NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that movies, TV, etc. paint fathers to be at best well meaning fools, and at worst sociopathic ogres. In a thread on this board today I encountered a person who seems to beleive a severely mentally retarded man would make about as good a father as a man of normal intelligence. I think that we've thrown away an important part of the family by neglecting and disrespecting fathers. What do you all think?

It seems that movies, TV, etc. paint fathers to be at best well meaning fools, and at worst sociopathic ogres. In a thread on this board today I encountered a person who seems to beleive a severely mentally retarded man would make about as good a father as a man of normal intelligence. I think that we've thrown away an important part of the family by neglecting and disrespecting fathers. What do you all think?
I suspect that you see this side of things because you are a man. On the female side, I see that movies, TV etc paint mothers and women in general as neurotic, manipulating witches, or brainless sex objects. Neither of these stereotypes (of men and women) is true, but they get laughs.

No, I don't think we undervalue fathers. I think fathers often undervalue themselves...and choose not to be a part of the family they have started. That has a lot to do with gender roles, and the fact that men have a harder time forming emotional bonds with their children, and still feel that they have to be the main breadwinner, even in a two-income household. We have a long way to go in terms of men's health, women's health and transgendered health when it comes to harmful gender roles. Is there a 'War on Fathers'...as one blatantly misogynist site claims? I say no.

I presume this means me?

I've told you already I didn't say he would be 'as good'

I merely said he shouldn't be denied the chance to prove himself.

its you that started attaching 'good' and 'bad' labels to things.




N.B. Sinuhue - I actually love you darling, that was a great response... really fab :D

I agree.

I could take it further. Parents, in general, on television, are portrayed as meddling idiots who never get it. And parents today are sold on the idea that they can put their child in full time day care eight weeks after birth - and that their kid will turn out OK.

Ever wonder why some kid "who we all thought was such a good kid" took a gun and wasted people at school?

Ever wonder how Klebold's father NEVER noticed a shotgun and ammunition laying on the boy's dresser in the boy's bedroom - even though it was in plain sight for months?

Being a parent is not easy.

Isn't the operative work here "TV?"

Come on DC..surely you have more to say than just that? I'm craving a real debate for a change, and I always know you're good for that!

Isn't the operative work here "TV?"

Nice. :D

I suspect that you see this side of things because you are a man. On the female side, I see that movies, TV etc paint mothers and women in general as neurotic, manipulating witches, or brainless sex objects. Neither of these stereotypes (of men and women) is true, but they get laughs.

No, I don't think we undervalue fathers. I think fathers often undervalue themselves...and choose not to be a part of the family they have started. That has a lot to do with gender roles, and the fact that men have a harder time forming emotional bonds with their children, and still feel that they have to be the main breadwinner, even in a two-income household. We have a long way to go in terms of men's health, women's health and transgendered health when it comes to harmful gender roles. Is there a 'War on Fathers'...as one blatantly misogynist site claims? I say no.
You're right about some fathers undervaluing themselves by choosing to leave the wife and kids, or to shirk their responsibilities within the marriage, but I'm not talking about that.

Look at any "family" sitcom. The father is almost always portrayed as the bumbling idiot who doesn't understand what his kids and wife are going through, and the mother is always shown as the glue that holds the family together. Look at the number of women (and little girls) who think that just because they can have a baby without a father that it's just as good for the child. It seems that our culture says fathers aren't all that important. They're optional. Sometimes nice, but really not all that important.

"Family Guy". Peter is a demi-sociopatic, self-centered idiot, and Lois is a perfect wife and mother.

"The Simpsons". Homer is JUST an idiot, and Marge is the glue that holds the family together.

"The Flintstones"... well, really, must I continue? At least on the television side of things, the father is seen as the "weaker half".

Damn The Simpsons. :D

EDIT: Pyrostan beat me by a few seconds. darn.

I agree.

I could take it further. Parents, in general, on television, are portrayed as meddling idiots who never get it. And parents today are sold on the idea that they can put their child in full time day care eight weeks after birth - and that their kid will turn out OK.

Ever wonder why some kid "who we all thought was such a good kid" took a gun and wasted people at school?

Ever wonder how Klebold's father NEVER noticed a shotgun and ammunition laying on the boy's dresser in the boy's bedroom - even though it was in plain sight for months?

Being a parent is not easy.

Its worse than that in many cases.....take for instance "Kids Next Door" where, very often, adults are the villians.

You're right about some fathers undervaluing themselves by choosing to leave the wife and kids, or to shirk their responsibilities within the marriage, but I'm not talking about that.

Look at any "family" sitcom. The father is almost always portrayed as the bumbling idiot who doesn't understand what his kids and wife are going through, and the mother is always shown as the glue that holds the family together. Look at the number of women (and little girls) who think that just because they can have a baby without a father that it's just as good for the child. It seems that our culture says fathers aren't all that important. They're optional. Sometimes nice, but really not all that important.
I disagree that this portrayal you are describing is pervasive, and as influencing as you suggest. The idea that a woman can have a child without a father is more of a statement of the fact that women no longer have to rely on a man to support them or their children. It isn't necessarily a desirable situation, or you'd probably see more turkey basters being sold at your local supermarket. Usually, things break down in relationships, rather than a situation where a woman plans to have a child on her own. The difference now is, women have jobs, women have the confidence to do it on their own when things go wrong, rather than foisting their kids off on mom, or giving them up for adoption.

Personally, I think men need to do a lot more self-examination, and start questioning the gender roles they are being forced into. The feminist movement has done wonders for women, but we can't do it for you. Men have to start questioning why they are working themselves into divorce, why they are working themselves into ill health, and why they are losing touch with their families. We can help, we can be your partners, but we can't make you buck the system.

"Family Guy". Peter is a demi-sociopatic, self-centered idiot, and Lois is a perfect wife and mother.

"The Simpsons". Homer is JUST an idiot, and Marge is the glue that holds the family together.

"The Flintstones"... well, really, must I continue? At least on the television side of things, the father is seen as the "weaker half".
Uh-huh...and do any of these programs claim to mirror real life? Aren't they so funny because they portray the disfunctional family? Aren't they a kind of symbol of "don't do this"? The Flinstones portrays the traditional family roles, which are not necessarily desireable either.

I think the world should have more shows where they show parents who are fallible, but they are trying their best.

Malcolm in the Middle. Yup.

Now that I think of it, do you think that why fathers are undervalued, is because our expectations of them is too high?

Uh-huh...and do any of these programs claim to mirror real life? Aren't they so funny because they portray the disfunctional family? Aren't they a kind of symbol of "don't do this"? The Flinstones portrays the traditional family roles, which are not necessarily desireable either.Well, TV isn't necessarily supposed to mirror real life, and in fact I've never seen it make a real program.

Of course, nowadays the heads of families are starting to be increasingly women. I don't mind; I wouldn't want to be the head of a family (speaking as a male here). I suspect I wouldn't be too good at it. I mean, look what a mess I made of the universe. ;)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

The difference now is, women have jobs, women have the confidence to do it on their own when things go wrong, rather than foisting their kids off on mom, or giving them up for adoption.
I don't think this is entirely accurate. A single mother still has to go out an earn a living, at which point, the children get foisted onto somebody. I know working couples who need a mom to help them out with the children.

Personally, I think men need to do a lot more self-examination, and start questioning the gender roles they are being forced into. The feminist movement has done wonders for women, but we can't do it for you. Men have to start questioning why they are working themselves into divorce, why they are working themselves into ill health, and why they are losing touch with their families. We can help, we can be your partners, but we can't make you buck the system.
Forced into? Is any adult forced into a gender role in regards to parenting? It seems to me that couples can define their roles in the relationship however they see fit.

I know a father who hasn't changed a single diaper on his 18 month-old daughter. On the other hand, I take care of my 4 month-old from the time I get home from work until the time I put her in bed, and this despite my unheard of luxury of having a stay-at-home wife. I chose my role, he chose his.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. A single mother still has to go out an earn a living, at which point, the children get foisted onto somebody. I know working couples who need a mom to help them out with the children.
That's still different than a woman who absolutely can not survive without a man, because she has no job skills, no credit, and nowhere to start from. In this case, the woman really doesn't have the option to leave her husband, even if there are compelling reasons to do so. Many women in days of yore stayed in bad relationships because they had no way out.

Forced into? Is any adult forced into a gender role in regards to parenting? It seems to me that couples can define their roles in the relationship however they see fit.
Yes, forced into. When someone has never analysed their gender role...when they have just learned it, act it out, but are not conscious of it, then yes, they have been moulded and forced into it. It takes active deconstruction to even SEE what gender roles are affecting you, and it takes active effort to overcome that. Yes, everyone is capable of it...but not everyone even realises it is an issue in the first place. Which is why men need to MAKE it more of an issue.

Yes, forced into. When someone has never analysed their gender role...when they have just learned it, act it out, but are not conscious of it, then yes, they have been moulded and forced into it. It takes active deconstruction to even SEE what gender roles are affecting you, and it takes active effort to overcome that. Yes, everyone is capable of it...but not everyone even realises it is an issue in the first place. Which is why men need to MAKE it more of an issue.

I know who is to blame!

It's mother nature! Let's go beat her up for forcing us into our gender role!

I know who is to blame!

It's mother nature! Let's go beat her up for forcing us into our gender role!
That'd be fine if:

1) Mother Nature was actually a physical entity one could beat up on or

2) Biology alone created and enforced gender roles.

Neither are true.

It seems that movies, TV, etc. paint fathers to be at best well meaning fools, and at worst sociopathic ogres. In a thread on this board today I encountered a person who seems to beleive a severely mentally retarded man would make about as good a father as a man of normal intelligence. I think that we've thrown away an important part of the family by neglecting and disrespecting fathers. What do you all think?

I'm more worried about the legal implications, myself. According to US law, a man cannot create a human being. If he could, he would have a leg to stand on when telling his partner to keep the baby or abort it; such as it is now the decision lies firmly on the mother's shoulders. Thus, a man is only capable of creating a fetus in the eyes of the law; it's not considered a person until the mother decides to have it.

However, the father must pay child support if they split up during this period; even if the mother makes far more than the man. The man, in this scenario, has the worst of both worlds; he cannot create a human but he is responsible for a decision he was not allowed to make.

Now that I think of it, do you think that why fathers are undervalued, is because our expectations of them is too high?
Just the opposite. I think our expectations have been lowered to the point that women and teenage girls think fathers aren't really all that usefull, and young boys think fatherhood will be a snap. When it isn't they just abandon the girl they knocked up and the kid that she's saddled with.

An aquaintance of mine did just that when he was 19 after bragging about what a good father he would be.

I'm more worried about the legal implications, myself. According to US law, a man cannot create a human being. If he could, he would have a leg to stand on when telling his partner to keep the baby or abort it; such as it is now the decision lies firmly on the mother's shoulders. Thus, a man is only capable of creating a fetus in the eyes of the law; it's not considered a person until the mother decides to have it.

However, the father must pay child support if they split up during this period; even if the mother makes far more than the man. The man, in this scenario, has the worst of both worlds; he cannot create a human but he is responsible for a decision he was not allowed to make.Oh please, please please please let's not get into paper abortions again...Jocabia and Dempublicents will be at it like cats and dogs...

Oh...and I'd like a lawyer to analyse that statement about having to pay child support, even if the woman makes way more money. It isn't ringing true...WHISPERING LEGS GET IN HERE!

Oh...and I'd like a lawyer to analyse that statement about having to pay child support, even if the woman makes way more money. It isn't ringing true...WHISPERING LEGS GET IN HERE!

It's true. I've got firsthand experience. My father is a Civil Engineer with the city of Columbus, and my mother sold advertising to various industrial interests in the Akron area. She easily made four times the amount of money he did per annum, and he was still required to pay. Trust me on this.

That'd be fine if:

1) Mother Nature was actually a physical entity one could beat up on or

2) Biology alone created and enforced gender roles.

Neither are true.
1 That's why I'm driving around in my V8 Ford spraying CFC laden aerosol cans out the windows.

2 Biology helps, that's why I'm beating up on Mother Nature.

Yes, forced into. When someone has never analysed their gender role...when they have just learned it, act it out, but are not conscious of it, then yes, they have been moulded and forced into it. It takes active deconstruction to even SEE what gender roles are affecting you, and it takes active effort to overcome that. Yes, everyone is capable of it...but not everyone even realises it is an issue in the first place. Which is why men need to MAKE it more of an issue.
Well, I for one prefer not to think of human beings as such easily programmed automatons.

That'd be fine if:

1) Mother Nature was actually a physical entity one could beat up on or

2) Biology alone created and enforced gender roles.

Neither are true.

1) It's called sarcasm.

2) Then explain this:

I am much of what you describe as the failure of men and yet I never had a father figure in my life as my old man disappeared when I was three and I was raised by my mother. She never remarried and barely dated.

Biology is a MAJOR factor in the equation.

A great example as to the effects of the nature vs nurture argument is the story of David Reamer. He was raised as a girl and yet had all the male tendencies.

