Woman to Woman

By Vince

June 27, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this

Why doesn’t the rest of the world take heed? A man, a woman, and their children is the simplest solution to life’s problems.
We can eliminate drug abuse, poverty, and bread mold if all of us would simply get married and make babies, and not get divorced. Think of the money our government could save? No more need for welfare, unemployment, food stamps, homeless shelters, etc., if we would just get married, make babies and not get divorced. But, look closely folks… what’s really being said here is not that traditional families keep the fabric strong, the real message here is that non-traditional families are not only damaging, but causes society’s ailments. Sick. Sick. Sick. I’m sorry, but I don’t see how complying to man/woman/children family model does anything. Hasn’t that model been the majority forever? And are not people currently living in that model experiencing problems?

By Brian Curtis

June 27, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

As usual, the far-right approach to the issue is overly simplistic and misses many obvious flaws and gaps. Essentially, it pretends that “a bad father is better than no father at all,” which has proven false time and again.

Further, it focuses specifically on fathers, rather than encouraging good parenting across the board, regardless of gender. Divorces and death happen; shouldn’t the priority be ensuring quality parenting from whoever’s available? As Diane points out, nudging people into marriage doesn’t fix the underlying problems that tear working-class and poverty-level families apart… but it sure makes some smug religious zealots feel better abut themselves.

By Brian Curtis

June 27, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this

P.S. What happened to all the loud conservative insistence that “government has no place in social engineering”? Sure seems like they suddenly like the idea of government getting involved in people’s personal lives… as long as it’s pushing in the appropriately Straight, White, Christian direction.

By James

June 27, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this

I found this discussion interesting, being the product of a single parent home where the father wanted nothing to do with me. I feel a father’s presence in a family is EXTREMELY important, and feel that I lost out on many opportunities due to not having one. I agree with Shaunti (which is odd for me) that fathers should be encouraged to participate fully in their families. Whether his absence is due to the break-up of a marriage or other factor, men need to take more responsbility. However, Diane hits the nail with the fact that simply getting people to marry is not the answer.

It is going to take a HUGE shift in the mentality of our society to what is really important, love & compassion. Unfortunatly, The Liberals (yes that is me) want everyone to do what feels good with no consequences. The conservatives want everyone to do what some minister tells them to and be exactly alike-the 1950’s ideal (which never really exisited). Like everything else in the world, the answer/truth is right in the middle. People need to be made cognisant of their responsiblities while being allowed to make the right decisions for themselves. Cramming things down one’s throat does not make me want to do it. Saying-eat it or not, what makes you happy does not work either. This country needs to realize the Hummer & 5,0000 sf house is not what life is about. It’s about helping other with love, and not demands, that really matters! We, as a society, are too self centered. We are so busy being ‘Holier than thou’ and worried about how we look to others rather than thinking of the greater good. I have no answers on how to do it, but would love suggestions.

Can I get an AMEN!

By Blablabla

June 27, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this

If Diane believes the results of the American Psycologist article, that neither mother nor father is “essential” in raising children, why is she not protesting the dichotomy between child custody awards in divorce cases? If parenting is truly asexual, then what explains the split between the average custody awarded to father and mother cited by Shaunti’s source? I’m not sure if it’s because Shaunti’s source is blatantly mistaken or because Diane wouldn’t touch that with a ten foot pole (I think I know the answer). I won’t hold my breath and wait for Diane to take the child custody system to task for this apparent inequity. Secondly, I love the fact that one of Diane’s sources claims that father’s initiatives are an “unproven social experiment”. Oh, OK. If this taxpayer had a nickel for every unproven social experiment this country has funded, I’d be retired. So please don’t tell me that because something is unproven that it shouldn’t be considered, done or funded. That kind of closed-minded thinking would have us living on a flat earth. Thirdly, if Diane belives that so many women are poor because they are under-educated, why do so many of her ilk absolutely refuse to make meaningful changes to the government-sponsored education system that dominates this country? So many other countries get similar education results to ours with much smaller investments.

