Feminism

[magekillr]

Discipline and strong family pressure for education even amongst less fortunate, suburban families can go a long way for many people

 

 

 

I can't disagree with you here. However, Asian culture dictates this and values learning above anything else, which would probably explain why these discrepancies are there (I can't say for sure, this is just my own hypothesis). To them, the "nerds" are cool instead of the football players (so my buddy in Korea tells me).

 

 

 

Here's a few:

 

 

 

Planned Parenthood worldwide

 

Development Gateway

 

Feminist Majority

 

 

 

That's all I got off of the top of my head.

[Collective]

It seems we do have some wires crossed, so I'll go again.

 

 

 

Why does the male role model have to be restricted to the biological father through visitation?

 

It doesn't have to be restricted to them, but I do believe that the biological father should be involved when possible and when there is no threat of harm (psychological or physical) to the children or those around them. A few points on the differences in the influence of father figures vs biological fathers are made in the paper I linked above, though it ultimately concludes that there is a need for further studies.

 

 

 

I generally try to avoid anecdotal evidence, but really most of my thoughts/feelings on the issue come from my own experience and those of teenagers I've been (and, I suppose it's now fair to say, worked) around. I have seen many lives suffer greatly for the lack of a biological father being present, whether it's because they passed away, walked out, were denied access or even never present. In these extreme cases I've seen 'surrogate fathers' get summarily rejected and young people involved suffer from feelings of rejection, anger and even guilt that cannot be placated simply by the presence of another male figure. These are not cases where it would be fair to say that the lack of a biological father is merely a complicating factor - there are serious psychological issues that can arise surrounding fatherly abandonment.

 

 

 

In your post above you posited that "the reason there is a discrepancy for the seeming loss of "father figures" is not because they are a father figure, but because it's very difficult to juggle the various aspects of parenting and a job with just one person." I'm not sure if you've withdrawn that statement or not, but I'd like to reiterate that the evidence from the paper I linked speaks otherwise, regardless of my own experiences. It was, I maintain, an incredibly naive statement.

 

 

 

Another point I was trying to make is that there have been, and continue to be, cases where fathers are denied access unjustly (either by the courts or by the mothers). In the UK this has resulted in the formation of Families Need Fathers and the somewhat more vocal Fathers4Justice. In cases of mothers denying access there is frequently no punishment as judges fear the effect it could have on whatever stability the children still have.

[magekillr]

It doesn't have to be restricted to them, but I do believe that the biological father should be involved when possible and when there is no threat of harm (psychological or physical) to the children or those around them. A few points on the differences in the influence of father figures vs biological fathers are made in the paper I linked above, though it ultimately concludes that there is a need for further studies.

 

 

 

This is fair, and I can accept that.

 

 

 

I generally try to avoid anecdotal evidence, but really most of my thoughts/feelings on the issue come from my own experience and those of teenagers I've been (and, I suppose it's now fair to say, worked) around. I have seen many lives suffer greatly for the lack of a biological father being present, whether it's because they passed away, walked out, were denied access or even never present. In these extreme cases I've seen 'surrogate fathers' get summarily rejected and the young people involved suffer from feelings of rejection that cannot be placated simply by the presence of another male figure.

 

 

 

 

Again, I suppose this is a fair point, but I'll wait for further studies to be conducted. With respect to my own experiences and anecdotal evidence, part of me was slightly passive aggressive towards my mother when I found out my bio-father wasn't allowed to visit. I didn't even know the guy raising me wasn't my own father until I was like 12. Still, I understood why he wasn't allowed to do so, but I do think my mom was far too protective. I met him when I was 18, and I think he's a really sweet man that just happened to be an immature person when I was younger, that just couldn't quite get his life together.

 

 

 

In your post above you posited that "the reason there is a discrepancy for the seeming loss of "father figures" is not because they are a father figure, but because it's very difficult to juggle the various aspects of parenting and a job with just one person." I'm not sure if you've withdrawn that statement or not, but I'd like to reiterate that the evidence from the paper I linked speaks otherwise, regardless of my own experiences. It was an incredibly naive statement.

 

 

 

I retract in that I misunderstood your point. I thought that with 'father-figure' you were immediately referring to biological father/male-gender. Basically in that "Oh, single parents/gays can't possibly raise children correctly because they need a man in their life" is how I originally took the statement. I think two lesbians can accomplish that by adopting both those roles (and as such many do in general with one person sort of being the "male" in the relationship, and by that I do not mean "butch"). Besides, most of them can involve other male family members and acquaintances. In short: I agree with the study when it comes to this.

 

 

 

I'm sorry for misinterpreting what you had said.

 

 

 

Another point I was trying to make is that there have been, and continue to be, cases where fathers are denied access unjustly (either by the courts or by the mothers). In the UK this has resulted in the formation of Families Need Fathers and the somewhat more vocal Fathers4Justice. In cases of mothers denying access there is frequently no punishment as judges fear the effect it could have on whatever stability the children still have.

