# In need of fathers



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Maybe it was the welfare system that paid women to be pregnant and unmarried. In many states in America, a single mother with three children and no husband gets paid as much in welfare as a starting computer programmer or teacher. You usually get what you pay for.

Thereâs a horrible echo here: Slave women were valued for how many children they could breed. Now, under the welfare plantation system, women can create value by having as many children as possible without a husband.

This is serious stuff. The emotional pain that these kids feel is cruel. Their rate of death at an early age is horrifying. They are a rapidly growing fraction of the population. The majority of first graders in America are now nonwhite. Close to half of all first graders have no father at home. We are creating a new generation of largely illiterate, violent, fatherless Americans. If this continues, Americaâs days as a first world nation are numbered.

http://spectator.org/articles/65568/world-without-fathers


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Fatherless Homes Breed Violence

According to Getting Men Involved: The Newsletter of the Bay Area Male Involvement Network, Spring 1997:

Begin quote:

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all Gods Children.)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

http://www.fathermag.com/news/2778-stats.shtml


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

In a famous 1965 report written at the request of President Lyndon Johnson and titled &#8220;The ***** Family: The Case for Action,&#8221; the social scientist (and later Democratic Senator) Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted that the deterioration of the black family, already approaching crisis proportions, would result in skyrocketing crime rates if not addressed. In an America magazine article expanding on his report, Moynihan wrote:
&#8220;From the wild Irish slums of the 19th-century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: a community that allows large numbers of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future&#8212;that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder &#8230; are not only to be expected, they are very near to inevitable.&#8221;

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1631


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Some of those stats you cite are pretty dated. And of course we all know that statistics can lie.

However in general I do agree children benefit from a solid family background. Pretty hard to argue with that. There are exceptions-an abusive parent etc, but in general agree.

I don't see what it matters when you state more than half of first graders aren't white, totally meaningless to me.`

But I guess the question can anything or should anything be done?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

keenataz said:


> Some of those stats you cite are pretty dated. And of course we all know that statistics can lie.
> 
> However in general I do agree children benefit from a solid family background. Pretty hard to argue with that. There are exceptions-an abusive parent etc, but in general agree.
> 
> ...


Not really my stats, I don't own them,

I simply started with the first article and it led me to look some things up.

One thing that could be done. First we need to recognize the problem, not just the symptoms.

Not wanting to turn this into a political subject, but why have my elected leaders not focused on this is a question worth asking. Again, I don't want this thread to be political.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I raised mine alone without the benefit of welfare but it was never my goal and I don't feel that single parent homes are ideal but in my case, it was the only feasible option. 

Something I've quite often seen in kids of single parents is a strong desire to create what they believe is a conventional family either by having children of their own or looking for forever relationships at a very young age. 

They also have a tendency to stay in an unworkable relationship for much longer than someone who was raised in a two parent home because they seem to have a desire to no repeat what they perceive as the mistakes of their parents.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

HDRider said:


> Not really my stats, I don't own them,
> 
> I simply started with the first article and it led me to look some things up.
> 
> ...


I wasn't asking you to defend them or yourself. I would be interested in updated stats, but what you posted is a good discussion point.

Recognizing the problem? I think most realize there are many challenges to being a single parent, but as wr stated it can be done.

I think where real issues can come is when being a single parent is combined with other issues such a poverty, dependence, substance abuse etc. which can can lead to an ongoing cycle.

However there are success stories that come out of these bleak situations and maybe a start is to look at how children that do thrive are able to do that. Is there contributing factors? a mentor? a coach? 

I do tink you and I would agree that to sit back, throw up our hands and say "way it is" will be a losers hand.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

I started to reply several times, but can't really agree that anyone alone would just have additional kids for welfare benefits. Maybe a father is really in the picture, but eliminating him on paper brings in additional dollars?
What can be done to encourage fathers to stick around, or be involved with their children, I have no idea.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

doozie said:


> What can be done to encourage fathers to stick around, or be involved with their children.


I don't know if that is going to solve anything. Perhaps the problem is with the welfare system itself?

The system as it is isn't maintainable. There is going to be pain and suffering at some point. Perhaps we need to go back to how things were dealt with before the government intervened and determined people had to be "helped".

Back in your Grandparent's days (& before), when you fell on hard times you moved in with family or friends - or became a homeless / transient person.

For example, if Sally got knocked up, Sally didn't move into her own house (she couldn't - there was no system to pay for it) - so Sally stayed at home. Once the baby came - Sally wasn't allowed to go out and galevant around - while Sally's parents babysat. Thus, you wouldn't have the second and third child . . . . . . or if she did, I imagine Sally's parents weren't very happy with her and there was no happy home.

If John lost his job and couldn't keep his house or fed his family - John and family moved in - with family, friends, or whoever would take them in. With no government check coming in, there was no other option.

And if John and family moved in with his parents or Grandparents, John was pretty much forced to go and get a job - ANY kind of job. This served two purposes - he contributed to the whole household and B. (Most importantly) if John and family ever wanted to have privacy again and a house of their own - he had to work for it. (He wasn't able to just sit at home and wait for the government check to arrive.)

Did people go hungry and homeless? Yes, some did. 

But for the most part, Sally and John relied on family for support - not the whole entire town . . . . or in today's world - US - as in taxpayers! :grumble:

In today's world, with Sally remaining at home - Sally would be told by her parents (or should be told) to get a job and raise her own kids. Sally would be so busy working and taking care of her child she wouldn't have the time (or the energy) to make another kid.

In today's world, instead of John sitting at home, watching tv and waiting on the monthly check to arrive - he would have to find any kind of work, move in with someone, or become homeless with his whole family.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Long before I made any decisions, I reviewed a lot of those statistics as well as quite a few more and carefully observed other family situations but typically, most single mom's, like myself were very poor, which means long working hours to get by. 

I had it way better than most because I lived very rural with my parents nearby and while I didn't feel it was their job to raise my kids, I was blessed with a fantastic babysitter, whom the kids still call their 'other mom' and my parents contributed a great deal of time with the kids as well.

If a woman doesn't have a great deal of outside support, I can see where they may consider welfare as an option because it would allow more time to supervise the kids but in turn, the kids may not learn much about work ethic.

Mine turned out fine but I'd be very reluctant to sit and judge the decisions of any single parent because it's a tough path with no easy answers.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

No father is still better than an especially bad father. And even with no father in the picture, where are the other men of the family? Uncles, grandfathers, brothers in law and so on? It is pathetic to think of a family without a single decent male role model, but apparently they exist. 

It's kind of a "which came first the chicken or the egg" question. It isn't clear at least to me whether the increased welfare type of benefits actually caused the breakdown of the traditional family or just correlate with it. Is it correlation or causation? You could just as easily correlate the sexual revolution when the "shame and scandal" was lifted from sex outside of marriage, right? 