By Archie

June 27, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

I think there is too much focus on calling the conservatives wrong and the liberals right and even though Diane is right that marriage doesn’t solve all problems more fathers need to present in their child’s lives. I agree that good parenting regardless of gender is what’s needed, but I don’t think it’s evil for the government to push marriage because man and woman should understand and accept the responsibility of having sex. A woman ought to want the father of her child to be involved with that child and if he’s not good enough then you should not have had unprotected sex with him in the first place. You can’t just do what feels good to you without considering the consequences and I don’t think that most women can live like Diane Glass, especially minority women. Yes I do think initiatives to encourage fatherhood are necessary but I don’t believe in forced marriages. I just hope that women don’t try to follow the Diane’s of the world when they are not of her economic or academic stature. Do what works.

By Jack

June 27, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

The initiative should be: stay with your wife and kids and if you leave, pay up or go to jail.

By RS

June 27, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

How many successful, responsible, economically & emotionally stable men are standing on line waiting to marry AIDS-infected, drug-addicted women who are living in dire poverty, have multiple children by multiple sex partners & have rudimentary hygene habits at best? To blithely proclaim that marriage will solve all these womens’ problems is simplistic, Pollyanna-ish & unrealistic, to say the very least! Old-fashioned as it sounds, women should not be having babies without a husband. Not married? Use birth control! When I was a kid, I didn’t even KNOW anyone divorced, from a broken home etc & we did just fine! It DOES work best when both parents are present & involved in the childrens’ lives.

By Tim

June 27, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

I think it is sad if you have to give any parent a ‘cookie’ to get them to be a ‘real’ parent… no matter if that is a father or a mother… I don’t know how I could look at myself everyday if there had to be some ‘initiative’ to get me to be a good parent… how sad

By Gina

June 27, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

The family court system is extremely unfair to men. Shaunti is correct, the father becomes a visitor in the child’s life. This occurs even if he was the primary caregiver during the marriage. Many women who have children out of wedlock are mad at the father for not marrying them or just want to have control of the children. They state they want the father involved but their actions speak the opposite.

Jack, these days, many women walk away from their marriages because they are “bored” or just “not happy”. And if a wife wants to walk, she knows she can get the marital home, the children, alimony and child support. There is no incentive for the woman to stay, go to marriage counseling and work on the marriage.

I am glad this topic is being discussed. I also noticed Diane didn’t touch the fact that family court is very unfair. Many of our military men are having a hard time when they fight for our country. Many are coming back finding their wives filed for divorce and full custody of the children. Many of them don’t have their child support modified to reflect their military pay and are often in arrears when they come back after military duty. When they are deployed, they don’t have time to file for modification and if they do, they can’t attend the court date.

The laws have tipped so far in the mother’s favor that fathers are pushed out of their children’s lives.

By Ben

June 27, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

They type of men that father a child and then leave are not the type of men that will aknowledge or adhere to some “stay with your family” campaign. You can talk to them until they are blue in the face about the importance of the family unit, or parental responsibility but it will fall on deaf ears.

Today’s society for the most part has drifted away from true family values and children are the victims. A great deal of parents focus less on what’s true and good for their children and are more concerned with their own well-being and their own happiness. More and more children are being born to selfish parents who don’t grasp the concept of parenthood and responsibility to a child.

More times than not, the father is looked at as the “source” of the problem. But I think this is an issue that falls into a “viscous cycle” and no amount of propoganda is going to change that.

By Gina

June 27, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Most people look at their financial situations to determine if they can afford a child and how many. The liberal agenda has pushed to poor people that having a child or multiple children out of wedlock is okay because the government will help you care for them. This is the wrong message.

Some people push the agenda that marriage is used to abuse women. All men are put in a category as abusive and this is not the case. Children deserve to live in an intact family and if they can’t, the next best thing is to have “two” involved parents.

By Gina

June 27, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

Shaunti,

Thank you for your stance on this topic.

By Gina

June 27, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

States that have laws and statutes with joint legal and joint physical custody of the children (in the absence of abuse) after divorce have a much lower divorce rate. Some women misuse restraining orders and file false abuse claims in order to gain complete control of the children in a divorce.

In out of wedlock births, the father has to petition for custody of a child. Most of the time, he only gets joint legal custody.

Laws should be set up so that neither parent gains an edge. The children should be the ultimate winner with access to both parents.

By Zack

June 27, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

I truly appreciated Shaunti’s thoughts (as usual). It’s infuriating how men are portrayed as incompetent on commercials and in the media (if we’re so incompetent, why do women turn to us to bail them out when they’re in trouble?).