 

 

 

This is fair I guess and I'm sure it happens, but I'm not so sure that it is as extensive as you're trying to make it out to be. I remember certain statistics that supported unfitness as the main cause of disqualifying a parent of custody. If I find that study, I'll post it here. Unfitness being the lacking certain resources, like a vehicle, driver's license, stable job, secure shelter, which would result in his or her unfitness to attain shared custody. Unfitness could also include gambling, drugs, drinking, promiscuity, etc.

 

 

 

Anyway, sorry for the misinterpretations/misrepresentations of what you were trying to say.

[IGoddessI]

Thanks Sly, good read.

 

 

 

Btw medical/psychological journals referring to life without a father:

 

 

 

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/conten ... o=ED416035

 

 

 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... 1&SRETRY=0

 

 

 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... 7/abstract

 

 

 

http://canadiancrc.com/PDFs/American_Ps ... lver99.pdf

 

 

 

http://eric.ed.gov/WebHelp/ApplicationHelp_CSH.htm#47

[saif]

meh. I believe porno is acceptable if you need to do it for a living. + who wouldn't strip down for $1000 an hour?

[mmmcannibalism]

meh. I believe porno is acceptable if you need to do it for a living. + who wouldn't strip down for $1000 an hour?

 

 

 

because I have to go there

 

 

 

the pope

[Kiriyama]

meh. I believe porno is acceptable if you need to do it for a living. + who wouldn't strip down for $1000 an hour?

 

 

 

Feminists.

 

 

 

Duh.

[Sly_Wizard]

Way to address my concern.

 

 

 

There was nothing to address, as you proceeded to put words into my mouth to suit whatever argument you were trying to make.

 

 

 

When you are subjected to the stresses on both the body and mind that a pregnancy brings, then you can have "equal rights" when it comes to deciding what to do with your OWN body. If somehow pregnancies were dealt with in a neutral caregiver that both the male and female had no part of, then your argument would be legit.

 

 

 

Yes, Dubay v. Wells is one of the most frequently cited cases by Men's rights activists. They think that a woman should either not have the right to abort if the father must pay child support or if she has the right to abort, then the father must have the right to abandon duty of care for the born child.

 

 

 

Its a piss-poor reasoning given the woman has no right to be free of duty of care to a born child. Even with adoption, if there is an active male parent involved---she has to get his consent. Otherwise she cannot adopt out. If he becomes the custodial parent of that child, she would be the one paying child support.

 

 

 

There is no right to be free of parental responsibility; this is what Dubay was going for.

 

 

 

For more reading:

 

 

 

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20071127.html

 

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20060322.html

 

 

 

You totally and completely missed the point. We're not talking about after the child is born, but before, where a woman is under no obligation to continue her pregnancy. Oh, and I'm not disputing the fact that no one has the right to abandon a child after it's born. Rather, we were talking about before the child is born, right after sex, where a man has no say so in anything whatsoever as it pertains to him or his unborn child and where the woman is under no obligation to continue her pregnancy. If he wants the kid and she doesn't, he's SOL-- No amount of pleading is going to save his kid. If doesn't want the kid and she does, he's going to be coughing up child support. By attempting to shift the focus of the argument, you're ignoring the extreme double-standard being perpetuated here. I mean, you keep saying there is no right to be free of parental responsibility, then I must ask you to explain to me what an abortion attempts to achieve?

 

 

 

...And I just have to add this in, but a fetus does not constitute a woman's body. No, it really doesn't.

 

 

 

Not at all. However, women ARE still not treated as well. Women still make up the vast majority of sexual abuse/assault cases. Women are still the vast majority of victims of domestic abuse. Male partners/relatives still make up for the largest chunk of perpetrators in the murders of pregnant women. Women still face much more sexual and pay discrimination than men overall do.

 

 

 

Murder, robbery, etc ARE all reported on a much higher rate than rape is. Rape is THE MOST underreported crime in the world, next only to domestic abuse. Not to mention that the conviction/prosecution rates are higher for other crimes than sexual assault/rape.

 

 

 

Okay, and? Once again, no one denied that women are the victims of rape or domestic assault. Of course, there are woman's groups who vehemently deny the opposite to be true.

 

 

 

and for one final edit, just for Sly as to why his claim was myth...

 

 

 

Less than 15-16% of women are non-custodial parents and within this 16% or so, about less than half are ordered to pay child support. So even if this entirety of 8% fails to pay (I believe the non-payment rate is around 40% of this number)---it's very tiny compared to the 46% fathers or so who pay nothing to very tiny fractions of the child support.

 

 

 

But I suppose it's easier for the MRAs to claim that a greater percent of women fail to pay the child support than men, and therefore child support is somehow biased against men.

 

 

 

You don't know what percentages are, do you? A greater percentage of men ordered to pay child support pay up than do women ordered to pay child support. Of course, there are more men (Raw numbers) who owe child support, but of the men who owe child support more pay up than do women.

 

 

 

...Didn't you read the link I posted? :P