I very much agree with Michael's assessment of the young single mother being better off living with family. Putting these young women in their own "free" apartment with time on their hands, never seems to end well.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Yes, in the past and even now family is relied on to help out, it's great if you have that available.
Do not kid yourself, in the past Sally may have been kicked out of the home, onto the street. Some "fathers" didn't accept responsibility for their children then either.

The children and the mother suffered, and the father never looked back. 
Paternal involvement should be encouraged and applauded, but I don't think you can force it, and I don't know if it can be taught. Why do these fathers think it's ok to be so uninvolved? Is it because they never knew their own? 
Maybe they have no idea how important it is to be involved from the start.

I have no experience with free housing, I don't know who gets it or how, but by eliminating it, you would surely eventually see the suffering. Have you seen conditions in countries with no plan to help those in poverty? 
Is that what you expect or want to see in ours?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think the basic premise here is flawed. 
The welfare system doesn't have a bias against fathers. 
If fact if increased benifits encourage more kids then it encourages a father in the home. 
Welfare pays by the number of people in the household so having a adult male simply adds another number to the total.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Is the op about single parent black families or all single parent families? 

Single parent families in the white community are reaching significant volume. 

If you are talking only about black families then it is hard to talk about it because blacks often do not want advice or criticism from whites on how they run their community. If a white addresses and offers a solution for a problem in the black community then blacks just consider the advice interference or racist even if it is good advice. They get very defensive. I have experienced this.

I have never seen a single parent Asian family. I rarely see any single parent Spanish families. White single parent families are increasing because white women have been influenced in a negative way by feminism, because of the increase of divorce, or because of the values and culture the woman and man follow. I find whites who try to be hip hop are more likely to become a baby momma or dada.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

My sociology professor in college told us that the problem with single black mothers on welfare started in the 60's. Abandoned and widowed mothers got money and support from the gov so the black families said that daddy left them so momma could get a free apartment and other benefits. Daddy use to sneak in an out of the apartment because he did not officially live their and on paper mommy was abandoned. Daddy had a job. Mommy and daddy have a rough patch in their marriage. Daddy stops working or cheating around. Mommy realizes that she does not need daddy anymore for money and she kicks his butt out. Mommy realizes that she can make a profit if she has more kids. Mommy doesn't care about raising the kids because the kids are just a pay check. Mommy leaves the public schools and the police department to mind her children. 

That was the basic formula my professor gave. If all that is true, then most of the mess was created by individuals being corrupt and greedy.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

What??? Some single family households are by choice, some by circumstance. I don't think ethnicity has anything to do with it. Feminism? How so?


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

I was involved with a single mom and her kid. Eventually, he accepted my help with school and other things in his life. It worked well. He was a total monster when I first met him. The most startling reason for his anger and bad behavior was that he felt abandoned and hated by his mother. It sounded crazy but in the end the little guy was right, his mother hated him and blamed him for messing up her life and she did abandon him but not by leaving him but by dumping him in front of a tv all his life and freezing him out emotionally.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

doozie said:


> What??? Some single family households are by choice, some by circumstance. I don't think ethnicity has anything to do with it. Feminism? How so?


Ethnicity has something to do with everything. Culture has something to do with everything. If there is no shame in the culture for abandoning your children then more people will abandon their kids. If their are no family values taught and appreciated in a culture then family most likely not even exist. 

Feminism seriously damaged the American family. Feminism attacked the role of mother and housewife. Rather then consider motherhood and home making as a valid and honorable choice for a liberated woman to make it devalued and demonized motherhood and home making. It also had a negative effect on men who many now feel that since women are liberated and responsible for themselves that men no longer have to take responsibility for a woman. Many men do not even feel like they have to protect women anymore because women are independent now and should have to fend for themselves just like men do. Many men feel like they do not want to invest in a relationship because modern women offer nothing to the marriage other then an income. Can't have a home without home cooked meals, clean clothes, emotional warmth, and other doings of domestic life. Modern men have stepped up and pitch in with house work and child rearing more now but sadly modern women have retreated further and further from those responsibilities with each new generation.

So yeah, feminism damages the American family. How could it not when it considers marriage, motherhood, and domesticity as outdated forms of patriarchal oppression.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Look at the age gap of the single moms children. Once the last goes to school they have to get a job and get off government support. Coincidence? I highly doubt it, it's called abusing the system.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

City Bound said:


> I was involved with a single mom and her kid. Eventually, he accepted my help with school and other things in his life. It worked well. He was a total monster when I first met him. The most startling reason for his anger and bad behavior was that he felt abandoned and hated by his mother. It sounded crazy but in the end the little guy was right, his mother hated him and blamed him for messing up her life and she did abandon him but not by leaving him but by dumping him in front of a tv all his life and freezing him out emotionally.


Are you still involved in the child's life?


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

wr said:


> Are you still involved in the child's life?


I was for about four years after I broke up with his mom. We use to talk in ims, e-mails, on the phone, and send Christmas gifts. We live in different states so I could only visit a few times to hang out in person after the break up. His mother got him a big brother and eventually he gave up corresponding. Guess he had the big brother and did not need me anymore. That is one of the pitfalls of dating a single parent you develop relationships with the kids and they with you but it gets hard to keep them because of break ups and new relationships for the single parent. In the end they are not your kid no matter how much you care for them and circumstances will make that clear. I was heart broken though over it. 

I was happy I met him though and helped him change his life around. I was really proud of him for getting on the math team and winning some state competitions. It made all the fights I had with him to do his homework and to get his butt out of bed in time to catch the school bus worth it.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

It really does not matter if it's Black Families or White families. I've heard that children growing up in a single parent household (no Father) are twenty times as likely to end up in jail as a child raised by both parents.

Right now I understand that 25% of White children and 75% of Black children live in a family with no father present.
I grew up in a single parent household. My father was sometimes involved, but only if you could get him off a bar stool. In the early 60's a single parent household was a scarce as hens teeth. Fortunately for my brother and myself we grew up in a working class immigrant neighborhood with very strict expectations of behavior. We also had a close extended family with Uncles, Aunts, and older cousins who were part of our daily lives. We also went to a Catholic school, (Yes, you can teach anything to anyone if you beat them enough). The bottom line is that children, especially boys need a strong male figure in their lives. And by strong I mean a person of principle and not an Ogre.
In Spite of what all the liberal professionals say, The traditional family is the best arrangement for Children.

And growing up without a Father sucks.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

City Bound said:


> Ethnicity has something to do with everything. Culture has something to do with everything. If there is no shame in the culture for abandoning your children then more people will abandon their kids. If their are no family values taught and appreciated in a culture then family most likely not even exist.
> 
> Feminism seriously damaged the American family. Feminism attacked the role of mother and housewife. Rather then consider motherhood and home making as a valid and honorable choice for a liberated woman to make it devalued and demonized motherhood and home making. It also had a negative effect on men who many now feel that since women are liberated and responsible for themselves that men no longer have to take responsibility for a woman. Many men do not even feel like they have to protect women anymore because women are independent now and should have to fend for themselves just like men do. Many men feel like they do not want to invest in a relationship because modern women offer nothing to the marriage other then an income. Can't have a home without home cooked meals, clean clothes, emotional warmth, and other doings of domestic life. Modern men have stepped up and pitch in with house work and child rearing more now but sadly modern women have retreated further and further from those responsibilities with each new generation.
> 
> So yeah, feminism damages the American family. How could it not when it considers marriage, motherhood, and domesticity as outdated forms of patriarchal oppression.