Yes, child custody going to women is atrocious in our legal system. There’s a myth circulating (and unfortunately, believed) that because women endure childbirth, the child belongs to them more than to their husbands. This is ridiculous. The fact that men have to be the head of the household and accept the stress, responsibility, and leadership of BEING the head of the household is overlooked and totally unappreciated by women and are current norms and status quos. (Men are partially responsible for this; if we’d speak up more, this would change, just like commercials about us would change if we’d boycott these sorry companies having them.)

We do not live in a society of equal rights. We do not have free speech anymore. Heck, just look at how I was attacked on here last week. I pointed out how it’s contradictory abortion, the legal holocaust that it is, is totally accepted by millions (as was slavery) and how Eric Rudolph is portrayed as some kind of insane individual for his actions. I was called everything in the book, basically, for my statements, and it’s mainly because the people disagreeing could be referred to as “desperate bigots” (and then they call ME a bigot; that’s basically the left’s scheme, folks. They call you exactly what they are).

One more thing: I had a psychology professor once who had serious issues, and she was talking once about stereotyping and how she thought it was so bad an action. Then she said she wanted the class, for extra credit, to break a gender role in public (not surprisingly, she was egalitarian). She said, for example, that men could belch in front of their friends and apologize over and over. THIS was her stereotyping men as being crude. She stereotyped, the hypocrite.

By Gina

June 27, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

Zack,

I agree with your stance. Men are treated awful in the media. If a minority was depicted in that manner, people would be up in arms.

By Brian Curtis

June 27, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

Zack: And yet… you were free to post your ignorant babble here, and nobody stopped you. We DO have free speech; what you’re whining about is that you don’t get instant respect when you display your ignorance.

Isn’t that what the conservatives were chanting about the Dixie Chicks and other govt. critics? “You can have free speech—but you’re gonna face consequences for what you say.” No one will deny your right to come here every week and b*** about abortion (regardless of the actual topic at hand)—but no one has to pay attention to you, either.

By TT

June 27, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

By TT

June 27, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

By Gina

June 27, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Ben, There will always be some fathers who don’t want to be involved with their children. However, most men want to be a part of their children’s lives. The family court system and laws are used to push those fathers away and to just think of them as a wallet.

The laws that pertain to non-payment of child support are very strict. However, the laws that pertain to interference of visitation/parenting time are lenient. Women get a slap on the wrist. This is just one example of the inequity.

By Gina

June 27, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

Many men are pushed out their children’s lives by the attitude of the mother. It becomes a winner take all situation. Her anger against the father comes out in all kinds of ways…denial of custody, talking about the father in front of the children, false claims of abuse, demand for increases in child support, the list goes on and on. Finally, some men tire of the fight and move on.

By mel

June 27, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

I agree, TT. I would do everything in my power to be able to have equal time with my daughter in the event of divorce. However, I think many men don’t fight much, not because they don’t want to see the child, but because they have bought into the lie that they are not as important as the mother.

By Ben

June 27, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

Gina - I can agree with that, but inequality is not really brought on by the courts, it’s brought on by the parents. Anytime you involve the courts or the government, there is going to be a result or determination that is unfavorable one way or the other. It will NEVER be equal.

A father that wants to be part of child’s life doesn’t need a child support order, he doesn’t need a visitation order.

I refer to my earlier post in that some parents nowadays have drifted away from family values at the child’s expense. Mothers that don’t allow the child’s father to see the child, do it out of spite. Father’s that don’t pay child support, do it out of spite. Neither really has the best interest of the child in mind — and it’s the child that pays. But you very rarely here the parents complain about the effects on the child. It’s always ME, I, HIM, or HER. Most are generally concerned with their personal gain or benefit and the child’s is secondary.

By Archie

June 27, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

“Most people look at their financial situations to determine if they can afford a child and how many. The liberal agenda has pushed to poor people that having a child or multiple children out of wedlock is okay because the government will help you care for them. This is the wrong message.

Some people push the agenda that marriage is used to abuse women. All men are put in a category as abusive and this is not the case. Children deserve to live in an intact family and if they can’t, the next best thing is to have “twoâ€? involved parents.”

