent and resulting feelings of unworthiness. No shattering of trust in those who are supposed to be providing a firm foundation but instead are putting their own wants first.
No failed marital template to follow the kids into adulthood and undermine their ability to form and maintain successful marriages and families of their own. And often there's even an idealization of the departed parent and a desire to honor them by living up to their expectations. That's a POWERFUL influence that a deceased parent leaves behind."
I told him:
Richard, not every widow with minor children had a marriage that was free of parental conflict. I was happily married, but about half the widows that I met in my widowed/divored mother support group (and there was a lot of them) had marriages that were as bad or worse than any of the divorced women in the group. A lot of these women told me that they would've ended up divorced if they hadn't been widowed early. They and their children may have genuinely grieved the loss of a husband/father, but they AND THEIR CHILDREN WERE ALL RELIEVED TO BE FREE OF THE CONFLICT."
Richard's reason was way too simplistic about why widowed homes do better because he was coming from the idea that "there wasn't a failed marital template". There are many widowed homes that had just as much or more parental conflict than divorced marriages. Early widowhood is what prevented these marriages from ending up in divorce court not because "there wasn't a failed marital template". And as for these guys being a "powerful influence" to their children after death? Get real. The drunken dad who comes home at 2 am and throws chairs around, and who beats up mom and kids isn't going to be a powerful influence to kids just because drunk dad had the misfortune to die in a car accident after going on a three day drinking binge. And btw, this really did happen to a woman that I met in my widowed/divorced support group. Her son was always in trouble in school and with the juvenile authorities. Funny thing is that her son straightened out just fine after dad popped off when the son was twelve years old, and now her son is graduating with honors along with my son. But I guess you'll just say that was due to the "powerful influence of his deceased father". What a load of shit. It was due to the fact that the kid didn't have to live in a home with a drunken, violent father anymore. While MY HUSBAND may have been a "powerful influence" on my son after his death, it's because he was A GREAT ROLE MODEL TO BEGIN WITH. However, the way you talk, I owe all my success as a single mother to my deceased husband. The majority of my success came from the fact that I made a double effort to compensate for the loss of his father, and the child's success in a widowed home has more to do with the relationship BETWEEN THE CHILD AND THE WIDOWED PARENT. In fact, it's the relationship between the child and the residential parent (mother)that is the biggest predictor of a child's success post divorce or parental break up. However, if that relationship is constantly undermined by the non-residential parent's (father)unreasonable demands, and petty, jealous, vindictive, spiteful behavior, than the child continues to suffer because of the high parental conflict. WELL, POLISH KNIGHT, DID YOU GET THAT? DO YOU NOW KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN OUTRIGHT LIE AND REJECTING AN EXPLANATION BECAUSE IT'S TOO SIMPLISTIC TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN THE OUTCOME OF A SITUATION? DO YOU UNDERSTAND AT ALL? BECAUSE THIS IS THE LAST TIME THAT I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING THAT IS OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE BUT YOU, RICHARD, AND THE REST OF THE FRA CROWD.
"In closing, congratulations on your son going to Yale. I'm sure he'll make a wonderful locksmith"
Well, congratulations on your wife having a college degree that she doesn't use. What's the matter? Didn't you want her to use it? Are you jealous that she might have made more than you? I guess that's the only way you can feel superior since you only have a high school diploma. Now you can beat your chest about how much money you make compared to her because you were too dumb to go to college to begin with? But hey, can't stand the wife being more successful than you now can you? LOL. Well, now that your jealousy of your wife and all women is revealed, my work here is done. I definitely won't be returning to this thread now because frankly, you and Richard bore me with your jealous, whiny complaints about women. And remember this, neither you nor Richard would've been able to bring up your children if you were widowed better than I brought up my son. Hell, I doubt you raised your children better than I did despite the benefits of a "two-parent family". After all, there's a lack of decent male role models in your familys either way.
"PK, WidowedMom isn't reading or listening. The beliefs she's attributed to me, at least, did not come from anything I wrote. But that's liberalism for you. It's much easier to put a statement of your own choosing into your opponent's mouth and THEN attack it, than to attack what's actually been said."
Richard, I just used your exact quote from one of your posts, and nowhere did you say it was anyone's opinion but your own.
Oh, and have a nice trip, WM. New England is a beautiful place to visit.
Thanks, we will.
That's not the quote I was talking about, WM. It was this:
"After all, her dad thinks abused women lie all the time, and her kids are automatically going to be criminals because she's a single mother."
These are not my beliefs. But they're easy to attack, aren't they?
"There are many widowed homes that had just as much or more parental conflict than divorced marriages. Early widowhood is what prevented these marriages from ending up in divorce court not because "there wasn't a failed marital template"."
Now it's WM who is being simplistic. The majority of family breakups are NOT about the drunken dad throwing chairs around no matter how the fems like to paint it. Statistically speaking, chances are that two-thirds or more of these "conflicted" marriages that ended in widowhood rather than divorce were low-conflict marriages that, from a best-interests-of-child perspective, would have been better maintained than dissolved. Kids don't really care much (nor does it affect their outcomes) if their parents are happy/fulfilled/connected/communicating/appreciated/understood as long as they are together and tending to their responsibilities.
To reiterate, kids can accept losing mom or dad to a twist of fate but a deliberate rupturing of the family is a betrayal by the parents that follows them into adulthood and stymies their ability to form solid families of their own.
"Therefore; the children can be raised" by both parents the way they always were during their parent's relationship. They'll receive the same hands-on care from the parent who always provided it (the mother) through full physical custody, and they'll be "raised" through the financial contributions of the parent (the father) who always provided most of it via child support."
Very few children of divorce would agree with these statements, which reflect the old expectations of the divorce-positive 70s which we now know to be false. Post-divorce parenting is a vastly different affair than what goes on in an intact family.
"Funny thing is that her son straightened out just fine after dad popped off when the son was twelve years old, and now her son is graduating with honors along with my son. But I guess you'll just say that was due to the "powerful influence of his deceased father". What a load of shit."
I had a friend in high school who had a bad alcohol problem. After his father died unexpectedly he stopped cold. Why? Probably a woman-firster would assume that dad must have been a bad influence, of course. But HE said it was because "now my dad can see me."
"While MY HUSBAND may have been a "powerful influence" on my son after his death, it's because he was A GREAT ROLE MODEL TO BEGIN WITH."
You said your son never knew his father. Whether he was a great role model or not is irrelevant. It's a child's natural tendency to idealize a deceased parent and turn him/her into a continuing positive presence and even the worst surviving parent will seldom do anything to interfere with that since there is nothing to be gained. Unlike what often occurs in an angry divorce.
"And remember this, neither you nor Richard would've been able to bring up your children if you were widowed better than I brought up my son. Hell, I doubt you raised your children better than I did despite the benefits of a "two-parent family". After all, there's a lack of decent male role models in your familys either way."
Don't you love it, PK, how the women around here all presume some special ability to see into the families of strangers and judge our performance?
I learned what being a man means from my dad, who raised and educated three successful kids, tended to business and has devoted the last ten-plus years of his life to the full-time care of my disabled mother. If I resemble him at all I'll do better than meeting the standards of nameless woman-firsters.
Goodbye, WM.
Richard
WidowedMom, if the best counterargument you can make against me is my mistakingly saying "widowers" instead of widows, then I'm doing pretty well. It's nice to see you give your husband SOME credit for helping you after death even if in a snide, backhanded manner, before reburying him and dismissing his posthumous contributions as a legal entitlement.
The role model you have for him seems to be counterproductive in that you say of men "HE DIDN'T USE HIS FULL-TIME JOB AS AN EXCUSE TO DO NOTHING WHILE I DID EVERYTHING LIKE THE MAJORITY OF MEN DO TO THEIR WIVES" First off, that simply isn't true. "NOTHING?!?!" A majority of men don't EVER mow the lawn, take out the trash, or even do a few dishes? EVER? I find that hard to believe yet you claim to be a professional policewoman who writes fact based reports. If there's one thing worse than a role model that teaches kids to be a slacker would be that of someone living on probation, literally, who can't make a single mistake or fail to wash a dish without being kicked out of the house. Except that your son is on probation for the simple crime of being born male. For the record, I have had accusations leveled at me for sexual harassment but the investigations showed that they were baseless and politically motivated and they backfired on them. Tee hee. Unlike some of the men in your life, I can't be intimidated.
About shooting myself in the foot (pardon the police pun): You snidely argue that my point that a man contributes to the household justifies a system that makes him into a wage slave absentee parent undermines the very point you just made above: That a man working and supporting his child keeps that child fed and a roof over his head whether he's there or not. SOMEONE ELSE can always bake cookies or even change diapers and that's what many career women opt to pay for. It's amazing that so many men do pay their "child" support for children they aren't allowed to see. Whose the saints? Women who cash checks as a lifestyle or the person who earns that money to provide for someone else?
You provide the web definition of redundancy. Allow me to provide the web definition of a word I used to describe your writing in the same sentence:
Ramble: verb "to wander around in a leisurely, aimless manner: They rambled through the shops until closing time."
Simply repeating the same point, over and over again, is about as convincing as screeching your nails on a blackboard but it doesn't work on me. Good luck with that strategy.
You quote Richard saying: "For those kids there is no sense of deliberate abandonment by one parent and resulting feelings of unworthiness. No shattering of trust in those who are supposed to be providing a firm foundation but instead are putting their own wants first.
No failed marital template to follow the kids into adulthood and undermine their ability to form and maintain successful marriages and families of their own. And often there's even an idealization of the departed parent and a desire to honor them by living up to their expectations. That's a POWERFUL influence that a deceased parent leaves behind."
You say you told him: "Richard, not every widow with minor children had a marriage that was free of parental conflict."
I'll stop it right there. Nowwhere does Richard say that every widow had a marriage that was free of conflict. You're putting words into his mouth. It's amazing you are allowed to work as a police officer considering your inability to understand what people say and then projecting your own bias onto others.
You continue to claim: "Richard's reason was way too simplistic about why widowed homes do better because he was [...]"
THAT is not the same as you claimed, and I quote, "However, the FRAs, with all their talk about how "fatherless" homes are bad for children, they can never fully explain why THE ULTIMATE FATHERLESS HOMES (and the only truly fatherless homes) do just as well as two-parent families. Of course, we can go on and on (and we have throughout this thread)about high parental conflict being responsible or not responsible for the poor child outcomes of single mother homes, but to FRAs, this point is actually irrelevant."
Richard did provide an explanation, even if a simplistic one, but you seem to be claiming that if someone doesn't agree with you then that's the same as not responding at all.
You shoot yourself in the foot when you claim: "And btw, this really did happen to a woman that I met in my widowed/divorced support group. Her son was always in trouble in school and with the juvenile authorities. Funny thing is that her son straightened out just fine after dad popped off when the son was twelve years old, and now her son is graduating with honors along with my son."
Let's turn that around for a moment: If you claim that getting these abusive men out of the home is all the saintly single mothers need to raise future Yale locksmithing school graduates, then why are single mothers' children responsible for most of the crime, hmmm? You wrote: "In fact, it's the relationship between the child and the residential parent (mother)that is the biggest predictor of a child's success post divorce or parental break up." Indeed! So that means that they can't point the finger at men when they raise rapists and wife beaters. Thanks bunches for clearing that up (in a simplistic way) You can go back now to throwing poor, mostly minority, guys into the slammer while praising women "victims" for sleeping around with bad boys over and over again! That brings us to:
I got a chuckle because you claim to have met this woman at a widowed mothers support group. What support did she need, exactly? To not dance a jig about the bad guy dying? When I've gotten rotten exes out of my life, I didn't need a support group of men to help me feel better about it! Something smells fishy.
Back to blaming men: "However, if that relationship is constantly undermined by the non-residential parent's (father)unreasonable demands, and petty, jealous, vindictive, spiteful behavior, than the child continues to suffer because of the high parental conflict." Yep, it's quite simple really: The best daddy is a dead daddy or one whose gone but still manages to get you money somehow. Right?
Now wonder you didn't remarry.
You write in all caps: "WELL, POLISH KNIGHT, DID YOU GET THAT? DO YOU NOW KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN OUTRIGHT LIE AND REJECTING AN EXPLANATION BECAUSE IT'S TOO SIMPLISTIC TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN THE OUTCOME OF A SITUATION? DO YOU UNDERSTAND AT ALL? BECAUSE THIS IS THE LAST TIME THAT I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING THAT IS OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE BUT YOU, RICHARD, AND THE REST OF THE FRA CROWD."
I'm sorry, your explanation is poorly written (all caps) and therefore, not a response. Please learn how to use the shift key.
You claim: "Well, now that your jealousy of your wife and all women is revealed, my work here is done. I definitely won't be returning to this thread now because frankly, you and Richard bore me with your jealous, whiny complaints about women."
Er, you had already written previously: "Well, it's been fun, but I'm not coming back to this thread."
Hint: You're little stomping game and door slam wound be more convincing if you didn't keep coming back to scream in all caps at how insecure we are. Tee hee. Such a touch policewoman. And this little piggy went "wee wee wee" all the way home!