You're way off base here. Prior to the advent of feminism, the message women were being given, very loud and clear, was "you are less". 

Want to go to college and further your education? Sorry, honey, but it's more important for your brother to go. Your education and dreams are less than his. 

Want to participate in sports? Sorry, honey, you don't get the decent (or in many cases any) equipment and facilities. It's more important for the boys to have it because your athletic goals are less than theirs. 

Have a particular aptitude for something not considered a "woman's place"? Sorry, honey, that's not for you because you have girl parts which makes you less. How many girls were forced into home ec when they wanted to take shop? I know I was. And for no reason other than for being female.

Feminism showed the world that women weren't less. That being a wife and mother was not the only thing women were capable.

You can't seriously believe that modern women do not cook, do laundry, provide emotional warmth, etc. because we've thrown off the notion that we are less than men. Because if you do, you are deluding yourself. Every woman I know and deal with on a daily basis (myself included) cooks the vast majority (or all) of the family meals, does the lion's share of the housework, helps kids with homework, shuttles the kids back and forth to their activities, attends school functions, keeps the family calendar, etc. in addition to working a full time job. Most modern men have a long way to go before they even come close to what women are doing.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Oh boy..


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

SLFarmMI said:


> You're way off base here. Prior to the advent of feminism, the message women were being given, very loud and clear, was "you are less".
> 
> Want to go to college and further your education? Sorry, honey, but it's more important for your brother to go. Your education and dreams are less than his.
> 
> ...


Not sure what age group you are in but that does make a significant difference. They younger generations of women are different then the older generations. The older women are still somewhat traditional and family orientated because that is how they grew up. Those women are sort of like a bridge between the younger modern woman and the oppressed woman of yore. Talk to some women in their 20's and 30's who live in major cities and I think you will see what I am talking about. Many younger women did not even have a female role model in their life to teach them to cook an to be domestic. 

Yes, the injustices against women in society did need to be corrected but many extreme feminists threw the baby out with the bath water, some even literally, and families and society has paid a price for it. Many women feel they are less of a person if they do not become an independent woman. They struggle so hard to have a career and support themselves not because they want a career but because they have raised to fear and mistrust the loyalty of men and because they feel they need to prove themselves as a woman. As a result they marry later if they marry at all, they have children later if they have children at all, they have less children, usually one. As a result our birthrates are going down while the third world birthrates increase and spill out into the first world countries dragging the quality of life down in first world countries. 

Women do need careers but women also need to be informed that being a wife and a mother is also a career and it is one of the most valuable careers to society as a whole. 

Couples in their 50's and 60's still maintain some of those old biases for home life and those generations of women seriously get the short end of the stick because as you say they are still stuck doing way more then the men. With younger women though it is a different story. Some refuse to cook or do anything regardless if the man does anything or not. 

I use to have to work, cook, do the shopping, and everything else with most of the women I dated. They were useless and the relationships did not last long. Luckily my recent gf is good and she helps. She does the laundry and the ironing and I in turn do most of the cooking. We do the shopping together as a team. She is more old fashioned then the other women I dated and thank god she is. I wish I found out earlier that old fashioned women are better. I would not have wasted so much effort on the modern ones who have a chip on their shoulder.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Aye yai yai


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

City Bound said:


> Not sure what age group you are in but that does make a significant difference. They younger generations of women are different then the older generations. The older women are still somewhat traditional and family orientated because that is how they grew up. Those women are sort of like a bridge between the younger modern woman and the oppressed woman of yore. Talk to some women in their 20's and 30's who live in major cities and I think you will see what I am talking about. Many younger women did not even have a female role model in their life to teach them to cook an to be domestic.
> 
> Yes, the injustices against women in society did need to be corrected but many extreme feminists threw the baby out with the bath water, some even literally, and families and society has paid a price for it. Many women feel they are less of a person if they do not become an independent woman. They struggle so hard to have a career and support themselves not because they want a career but because they have raised to fear and mistrust the loyalty of men and because they feel they need to prove themselves as a woman. As a result they marry later if they marry at all, they have children later if they have children at all, they have less children, usually one. As a result our birthrates are going down while the third world birthrates increase and spill out into the first world countries dragging the quality of life down in first world countries.
> 
> ...


The majority of the women I work with are the women in their 20s and 30s living in major cities or just on the outskirts of a major city. None of your description applies to them. They all work both inside and outside the home, do the majority of the child care and do the majority of the cooking. I think your experiences with previous gfs color your impressions of what modern women are really like. BTW, there's nothing wrong with the man staying home, raising the children and caring for the home. There's no law that says it has to be the woman's role just because she has lady parts. 

BTW, having a career outside the house and being an independent woman who is able to support herself is not driven from fear about a man's loyalty. It has to do with the plain fact that the world is an uncertain place and you never know what life is going to serve up to you. It is as foolish for a woman to be totally dependent upon a man as it is for a man to be totally dependent upon a woman. Each partner should have the wherewithal to support themselves and any children even if they are not currently working outside the home.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SLFarmMI said:


> You're way off base here. Prior to the advent of feminism, the message women were being given, very loud and clear, was "you are less".
> 
> Want to go to college and further your education? Sorry, honey, but it's more important for your brother to go. Your education and dreams are less than his.
> 
> ...


There were many things a women couldn't do here are but a few: http://wgno.com/2014/08/12/5-things-women-couldnt-do-in-the-1960s/


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

This along with many other problems among the poorer communities can be traced to the boondoggle, started in 1963, known as the "War on Poverty". That is when government removed responsibility from the fathers and many took advantage of that fact.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Farmerga said:


> This along with many other problems among the poorer communities can be traced to the boondoggle, started in 1963, known as the "War on Poverty". That is when government removed responsibility from the fathers and many took advantage of that fact.


Men were walking out on their children long before 1963.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

SLFarmMI said:


> Men were walking out on their children long before 1963.


 The trend got a violent push into overdrive after 1963. That legislation was and is a cancer on poor families, especially minority families.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wow. Us evil men walking out on our kids. 
Perhaps the evil women have discovered they can have the kids the want with out the bother of men ?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SLFarmMI said:


> Men were walking out on their children long before 1963.


Men have been walking out on their families for centuries. My maternal grandfather walked out on my grandmother and his three kids in 1941, and never looked back. He also never paid a nickel of support.

Women with children in this situation had to do things to provide for them that is unthinkable now. It's a good thing.


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

Shall I poke the bear that is modern feminism...

