“The Making of a Modern Dad"
It takes a lot more than testosterone to make a father out of a man by PsychologyToday.com
"Part of a new generation of men who are redefining fatherhood and masculinity, Hudnut, who is 33, is unwilling to accept the role of absentee provider that his father's generation assumed. With mothers often being the breadwinners of the family, many young fathers are deciding that a man's place can also be in the home—part-time or even full-time.
According to census figures, one in four dads takes care of his preschooler during the time the mother is working. The number of children who are raised by a primary-care father is now more than 2 million and counting. By all measures, fathers, even those who work full-time, are more involved in their children's lives than ever before. According to the Families and Work Institute in New York City, fathers now provide three-fourths of the child care mothers do, up from one-half 30 years ago.
Is father nurture natural?
Many men and women wonder if all of this father care is really natural. According to popular perceptions, men are supposedly driven by their hormones (primarily testosterone) to compete for status, to seek out sex and even to be violent—conditions hardly conducive to raising kids. A recent article in Reader's Digest, "Why Men Act As They Do," is subtitled "It's the Testosterone, Stupid." Calling the hormone "a metaphor for masculinity," the article concludes, "...testosterone correlates with risk: physical, criminal, and personal." Don't men's testosterone-induced chest-beating and risk-taking limit their ability to cradle and comfort their children?
Two studies, which was recently published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, suggests that fathers have higher levels of estrogen the well-known female sex hormone -- than other men. The research shows that men go through significant hormonal changes alongside their pregnant partners changes most likely initiated by their partner's pregnancy and ones that even cause some men to experience pregnancylike symptoms such as nausea and weight gain. It seems increasingly clear that just as nature prepares women to be committed moms, it prepares men to be devoted dads.
"I have always suspected that fatherhood has biological effects in some, perhaps all, men," says biologist Sue Carter, distinguished professor at the University of Maryland. "Now here is the first hard evidence that men are biologically prepared for fatherhood."
The studies have the potential to profoundly change our understanding of families, of fatherhood and of masculinity itself. Being a devoted parent is not only important but also natural for men. Indeed, there is evidence that men are biologically involved in their children's lives from the beginning.
Is biology destiny for dads?
It's well known that hormonal changes caused by pregnancy encourage a mother to love and nurture her child. But it has long been assumed that a father's attachment to his child is the result of a more uncertain process, a purely optional emotional bonding that develops over time, often years. Male animals in some species undergo hormonal changes that prime them for parenting. But do human dads? The two studies, conducted at Memorial University and Queens University in Canada, suggest that human dads do.
In the original study, published in Evolution and Human Behavior, psychologist Anne Storey and her colleagues took blood samples from 34 couples at different times during pregnancy and shortly after birth. The researchers chose to monitor three specific hormones because of their links to nurturing behavior in human mothers and in animal fathers.
Parke believes that the research suggests something even more radical: "Men are much more androgynous than we think. We have the capability to be aggressive and nurturing. The traditional view of men as predominantly aggressive really sells men short and denies their capability to experience the range of human emotions.
The research suggests that a man's hormones may play an important role in helping him experience this full range of emotions especially in becoming a loving and devoted dad. In fact, it offers the first evidence that to nurture is part of man's nature.
content by:
By Douglas Carlton Abrams
Last Reviewed: 24 May 2005
Psychology Today © Copyright 1991 – 2005”
People can read the article in its entirety following the link, as I just posted excerpts but it’s pretty clear where this is going.
One, it’s another of the continuing attempts to usurp women from the unique role that God, Evolution, nature etc., has designated as ours, which is as the mother of our children, the ONLY MOTHER. Allowing this re-definition of bonding to pass unchallenged can result in unrelated men or anybody really who is just hanging around a mother a lot during a pregnancy to suddenly claim they ‘bonded’ with a child and thus gain standing for a custody challenge as soon as child is born.
Even the clever wording in the article making no mention whatsoever of bonding vis-a-vis the mother carrying her child but only referring to 'hormonal changes' in the bloodstream has the potential to wreck havoc on the proper definition of bonding as a process that goes on inutero between mother and child ONLY. Like following the logic of this article, let's just give someone a shot and then just anybody can be your kid's mother.
Two, it has the potential to disenfranchise biological fathers as well who are not around during a child’s pregnancy, maybe don’t even know about it. So because they didn’t bond and maybe some other guy did, now’s he’s designated as the ‘bonded’ father. Actually biological fathers are at even more risk of losing legal rights through this nonsense, as they cannot even file for paternity UNTIL the child is is born. Meanwhile Mr. Bonding through Osmosis is there every day slowing absorbing a biological father’s legal rights.
It’s like something out of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine really with the Borg or some such assimilating your kid before you even know you have one, actually before you do have one.
Hey everybody, I'm 3 of 5 in the family tree now.
Frankly, I find it positively creepy.
Three, allowing unrelated persons to gain legal standing for a custody challenge through this sort of psychobabble nonsense puts many children at risk. I’m sorry to say it but children have become very valuable commodities today, used by many people to gain all sorts of advantage from child support payments, a shot at citizenship or even tax benefits of one kind or another. Barring abuse or neglect, biological parents should be the only guardians, custodians, caretakers, whatever of children that can legally exist. Not some self-proclaimed, quasi-bonded individual entering out of left field. Based upon some new gender-neutralized feminist definition of bonding through osmosis that has suddenly taken place, I can see a whole new category of parent emerging from this.
Again, creepy as all getout.
Last, but not least, this is just more of the campaign by these gender-neutralized feminists to continue building the androgynous society that is so dear to their hearts.
Men and women who go on to support this nonsense risk having new definitions of legal parenthood passed that could ultimately mean a room mate or boyfriend having standing to go to court and seek custody based upon this new creepy definition of bonding, if it’s accepted by the courts.
Frankly, why wouldn’t it be as our courts have accepted every other nutty idea that has come down the pike to them so far.
I can accept a unrelated person who invests time in raising a child being designated a psychological parent. But we already have this legal definition that Judges can use to designate a person as a parent because they have spent the requisite time with a child (usually around two years or so). But this is a totally different animal they’ve dredged up now. Trying to designate someone as a parent even BEFORE they put the time in based upon the fact that they hung around the mother during her pregnancy?
Please.
This is total creepy nonsense.
As Nancy Reagan often said, let’s just say no.
72 comments:
I agree with NYMOM (partially) in that the study is modern new age bunk including it's claim that "By all measures, fathers, even those who work full-time, are more involved in their children's lives than ever before."
"By all measures" is a pretty sweeping generalization! Obviously, the article's author doesn't consider the unnamed fathers of unwed mother's children, divorced fathers, NCP unmarried fathers, etc. Overall, if all THOSE men's experiences are factored in, then men's participation in parenting has gone DOWN and not UP!
Another statistical shell game is to take a single instance of something happening and then use language implying that it's the norm. For example: Women abandoning babies in dumpsters. I will be the first to say this is not typical motherly behavior although observing society's responses to such behavior is interesting. By the same token, a statistic such as "one in four dads takes care of his preschooler during the time the mother is working" doesn't necessarily prove that men are becoming SAH dads more often. It's possible the mother worked on night shift and the father was home or on his day off.
