Sex, Equality, And Kidding Ourselves (Should Men put their foot down and say enough is enough??)

FredonEverything.com ^ | 4/17/02 | Fred Reed

[jimt]

And I'd further hazard a guess that they had very bad experiences with men and are toweringly insecure in any relationships with them - the prime mover of their misogynistic hostility.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"The key word here is "anecdotally". There is a bias in your statistics that the men who are single fathers are to a greater degree single fathers by choice rather than circumstance, therefore they are more motivated to be good parents.

I didn't try to pass the anecdotes off as "data" - just launching points. Further, another woman in the thread where those statistics originate challenged them in the same way, calling the single fathers "self selecting." I suspect this is right out of some feminist tract of "talking points" as a defense of single motherhood. But with the availability of artificial insemination, birth control, abortion, and the societal tactical nuke we call "divorce" - I'd have to say that women and men are equally "self-selecting" as single parents. To say otherwise is to continue on mutually exclusive paths of "choice" and "victim" - something that ideological feminists do quite comfortably.

[jimt]

The facts are that roughly 85% of the incarcerated and 80% of pregnant teen girls were raised by single mothers, who make up roughly 80% of single parents. Less than 1% of those groups were raised by single fathers, who make up 15% of single parents. At the very least, these numbers indicate that an involved father is as or more important than an involved support payment.

It's a pathetic myth that the men who've storm enemy lines, dug canals through jungles, and fired themselves off into space in tin cans are incapable of rearing children alone. At the risk of sounding like I'm trying to restart the gender pissing contest - single parenting may be a sub-optimal arrangement, but when men do it, they're generally more successful at it than women.

A comment worth repeating.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"But with the availability of artificial insemination, birth control, abortion, and the societal tactical nuke we call "divorce" - I'd have to say that women and men are equally "self-selecting" as single parents."

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that, based on the availability and very heavy use of the afforementioned options, women are actually more "self-selecting" as single parents than are men.

[Harrison Bergeron]

And please explain how "self-selection" invalidates parental success and how "victimhood" mitigates parental failure? Only a doctrinaire liberal would hold those positions.

[Lorianne]

"But with the availability of artificial insemination, birth control, abortion, and the societal tactical nuke we call "divorce" - I'd have to say that women and men are equally "self-selecting" as single parents."

Thats a good point, but it still doesn't account for the default bias of babies and children going to moms and not the dads. A lot of women can't abort for one reason or another, religious, ethical, or just feel it is wrong. (There are twice as many abortion referrals than actual abortion, lot's of women back out, a fact the abortion industry doesn't want widely known).

Therefore, these "single-women" as a result of refusing to abort are still more likely than the father to end up as the sole custody parent than is the father. We're in a bind (those of us who are pro-Life) in demonizing "single-mothers" because one of the alternatives is abortion. We are in a "best option from a group of poor options" predicament. Since I believe most parents, even poor ones, want to do right by their kids, and are not out to intentionally hurt them, I don't think we have "probable cause" to take children from their parents.

If we demonize single parenthood enough, it may make people conceive more responsibly, or it may not and instead increase the abortion rate. This recently happened under "family caps" legislation. Unintended consequence? Maybe not so unintended if you ask me. (I don't know about you but I'm not comfortable with us solving social problems by violence against the unborn).

I do agree that there are more divorces than there needs to be and that there are probably way too many divorces for rather trivial reasons. I'd like to see that change. But why should it in a society hell-bent on personal gratification above all else? If you look at our culture carefully all these are inter-related. The cheapness of "life", abortion, and abdication of one's responsibilities to one's kids and to the larger community are like the last puzzle pieces that fit perfectly in a very disfunctional puzzle.

In any case, why not have mandated joint physical custody for all kids regardless if the parents are married, divorced, or never-married? Why do we have to make it a zero sum game where one parent gets custody, or gets stuck with custody and all the obligations? The simplest, cleanest, most logical approach is: Two people create a new person, two people are obligated to care and nurture and support that new person. It's plain, it's simple and there is no ambiguity. A simple concept that even the most dim-witted can understand.

But like I said, I'm willing to try it the other way and see if father's can do a better job. I'd rather shoot for both parents having the obligation, but hey, I'm willing to experiment. Let's give OOW newborns and kids of divorce to the dads' sole custody and see what they can do. How do we get started on this?

[Harrison Bergeron]

"In any case, why not have mandated joint physical custody for all kids regardless if the parents are married, divorced, or never-married? Why do we have to make it a zero sum game where one parent gets custody, or gets stuck with custody and all the obligations?"

I use statistics showing strong parenting skills among single fathers not to perpetuate the gender pissing contest which I've made clear I'm tring to avoid, but to make a case for exactly what you propose. In every one of these FR single parenting debates that I've stoked, the lawyers pack up and go away as soon as I pose the following question: If the courts, legislators, and executive social agencies are so fair, then why don't they advocate and enforce fathers' visitation rights as vigorously as they advocate and enforce support payments. Taking that one simple step would be a show of unprecedented and monumental good will towards men that is probably our last best hope of turning around a situation which literally threatens the survival of Western civilization.

[RLK]

Har!. That sums it up. Some 35 years ago Johnny Carson had singer Wayn Newton on his show for an interview. Carson asked Newton what he thought about miniskirts. Newton's reply was, "They tell me a lot about the woman, but not very much about the lady."

[SpyderTim]

bump

[SpyderTim]

Just a little cross-referencing.

See also this discussion: http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/676561/posts

[SpyderTim]

"Given your age and real lack of knowledge and experience in just about any endeavor life might require for its continued pleasant existence, the following will be of great help to you in your search for evidence:..."

Is this what you are trying to say:

"To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child. For what is the worth of human life, unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history?" -- Cicero

[J.R.R. Tolkien]

Not for one minute do I believe that women jumped ship first. It was men who shirked responsible leadership and women responded with feminazism.

Actually, no. You are incorrect. Try again.

[SpyderTim]

Bump.