The drive to succeed is pretty much human nature as all want their children to have more then what they had.

hey im old, i think fathers are better than they have ever been. they are more directly involved in their childrens lives, more loving more helpful more parental than they were in past generations.

its not enough to just make money and come home after the kids are in bed to give them a kiss on the cheek. todays dads really know their kids. they do stuff with them, help with homework, give baths. the whole 9 yards

tv and movies are just out to make a buck by showing ridiculous circumstances. from sitcoms to jerry springer. it doesnt reflect reality.

It's true. I've got firsthand experience. My father is a Civil Engineer with the city of Columbus, and my mother sold advertising to various industrial interests in the Akron area. She easily made four times the amount of money he did per annum, and he was still required to pay. Trust me on this.

Hmm...what is the point of child support then? I assumed that it was to help offset the costs associated with raising children (money for diapers, etc). I thought that it was cut off at a certain point depending on the income of the person with custody. I mean...would you have a millionaire receiving child support from a Walmart clerk?

Well, I for one prefer not to think of human beings as such easily programmed automatons.
Then you discount the incredible power of culture on the shaping of our identities.

We can buck it...but only once we recognise it.

Hmm...what is the point of child support then? I assumed that it was to help offset the costs associated with raising children (money for diapers, etc). I thought that it was cut off at a certain point depending on the income of the person with custody. I mean...would you have a millionaire receiving child support from a Walmart clerk?

Yes, you probably would. Child support is what I like to call 'feel good legislation.' It gives the government a sense of accomplishment in thinking 'oh, we're helping all these kids,' without bothering to examine the circumstances specific to any given situation. I have a problem with a father with no/little custordy rights having to pay $400 a month for a child he never gets to see.

1) It's called sarcasm. Yeah, kind of like what I was using.

2) Then explain this:

I am much of what you describe as the failure of men and yet I never had a father figure in my life as my old man disappeared when I was three and I was raised by my mother. She never remarried and barely dated.

Biology is a MAJOR factor in the equation.

A great example as to the effects of the nature vs nurture argument is the story of David Reamer. He was raised as a girl and yet had all the male tendencies.

The drive to succeed is pretty much human nature as all want their children to have more then what they had. You misunderstand my quote. I said that biology alone does not create, nor enforce gender roles. A man who refuses to change his baby's diaper is not going to die if he decides one day to do so. There is no immediate biological reason for his aversion. His aversion may date back to early biological division of duties based on gender, but biology alone is not at fault for his feeling that the woman should do it. That is the fault of the society which taught him that, "women do this, and men do that, and that's just the way it is".

Then you discount the incredible power of culture on the shaping of our identities.

We can buck it...but only once we recognise it.

You make a grand assumption that most want to change or are rather simple minded and don't know any better.

Competition is in our very nature. Our ape cousins show it so why would it be different for us?

Males by nature are the dominate force(speaking of mammels). There are exceptions but they are few.

Just watch any commercial on television- white men are cast as the most absurdly ignorant and clueless creatures on the planet-even the pets get the best of them.

Men are afraid to be men these days.

I dont mean grunting cavemen-rude and mistreating women and kids.

Ad agencies and TV execs are having a field day and maybe the public cant get enough of it-I dont know.

Yeah, kind of like what I was using.

You misunderstand my quote. I said that biology alone does not create, nor enforce gender roles. A man who refuses to change his baby's diaper is not going to die if he decides one day to do so. There is no immediate biological reason for his aversion. His aversion may date back to early biological division of duties based on gender, but biology alone is not at fault for his feeling that the woman should do it. That is the fault of the society which taught him that, "women do this, and men do that, and that's just the way it is".

Well we can look to the apes for examples. Why is it then that the males take little action in the raising of the very young?

Then you discount the incredible power of culture on the shaping of our identities.

We can buck it...but only once we recognise it.
Agreed. Given the number of alternatives available in Western society, it seems that failing to recognize it would be akin to deliberately sticking your head in the sand. Not that some don't do that on gender and a whole host of other issues, but they're the exception, not the rule.

My friend who never changed a diaper recognizes the gender stereotype, and has made a conscious decision to embrace it. That was his choice. I chose differently.

Just watch any commercial on television- white men are cast as the most absurdly ignorant and clueless creatures on the planet-even the pets get the best of them.

Men are afraid to be men these days.

I dont mean grunting cavemen-rude and mistreating women and kids.

Ad agencies and TV execs are having a field day and maybe the public cant get enough of it-I dont know.


Oh I don't know. I hear women complaining about men alll the time! My wife included! :D

Yes, you probably would. Child support is what I like to call 'feel good legislation.' It gives the government a sense of accomplishment in thinking 'oh, we're helping all these kids,' without bothering to examine the circumstances specific to any given situation. I have a problem with a father with no/little custordy rights having to pay $400 a month for a child he never gets to see.


Or a say in how they are raised. Just because he cant get along with the wife, doesnt mean he is a bad father too. And $400.00 per month is a really low figure.

You make a grand assumption that most want to change or are rather simple minded and don't know any better.
Quote me where I make that assumption. You are assuming I assumed it. No, plenty of people DON'T want to change. Fine. But others do. And even more don't even realise it's an issue until it suddenly comes up.

"Honey, could you please change Jr's diaper? I'm in the bath!"

"What? That's a woman's job!"

"Excuse me? Do you have a piano tied to your arse or something?"

"My dad never changed MY diapers..."

"Well that's just tough honey. I'll be out in 15, and if Junior isn't smelling rosy, that's no nookie for you tonight!"

"Oh. Could you at least talk me through it?"

And voila...change happens. :D

Competition is in our very nature. Our ape cousins show it so why would it be different for us?

Males by nature are the dominate force(speaking of mammels). There are exceptions but they are few.
I'm not really sure what your point is. What does this have to do with whether fathers are undervalued or not?

Well, i have to say I am definitely an undervalued father! But definitely a proud Ogre and Sociopath. :mp5:

Just watch any commercial on television- white men are cast as the most absurdly ignorant and clueless creatures on the planet-even the pets get the best of them.

Men are afraid to be men these days.

I dont mean grunting cavemen-rude and mistreating women and kids.

Ad agencies and TV execs are having a field day and maybe the public cant get enough of it-I dont know.
Well, hey, women are STILL in the kitchen with all the cleaning products (with few exceptions), still the ones fighting over sale items at the local clothing store, still the ones in bikinis gyrating around bottles of liquor...point being, if we are trying to say, "This is life because we see this in the commercials", we won't get too far...

Well we can look to the apes for examples. Why is it then that the males take little action in the raising of the very young?
I hate to break it to you...but we've evolved a bit since the ape days. Survival is not just about men going out and hunting and women caring for the children. Things are a BIT more complicated than that, and if you really want to tell your wife that you can't cook that nights meal because biology prevents it, don't be surprised when HER biology causes her to toss the pan at your head.

in the US, child support is to support your CHILD, it has nothing to do with how much the custodial spouse makes. it is assessed based on what YOU make. if the man has custody of the children the mother will pay child support based on how much money she makes.

in most states in the US you are allowed to see your children even if you never pay one cent in child support (although it might be tough to see them after you get tossed in jail)

in the US, child support is to support your CHILD, it has nothing to do with how much the custodial spouse makes. it is assessed based on what YOU make.

Right. And given that the money is supposed to be spent on materials to raise said child, this is ridiculous. If the mother [or hell, even the father] doesn't need it due to a ridiculously boated income, the other parent should not have to pay it.

if the man has custody of the children the mother will pay child support based on how much money she makes.

in most states in the US you are allowed to see your children even if you never pay one cent in child support (although it might be tough to see them after you get tossed in jail)

I'd be willing to bet than men get custody of their children less than 10% of the time. There is a tendancy in custody hearings to assume the mother is more important to the child. I'm not sure if this has any scientific backing, but it irritates me nonetheless. I'll even go so far as to say child support is legitimate in most cases, but it needs to be looked at differently if the cheif guardian makes an obscene amount of money.

I'm more worried about the legal implications, myself. According to US law, a man cannot create a human being. If he could, he would have a leg to stand on when telling his partner to keep the baby or abort it; such as it is now the decision lies firmly on the mother's shoulders. Thus, a man is only capable of creating a fetus in the eyes of the law; it's not considered a person until the mother decides to have it.

However, the father must pay child support if they split up during this period; even if the mother makes far more than the man. The man, in this scenario, has the worst of both worlds; he cannot create a human but he is responsible for a decision he was not allowed to make.

Now to the other side of the coin, I was informed by my neighbor(not sure if it is true) That he cannot have a vasectomy with out his wife's apporving.

"Honey, could you please change Jr's diaper? I'm in the bath!"

"What? That's a woman's job!"

"Excuse me? Do you have a piano tied to your arse or something?"

"My dad never changed MY diapers..."

"Well that's just tough honey. I'll be out in 15, and if Junior isn't smelling rosy, that's no nookie for you tonight!"

"Oh. Could you at least talk me through it?"

And voila...change happens. :D


Just for the record-I would never leave a dirty diaper on my child. I have three and when the oldest was only a month old, my wife returned to work days in the law office. I worked nights, so I was home with him all day. I've done all the care and maintenance of the kids too. Now we have a 17 mo old daughter after 2 boys- a whole new adventure.
So-I've probably changed 1/2 or close of all our kids diapers. We dont take turns-I dont advise my wife when we're out that the baby needs a change-i just do it. And I do it right.
Thats one part of being a man and a father-your kids/wife can count on you to do the right thing. And do it right.
I have no problem cleaning any part of the house-thats not my wife's "job". though she does more of it than I do. I cook well AND clean up well afterwards, and do so fairly often.
I can and do every household function often-Its my house, my family and nothing means more to me.

Now to the other side of the coin, I was informed by my neighbor(not sure if it is true) That he cannot have a vasectomy with out his wife's apporving.


Thats sounds like BS. I can do anything I want with my balls.

Instead of getting into the legalities, he could stand in front of the microwave for a 1/21 hour with it set on high. That might do the trick.

Right. And given that the money is supposed to be spent on materials to raise said child, this is ridiculous. If the mother [or hell, even the father] doesn't need it due to a ridiculously boated income, the other parent should not have to pay it.


So what you are saying is.. if the parent that has custody makes lots of money, The other parent has no financial responsibility to the child?
I have a hard time with that. If you make you bed, sleep in it. You are obliged to help support your child.

There are cases where child support is extreme. I remember a case where a millionaire was required to pay 3 million a year in child support. What child could possibly require 3 million a year in stuff and school?

So what you are saying is.. if the parent that has custody makes lots of money, The other parent has no financial responsibility to the child?
I have a hard time with that. If you make you bed, sleep in it. You are obliged to help support your child.

There are cases where child support is extreme. I remember a case where a millionaire was required to pay 3 million a year in child support. What child could possibly require 3 million a year in stuff and school?
no its not extreme, its based on the income of the non custodial parent. if thats the kind of money he makes, 3mil/year is reasonable.

So what you are saying is.. if the parent that has custody makes lots of money, The other parent has no financial responsibility to the child?
I have a hard time with that. If you make you bed, sleep in it. You are obliged to help support your child.

There are cases where child support is extreme. I remember a case where a millionaire was required to pay 3 million a year in child support. What child could possibly require 3 million a year in stuff and school?

Read my very first post. In the eyes of the US law, a man cannot create a human being, he can only create a fetus. If it happens to become a human being [even if it happens despite his wishes], he's obligated to pay for something he didn't create. If you can't see the flaw in that logic, I feel very, very sorry for you.

Just for the record-I would never leave a dirty diaper on my child. I have three and when the oldest was only a month old, my wife returned to work days in the law office. I worked nights, so I was home with him all day. I've done all the care and maintenance of the kids too. Now we have a 17 mo old daughter after 2 boys- a whole new adventure.
So-I've probably changed 1/2 or close of all our kids diapers. We dont take turns-I dont advise my wife when we're out that the baby needs a change-i just do it. And I do it right.
Thats one part of being a man and a father-your kids/wife can count on you to do the right thing. And do it right.
I have no problem cleaning any part of the house-thats not my wife's "job". though she does more of it than I do. I cook well AND clean up well afterwards, and do so fairly often.
I can and do every household function often-Its my house, my family and nothing means more to me.
There's no need to go on the record, hon...we already know you're a stand up guy!

I hate to break it to you...but we've evolved a bit since the ape days. Survival is not just about men going out and hunting and women caring for the children. Things are a BIT more complicated than that, and if you really want to tell your wife that you can't cook that nights meal because biology prevents it, don't be surprised when HER biology causes her to toss the pan at your head.

You overlook the point. You say culture "forced" us into our roles. The patterns were in place long before that....

You overlook the point. You say culture "forced" us into our roles. The patterns were in place long before that....
No. There is a difference between biology and culture. You are talking about generalities, and I am talking about specifics. Unless you can give me a direct biological link that justifies a man not changing a baby's diaper, you are NOT talking about biology, you are talking about CULTURE.

You're right about some fathers undervaluing themselves by choosing to leave the wife and kids, or to shirk their responsibilities within the marriage, but I'm not talking about that.

Look at any "family" sitcom. The father is almost always portrayed as the bumbling idiot who doesn't understand what his kids and wife are going through, and the mother is always shown as the glue that holds the family together. Look at the number of women (and little girls) who think that just because they can have a baby without a father that it's just as good for the child. It seems that our culture says fathers aren't all that important. They're optional. Sometimes nice, but really not all that important.