Richard, I doubt that's the last we'll be hearing from her. Didya catch she said: "Thanks, we will." (be going to New England) She stomped off claiming to be busy going to Yale yet she hasn't even left yet. Yeah, sure...
Richard asks: "Don't you love it, PK, how the women around here all presume some special ability to see into the families of strangers and judge our performance?"
WM claimed to know that a "MAJORITY" of men did "NOTHING" around the house (her words, including upper caps) Really? She went to 51% of homes and observed that the men did nothing around the house? How does she know this?
At the same time, even as these men are worthless and best gone, even better off dead, she rails against men not paying their "child" support or alimony. Yep, other than the men keeping a roof over the kids' heads and food in their bellies, what are they good for?
I'm reminded of the routine from Monty Python, Life of Brian:
"What have the bloody Romans ever done for us?"
"Well, they did give us the road system"
"And the Amphitheater!"
"And the sewage system!"
"And fresh water!"
"And peace. You know, this region of the world..."
"Yeah yeah yeah! But other than the roads, the Amphitheater, the fresh water, and the peace what have they done for us!"
"Well, they did..."
Richard, ALL of these women are angry at men not for the men being slackers or abusers but just the opposite: Because these women are so spoiled that they have nothing else to do but bite the hand that feeds them. They're shocked that you or I dare to do anything other than give them a pity party. They think that all men are either handholding knights or bad villains to be blamed for all of their bad decisions.
God, Dick, I go away on a business trip, and your still at it. Well, Dick, I guess I don't need to tell you that I don't agree with anything that you said throughout this thread, but than, that doesn't surprise you I'm sure. OTOH, I do agree with widowed mom. Anyway, I couldn't resist commenting after seeing all the fun I missed. I'm going away again- this time to Europe-maybe NYMOM will have something new for us to bicker about. Good-bye Dick.
P.K., you are an idiot as usual. I think I just about bored myself to death reading your posts. Talk about arrogance. Career women who want to date you out of desperation? What did widowed mom say you thought you were-macho studmuffin? I just about died laughing at that one. You complain that your a victim of a horde of women who want to kick your ass for no reason? I can see why they want to kick your ass, but for some very good reasons. What else did you brag about? Oh, here it is:
"For the record, I used to live in L.A. and Orange County and got called about once every 2 years or so. I lived there for 10 years"
"I hate to break it to you, but you aren't a genius or saint for doing laundry or cooking and cleaning. I'll prove it to you: I merely sort the clothes by color and texture into the hot and cold piles (I don't bother with warm) and delicates and permanent press. (I do the wife's fragile stuff too.) I then take each basket, dump it in appropriately, and set the timer and walk off and play with the cat and watch some TV. I don't see why this is supposedly worth alimony as judges claim. Cleaning the cat box, also easy. I go to the littermaid, open the receptacle, dump the poo into a bag, double bag it, and take it to the trash. Hmmm, this segways neatly into cooking: peel, cut, and boil potatoes, drain, and mix with a stick of butter and 2 tbl of milk and a dash of salt. My wife says I make them better than she does. Is that proof enough for you, or do you want me to tell you how to change a diaper and vacuum a floor?"
So, what are you claiming to be now? A desperate housewife of the o.c.? LOL. What a stupid idiot.
Anon
Anon, very mature. Do your parents know what you're diong?
"Anon, very mature."
You mean as mature as you are with your math is hard=Barbie comments on this thread and others that you've commented on. That's something grade schoolers are saying.
"Do your parents know what you're diong?"
You mean like my piece of shit biological father who thought that cause he paid child support, he thought he was "raising us" and bragged about how well we turned out because it was ALL DUE TO HIM. Child support that had to be taken directly out of his paycheck by the courts because my mother couldn't trust him to pay it on his own. A father who told me on the day that I graduated from high school how "proud" he was of me, and than, in the same breathe, he asked for my high school diploma so that he could run to the child support office and show them so that he didn't have to pay anymore. Considering that my graduation was on a Sunday, and he couldn't even wait until Monday (when child support was open) to ask. The same guy who couldn't even give me $60.00 for a driver's ed class because the bitch (my mother of course who "took all his money"). Yeah, I guess all the money she was spending for food, clothing, shelter from the money from her full-time job (we were NEVER on welfare EVER)wasn't enough compared to the measly $300.00/month that he paid for child support every month. That didn't even cover the rent. And never mind the time my mother was laid off from work because she had back surgery, and she didn't have enough money for gas to heat the house in a middle of a winter so cold that the phone dials froze on the phone while we used electric heaters to heat our house. Of course, dad couldn't be bothered to help out especially after he just spent $3000.00 on a new three wheeler for his new girlfriend's kid. Oh, yeah, I'm so glad your in defense of men who don't want to pay child support. While we're at it, let's look at my dad's track record during the marriage-didn't work half the time, never did anything in the way of childcare/housework, was verbally abusive to our mother and her son from her first marriage because he "wasn't my dad's kid", kidnapped us during a divorce and told us our mother was dead obviously never intending on bringing us back. Realized that being alone with two little kids while living like a bunch of fugitives was more than he could handle, than he called up our mother and told her if she ever wanted to see us again, she would have to call off the whole divorce thing, etc, and let him back into the house again. Well, my mother agreed to everything that he wanted so that he would bring us back, and he fucked himself royally because he violated a court order that he wasn't suppose to take us out of state. He was looking at 6 months in jail, and my agreed to giving my mother full legal and physical custody to avoid going to jail for kidnapping. Of course, it was all the "bitch's fault" because dad was an asshole. And the funniest was, that after the divorce, he could see us anytime he wanted to. Our mother NEVER told us we couldn't see him, and we went with him EVERY TIME he bothered to show up. And that's only when he wanted to. All together it was probably about once a month for a few hours throughout our childhood. We actually spent whole weekends with him once a year when he took us to grandma's house. Hey, he dumped us on her and went to the bar. Business as usual with him. In the meantime, there were plenty more visits where he was suppose to show up and didn't. In fact, we would wait all day, and he couldn't even be bothered to pick up a fucking phone and call to tell us he couldn't come. The reasons he gave when he finally did show up-he was busy, he forgot, my personal favorite-he never said he was coming-calling us liars. Yeah, Polish Knight, I'm so glad you want to defend men who don't want to pay their child support. It's just great that you think paying child support is the same as "raising a kid". I had to spend my childhood, ad nauseum, listening to my dad tell everyone "how he raised us" and "how the bitch took all his money". BOY, AM I GLAD HE'S DEAD.
And oh, I can identify with what widowed mom was saying also. My mother had a son from her first marriage, and she was widowed because the drunken bastard decided to get in a bar fight and was killed. My half-brother remembers the wonderful speciman of manhood who was his father, and he said that he was worse than my father had been (I didn't think that was possible). He said that his father was drunk all the time, had an affair with his babysitter, and he beat up our mother several times. After his father died, my mother supported them on widow's benefits that she could get until my half-brother was 18 years old. She met my dad, and my half-brother said he seemed like the kind of father my half-brother always wanted. My father treated them real well UNTIL AFTER THE WEDDING. Than his real colors came out, and I already told you what a shitstain he was. He told my half-brother one day out of the blue not to call him "dad" because he wasn't his real father. He thought that my half-brother "was living in his house" and "should pay his own way". My father didn't work half the time, but when he did, my mother had to beg him for money because he wouldn't contribute financially. Basically, my mother had to pay the bills on what she brought in from her job, AND MONEY SHE RECEIVED FOR WIDOW'S BENEFITS FOR MY HALF-BROTHER FROM HIS DEAD FATHER. That is how we survived. And my dad had the nerve to talk about my half-brother living in "his house", and having to pay his "own way". God, my father was lving off my mother and half-brother. Anyway, I showed my half-brother some of the comments on this thread like a deceased father is a "powerful influence". God, he got a good laugh out of that one, or comments defending fathers who don't want to pay child support because that's "raising the kids". OMG, we really busted a gut laughing over that one. It's really great that a couple of guys like you and Dick can show up on a blog like this with your ridiculous comments because NEITHER ONE OF YOU KNOWS WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. And when you try and act like you do, it's cause for ridicule. As far as my half-brother, full brother and I are concerned, OUR ONLY REAL PARENT IS OUR MOTHER. She was an awesome parent than, and she is now. My mother deliberately put herself between my half-broher and his father so that HE WOULD BEAT HER INSTEAD OF HIM especially the night he tried to strangle her and pulled a gun on her. And of course, there is my poor excuse for a father who slapped her in the face because she WANTED TO USE THE FAMILY CAR TO VISIT HER BROTHER WHO WAS DYING IN THE HOSPITAL. I'm am so grateful that she got us out of that situation when she divorced his ass and kicked him to the curb. Our lives were a miserable hell when he lived with us, and I wish he would've taken off for good instead of hanging around half-ass like he did. Btw, both my brothers grew up to be wonderful husbands, and fathers despite the rotten examples of both our fathers. And it was the way OUR MOTHER RAISED US THAT KEPT US OUT OF TROUBLE. And you come on this blog and bash single mothers while making excuses for fathers who don't want to pay child support while downgrading widows. Your nothing but a dirty, rotten, no-good, fucker who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Guess what? For Father's Day, my brothers and I are giving our mother a Father's Day card just like we do every year in addition to a Mother's Day card. My dad was pissed when he found that out. Well, my mother earned it because she was our only REAL PARENT. And MOM, if your reading this blog, we want you to know that we love you, and we all wish you an early Happy Mother's Day AND Father's Day, Love from your children, Bruce, Brian, and Kimberly (oops! there's my real first name). And as for you, Polish Knight, piss off from the three of us as well.
Bruce, Brian, and Kimberly A.K.A Anon
Did you "make excuses" for men who don't want to pay child support, PK?
I don't think I did. Especially since, IMO, a kid even being in a situation where child support is necessary is a failure.
Come to think of it, the one who DID make excuses for parents (mothers) not paying child support was...Anon.
"She went to 51% of homes and observed that the men did nothing around the house?"
She sure as hell didn't come to mine. It was amusing how she praised her deceased husband so glowingly for having helped around the house and with the baby but hell, that's just business as usual with just about every family I know, including our own. Everyone's so busy that there's no other way to work it.
"Richard, I doubt that's the last we'll be hearing from her."
Maybe not, but it's probably the last we'll be hearing from me, at least on this thread. Unless someone adds something particularly choice that I can't resist taking a shot at.
"Richard, ALL of these women are angry at men not for the men being slackers or abusers but just the opposite:"
Anyone who doesn't wish to fulfill her responsibilities toward someone but NEEDS for him to fulfill his toward her is guaranteeing herself a lot of anger and frustration. It's not easy to make such an imbalanced situation work smoothly.
While WM accuses us of "jealousy," I told NY over at another blog and I'll say it again here that I think these women harbor a fair amount of jealousy toward US. Because our kids love us and need us as much as they do them without our having to pay for it, so to speak, with the pregnancy/morning sickness/stretch marks/labor pain et al. What an outrage.
I'm reminded of the Liz that WM referenced up above, who wrote a sneering little snippet about the woman who first started Father's Day to honor her widowed father who raised her and her siblings alone. How dare she honor him for raising her instead of her dead mother who gave birth to her!
But to be fair, not all women are like this. Smart women who are achievers on their own (here I go again but I'll try to make it the last time, PK!) seem to have far less need for the sense of importance that evidently comes from exclusive ownership of children.
I'm glad that there are a few sites like this where a certain subset of women can let their hair down and reveal what they actually think of us. That they'd just as soon we all drop dead and leave them all our stuff so they can raise sons with no interference so that the next generation of princesses can wish for them to drop dead and leave them all their stuff.
If my son were a just a little bit older I'd bring him here and let him read about what many women really think, to highlight the importance of picking a decent woman with a solid background and education.
Have a good trip, Anon. Goodbye till next time.
Richard
Richard asks: "Did you "make excuses" for men who don't want to pay child support, PK?"
That question isn't phrased well. Few people "want" to pay child-support especially if their children have been taken away from them. This very discussion is in response to a letter by "G." who threatened to go to a sperm bank rather than risk losing custody. These women only seem to care about the best interests of the child, rather than their own power games, when they are the ones cashing the checks.
Richard proposes: "Maybe not, but it's probably the last we'll be hearing from me, at least on this thread. Unless someone adds something particularly choice that I can't resist taking a shot at."
Richard, never say never again. I suspect we'll be seeing some more fun stuff on this thread because it's like you and I hit a beehive with a baseball bat. They're enraged that they can't "have it all" and fail to understand that men don't exist to please them. More on that in a minute:
Richard says: "Anyone who doesn't wish to fulfill her responsibilities toward someone but NEEDS for him to fulfill his toward her is guaranteeing herself a lot of anger and frustration. It's not easy to make such an imbalanced situation work smoothly."
It's funny that we have come full circle and now women want to be sex kittens and baby making machines because all that role requires is literally lying on their back. Well, not entirely. True "ladies" of the past and great mothers taught their children values including to respect breadwinners (since they made the whole thing possible) but when cashing checks becomes an entitlement then these women become a warped, twisted version of femininity and sadly this extends across all social classes now.