That brings me to the 500 lb gorilla we need to address, NYMOM, which is that you think that the "women as mothers" role is so invaluable and in need of societal recognition, what about career women who stick their kids in daycare? Isn't equality for women threatening to this role? Or are you thinking they can "have it all?" OK, and the other gorilla is that while you claim to support adoption 1000% (like OJ's innocence :-), this argument does undermine the quality of adoptive parenting and makes women feel guilty for giving up their babies.
Have no fear, NYMOM, underdog is here! Oh, sorry! Couldn't resist! Seriously though: Don't worry. The feminists and even these new agers have no desire to use this study for the goals you mention. They probably are seeking to use this to argue AGAINST MRA's who are claiming that feminism is driving fathers away from the home or children or to justify more perks for career women via claims that their families are doing fine after all. Feminism is a cognitive dissonance between claims that women are worse off than ever before and in need of more goodies AND that women are doing great because of feminism's advances.
Ok, now about the mother-child bond. If this really is the case then many women wouldn't have been fooled in cases where hospitals accidentally switched their babies. At least a few of these women and their babies would have noticed, yes? That's the key to a "scientific" principle: It's testable. You break the system, as it's claimed to work, and see if it continues to function normally. That's what tells you if you've made the right guess.
Finally, regarding men's bonding with the mother and baby:That can be said of, well, marriage itself. Men put on weight during pregnancy like the wives? Well, no duh! She's probably eating more and dragging him along for the ride! It doesn't take hormones to figure out that people eat more when they've got costco sized portions lying around!
PK said: "If this really is the case then many women wouldn't have been fooled in cases where hospitals accidentally switched their babies."
I already queried NY about that at Gonz' long ago, PK, and never got an answer. Remember the Kimberley Mays/Arlena Twigg case down in Florida back in the 80s? Two babies switched in the hospital. Regina Twigg had even held her own child and nursed it, if I rememeber correctly. And a few days later she walked out of the hospital with someone else's child and no one was the wiser until the kid got sick ten years later and routine tests showed she couldn't be her parents' natural child.
It's not an isolated case, either. It's happened often enough and cost hospitals enough that they now put as many as three different identifying tags on mothers and babies to avoid lawsuits. One of which netted the Twiggs a hefty damage award, which they never should have received if the mother/child bond is as magical as NY seems to think.
"Remember the Kimberley Mays/Arlena Twigg case down in Florida back in the 80s? Two babies switched in the hospital. Regina Twigg had even held her own child and nursed it, if I rememeber correctly. And a few days later she walked out of the hospital with someone else's child and no one was the wiser "
Yeah, Richard, no one was the wiser except Regina Twigg. Of course, when she expressed concern, she was told not to be "silly". Figures.
http://www.nickdavies.net/1988/10/03/solving-the-mystery-of-arlena-twigg/
"Forty eight hours later, Mrs Twigg was lying in her hospital bed waiting for her baby to be brought back from the nursery to be fed. As the nurse arrived with the child in her arms, Mrs Twigg was struck by its appearance. The baby looked thinner, possibly a little darker. “Gee,” she said.”This doesn’t look like the same baby.” The nurse told her not to be silly and pointed to the identity bracelet clipped firmly round the baby’s wrist. “Twigg,” it said, and she was reassured."
Forty eight hours later, Mrs Twigg was lying in her hospital bed waiting for her baby to be brought back from the nursery to be fed. "As the nurse arrived with the child in her arms, Mrs Twigg was struck by its appearance. The baby looked thinner, possibly a little darker. “Gee,” she said.”This doesn’t look like the same baby.” The nurse told her not to be silly and pointed to the identity bracelet clipped firmly round the baby’s wrist. “Twigg,” it said, and she was reassured."
Whoops, accidently posted that twice. Sorry.
Lots of men express similar concerns, Virago, when their child doesn't look like them.
Thanks for proving there's a father-child bond! You heard it from V, NYMOM!
Sure, V, maybe she didn't LOOK like the same baby. But anybody could have noticed that. We're talking about NY's mystical magical mother-child bond that operates on deep primal levels that we men just can't understand, eh, PK?
All of which can be over-ridden with a simple "Don't be silly."
What happened to the mama lionesses?
This reminds me of a story in my wife's family about her grandfather. A few days after his daughter (my mother-in-law) was born, he was at the hospital and saw another couple preparing to leave with a baby that he thought looked very much like his.
They refused to let him take a closer look to be sure, so he promptly collared the other father in the elevator and refused to release him until he had had a close look at the baby and satisfied himself that it wasn't his.
"Don't be silly" wouldn't do the job for someone with REAL doubts.
I remember how, just to be safe, my wife memorized the pattern of five milia on our son's nose.
Richard
Funny story Richard. My wife and I have been talking about this subject and she says that she wants someone at the hospital to do a similar thing: Look at the baby when it comes out and make sure that it's the same one she gets handed later.
She doesn't want me in the operating room though not due to notions of matriarchal ownership but rather she thinks I won't think of her romantically in the same way again afterwards. She's REALLY into looking her best. (Not that this is necessary, but I find it one of her charming traits.)
PK said: "The feminists and even these new agers have no desire to use this study for the goals you mention. They probably are seeking to use this to argue AGAINST MRA's who are claiming that feminism is driving fathers away from the home or children or to justify more perks for career women via claims that their families are doing fine after all."
I agree that if these findings are used for anything at all, it will be against MRAs. Without a doubt, another wallet for a woman to raid.
This would be a lot more fun if the woman-firsters weren't so easy to predict.
R.
My wife had the same concerns about her looks in the operating room but she wouldn't have thought of going in without me. She knows I'm an extremely observant type, at nitpicker if you will, and she trusted me to notice if anything seemed amiss.
Our son would have been easy, because she says he looked just like her baby pictures. But she said if she hadn't actually seen our daughter being carried from the operating table she wouldn't have believed she was her child. She looked like no baby she had ever seen before.
She looked like MY baby pictures, of course.
R.
Like MRA's aren't just as easy to predict...
Actually many of my posts I get from your sites...I go there and take an article and say just the opposite of it...it generally works perfectly...
So you're the flip side of feminists...
Regarding your 500lb gorilla PK. I have often said that women should NOT rush right back to work and leave their children to be raised by strangers...
AND once again, babies being switched are RARE instances, so we cannot say anything about the mother/child bond based upon that situation...
Great. So hopefully these unwed mothers who went to the sperm bank better have money in the bank to be able to take all that time off.
Regarding the baby swapping being rare: It's even more rare (so far, possibly even zero) for a mother to accurately detect and prove with her "bond" that a baby swapped wasn't hers.
Experiments and examples don't have to be common for them to prove an absolute point. It's "rare" for man to go to the moon too, but the few times we've gone shows it's there.
"Lots of men express similar concerns, Virago, when their child doesn't look like them.
Thanks for proving there's a father-child bond! You heard it from V, NYMOM!"
OMG, Polish Knight, just when I thought you couldn't be more pathetic, you top yourself. What you just said here doesn't even make any sense. In addition to this, paternal genes don't always determine phenotype. Wow! You must've flunked reading comprehension AND human biology 101.