Sorry to burst the bubble, but women are the "glue" and always have been. For centuries women raised the kids, relatively alone. (The men were present, but they had other more important things to do.) It was only when the sons were old enough to go out and not get killed (hunting, warring, training, etc.) or the daughters were old enough to marry off to a rival clan/tribe/kingdom that fathers had any role to play at all.

Nevertheless, I do agree that TV does not do a good job of portraying any reality... let alone the reality of the MODERN family. Today, in most cases,both parents are active participants in their child's life from birth, even when they are not married.

>>>>>>

As far as custody goes, the trend for ages was to hand the child over to the father - including infants (including those breast-feeding), because it was believed that the father had more resources to care for the child. Given that the male spouse practically owned the female spouse, this was actually true, even if it was emotionally damaging and even if the father had little to no contact with the child prior to the divorce. Only recently (from the mid-1900s) did the courts begin to give custody over to the mother. Today, the preference of the court is "joint" custody.

Read my very first post. In the eyes of the US law, a man cannot create a human being, he can only create a fetus. If it happens to become a human being [even if it happens despite his wishes], he's obligated to pay for something he didn't create. If you can't see the flaw in that logic, I feel very, very sorry for you.
oh i feel so bad for you.

he also has all parental rights to a child he didnt create. no pain, no doctors visits, no puking. just a sweet baby.

oh i feel so bad for you.

he also has all parental rights to a child he didnt create. no pain, no doctors visits, no puking. just a sweet baby.

Sorry, but I'd rather go through all of that for nine months than have my wages garnished for nineteen years if it was truly unnecessary to do so. Then again, this is where the fundamental difference of our gender comes into play, so it's an issue we're never likely to agree on.

Since you want to offer an extreame example, let me edit the result for you for the type of guys I know that would say "That's a womands job!" ;)


"Honey, could you please change Jr's diaper? I'm in the bath!"

"What? That's a woman's job!"

"Excuse me? Do you have a piano tied to your arse or something?"

"My dad never changed MY diapers..."

"Well that's just tough honey. I'll be out in 15, and if Junior isn't smelling rosy, that's no nookie for you tonight!"

"Ok. Well I am going to meet some friends for a drink. See you some time tonight."

Sorry, but I'd rather go through all of that for nine months than have my wages garnished for nineteen years if it was truly unnecessary to do so. Then again, this is where the fundamental difference of our gender comes into play, so it's an issue we're never likely to agree on.
yes but what youre saying is that you want to be able to force a woman to have an abortion and that if you cant force it you should be able to walk away. your chance to avoid pregnancy was the same as hers--before you had sex.

yeah only ONE person can decide to terminate and thats not you. what a shame.

you do know that having the baby doesnt absolve her her of 19 (as if its over at 19) years of financial responsibility

No. There is a difference between biology and culture. You are talking about generalities, and I am talking about specifics. Unless you can give me a direct biological link that justifies a man not changing a baby's diaper, you are NOT talking about biology, you are talking about CULTURE.

:rolleyes:

Ok how do we get diapers from the original comment of:

"Personally, I think men need to do a lot more self-examination, and start questioning the gender roles they are being forced into. The feminist movement has done wonders for women, but we can't do it for you. Men have to start questioning why they are working themselves into divorce, why they are working themselves into ill health, and why they are losing touch with their families. We can help, we can be your partners, but we can't make you buck the system."

Ok you win, culture told us to never change diapers.

Since you want to offer an extreame example, let me edit the result for you for the type of guys I know that would say "That's a womands job!" ;)
Yes well, there are a number of different endings for this scenario, which is far from being an extreme example.

:rolleyes:

Ok how do we get diapers from the original comment of:

"Personally, I think men need to do a lot more self-examination, and start questioning the gender roles they are being forced into. The feminist movement has done wonders for women, but we can't do it for you. Men have to start questioning why they are working themselves into divorce, why they are working themselves into ill health, and why they are losing touch with their families. We can help, we can be your partners, but we can't make you buck the system."

Ok you win, culture told us to never change diapers.
You're right. It did, because it sure as hell wasn't biology doing it.

yes but what youre saying is that you want to be able to force a woman to have an abortion and that if you cant force it you should be able to walk away. your chance to avoid pregnancy was the same as hers--before you had sex.

yeah only ONE person can decide to terminate and thats not you. what a shame.

you do know that having the baby doesnt absolve her her of 19 (as if its over at 19) years of financial responsibility

Jesus, talk about missing the forest for the Trees. Ash, I'm not suggesting that I should be allowed to demand an abortion, I'm saying its inconsistent to expect me to pay for something I can't create. It should be the woman's choice whether or not to have the child, and frankly I find the idea that you're insiting I think otherwise is sickening and insulting. Infuriating, even.

What I'm saying here is that the father should be able to excersize some rights as well. His opinion should carry more weight than it currently does; if he's not in a financial situation that is conducive to raising a child, for instance, it does little good for the woman to force it upon him.

Don't put words into my mouth again, please. I'm getting fucking sick and tired of people doing this to me. Read my words for what they are, don't make radical assumptions like I'd "want to be able to force a woman to have an abortion."

You're right. It did, because it sure as hell wasn't biology doing it.

Wow ahm ok? Obviously we are discussing two seperate things.

Since I fail to see your point.

Have a good one.

Wow ahm ok? Obviously we are discussing two seperate things.

Since I fail to see your point.

Have a good one.
*sigh*

:rolleyes:

Ok how do we get diapers from the original comment of:*snip*We got to diapers after you made a joking comment about blaming Mother Nature, which I used to point out that biology is in fact not the direct cause of gender roles (though it has helped shape them and influence them, it is not what is maintaining them).

Unless you are saying, "There is a biological reason men are not supposed to change diapers, according to traditional gender roles", then you are in fact agreeing that culture is shaping that particular attitude.

Jesus, talk about missing the forest for the Trees. Ash, I'm not suggesting that I should be allowed to demand an abortion, I'm saying its inconsistent to expect me to pay for something I can't create. It should be the woman's choice whether or not to have the child, and frankly I find the idea that you're insiting I think otherwise is sickening and insulting. Infuriating, even.

What I'm saying here is that the father should be able to excersize some rights as well. His opinion should carry more weight than it currently does; if he's not in a financial situation that is conducive to raising a child, for instance, it does little good for the woman to force it upon him.

Don't put words into my mouth again, please. I'm getting fucking sick and tired of people doing this to me. Read my words for what they are, don't make radical assumptions like I'd "want to be able to force a woman to have an abortion."
isnt that the upshot of your complaint? or do you think that a man should have NO rights and responsibilities for any child no matter what he thought of it?

i thought you were making a case for "if i dont want the baby i shouldnt have to pay for it"

thats not what you meant? and what does it MEAN since once there is a pregnancy the father has never EVER had any say of the creation of the baby?

In some states (SOME states) Child Support is employed to assist in raising the child. In Other states, (in the U.S.) Child-support and Alimony exist mainly as a means to punish the Father. The real problem Melkor Unchained is pointing out, is that the issue is really complicated, and there is no 'right' answer. If you make it too lenient, deadbeats will exploit the system, and if you make it too strict, you end up putting a man into a poverty lifestyle to finance his ex-wife's lifestyle.

In the current incarnation of Western Civilization, a Father is mainly viewed as a combination sperm-donor and piggybank, and many Courts will act as if his resources are bottomless-even in cases where the "She" married post-divorce and has a significantly better income and lifestyle.

The real victim in this, is the kid. Why? This money is supposed to be going to finance the kid's future, but in many cases, it's not used that way. It's used as supplementary income poured into the "General fund". I've known at least one instance where the Child-Support Cheque was used by the 'responsible' adult to finance monthly parties, and the rest of the month, she used AFDC, WIC, and other State programmes to handle the gruntwork of (badly) raising her kids. Thankfully, I terminated the relationship early, and used lots of protection, so that I didn't end up in the same position her Ex was in.

*sigh*

We got to diapers after you made a joking comment about blaming Mother Nature, which I used to point out that biology is in fact not the direct cause of gender roles (though it has helped shape them and influence them, it is not what is maintaining them).

Unless you are saying, "There is a biological reason men are not supposed to change diapers, according to traditional gender roles", then you are in fact agreeing that culture is shaping that particular attitude.

Well maybe you should give your definition of gender roles.

When I hear that word and applied to males; I think of provider, protector, etc. I have argued from the point that biology (for example testosterone) is what makes the male run out into the corporate jungle and slay the job beast to bring home food and shelter. Does culture have influence on that? It could be argued. But is that drive pretty much already instilled?

Nature shows us that child raising falls largely on the female. In the example of humans, the household and its running tends to fall into the womans hands. As such the majority if not all diaper changing(depends on the male).

Since we are going to talk about diapers.

More men today change them simply because more women today have to work. Since the original design has changed(man=income; woman=household); the attitudes change. Look at TV ads today. Even though more men then ever change diapers, why is it that you see women most of the time?

yes but what youre saying is that you want to be able to force a woman to have an abortion and that if you cant force it you should be able to walk away. your chance to avoid pregnancy was the same as hers--before you had sex.

yeah only ONE person can decide to terminate and thats not you. what a shame.

you do know that having the baby doesnt absolve her her of 19 (as if its over at 19) years of financial responsibility

Actually, I think he is more saying that a woman has the choice of terminating the pregnancy, and thus all of her rights and responsibilities to any possible child while the father does not.

This could be made a bit more equitable by giving the father access to that choice - within the same time-span that a woman can have an abortion (so that his choice could influence hers).

The world would be a much better place if people knew each others' plans on such issues well enough beforehand that there was no argument. My boyfriend and I already know what we would do if I were to get pregnant and we are agreed on the course of action - and we discussed it before we ever had sex and again before we decided to rely on the pill alone as birth control.

Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't responsible enough to do this.

Dad gives me beer.... hell yeah he's underrated

isnt that the upshot of your complaint? or do you think that a man should have NO rights and responsibilities for any child no matter what he thought of it?

i thought you were making a case for "if i dont want the baby i shouldnt have to pay for it"

thats not what you meant? and what does it MEAN since once there is a pregnancy the father has never EVER had any say of the creation of the baby?

If you put a gun to my head and asked me to devise a solution to this problem while standing on one foot, I'd probably come up with some sort of system wherein the father could--before the birth--renounce his responibilities both to pay for and see the child. He would receive no custody rights, he would have no obligation to pay for them, and he probably shouldn't get to spend any time with them either.

Yes, it's unfair to the mother, but no more unfair than, say, making me pay child support for nineteen years if for no better reason than some vindictive bitch wanted to saddle me with such a burden. You shouldn't be able to have it both ways; women can. People are spiteful animals: I'm sure there have been several instances where the primary deciding factor in having a child was to stick it to the father.

If you put a gun to my head and asked me to devise a solution to this problem while standing on one foot, I'd probably come up with some sort of system wherein the father could--before the birth--renounce his responibilities both to pay for and see the child. He would receive no custody rights, he would have no obligation to pay for them, and he probably shouldn't get to spend any time with them either.

I would say that your last sentence is too lenient. If a man chooses such an action, he should have no access to them whatsoever. There is no question at all of whether he should get to spend time with them. His ability to make such a decision should be limited to the same amount of time the woman has to make the decision on whether or not to abort and if his decision is to sign away all rights and responsibilities, then he has just that - no rights - not even the right to know if the child exists.

Dad gives me beer.... hell yeah he's underrated

Ahh but did he let you read Playboy? ;)

I would say that your last sentence is too lenient. If a man chooses such an action, he should have no access to them whatsoever. There is no question at all of whether he should get to spend time with them. His ability to make such a decision should be limited to the same amount of time the woman has to make the decision on whether or not to abort and if his decision is to sign away all rights and responsibilities, then he has just that - no rights - not even the right to know if the child exists.
Makes sense to me. My wording probably should have been more explicit.

Well maybe you should give your definition of gender roles.


Anything that a gender is expected to do BECAUSE of their gender. Not all gender roles are wrong, or bad. However, some of them are harmful, unecessary, and outdated. Such as the idea that men should be sexually promiscuous and women should be celibate. As society evolves, certain societally imposed gender roles change. Feminism has done much to change and challenge traditional female gender roles. Men need to challenge traditional male gender roles that are no longer useful or needed. And so do transgendered people. That is the sum of my point.

Ahh but did he let you read Playboy? ;)
No....we let him

It seems that movies, TV, etc. paint fathers to be at best well meaning fools, and at worst sociopathic ogres. In a thread on this board today I encountered a person who seems to beleive a severely mentally retarded man would make about as good a father as a man of normal intelligence. I think that we've thrown away an important part of the family by neglecting and disrespecting fathers. What do you all think?
I think that fathers are "undervalued" exactly as much as they allow themselves to be.

If you put a gun to my head and asked me to devise a solution to this problem while standing on one foot, I'd probably come up with some sort of system wherein the father could--before the birth--renounce his responibilities both to pay for and see the child. He would receive no custody rights, he would have no obligation to pay for them, and he probably shouldn't get to spend any time with them either.