I have already debunked the notion of men being jealous of women's ability to gestate but I'll be happy to quickly repeat it: Men get the ability to father healthy children into middle age and, for me personally, it has given me the time to overcome disadvantages of my childhood and become a better husband and future father and to find a better mate. For mothers, the clock starts ticking at the age of 19 and it's downhill from there. These women have a case of sour grapes, plain and simple. The only way to view raw gestation as an ability is for bad girls to exploit children and make society feel sorry for them and I personally do not want that ability. I find women who gestate children into poverty as a lifestyle choice to be monsters and society is coming around to that way of thinking as well.
Richard writes: "But to be fair, not all women are like this. Smart women who are achievers on their own (here I go again but I'll try to make it the last time, PK!) seem to have far less need for the sense of importance that evidently comes from exclusive ownership of children."
Richard, I'll grant you a point that these women have achievements and interests beyond using children as currency like prisoners use cigarettes, but, come now, how many really have "achieved" success on their own? Feminists constantly remind us that these women would be back in the kitchen in a matter of seconds without all the special programs to protect them. Imagine... if men had those advantages. What could we have achieved by now instead of this fake equality and massive impovershed welfare state? I remember being promised flying cars popular mechanics back in the 1970's. Richard, where's my flying car, dammit!
Richard says: "I'm glad that there are a few sites like this where a certain subset of women can let their hair down and reveal what they actually think of us. That they'd just as soon we all drop dead and leave them all our stuff so they can raise sons with no interference so that the next generation of princesses can wish for them to drop dead and leave them all their stuff."
Hilarious Richard! I see this too but it's funny when you say it for the both of us. I would add that these women are evolving to the point where children aren't much better off with them being abandoned in trash dumpsters or firestation when it's too inconvenient for them to accept responsibility for their actions. That said, there are women who are grateful for what men do for the women in their lives and I don't think it's due to formal education or their "own" money. It's about character and sadly these women are awash with chivalrous, weak men and a society that encourages them to view men and children as resources to be plundered. I find traditional women with a good attitude to be a pleasure to be with and women with entitlement attitudes, either having a career or no, to be easy to filter out. Just try a simple word: "no" and see what happens!
Richard says: "If my son were a just a little bit older I'd bring him here and let him read about what many women really think, to highlight the importance of picking a decent woman with a solid background and education."
Richard, when I was in college I met a number of women with entitlement attitudes that make these women look like humble farmgirls. One woman seeking her master's degree was paid for by poppa along with her apartment and she railed on about the oppression of the Patriarchy. She even footed the bill just to prove a point until she realized that meant, well, costing her money. It was hilarious. Get this: She thought that social security shouldn't go to seniors but rather to young women starting out with their careers (in addition to daddy's money, of course.) Absolutely hilarious. She was the most exceptional I met but most college educated women play lots of games.
The "math is hard" barbie comment I make is a reference to a classic feminist protest against a barbie doll that said "math is hard." I doubt most grade schoolers would get it. Then again, you probably got it at a more juvenile level so you're projecting it upon me. That's not my problem though.
Anon wrote: "You mean like my piece of shit biological father who thought that cause he paid child support, he thought he was "raising us" and bragged about how well we turned out because it was ALL DUE TO HIM."
Richard, it's funny that the same women here gnashing their teeth over women not getting full credit or rights as mothers seem to think that fathers should get only responsibilities (and the most unpleasant of all, since women rarely like to do the income earning for men to do these things) without any credit for the results.
Anon continues to bash the father who put food in her mouth: "Child support that had to be taken directly out of his paycheck by the courts because my mother couldn't trust him to pay it on his own."
Another way of looking at that, Anon, is that the courts and your mother herself didn't trust her to feed and cloth you without daddy to pay for it. Yep, you've not come a long way, baby!
Anon continues to gripe: "and he couldn't even wait until Monday (when child support was open) to ask. The same guy who couldn't even give me $60.00 for a driver's ed class because the bitch (my mother of course who "took all his money")."
Anon, in my two parent family we grew up in, we did something radical: We earned the money for our car and driver's licenses OURSELVES. It's called working for a living, princess. We worked at stores, delivered newspapers, and mowed lawns. You claimed to have bought father's day cards for your mother. Why didn't you maybe work part-time and help out?
Anon continues: "Yeah, I guess all the money she was spending for food, clothing, shelter from the money from her full-time job (we were NEVER on welfare EVER)wasn't enough compared to the measly $300.00/month that he paid for child support every month."
I keep hearing that figure bantered around but nobody I know from a variety of social classes pays that exact amount. I think what you did was take that statistic and then assume that most men were getting away with paying it. How... immature.
Anyways, with shared parenting both parents would split expenses down the middle. On the other hand, if you want to kick sugar daddy out of your life don't be surprised if he takes the money with him. In addition, when I have met women from a variety of backgrounds with a world-owes-me-a-living attitudes, I have enjoyed telling them that I would pass and go to one of the millions of other women that needed me a lot more than I needed them. Life is so good!
Anon lays it on thick: "a winter so cold that the phone dials froze on the phone while we used electric heaters to heat our house."
AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Richard, I can't even response to this. It's SO funny! Ok, I'll try! For one thing, educate your mother that electric heat is VERY expensive. Next, I know for a fact that when I stayed with by grandmother in her cabin in the woods and it got cold sometimes if the firewood wasn't fetched, that both the rotary AND pushbutton phones worked fine.
Anon writes: "Of course, dad couldn't be bothered to help out especially after he just spent $3000.00 on a new three wheeler for his new girlfriend's kid."
So you should be thankful to your mother and the courts for putting you into a cold home with the "primary caregiver" rather than enjoying all that stuff with the new girlfriend's kid. Yep, the system works!
Seriously, after I read your whole comment I thought to myself that if your mother really wanted to make a point why not let your father have custody, voluntarily, and help him understand how tough her role was? She apparently didn't mind letting him have custody for weekends.
Anon continues bashing her father: "While we're at it, let's look at my dad's track record during the marriage-didn't work half the time, never did anything in the way of childcare/housework, was verbally abusive to our mother and her son from her first marriage because he "wasn't my dad's kid""
Here we go again with the claim of "never did anything in the way of childcare/housework." NEVER washed a single dish? Never took out a single bag of trash? You accuse him of being a shiftless bum yet you claim he later had money to blow? And verbal abuse? Well, you don't exactly seem to have graduated from charm school either. And she had a child from a first marriage? I was advised by my parents to avoid single mothers and my wife told me that she chose me to marry over other men because I didn't have children from previous relationships so your mother was actually lucky to have him. Your mother could have gone to community college and gotten a good paying career as a dental assistant, paralegal, or sternographer. I know a lot of such women and they, (listen up Richard), tend to be the ones with the hearts of gold: Hard working, know the value of an earned dollar, and responsible. Sorry, your tears have no effect on me. Try Richard, he's softer than I am (no offense meant, Richard.)
Anon claims: "my personal favorite-he never said he was coming-calling us liars." [father is an excuse making jerk and loser, blah blah blah]
Let's turn this around, Anon, your father couldn't make it work kidnapping you and dropped you off at bars so he's a loser/bum, right?
Yet, on the other hand, you lauded your mother when SHE couldn't make it work and had you in a freezin g home? When he didn't pay, he's a deadbeat. When you mother couldn't make ends meet, she's a victim hero. It's a clear double standard.
Anon writes: "Yeah, Polish Knight, I'm so glad you want to defend men who don't want to pay their child support."
I would argue that it would be better for the father to not just visit you irregularly as you claim but to be a shared parent and handle half the costs of parenting without child-support. Then again, Anon, the people in my life recognize that I'm a pretty honorable, and decent fellow. My wife is annoyed sometimes that I don't buy her expensive diamond rings but knows that I will always make sure the bills are paid, the furnace is working (just fixed it 2 months ago), and her car is running. It's the difference between style over substance. Sadly, most of the women in this culture seem to think that the world owes them a living and complain about the bad boys they chase after and then gripe at me that I don't feel sorry for them. Sorry, they made their bed (literally) and sometimes have to lie in it.
Anon puts words in my mouth: "It's just great that you think paying child support is the same as "raising a kid". I had to spend my childhood, ad nauseum, listening to my dad tell everyone "how he raised us" and "how the bitch took all his money". BOY, AM I GLAD HE'S DEAD."
Not just what I "think" but WidowedMom said it as well that the courts relegate the father's role to being a sugar daddy for the mother. So why shouldn't the men demand credit for the ONLY obligation that the courts bother to enforce? The courts don't CARE if the mother denies the father visitation rights, for example, or even if the mother doesn't provide home cooked meals or uses daycare instead of "primary" parenting. If men's earnings are so unimportant, why is it still the ONLY thing that everyone agrees need to be enforced, hmmm?
In closing, Anon, we have your side of the story and your mother's and descriptions of events from start to finish and you have shown hostility and aggressiveness towards us for merely debating you in general and not on a personal level. From what I have seen of you, alone, if your mother is like you it appears like maybe she created a very one-sided view of the situation. It's been my experience that when someone is a perpetual victim and can't get away from the bad people in their life, there's a REASON for it. I've had jerks in my life too but I either got the better of them and/or moved on.
"I've had jerks in my life too but I either got the better of them and/or moved on."
Not when the biggest jerk is looking you in the mirror everyday.
"Anon continues to bash the father who put food in her mouth: "Child support that had to be taken directly out of his paycheck by the courts because my mother couldn't trust him to pay it on his own."
First of all, my mother put food in his mouth THE ENTIRE TIME THEY WERE MARRIED because daddy dearest didn't work half the time you idiot. The father who put food in my mouth only when the court garnished his wages. Before that, HE DIDN'T PAY AT ALL, OR HE GAVE MY MOTHER A CHECK THAT BOUNCED. Yeah, a great father who really provided for us. Boy, are you stupid.
"I would argue that it would be better for the father to not just visit you irregularly as you claim but to be a shared parent and handle half the costs of parenting without child-support."
You can take your arguments and stick them up your ass. I actually knew exactly what my father was like, what he was like to live with, and how he treated us. I think that I can make a good enough judgment to know that shared parenting would NEVER HAVE WORKED. I don't need you to tell me different.
"Let's turn this around, Anon, your father couldn't make it work kidnapping you and dropped you off at bars so he's a loser/bum, right?"
I suppose traumatizing his children by telling us our mother was dead was making it work in your book? What a stupid fuck. The kidnapping was a big ploy to try to force our mother to take him back by using us to do it. Well, he fucked himself with that one.
"Yet, on the other hand, you lauded your mother when SHE couldn't make it work and had you in a freezin g home? When he didn't pay, he's a deadbeat. When you mother couldn't make ends meet, she's a victim hero. It's a clear double standard."
She was recovering from back surgery. That was an exception. Otherwise, we always had food on the table, clothes on our back, and a roof over our head. Did I tell you that we ended up living in dad's car when he kidnapped us because the woman he was sponging off of kicked him out? Yeah, he provided well.
"Not just what I "think" but WidowedMom said it as well that the courts relegate the father's role to being a sugar daddy for the mother. So why shouldn't the men demand credit for the ONLY obligation that the courts bother to enforce? The courts don't CARE if the mother denies the father visitation rights, for example, or even if the mother doesn't provide home cooked meals or uses daycare instead of "primary" parenting. If men's earnings are so unimportant, why is it still the ONLY thing that everyone agrees need to be enforced, hmmm?"
First of all, WE WERE HIS CHILDREN ASSHOLE. SINCE WHEN IS SUPPORTING YOUR CHILDREN BEING A SUGAR DADDY? And for record, I ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT OUR MOTHER ALWAYS ALLOWED HIM TO SEE US WHENEVER HE WANTED. IT WAS HIS CHOICE NOT TO. AND YOU THINK SHARED PARENTING WOULD'VE WORKED. WHAT AN ASSHOLE. How can a person claim credit for something he was forced to do? Get real. If it wasn't for wage garnishment, he never would've paid anything at all.
"Then again, Anon, the people in my life recognize that I'm a pretty honorable, and decent fellow"
I seriously doubt it. Sounds like your one of the "bad boys" that you claim women are always dating.
Anon, your mother didn't put food into your father's mouth "THE ENTIRE TIME THEY WERE MARRIED" if he didn't work half the time. Didja ever hear about the half empty glass? It means he did work the other half of the time meaning he contributed. Your story smells fishy: Your father was worthless and unwanted but, at the same time, you gripe he didn't spend enough time with you and share his wealth?
Your cute little story has lots of twists. You were a victim of your evil daddy when the heat was turned off. Now it turns out it's because you mother had back surgery. Yeah, ok. Next contradiction: You scream: "WE WERE HIS CHILDREN ASSHOLE" to demand money from him and then turn around and say he doesn't deserve shared parenting (so much for you being his children, eh?). Let's turn this around for a moment: If you declare him not deserving of credit because he didn't do something he wasn't forced to do, then doesn't the same apply to your mother? She was required by the courts to put a roof over your head and to feed you as the custodial parent. So she didn't deserve any credit either using that logic! Good going!
I'm not the bad boys I claim women are always dating. The bad boys are the men you claim YOUR MOTHER was always dating! Get it straight.