I have taken logic 101 (really, I have) and this sums up your argument:
1) Name calling ad-hominem.
2) Add a declaration of victory, an unnecessary overly complex term to sound smart (a child's appearance as "phenotype) to mask a non-sequitur.
3) More trash talk.
While all 3 are superfluous, 1 and 3 are especially so and 2 is a non-sequitur. I never denied that a biological father's child could appear different than him. I was using something known as SARCASM to illustrate that your own argument was specious.
To prove your point, you'd have to show that a mother's child necessarily looks like her and that she would be able to spot a swap with similar appearing children via her "bond."
I hope that helps you. Get crackin'. If it's biology 101, I'm sure you'll be able to produce proof of that claim quite easily.
NYMOM, I've read the entire article on Psychology Today's website. I really don't have a problem with what it says. I think it's true that men go through hormonal changes that prime them for fatherhood. However, the hormonal changes seem to be intiated by the emotional closeness between the father and the child's MOTHER. In other words, it's the mother-father bond that determines the father-child bond. After all, there are guys who live with their pregnant partners, but are emotionally unavailable or abusive in some way. Their emotional bonds to their pregnant wives are either non-existent or very negative. Do these guys go through these hormonal changes and become highly involved fathers? Highly unlikely. Of course, we can't limit this to the hormone level. After all, there are unwed fathers who aren't present at all during the pregnancy and bond with their kids better than married fathers. Of course, I think a lot of this has to do with those fathers making an effort to get along with the kid's mother AND respecting HER BOND with the child. However, that's a whole other discussion. That's all.
Just because dad isn't married to mom doesn't mean he isn't involved--for better or for worse.
However it is important to note that fathers are highly over-represented in the abuse of infants, especially the most severe and fatal kinds. Fathers dominate as perpetators of shaken baby syndrome and non-accidental head trauma--the leading cause of abuse-related death and disability for that age group. Most of these cases involve fathers enlisted as babysitters and caregivers, and a lot of young dads don't have the patience to deal with crying etc. Google the stats on shaken baby if you want the proof. About 70% dads.
Silverside, your right. BTW I like your blog. That post you did on the NIS 3 was excellent. Can't wait to see what the NIS 4 is about.
Thanks, Virago!
Silverside, to correct your statistics, I read about 50% of the convicted were the biological father. Still, that's a high figure compared to 12% of women.
And hey, I agree, that when it comes to that fathers are definitely worse than mothers.
On the other hand, women are responsible for most fatal infant abandonments (reports of babies being found in the trash) and society has legalized infant abandonment in response (but this has not stopped fatal infant abandonment but rather seems to have increased it.)
Men are also superior when it comes to providing food and shelter for their children. Most single parents on welfare are women. And parents with a father in the home tend to produce children who become providers and law abiding citizens and this goes even for single father households.
Note that Richard and I are not engaging in a pissing contest in terms of taking away kids and then using the child as a hostage. I'm in favor of shared custody as he is.
Here's an article, among many off of goggle, regarding shaken baby syndrome and the controversy over possible misdiagosis:
http://babybondingbookfordads.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-shaken-baby-syndrome-myth.html
"In the article Anderson tells the story of a father in Illinois who was charged with shaking his baby and his wife charged with abuse and neglect. Their infant had been hospitalized three times in two months with seizure-like symptoms and fever. After he went home from the third hospitalization the baby was back in the ER with brain hemorrhaging and the baby was taken away from his parents.
Did his father and mother abuse him?
No.
This baby had a chronic subdural brain hematoma that was not caused by SBS."
There are rare situations where other medical conditions can resemble shaken baby abuse, but they are rare. It's actually more common for a diagnosis to be missed, because the symptoms of brain injury from shaking are so ubiquitous--breathing difficulties, vomiting etc.
Neglect by mothers is definitely correlated to poverty, which suggests that it is not intentional neglect and that additional financial resources may help. Neglect by fathers is NOT correlated with income. In other words, neglectful fathers neglect regardless of the financial resources available to them. According to NIS-3, father-headed households abuse and neglect more children per 1,000 than mothers.
Silverside, do you have PROOF that neglect by fathers is NOT correlated with income? That claim sounds rather counterintuitive since impovershed poor fathers, like poor mothers, would be expected to be under more stress than well-to-do fathers and mothers.
I love your claim that fathers neglect "regardless of the financial resources available to them" while proposing a great solution to poor, impovershed motherhood: Just give 'em money! Perhaps you have a point after all: Nearly all men WORK for a living to get access to "financial resources" while most women cash checks from men and the state. It explains why their lives are just so much less stressful.
How about this: You gals send us checks and work double shifts and we'll see how it affects your temperment.
Silverside, I think that you are probably right when you said single dad's neglect isn't based on income. Single custodial fathers are more likely to be divorced, have higher education levels, and are usually NOT minorities. Single fathers usually have less economic resources than a two-parent family, and they spend less on children's food, health, and education. They are also more likely to spend more money on tobacco, alcohol, and eating out than two parent families do. OTOH, single mothers have LESS economic resources than fathers, but they spend MORE than single fathers on children's food, health, education. They also spend far less on tobacco, alcohol, and eating out. Also, in two-income families where MOTHERS have some control over how income is spent, more money is spent on children's food, health, and education. In general, fathers have a higher economic status, but they aren't using their resources to benefit their children nearly as much as mothers do-single or married. Does this mean that all single fathers neglect their children? No, but it tells me that single fathers have a higher potential to neglect their kids despite having the economic advantage. I've read many studies on this. Economists like Larry Summers have been saying for years- fathers don't invest the resources in their kids that mothers do. There's a whole article on this from the Journal of Family Issues: A Single Father's Shopping Bag: Purchasing Decisions in Single-FAther Families published Feb, 2009. http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/5/605
"How about this: You gals send us checks and work double shifts and we'll see how it affects your temperment"
Sorry, we're too busy actually taking care of our kids after working all day. We sure can't depend on you guys to do it-that's for sure. Btw, a double shift to a single dad is working an 8 hour day and coming home to drink beer in front of the tv while his girlfriend does all HIS CHILDCARE after working all day herself. Yup! The same second shift shit he put his child's mother through before he screwed her out of custody. Same shit, different woman! But hey, good thing the girlfriend is around! Otherwise, it would be beer and alcohol for single dad, and a happy meal for the kiddies every goddamn night of the week before dropping them off at grandma's house while he goes out with the boys. Ah! The stressful life of a single dad.
Green Eyed Monster
V, let's say for a moment your stereotype of single dads with suffering girlfriends looking after their kids was true. Nothing stopped YOU and other women from finding such a boyfriend to help you rather than going after traditional men and then whining when they turn out to be that way.
There's an old Russian saying: Women marry men hoping to change them. Men marry women hoping they'll never change.
I would apply the same standards to a man: If he sought a good looking pretty woman who couldn't cook or clean or earn a living, he shouldn't gripe later about the injustices of sexism when he's a full participant in them. But most men don't need to hear that. They aren't that self-centered to believe such a thing.
I see you didn't address my two main points; Men still are the primary breadwinners for children and society and second, if you love your children then why do you hate caring for them for free? Your stereotype of single fathers is hypothesis but the truth of those two observations is plain for all to see including yourself. You have a love-hate relationship with patriarchal patronage. There's another old saying: Love the grape, hate the vine.