I don’t agree that liberals push poor people to have children out of wedlock but I think lack of education about sex and finances in general contributes to some of these issues. I do agree it’s good to have two involved parents.

By Eaton

June 27, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

Zack, you are so right - we were so blind. Why ever would we have called you names after you suggested that Eric Rudolph was a hero? You are so obviously a fine human being. We have been wrong to criticize you for being a sociopathic mass-murderer-in-training.

Gina, it’s obvious that you’ve had a negative experience with the court system, and yes, I agree that the court system should be gender-neutral when it comes to awarding custody. However, I question your statement that “most fathers” want to be actively involved in their children’s lives.

The problem is that everyone is dealing in absolutes - all fathers, all mothers, etc. Each case is different and there is no single fix for the problem. You can’t make people stay married, and there are a lot of people who SHOULDN’T stay married. Yes Gina, being unhappy in a marriage is a reason to get divorced - children raised in a home of hostility, or even indifference, are not served by this arrangement.

Every family is unique. You can’t create “one way” for them to work.

By Jack

June 27, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

If you love a woman enough to have a child, you should be married. If you divorce, you should do the right thing and pay for the children and not force the mother to get help somewhere else. A decent man will get 3 jobs to support his children if necessary. Yes, the system is unfair, life is unfair. It does take two to make children.

By mel

June 27, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

“A decent man will get 3 jobs to support his children if necessary. Yes, the system is unfair, life is unfair. It does take two to make children.”

I agree, but what if said father feels dispensable? What if the mother makes it abundantly clear that he is pathetic and trifling and that she doesn’t need him? I’m not excusing the father, but who wants to be beaten down and made to feel inferior and replaceable?

In my case, my parents divorced and my mother moved us across the country for job purposes. My father may not have been able to be around physically, but he could have called or written. He didn’t. In fact, he made it a point to disappear for a long time. So I know firsthand about dads who don’t care. There is no amount of encouragement that will help them.

By Julie Batson

June 27, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Once again, Shaunti hits the nail on the head. Why should it be that ‘because I gave birth and am “MOM”’ that I can expect to walk out on my husband at anytime, gain custody of my 2 children, move them away, AND ask for money??? What in the world gives me the right to strip my children of their father and relegate him to being a visitor???

By Eaton

June 27, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Yeah, in a perfect world if two parents have a child, they should be in love and remain together. Yeah, if by some chance they don’t stay together, they should both contribute. But the world isn’t perfect. Families break up, there are single mothers AND single fathers out there.

Courts and people need to stop looking for cookie cutter, 1950’s sitcom-like families. If people really cared about children, and not about the appearance of “normality” then we’d be a lot better off.

By Vince

June 27, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Suggesting the challenges women face when raising a family with little or no support from the sperm pusher is a choice women have to own up to is disrespectful to all people. And, when a man (Archie) sits back and writes off a single mother’s predicament as the price she has to pay for having unprotected sex, that is pure mysongyny. In fact, after reading such a bigoted commentary, concluding that men can be deadbeats isn’t a stretch at all.

Until men start getting PMS, getting pregnant, carrying to full term, giving birth and raising a child to adult status, men will never understand the true reality involved here and therefore need to acquire understanding and compassion and throw out the “crotch scratching - pass me a beer - its her fault she got knocked up - is dinner ready yet” mentality.

By Vince

June 27, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

Oh, and one other item….

I just love how little consistency their is with some of these debates.

Wasn’t that long ago the debates made one thing perfectly clear… “Marriage (between man and woman) is a sacred event which God created for the better of the children.”

And today? God didn’t create deadbeat dads? Why hasn’t God blessed every single marriage and protected every single child? Hmm?

By Les

June 27, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

I have to disagree with the statement that most men want to be a part of their children’s lives. My church-going, right-wing, state representative exbro-in-law fought my sister to minimize his visitation even though they live in the same town. He has never honored the visitation schedule which would have been nice so that my sister, the mother of his two children, could have a break every once in a while. When his children needed him the most, he decided that his mistress needed him more. Now that he’s up for re-election, he is trying to become more involved with them so they can help with his campaign and paint a picture of a happy family. Guess what? They want nothing to do with him and his feelings are hurt. WAH! WAH!

By Eaton

June 27, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

I just love those Right-winger Family-Values types…why is it that they all seem to have mistresses for whom they leave their wives? Newt Gingrich is on, what, mistress/wife #3 now?