Kimberly, (or is it Anon?),
I'm really sorry about the stuff you went through with your dad. I really can't relate though because I never had a father. My biological father got my mother pregnant and split before I was born (they were never married). However, I had a great childhood growing up with my mother. She's a terrific mom, and we did everything together. My mother worked as a nurse to support us, and my grandparents lived down the road from us on a farm, and I spent a lot of time there while my mother worked. I grew up out in the country with lots of animals, and I learned all about hardwork helping out on the farm. We went fishing, hiking, camping, and we lived a real outdoors life. I had a great childhood, and I wouldn't have traded it in for ANYTHING. Anyway, I went to college, and I also make my living as a nurse. I lived in a single mother home, and I certainly wasn't criminal. I had all the love and support that a child needs while growing up. My grandfather and uncles were great male role models as well. However, what irritates me is people thinking that I was lacking something because I didn't have a father. THAT IS THE ONE FACT THAT NEVER BOTHERED ME AT ALL. Even my mother was there to whip out the pictures of the man who was my biological father in case I had any questions about "daddy". Trust me I didn't. I knew that I didn't have a father, but I figured that my mother would tell me all about it when the time was right. In fact, she was always puzzled about why I never asked. The truth of the matter is that I never had any curiosity about the man whatsoever. The people who mattered to me were the people in my life who actually were raising me-not some STRANGER just because he had a DNA connection. However, my mother thought she had to show me his picture and tell me all about him. A few years ago, she showed me a letter that he wrote to her when she was pregnant. In the letter, he apologized for leaving, but he didn't think he was ready to be a father,etc. He even gave her a hundred dollar bill to "try to make up for what he was doing". My mother didn't get any child support either as far as I know. However, this was all very interesting, but I almost never thought about the guy unless someone in the family happened to bring him up. When I was a teenager, he actually wrote ME a letter apologizing for not being in my life, and he regretted walking out, etc, etc. He was married with a couple kids, and he wanted to "put his family back together." He asked if I would come and visit him sometime so that he "could get to know me". I wrote him back, and I said that there wasn't any need to apologize because I really didn't have any ill-will or resentment toward him at all. I told him that I had a wonderful upbringing with all the love that I ever needed from my mother and her family. In short, I had everything that I needed. OTOH, what I never needed was a father. I never felt a need for that relationship when I was a child, and I don't feel a need for that relationship now. I have to roll my eyes when people say that "children need their fathers". I never needed, nor felt like I needed my biological father-ever. He still tries to send me letters, but I never read them. Anyway, what struck me the most about your post is that you give your mother both Mother's Day and Father's Day cards. I always did the same thing because she's the person who means more to me than anyone else in the world.
Never needed father,
Thanks for your comments. I think that it's great that you told bio-dad to take a hike. Wtf does the guy think your going to do anyway? Jump in his arms and yell "daddy".
The guy abandoned you, and according to Dick and P.K., your suppose to be so traumatized that your suppose to deal drugs and join a gang. OTOH, according to Dick and P.K., since I'm a child of divorce, I'm suppose to deal drugs and join a gang along with you. Because, you know, us kids from the single mother homes are all just a bunch of criminals LOL. Hell, I went to college, and I paid for that myself. Of course, P.K. pump himself up about all the jobs he had as a kid, and how I shouldn't even have bothered to ask dad for a measley $60.00 for driver's ed because you know, P.K. had to earn his own money in his two-parent family. But than, P.K. didn't go to college now, did he? So much, for the benefits of his two parent family. I worked at plenty of factories and burger joints to pay my way through college, and I didn't get any help at all. I didn't live in a dorm either. I had my own apartment, and I supported myself since I was 18 years old. And I'm suppose to be in awe of P.K. because he mowed some lawns? NOT. Anyway, I'm in 100% agreement with you that CHILDREN DO NOT NEED THEIR FATHERS. Children need love and guidance from at least one adult in their life. If they have two parents, great, but not necessary.
Kimberly
Kimberly,
Well, a lot of my attitude comes with the influence of my mother's people. My mother is full-blooded Seneca Indian, and this is one if the six tribes of the Iroqois Confederacy. Membership in our tribe is matrilineal, and it has always been so. Right up until the 1800's, Seneca women had rights that was unheard of for white women. The Seneca tribe was a hunting/gatherin society where womn were in control of agriculture, owned the house and property, allowed divorce and women got custody of the children. Men left their clans and moved in with their wives, and the children were part of her clan-not the fathers. There weren't any male breadwinners, and women and her children were not dependant on their husbands at all. Men did most of the fishing and hunting, women planted the fields. Everything was shared communally. Women brought in more than half the food supply from their agriculture while men shared the meat they brought home with the whole tribe-not just their own wives and kids. Most of the official decisions were made by the men of the tribe, but the it was the women of the tribe who elected the leaders. If a leader didn't make the right decisions for the good of the tribe, the women kicked them out of office. In fact, there were women called clan mothers who watched little boys as they grew up in order to see who would be a better leader someday. Divorce wasn't an economic disaster because a woman and her children were not dependant upon a male breadwinner like white women were. It's no accident that the high status of Seneca women inspired the early feminist movement. Unfortunately, the position of Seneca women has suffered a lot since the 1800's because the tribe was forced to adapt to the ways of the dominant white culture in order to survive. However, we still have managed to retain some of the old ways, and a lot of Seneca make sure that their children are educated about our history.
Never needed father,
Thanks for the info. about your tribe. I took women's studies classes that talked about how most hunting gathering tribes were matrilineal (matriarchal), and a lot of native americans tribes were until contact with europeans. Heck, europeans were matrilineal at one time as well. It was universal at one point. Unfortunately, you have people who want to believe that women and their children were always dependant on a male breadwinner. I argued that some time ago on this blog, but I was only accused about being indoctrinated by NYMOMology. Nice term Dick. Anyway, I think the seneca had it right. Children should belong to their mothers upon a divorce unless said mother was unfit (I mean really unfit, not because some dad uses bogus parental alienation crap to claim his wife is unfit to get the kids). It's natural for kids to be WITH THEIR MOTHERS. There is a biological DNA connection as well as an actual BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP that happens in utero. Statistics say that children do worse in single father homes or any home when not raised by their biological mothers. There's a reason for this. NO ONE has a bond to a child like his or her mother. I'm not against dads having visitation (as long as not abusive), but I don't think shared custody is the answer. God, all of Austrailia just found that out. Children need their mothers, and if fathers want to have a healthy relationship with their children, THEY NEED TO RECOGNIZE THIS. Otherwise, the dad can get lost as far as I'm concerned.
Kimberly
Hello you two.
Let's put things into perspective. NNF's father appears from her story to have been a bum. Not a bad guy, just a bum. OK. But I wonder if he could have "handled" being a parent if he got what many poor single mothers get: welfare.
I don't want to be insulting to native American tribes but NNF sets it up by saying that matriarchal tribes did just great until the European patriarchs came with their superior technology, lifestyles, and military. Well, yeah. Exactly. At best, the matriarchy functions when the most asked of people is to gather some herbs and nuts and meat and live in grass huts. But if you want more than that and want to be more proactive about the future, you need men (or at least a good casino with no legal ones to compete in nearby states).
Finally, Kimberly, if you want to make the baseless claim that single father households are just as bad as single mothers, go ahead. You can deny the nose on your face too if you like. Everyone knows about all the neighborhoods full of criminals being raised by single fathers on welfare...
Anon said: "Statistics say that children do worse in single father homes or any home when not raised by their biological mothers."
That's bullshit. Children adopted by married couples have very similar outcomes to children raised by both biological parents (who of course, are the gold standard).
See: Adopted Children in the United States. Testimony before the Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, U.S. Congress.
What makes the difference is marriage.
PK said: "I was advised by my parents to avoid single mothers and my wife told me that she chose me to marry over other men because I didn't have children from previous relationships..."
Same here on both counts, PK. We may all be rolling the dice but it improves the odds to steer clear of those who've already blown off one set of responsibilities.
Richard
Well, Kimberly, some people just don't get it, do they? I can care less what kind of person my biological father is or was because I DON'T CARE. I had EVERYTHING I need growing up, and we were NEVER on welfare. Btw, the recipents of the biggest and most successful welfare legislation in the history of this country were WHITE MALES. It was called the G.I. Bill, and the majority of men who got those benefits never even saw any actual combat. In fact, most of those male breadwinner families of the 50's wouldn't have existed without the benefits that they got. Ah, yes, the superiority of the european patriarchs-they achieved what they wanted through the near genocide of the native american people. And the Seneca nation has enough men, we don't need some stupid white guy who doesn't know anything about us to tell us how to be "proactive":
"The white people, who are trying to make us over into their image, they want us to be what they call "assimilated," bringing the Indians into the mainstream and destroying our own way of life and our own cultural patterns. They believe we should be contented like those whose concept of happiness is materialistic and greedy, which is very different from our way.
We want freedom from the white man rather than to be integrated. We don't want any part of the establishment, we want to be free to raise our children in our religion, in our ways, to be able to hunt and fish and live in peace. We don't want power, we don't want to be congressmen, or bankers....we want to be ourselves. We want to have our heritage, because we are the owners of this land and because we belong here.
The white man says, there is freedom and justice for all. We have had "freedom and justice," and that is why we have been almost exterminated. We shall not forget this."
-From the 1927 Grand Council of American Indians
A native american called Chiksika once said:
"When a white army battles indians and wins, it is called a great victory, but if they lose, it is called a massacre."
"That's bullshit. Children adopted by married couples have very similar outcomes to children raised by both biological parents (who of course, are the gold standard)."
Yawn! Children that are adopted by SINGLE PARENTS do just as well, and in fact, better in a lot of cases than when adopted by TWO PARENT FAMILIES:
"In 1983, Feigelman and Silverman recontacted 60 percent of the single-parent respondents from an earlier study in 1977. The adjustment of children raised by single parents remained similar to that of children raised by adoptive couples.
Groze and Rosenthal conducted a study that reports on the responses from parents in three Midwestern states who had finalized their adoption of a special-needs child before 1988. The sample included 122 single parents and 651 two-parent families. Children in single-parent families had fewer problems"
http://parenting.ivillage.com/baby/badoption/0,,68jb-2,00.html
I've already said again and again that single biological mother homes do just as well as two-parent biological homes when they are financially secure and there ISN'T ANY PARENTAL CONFLICT.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-08-27-single-moms-succeed_N.htm
Come up with something new Dick! You guys are complaining up thread that widowed mom,and me don't listen to what you say. Believe me, we hear what you say, but WE DON'T AGREE WITH YOU. It's as simple as that.
"PK said: "I was advised by my parents to avoid single mothers and my wife told me that she chose me to marry over other men because I didn't have children from previous relationships..."
Yeah, that your wife knows of. Considering your views on deadbeat dads and paying child support, how many women have YOU left pregnant P.K and didn't tell your wife about? You like to brag about all the women you dated and all that, but I doubt you were responsible enough to wear a condom. You act like single mothers are all a bunch of sluts who just want welfare, but your fine with some guy running out on his child support so that the tax payers have to pick up the tab no matter HOW MANY KIDS HE FATHERED OUT OF WEDLOCK. The venom you spout about men paying child support is most likely because YOU ARE ONE OF THEM. Your nothing but a hypocrite.
Kimberly
Btw, what I had in mind when I said children don't do as well if they are raised without biological
mothers was based on research that compares child outcomes of biological and non-biological children RAISED IN THE SAME HOUSEHOLD. They found that step/adoptive/foster mothers make higher parental investments IN THEIR OWN BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN COMPARED TO THEIR STEP/ADOPTED/FOSTER CHILDREN. It didn't matter if the biological father was present or not. However, children raised by their own biological mothers didn't suffer lower parental investments when they had a step/adoptive father present in the home. In fact:
"This may help to explain the difference in educational attainment between adopted children raised
with a woman’s birth children and those raised with only other adopted children. The ‘childspecific
love and commitment’ toward adopted children may be greater on the part of parents who
have had no birth children of their own."
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html
OTOH, it's ironic that single biological mother homes are blamed for emotional/behavioral problems in children, but THESE ARE THE SAME CHILDREN WHO DO THE BEST IN SINGLE MOTHER ADOPTED HOMES THAN TWO PARENT ADOPTED HOMES. Of course, if you consider the fact that single mother adopted homes are usually better off financially,
and FREE OF PARENTAL CONFLICT, it explains a lot.