Hmmm, as a side observation, women seem to be into this granola environmental nonsense more than men and enjoy sorting their recyclables when their very liberated lifestyle is destroying the environment and they don't want to do anything about. Disposable diapers? Mommy is too busy with her CAREER to use cloth ones! Ride the bus to work? With scruffy, working class (and unPC observation: minority) men? She'll take her SUV and be the hog of the road and feel safe! And your comment about men going for take out is hilarious. Everyone knows that it's career women who are now flooding restaurants and the frozen food aisle to save time!
Regarding your claim about the economics of single fathers and claiming they are usually divorced and have less resources than married fathers. Well, duh. The same goes for single mothers, of course, whom you regard as victims for the exact same demographic situation! Perhaps if mommy paid her support (women are more likely to not pay child support than men) he wouldn't have that problem.
Regarding the statistic that women spend more on kids than men (this is not just in the case of single fathers but worldwide), this is because men spend money to EARN money rather than cash welfare, child-support, or alimony checks. Men have greater non-child expenses. If you want to see someone spending money frivilously, go to a high end shopping mall sometime and count the stores that cater to men versus women...
About Larry Summers: He said "innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers" Thanks for quoting him as an authority.
More rearranging of deck chairs on the Titanic...
ALL single parents spend less on healthy choices for children than do married parents. How 'bout working on marriage, folks?
In addition, all families, married or not, where both parents work tend to spend less on healthier food choices.
Another of those "benefits" of feminism.
"You have a love-hate relationship with patriarchal patronage."
It's very similar to the love-hate relationship teenagers have with their parents' support. Screaming independence while conscious of actual dependence can't help but end in resentment of the "vine."
Richard
Richard, did I mention it before that has this whole thing has come full circle?
V gripes that men didn't "share" the benefits of the patriarchy with women namely working outside of the home and living a life away from children. We got to have all this fun working 9 hour days + commutes...
Now that women are out there and losing time and recognition as mothers, it's OUR fault that they can't magically be in both places at once. It sounds to me like the little ladies want to come home back to the bedroom and kitchen.
Here's a hint: Learn to say "please" and ask nicely.
"About Larry Summers: He said "innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers" Thanks for quoting him as an authority."
No problem, Polish Knight! Btw, Larry Summers is a huge advocate for social security credit for housewives, education of girls for better economic growth, and BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS. I'm sure that's right up your alley =).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheryl-sandberg/what-larry-summers-has-do_b_142126.html
Hey Silverside, I don't know if your coming back to this post, but keep up the good work on your blog! I love reading it. Ciao!
Silverside, I've read some your other blogs. Great post!
http://frnaked.blogspot.com/2009/07/fr-pest-control.html
From the HP article: "Larry has been attacked by some in the women's community for remarks he made about women's abilities. As he has acknowledged himself, this speech was a real mistake."
No, Larry, it's not a mistake to tell the truth or to be "insensitive". He didn't need to coddle men.
It's funny how the feminists were quick to toss him under the bus: "If you are troubled by the thought of Larry Summers being further empowered as our Treasury Secretary, please sign this petition [...]
Or visit change.gov and send Barak Obama a message about your concerns. If Obama appoints this misogynist, it will be a slap in the face to the women who elected him to be our president."
It's ok Larry. I forgive you. You needed your job at World Bank and Treasury to pay the bills and if that meant selling out one group, to help out another, that's just the way the game is played. Like as another comment observed: "While President of the World Bank Summers argued that toxic/polluting industries should be sent to the Third World." Or helping Obama send trillions to your banking buddies.
In addition, V, I'm sure that Larry probably doesn't do an equal share of the housework...
Yawn.....Larry Summers isn't perfect, but as an economist, he is correct about women and the economy. In fact, most economists know this:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6800723
V, tie both of a man's hands behind his back and he'll still beat (no pun intended) a woman on average. Even with all the affirmative action education and English Lit. and Women's Studies degrees handed out (not to mention law degrees for all the ambulance chasers and clerks to write 10 page mobile phone license agreements), men still outearn women and provide for their families and where they don't, cities are transformed into office parks that empty at night.
As I observed above, the two income family has helped to destroy the environment with greater reliance and consumption of consumer goods and increased load on infrastructure such as rush hour traffic.
When you gals can go on your own without mostly male subsidized support, let us know. Until then, this little PC diatribe you posted is a joke.
Oh, and Summers and his buddies are seeing real estate go down again. I'll be getting a great home at a great price from a career woman whose credit is busted. She can go move back in with her parents. If they'll have her...
"Oh, and Summers and his buddies are seeing real estate go down again. I'll be getting a great home at a great price from a career woman whose credit is busted. She can go move back in with her parents. If they'll have her..."
Your right Polish Knight! This is a great time to buy a house. I learned to invest my money since I was a teenager working summer jobs. I made some real good investments in the past, and I recently bought a great house with money from those investments. I'm so glad I don't have a mortgage.
Congratulations Virago! I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier but this clearly is a moment that meant a lot to you (I know my wife and I are really looking forward to it) and you deserve your day in the sun.
Each market is different and I didn't want to imply that our personal situation applied to you. We're waiting because prices are still falling in our area and we want to get the most bang for our saved buck. So while it's a "good time to buy" here, it's not the BEST time to buy. So we think why not buy at the best time?
In any case, I'm happy for you.
"In general, fathers have a higher economic status, but they aren't using their resources to benefit their children nearly as much as mothers do-single or married. Does this mean that all single fathers neglect their children? No, but it tells me that single fathers have a higher potential to neglect their kids despite having the economic advantage. I've read many studies on this. Economists like Larry Summers have been saying for years- fathers don't invest the resources in their kids that mothers do. There's a whole article on this from the Journal of Family Issues: A Single Father's Shopping Bag: Purchasing Decisions in Single-FAther Families published Feb, 2009."
Actually I few years ago Virago I had posted a very reputable study on this blog that said the exact same thing as you noted above. Basically even when men have the resources they don't invest them in their own kids either individually or as a society. Note how badly children are treated in societies that are male-dominated. Actually the UN has been revising various programs to reflect this fact...when they devote resources to women as head of households the money is spent on additional food/milk, school tuitions, clothing etc., (items of immediate and direct benefit to the children in the household) men purchase more land with additional resources, tools/machinery, etc.,
Of course one can make the argument that the mens' purchases can benefit their family long term if they expand a farm or business, etc., but meanwhile how many kids can die from lack of proper nutrition before that investment pays off???
There is definitely a difference...
Actually the article I posted showed that the children even wear seat-belts less as well as having less money spent on their education in these households...of course they tried to blame the so-called step-mother (I like to call them female step-persons) in the household for this, but these women are no relationship to these kids, it is the custodial father's responsibility to see that these things are taken care of...not to shuffle it off on some other women and then get mad at her when she pays more attention to her own children then another womens...
But you are 100% correct in your latest observation...it's not outright abuse or neglect that we are talking about either (which is rare for either sex to do) but there is a difference in how mothers and fathers approach the care of their children...