By Archie

June 27, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Vince, you are struggling with spelling and reading and comprehension. A woman ought to want the father of her child to be involved with that child and if he’s not good enough then you should not have had unprotected sex with him in the first place. Are you telling me that a woman should have unprotected sex with someone that she does not want to be the father of her child? I would say the same thing for a man. If she’s not good enough then the guy should not be having unprotected sex with her. I didn’t mention single mothers in that post.

By Proud Dad

June 27, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Vince, there are men out there who do have a clue—give us a break. I’m raising two sons completely on my own and doing quite well from all accounts. Perhaps we burp out loud a little too much, but I manage to nurture them, clean house, fold laundry, fix everything including dinner, and all without a mother around to help. Having children and being single is a choice regardless of how you end up there. And if the father, or mother, is a deadbeat, who would want to force involvement with the children? I worked hard to limit involvement with my sons’ mother once I was given custody. I don’t want them around a drug/alcohol addict, regardless of her parental status.

Eaton you are sooo right. A family is a unit in which a child flourishes, and there are many potential variations. As a society, we need to quit watching TV and letting it determine our values.

By Les

June 27, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

I forgot to mention that Newt is his idol and his inspiration for entering politics.

By Vince

June 27, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

Eaton… Very Oscar Wilde… The mistresses aren’t mistresses unless someone gets caught. So, as long as nobody gets caught, then it isn’t really adultery. Thus, maintaining image is as easy as going to church.

By Eaton

June 27, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Yeah Vince, except Oscar Wilde didn’t exactly have a MISTRESS, if ya know what I mean ;-)

By Vince

June 27, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

Archie,

You are having difficulty with reading comprehension. You are trying to shift the focus from dead beat dads to unprotected sex. Feeling a little guilt, perhaps? The point is easy to understand; parents must be responsible and do their best for their children.

Proud Dad,

I know many single family households lead by the father, and all of them are very stable, pleasant environments. However, society has generated this debate because you situation is still a minority.

By Vince

June 27, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

No, Mr. Wilde had a Misteress.

By Archie

June 27, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

Proud Dad, I do fix dinner and clean house and I have an excellent woman/wife to help out. There is nothing wrong with being married or single. I have a problem with liberals that are overly concerned about conservatives to the point that they won’t acknowledge some of what conservatives say makes sense. It’s just like calling Eric Rudolph a hero,it doesn’t make sense to stick to an agenda just for the sake saying you’re a good conservative or a good liberal. Gina posted: Laws should be set up so that neither parent gains an edge. The children should be the ultimate winner with access to both parents.

That is what I believe unless one parent is abusive.

By Ben

June 27, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Just because you know of a person, or a couple of people, who don’t value their responsibility as a parent, doesn’t mean that they represent the whole. The sad reality is that we only hear about the people who don’t take their responsibility seriously, and those that do are praised for doing what they are supposed to be doing in the first place.

I see where you are going Archie and I feel the same way. People do things without understanding or care for the consequences. And having sex and producing babies is one them. A woman SHOULDN’T have unprotected sex without a man she is not wiling to live with or raise children with, and men shouldn’t have unprotected sex with women they don’t want to spend the rest of their lives with (at least 18 years) or have children with. And they damn sure shouldn’t be producing children if they can’t afford or aren’t able to take their of themselves.

By Archie

June 27, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

I am not shifting the debate to unprotected sex I merely used that statement. Again reading and comprehension. The fact that Proud Dad mentioned cooking and cleaning does not change the focus from the topic.

By Archie

June 27, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

Thanks Ben you understand pretty well and I understood your posts last week. I just talked to my relative that’s overseas and as liberal as I can be at times I would hesitate before burning a flag. Anyway I agree one bad apple doesn’t represent the whole tree.

By Proud Dad

June 27, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

There are plenty of dead-beat dads out there. But is it right to force parental participation in a child’s life? I just can’t believe that it is really better for the child. Personally, I don’t think we do enough to make any parent accountable. There are way, way too many kids out there who aren’t being raised in a loving, nurturing home period, regardless of number/quality of parents. Perhaps we should explore the idea of mandatory birth control until one proves one’s determination to be a good parent? Gets a little Orwellian if you think that way, doesn’t it? No free choice society is ever going to be perfect, but I certainly don’t want to see legal controls being exercised to make a person do what nature should urge him to do.