Kimberly
Never needed father,
Your right about the gi bill subsidizing white males:
"By generously subsidizing male veterans' education, business, and home loans, the G.I. Bill made possible the iconic 1950s family, complete with its male breadwinner, female homemaker, and ever growing brood of children. Far from "the way things always were," this golden age of family values was in fact based on a new institution made possible through massive social engineering and government largesse. And if women of the "Greatest Generation" needed to settle for secondclass citizenship,"
http://www.calvin.edu/minds/vol03/issue02/onbooks.php
I read in Stephanie Coontz's book the "How Love Conquered Marriage" that the gi bill was the biggest affirmative action bill ever. In fact, men who never dreamed that it was possible to finish high school were getting their education paid for them by the gi bill. They were also paid a living wage while they went to school especially if they were married because they needed to "support their families". In addition to this, wives of veterans worked for wages to subsidize the gi bill benefits that their husbands got. In contrast, many women veterans had to have proof that they didn't "have a male breadwinner" in order for them to get their gi bill benefits. I guess what's good for the gander wasn't good enough for the goose. Also, African-Americans veterans were kept segregated so they didn't get all the housing loans to the nice suburbs, or jobs that the white veterans got. The male breadwinner family was idealized for two hundred years, but very few people of the poor and working classes could afford to have their wives at home. In fact, it was the WELFARE LEGISLATION of the gi bill that SUBSIDIZED families that made it possible for the first time in American history for the majority of children to be raised in a male breadwinner/ female homemaker family. Like I said, before the induatrial revolution, most people-men and women-worked out of their homes, and women contributed to the family income just by their household duties AND they usually helped their husbands with work on the farm or in their shops. This male breadwinner crap was a new idea brought about by the industrial revolution when families had to leave their homes to earn wages. In fact, most families survived on the combined wages brought in by the husband, wife, AND children. THE MALE BREADWINNER/FEMALE HOMEMAKER FAMILY WAS NOT A VIABLE OPTION FOR MOST FAMILIES UNTIL THE GI BILL. IT TOOK WELFARE FOR IT TO HAPPEN.
In fact, having even one child cuts into the lift time earnings of women , and it doesn't matter if they work or stay home. After all, women have to carry the child for nine months, give birth, take time off to recover from the birth. And of course, they have almost all the care of the chid dumped on them afterwards. It's usually the women who have to take time off from work for a sick kid, or take lower paying jobs because they need flexible hours to meet their childcare demands. This is the main reason that so many women end up so much poorer when they retire than men because of lower social security benefits. Men, like P.K., like to make snide comments about women being worse breadwinners than men. HOWEVER, MOST MEN DON'T HAVE THE ADDED BURDEN OF BEING THE PRIMARY CARETAKER OF CHILDREN. There's a lot of worry about women being childless and not having enough babies to sustain the population. However, a lot of women DELIBERATELY CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN because they know that their are economic risks associated with being a mother. But it doesn't matter, women are criticized for having children they can't support, criticized for having children they can support on their own,criticized for not having children, criticized if they work/stay home, criticized for being single, blah, blah, the list is endless. However, if women want government legislation to help them make it easier to combine work and families, there's a big stink about how much it will cost. However, MEN BECAME SUCCESSFUL THROUGH WELFARE LEGISLATION, BUT WANT KUDOS FOR "DOING IT ON THEIR OWN". And of course, they certainly don't want to call it what it really is-WELFARE.
Kimberly
"how many women have YOU left pregnant P.K and didn't tell your wife about? You like to brag about all the women you dated and all that, but I doubt you were responsible enough to wear a condom. You act like single mothers are all a bunch of sluts who just want welfare, but your fine with some guy running out on his child support so that the tax payers have to pick up the tab no matter HOW MANY KIDS HE FATHERED OUT OF WEDLOCK. The venom you spout about men paying child support is most likely because YOU ARE ONE OF THEM."
Not to speak for PK, of course, but Anon, why all this outrage?
If children don't need fathers, like you say, then what difference does it make whether PK fathered any or not, or whether he ran out or not?
We don't just "leave" women pregnant. It's completely a matter of the woman's choice whether or not a child is born of any given encounter. Our laws have made sure of that.
And if PK left any offspring that the taxpayers had to pick up a tab for, be sure that the government would have found him by now.
Since PK appears to understand the hazards of ill-advised procreation better than most guys do, I see no reason to "doubt he was responsible enough to use a condom."
Our problems with the child support system are not about our own experiences but our observations of how a generation of support/welfare shenanigans have all but ruined the institution of marriage.
I bet even NYMOM would agree.
Richard
"However, children raised by their own biological mothers didn't suffer lower parental investments when they had a step/adoptive father present in the home."
That's not saying much, as remarriage of either biological parent after divorce worsens child outcomes on average. The very process of acquiring a new spouse and beginning a new marriage usually results in lower parental investment in and of itself. For details, see Wallerstein: The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce.
"but THESE ARE THE SAME CHILDREN WHO DO THE BEST IN SINGLE MOTHER ADOPTED HOMES THAN TWO PARENT ADOPTED HOMES. Of course, if you consider the fact that single mother adopted homes are usually better off financially,
and FREE OF PARENTAL CONFLICT, it explains a lot."
Your study concerned special-needs children. Single mothers may indeed be a better option for these kids who need intensive parenting and one-on-one attention. I've already said that women are probably more nurturing and more patient on average than we are.
The study also noted that single-mothers are also more closely scrutinized before having children placed with them. A lot of the undesirables get weeded out.
But the study is based on the responses of parents. The reason I prefer studies like Wallerstein's is that they actually talk to and study children rather than parents, who are very casual about confounding their children's interests with their own. See WM's tales up above of children who were reportedly "relieved to be free of conflict" or whatever.
While these same kids (if you bother to ask them) almost universally dream of their parents reconciling (so much for being relieved to be conflict-free), and their number one complaint about the divorce process is that they are not listened to.
No shit, Sherlock!
In closing, this "parental conflict" business is being turned into a ridiculous boogeyman. Abuse and extremely high conflict are a separate issue, but our kids don't necessarily need homes that are "free of parental conflict." Conflict is an inevitable aspect of human interaction. What they need is to see their parents working out their conflicts while simulaneously trusting that their home is on solid ground and that they will be able to work through those difficulties in their own homes one day.
Richard
NNF, you gave me a virtual belly laugh when you cited: "We want freedom from the white man rather than to be integrated." I wasn't aware that Native Americans had computers and internet before the white man came! How did you post? With smoke signals?
You make the misleading and insulting allegation that the GI Bill was welfare for white males. When men were conscripted or volunteered for the military, nearly all were trained for and subject to combat. Ironically, the easiest, safest post prior to 1941 was a comfy gig known as Pearl Harbor. It's amazing to hear women here bellyache about a minor private, personal risk of childbirth yet downplay the risk men took in serving their country. Incredible. I have personally heard stories about men who were certain they would be placed into combat and lucking out and getting a safe desk job and also men who thought they were going to be assigned stateside being sent right to the front lines.
Richard has already addressed Kimberly's omission of the relevant fact that single mother adoptive households do as well as two parent biological families because such single mothers are checked out in advance. I would also add that Kimberly's emphasis that unwed mothers do great when money is not an issue doesn't inspire much confidence in them. My working class neighborhood often had shortcomings with money but that wasn't an excuse for their kids to go out and do drugs or commit crimes. Character is about how people act in a crisis.
Speaking of crisis, Kimberly claims that single mother households are preferable to biological parent households with conflict. As Richard points out, avoiding conflict is hardly the best lesson to teach children. Consider Kimberly's low-class invectives and slurs. This is a sign that she hasn't learned how to debate or argue in a civilized manner. She grew up in a household controlled by a dictator.
For the record and in answer to Kimberly's questions, I did use a condom everytime and also contraceptive foam ON TOP OF THAT. It's rather easy for me to act like single mothers are all sluts looking for welfare or child-support because you continually remind us that women are helpless baby making machines unable to put their money where their womb is. Say what you like about me, but I never misled these women into thinking I was going to marry them. If you think life begins at conception and babies metaphorically pop out of mens' penises (is the plural for that penii?), then you should oppose abortion as murder of the unborn. Otherwise, it's women who choose to have their children out of wedlock and then exploit them as chattel and society is increasingly seeing it that way. Don't blame the messenger!
I don't make excuses or apologize for male deadbeats but I am curious as to why the same mothers you praise for their judgement and wisdom sleep and have children for them. Hmmm? I didn't trust these women and I'm glad I didn't based upon the low moral standards you hold them to. Provided the adoption agency checks them out AND they have a safe full of cash, they can do almost as good a job as a two parent family. Hooray! But on the other hand, you expect men to all be generous saints with unconditional money for children they aren't allowed to see. Good luck with that model.
More GI Bill bashing.
In response to Kimberly's allegations against the GI Bill, note that this was a program available only to men who actually served in the military and not all white males. Even so, all white males were, and are, required to register for selective service. It's rather amusing that NNF bashes the white males for genocide against native americans even as you downplay the importance of national defense. Apparently, the matriarchy going out and gathering berries wasn't sufficient to protect their heritage or create the technology to post on this blog.
Kimberly forgot to mention in her allegations of a double standard at women veterans not automatically qualifying for GI Bill benefits that the women veterans almost never served in combat. It's incredible because Kimberly clearly pointed out that not all GI Bill men who benefitted from the bill served in combat but she fails to note that NONE of the women did? Oh, wait, that's just being CONVEEEENIENT!
Next, Kimberly drags out African-Americans and exploits their suffering for her cause even as she ignoes the devestating effect the welfare system and affirmative action benefits for mostly white women had on pushing them out of the home and workplace respectively. NOW did more to push black men into jail then the KKK.
I agree with Kimberly that most families couldn't afford to keep their wives at home. I grew up in a working class family and my mother worked part-time. Kimberly shoots herself in the foot by pointing out that the male preferential GI Bill created a class of strong male breadwinners that were able to support their families ultimately raising the standard of living. Indeed! Great point! Compare and contrast to the welfare and feminist system that has push African-American men into jail and pushed children into poverty and "deadbeat" dads unable or unwilling to support them. That's all because of your social agenda, not mine. Give yourself a hand.
Even if most working class families had women working, the male breadwinner was still the larger source of income and the men did dangerous work to generate more money. Hmmm, that may explain why there are so many deadbeat dads around: Because they decided that these women and children JUST AREN'T WORTH killing themselves over.
Next, Kimberly plays the ol' violin about how hard women have it making babies. Do you hear that NYMOM? See why men aren't jealous of women's goddess like powers? It's a liability! For the record, Kimberly, the women don't get the childcare work dumped on them. In all my years of dating, I never met a woman who put more emphasis on men's childcare skills compared to, say, making money. Nobody tells successful career women that they have to remain single because they can't find a man who earns more than them. That's their own fault and you know it.
Next, Kimberly wants to argue that there's a worry that we won't have enough children. Nonsense. Plenty of illegal immigrants are coming in and taking away your tax money to raise their children. Isn't that just super? If you think that big sugar daddy HoneyBear is going to come to the native Matriarchy's rescue you're too late. That money has all been spent. But even if it hadn't, it would still require men to finance the whole thing indirectly. It's funny that the illegal immigrants argue that they're just doing to us, and you, what the white man did to native Americans. Hmmm, wait until they figure out the great benefits on the Native American lands and start moving in...
Richard says: "Since PK appears to understand the hazards of ill-advised procreation better than most guys do"
PK responds: Richard, you're pretty good at flushing out poor conclusions drawn from misleading statistics, but it's possible you drew a prejudiced conclusion from visible results.
We know certainly there are men who procreate irresponsibly based upon the millions of children they father. However, these men are a minority.. Even Kimberly sneered about the stereotypical deadbeat dad who has children with dozens of welfare queens. Because men don't gestate children, it's biologically possible for them to father many children when economically or socially possible. In this case, it's women who seek out or accept such men and the welfare state that they want to expand that enables them! If you want to get out of a hole, dig deeper...
There's an economic saying that goes: "Bad money drives out good". Responsible men avoid bad women and this drives the bad women into the arms of bad men even when such men comprise a minority of the population. I have read news stories on dailymail.co.uk about single mothers by choice frustrated that they can't find a dupe with money to give them a one night stand to give them a baby.
Richard, despite the viotrol directed at us by the women here, we're not bad guys. We are both married, we care about our women and children, and we give them most of what they want (and they want and need a lot). Yet, we're both regarded as monsters because we don't shovel out money with both hands unconditionally. So be it. If they think they can do better, good luck to 'em.
PK said: "I don't make excuses or apologize for male deadbeats but I am curious as to why the same mothers you praise for their judgement and wisdom sleep and have children for them."
I expect we'll get an answer to that question about the same time someone can tell us why career women aren't searching for house-husbands.
Our foremothers had such a neat little system for figuring out whether a guy was a good prospect to have kids with. Find a nice guy, with a job, of whom your parents approve, and get him to put a ring on your finger. Simple.
Now you have a bunch of idiots making babies with some nobody they "hooked up with" a few weeks then saying, but I didn't KNOW what a shit he was! Wah!
And what makes it even more hilarious is that the fems love to fear-monger about the conservatives wanting to take birth control away. Good grief, women, use some of the stuff for God's sake!