Yes, it's unfair to the mother, but no more unfair than, say, making me pay child support for nineteen years if for no better reason than some vindictive bitch wanted to saddle me with such a burden. You shouldn't be able to have it both ways; women can. People are spiteful animals: I'm sure there have been several instances where the primary deciding factor in having a child was to stick it to the father.
how did that vindictive bitch end up with your baby? did you miss the part where you can say NO?

there are many cases of a woman having a baby to trap the father.

you have equal responsibility in creating a pregnancy. the only right you dont have is to terminate.

well...even though i live with mine...he is useless and doesnt do anything for me

how did that vindictive bitch end up with your baby? did you miss the part where you can say NO?
Oh please. If I could tell the future, I wouldn't be here right now. I'd be rich.

there are many cases of a woman having a baby to trap the father.

you have equal responsibility in creating a pregnancy. the only right you dont have is to terminate.

No, I dont' have an equal responsibility, that's sort of my point. I'll say it again: a man cannot create a human being in the eyes of the law, he can only create the fetus. 'Equal responsibility' ends with conception.

Oh please. If I could tell the future, I wouldn't be here right now. I'd be rich.

No, I dont' have an equal responsibility, that's sort of my point. I'll say it again: a man cannot create a human being in the eyes of the law, he can only create the fetus. 'Equal responsibility' ends with conception.
Try telling that to the judge.

No, I dont' have an equal responsibility, that's sort of my point. I'll say it again: a man cannot create a human being in the eyes of the law, he can only create the fetus. 'Equal responsibility' ends with conception.

you DO have equal responsibility for creating a pregnancy. both people decide to have sex, sperm meets egg, pregnancy results. both made the decision. they are equally responsible.

it is the womans responsibility from there until the baby is born. she can choose to have an abortion in the early days. after that she must take good care of herself. avoid drugs, alcohol, go to the doctor etc. its not a passive thing, there are many many things she must do to take good care of the fetus.

once the baby is born, its BOTH parents responsibility to take care of. now the baby has rights and one of its rights is to have its father take responsibility.

very few fathers are indifferent to their own children. no matter how much they may have come to hate the childs mother, they still love their children. its not "18 years of checks" its a lifetime of love and caring for your child. the sorriest piece of shit father still longs to walk his daughter down the aisle on her wedding day.

yeah its unfair that you dont get a choice about continuing a pregnancy but then its "unfair" that she has to carry the baby and you get off "scott free" for 9 months.

the best way to avoid having babies you dont want is to avoid having sex when you arent ready to have a child.

So what you are saying is.. if the parent that has custody makes lots of money, The other parent has no financial responsibility to the child?
I have a hard time with that. If you make you bed, sleep in it. You are obliged to help support your child.

There are cases where child support is extreme. I remember a case where a millionaire was required to pay 3 million a year in child support. What child could possibly require 3 million a year in stuff and school?

So if a woman breaks up with her husband so she can be with the guy with the bigger dick, AND refuses the former husband of having any custody of their son, he should have to pay child support so the woman can spend it?

Goes the same for men who marry women with juicier looking tits. Should the mother have to pay, when custody is taken away by force?

the sorriest piece of shit father still longs to walk his daughter down the aisle on her wedding day.

Really?

Drat.

Oh well, he'll deal with it.

how did that vindictive bitch end up with your baby? did you miss the part where you can say NO?

there are many cases of a woman having a baby to trap the father.

you have equal responsibility in creating a pregnancy. the only right you dont have is to terminate.

Women can lie about taking the pill. It is a bit more difficult to lie about wearing a condom. :)

Women can lie about taking the pill. It is a bit more difficult to lie about wearing a condom. :)
But quite easy to poke holes in one.

Or a say in how they are raised. Just because he cant get along with the wife, doesnt mean he is a bad father too. And $400.00 per month is a really low figure.

I believe $400/month/child is the minimum in GA - at least it was 10 years ago (not that we ever saw it - except for one month and a bounced check). Interestingly enough, the parent with custody cannot refuse it. My mother tried to leave child support out of the divorce and was told that she could not do so - by law, this minimum amount of child support was mandated.

you DO have equal responsibility for creating a pregnancy. both people decide to have sex, sperm meets egg, pregnancy results. both made the decision. they are equally responsible.

They're equally responsible for the act, they're not equally responsible for the results of the act.

it is the womans responsibility from there until the baby is born. she can choose to have an abortion in the early days. after that she must take good care of herself. avoid drugs, alcohol, go to the doctor etc. its not a passive thing, there are many many things she must do to take good care of the fetus.

once the baby is born, its BOTH parents responsibility to take care of. now the baby has rights and one of its rights is to have its father take responsibility.
I'll agree to this under the condition that the father wanted to have a child; if he doesn't want one or can't support it, this ideal gets a little lost.

very few fathers are indifferent to their own children. no matter how much they may have come to hate the childs mother, they still love their children. its not "18 years of checks" its a lifetime of love and caring for your child.

No, it's nineteen years, and in most of these cases the father doesn't get to see his kids more than once or twice a week. Its only a "lifetime of love and caring for your child" in a perfect world. Guess what this world isn't?

My parents seperated when I was about 3, and the money my father had to pay was grossly disproportionate to the amount of time he was allowed to spend with myself and my brother. Fuck that mmkay? If you're going to pay the price, you should get to see some of the benefits that [should] come with it.

the sorriest piece of shit father still longs to walk his daughter down the aisle on her wedding day.

yeah its unfair that you dont get a choice about continuing a pregnancy but then its "unfair" that she has to carry the baby and you get off "scott free" for 9 months.
Ah, the childbirth argument again. If you're going to pull this one out again I'll go ahead and repeat myself too: I'd rather go through childbirth than have my wages garnished for the next 19 years for a kid I'd barely get to see.

the best way to avoid having babies you dont want is to avoid having sex when you arent ready to have a child.
And, as a point of fact, I'm an involuntary practitioner of abstinence: I might as well be a goddamn monk. In a way, this really isn't my issue.

And, as a point of fact, I'm an involuntary practitioner of abstinence: I might as well be a goddamn monk. In a way, this really isn't my issue.

Ahhh that explains some of the anger levels! :p

Oh please. If I could tell the future, I wouldn't be here right now. I'd be rich.



No, I dont' have an equal responsibility, that's sort of my point. I'll say it again: a man cannot create a human being in the eyes of the law, he can only create the fetus. 'Equal responsibility' ends with conception.

OMG, I can't believe people are discussing this as if killing the child should be an option for either parent.

Here is a commonsense rule of thumb: don't have sex unless/until you are prepared to have a baby. ;)

Wow, Melkor...you really ARE unchained...I don't think I've ever seen you NOT angry! I like you. :fluffle:

Oh...and I'd like a lawyer to analyse that statement about having to pay child support, even if the woman makes way more money. It isn't ringing true...WHISPERING LEGS GET IN HERE!

My mother specifically stated to the judge when getting a divorce that she did not want child support. She made much more money than him (even when he was employed) and was able to handle it on her own - although it was a bit difficult at first. The judge informed her that she would receive $400/month/child, regardless of all of that information. Of course, it's a good thing she didn't rely on it, as we only got one month of it - and a second month with a bad check that caused her to bounce checks on her own account.

you DO have equal responsibility for creating a pregnancy. both people decide to have sex, sperm meets egg, pregnancy results. both made the decision. they are equally responsible.

it is the womans responsibility from there until the baby is born. she can choose to have an abortion in the early days. after that she must take good care of herself. avoid drugs, alcohol, go to the doctor etc. its not a passive thing, there are many many things she must do to take good care of the fetus.

once the baby is born, its BOTH parents responsibility to take care of. now the baby has rights and one of its rights is to have its father take responsibility.

very few fathers are indifferent to their own children. no matter how much they may have come to hate the childs mother, they still love their children. its not "18 years of checks" its a lifetime of love and caring for your child. the sorriest piece of shit father still longs to walk his daughter down the aisle on her wedding day.

yeah its unfair that you dont get a choice about continuing a pregnancy but then its "unfair" that she has to carry the baby and you get off "scott free" for 9 months.

the best way to avoid having babies you dont want is to avoid having sex when you arent ready to have a child.

If a woman can CHOOSE to have an abortion because parenthood would be inconvenient for her at this stage in life, then why cannot a man? If their contribution is equal then so should their right to choose. What ever happened to a man's right to choose? Are you against choice?

meanwhile, for those fathers who have lost custody, I don't think they view their children as0 'checks'. However, it is far too common for the mother to renig on her responsibility for the kids to visit their father. Some even poison the minds of their children against their father. A father who is denied contact with his children (to which he is legally entitled) has no recourse. Child support must still be paid. When you have no contact with a person, but still must write a check for the, tadaa - you have converted that person into a check. I only wish it were so rare that nobody ever heard of it.

Wow, Melkor...you really ARE unchained...I don't think I've ever seen you NOT angry! I like you. :fluffle:
Heh, thanks. I do usually get pretty heated; I don't fuck around when it comes to philosophy.

They're equally responsible for the act, they're not equally responsible for the results of the act.


I'll agree to this under the condition that the father wanted to have a child; if he doesn't want one or can't support it, this ideal gets a little lost.



No, it's nineteen years, and in most of these cases the father doesn't get to see his kids more than once or twice a week. Its only a "lifetime of love and caring for your child" in a perfect world. Guess what this world isn't?

My parents seperated when I was about 3, and the money my father had to pay was grossly disproportionate to the amount of time he was allowed to spend with myself and my brother. Fuck that mmkay? If you're going to pay the price, you should get to see some of the benefits that [should] come with it.


Ah, the childbirth argument again. If you're going to pull this one out again I'll go ahead and repeat myself too: I'd rather go through childbirth than have my wages garnished for the next 19 years for a kid I'd barely get to see.


And, as a point of fact, I'm an involuntary practitioner of abstinence: I might as well be a goddamn monk. In a way, this really isn't my issue.

the result of the act is a pregnancy. they are both equally responsible. then the mother is responsible for termination or bringing the pregnancy to term.

someone is always gonna get the short end of the stick when it comes to child custody after a divorce/seperation. you cant change that. if the amount of visitation/custody isnt enough you can go to court to change it. it really cant work out fairly for all people involved. do you think your father would rather have walked away totally?

the problem with your childbirth arguement is that she has to bear the child and STILL has 19 years of paying for the child. its not a one or the other things. ONE carries the child BOTH have financial responsibility.

OMG, I can't believe people are discussing this as if killing the child should be an option for either parent.

Here is a commonsense rule of thumb: don't have sex unless/until you are prepared to have a baby. ;)

Again, this is something that people will adhere to only in a perfect world: people like to fuck and people like you should get used to it; it's every bit a part of our culture as TV or McDonalds: people will always do it, regardless of what your moral code says.

I won't dispute that education and abstinence are the best ways to avoid problems like this, but you need to stop dealing with [your] "moral" absolutes and start dealing with reality; people are going to fuck and we need to be thinking about how to keep this phenomenon from becoming too large a strain on society.

Abortion is one of those things I support in theory but oppose in practice: I wouldn't want anyone I know getting an abortion but I can't pretend to judge anyone else's circumstance.

meanwhile, for those fathers who have lost custody, I don't think they view their children as0 'checks'. However, it is far too common for the mother to renig on her responsibility for the kids to visit their father. Some even poison the minds of their children against their father. A father who is denied contact with his children (to which he is legally entitled) has no recourse. Child support must still be paid. When you have no contact with a person, but still must write a check for the, tadaa - you have converted that person into a check. I only wish it were so rare that nobody ever heard of it.

Most fathers don't lose custody. Most mothers don't "poison" the children against their father. A father denied court ordered time with his children does have legal recourse. Whether the father sees his child or not, the child is still his child and is therefore a person that he WANTS (if he is sane) to care for.

Really?

Drat.

Oh well, he'll deal with it.
if you are close to anyone on your fathers side of the family you can expect a ration of shit for not letting your "DAD" walk you down the aisle.

the problem with your childbirth arguement is that she has to bear the child and STILL has 19 years of paying for the child. its not a one or the other things.

She personally chooses that course of action, does she not?

If I were pregnant and the father did not want to be involved, it would be my choice to have the child anyways - and thus my responsibility to take care of it.

What Dem said.

Most fathers don't lose custody. Most mothers don't "poison" the children against their father. A father denied court ordered time with his children does have legal recourse. Whether the father sees his child or not, the child is still his child and is therefore a person that he WANTS (if he is sane) to care for.

That's a lot of presumption, I think. I could be wrong, but it sounds too general to me.

Again, this is something that people will adhere to only in a perfect world: people like to fuck and people like you should get used to it; it's every bit a part of our culture as TV or McDonalds: people will always do it, regardless of what your moral code says.

I won't dispute that education and abstinence are the best ways to avoid problems like this, but you need to stop dealing with [your] "moral" absolutes and start dealing with reality; people are going to fuck and we need to be thinking about how to keep this phenomenon from becoming too large a strain on society.

Abortion is one of those things I support in theory but oppose in practice: I wouldn't want anyone I know getting an abortion but I can't pretend to judge anyone else's circumstance.
I love it when a mod talks dirty! *shivers*

There are plenty of things about this whole issue that I support in theory, but not in practice. I for one would make a real issue out of having my children's father be a part of their life if we were to split up, despite and rancor I might feel for him personally. However, I support women like my sister in law, who is happy not to receive child support, because it means her ex has no leg to stand on if he wants to see her daughter. It's not a decision I would make, but whatever.