By Scott

June 27, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

I think James hit it on the head in the beginning. Additionally RS has some great comments to offer as well.

It really comes down to something that is often ignored in modern society… R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y

By Eaton

June 27, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

All of this moralizing about people having unprotected sex is great, but aren’t we talking about what happens after? The horse has left the barn, and it does the children no good to just criticize their parents for not being responsible.

I think we are all realistic enough to know that no matter what society does, short of making divorce illegal, there are going to be families splitting up. There are even families splitting up that, at the time they had children, thought they loved each other, and maybe even did love each other.

Even if all pre-marital sex stopped now, there would still be kids involved in these conflicts.

By Dakotawoman

June 27, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

The right wing conservatives want women barefoot and pregnant again. They want the man to be the king of the home like it used to be. They want women to have no options so men can control women again just like the good old days! It’s only been 30 or 40 years since divorce was very unusual. Women did not become doctors and lawyers and such and could not support themselves and their children. So women lived with alcoholic, abusive, cheating, dumbass husbands; they had no choice. Things have changed people. Now, if a woman isn’t treated right in a marriage, she doesn’t have to stay and put up with it! And there are a lot of people who can’t stand that! All of this right wing bull (family values, no abortion, changing family courts) is about turning back the clock to when men controlled women. As long as men could run around and cheat, but women didn’t everything was hunky dorry! As long as men could sow their wild oats before marriage but females remained virgins, things were great. As long as women couldn’t leave abusive husbands we had the great family that is the rock in our patriarchal society! Give me a break!

By RS

June 27, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Thank you, Scott. I think I’ve mentioned this before, on a different topic, but I see the following sad sight every weekday en route home from work; I have to drive through a low-income area where I see idle men hanging out on street corners in front of package stores, drinking from bottles in brown paper bags, selling drugs…And I see girl after girl (as young as 13 or 14), trailed by several unkempt toddlers, & each girl has a big, pregnant belly. No “father” in sight..Oh, yeah, check in front of the package stores. Yes, it’s been stated here all morning, but I cannot stress this enough; before you’re getting ready to engage in unprotected sex, ask yourself these questions: “Do I want to spend the rest of my life with this person? Do I want this person to be the father/mother of my children?” And never mind diseases! I realize people start off marriage all gung-ho & in love, but things happen along the way; that can’t be helped. I’m talking about randomly dropping babies with just anyone. I know this sounds fascist & yes, Orwellian but maybe we DO need enforced birth control. And maybe people should apply for a license & pass a test prior to having, or adopting, children. Why not? We don’t just indiscriminately give out drivers’ licenses. Children need to be in a stable environment; 2 responsible parents who genuinely WANT & CAN AFFORD them. Of course the government encourages irresponsibility by rewarding lazy slime for popping out baby after illegitimate baby they can neither afford nor are equipped in any way to properly care for. And Gina is right; all too often, courts award custody to the worst dregs of the earth for the sole reason they were born with female “plumbing”.

By Ben

June 27, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

It all boils down the same thing, really, parents putting their concerns and well-being ahead of the childs. They do it before sex, after marriage and during divorce.

And discussing unprotected sex and the responsibilities involved in parenthood is definitely relative to parenting, divorce, child support and custody because it addresses a big part of the issue before it becomes and issue. I may be wrong, but it seems like a great deal of child support cases are fought by unmarried parents. Custody tends to be more of an issue for divorcees.

By Ben

June 27, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Family Values is not really a right-wing conservative concept. I don’t suscribe to a wing, so when I say family values I mean knowing and teaching what is good, bad, right, wrong and establishing moral beliefs within my family.

By Eaton

June 27, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

You may not think it’s a right-wing concept, but it has been co-opted by the right wing. Family Values in political terms means you’re the perfect WASP couple with 2.3 children, a stay-at-home mom and a Father-Knows-Best dad.

By Ben

June 27, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

It’s only a right-wing concept if you suscribe to a wing. The term Family Values was around long before political parties took a hold of it and bastardized it.

By Netbanker

June 27, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Following my usual mantra of ‘follow the money’ leads me to think that what we’re talking about is a symptom rather than a cause.