As always I will now use the opportunity to re-post another past article from my blog...which will probably get Polish Knight and Richard's panties in a bunch again...
Oh well...
LOL!!!
"NYMOM, I've read the entire article on Psychology Today's website. I really don't have a problem with what it says. I think it's true that men go through hormonal changes that prime them for fatherhood. However, the hormonal changes seem to be intiated by the emotional closeness between the father and the child's MOTHER. In other words, it's the mother-father bond that determines the father-child bond."
BUT the problem is that it's not framed this way in the article. AND, as a I said before any theory that seeks to negate or undermine the actual physical link between mother and child is a threat to all mothers and their children. Since down the road I can see laws reflecting this thinking devising ways to strip away our children before birth claiming this physic bond with another person...
This is where we are heading if it continues. That's why we cannot give away an inch on these theories as it's paving the slippery road to hell for all women and their children. As I still believe the best natural guardian for a child is it's own mother unless she, herself, choses to surrender her child to another person or family so they'll have a better life...
These theories can pave the way for a court to make these legal decisions w/o womens' participation...if not stopped now.
Remember when a mother loses custody of her children it is similar to having her parental rights terminated as she has no right to even visiting that child...ask Silverside about this as she lost custody of a child and a Judge told her he was not even legally required to enforce his own visitation orders....
So all this psychobabble about 'bonding' is not as harmless as it appears...it is not just silly but downright dangerous...
NY said: "That's why we cannot give away an inch on these theories as it's paving the slippery road to hell for all women and their children."
Well ever so sorry NY but facts don't go away simply because you don't like them or they're not "framed" to your satisfaction.
Didn't you say you were a history major? Then you at least ought to know that trying to shout down science for the sake of ideology is a hopeless battle.
In re visitation, well duh! We men have known for years that visitation enforcement is a low-to-no priority matter in the courts.
That's why I favor marriage preservation first and foremost, and presumed shared parenting as the alternative. That way nobody has to lose anything.
Richard
Oh, and don't worry about our panties, NY. Like I said before, I'm delighted that there are places like this where you gals can reveal what you really think of us. The generation of young men up and coming need to know.
R.
NYMOM points out: "Basically even when men have the resources they don't invest them in their own kids either individually or as a society."
NYMOM, consider that you wrote this JUST AFTER V announced that she had just blown a wad on a new home. On the other hand, her hubby regularly pays "child" support to V.
The UN diverts funds to women to keep children from starving to death in their ownership, er, custody because such women are not EARNING the money to do so. Single motherhood works great when there are men, somewhere, to fund their lifestyle.
Your observation that non-western countries raise children more poorly, literally, also ties into an observation I made about the welfare state in the USA: These are mostly in non-western ancestry households. Western Patriarchy is still patriarchy.
Your question of how many children may die before a father's business investments pay off is open-ended and specious. The answer could easily be 0 but one thing is for sure: the number is probably a lot lower than the number of children that starve in a mother's care while she waits for someone else to foot the bill.
"NYMOM, consider that you wrote this JUST AFTER V announced that she had just blown a wad on a new home. On the other hand, her hubby regularly pays "child" support to V."
Yes, NYMOM, consider what you wrote after I said this:
"Your right Polish Knight! This is a great time to buy a house. I learned to invest my money since I was a teenager working summer jobs. I made some real good investments in the past, and I recently bought a great house with money from those investments. I'm so glad I don't have a mortgage."
Wow, NYMOM, I used money that I EARNED to buy a house so that my 3kids (who I have physical custody of) didn't have to grow up in a cramped apartment. Yet, I'm accused of "blowing a wad". My ex is COURT-ORDERED to pay child support (child support that was paid sporadically or not at all), and he's commended for "investing resources" in his kids. NYMOM, I just prooved your point! I knew Polish Knight was jealous because I don't have a mortgage, but this is a new low even for him.
V, didn't you tell us not too long ago that you lived with your ex?
Not that I care, but your life story seems to change by the minute.
R.
"V, didn't you tell us not too long ago that you lived with your ex?"
Yes, Richard, we do live together, but we aren't remarried. I bought the house with my own funds post-divorce, and it's my name on the deed. Because we aren't remarried, my "ex" is still required to pay child support. In order for him to continue to live here, he has to continue to do so on a regular basis. He falls back into his old habits, and he's out of here. Btw, before I get accused of "living off" my ex's child support, his total child support payments didn't even cover the cost of 1 child let alone 3. He pays child support, but it's factored into his total cost of living here. In the end, we each pay the same amount in living expenses for ourselves and 3 kids. Our relationship is better than it ever was, but I'm not kidding myself. He "provides resources", but that's because I'm making sure that he does. He wants to get remarried, but he still has a long way to go before I'll trust him enough to do that. Until than, he's on probation.
Genia Shockhome was COURT-ORDERED to pay support too but she deadbeated.
So lessee, when V spends money on HER home rather than directly on her kids, that counts because she allows them to stay there but it doesn't count when men do the same thing. Got it.
Ah, no Polish Knight, a parent is obligated to provide a roof over their kid's head. I didn't have to be court ordered to do that. If that's what you think, you shouldn't bother having any kids because your not fit to have any.
"Actually I few years ago Virago I had posted a very reputable study on this blog that said the exact same thing as you noted above. Basically even when men have the resources they don't invest them in their own kids either individually or as a society"
NYMOM, your absolutely right, and I'm glad you agree with me. The article I cited earlier said that single fathers spend more money on alcohol and tobacco while single moms spend more money on their kid's health, food, and education. Yet, single fathers have more financial resources. That's just messed up. I find it even more disgusting when child support is brought into the mix. Non-custodial dads are always griping that their money isn't being spent on their kids. Yet, a non-custodial mother is more likely to have her child support spent on alcohol and beer than on her kids. In contrast, a non-custodial dad is far more likely to have his child support spent on his kid. Than there is the flipside of this. A deadbeat dad doesn't pay his child support. The FRA's are quick to point out that a lot of fathers can't afford to pay their child support because of strict guidelines. Yet, a dead beat mom doesn't pay her child support, and they bring up some statistic that shows that moms default on child support more than fathers. Yet, non-custodial mothers usually make less than non-custodial fathers, and they are more likely to be unable to afford child support. Yet, excuses are always being made for deadbeat dad because he "can't afford it". Yet, that reason usually applies double for non-custodial mothers. There's a huge double standard, and it's not in favor of mothers either custodial or non-custodial.
More forest vs. trees...
Married parents make better purchasing decisions vis a vis kids than single parents of EITHER sex. Ergo, let's focus on forming and maintaining stronger families rather than incentivizing their destruction, shall we?
Frankly, you ladies aren't making any huge revelations here. I for one admitted way back when that in my opinion you are, on average, probably more careful and patient nurturers, not just of kids but of everyone in a family. Yay for you and cookies all around.
What you persistently fail to see is that this isn't even close to everything that kids need in order to mature and thrive in human society.
We are a biparental species for good reasons. There does indeed need to be a parent present who is good with handling the minutiae of daily life and nurturing. But there also needs to be a parent with a view to the bigger picture who can hold the boundary lines and teach and motivate kids to cope with the expectations and demands of life in the real world when they're too big to be nurtured anymore.