Feminism can be a good thing. Sally should not be told that she will never be as important/good/useful as Paul. But the way that modern feminism does this is not to raise up expectations for women so that they are equal to men, but to tear down men. One of the examples is expected behavior in schools compared to Olympic records. Men are consistently more athletic than women, this is borne out by comparing men and women in nearly any quantitative sporting event (running, swimming, weight lifting, etc.) And yet boys in school are now required to sit still and be quiet for 6-8 hours at a stretch in public schools, and than punished when they (inevitably) can't do it, despite this being something that historically they have not been either asked or encouraged to be able to do. This requirement for not moving for so long is a modern invention, since the advent of modern feminism.

Another example is the furor over the payroll discrepancies between men and women. Screaming about how it is unfair that women are paid less. But women do different jobs than men. Oddly enough, two lawyers with the same experience, and credentials tend to get paid the same, regardless of gender, but that is not reflected in the payroll argument. 

Modern feminism has not accepted the tenet that boys learning to be Men is the basis for Western society, and that absent those men, Western society will fall. And so will feminism.

Let the gnashing of teeth and the flaming begin.
Loki


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

hoddedloki said:


> Shall I poke the bear that is modern feminism...
> 
> Feminism can be a good thing. Sally should not be told that she will never be as important/good/useful as Paul. But the way that modern feminism does this is not to raise up expectations for women so that they are equal to men, but to tear down men. One of the examples is expected behavior in schools compared to Olympic records. Men are consistently more athletic than women, this is borne out by comparing men and women in nearly any quantitative sporting event (running, swimming, weight lifting, etc.) And yet boys in school are now required to sit still and be quiet for 6-8 hours at a stretch in public schools, and than punished when they (inevitably) can't do it, despite this being something that historically they have not been either asked or encouraged to be able to do. This requirement for not moving for so long is a modern invention, since the advent of modern feminism.
> 
> ...


I don't understand what boys being unable to control themselves to sit to learn in school has to do with feminism. Can you explain? 

Women want to be equal, that does not mean that it's not known that men and women are different. Equal pay, equal status, equal rights. The fact that woman had to be added as protected to the Equal Rights Amendment by the federal government proves that there were not treated equal. We still aren't treated as equal.


----------



## reneedarley (Jun 11, 2014)

A very interesting topic. Often when I read homesteading today I feel that I live on another planet, not another continent. 
For thirty years I worked with youngsters, mostly male, who were unruley, impossible, sometimes dangerous for their surroundings. I worked in a youth club in Denmark, outdoors with a wooden shed, fires, knives, axes. Building shacks, making primitive food - giving kids responsibility and thereby self esteem. 
I doubt I would ever be allowed to work in the States with all the liability issues you go through. 
Feminism in Scandinavia is big and yes, seeing it as a Brit, I often feel that it is a case of tearing men to pieces. There are many single families but here there is even more to the problem.
Even in "traditional" families both parents go to work. From the age of one, bairns are looked after in kindergartens -sometimes up to 12 hours a day. And these kindergartens have very few male employees. The kids then go to school - again very few male teachers in the elementary classes. Where are these children going to pick up a male role model? From television and video???? I shudder at the thought.
I remember one thing that i once learnt about the difference between a father and a mother. A boy is sitting high in a tree, The father would praise him, admiring his courage and agility. A mother? " Oh, be careful dear, you might fall and hurt yourself. That is far too dangerous"
I have sometimes been asked to write a book about my methods. But what I have done is nothing.
I have one golden rule. If I want to say no to a child I count slowly to ten. If I realise I have to say no (Very rare), I then make sure I have a d... good reason and an alternative so that the child does not feel rejection.

I wonder, when reading your replies though, where are the fathers to all these children? Here women often choose to be alone but the fathers are still very often in the picture.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> Men were walking out on their children long before 1963.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

The interesting, to me, thing is that the trends seem to be the same regardless of race. It does seem to indicate that something other than race is in play.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> the interesting, to me, thing is that the trends seem to be the same regardless of race. It does seem to indicate that something other than race is in play.


***...

How is 36% about the same as 72%?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> The interesting, to me, thing is that the trends seem to be the same regardless of race. It does seem to indicate that something other than race is in play.


There is, the so-called "war on poverty".


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

That chart has me wondering if the "traditional" family is gone forever.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> ***...
> 
> How is 36% about the same as 72%?


As I said, the trend lines run in parallel. If I wished to dig a bit deeper into the analysis I'd point out that while the rate approximately tripled among blacks it grew by 5 to 6 times among whites pointing to whatever policies and social influences having twice as much of a proportional impact on whites than on blacks. Sometimes it's not where you end up but where you start from when analyzing numbers.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> As I said, the trend lines run in parallel. If I wished to dig a bit deeper into the analysis I'd point out that while the rate approximately tripled among blacks it grew by 5 to 6 times among whites pointing to whatever policies and social influences having twice as much of a proportional impact on whites than on blacks. Sometimes it's not where you end up but where you start from when analyzing numbers.


The last thing I want to do is to turn this into a black/white thing.

It is systemic and needs to be understood and fixed, period.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

doozie said:


> That chart has me wondering if the "traditional" family is gone forever.


Some would argue, "traditions" are bad, and should be gone forever.

It seems a large contingent in America want "traditional" to be viewed as a bad thing.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> There is, the so-called "war on poverty".


I won't argue that bad government policies contributed. Essentially rewarding families for having absentee fathers and discouraging marriage was bad policy. That doesn't mean that all government policies and interventions are neccessarily bad or that better ways of doing things with government involvement can't be devised. If the answer were as simple as family and private charity filling gaps there's nothing stopping them from doing so. There are many that do yet problems still exist. There are no one size fits all solutions or one sided fixes. As a society it's all of our responsibilty to do what we can and sometimes that includes government involvement.


----------



## BohemianWaxwing (Sep 13, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> If the answer were as simple as family and private charity filling gaps there's nothing stopping them from doing so.


Not to say the answer IS that simple, but there is indeed a good deal of pressure NOT to give privately. 

I do more than tithe my income to church and charity and I could/would do a lot better still if government weren't taking functionally 40% more in various taxes. I can't believe the government is doing a better job with making that money useful to people who need it than I could do myself.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

BohemianWaxwing said:


> Not to say the answer IS that simple, but there is indeed a good deal of pressure NOT to give privately.
> 
> I do more than tithe my income to church and charity and I could/would do a lot better still if government weren't taking functionally 40% more in various taxes. I can't believe the government is doing a better job with making that money useful to people who need it than I could do myself.


And if everyone were like you and me there likely would be no need for government programs to aide people. But everyone has never been like that and government fills some need. It could always be better. Things could always be improved and programs made more efficient and responsive. That's part of the role each and every one of us should play when choosing who we vote for to institute and oversee such programs. Government isn't the only answer but neither are demonizing and punishing the poor.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

doozie said:


> What??? Some single family households are by choice, some by circumstance. I don't think ethnicity has anything to do with it. Feminism? How so?


Well, 72% of american children are born out of wedlock. That's ethnicity, isn't it?


----------



## BohemianWaxwing (Sep 13, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Government isn't the only answer but neither are demonizing and punishing the poor.