The accumulation of wealth seems to be the number one goal promoted in this country…especially by the right. This had led to focusing on stock prices, salaries, accumulation of stuff to show you’re wealth, etc. It has meant working extra hours to prove you’re worthy of the next promotion or salary and two salary households. The sacrifice for this ever-championed status has been our families and children.

The conservative right LOVES to scoff at Europeans as lazy and socialist and whatever. Yet their societies have chosen families and lives over work and have added legislation to protect families. Americans live to work while Europeans work to live. The results may be that their economies aren’t chugging as fast and they don’t accumulate monetary wealth like Americans. But what do they have that we don’t? Longer life expectancies, less heart disease, progressive vacation and family leave policies, lower teen pregnancy and abortion rates, NO school shootings, etc…they have emotional and family relationship wealth that we are sorely lacking. Europeans have put their families first and Americans have put jobs/money first. The root cause here is what we value…MONEY.

Do we need initiatives? YES…but NOT for fathers…for businesses. The problems we face with our families as a society are not ones that families can solve. There is too much pressure to work, work, work by our companies and businesses do not support the concept of time off or reasonable work hours to allow people to spend time with their families. 2 weeks vacation for a new job?! If you work 43 hours a week for 50 weeks you’ve effectively worked a 52 week year. How many people ONLY work 43 hours a week? How many of us roll unused vacation time to the next year because we’re made to feel that taking the time is somehow selfish or the company will fold if we do? How many companies use the fear of unemployment to squeeze hours out of employees? How many employers have equipped their staff with cell phones, crackberries, etc. to keep us constantly available so they can interrupt our vacations, evenings, weekends? The number of hours one works is considered a badge of honor, but the price of that honor is our children. We put companies and work ahead of what is really important. At the end of your life who is sitting by your bedside holding your hand is what was important…do you really think a company rep will be there?

Let me ask the men with children here…is your company honestly supportive of allowing you time off to attend your child’s school event? Or stay home when they’re sick?

By lozen

June 27, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

There’s no way to force a person to be responsible, is there? There’s no way to force anyone to use protection when they have sex, is there? There’s no way to force a man to be a father if he doesn’t want to be, is there? There’s no way to force a woman who is angry with the child’s father to be fair. There’s no way to go back to the days when women didn’t get an education, couldn’t get good paying jobs, and had to stay in a marriage that didn’t make them happy. If this society truly valued people, including children, maybe there wouldn’t be so many irresponsible parents? We have moved into the 21st century (physically at least, though maybe not mentally and emotionally) and so many things have changed so drastically. Still nobody can imagine any other way to take care of children except “the one mother/one father/children family.” Well, guess what? People are doing it every day! And the ones I know are doing a much better job than a lot of conventional families. Growing up in a single parent household does not, in and of itself, cause problems for society. Being poor, powerless, and hopeless does. (Let’s do get rid of all programs for poor people like welfare! The average age of a person on welfare is 10!) Oh, if only life were as simple as some of us like to pretend it is.

By Ben

June 27, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

Netbanker - I wholeheartedly agree with you. But the sad truth is, money buys a great deal of happiness despite what people say. We use the companies and much as the companies use us. It takes money to provide for a family and to make sure children have opportunities in life.

My job, allows me the flexibility to be involved with my daughter, though.

By Archie

June 27, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

“All of this moralizing about people having unprotected sex is great, but aren’t we talking about what happens after? The horse has left the barn, and it does the children no good to just criticize their parents for not being responsible.”

Eaton the topic is about whether initiatives to encourage fathers are necessary. I think it is important to talk about things before the horse has left the barn because Diane did talk about education in her rebuttal so that some single mothers could get better jobs. This is a good thing but it still takes time and money to raise a child and I agree stopping premarital sex will not solve the problem but you can’t have everything your way, parenting is tough and you have to sacrifice something and if dads are around maybe the mom can get more education and maybe mom can do things such as exercise, go to the movies,etc. I think both conservatives and liberals are right. Conservatives are right to want dads in the home and liberals are right to want mothers to be well-educated but it comes back to responsibility and picking a direction in life. Like I said acknowledging that conservatives may be right about a few things does not mean that liberals are wrong. People need training about finances,sex, and child-rearing and that’s not to denigrate anyone it’s just the truth. Women that are not like Diane have to make different choices and men that don’t have great finances also have to make different choices. It may mean missing out on some great sex but that’s life.