You tend to be the one, we the other.
For example, Edin and Kefalis in their studies showed that you can ask an average underclass mother if she's a good mother or not and she'll invariably point out how clean and well-fed and healthy and nicely dressed her kids are. And she will likely not change her mind when those well-cared-for kids land in jail or the welfare office because no one ever built a solid family or modeled responsible civilized behaviors for them.
Ask a middle or upper class mother the same question and she will probably say she doesn't know, she'll wait and see how the kids turn out. That's because she knows that the measure of her parenting is not simply what she invests in her offspring but how well they succeed.
And children of married parents are more successful in every aspect of their lives than those of single parents. That's why these women almost always put marriage before childbearing and tend to stay married.
If everyone could get a toehold on this concept maybe we could dispense with the endless argument over whether it's better to bake a cake without the flour or without the eggs. Either way you get a mess.
Richard
"Yes, Richard, we do live together, but we aren't remarried. I bought the house with my own funds post-divorce, and it's my name on the deed. Because we aren't remarried, my "ex" is still required to pay child support. In order for him to continue to live here, he has to continue to do so on a regular basis. He falls back into his old habits, and he's out of here."
I think I told you this before but it bears repeating, it's actually not going to be so easy to get him out the second time around and still retain the same custodial arrangements. He has managed to engineer a "substantial change in circumstances" by living with you and the kids for more then six months now.
So I predict if he acts up and you do want him to leave, you're going to be right back in court again re-fighting all the custody issues and some new ones he'll throw in there...
Sorry I just don't re-call if I mentioned this to you previously, but I did vaguely remember you telling us about your arrangement.
Anyway, good luck.
"Genia Shockhome was COURT-ORDERED to pay support too but she deadbeated."
I think the Shockhome situation was a little bit more complicated then that; but I really didn't follow it that closely...
Didn't it feature a marriage with US citizenship as a possible motivation, a custody switch, accusations of abuse, long-distance move-away, etc., etc., etc., etc.,
Actually non-payment of child support was the least of the issues...
"So lessee, when V spends money on HER home rather than directly on her kids, that counts because she allows them to stay there but it doesn't count when men do the same thing. Got it."
AND you know very well the UN programs deal most of the time with economic assistance to third world countries in the most dire of straits...so someone investing in a house or business in the US that might take three to five years to show profit is not going to see five of his kids die off while he's waiting for a return...
So that's a dishonest argument.
"Your observation that non-western countries raise children more poorly, literally, also ties into an observation I made about the welfare state in the USA: These are mostly in non-western ancestry households. Western Patriarchy is still patriarchy."
Sorry Polish Knight, but that's not completely the case as the financial and mortgage industry debacle recently demonstrated.
The US gravy train is deep and very very wide...with large portions of it going to target voting groups like senior citizens and even home owners sitting in home that have an artificially inflated dollar value (via an oversized mortgage that's almost totally tax deductible). Many of whom used their homes' equity (as home prices artificially were inflated through the roof, no pun intended) as a sort of revolving credit card.
Even where I work I see that higher education benefited as people tapped this inflated equity to pay for high priced college educations and other things...such as cars, elaborate vacations, expensive clothing, shoes, etc.,
Many many industries have been hard-hit as this form of public welfare is painfully deflated. I heard that by 2011 one half of the mortgages in the US will be 'underwater' meaning the home is worth less then the mortgage.
So it all depends upon your definition of 'welfare' how many groups of people are benefiting from the government.
"And children of married parents are more successful in every aspect of their lives than those of single parents. That's why these women almost always put marriage before childbearing and tend to stay married.
If everyone could get a toehold on this concept maybe we could dispense with the endless argument over whether it's better to bake a cake without the flour or without the eggs. Either way you get a mess."
Richard, I'm sorry to deflate your bubble but that's 'pie in the sky' talking...a large group of people NEVER marry today and right now about 30% or more of our kids are being born out of wedlock.
NOW these are the issues you just like to ignore while saying: Well married couples are the best for raising kids. Fine, but we are talking about custody on this blog so by definition that implies single parenting, not a couple...
So these custodial issues we are discussing need to be addressed not ignored as they impact a heck of a lot of children.
Hogwash, NY. There's nothing pie-in-the-sky about it.
The deterioration of the family didn't happen all by itself. It was wrong-headedly incentivized and so it snowballed.
Nor is it inevitable. The lion's share of the deterioration has occurred among the lower class, who need less in the way of incentive to modify behavior. The upper and middle classes have not been nearly as affected because family break-up and illegitimacy costs them a lot more than they stand to gain.
De-incentivize it and people will get back to properly "preparing the nest" for their kids.
People are at their most pragmatic when it comes to their money and their stuff. It's entirely proper to link reproduction to it.
Richard
Hello you two. I disagree with BOTH of you for various reasons. This is going to be fun!
Our whole society has set up a set of artificial incentives: Hiring and promotion based upon race and gender rather than ability and welfare and "child" support to irresponsible parents. In the meantime, most heterosexual women still crave the 1950's breadwinner stereotype as much now as ever before.
This problem is more prevalent in the lower classes and especially by race (30% for white women and 70% for black women) but this doesn't prove Richard's hypothesis either that, hey, women will be more sensible in these groups. That's true, partially, but also maybe white men simply haven't been devestated as much as working class blacks... yet.
One thing is for sure: Unlike in Europe where society will be more capable of creating a welfare state and protecting it with immigration limits, that doesn't apply here. Unwed mothers can count upon more moving in from elsewhere ready to take any benefits that the state is trying to create. There's only so much money in China for us to borrow...
Even if the problem seemingly isn't as bad with the upper classes as the lower classes, that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem, Richard and it will just go away.
PK says: "So lessee, when V spends money on HER home rather than directly on her kids, that counts because she allows them to stay there but it doesn't count when men do the same thing. Got it."
NYMOM responds: "AND you know very well the UN programs deal most of the time with economic assistance to third world countries in the most dire of straits...so someone investing in a house or business in the US that might take three to five years to show profit is not going to see five of his kids die off while he's waiting for a return... So that's a dishonest argument."
PK explains: Au contrare, NYMOM, my point is that the returns on the investment is often immediate. Buying a home, for example, other than in the most recent real estate bubble in the states of course, is a way to SAVE money on housing.
Indeed, if women were as good at investing their money and supporting their families as men, then it wouldn't need to provide them with economic assistance in the first place. This goes for "countries" as well as individuals: Gestating children into poverty is generally a more less valuable asset than a skill that provides goods and services in a free market.
Of course, the UN itself tends to decry the USA while praising countries with racist immigration policies (Western Europe) and impovershed 3rd world nations that they "assist" in the first place. I'm a firm supporter of pulling out of the whole silly thing (the UN) altogether and making the building in NYC into leasable office space.
NYMOM claims RE Genia Shockholm: "Actually non-payment of child support was the least of the issues..."
PK responds: V's father pays support but Genia doesn't. This directly ties into the claim that women put their money towards their children moreso than men. The fact is that only by counting the money men put into businesses but failing to notice these transfers of wealth from men to women can women appear to be more financially generous with their children than men.