Hmmm. Perhaps we have different ideas of what punishing the poor looks like. To me, raising a generation of children who think that, simply for existing, society owes them a living is the worst kind of punishment imaginable. Our government programs, as currently administered, play a substantial role in creating/maintaining that culture.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

BohemianWaxwing said:


> Hmmm. Perhaps we have different ideas of what punishing the poor looks like. To me, raising a generation of children who think that, simply for existing, society owes them a living is the worst kind of punishment imaginable. Our government programs, as currently administered, play a substantial role in creating/maintaining that culture.


I was speaking more to those who advocate things like jail time for getting pregnant.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

BohemianWaxwing said:


> Hmmm. Perhaps we have different ideas of what punishing the poor looks like. To me, raising a generation of children who think that, simply for existing, society owes them a living is the worst kind of punishment imaginable. Our government programs, as currently administered, play a substantial role in creating/maintaining that culture.


I have often said that all charity, but, especially government "charity" should not rise above the local, or, state level. Keep the money given/taken by/from citizens close to their communities. Have it administered by people familiar with the local poor population. For God's sake, keep the Feds out of it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> I was speaking more to those who advocate things like *jail time for getting pregnant*.


Big movement, big, growing every day.. Jeeez

Where do you get this stuff?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Big movement, big, growing every day.. Jeeez
> 
> Where do you get this stuff?


Food stamp thread. Post #688. Sentiments like it pop up regularly in these pages. I don't make things up, unless I'm speaking to my grandson.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Food stamp thread. Post #688. Sentiments like it pop up regularly in these pages. I don't make things up, unless I'm speaking to my grandson.


I just saw that. I dare say that 99.9% of people don't agree with that strategy.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Food stamp thread. Post #688. Sentiments like it pop up regularly in these pages. I don't make things up, unless I'm speaking to my grandson.


and you take it seriously?

You have to realize how that looks..


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Married at birth and fathers sticking around are not the same thing so that chart isn't really comparing apples to apples. Plenty of fathers who were married to the mothers at the child's birth don't stick around to raise the kid. Surely we've all heard of men who "went out for a pack of cigarettes" and never seemed to find their way home. There are also men who don't marry the mother who actually do stick around to raise the child. The issue of fathers sticking around isn't that simple.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> And if everyone were like you and me there likely would be no need for government programs to aide people. But everyone has never been like that and government fills some need. It could always be better. Things could always be improved and programs made more efficient and responsive. That's part of the role each and every one of us should play when choosing who we vote for to institute and oversee such programs. Government isn't the only answer but neither are demonizing and punishing the poor.


You're still not understanding. Welfare programs have created more poverty. Young, healthy people who have had access to free public education have chosen to live off the taxpayer instead. 

Welfare (the racist LBJ's "Great Society"), wasn't created because not enough people were helping the poor. Welfare was sold to the nation as a way to help people get out of poverty, a "hand-up" as it were, not as a way of life, which is what it has become. 

In the end, welfare has done very little to impact poverty rates in this country despite the massive amounts of taxpayer money that has been spent:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years

In other words, it's a wash. We have created a new class of dependents that we are now supporting.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

hoddedloki said:


> Shall I poke the bear that is modern feminism...
> 
> Feminism can be a good thing. Sally should not be told that she will never be as important/good/useful as Paul. But the way that modern feminism does this is not to raise up expectations for women so that they are equal to men, but to tear down men. One of the examples is expected behavior in schools compared to Olympic records. Men are consistently more athletic than women, this is borne out by comparing men and women in nearly any quantitative sporting event (running, swimming, weight lifting, etc.) And yet boys in school are now required to sit still and be quiet for 6-8 hours at a stretch in public schools, and than punished when they (inevitably) can't do it, despite this being something that historically they have not been either asked or encouraged to be able to do. This requirement for not moving for so long is a modern invention, since the advent of modern feminism.
> 
> ...


That was the problem in Europe. They tried make the sexes socially androgynous and really what that meant was that the men had to become more passive and feminine. Now they have refugee invading their countries and foreign cultures intentionally colonizing their home lands and the men are too passive and metro sexual to do much about it. 

Another thing you notice over there is that the women are not naturally attracted to these passive modernized men and you see a trend of women seeking out men from less developed countries who still have that primal male aspect to themselves. Hormonally, many women need a man to be a man so they can be a woman. The same thing happens for men who hormonally are not stimulated by modern women who try to act more masculine and manly. If you think that sounds crazy pay attention to all the men in a room when a very feminine women walks in the room. Even if the men do not see her walk in they can feel the electricity and hormones in the air and they will start to look around to find where that stimulus is coming from. Same thing for women. When a very masculine man walks in the room the women notice and their body chemistry changes. Their hormones start flowing and nature kicks in. Take men and women who are in the middle of the hormonal spectrum and when they walk in the room they barely stimulate anyone of the opposite sex. There are not enough hormones in those people to activate other peoples biology. That is what happened in Europe, they succeeded in making men and women too similar and by doing so they messed with natures way. Mind over matter, or better yet social engineering over nature.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> I was speaking more to those who advocate things like jail time for getting pregnant.



So you don't belive planned child abuse is jail worthy ?


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

I think the problem is deeper then welfare and government interference. I think the problem goes a little deeper then race. 

The problem is values, the lack of them and the war against them.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

SLFarmMI said:


> Men were walking out on their children long before 1963.


Not in the numbers they did after 1963


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Tricky Grama said:


> Well, 72% of american children are born out of wedlock. That's ethnicity, isn't it?


No. Being American is a nationality not an ethnicity.

An ethnicity has to do with your genetics not the nation that you live in. 

Like for example, most white americans are genetically german so their ethnicity is german, their race is white, and their nationality is American because they are American citizens. Basically, they are Germans living in America if you want to look at it another way.

Black Americans are a mixed bag and I am not sure what blood from Africa is the strongest in the American blacks, but they are genetically African. If you look at Africa you see some of the very same family issues in the communities there that the black communities have here and it is not because of welfare.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> and you take it seriously?
> 
> You have to realize how that looks..


Your concern for how what I post affects others perceptions of me is touching. I doubt its sincerity and really think its just another ploy to deflect and not discuss. But I'll answer seriously anyway.

Whether one , one hundred or one thousand make such statements is irrelevant to whether I believe they're rational ideas likely to come to fruition. I don't take them as a serious threat or idea. But my point was that ideas and feeling like this exist and they serve no positive purpose. They don't lead to any real, common sense solutions. They are symptomatic of a larger group and a larger trend that seems not to want to help the poor, but to blame and punish them for being poor. People sometimes make bad choices. Its not society's role to reward those choices but it also isn't always society's ro&#322;e to punish them for those choices. The children involved made no bad choices. The conditions of their birth have been foisted upon them. Sometimes the best society can do is to try to help people overcome those bad choices. It's something I believe government can have a role in.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

my3boys said:


> You're still not understanding. Welfare programs have created more poverty. Young, healthy people who have had access to free public education have chosen to live off the taxpayer instead.
> 
> Welfare (the racist LBJ's "Great Society"), wasn't created because not enough people were helping the poor. Welfare was sold to the nation as a way to help people get out of poverty, a "hand-up" as it were, not as a way of life, which is what it has become.
> 
> ...