Richard
Kimberly,
You hit the nail on the head when you talk about the gi bill. All that government legislation used to help MEN to support their families as breadwinners. Of course, there are the usual accusations about bashing the gi bill, but I think that veterans provided a valuable service to our country, and they deserve all the benefits that they get. OTOH, I think that women provide a valuable service to HUMAN KIND just by carrying and baring children. Men can brag all they want about being the "breadwinners" (courtesy of the gi bill btw), but they certainly don't carry and bare children. Of course, we are now in a patriarchal society that wants to penalize women instead of honoring us for the sacrifices we make simply by being the sex who gets pregnant. And sacrifice we do, through our health, human rights, and present and future incomes. In fact, women as a group pay more for the cost of raising a child than men do all the way around. Not only do women make sacrifices just by getting pregnant, but they end up MAKING EVEN MORE SACRIFICES BY BEING THE PRIMARY CARETAKER OF THE CHILDREN THAT THEY BARE. Of course, women are penalized politically, economically, and socially for this. WOMEN AS A GROUP CARRY THE COST OF RAISING CHILDREN ON OUR COLLECTIVE BACKS, AND WE PROVIDE THE ACTUAL CHILDCARE THAT GOES ALONG WITH IT. I read the comments about men complaining the feminists hate men, blah, blah, blah, but really it is the other way around. FATHERS CAN'T REFUTE THE FACT THAT THEY DO VERY LITTLE IF ANY CHILDCARE OR SACRIFICE THEIR INCOMES THE WAY MOTHERS DO. Because they can't refute this, they try to minimize it's importance, or ignore this fact out right. Yet, they want kudos if they do much as change a diaper once a month (of course, it won't be the messy ones-leave that for mom), and they gripe about any social legislation that may help advance equality for women. It's basically called male entitlement and male privilege. This is what really stands in the way of true equality between the sexes.
Also, Kimberly, I was looking over some of the other posts on this blog, and I saw an argument between Richard and I think it was probably you concerning the bible and religion. I was brought up on a mixture of seneca traditions and christianity, but I can say you were right about Genesis 2:24:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Again, you hit the nail right on the head when you said matriarchy was God's original family design. I took an anthropology class in college, and the instructor was talking about evidence that showed that matriarchy was once a universal social structure. In fact, this verse was used as an example because it is generally accepted by anthropologist and hebrew scholars as evidence that the ancient hebrews were once matriarchal just like most semetic and other ancient people world wide. The reason behind this is because it states that the man leaves his mother and father AND CLEAVES TO HIS WIFE. In ancient matriarchal societies, it was accepted that the husband would leave his family and become part of his wife's family. The family was matrilineal with descent traced through the MOTHER and THE CHILDREN TOOK THE FAMILY OF THE MOTHER. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU ARE CORRECT WHEN YOU SAID THIS VERSE PROOVES THAT GOD ORDAINED FEMALE KINSHIP AS THE ORIGINAL FAMILY STRUCTURE. In fact, up until the 19th century, the Seneca was matrilineal with the husband leaving his clan and joining his wife's clan upon marriage. The children belonged to the mother's family, NOT THE FATHER. The Seneca were not a christain people, but they obeyed God's original family design far longer than the so-called European "christains". I'm with you when you say that God's original family intention was MATRIARCHAL. PATRIARCHY IS A RESULT OF SIN. Just to be sure, I called my professor from my anthropology class, and he told me that you were right.
"I wasn't aware that Native Americans had computers and internet before the white man came! How did you post? With smoke signals?"
Is there a more stupid white man than this? Reality check: The white man didn't have computers and internet when they came to America either you stupid jackass. What they did have was small pox, greed, and arrogance.
"It's amazing to hear women here bellyache about a minor private, personal risk of childbirth yet downplay the risk men took in serving their country."
Compare the number of men who take on the personal risk of childbirth to the number of WOMEN WHO HAVE DIED IN IRAQ. When you can do that, you can label it "minor". Until than, go fuck yourself. And btw, how much combat have YOU seen compared to the women in Iraq?
Never needed father,
I'm glad that you read those posts because with the Seneca history of matrilineal marriage, you know exactly what I'm talking about. It's nice to see someone who does and doesn't spout out a lot of stupid crap.
Kimberly
Kimberly amd NNF, as usual you resort to histrionics to try to make a shallow point without thinking it through. Do you know how many women who "DIED IN IRAQ?" The answer is 100. To put that into perspective, that's 2 percent of overall casualties. This is because these women were in non-combat roles and died under circumstances similar to that of CIVILIANS such as reporters. Once again, you've shot yourself in the foot with another double standard: You smear the war contributions of white males (and Richard and myself who registered for selective service) by arguing that most of us weren't assigned to combat and now you're parading around the deaths of women who almost never were in combat to begin with! You fight... like girls!
tinyurl.com/cgjb9g
"The latest death was Tech. Sgt. Jackie L. Larsen, 37, of Tacoma, Washington, who died of natural causes July 17 at Balad Air Base, Iraq. She was assigned to the 9th Reconnaissance Wing, Beale Air Force Base, California, according to the Pentagon."
Let's continue this fun combat versus childbirth comparison. Recently, there's been political controversy over soldiers who have either engaged in questionable ethical conduct such as torture to outright criminal acts such as rape and murder. These incidents, of course, only comprise a miniscule fraction of the overall honorable service of most men (and women) in the military.
On the other hand, how many "brave" pregnant women drink, smoke, and do drugs? Hmmm? How many millions of children suffer from permanent birth defects due to the actions of mommy dearest? And that's just when they're in the womb! NNF apparently left out the "primary parenting" contributions that mothers make by abandoning babies at firestations (or trash dumpsters) or raising the children in poverty because they couldn't resist shacking up with bad boys or going on welfare. Oh, and the horrors of men not helping out around the house! As Richard already pointed out, most women would rather die than provide financially for a man to do those things.
This also explains why so many women wind up with bad boys. Lessee: You expect credit for something most women demand to do (have the man pay the bills while she stays home) and then claim that men are privileged economically for the silly reason that they work harder (what a concept, rewarding men for hard and often dangerous work) and then you're amazed when women with that attitude wind up with jerks.
NNF starts out by trying to make a half-assed gesture towards veterans by saying they "deserve all the benefits they can get" and then turns around and says they don't deserve credit as breadwinners because of the "courtesy of the GI Bill." Hmmm, NNF, couldn't we say the same of women who bear children? Most don't do it alone in the woods anymore (even in your culture). They have nice sanitary hospitals and are surrounded by nurses and doctors.
Finally, there were non-white men who contributed to the invention of the modern computer (I'm sure. I can't think of any offhand, but that's not the point. You claim that the materiarchy before the white male came around was so great. Well, let me know when you throw away your computer, electricity, houses, and sanitary hospitals and go back to giving birth in the woods. Time to man up!
PK wrote: "Well, let me know when you throw away your computer, electricity, houses, and sanitary hospitals and go back to giving birth in the woods. Time to man up!"
Maybe the Mosuo are taking applications. They haven't yet mastered running water but it seems they've recently imported electricity from the developed world. Hooray for matriarchy!
Richard
WHITE MALES make up the majority of the U.S. LEGISLATURE.
Who is responsible for laws that require only men be required to sign up for the selective service?
THE U.S. LEGISLATURE
Who is responsible for laws that keep women from being trained in combat roles?
THE U.S. LEGISLATURE
It's mostly men who make up the laws for other men, but who do men want to blame-women. Go figure.
Of course, this is all a moot point because the DRAFT ENDED IN 1973.
In fact, in the early 1970s, with legislation authorizing the draft about to expire, the DOD established the Central All Volunteer Task Force to examine various alternatives for fielding an all-volunteer military force.
In 1971, the DOD directed the task force to study the utilizations of military women in order to "provide a contingency option for meeting all-volunteer force objectives by increasing the USE OF WOMEN TO OFFSET ANY SHORTAGE OF MEN."
"You smear the war contributions of white males (and Richard and myself who registered for selective service)."
And your smearing the war contributions of women volunteers who BY THEIR VERY PRESENCE keep the numbers up in an all volunteer military so THAT MEN LIKE YOU AND RICHARD CAN SIT AT HOME IN YOUR NICE SAFE HOMES INSTEAD OF BEING DRAFTED. I don't see you guys volunteering to go to Iraq any time soon. And btw, Iraq is a war WITH NO FRONT LINES. The whole place is a combat zone, and women who were never trained in combat roles, or were never suppose to be on the front lines to begin with are being exposed to combat AND forced to fight alongside men despite a ban that says they shouldn't be there. AGAIN, POLISH KNIGHT, HOW MUCH COMBAT HAVE YOU SEEN? Tell me how much of a war contribution you made by signing up for the selective service compared to Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester who VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE IN IRAQ:
"Hester's squad was shadowing a supply convoy March 20 when anti-Iraqi fighters ambushed the convoy. The squad moved to the side of the road, flanking the insurgents and cutting off their escape route. Hester led her team through the "kill zone" and into a flanking position, where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M203 grenade-launcher rounds. She and Nein, her squad leader, then cleared two trenches, at which time she killed three insurgents with her rifle.
When the fight was over, 27 insurgents were dead, six were wounded, and one was captured."
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16391
Or how much of a war contribution did you make compared to Army Spc. Monica Lin Brown who VOLUNTEERED IN AFGHANISTAN?:
"Army Spc. Monica Lin Brown saved the lives of fellow soldiers after a roadside bomb tore through a convoy of Humvees in the eastern Paktia province in April 2007, the military said.
After the explosion, which wounded five soldiers in her unit, Brown ran through insurgent gunfire and used her body to shield wounded comrades as mortars fell less than 100 yards away, the military said."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23547346/
Yeah, Polish Knight, they "fought like girls" after volunteering for two wars that kept your ass from being drafted so that you can sit at home in front of your computer and wonder why women aren't required to sign up for the selective service because a mostly white male legislature made laws that exempted them from doing so. And btw, I'm half Jewish and Israel has drafted women along with men for decades. Israel is entirely surrounded by enemies, and yet, they've won every war with the surrounding arab countries.
"On the other hand, how many "brave" pregnant women drink, smoke, and do drugs? Hmmm? How many millions of children suffer from permanent birth defects due to the actions of mommy dearest?"
Or to daddy-
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/15/science/cocaine-using-fathers-linked-to-birth-defects.html
http://www.topnews.in/health/dads-who-smoke-and-drink-can-cause-birth-defects-future-generation-21102
"Pregnancy is a risk factor for abuse. When abuse occurs during pregnancy it can cause miscarriage, premature births, birth defects and learning disabilities."
http://www.asafeplaceforhelp.org/victimstatistics.html
"Maybe the Mosuo are taking applications. They haven't yet mastered running water but it seems they've recently imported electricity from the developed world. Hooray for matriarchy!"
Actually, matriarchy is a term that is misused. Matriarchy means "rule of the mothers". However, there has NEVER been a society, ancient or modern, that has been ruled exclusively by women. In other words, the so-called matriarchal societies have never been a "mirror image of patriarchy". Ancient and modern "matriarchies" are actually matrilineal and matrifocal when it comes to family structure, but has a high degree of gender equality between the sexes when it comes to political, economical, and social structure of the society. So, your right Dick when you say hooray for matriarchy especially when you look at modern day Sweden-glad you agree with me:
http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Quick-facts/Facts/Gender-equality-in-Sweden/
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/90859/rigidly_male-dominated_societies_are_violent%3B_the_u.s._is_no_different/
Well, it's been fun, but I'm not coming back to this thread because frankly I'm sick of it. Adios!
Anon, your article about Sweden was interesting but I fail to see what it has to do with matriarchy. Sweden is not matriarchal or matrilineal nor has it ever been so.
It was a good read, though. Hey NY, what do you think of Sweden's family policies? Hmmm?
Adios, Anon.
Richard
Kimberly,
My uncle was an army recruiter back in the early 70's. He told me that the recruitment of women was and is absolutely critical to the success of the all volunteer military in order to keep the draft from being reinstated. Your absolutely right. In fact, he told me that while men volunteered for the military, they also had to be drafted in large numbers to meet the demands of the military. OTOH, women were only allowed to join the military as volunteers. My uncle says there is a saying-
"Women are the only true all volunteer military".
Also, your correct when you say that the term matriarchy has been misused. Most ancient societies, INCLUDING THE SENECA, were actually MATRIFOCAL (as well as matrilineal). Matrifocal refers to societies in which women, especially mothers, occupy a central position, and the term DOES NOT necessarily imply domination by women or mothers. In fact, in matrifocal societies, equality does not mean a mere leveling of differences. The natural differences between the genders and the generations are respected and honored, but the differences don't lead to hierarchies, as is common in patriarchy. We see this at all levels of matrifocal society: the economic level, the social level, the political level and also the cultural level. More precisely, matrifocal societies provide a balance between the genders, and they are interdependant on each other.
"Sweden is not matriarchal or matrilineal nor has it ever been so."
Richard, your right when you say that Sweden has never been matriarchal because Sweden is MATRIFOCAL. The needs of women in general and mothers in particular is the focal point of family policies. Differences between the sexes is acknowledged, but they aren't used to form a hierarchy so that one sex can dominate the other. In fact, Sweden tries to strike a balance while promoting gender equality. In fact, there is evidence that matrifocal societies were once universal worldwide, and this includes Europe as well and Swedent in particular. However, centuries of patriarchy have destroyed this. Of course, modern day Sweden is not going to be a pure form of a matrifocal society because it just recently emerged from centuries of patriarchy whereas the Seneca nation was a pure matrifocal society up until the 19 th century. Even the Mosuo is just recently feeling the impacts of the mostly patriarchal dominant culture of the Han chinese. So, of course, Sweden is not going to be matrilineal and matrifocal in the true sense of the word because Sweden and most of Scandinavia are just emerging from centuries of patriarchy. It's not going to happen overnight. However, they have made huge strides in the direction of a truly matrifocal society. However, one characteristic of a truly matrifocal/matrilineal society is that in Sweden the majority of children LIVE WITH THEIR MOTHERS and the central focus is on the bond between the child and his or her primary caretaker who is more often or not the MOTHER OF THAT CHILD. I say primary caretaker because Sweden, in the interests of gender equality, recognizes that fathers may fill this role in some cases as well.