As for the issue of child support...I think it should only be required when the person with custody makes under a certain level of income (I'm not going to try to imagine what that would be).

well...even though i live with mine...he is useless and doesnt do anything for me

:rolleyes:

get a job. pay rent. Then maybe I'll believe you.

if you are close to anyone on your fathers side of the family you can expect a ration of shit for not letting your "DAD" walk you down the aisle.

I don't know - they're fairly laid back - and so is he.

I think he realizes that he wasn't really a parent to me when I was a child (or even now), which is my reason for not wanting him to walk me down the aisle. My mother raised me - she is much more the reason I am who I am today - and thus I would want her to be the one to "give me away".

In truth, I'm much closer to my father and his family now than I was soon after my parents divorced - and even that involves an email or phone call every now and then and a visit every few years or so (on my part, none of them can afford it).

Again, this is something that people will adhere to only in a perfect world: people like to fuck and people like you should get used to it; it's every bit a part of our culture as TV or McDonalds: people will always do it, regardless of what your moral code says.

I don't have to "get used to it", because I am not directly responsible for someone else's bastard offspring. :)

I won't dispute that education and abstinence are the best ways to avoid problems like this, but you need to stop dealing with [your] "moral" absolutes and start dealing with reality; people are going to fuck and we need to be thinking about how to keep this phenomenon from becoming too large a strain on society.

One way is to force both parents to pay for their children's needs, whatever their personal or economic circumstances.

Most fathers don't lose custody.
You couldn't be more wrong about this if your name was W. Wrongedy Wrongenstein. The vast majority of custody cases always side with the mother.

Most mothers don't "poison" the children against their father. A father denied court ordered time with his children does have legal recourse. Whether the father sees his child or not, the child is still his child and is therefore a person that he WANTS (if he is sane) to care for.
God knows I was subjected to my share of father-villification at the hands of my mother; I think you're making a generalization here that you're not equipped to defend.

The father does, in some cases, have 'recourse' but that recourse doesn't matter generally, since the courts invariably side with the mother in custody disputes, 'recourse' situations included. When a kid turns 14 [I think] s/he can choose which parent to live with, so in most cases the dad is SOL for about a decade and a half.

I don't have to "get used to it", because I am not directly responsible for someone else's bastard offspring. :)
I didnt' say or imply that you were. Damn, where do you people come up with this shit?

You do need to get used to it because, despite the strength [or weakness] of your rhetoric, you will never stop people from acting a certain way.
One way is to force both parents to pay for their children's needs, whatever their personal or economic circumstances.
Um... that's generally what happens now.

You couldn't be more wrong about this if your name was W. Wrongedy Wrongenstein. The vast majority of custody cases always side with the mother.


God knows I was subjected to my share of father-villification at the hands of my mother; I think you're making a generalization here that you're not equipped to defend.



My mother did the same and it was warranted. My old man decided he didn't like being a parent after he saw what it meant for his bank account.

He disappeared and we had a pretty crappy life to the point of government assistance(I know it's your favorite ;) ).

So to say it never happens is wrong and yet to say it's never right is also wrong.

(snip)

The father does, in some cases, have 'recourse' but that recourse doesn't matter generally, since the courts invariably side with the mother in custody disputes, 'recourse' situations included. When a kid turns 14 [I think] s/he can choose which parent to live with, so in most cases the dad is SOL for about a decade and a half.
Not to mention the costs involved in further court appearances.

Not to mention the costs involved in further court appearances.

Yeah, he'd have to be one rich mofo to get away with all those expenses: taxes, utility bills, child support, court costs...hot damn! Before long he's lucky to have more than a few old receipts in his wallet.

That's a lot of presumption, I think. I could be wrong, but it sounds too general to me.

It is not. All things being equal (no abuse, abandonment, etc.), joint custody is the most popular arrangement . (Unlike in the distant past when fathers were almost always awarded sole custody, or the recent past when mothers were almost always awarded sole custody, regardless of circumstance.) SO, fathers do not lose custody, unless that is "in the best interest of the child". They may not get sole custody, but that is a different issue.

Most mothers don't poison the children against their father, as most divorces are not nearly as dramatic or hostile as they are on "reality tv" and these "court tv" shows. They can be difficult, but with counseling both parents usually come to a place where they can work together for the benefit of the kids. (As unbelievable as it seems, most people are normal and not jerry springer looneys.) Though, admittedly, lawyers can make a situation far worse than it has to be.

And finally, in every state (in the USA) a father denied court ordered time with his children does have legal recourse. You can't just defy a court order without a darn good reason.

It is not. All things being equal (no abuse, abandonment, etc.), joint custody is the most popular arrangement.

"Joint Custody" is a tricky term. it looks good on paper but what it generally means is that the mother watches over the kids day-to-day and teh father gets to see them on weekend or on every other weekend. My parents had joint custody, so believe me; I know what it entails.

(Unlike in the distant past when fathers were almost always awarded sole custody, or the recent past when mothers were almost always awarded sole custody, regardless of circumstance.) SO, fathers do not lose custody, unless that is "in the best interest of the child". They may not get sole custody, but that is a different issue.
This is correct. They do not lose all custody rights, but what they do end up getting is hardly comparable to the child support they have to pay in order to stay out of jail.

Most mothers don't poison the children against their father, as most divorces are not nearly as dramatic or hostile as they are on "reality tv" and these "court tv" shows.
You'd better tell me you're a social worker in your next post, or else I might roll my eyes with such force that my optic nerves may sever, casuing my precious ocular organs to pop out of my skull and roll about on the floor. Generalizations like this aren't making you look very good here.

They can be difficult, but with counseling both parents usually come to a place where they can work together for the benefit of the kids. (As unbelievable as it seems, most people are normal and not jerry springer looneys.) Though, admittedly, lawyers can make a situation far worse than it has to be.

And finally, in every state (in the USA) a father denied court ordered time with his children does have legal recourse. You can't just defy a court order without a darn good reason.
The issue of recourse has already been discussed. Please find a new avenue of argument or elaborate upon this one further.

I agree, to a point. It makes me so mad to see the way fathers are portrayed in the media; like they are all clueless baffoons that only care about cars and meat...like they were cavemen or something. Of course, I also hate the way women are portrayed...in fact I hate the media alltogether. But I have a soft spot for the men, as they are the only ones who do not seem to have a voice demanding change. They simply accept that this is the way to be, and live their lives accordingly. Its sad.

On the other hand, the majority of men I know would rather eat a pile of crap than stay and be a father. Society doesnt enfore the role of the father or consider it important, true, but I beleive that men brought this on themsleves. If they truly cared about their children they would stay around in greater numbers...but since around half of families are of single parents, the majority being single mothers, it is easy to see how society came to devalue men in the first place.

God knows I was subjected to my share of father-villification at the hands of my mother

That is just poor parenting. Clearly, "father-villification" was not the only problem you have with the way she raised you. IN any event, the grass probably wasn't greener on the other side, so don't kid yourself.

It's not just the West. Look at Neon Genesis Evangelion. Gendo Ikari was basically the real antagonist. The West isn't all that pro-father, though, either judging by Darth Vader.

You'd better tell me you're a social worker in your next post, or else I might roll my eyes with such force that my optic nerves may sever, casuing my precious ocular organs to pop out of my skull and roll about on the floor. Generalizations like this aren't making you look very good here.

Well, if I had the time I would go into more detail. BTW, I am not a social worker, but close. :)

That is just poor parenting. Clearly, "father-villification" was not the only problem you have with the way she raised you. IN any event, the grass probably wasn't greener on the other side, so don't kid yourself.
Don't you dare pretend to be familiar with the parenting skills of my mother. Don't you dare presume to be familiar with my circumstance. I don't even know how to respond to this ignorance.

Congratulations, this is the worst and postively the most infuriating line of reasoning I have ever been subjected to. You'll be wise never to resort to these tactics again.

Main topic: Are fathers undervalued in western culture?

"Sociologists, psychologists, criminal justice experts, and others have begun to closely examine the issue of fatherhood in our American culture and how and why fathers came to be ousted from a significant role in childrearing. Statistics clearly show that children without fathers are more likely to suffer increased psychological, educational, behavioral, and health disorders, and our society is more likely to suffer increased crime and violence. For example, a 1988 United States Department of Health and Human Services study found that at every income level except the very highest (over $50,000 a year), children living with never-married mothers were more likely than their counterparts in two-parent families to have been expelled or suspended from school, to display emotional problems, and to engage in antisocial behavior.[166] Children in single-parent families are two to three times as likely as children in two-parent families to have emotional and behavioral problems.[167] They are also more likely to drop out of high school, to get pregnant as teenagers, to abuse drugs, and to be in trouble with the law.[168] Eighty percent of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals come from broken homes.[169] Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent.[170] Compared to children living with both biological parents, children living apart from their biological fathers experience more accidental injury, asthma, frequent headaches, and speech defects.[171] Children who live apart from their fathers are more than four times more likely to smoke cigarettes as teenagers than children growing up with a father in the home.[172] Seventy-two percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers.[173] Sixty percent of America's rapists grew up in homes without fathers.[174]"

Source: http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/issues/254/mcneely.html#heading8

And here's a very interesting arguement about custody.... http://www.dadsnow.org/studies/usccwmi2.htm

That is just poor parenting. Clearly, "father-villification" was not the only problem you have with the way she raised you. IN any event, the grass probably wasn't greener on the other side, so don't kid yourself.

That is true as depending on your age, dad tends to have no faults!

(snip)

As for the issue of child support...I think it should only be required when the person with custody makes under a certain level of income (I'm not going to try to imagine what that would be).

Actually I would disagree. A competent but divorced parent should be able to share in the upbringing of their child, both physically and economically. That does create some difficulties for both parents. What if one gets a promotion that involves a move far away? Tough $hit I say - child first.

A low income threshold could cause two problems - the alienation of a non-paying parent vs the incentive to not earn money. Plus, what about in the even of a remarriage or cohabitation? The new partner earns more than the prior yet the prior still pays hugh child support because the spouse is earning zip.

Child support is really a f-ed up institution. Everyone should be considerably more careful than most are about whom they procreate with. As things currently stand, the deck is stacked against men since birth control options for men are considerably restricted.

All this talk of the financial burden of the fathers who left the mothers of their children makes me want to ask one question...what about the burden of the mothers? No one seems to consider the fact that child support is neccisary due to the fact that the child or children now have one parent to care for them, and that parent must either work and pay for child care, or quit work and have no income. Children are expensive to care for either way, and the responsibility of the monitary care should lie on BOTH the parents. As a single mother myself, All of my money goes to a child that I barely see because I have to work to support her...so how is it different for the man who left me? The only difference that I see is that I actually care enough to stick around and do the hard work, while he is off on his own, only thinking of his child when he complains about child support!

rant over

Does anyone else here think that this is a thread which would do Dan Quaile proud?

Main topic: Are fathers undervalued in western culture?

"Sociologists, psychologists, criminal justice experts, and others have begun to closely examine the issue of fatherhood in our American culture and how and why fathers came to be ousted from a significant role in childrearing. Statistics clearly show that children without fathers are more likely to suffer increased psychological, educational, behavioral, and health disorders, and our society is more likely to suffer increased crime and violence. For example, a 1988 United States Department of Health and Human Services study found that at every income level except the very highest (over $50,000 a year), children living with never-married mothers were more likely than their counterparts in two-parent families to have been expelled or suspended from school, to display emotional problems, and to engage in antisocial behavior.[166] Children in single-parent families are two to three times as likely as children in two-parent families to have emotional and behavioral problems.[167] They are also more likely to drop out of high school, to get pregnant as teenagers, to abuse drugs, and to be in trouble with the law.[168] Eighty percent of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals come from broken homes.[169] Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent.[170] Compared to children living with both biological parents, children living apart from their biological fathers experience more accidental injury, asthma, frequent headaches, and speech defects.[171] Children who live apart from their fathers are more than four times more likely to smoke cigarettes as teenagers than children growing up with a father in the home.[172] Seventy-two percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers.[173] Sixty percent of America's rapists grew up in homes without fathers.[174]"

Source: http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/issues/254/mcneely.html#heading8

And here's a very interesting arguement about custody.... http://www.dadsnow.org/studies/usccwmi2.htm

Dadsnow is almost as biased as one can get, but I think we all agree that children in two-parent homes are better off in every way (and thus less likely to commit those crime) than children in single-parent homes. Children in single-parent homes are more at-risk. Consequently, since most single-parent homes are headed by females, it follows that most of those at-risk are from father-less homes. Makes perfect sense.

Dadsnow is almost as biased as one can get, but I think we all agree that children in two-parent homes are better off in every way (and thus less likely to commit those crime) than children in single-parent homes.

I know. That's why I didn't use it as a source, but just said it was a good arguement. There was also a feminist one I saw that said fathers actually were bad for kids. Made me sick, actually.

Does anyone else here think that this is a thread which would do Dan Quaile proud?

You mean you like potatoes?

What do you expect from a man-hating lezbo(assuming they hate men that much) organization? A kid needs a father as much as a kid needs a mother.