Since there are no controlled study groups in this country that show what would have happened with no war on poverty or government programs any conclusions about what poverty rates might be today without them are pure speculation. I've been in a wide variety of countries with almost nonexistent government programs and have seen first hand the proverty and hard ship that exists in such places. I've talked with the people working with and for private charities trying to help in such places. They would love to have the resources good government could give them. My life, if it existed at all, might be quite different had those early social programs of the Great Depression not come into being in time to help my grandmother and her six children when my grandfather decided what was in a brown bottle was more important than his family. Good workable programs run by governments can exist. They'll never be perfect or devoid of problems. But such programs won't happen by accident.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> So you don't belive planned child abuse is jail worthy ?


Sure I do. But I don't believe getting pregnant is "planned child abuse". When would you arrest the woman? When she finds out she's pregnant or would she have to give birth first? Would she be allowed to avoid jail by terminating her pregnancy in any of the variety if legal ways that exist? Could she choose to give up the child for adoption? Could she simply not claim any extra government benefits that might come to her with another child and avoid jail that way. Poverty isn't neccessarily child abuse. I know many people with children who live around the poverty level but who's children are well fed, clothed and educated and don't seem in any way abused.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

It used to be that a man got a good job, or made a good career and then he purposed marriage. The father of the bride had some say and his daughter listened to him. If the guy didn't have a job or was a lazy loser the marriage was discouraged. Having sex before marriage was scandalous. Yes some still did it but it was an ideal to uphold. Now since the free love of the 60's that has all gone away. Families used to look for security for their daughters, and expected their sons to make something of themselves so they could give security, and by doing that have a stable family. If a son abandoned his family it was a scandal and the rest of the family came to their grandchildren's or niece's and nephew's rescue. All that is gone. Only the lower class behaved poorly and women sought to marry to an equal or better station, not to a worse station in life. The problem is simply morality has gone the way of the wind. These morals were found in every culture and every major religion. Old wise men and women saw that these things worked, but now we think we are more enlightened and have disregarded these traditions and now we have problems. Government programs have had the unintended consequence of rewarding this departure from morals. Family used to be the safety net for people, but since lack of morals has destroyed that we now have government.

A word on Government programs, I was reading the food stamp thread, what I gleaned out of it was government programs (government charity) allows people to not be responsible. You, me and others now can say, "oh, your having problems feeding your family, well you can get food stamps, and you can get HEAP to help keep you warm, and there is WIC to buy your baby formula" giving us the excuse that we don't have to help our fellow man because "our money is taken without our consent and now there is a government program we fund to help you instead." Some one said on the other thread that they felt people wouldn't help so we needed the government program. I was thinking do they believe this because they wouldn't really help much themselves? Is it easier to spend other peoples money than their own? 

Then there is the other side of the coin, the recipients don't have responsibility either. "Hey were just milking the government, were not hurting anyone if we live in a irresponsible manner. So what if I don't get a job, it's not like I'm messing over my family or friends." "They are going to give the money away anyway I might as well get mine." 

The bad thing is since the government takes our money in taxes we feel like we are doing enough, and those who receive can make a mess of their life without constructive criticism from people that would be otherwise intervening in their lives. If a person continued to make a mess of their life non-government support would be withdrawn and the person would have to learn to be responsible. This is why government charity is doomed to fail, and why government charity squashes peoples natural charitable natures.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

I agree. I would say that the 1960's tore a massive hole in the fabric of American society. People who consider themselves part of the counter culture, the revolution, and the dawning of the age of Aquarius will say the changes were for the better and that they advanced society and individuals further along in their evolution.

I disagree. Although some good came out of the changes of the 60's more bad came out of those efforts then good. Free love led to the aids epidemic exploding. Do your own thing and finding yourself became floundering and never finding yourself. Even today there are many baby boomers who have no idea who they are. There was a divorce boom because of the counter culture influence. 

Broken homes, drug addiction, aids, the crack wars of the 1980's, decline in family values. All these things are linked to the influence of the hippies and the radicals of the 60's who encouraged recklessness and anarchy.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Poverty isn't neccessarily child abuse. I know many people with children who live around the poverty level but who's children are well fed, clothed and educated and don't seem in any way abused.



Poverty isn't child abuse at all. 
But planning to have another child when you know you can't take care of it is. 
Can you see the large difference ?
As for when she would be arrested I suppose that would happen after the authorities found she had a child. After all untill she has a child she is free to practice contraception in a variety of ways.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

You can not micro manage people. The best thing is to not open the door to more problems. That is the only way to manage problems, don't make them. An ounce of prevention is worth more then a pound of cure.

Obamacare is a good example. The cat is out of the bag and you cant get it back in. Already there is abuse of the system. There was article by bloomburg, I think, that was pointing out that already the program is being mismanaged and abuses are going unchecked. People are signing up and claiming that they make less money then they do and the system is not even following up of inconsistences in the data.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Fathers are taking care of their children, even if they aren't living with them. They just have to run their money through government, so the politicians, bureaucrats and corporations can take their cut. That's how we get all those free benefits.

Twenty years ago I read the book, The Tragedy of American Compassion, by Marvin Olansky. Outlined the decline of charity as it was replaced with government checks. How could it be otherwise? Private charity is also better at demanding personal responsibility, and improving lives, as opposed to government workers handing out checks. No skin off their nose, as it isn't their money. In fact, the longer people are dependent, the longer they have a job.

We create government programs based on a very small percent having a problem. And we always end up with it being much worse. Do-gooders can't grasp that concept.


The greatest good for the greatest number of people will always involve making people responsible for their actions. Then letting charity help the few hard luck cases.

Again, the way to make most problems much worse is to create a government program to solve it, especially at the federal level. But we've been trained so long in our government schools that government is the answer, we don't remember any other way. Statism is the national religion.



> Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.
> -Robert Lefevre


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

City Bound said:


> Black Americans are a mixed bag and I am not sure what blood from Africa is the strongest in the American blacks, but they are genetically African. If you look at Africa you see some of the very same family issues in the communities there that the black communities have here and it is not because of welfare.


Hmmm. Ever been to Louisiana? May make you think twice about that one. In fact, I think African and French make a pretty good mix myself.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

mreynolds said:


> Hmmm. Ever been to Louisiana? May make you think twice about that one. In fact, I think African and French make a pretty good mix myself.


I meant the blood that came over from Africa, it is African but the mix of the people that came over does not include all the different ethnic groups in Africa. African americans are all mixed up now but one genetic group has to be the dominant in the overall gene pool. So, I meant Africans that mixed with Africans not the ones that mixed with other races like the African creole people in Louisiana.