Polish Knight, you like to talk about the superiority of white culture over indian culture, but the U. S. constitution, the back bone of this country, was heavily influenced by the Iroquois constitution-Gayanashagowa-"The Great Binding Law". Of course, the difference is that the Iroquois applied their consitution to every member of their society while the whites applied their constitution to guess who? White Males.
Well, it's been fun, but I'm kind of sick of this thread as well. Maybe another time. Good-bye.
Never needed father,
I said I wouldn't be back, but I couldn't resist answering your post. Again, I'm glad to hear from you because being of the Seneca nation, you know what I'm talking about when I use the term "matriarchy". While I disagree with both Dick and P.K. on just about everything, Dick can at least be reasonable about some things (yeah, Dick, kills me to admit it, but I will). P.K. on the other hand, is a total whack job. You bring up what the white people have done to the indians, but it's the truth. I don't take offense at anything you say, and I know when you refer to P.K. as a "stupid white guy", your talking about his ignorance when it comes to his knowledge of Native Americans. OTOH, P.K. tries to downgrade all native americans by talking about the superiority of white culture over indians. That's a crock of shit. I didn't really want to bring ethnicity into this, but I guess I should.
Judging by P.K.'s moniker, he is someone of polish descent. He even refers to himself as a "knight". What a laugh! A knight is a medieval warrior, but he bitches because congress makes him sign up for a draft that is inactive while dissing women AND men who actually volunteer to keep his ass home. And as far as I'm concerned he's a disgrace to Polish people as well. I told you that I'm half-jewish (on my mother's side-matrilineal again because jews aren't recognized as being jews unless their MOTHERS are jewish). However, my mother's family lived in POLAND for centuries right up until WWII. My mother's family were polish jews, and my grandfather died defending Poland when Hitler's army marched on Poland in 1939. Later on, that same year, the Russians invaded Poland, and this set off a number of deportations between 1939-1941of polish citizens to Siberia and other remotes parts of Russian. In 1940, my mother, her sister, my grandmother and her paternal uncle were deported to Siberia because they were considered "capitalists and therefore, enemies of the (Russian) people". Over a million poles were deported. Upon arrival in Siberia, my grandmother was put to work along with other women dynamiting a MINE to find a mineral called gypsum which is used to make casts for Russian soldiers on the front. My mother and her sister were put to work in the fields with the other children, and this is how they spent the first summer in Siberia which was hotter than hell when most people think of Siberia as being cold. And it was, when winter came. My mother's uncle, who also fought for Poland when it was invaded by Hitler, was eventually seperated from my grandmother, mother, and aunt and sent to another part of Russia. They never heard from him again because he died of pneumonia that first Siberian winter. However, my grandmother was eventually put to work in a factory, and they lived in huts with no plumbing, electricity, or running water. Most native siberians lived in poverty stricken conditions, and my mother and her family lived in the same way. At the end of the war, they were released to go back to Poland, but conditions had deteriorated so bad in Poland, that they emigrated to the United States (my grandmother ended up remarrying). My mother was 9 years old when she left Siberia. She spoke polish, yiddish, english, and russian by the time she returned to Poland. As horrible as conditions were in Siberia, my grandmother found out that their deportation saved their lives because the rest of the family, who managed to escape deportation to Siberia, ended up being killed at Auschwitz. No Schindler's list for them. So, basically, my grandfather died defending Poland from Hitler. My grandmother, mother, sister, and paternal uncle ended up being polish political prisoners of war by the Russians. My mother's family were wealthy jews prior to WWII, and jews were not well liked in Poland any better than anywhere else in Europe. In fact, a lot of polish people were poor peasants who lived without running water, electricity, and indoor plumbing (you know the things that P.K. says makes white people better than the indians). Should I say that polish jews were superior to other polish people because they had those things and were wealthy? In fact, my grandmother was stunned to find that a lot of the "wealthy capitalists" that were being transported to Siberia were actually polish peasants who never even saw a flush toilet. The Russians have a history of treating their jews terribly, but my mother and her family weren't deported as "jews". They were deported as WEALTHY CAPITALIST POLES. Yet, they endured the same povety stricken conditions as other polish people when they were deported to Siberia, and any wealth the family possessed was confiscated by the Russians and the Germans. In Poland, my mother was referred to as that "jew", but in Siberia, she was referred to as that "polish kid". Of course, not all jewish people in Poland were wealthy, but any wealth my mother's family had, was a thing of the past after WWII. I know that I never saw it. My mother and her family either died defending Poland, or endured being deported as polish political prisoners of war. Now, Polish Knight, since you fancy yourself as some polish war hero, what were your "war contributions" to Poland again? Oh, that's right-there are none. And you dare to call yourself a "knight". And btw, polish people were looked down on as intellectually and culturally inferior by other european ethnic groups for years in this country. If you think it's right to say that native americans were inferior to whites because they lacked certain technology than you might as well say that polish people really are stupid compared to other ethnic european-americans. I may be jewish, but I have strong polish roots as well. Your a disgrace to your polish ancestors.
Kimberly
Kimberly once again fights like a girl. Is this the third time she's stomped her widdle feet and walked off? I find her crude insults she hurls in my direction a backhanded compliment, much like the Polish jokes to which she alludes, because crude insults are a sign of the speaker's insecurity and not the other way around. For the record, the Poles were subject to massive discrimination because they were perceived as hard workers and therefore competition for the native English and German workers. History lesson: Even in the states up until the 1900's or so, most people had outhouses as well. Polish people are amazingly well educated even as immigrants. My grandfather and father spoke Latin, German, Polish, and English. Poland represented a major military threat to Germany and lasted almost as long as France despite being attacked on both sides including from the Russians. Poles invented the Enigma machine that was a significant factor in winning WWII and sacrificed Warsaw in two battles to defeat Nazi Germany.
It's rather funny to hear Kimberly dig up (pardon the pun) her grandmother's experiences to give her own world-owes-her-a-living attitude credibility. Nazi Germany and the USSR were socialist republics which targeted ethnic groups based upon their hard work to solidify political support much like modern socialists who bash white males.
Regarding women in the military: Try to make the claim if you like that somehow our military would fail if we didn't have women "shadowing" men in combat or doing backroom work, but it's 100% clear that if men didn't volunteer or were drafted, that would be the end of the modern military. Another hypothesis is that men using cocaine is POSSIBLE linked to birth defects: "An experiment using human semen has found that cocaine may attach itself to the sperm of men who use the drug, entering an egg at the moment of conception and damaging the fetus" Here's the thing: These are both HYPOTHETICALS while the value of men in the military and the millions of babies harmed by "heroic" mothers doing drugs and smoking is FACT. Look up what the words hypothetical and fact mean sometime. In any case, neither Richard or I were asking for heroes credit for fathering children and therefore the issue of potential birth defects caused by men doing drugs is therefore moot. Before you can put a motherhood medal on a pregnant woman, be sure to check how much booze she's drinking first!
Finally, regarding NNF's claim: "Of course, the difference is that the Iroquois applied their consitution to every member of their society while the whites applied their constitution to guess who? White Males."
Read the constitution sometime, NNF. You can use your white male designed computer (made in China, granted) to see that the constitution in no way said anything about race. At all. It left those issues up to the individual states. Only later was the constitution interpreted to mean that these rights were guaranteed by the states rather than left up to them (a key distinction.) I love how Sweden is held up as a so-called matriarchal model. It's also lily white and cold as heck. It's funny that socialism only appears to function when non-white people aren't in a rush to move there..
"However, one characteristic of a truly matrifocal/matrilineal society is that in Sweden the majority of children LIVE WITH THEIR MOTHERS and the central focus is on the bond between the child and his or her primary caretaker who is more often or not the MOTHER OF THAT CHILD."
In Sweden the majority of children live with BOTH parents. For young children it's about 80 percent. This in spite of the high rate of unmarried cohabitation. And when parents do split you generally don't see the dads forced out of the picture like what often happens here. The Swedish do a better job of keeping their kids' families together than we do. Probably because they pair up later.
But I have to admit to baiting NY a little. Feminists and woman-firsters seem to love Sweden to pieces but Sweden has a lot of family policies, such as near-universal employment of mothers, non-transferable paternity leave (which the women appear to be delighted with, BTW), a shared custody rate of about 90 percent and widespread equal parenting-time arrangements, and deliberate government effort to change and equalize traditional gender roles, that I suspect NY would characterize as anything but matrifocal. And would probably vociferously attack as actually "oppressive" to women.
Am I right, NY?
Richard
http://ncge.wordpress.com/2008/02/
"Two items in today’s news also focus on gender and entrepreneurship: a report that men dominate Swedish entrepreneurship and a blog post asking does testosterone make men more likely to start businesses?. A study by Företagarna, an organization representing Swedish entrepreneurs, shows that Sweden has fewer women entrepreneurs than almost every other country in Europe. The study reports that only 3.9% percent of Swedish women run their own companies, well below the EU average of 5.7%, despite the fact that Sweden usually ranks close to the top globally in matters of gender equity. Meanwhile, researchers from the University of Western Ontario found that the students with entrepreneurial experience had higher testosterone levels than those who had never been involved in starting new businesses; view abstracts here and here."
There's a joke that goes that Sweden's three major industries are Abba records, Volvos, and male suicide. Apparently, we can strike Volvos off that list...
"Poles invented the Enigma machine that was a significant factor in winning WWII and sacrificed Warsaw in two battles to defeat Nazi Germany."
GERMANS INVENTED THE ENIGMA MACHINE, YOU MORON. It was the polish people who cracked the code that was used in the enigma. OTOH, did you ever hear of the code talkers?
The Navajo Code Talkers, whose ranks exceed 400 during the course of World War II in the Pacific Theater. Have been credited with saving countless lives and hastening the end of the war. The Code Talker's served in all six Marine divisions from 1942 to 1945.
The Code Talker's primary job was to talk and transmit information on tactics, troop movements, orders and other vital battlefield information via telegraphs and radios in their native dialect. A major advantage of the code talker system was its speed. The method of using Morse code often took hours where as, the Navajos handled a message in minutes. It has been said that if was not for the Navajo Code Talker's, the Marines would have never taken Iwo Jima.
The Navajo's unwritten language was understood by fewer than 30 non-Navajo's at the time of WWII. The size and complexity of the language made the code extremely difficult to comprehend, much less decipher. It was not until 1968 that the code became declassified by the US Government.
It was the ONLY CODE that the Japanese could not break.
Oh, and btw, Polish knight, like I said, my uncle was an army recruiter back when the draft ended and an all volunteer military was started. AGAIN, HE SAID THAT WOMEN VOLUNTEERS WERE AND ARE CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS OF AN ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY. I think he knows far more about these things than you do. And btw, KImberly wasn't making "polish jokes" you jackass. She was talking about the irony of the war contributions made by her family to Poland while someone like you who calls himself "POLISH KNIGHT" whines about putting his name on a yellow draft card. And yes, it is VOLUNTEERS-MEN AND WOMEN- who keep you safe at home instead of being drafted. And again you miss the point when she talked about her family being wealthy people with indoor plumbing while a lot of polish people lived without these things. After all, your the one making comments like this:
"Well, let me know when you throw away your computer, electricity, houses, and sanitary hospitals and go back to giving birth in the woods. Time to man up!"
You obviously equate having technological advantages as making one person superior over the other. Following your line of thinking, polish jews with these advantages are more superior than other polish people. Kimberly was asking a RHETORICAL QUESTION not "making polish jokes"? The polish people may have been smart and contributed a lot, but a person sure doesn't know this when they read your comments. And telling Kimberly that she's putting down polish people is a moot point when her family came from Poland. Kimberly is right. You are a disgrace to polish people AND the war contributions they made. Kimberly's mother deserves the name "polish knight" more than you.
Apparently, NNF, it is rather difficult to decrypt the term "goodbye" since you two seem to think it means you keep coming back. Maybe you think it means "aloha?"
I think it's great that you're running to your Uncle to provide credibility for your arguments. So much for the wonders of the matriarchy... Same thing with the whiner label: You decided to compare military service and obligations to private personal reproductive decisions. Pot meet kettle!
I never said anything about equating technological advantages as making one person superior to another. That's "code talk" for putting words into my mouth. YOU had implied that your culture didn't need the white man's input and these technological benefits were part of that culture you claimed to reject.
This may amaze you to hear, but it wasn't only Polish Jews who had toilets in WWII era Poland. Just as in the states, country people generally had outhouses at that time.
I don't see how in Kimberly's story about her mother's experiences as a slave worker in Russia qualifies her as a "Polish Knight" or even a warrier. In modern times, the term "warrier" has been equated to "victim" such as the "heroes" of civilians dying in 911. Perhaps this is because the term victim has become regarded as an insult even as victimhood status is the most powerful political currency there is.
That brings us to: You chose to drag out Native American culture to attack white males and now you're both engaging in racist slurs and then crying, once again, like girls when I hit you back. Put your Uncle on the line. He couldn't do a worse job!