All this talk of the financial burden of the fathers who left the mothers of their children makes me want to ask one question...what about the burden of the mothers? No one seems to consider the fact that child support is neccisary due to the fact that the child or children now have one parent to care for them, and that parent must either work and pay for child care, or quit work and have no income. Children are expensive to care for either way, and the responsibility of the monitary care should lie on BOTH the parents. As a single mother myself, All of my money goes to a child that I barely see because I have to work to support her...so how is it different for the man who left me? The only difference that I see is that I actually care enough to stick around and do the hard work, while he is off on his own, only thinking of his child when he complains about child support!

rant over


Nobody is really denying the difficulties of single parenthood. Your rant is simply out of contest of the subject of this thread, which is father-centric. You should start a thread on single parenthood or single motherhood to discuss your circumstances further. I have no doubt you'd find a sympathetic audience here.

Good luch with your child. Keep the faith, things WILL eventually work out.

Don't you dare pretend to be familiar with the parenting skills of my mother. Don't you dare presume to be familiar with my circumstance. I don't even know how to respond to this ignorance.

I don't pretend to be familiar with anymore than you stated yourself, which was: "God knows I was subjected to my share of father-villification at the hands of my mother". This comment was a reference to her parenting skills, or at least an element which you disliked or disapproved of, was it not?

Congratulations, this is the worst and postively the most infuriating line of reasoning I have ever been subjected to. You'll be wise never to resort to these tactics again.

You brought it up. Anyway, it was not a "tactic", it was simply an attempt to point out the following: a) most mothers do not do that; b) the fact that she did it does not reflect on mothers as a whole; and c) the fact that a few mothers do it should not shape policy or opinion in this area.

What do you expect from a man-hating lezbo(assuming they hate men that much) organization? A kid needs a father as much as a kid needs a mother.

In theory; yes. Not always the case in RL.

My old man is a 2 bit loser.

There are many mothers which kids would be better off without.

Does anyone else here think that this is a thread which would do Dan Quaile proud?

"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."

I the only one who finds that kinky?

And one of my favorite of his.....

"A very positive message."
-- Quayle after listening to a sermon in which a Georgia minister condemned homosexuality as 'satanic' (Newsweek, 11/92).

I don't pretend to be familiar with anymore than you stated yourself, which was: "God knows I was subjected to my share of father-villification at the hands of my mother". This comment was a reference to her parenting skills, or at least an element which you disliked or disapproved of, was it not?
No, it was a statement of fact, a statement of fact that pointed to a discrepancy in your claim. My mother is a very rational, caring person and I will not tolerate any stipulations to the reverse. You're treading on dangerous ground here and I reccommend that you cease immedately.

You brought it up. Anyway, it was not a "tactic", it was simply an attempt to point out the following: a) most mothers do not do that;
You don't know that. In order to know that, you'd have to spend a lifetime with every mother and her child in the nation. You're really not being very compelling with this "most mothers don't do that" nonsense; I'm sure a healthy percentage--of not a majority of them--do this to a certain degree, even if they're not conscious about it. Most of this depends on the nature of the breakup.

b) the fact that she did it does not reflect on mothers as a whole; and c) the fact that a few mothers do it should not shape policy or opinion in this area.
See above. I've not seen any evidence to this effect beyond this sophistry.

I don't pretend to be familiar with anymore than you stated yourself, which was: "God knows I was subjected to my share of father-villification at the hands of my mother". This comment was a reference to her parenting skills, or at least an element which you disliked or disapproved of, was it not?

If I were you'd I'd reconsider the discussion of other people's mothers.

You brought it up. Anyway, it was not a "tactic", it was simply an attempt to point out the following: a) most mothers do not do that; b) the fact that she did it does not reflect on mothers as a whole; and c) the fact that a few mothers do it should not shape policy or opinion in this area.

Let's look close at your logic train. Just for kicks lets exchange 'mothers' for 'men' and 'that' for 'beating their spouses'.

a) most men do not do beating their spouses;
b) the fact that he did it does not reflect on men as a whole; and
c) the fact that a few men do beat on their spouses should not shape policy or opinion in this area.

a and b are both valid, but c is about as wrong as a screen door on a submarine. Same for your case.

Does anyone else here think that this is a thread which would do Dan Quaile proud?
Even idiots like Dan Quaile are statistically likely to get something right once in a while.

If I were you'd I'd reconsider the discussion of other people's mothers.

And I suppose that all should reconsider using personal anecdotes to rebut an argument in a public forum.


Let's look close at your logic train. Just for kicks lets exchange 'mothers' for 'men' and 'that' for 'beating their spouses'.

a) most men do not do beating their spouses;
b) the fact that he did it does not reflect on men as a whole; and
c) the fact that a few men do beat on their spouses should not shape policy or opinion in this area.

a and b are both valid, but c is about as wrong as a screen door on a submarine. Same for your case.

I disagree. The fact that a few men beat their spouses should not shape child custody law, such that courts begin to blindly award custody to women. There should be laws created to prevent the behavior, but not to shape child custody. Likewise, the fact that there are a few father-hating mothers in the world should not influence a complete change in child custody law, such that courts begin to blindly award custody to men. There should instead be a greater enforcement of court orders.

Look, I have researched this area from the Roman era to present day, and I am unabashadly against ANY return to past practices. The fact that a few parents forget what is suppose to be the issue - the interest of the child, should not shape policy.

to drag us back to the topic

most fathers today do a great job. they are more involved than their fathers and grandfathers were.


for example, my niece's first baby was born in march '98. the plan was to stay home for a couple months then go back to work come summer time when her husband would be off work as a teacher. her husbands mother asked "who would take care of the baby then?"

he was SO insulted that she thought it would be anyone but HIM and that he was somehow not good enough to take care of his own infant child for the summer.

not every father relishes the notion of taking care of an infant but more and more love the time they spend as primary caretakers of their kids even if its only when mom is at work.

to drag us back to the topic

most fathers today do a great job. they are more involved than their fathers and grandfathers were.

I agree.

If anything at all is accurate about television images, it is that in those TV families the fathers are very personally involved in their children's lives.

And I suppose that all should reconsider using personal anecdotes to rebut an argument in a public forum.

Then don't tell us that you know that 'most mothers don't poison their kids against their fathers.' Given your lack of credible--hell any evidence to this effect it remains, essentially, a personal anecdote. Right back atcha.

Regardless, personal experience is a valid debating point.

The fact that a few men beat their spouses should not shape child custody law, such that courts begin to blindly award custody to women. .

Huh? I think you are mixing your topics. There was no inference between spousal abuse and custody laws. Only an illustration of the absurdity of your logic by applying it to a completely different topic.

I think it'd be a good idea for you to take a break for a while to refresh yourself. I'm doing the same.

g'night

Personally, I think men need to do a lot more self-examination, and start questioning the gender roles they are being forced into. The feminist movement has done wonders for women, but we can't do it for you.
I agree! Revolution!

No, it was a statement of fact, a statement of fact that pointed to a discrepancy in your claim. My mother is a very rational, caring person and I will not tolerate any stipulations to the reverse. You're treading on dangerous ground here and I reccommend that you cease immedately.

I have to go with Tarawere here. Unless your father was Satan himself, villification of him on her part was an example of bad parenting. She might have been a wonderful parent otherwise - but that was a bad move. Any responsible parent would do their best not to villify the other parent in a case where both would still be a part of the child's life. This does not, of course, mean that she was not rational and caring otherwise. All people make mistakes.

Then don't tell us that you know that 'most mothers don't poison their kids against their fathers.' Given your lack of credible--hell any evidence to this effect it remains, essentially, a personal anecdote. Right back atcha.

Regardless, personal experience is a valid debating point.

Where is your evidence that it is not true? Where is your evidence that you were not in a minority?

Seriously, it is silly to "debate" this point. It all comes down to whether or not you think most mothers are caring parents able to put their childrens' needs before their own or not.

It seems that movies, TV, etc. paint fathers to be at best well meaning fools, and at worst sociopathic ogres. In a thread on this board today I encountered a person who seems to beleive a severely mentally retarded man would make about as good a father as a man of normal intelligence. I think that we've thrown away an important part of the family by neglecting and disrespecting fathers. What do you all think?

Well, just looking at the legal aspects relating to child support and child custody in the U.S. - yes, you are right. I don't think it's fair that the mother always automatically gets custody unless she either doesn't want it or there is some extremely compelling reason to decide otherwise. I also don't think it's fair that a low wage-earner father can have so much child support taken from his check that he can't possibly continue living in the U.S. without taking a 2nd or even 3rd job under the table, leaving him no time to even see his children or be a meaningful part of their lives in any way. Nor is it fair that he can have such a significant amount of his paycheck taken away from him, and yet he can't even claim his children as dependents on his taxes! In the meantime, the mother of his child(ren) can buy a house and live comparatively high on the hog. In many cases, the mother may have even planned the pregnancy without the father even consciously being part of that decision-making process, just so that she could have a child of her own without having to put up with dad being around to interfere with her little set-up, and yet to also be able to collect child support from him for the next 18 or more years (which, of course, she wouldn't get by being honest and upfront and going to a sperm bank). Additionally, by leaving the father in a completely poverty-stricken state, he can't even afford to get a lawyer to take the mother to court to enforce visitation rights (assuming, of course, that he was lucky enough to get such rights in the first place).

Don't get me wrong - parents should do whatever they can reasonably do to support their children without relying on the state to do it. This was a huge problem for a long time, and it's good that they've finally cracked down on true deadbeat dads. But the pendulum has swung way too far in the opposite direction now, and there needs to be some serious changes made to a legal system that is so patently unfair to fathers as to aid and abet the mother in committing the above-mentioned sins.

I agree! Revolution!
That includes letting us women in on the secret that just because men are easily PHYSICALLY aroused, it doesn't necessarily mean they are always MENTALLY aroused. *sigh* I just thought you guys were like machines with only an 'ON' button. Again, my apologies!

I have to go with Tarawere here. Unless your father was Satan himself, villification of him on her part was an example of bad parenting. She might have been a wonderful parent otherwise - but that was a bad move. Any responsible parent would do their best not to villify the other parent in a case where both would still be a part of the child's life. This does not, of course, mean that she was not rational and caring otherwise. All people make mistakes.

Oh, for the love of....

When people break up, they tend not to like each other anymore. It's only natural that this distaste will manifest itself at some point within the eighteen years you spend with your mother. A lot of it depends on how old you are when you your parents split, etc etc.

No one's perfect.

GANG UP ON MELKOR!!!!

(I get to be first in the dog pile ;) )

GANG UP ON MELKOR!!!!

(I get to be first in the dog pile ;) )
It happens a lot. I'm not particularly popular, it seems :eek:

Oh, for the love of....

When people break up, they tend not to like each other anymore. It's only natural that this distaste will manifest itself at some point within the eighteen years you spend with your mother. A lot of it depends on how old you are when you your parents split, etc etc.

No one's perfect.

Well, despite the fact that about half of all marriages in the USA end in divorce, most Americans have ordinary and uneventful relationships with both their parents - vilification or no vilification.

You mention that age is a factor, how so? Are parents more/less likely to vilify the mother or father of a small child?

It seems that movies, TV, etc. paint fathers to be at best well meaning fools, and at worst sociopathic ogres. In a thread on this board today I encountered a person who seems to beleive a severely mentally retarded man would make about as good a father as a man of normal intelligence. I think that we've thrown away an important part of the family by neglecting and disrespecting fathers. What do you all think?
Yup, and I think men are pretty much entirely responsible for the continuation of this problem. Modern, educated women would LOVE to see more good dads out there, but men continue to advance the idea of the charming idiot who needs a woman to match up his socks for him. Just look at sitcoms these days: how many feature an unattractive bumbling man who has an attractive wife who runs the house and cleans up after his misadventures? And just look at the average "manly man," who will brag about his inability to cook, clean, or take care of kids. It's sad.

I actually think fathers are overvalued in traditional eastern culture...

Oh, for the love of....

When people break up, they tend not to like each other anymore. It's only natural that this distaste will manifest itself at some point within the eighteen years you spend with your mother. A lot of it depends on how old you are when you your parents split, etc etc.

No one's perfect.

Of course no one is perfect. Of course, there is a huge difference between villification and an obvious dislike. Believe me, I was well aware that my mother would have been perfectly happy if my father had not been in the picture at all. However, she was careful not to actively disparage him and did everything she could to make sure we kept in touch with him. Having been, herself, the child of divorced mother more concerned with her own feelings than those of her children, she was careful not to do what her mother did.

I actually think fathers are overvalued in traditional eastern culture...

What do you mean by "eastern"? Far eastern or near eastern?

Of course no one is perfect. Of course, there is a huge difference between villification and an obvious dislike. Believe me, I was well aware that my mother would have been perfectly happy if my father had not been in the picture at all. However, she was careful not to actively disparage him and did everything she could to make sure we kept in touch with him. Having been, herself, the child of divorced mother more concerned with her own feelings than those of her children, she was careful not to do what her mother did.

Fine, fine. Maybe "villification" was too strong a word, but it was obvious to me from an early age that there wasn't much love lost between the two. Considering they have nearly polar personalities, I was surprised by age 7 or 8 that they lasted as long as they did.

Personally, I think men need to do a lot more self-examination, and start questioning the gender roles they are being forced into. The feminist movement has done wonders for women, but we can't do it for you. Men have to start questioning why they are working themselves into divorce, why they are working themselves into ill health, and why they are losing touch with their families. We can help, we can be your partners, but we can't make you buck the system.