People say white and black but it is more specific then that if you look under the skin. White people in America are all different types of whites. In America German is the dominant ethnicity of most white people then comes Irish. German people think differently then Irish people, or French people, or English people and they all have different temperaments. The same can be said of different groups within the other different races. So, take a look at how the people in Africa behave and the culture they create and you can see some of the natural tendencies and instinct of African Americans. Same thing with white groups, take a look at those people, their history and their culture to see what some of their natural tendencies are. So, in my other post I was saying that the problems in the black community in America are similar to the problems in the black community in Africa and it has nothing to do with welfare or white interference. Over in Africa men do not play a strong role in the family ether. Generally, women run the show when it comes to the family and the village over there.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Poverty isn't child abuse at all.
> But planning to have another child when you know you can't take care of it is.
> Can you see the large difference ?
> As for when she would be arrested I suppose that would happen after the authorities found she had a child. After all untill she has a child she is free to practice contraception in a variety of ways.


It's always good to hear a well thought out plan. Maybe someday you'll come up with one. Until then I'll ask a few more questions for you to ignore. 

Does this abuse extend to the working poor who get another tax deduction and an increase to their earned income tax credit with the addition of another child? Do both parents go to jail? How about the working family who gets WIC benefits for an infant. Or the working poor who get an increase in food stamps for another child? Child care tax credits or assistance for the poor? There are lots of government programs besides "welfare" that allow the working poor to afford the cost of another child. They'd have the same difficulties providing for that next child without them and, by your logic, would be planning the same abuse as the welfare mother. But they plan in concert.

I'll save questions about what to do with the children and how to cover the costs of that and incarceration of the parents until after you don't answer the questions above.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

BohemianWaxwing said:


> Hmmm. Perhaps we have different ideas of what punishing the poor looks like. To me, raising a generation of children who think that, simply for existing, society owes them a living is the worst kind of punishment imaginable. Our government programs, as currently administered, play a substantial role in creating/maintaining that culture.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

I see the problem as being encouraged by two forces: first is government assistance, the reward for being irresponsible. Second is societal acceptance of single motherhood. There is good reason why unwed motherhood was once considered taboo by decent people. Back then when young Jane made a mistake and Jack wouldn't stand up and do the right thing she either had an abortion or gave the baby up for adoption. No decades of government assistance, no ruining her chances of going on to be a more productive member of society, no chance of raising a future inmate, no holding back her parents from a comfortable retirement. Today young Brittany gets told from day one that she is a victim and all that matters is her own feelings, and she is entitled to get everything for free that decent responsible people work their butts off for years to get. She gets rewarded while everyone else involved pays the consequences for her carelessness. She is given such a profound sense of entitlement that in the rare case when she does not get something for free or at greatly reduced cost, she has the nerve to play the single mother card and demand it, such as at the veterinarian's office, the mechanic or even a preferred parking spot or seat on the bus. What am I saying? They don't ride the bus! 

Some people miss the boat with the idea of lack of morality. It is not sex before marriage which is the problem. That is normal and natural. The immoral part is refusing to be responsible prior to or after having her fun, like all decent people do who were once young too.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Agriculture said:


> I see the problem as being encouraged by two forces: first is government assistance, the reward for being irresponsible. Second is societal acceptance of single motherhood. There is good reason why unwed motherhood was once considered taboo by decent people. Back then when young Jane made a mistake and Jack wouldn't stand up and do the right thing she either had an abortion or gave the baby up for adoption. No decades of government assistance, no ruining her chances of going on to be a more productive member of society, no chance of raising a future inmate, no holding back her parents from a comfortable retirement. Today young Brittany gets told from day one that she is a victim and all that matters is her own feelings, and she is entitled to get everything for free that decent responsible people work their butts off for years to get. She gets rewarded while everyone else involved pays the consequences for her carelessness. She is given such a profound sense of entitlement that in the rare case when she does not get something for free or at greatly reduced cost, she has the nerve to play the single mother card and demand it, such as at the veterinarian's office, the mechanic or even a preferred parking spot or seat on the bus. What am I saying? They don't ride the bus!
> 
> Some people miss the boat with the idea of lack of morality. It is not sex before marriage which is the problem. That is normal and natural. The immoral part is refusing to be responsible prior to or after having her fun, like all decent people do who were once young too.


Or Jane's dad showed up on Jack's doorstep with shotgun in hand and another happy marriage ensued.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

Either way, I didn't pay to raise someone else's children. And of course dad was there to instill some responsibility, one way or another. The cycle was not broken.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

I wish the choice was only between having no father and having a father. Unfortunately, in the real world, there's also a choice between having a bad father(often worse than having no father present) and having a good father.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

A lot of this comes down to personal choice. Even the values we follow are a choice. 
You can chose to change the path your on. You can chose to change your values.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> It's always good to hear a well thought out plan. Maybe someday you'll come up with one. Until then I'll ask a few more questions for you to ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why would anyone answer a rudely prefixed question. ?

Generally speaking when you want something from someone you are polite perhaps even nice. 

Perhaps if you would pay attention to what IS said and not make up things you wouldn't have so many ignorant questions.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Why would anyone answer a rudely prefixed question. ?
> 
> Generally speaking when you want something from someone you are polite perhaps even nice.
> 
> ...


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

And the values of folks today is extensively influenced by the media, whether it be tv, music and or books. Somewhere along the way it became unacceptable to question or criticize the information that was being streamed into our homes. Or being written in the magazines or taught in our educational systems. 

I know I personally bought into a lot of unsound beliefs in my younger years because they came from authorities in education/society and I thought they were more advanced and relevant than my family's beliefs. Now, at a later stage in my life I realize there were some important truths to be learned right in my own home. 

I believe a lot of women have a child without marriage because they are looking for the love of another human. Not just to get on govt. assistance. Unfortunately they often find out how difficult it is to raise a child without the support of a partner.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Light rain, that is the very reason the amish do not want tvs, radios, and phones in their homes. The disturbance to the peace of family is too destructive and the influence is too misleading to everyone in the family but mostly the children who are still impressionable.


----------



## Vikestand (Feb 27, 2015)

It should have read "The value of SOME folks...." Not all of us rely on the media or social networks to formulate opinions or keep us entertained.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

Vikestand said:


> It should have read "The value of SOME folks...." Not all of us rely on the media or social networks to formulate opinions or keep us entertained.


Unfortunately more and more of us, or I should say them, do all the time, and they are by far the majority, or at least it appears that way, the way things are going.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

I see your point Vikestand. Not all folks base their philosophies on media input. I do think, though, all of us are affected by what we see and hear. Whether consciously on unconsciously...


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Vikestand said:


> It should have read "The value of SOME folks...." Not all of us rely on the media or social networks to formulate opinions or keep us entertained.


the media is always influencing us whether we want it to or not. even in entertaining show there are often subtle political and moral influences as well as product placement and subtle advertising. 

even if you are not influenced other people are and then in turn they eventually influence you. The news is the media and it is more fiction then fact. The news is extremely influential.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Men have been walking out on their families for centuries. My maternal grandfather walked out on my grandmother and his three kids in 1941, and never looked back. He also never paid a nickel of support.
> 
> Women with children in this situation had to do things to provide for them that is unthinkable now. It's a good thing.