It's laughable. It's like trying to cook the books the show that Paris Hilton is worse off financially than the poor people she slummed with on her reality TV show. Boo hoo! Poor women! They spend their WHOLE child-support check on their child while the man has a fun time at work earning it and paying the taxes.
V says: "Ah, no Polish Knight, a parent is obligated to provide a roof over their kid's head. I didn't have to be court ordered to do that. If that's what you think, you shouldn't bother having any kids because your not fit to have any."
PK responds: YOU didn't provide that roof over your childrens' heads, V, your hubby did via the "child" support check or at least he helped and deserves the credit.
When Genia was asked to pay someone else to provide a roof over her child's head, she declined.
Men not only have an obligation to "provide" a roof via cashing checks, but also earning their own living. Do it without ex-hubby's help and get back to me.
This ties into housing: We want to buy a home in a nice neighborhood with mostly two parent families because they have low crime and noise rates. It's kind of like a tax. An additional cost of living created by the plague, the pestilence, of unwed mother homes. _I_ make homes more valuable simply by me being there, V. YOU drag the prices down.
King of the Hill
NYMOM says: "Many many industries have been hard-hit as this form of public welfare is painfully deflated. I heard that by 2011 one half of the mortgages in the US will be 'underwater' meaning the home is worth less then the mortgage.
So it all depends upon your definition of 'welfare' how many groups of people are benefiting from the government."
I saw this bubble coming a mile away and banked my money. I'm still doing so.
You're correct: the welfare state has a lot of fingers in the pie but not all of them. SOMEONE has to pay the bills and we both know whom the state relies upon to do so. It certainly isn't starving women and children...
It's people such as me and Richard. The "squares", the Hank Hills, who save, build up equity, and don't buy designer bags and shoes like career women.
Indeed, NYMOM, I earn a fraction of what many succe$$ful, well-educated career women do and I have a spouse and equity and they don't.
Sometimes, life is fair.
Men, they work harder and earn more. What good are they?
V claims: "The article I cited earlier said that single fathers spend more money on alcohol and tobacco while single moms spend more money on their kid's health, food, and education. Yet, single fathers have more financial resources."
So men spend more money to make more money AND they pay "child" support to the mothers. In other words, V, men are worse parents because they're harder, more effective workers.
The jerks!
Regarding alcohol and tobacco use. The Virginia Slims campaign claims "You've come a long way, baby" and women's smoking numbers are close to men's. In addition, the "money" men spend slightly more on cigs and alcohol on women is miniscule compared to the one statistic that shoots to pieces the claim of maternity goddess status for bearing children: Fetal alcohol syndrome and low birthweights due to tobacco use.
I love your griping about a double standard that, boo hoo, when women are deadbeats they can't make ends meet. This whole argument is a double standard: You gripe that men spend more money on business and earn more because of it then claim women are victims when they live off the same patriarchy you claim oppresses them.
Polish Knight, I never said that women should NOT pay child support, I just pointed out all the other issues involved in that Shockhome case. Do it was about a lot more then her not paying child support.
NYMOM, many divorces are complicated. So what? That doesn't change the fact that Genia quit her job rather than pay support and it backfired on her.
Welcome to equality, Genia...
Happy CyberMonday all!
NYMOM observes about V's situation: "So I predict if he acts up and you do want him to leave, you're going to be right back in court again re-fighting all the custody issues and some new ones he'll throw in there...
Sorry I just don't re-call if I mentioned this to you previously, but I did vaguely remember you telling us about your arrangement.
Anyway, good luck."
NYMOM, most men are in the same situation if not worse. But we're willing to deal with "luck" in getting the relationships we want or at least a calculated risk.
At best, what V has is a housepet that she keeps on a short leash and doesn't "share" her house with. This goes for her children too.
For the record: I share EVERYTHING with my wife. Joint bank accounts. A will. I traveled halfway around the world for her. When I look into her eyes, I see someone who knows that I'm there for her and appreciates it.
Because I proved it.
You gals yammer at how society isn't appreciating mothers enough. They spend their "child" support (mostly) on the kiddies while "greedy" men spend money to earn a living and support their wives. You complain you aren't paid to look after your own kids (even as a man is often supporting you) and then gripe that you aren't appreciated enough for the "sacrifice" you make. It takes "have cake and eat it too" to the sublime.
When all the dust settles, it appears that we all have the relationships we deserve: Richard, myself, and V: We're with the spouses that really are a match for us. In a way, it's quite beautiful.
Happy CyberMonday all!
NYMOM observes about V's situation: "So I predict if he acts up and you do want him to leave, you're going to be right back in court again re-fighting all the custody issues and some new ones he'll throw in there...
Sorry I just don't re-call if I mentioned this to you previously, but I did vaguely remember you telling us about your arrangement.
Anyway, good luck."
NYMOM, most men are in the same situation if not worse. But we're willing to deal with "luck" in getting the relationships we want or at least a calculated risk.
At best, what V has is a housepet that she keeps on a short leash and doesn't "share" her house with. This goes for her children too.
For the record: I share EVERYTHING with my wife. Joint bank accounts. A will. I traveled halfway around the world for her. When I look into her eyes, I see someone who knows that I'm there for her and appreciates it.
Because I proved it.
You gals yammer at how society isn't appreciating mothers enough. They spend their "child" support (mostly) on the kiddies while "greedy" men spend money to earn a living and support their wives. You complain you aren't paid to look after your own kids (even as a man is often supporting you) and then gripe that you aren't appreciated enough for the "sacrifice" you make. It takes "have cake and eat it too" to the sublime.
When all the dust settles, it appears that we all have the relationships we deserve: Richard, myself, and V: We're with the spouses that really are a match for us. In a way, it's quite beautiful.
"So I predict if he acts up and you do want him to leave, you're going to be right back in court again re-fighting all the custody issues and some new ones he'll throw in there..."
NYMOM, thanks for your concern. However, my ex didn't fight for custody. In fact, he was asked if he wanted some form of physical custody, and he said, "No, the kids belong with their mother." That's in the court transcripts. Sure, there's always a chance he could change his mind, but than, he'll have to explain why he made the above statement the first time around. I'm not all that worried about it.
Virago, I find it interesting that your situation with your ex sounds very similar to what my friend in NJ went through in his divorce.
Like you, he was upset about his wife acting irresponsibly. From the very beginning, even at the marriage itself, his friends including me were concerned that he met this woman at a bar and that this might carry over.
He admits that he exercised bad judgement not only in marrying a bar girl but also in how he handled it later but he seems to have put more effort into saving his marriage than you. He made up a list of things he felt needed to be addressed: Drinking and driving, spending lots of money at bars, and, get this, sharing household chores (he was doing nearly all of the cleaning.)
He was talking to her about it and told the children that if soemthing did happen, not to worry because both parents would still love them and she pre-emptively pulled the trigger. He was still trying to work things out at that point. After she lost, then she suggested working things out and he didn't want to go back. (Note by lost, I mean she didn't get all of her wish list. She got joint custody which means very little child-support ($50 a month) and she's on her own.
Anyways, looking at your ex, from what you've said here, he cleaned up his act, didn't alienate you during the divorce, and you took him back but keep a firm grip on the leash.