Forced into? No one should be forced into anything.
Your just a femnazi traditional father hating nut!
Men arent working themselves into ill health either, that only starts when they come home and get badgered to death about utter shit.

Can't say they are undervalued. But they are under appreciated when they are around. Especialy in the ethnic community where it is most bitched about when they leave.

Guys like it or not.. we live in a world in which women come first. Women are protected alot more than Men.. And please dont start bashing at me saying its not true cause its preety obvious. Women normally get the kid over the Father in a divorce. Im with my mother (which i love), but my father is a perfect fatherly figure that loves me just as much, and for some reason im with my mother? To make it even worse, a friend of mines stayed with his mother even though his father tried to win him over in court. The evil whore stabbed him with a screwdriver.. she goes to court and is SET LOOSE. She cant have the kids but blames the father saying that he "hurt her", the truth was that he was only picking up the little sister, and the stupid lady runs over to the car and trips.... And yet the court believes the phycotic and deranged whore.. This of course happens only in Miami if you want to put it that way. These days men cant defend themselves, and its always womens words over men :(

PS. Although fathers are not needed to raise a kid.. neither are mothers. A man can raise a child just as good or even better than a woman, its completly up to the person

Guys like it or not.. we live in a world in which women come first. Women are protected alot more than Men.. And please dont start bashing at me saying its not true cause its preety obvious.

Well, for most of legal history and well into the modern age women had no protection, no rights to their own children, and were viewed as barely above children themselves (paternal preference). It was only recently that the value of mothers was taken into consideration to any significant degree, and a brief but dramatic correction took place (maternal preference). Presently, the pendulum is swinging toward the middle (joint preference).

A few courts may still hold a bias one way or the other, but generally - unless there is a case of "fault" or something, parents are encouraged and do do what is best for their children under their individual situation (preferably out of court). I.e. a father who works long hours may not be in the better position to have physical custody than the mother who works part time (especially if she was formerly a stay-at-home mom). Speaking of which...

Those who do LIVE in gender role circumstances may find that those roles do bias in favor of the mother having custody, particularly when she is the one with the children most of the time.

Women normally get the kid over the Father in a divorce. Im with my mother (which i love), but my father is a perfect fatherly figure that loves me just as much, and for some reason im with my mother?

It is a wonderful sign of the times that fathers are more interested in being nurturers to their children than men have ever been before. It really is a first. In the past, when custody was routinely awarded to fathers, the children were still under the care of a mother - their stepmother ( :rolleyes: ). Today's attitude - a genuine desire to raise their children - may reflect a slight feminization (in a positive way) of men, as they live in a society now in which it is okay to be more than the big macho man bringing home bacon, it is okay to be cuddly and affectionate.

It is a wonderful sign of the times that fathers are more interested in being nurturers to their children than men have ever been before.

By what information are you so accurately able to determine that fathers of past generations cared less for their children than fathers of today?

By what information are you so accurately able to determine that fathers of past generations cared less for their children than fathers of today?

That isn't what was said at all. Perhaps you should be careful to read the quotes you are replying to?

[QUOTE=Tarawere]
It is a wonderful sign of the times that fathers are more interested in being nurturers to their children than men have ever been before. It really is a first.

How the fuck would you know that??

okay to be more than the big macho man bringing home bacon, it is okay to be cuddly and affectionate.

Oh yeah, how patronising of you to view a guy slogging his guts out as 'big and macho' :rolleyes: Get a reality check sister, his family would have starved back then if he hadnt.
On a side note why cant he be 'big and macho' and cuddley and affectionate too"?
Do you view men in a limited sense of being warm, cuddley teddy bears that dont scare you? Thats like a five years girls attitude towards her toy.

That isn't what was said at all. Perhaps you should be careful to read the quotes you are replying to?

Its exactly what was said.

How the fuck would you know that??


Based upon what I have read, fathers were historically not the "nurturers" of their children. This is not to say that they "cared less" (I didn't say that B0zzy), but that they were simply not the ones raising them. If you know of a society in which traditional gender roles were reversed, fill me in.


Oh yeah, how patronising of you to view a guy slogging his guts out as 'big and macho' :rolleyes: Get a reality check sister, his family would have starved back then if he hadnt.

Did I say the behavior was unjustified? I only stated that it is wonderful that men are now able to be more than just that.

On a side note why cant he be 'big and macho' and cuddley and affectionate too"?

They increasingly are, which is wonderful... as I said above.

Do you view men in a limited sense of being warm, cuddley teddy bears that dont scare you? Thats like a five years girls attitude towards her toy.

Actually, over-feminization is no good either.

[QUOTE=Tarawere]Based upon what I have read, fathers were historically not the "nurturers" of their children. This is not to say that they "cared less" (I didn't say that B0zzy), but that they were simply not the ones raising them. If you know of a society in which traditional gender roles were reversed, fill me in.

I dont, mainly because women were too valuble to be placed in danger.
Thats what were for. It doesnt really matter if in history that half the tribes men over time, get slaughtered defending against wild beasts, or other men. But it would be a catastrophey for the society, if half of its women were to go like this.
Men care for kids just as much as women, and they dont need to be feminised in any social engineering by feminists to prove that.
Indeed a mans primal role of protecter(puts on waterproof suit for the hissing feminists) may be the only true guidelines for him to truly show this affection unhampered.

Did I say the behavior was unjustified? I only stated that it is wonderful that men are now able to be more than just that.

They dont need to be, giving a child two role models that are weighed to heavily in female values, will cause the child to grow up without any masculine values, that are just as necessary as feminine ones.



They increasingly are, which is wonderful... as I said above.

Im sure men could be just as warm and cuddly with women centurys ago as they are now, and they were probably in general, better at it.



Actually, over-feminization is no good either.

To put it mildly, yeah. Its not good for anyone.
Sorry if I was too brusque in my last post.

That isn't what was said at all. Perhaps you should be careful to read the quotes you are replying to?

It is a wonderful sign of the times that fathers are more interested in being nurturers to their children than men have ever been before. It really is a first.

Perhapse you should be more thoughtful about your generalizations beore you post them.

You have still not really defined 'nurturing' vs 'caring for' a child, nor demostrated what draws you to your conclusion other than 'read about it somewhere'. Not exactly a convincing argument to establish your conclusion.

Meanwhile, I can provide ancedotal evidence, such as the book 'Roomates' or Atticus Finch in "To kill a Mockingbird" or Charles Ingalls in Laura Ingalls Wilder's "Little House" Books.

"When a father gives to his son, both laugh; when a son gives to his father, both cry."
William Shakespeare

"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years. "
Mark Twain

"How pleasant it is for a father to sit at his child's board. It is like an aged man reclining under the shadow of an oak which he has planted. "
Voltaire

It would seem to me you need to broaden your horizons and spend some more time reading.

You have still not really defined 'nurturing' vs 'caring for' a child, nor demostrated what draws you to your conclusion other than 'read about it somewhere'. Not exactly a convincing argument to establish your conclusion.

Well, fathers 'cared for' their children by providing for them, going off to perform ordinary work which required long hours away from home, and protecting them. Mothers 'cared for' their children by nurturing them, raising them from home until they were mature enough to go out on their own. And both 'cared for' their children by offering guidance, being role models, etc. I draw my conclusion from the traditional gender roles of men and women that have been acted out in the world for centuries. Rather than argue over whether these roles existed, since most of us agree that they did (just scroll back several pages), what we should consider further is why they existed and whether they are still desirable or necessary.

While some men are breaking out of these roles (or distancing themselves from them), there are some women who are breaking back in. “In the 1990s, the stay-at-home mom decision gained a new respect, and importantly, it did so in the mainstream. ...Surveys show that young women, many daughters of women who worked full-time, take more of an interest in raising children full-time than did their counterparts of the previous two decades. In a 1995 poll, more women were likely to want to stay at home and care for their families than to work outside the home...". Paul, Pamela. The Starter Marriage and the Future of Matrimony, Random House. p.71. (2003)

Also, I don't count the 'classics' as sources, but studies or research works such as Bjorklund's Child Development and Evolutionary Psychology, Child Development. 2002 Nov/Dec; 71(6): 678-1708. (2002) or Rossie's Gender and Parenthood, 49 A.M. Soc. Rev. 1. (1984). And, of course, I could quote numerous court cases from the "maternal preference" era to counter your quotes, as well as quotes from the "paternal preference" era to counter my own. But, it would be a waste of time, since there is no question that parents 'care for' their children. The manners in which that care was expressed are at issue, as well as the "roles" which came to frame those manners and the validity of their consideration in child custody decisions.

I don't think TV is the problem. However the american court system is still far & away biased towards women.

My ex-wife left me in 2000. We have 2 children. As active a caring parents we both wanted to have equal time with our children. We agreed together on a Joint legal custody & joint legal care.
We did not get separate lawyers or anything
The judge was willing to approve my ex's custody whishes just by asking for them.
As the father I had to prove to the judge that I was not a neglectful father looking for a free way out.

Never mind the fact that my ex left our marriage to be with someone else.
Never mind the fact that she was on medication for mental health problems
Never mind the fact that she never held a steady job for any length of time during our marriage.

Fortunately for me I have a squeaky clean record & plenty of people to vouche for me as being a good father.

This is the resistance fathers come up against in the american courts. We are second class parents to them.

Mothers are not alway better parents & don't alway bond better with their children. Ask mine if you need an example.

when will the bias stop & the courts start looking at this on a person by person basis.

Perhapse you should be more thoughtful about your generalizations beore you post them.

Perhaps you shouldn't quote me on something I didn't post. Kindly change it.

Perhaps you shouldn't quote me on something I didn't post. Kindly change it.
Done, sorry. Correctly shows Tarawere now.

Well, fathers 'cared for' their children by providing for them, going off to perform ordinary work which required long hours away from home, and protecting them. Mothers 'cared for' their children by nurturing them, raising them from home until they were mature enough to go out on their own.
Here you establish male parenting by absenteeism...

And both 'cared for' their children by offering guidance, being role models, etc.
And here you contradict that.

I think it is safe to say that women spent MORE time with the children, particularly prior to the teen years, but it would be inaccurate to suggest that men were not interested in nurturing their children. Once a male was old enough to lift a shovel or throw a spear they then went off with dad while the females still spent more time with the mother. The father still played an active role in the raising of daughters, but gender roles were passed by those of the same gender.

I draw my conclusion from the traditional gender roles of men and women that have been acted out in the world for centuries. Rather than argue over whether these roles existed, since most of us agree that they did (just scroll back several pages), what we should consider further is why they existed and whether they are still desirable or necessary.

A valid discussion could be had regarding this. Gender roles are generally a natural, logical and healthy product of human existance. The debate as far as I am concerned is to what extent gender roles exist and what are it's limits.

While some men are breaking out of these roles (or distancing themselves from them), there are some women who are breaking back in. “In the 1990s, the stay-at-home mom decision gained a new respect, and importantly, it did so in the mainstream. ...Surveys show that young women, many daughters of women who worked full-time, take more of an interest in raising children full-time than did their counterparts of the previous two decades. In a 1995 poll, more women were likely to want to stay at home and care for their families than to work outside the home...". Paul, Pamela. The Starter Marriage and the Future of Matrimony, Random House. p.71. (2003)

This is an interesting trend of which I am aware. I think it may be partly due to the death of 'superwoman' - you know 'bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan'. Moew women now realize that they need to set priorities rather than spread themselves too thin. Many are optiong, quite heroically, for family first - going against the political juggernaught (which is N.O.W.) which tells them that is a sign of weakness rather than a badge of honor.


Also, I don't count the 'classics' as sources, but studies or research works such as Bjorklund's Child Development and Evolutionary Psychology, Child Development. 2002 Nov/Dec; 71(6): 678-1708. (2002) or Rossie's Gender and Parenthood, 49 A.M. Soc. Rev. 1. (1984). And, of course, I could quote numerous court cases from the "maternal preference" era to counter your quotes, as well as quotes from the "paternal preference" era to counter my own. But, it would be a waste of time, since there is no question that parents 'care for' their children. The manners in which that care was expressed are at issue, as well as the "roles" which came to frame those manners and the validity of their consideration in child custody decisions.

So from this, I take it you are backing off from you assertion that fathers today are more interested in nurturing than in the past.

Here you establish male parenting by absenteeism...

And here you contradict that.

Can a father not be a role model by being at work on time every morning and bringing in enough money to take care of everyone?

Or, in a more rural setting, can a father not be a role model by getting all the work in the fields done and managing that work?

In neither of these, does the father need to directly be nurturing to the child. In many cases, the father was the disciplinarian and the worker role model much more than a nurturer.

Of course, I think you two are using the term very differently. Nurturing would be things like cuddling, telling stories, talking about emotions, etc. - traditionally female roles. A lack of nurturing has never precluded caring - but in a different way - which is exactly what Tramawere is saying.

I think it is safe to say that women spent MORE time with the children, particularly prior to the teen years, but it would be inaccurate to suggest that men were not interested in nurturing their children. Once a male was old enough to lift a shovel or throw a spear they then went off with dad while the females still spent more time with the mother. The father still played an active role in the raising of daughters, but gender roles were passed by those of the same gender.