Mine did exactly the same in 1944 wen my mother was 4


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

My dad left my mom when she was pregnant with me. He moved to a different state, without divorcing mom, and married another woman. He had to kids with her. I saw him once in my life.

When he died, I found out that I had another 1/2 sister on the other side of the state that is 6 months older than me. She didn't know him either.

Not having a father in my world, nor any healthy male role models wrecked havoc in my life. ......particularly as a teenage girl.

For years I believed that I missed out.......and alternated between anger, confusion and self pity.
What I believe today is that he missed out in knowing an awesome daughter.

I don't say this with bitterness or arrogance, for me it is acceptance of what was.
It has been one heck of a journey to get to that place.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Glad you shared that. I am rethinking the role of a father. It is a lot more important then I thought it was.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

City Bound said:


> Glad you shared that. I am rethinking the role of a father. It is a lot more important then I thought it was.



Good fathers or male role models are important. There is no value for a kid to watch daddy beat the stuffing out of mom or abusing drugs or alcohol or conducting extra marital affairs.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

wr said:


> Good fathers or male role models are important. There is no value for a kid to watch daddy beat the stuffing out of mom or abusing drugs or alcohol or conducting extra marital affairs.



even without those dangerous extremes at play the general impression of fatherhood has been pretty low. Listening to people express themselves it seemed to me that a good number of women and children would rather not have a father and husband around. even if the guy does not beat, drink, or cheat. I never hear them talk about what they are missing and they never seem to be aware of the richness that they are missing. 

I know women, especially when women are younger, talk of finding a man to love them but I rarely hear them refer to the person they are looking for by the term husband. Husband is a very specific role with very specific duties in the life of a wife and a child. Being a wife is a very specific role and set of duties also. That is why am confused.

Lovers are just lovers and that seems to be the popular way to go these days. A husband and wife are both lovers and much more, much more then people who are just lovers could ever be. 

There is a great depth that many of us are missing out on in life because of the decline in family values. I know because I suffered from it too. 

Beating people, being a drunk, and cheating are not family values. family, real family, is kinder and more loyal then those ugly things that have been confused with family.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Maybe it was the welfare system that paid women to be pregnant and unmarried. In many states in America, a single mother with three children and no husband gets paid as much in welfare as a starting computer programmer or teacher. You usually get what you pay for.
> 
> Thereâs a horrible echo here: Slave women were valued for how many children they could breed. Now, under the welfare plantation system, women can create value by having as many children as possible without a husband.
> 
> ...


This is reaping what has been sown.
Until men and women's hearts are changed, it will continue to get worse.

How do you eat an elephant?
One bite at a time.
All we can do is live right, lead by example, teach with words; but more importantly, teach with actions.
The "commitment bound" generation is dying off.
My generation and the one before me, has done so much damage.

All we can do is live right in front of others, and train up our young to do the same.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

the older generations confessing their mistakes will help the younger generations from reliving them


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

City Bound said:


> the older generations confessing their mistakes will help the younger generations from reliving them


True.
Unfortunately my generation, and younger, doesn't like to take responsibility for their own choices / actions. You see a lot of parent child partying, committing crimes, etc. 
As a Believer, there is a huge price this parent will pay on Judgement Day.

What's worse is children born in the late 80's-early 90's and on, have been programmed to blame.
So the chances of them 'learning' anything is slim......

It's truly a heart issue.


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

doozie said:


> I started to reply several times, but can't really agree that anyone alone would just have additional kids for welfare benefits. Maybe a father is really in the picture, but eliminating him on paper brings in additional dollars?
> What can be done to encourage fathers to stick around, or be involved with their children, I have no idea.


 
I am going out on a limb here but only because of some recent things I have seen happening around our neck of the woods. Yes, dad leaves but only after reading hundreds of posts from mom stating that she doesn't have this or that, that they never do anything, that he works all the time, that he need to make more money and on and on and on. 

I am old school and have been married 32 years and I thank God for leading me to my man many years ago but marriage is not always easy, for anyone. There are hard times, there are times you don't have any money, there are times you get lonely, there are times you don't agree but lets not just blame fathers. As women it seems we have become more and more demanding. 

You may ask what this has to do with the topic. Everything! When it becomes more profitable for a woman to kick daddy out and collect welfare and then shack up with this one or that one and benefit from what he does for her, buys her, puts into her family there is an issue. 

I am kind of sick of SAHM that live on welfare even after the kids get school age. I get it when they are small and daycare is higher than some can make working but when they go to school from 8-3 there is plenty of time to have a part time job. 

This may sound rough but when our kids were old enough that we started having the serious talks one of my main statements was always, "if you think you are big enough to make them, you better be big enough to take care of them." BTW: Our kids knew that I wasn't talking about welfare. Figure out what your family needs and bust your rear end to make it happen.


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

wr said:


> Good fathers or male role models are important. There is no value for a kid to watch daddy beat the stuffing out of mom or abusing drugs or alcohol or conducting extra marital affairs.


Absolutely true, but as women we need to notice the kind of men we look for when ready to settle down. I know some say there were no red flags and perhaps there are a few cases like that but mostly I would say there was probably something.

I especially like the comment from women who say,  "well, yea he was married two, three or four times before but they were liars and just destroyed his reputation. He really loves me and he is already seperated from his current wife." It might be time to put up a big ole YIELD sign.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

I'm not sure if women have become more demanding but I do think we've been so manipulated by media that many feel our self-worth lies in the house we live in and the car we drive.

The image of the man of the house providing all the financial support and total direction on life is really not a viable situation in 2016. Throw in there the fact that without a trade or a college degree that offers good employment opportunities folks of both sexes are beginning to realize how precarious their existence stands. Sales of anti-anxiety drugs are at an all time high. Children are becoming aware of the stark reality also and I believe this fuels early alcohol and drug use.

In the 60's and on up the soap operas provided fantasy example of life that probably skewed a lot of women and men's values. Not to mention hardly ever showing the disease and perpetual heartache that came with the lifestyles that would get reborn in future generations. People are quick to say the lifestyles we see on tv are just entertainment. I don't believe they are that harmless or innocuous. :hrm:

I think the reluctance of some women's desire of a husband comes from many directions. Not in the least is the approach that as men see an economic power hold degrading in marriage or a relationship they are shaken and may attempt to return to "I am the man of the house and what I say goes". This will not fly in 2016 and in my opinion was not a good basis for a long, stable marriage at anytime in history because it lacked respect for your partner...


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Greed will only lead to suffering. 

Trying to end your suffering with greed will only lead to deeper suffering.


----------



## Vikestand (Feb 27, 2015)

City Bound said:


> Glad you shared that. I am rethinking the role of a father. It is a lot more important then I thought it was.


This couldn't be more true. Some generations have revisionist history. The golden era was not all that golden at times.


----------