It's strange that despite your claim that us men are the selfish ones who don't share, I really wouldn't want such a relationship and neither do the men I know. I suppose in theory my friend could have gotten back with his ex if she had conceded defeat and signed off on him controlling the money. Another friend of mine also got back together with his estranged ex but only on the terms that she was now trustworthy. I, myself, share everything with my wife including my guns (although she's still a lousy shot.)
PK, your friend's marriage is one which presumed shared parenting probably would have saved. When there's nothing to be gained, people tend to turn their focus to what they stand to lose instead.
Same reason why the divorce rate has dropped somewhat since the economy soured. The pickin's ain't nearly as good.
His situation is the best case scenario under the cirucumstances but I still wouldn't be comfortable with it if it were me. He can only look after his kids' well-being half the time. I might have taken her back only for that reason, although I agree that's not a desirable sort of relationship.
Richard
Richard, last time I checked his ex wife had apparently cleaned up much of her act if only out of necessity. As a friend of mine put it: Locks keep honest people honest. She discovered that windows don't fix themselves anymore and paying someone else to do the task costs money. (Amazing how women who claim that men don't contribute to the housecare seem to think magic pixies fix windows and mow lawns...)
If she drinks and is out late at night, hubbie won't drive her home and if she gets caught DUI, then she risks losing even half custody. It was a rather drastic measure, but in the long run things seem to have gotten better for all parties involved.
Your choice of words: "It's not a desirable sort of relationship" is rather amusing (in the Victorian meaning of the word) because marriage really is often about undesirable things. Otherwise, there would be no need for a marital commitment, yes? The concept of vows and sticking to them is something most ordinary men live up to including doing stuff most career women consider unthinkable: Providing for a spouse to stay at home with the kids. A feminist once joked that women who aspire to be men lacked ambition. The male role in marriage is a tough one and only romance or sometimes strong sexual attraction motivates men to go through with it. If men had the same standards as women in romantic relationships, few of them would happen. In fact, that's now often the case as men are less willing in a post-feminist world to live up to the 1950's Wally Cleaver model.
PK said: "because marriage really is often about undesirable things. Otherwise, there would be no need for a marital commitment, yes? The concept of vows and sticking to them is something most ordinary men live up to including doing stuff most career women consider unthinkable..."
You ain't kidding, PK. My wife said that exact same thing to me when we were dating. That people who are "in luuuv" stay together pretty well regardless, but the vows are for when you'd rather be outta there.
I was a little startled by that, since I had never actually thought about it in terms that explicit before. It was only after I had time to think about it some that I realized how neatly she had nailed it.
These gals are so busy telling us our many faults and the myriad ways we are failing to fulfill them, it never occurs to them how many guys are out there quietly putting up with self-obsessed wives and unfulfilling marriages for their kids' sake without really much thought.
No one ever told us we were supposed to be properly appreciated and fulfilled all the time, and to destroy whoever and whatever we had to in order to get that way.
Richard
"Amazing how women who claim that men don't contribute to the housecare seem to think magic pixies fix windows and mow lawns..."
LMAO! My mother-in-law developed the same regrets after having to (for the first time in her life, in her 50s) mow lawns, clip bushes, prune trees, paint fences, unclog drains, treat fire-ant mounds and wasp nests, patch leaks, and repair various and sundry household appliances.
The eventual result being that whatever the an illegal yardman would do for $20 got done, and the rest simply did not.
R.
"Amazing how women who claim that men don't contribute to the housecare seem to think magic pixies fix windows and mow lawns..."
You two are a couple of morons if you think this qualifies as a man doing his "share". This stuff doesn't have to be done every day. OTOH, housework/childcare is pretty much endless when your trying to keep a house clean while picking up after a bunch of kids and an adult male who won't pick up after himself because he thinks he already did his "share" because he mows a lawn a couple times a week or whatever. The fact that you guys even think this qualifies as a guy doing his "share" tells me that you've never done any kind of housework/childcare, or at least not the kind most women do. I've mowed lawns, clipped bushes, etc, and it's a vacation from housework. At least when I mow a lawn, IT STAYS DONE. You guys are idiots!
Er, V, no. Lawns don't "stay done". They need to be mowed about twice a week.
Regarding fixing windows as housecare. You are aware that houses have windows, aren't you? If you pay someone to come in and fix them thoroughly, such as regrouting, materials, and painting they can go for about $5K easy.
How much maid service can someone buy for that?
Same with auto care. A woman friend of mine who didn't understand cars went to get new tires and she was hit with a $500 bill. I am more saavy and know sales and which generic models to buy and got them for $200.
That all adds up.
Regarding men doing their 'fair' share: That's your self-fulfilling prophesy. Yeah, I know: All the SAH dads you know are basically bums and you have all these studies (which you don't show us)
But it doesn't take a study to show that women are unintersted in the tradeoff to begin with. Few women ever emphasize men doing their 'fair share' in dating ads or shows. If you go looking for McD's, and you avoid healthfood restaurants, then you're going to be eating at McD's a lot.
Don't blame McD's.
http://odetoglennsacks.blogspot.com/2010/03/ode-to-glenn-sacks.html
Ode to Glenn Sacks.
There was a triangular man once I heard of...
He says he's Glenn Sacks- did I hear that right?
You google your name and his name as a couple...
And thereby promptly goes your sight.
Your eyes hurt and blink- pain does need super courage,
You can't understand why they give such a flop?
Is that just his Photo, or writing of garbage?
Triangular Man - when your wining will stop?
Consistence and Glenn Sacks - these two have a rub;
You ask him for truth and like horse - he'll gallop;
These simple requests forever he'll snub,
Triangular Man - when your wining will stop?
To call him a man would be like hocus-pocus,
Like April Fouls's joke, anecdote at the top,
He bravely beats women - that only his focus;
Triangular Man - when your wining will stop?
One mom's thrown in jail, while the bum has her kids;
Another one raped, psychopath is on top -
Glenn Sacks runs to help - and he falls and he skids,
Triangular Man - when your wining will stop?
Glenn's their beacon of hope, and their best spokesman,
Abusers' protecting super fast antelope,
He glorifies rape, he's abusers' TRUE fan,
Triangular Man - when your wining will stop?
Truth begs, and truth pleads, and reminds, and cajoles
Glenn - loud, and wide, human-like isotope,
But supplications like these went into the black holes, of
Triangular Man - when your wining will stop?
To make his point here -he claims "corrupt courts";
Next page - his position's bent like periscope;
His "findings" spread; slither, like snakes of all sorts,
Triangular Man - when your wining will stop?
You will live on the streets, for abusers to see,
With all your belongings and "findings" on blacktop,
Some lessons come hard for half-humans, like YE,
Triangular Man- when your wining will stop?
They's throw you breadcrusts and weep at your site;
You will be discarded, like that poor Mop,
You can't change the truth, it will always stay right.
Triangular Man - when your wining will stop?
So please heed the warnings and destruction avoid,
You sound like well-fed, abuser's pet parrot,
Stop lying, stop twisting and not become unemployed;
Triangular Man - you bring shame to our Planet!
Written by good Mother.
***************************************************************************
Explanation of what Triangular Man looks like (no head basically, and fat downward):
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TriangularPrism.html
Post a Comment