Oh, don't forget to say this is the last we're hearing of you again! tee hee!
"Feminists and woman-firsters seem to love Sweden to pieces but Sweden has a lot of family policies, such as near-universal employment of mothers, non-transferable paternity leave (which the women appear to be delighted with, BTW), a shared custody rate of about 90 percent and widespread equal parenting-time arrangements, and deliberate government effort to change and equalize traditional gender roles, that I suspect NY would characterize as anything but matrifocal. And would probably vociferously attack as actually "oppressive" to women."
Well, these family policies were originally designed to make it easier for MOTHERS to combine work and childrearing. It's a system that also make it easier for MARRIED WOMEN to stay home because it provides a social safety net that makes divorce less of a financial risk. And unwed mothers have to HAVE A JOB IN ORDER TO GET THESE GENEROUS FAMILY POLICIES. Also, despite the "shared parenting", the majority of children in Sweden spend the most time with their MOTHERS following a divorce. Besides, Sweden takes domestic violence a lot more seriously than the u.s., and this is reflected a lot in their custody decisions. And Sweden has the best child support enforcement agency in the world-the Swedish government. Unlike here, where child support is left up to individual states, Sweden has a centralized federal child support agency, and there very good about making sure child support is paid. Anyway, it's been fun Dick, but I'm leaving again on another business trip. I'm really NOT COMING BACK THIS TIME LOL. Maybe talk to you some other time.
Kimberly or Anon whatever.
P.K., piss off. You really make polish people look stupid. Shut up before you do more damage to the image of polish people (and yes, I consider myself polish). Your a disgrace to us all.
Hello again Kimberly. For the record, I don't recall bringing my Polish ancestry into the discussion. You chose to bash Poles as uneducated and lacking toilets and inferior to Polish Jews simply due to my pseudonym. Amazing, really. Now you're trying to argue that I'm the one whose responsible for your bigoted attitude? And you bash white males as your oppressors even as you run to them as legislators. Even YOU don't trust women!
"It's a system that also make it easier for MARRIED WOMEN to stay home because it provides a social safety net that makes divorce less of a financial risk."
If that's what it's aiming to do it's failing utterly. Only 2 percent of married women in Sweden are homemakers. On the contrary, the accomodations the Swedish government makes for mothers is for the primary purpose of keeping them mobilized as WORKERS.
"And Sweden has the best child support enforcement agency in the world-the Swedish government."
Their system is indeed superior to ours in that it is oriented around the "caring" fatherhood model rather than the "breadwinning" fatherhood model that we have here in the US and the UK. Both parents are expected to support children, fathers are not to be driven into poverty by high child support awards, and the needs of second families are taken into account with consequent reduction of prior support obligations.
For more details, see Making Men into Fathers: Men, Masculinities and the Social Politics of Fatherhood, by Barbara Hobson. She discusses the Swedish and Norwegian systems at length.
It's been fun.
Richard
Aloha, Polish Knight,
You are someone who fits the defintion of PROJECTION:
"An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but who is unwilling to perceive himself as an antagonist, convinces himself that his opponent feels and would act the same way."
Every thing that you have accused Kimberly and I of, you have done yourself all throughout this thread. You lack insight into your own bigoted, sexist behavior, and when anyone else on this thread-me, Kimberly, NYMOM, Widowed Mom, or whoever points this out, you start projecting your own behavior on them.
In fact, I'm taking a psychology course right now, and I used your comments an an example when I did a class presentation on projection. I gave everyone in the class a copy of this thread, and I asked them what they thought of the person who calls himself "Polish Knight". They all agreed that you are an angry, bigoted, sexist person who fits the definition of projection really well. In fact, they couldn't believe how you accuse other people of your own motives, and then, try to give to argue with accusations and circular arguments rather than try to see the point that the other person is trying to make. In fact, the whole class agreed that ALL of your arguments suggest that you are someone who is insecure, angry,hostile, with repressed feelings of anger toward a society that you feel has oppressed you in some way (a patriarchal society that is run by mostly wealthy white males). The whole class, including the instructor (a psychatrist by training) think that instead of getting some kind of counseling and dealing with your isssues, you try to place the blame on people WHO ARE REALLY OPPRESSED (women and minorities) and whom you see as inferior. In fact, they thought you fit the classic description of the NEUROTIC BULLY. And btw, this class wasn't part of any woman's studies class, and most of the class (including the instructor) are white males. Of course, one guy thought you fit the classic pattern of someone who is an anti-social personality with covert agression issues, but I felt that the neurotic bully description fit you more. Thanks a lot. I got an A on my project. I owe it all to you. Good-bye, and I do mean it this time! LOL.
Never Needed Father because I'm a Seneca Woman.
NNF, lessee, you're saying that I am projecting my need to run to others, such as my Uncle, and then later an entire psychology class of mostly men suffering from white guilt to seek their unilateral support because I'm an insecure bully who needs to dismiss other people's viewpoints as inferior rather than make my own case? Oh, wait, that describes only you. I chuckled that you took what I wrote to them. Thanks bunches for spreading the word! After they get done watching "Dances with Wolves" on their DVD player and feeling guilty for running water and electricity, they might grow up and get real jobs and become patriarchal providers because that's what most women crave from them. Karl Marx promised them free goodies if they said and did the right things but that was 100 years ago just as another savior promised 2000 years ago that if people believed the right things they would go to heaven. That's all nice and good, but eventually they have to graduate and go to The Real World. Then what I said will come back to them. I've had it happen before.
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/06/13/the-post-on-marriage/
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/06/15/marriage2/
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2008/08/09/oh-hell-i-got-vlogging-software/
In answer to the vlog question, I have a friend in NJ who just got divorced. He and his wife had problems because while he had grown into the fatherhood role and given up youthful partying (they met at a bar), she liked to party with her friends and spent most of her money going out. He set up different things in the fenced backyard for the kids to do such as playhouses, swings, and basketball. When he wasn't spending time with the kids taking them to activities, he did home improvements. The final straw for him was when she drove home late at night drunk. He couldn't live with that worrying.
He talked to the kids about the possibility they might be getting divorced. He just wanted them to get prepared that they were going through a rough patch. The mother responded by getting a lawyer and serving him with papers the next week. He was still willing to go through counseling but she decided to show her grrl power. Only problem is, she didn't have any money to pay the lawyer (remember how it went to booze?) Even in NJ, one of the most father-unfriendly states, he had all of his documentation set up and got shared parenting. She still got a few bucks in "child support" because she earned a little less than him plus she got a lot of money in equity in the house.
Aftermath? The kids at HER house watch a lot of TV and she spends the $50 a month or so on cigarettes. (He just lost his job recently so she's losing that.) She's at least home to watch them now that she has less money to spend on booze with her friends now that she's discovered that windows don't magically fix themselves and leaky roofs don't magically seal up. After the smoke (pardon the pun) had cleared, she asked him if they wanted to get back together and he responded "That ship has sailed." She had a good thing going and blew it.
And for the record, he's not me. He's just a good friend and I went to his wedding.
PK wrote: "The final straw for him was when she drove home late at night drunk. He couldn't live with that worrying. He talked to the kids about the possibility they might be getting divorced."
I understand your buddy's dilemma but if that had been me I probably wouldn't have set anything in motion.
With his family together he could provide some measure of protection for his kids. Now there will be nothing to keep her from driving around drunk with the kids while they're with her. And when she brings home a boyfriend from the bar and moves him in with her (gotta get the bank account filled and the leaky roof fixed somehow, ya know) they'll be in about the most dangerous situation kids can be in. That's a worry I couldn't live with.
And if he's tempted to try to cut back her time with them for all these reasons it will probably backfire because the kids still love their mom even if she's a sot.
I'd have gotten an umbrella liability policy big enough to protect all the family assets, gotten my documentation together privately just in case, stuck it out and hoped for the best.
Sucks to live that way, but hey, it's all part of "manning up."
Richard
Richard, since moving out he's told me that she's cleaned up her act somewhat if only because she has less money for booze. Plus, as a divorced mother she has to be on her best behavior (she might lose that $50 bucks in "child" support you know.)
I think I made it clear he didn't set the divorce in motion. His children were worried about the parents arguing and he wanted to reassure them. She filed papers on him as a preemptive strike. This was a VERY important point because the eldest daughter angrily accused him of just what you said and he showed her the court papers. It shut her up.
FYI, the younger daughter is autistic and the mother smoked while she carried her. If Kimberly wants to send me the medal for her heroism, I'll forward it along.
"FYI, the younger daughter is autistic and the mother smoked while she carried her."
Sigh...
You should know better then this Polish Knight. Not that smoking while pregnant is good, but it has nothing to do with a child being autistic.
This is the opening salvo when a man is staging a custody battle: she smoked while pregnant...
Classic.
Did she wear red a lot too????
Clearly she's unfit...
I have to be honest I consider it a sign of hope that you men always have to come up with an excuse for a custody fight. It said to me you know you are wrong in doing it, so you throw out the usual charge that the children's mother is unfit.
I've never met the non-custodial father who had anything good to say about his childrens' mother.
NEVER...
Even your guy Richard Gardner observed in his practice that just as many men as women tried to alienate the non-custodial parent ...and this was back in the 80s when men rarely had custody...
I suspected for a long time that men are MORE LIKELY to try to alienate children from their mothers. It's the whole power/aggression male thing...we just never realized it before since men rarely bothered getting custody before changes in child support guidelines and enforcement made children worth so much money...
Regarding this whole 'preemptive strike' thing, yes, women should file first as the parent that files first generally gets awarded temporary custody and unless they are an axe murderer that morphs into permanent custody...so a mother would be a fool not to file first if she suspects her husband is seeing another woman and/or has plans to file for divorce himself.
Nothing wrong with this...
"Even in NJ, one of the most father-unfriendly states..."
This is total baloney...there are no father-unfriendly states. NJ, just like NY and every other state in the union has become infested with those more interested in social engineering then in the best interest of children.
This is why I always recommend women to avoid the courts, if at all possible, as they are no friend to mothers. Even that $50. child support award is a good example of what I'm talking about and home equity is meaningless today as the value of homes is dropping so rapidly.
Again, I'm surprised at you even bringing up home equity in a settlement. I thought you knew better then that.
Regarding the various references made by some comparing men in the military to women giving birth, I think we have to make one thing clear: most men in western society don't serve in the military but most western women still get pregnant and give birth...so your comparison to women getting pregnant and giving birth = men going to the post office to register for the draft is NOT valid.
Probably at earlier points in time it was comparable, but not any more. Unless our society changes drastically over the next 100 years it will never be again.
So get over it.
"I have to be honest I consider it a sign of hope that you men always have to come up with an excuse for a custody fight.”
Glad you see hope. The only sign of hope I see is that high-quality women are starting to feel a greater need to come up a legitimate excuse before destroying their kids’ families, which is by far the greater assault on those kids than any custody dispute. Maybe the middle/upper class can be preserved a little while longer. The lower class is beyond hope.
“It said to me you know you are wrong in doing it, so you throw out the usual charge that the children's mother is unfit.”
It said to me that the guy had been advised by a realistic lawyer.
“Regarding this whole 'preemptive strike' thing, yes, women should file first as the parent that files first generally gets awarded temporary custody and unless they are an axe murderer that morphs into permanent custody”
Filing first only gives filers a sneak advantage in that they can take steps to set themselves up as poor and deserving sole caregivers whether they actually are or not, such as by quitting a job, pushing the other parent into working longer hours, removing the kids on the sly or even getting the other parent removed from the house. Here the dad was prepared and on guard against that kind of crap so the result was shared parenting even though he was not the filer. Probably a lot more guys need to pull their heads out of their asses and watch out for the signs of typical pre-divorce dirt.
But you’ve given us yet another excellent reason to support presumed shared parenting. If there’s nothing to be gained by silly games like “preemptive strikes” then maybe people can get on with the far more important business of fixing their families, like what probably would have happened in PK's example. A “preemptive strike” may result in a “win” for one parent but it’s an all-around loss for the kids.
Richard
Richard, note that this was what the guy told ME, another adult, in private and ONLY because we've known each other for 20 years. I never said he trashtalked about the mother in front of the children. On the contrary, one of the reasons the marriage fell apart from his own admission that he didn't like complaining to ANYONE. He was the "strong, silent" type. Like you said, pre-emptive strikes encourage families to fall apart rather than repair and I know of marriages that had these moments in the past that came through them and were better off for it rather than breaking up.
I don't know whether NYMOM's claim that the courts are biased against women is either empty posturing on her part or sincere. The _worst_ that happens to most mothers in most cases is shared parenting. Eeek! I'm only telling the story and the home equity came up because, at the time 4 years ago, it was peaked out and she hadn't paid a dime of it. NYMOM seems to believe that if a woman doesn't get custody of everything plus the man paying her money in "child" support and alimony, no questions asked, then she's being oppressed somehow.
About the pregnancy cigarette smoking: It was not mentioned in the custody hearings as far as I know. He didn't seek full or even shared custody via bashing the mother. But it is a factor in the divorce that she was drinking and driving and engaging in risky behaviors. If a man had engaged in such behavior, would NYMOM be defending him?
Post a Comment