Here the difference in word usage is clear. Most would not consider shoveling, plowing, or hunting with dad to be nurturing. It is a way of learning those skills, but isn't exactly nurturing. In fact, fathers were most likely very stern and disciplinarian in these roles.

when will the bias stop & the courts start looking at this on a person by person basis.

When we weed the femnazis out.

I'd just like to state something very very clearly...

F*CK traditional roles

they are a whole load of titty-bollocks

Yes, you probably would. Child support is what I like to call 'feel good legislation.' It gives the government a sense of accomplishment in thinking 'oh, we're helping all these kids,' without bothering to examine the circumstances specific to any given situation. I have a problem with a father with no/little custordy rights having to pay $400 a month for a child he never gets to see.

Although you have more credibility than most, you know full well that your personal experience cannot be verified.

We have no way of knowing all of the circumstances involved.

What I do know is that your premises are wrong.

Child support is not a matter of blanket laws requiring X amount to be paid regardless of circumstances.

To the contrary, child support amounts are very individualized. Set as part of divorce proceedings or settlements. Either your father agreed to a certain amount or it was ordered by the court based on facts presented by both sides. If circumstances change, child support orders can be modified.

Also, the view of child support as a dispute between the ex-spouses is an unfortunate myth. Child support is the right of the child to support from its parents. For obvious reasons, the primary caregiver the one the actually receives the money.

Visitation rights are a separate matter and have nothing to do with child support.

What is your alternative to the "feel good" legislation? No child support. Parents can simply walk away from their children? No obligations?

Mixing together anecdotes, emotional hot-buttons, and common misunderstandings are par for the course on this issue.

I'd just like to state something very very clearly...
F*CK traditional roles
they are a whole load of titty-bollocks

Shows how much you know. :rolleyes:

If you put a gun to my head and asked me to devise a solution to this problem while standing on one foot, I'd probably come up with some sort of system wherein the father could--before the birth--renounce his responibilities both to pay for and see the child. He would receive no custody rights, he would have no obligation to pay for them, and he probably shouldn't get to spend any time with them either.

Yes, it's unfair to the mother, but no more unfair than, say, making me pay child support for nineteen years if for no better reason than some vindictive bitch wanted to saddle me with such a burden. You shouldn't be able to have it both ways; women can. People are spiteful animals: I'm sure there have been several instances where the primary deciding factor in having a child was to stick it to the father.

See, where these little his rights/her rights battles go astray is they ignore the rights of the child once it is born.

Child support isn't something the mother (aka "vindictive bith") gets to "saddle" the man with out of spite.

Child support is a duty owed by both parents to the child. The custodial parent, of course, supports the child directly. The non-custodial parent may have to pay money.

So, your solution of allowing a father to walk away from his responsibilities screws the child, not the mother.

Regardless, you plan is inequitable. Beyond the physical, emotional, and economic costs and risks of pregnancy and childbirth (which are very signficant), a woman that chooses to have a child owes that child a duty of support -- unless she puts it up for adoption. The father owes only the duty of support. Thus, she pays the greater price for her choice.

Same, if the woman chooses to have an abortion. The man is then relieved of all obligation. The woman undergoes the physical, emotional, and economic costs and risks of the abortion. Again, she pays the greater price.

In both cases, one can say the greater price paid by the woman is the simple consequence of her being the one that gets pregnant. A biological imperative. Fair enough. She has rights to her own body and with those rights come certain responsibilities or costs.

But you want to tip the scales. You wish to give the man an extra right to walk away from his duties to a child. What right does the child gain? What responsibility does the man adopt to balance this right?

Perhapse you should be more thoughtful about your generalizations beore you post them.

You have still not really defined 'nurturing' vs 'caring for' a child, nor demostrated what draws you to your conclusion other than 'read about it somewhere'. Not exactly a convincing argument to establish your conclusion.

Meanwhile, I can provide ancedotal evidence, *snip*

It would seem to me you need to broaden your horizons and spend some more time reading.

Fiction is not anecdotal evidence.

Nor is anecdotal evidence particularly persuasive.

If you are going to pontificate, perhaps you need to broaden your horizons and spend some time reading about reality.

When we weed the femnazis out.

Cute.

Anyone who talks about "weed[ing] out" other humans and/or uses the term "feminazi" is beneath contempt.

Cute.

Anyone who talks about "weed[ing] out" other humans and/or uses the term "feminazi" is beneath contempt.

I usually dont put human and femnazi in the same sentence if I can help it.

Pulls cattribe across the table by the tail, and bites noisily into haunch.

Fiction is not anecdotal evidence.

Nor is anecdotal evidence particularly persuasive.

If you are going to pontificate, perhaps you need to broaden your horizons and spend some time reading about reality.

Sure, just as soon as you provide a link to any sociological or psycological study of the role of fatherhood conducted during the 15th century.

Dumbass, quit trying so hard, any idiot knows that anthropologists consider fictional writing an acceptable source when studying a past societies values. I suppose that makes you an exceptional idiot if you do not know that.

Sure, just as soon as you provide a link to any sociological or psycological study of the role of fatherhood conducted during the 15th century.

Dumbass, quit trying so hard, any idiot knows that anthropologists consider fictional writing an acceptable source when studying a past societies values. I suppose that makes you an exceptional idiot if you do not know that.Personal attacks against other players are not allowed on NationStates. Any more personal attacks from you against anyone and you will be officially warned for flaming. I trust that I am clear.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Child support is not a matter of blanket laws requiring X amount to be paid regardless of circumstances.

To the contrary, child support amounts are very individualized. Set as part of divorce proceedings or settlements. Either your father agreed to a certain amount or it was ordered by the court based on facts presented by both sides. If circumstances change, child support orders can be modified.

Except, of course, for the minimum amounts determined by some courts regardless of whether they are needed or wanted. My mother specifically stated in the divorce papers (which she and her lawyer drew up - as my father refused to be a part of the proceedings) that she did not want or need any child support at all. She also knew he would be unlikely to be able to pay it even if she did ask for it. The judge in the case stated that, by GA law, $400/child is absolutely mandated - circumstances aside.

Meanwhile, I can provide ancedotal evidence, *snip*

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8996306&postcount=62

2) Ancedotal evidence is never valid and therefore your point is null. I once new a guy who only used ancedotal evidence. you know where he is now? Dead. That's where. (tribute to Freaks and Geeks)

You were saying?

I think fathers are undervalued in modern western culture, but I believe that a culture of sexual irresponsibility underlies it.

Biologically, it is easier for a man to have a child and then avoid responsibility for that child. It is difficult for a woman to conceal a pregnancy, and to conceal a birth. Once a child is concieved, a man has nine months to possibly escape the responsibility. We live in a culture where men can donate sperm anonymously, and where paternity tests are often necessary to determine fatherhood. Of course, most men enter fatherhood responsibly, but there are a selfish few who are happy to avoid the consequences of their penile infractions. The law protects them while it seeks to protect innocent men from wrongful allegations of impregnation.

Instead of questioning the media's role in the value of fathers, we should really be confronting our politics and culture, where the responsibility for a child has become a punishment to be escaped rather than a gift to be cherished. Only then will the media's depiction of fathers as useless, lazy and stupid be changed.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8996306&postcount=62

You were saying?

You are right, Sparky. Ancedotal evidence was the incorrect term to use. My references were literary in substance, so a more accurate description would have been "Literary examples of paternal values."

You are correct to point out that literature and anthropology are not mutually exclusive;

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_fullinfobk.php/isbn=0415287146
"...that the disciplines of literature and anthropology are not static entities but instead fluid sites of shifting cultural currents and academic interests. The essays conclude that the origins, sources, and intersections of the two disciplines are constantly being revised, and reconceived, leading to new possibilities of understanding texts."


Also, I don't mind you snipping my "Freaks and Geeks" quote, (in fact I enjoyed laughing at it again) but if you are going to use a quote from this thread, particularly one from a few pages back, please quote in it's entirety or at least with a link to the quote (as you did w the "Freaks and Geeks" quote) The context of my message is changed as you have it displayed.

Thanks

Boodicka;

I agree with you that there are far too many men who will not assume the mantle of responsibility, but you quite easily dismissed the fact that 'it takes two to tango'.

Birth control is most often left to the woman. It may not be fair, but considering the vast number of alternatives a woman has compared to a man (one) that balances it out a bit. Of course, none is 100% effective.

Then we fall to the decision of a woman to engage in intercourse with an irresponsible partner. Considering, as you say, the responsibility for her is greater and more difficult to avoid, then your same argument could be used about her responsibility in selecting sexual partners.

Of course, people change and bad things happen. So there are still far too many occasions where a responsible woman gets screwed. Um, hozed. Um, well, you know what I mean. In that case the law and courts are GROSSLY in her favor.

You stated...

most men enter fatherhood responsibly, but there are a selfish few who are happy to avoid the consequences of their penile infractions. The law protects them while it seeks to protect innocent men from wrongful allegations of impregnation.

This is not my experience or the experience of most who have posted here. Maybe you have some evidence or a link to back it up?


Meanwhile there is a mountain of evidence to refute your presumption;

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0601zizza.html


http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0601roberts.html
"If men had equal rights, what would that look like? Here are just a few examples, for starters.

First, our society will begin to value and respect fatherhood -- and I'm not talking about a Wal-Mart tie on Father's Day. We will realize that solving many of our most vexing social problems - delinquency, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and others -- will require recognition of the essential role of fathers in promoting safe and stable families. And in case of divorce, a fit father shouldn't have to fight a biased legal system so he can stay involved in the lives of his kids.

Second, men will have equal say in matters of reproduction. Currently men are at the mercy of their partners because there is no effective male birth control pill, and because men have no say in decisions about keeping their unborn children.

Third, we will promote equality in health. Currently men die five years sooner than women, and that's not because of biology. Despite that disparity in life expectancy, the federal government has five offices of women's health -- but no office for men's health."

And here;
http://www.warrenfarrell.com This site does not let me directly link the articles, sorry. I have to include all the text.

When I do expert witness work, I confront from most judges three biases that I myself was also surprised to see proven invalid when I did the research for Father and Child Reunion. The first bias is the stability bias; the second is the mother bias; and the third is the 'If-the-couple-is-in-conflict-joint-custody-will-not-work' bias. All of these biases apply to post-divorce parenting.

The Stability Bias. Judges understandably reason that amid the instability of divorce, children are best stabilized by staying in the home they are accustomed to with the parent who has been the primary parent. I call this "geographical stability". The research shows that geographical stability does not create psychological stability. For children of divorce, geographical stability is "one parent stability"; this article explains why "one parent stability" is psychologically destabilizing. For exampleŠ

Studies show that after divorce the children who do best psychologically have about an equal amount of exposure to both mom and dad-especially if both parents live near each other, and there is no bad-mouthing. The psychological stability of two-parents equally involved leads to the children also doing better academically and socially, and being healthier physically.

Why does two parent stability trump geographical stability? No one can be 100% sure, but a blend of research and observation offer clues. Three quick assertions in quasi-headline form to be developed in the article...

First, the job of a child growing up is to discover whom it is. Who is it? It is half mom and half dad. It is not the better parent. It is both parents. Warts and all. So we are not talking here about fathers' rights, mothers' rights or even the child's right to both parents. We are talking about a new paradigm: the child's right to both halves of itself.

Second, children with minimal exposure to one parent seem to feel abandoned, often psychologically rudderless.

Third, dads and moms, like Republicans and Democrats, provide checks and balances. Moms tend to overstress protection; dads may overstress risk-taking-there has to be a balance of power for the child to absorb a balance of both parents' values. One parent dominating tends to leave the child with a stereotyped and biased perspective of the values of the minority parent, and ultimately a lack of appreciation for that part of itself.

The Mother Bias. Most judges do believe children do best with both parents, but if they must live with one, mom is given the edge. In fact, the new research very clearly shows that children brought up by dad are more likely to do better psychologically, physically, academically and socially than those brought up by mom.

I will explain not only some of the twenty-five measures that create this counterintuitive conclusion, but also what dads do unconsciously that so often works to the benefit of the child. At the same time, I will also explain why it would be erroneous to conclude that men make better dads than women do moms (e.g., dads usually have more income).

The "If-the-couple-is-in-conflict-joint-custody-will-not-work" Bias. Conflict-- especially bad-mouthing-- hurts all parenting arrangements. The more the conflict, though, the more important it is for the child to see both parents about equally, because conflict leaves the child vulnerable to feeling that the parent it does not see has abandoned it-- does not love her or him. The less the child sees a parent the easier it is form a negative and caricatured stereotype of the unseen parent that leads to the child feeling negative about that half of her or himself.

Finally, a system that says, "If the couple can't get along in court how are they going to get along enough to share the children?" creates an incentive for the mom to initiate conflict. Why the mom? The Mom Bias teaches mom that if she can erase the joint custody option, she is more likely than dad to be given custody of the children. This awareness creates an incentive for a mom who wants full custody to not co-operate with the dad.

The three biases in combination lead to many options after divorce not being considered. This article will explore some of those options.

My experience thus far is that virtually all judges are focused on doing what is best for the children, as are most moms and dads; that the above responses to these biases address the issues that prevent judges from giving more priority to securing both parents' equal involvement; that once judges know this, their rulings are much more likely to incorporate this prioritization.