By lozen

June 27, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, you have it right with follow the money! We all need initiatives for “living” and for “family” whatever it’s form. I haven’t heard much review or discussion of the book written by a woman who lived in Europe and then moved to the U.S. The book is about how much stress mothers in the U.S. are under, and how much easier it was for families in Europe. Someone who works 35 hours a week has more time with their family than someone who works 45 or 50! Someone with 6 weeks of vacation has more time with the family than someone with one or two weeks! Family life is truly valued there more than it is here. This is a complicated subject and has no simple solutions. As usual, you are aware of the big picture.

By Archie

June 27, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Let me ask the men with children here…is your company honestly supportive of allowing you time off to attend your child’s school event? Or stay home when they’re sick?

Netbanker my response is yes to both questions but I have a government job. The private industry job I had was flexible however.

By Netbanker

June 27, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Lozen. I imagine my awareness comes from living in Europe and seeing families together all the time. When meeting new people ‘what do you do’ is not a question asked within the first 5 minutes of meeting like it is here. They live in smaller homes, with fewer clothes, less stuff, and significantly more involvement with their families. Living that experience really helped me sort out the important priorities in life and it’s not money and stuff.

Ben…I have to disagree with you about people using their companies as much as companies use employees. CEO to average salaried employee ratios have gone from 43:1 to 435:1 over that past 20 years. Are you really trying to convince me that CEO’s are THAT much more important today than the people who actually DO the work? It is the wealthy conservatives who own the companies that can sit back and make judgements because they are financially secure enough to have a parent at home and they aren’t working 60 hours a week either….unless you consider rounds of golf and drinks paid for by the company is REALLY work.

By Eaton

June 27, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Archie, if we’re talking about the role of a father, then that presuposes that there is already a child, yes?

Like I said, in a perfect world, no children would be born into a home that is already split or one that will eventually split. No child would be born to an unwed mother. But this isn’t a perfect world, there are always going to the children born into these situtations, and there are always going to be cases where the courts are involved.

So, instead of dealing with should-a-beens and making disapproving noises about whether or not the parents should or shouldn’t have had sex in the first place, let’s acknowledge the fact that they did. Let’s acknowledge the reality of our situation - that these children torn between two parents are out there and will be out there - and move on to a solution.

That’s all I was saying…

By Netbanker

June 27, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

Lozen..was it you who suggested cutting a magnolia flower a while ago? IF so…THank you! I did that yesterday and it smells so nice…and not at all what I thought it would. I was expecting gardenia-ish rather that citrus.

By Gina

June 27, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Dakotawoman, Since so many women want to be independent why do they pull the gender card when they don’t want to deal with certain things? When you are discriminated against, it should make you more aware of not doing the same thing to others. Those women should understand more the need for shared parenting and contact with the father.

And to those who think the norm for divorce is men cheating, let me tell you…women are out there cheating at much larger numbers than you realize. Many guys at my workplace have divorced because their wives were cheating on them with a co-worker, personal trainer or some guy they met off the internet.

By Ken

June 27, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Why does this issue have to be right-wing, left-wing or any other wing…?

Is it so difficult to answer the question of whether or not we need to encourage fathers to participate in the lives of their children? If you believe that children are better off with a father than without life then the answer should be yes.

Of course people will argue the fitness of the individual for parenthood, but that goes both ways. The initial question addresses the need for a father and in my minds makes a basic assumption of the individual fitness for the job.

The media today bombards us with so many images of single parenthood that it presents this as a lifestyle choice rather than simply dealing with the situation at hand. I think we need to encourage and make a case for fathers because too many do feel disposable. I know this second hand through family and friends.

Unlike some folks, however, I do believe that a loving mother and father provides the ideal environment for a child. I also believe that both bring something different to the table when it comes to raising children regardless of what Diane’s “experts” indicate. Does that mean single mothers or fathers can’t do a wonderful job raising their children… Absolutely not. It simply means that it makes sense two loving parents would more than likely be better than one.

By Gina

June 27, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

Ken,

I concur.

By Ben

June 27, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

Netbanker - I’m not arguing that at all. Without the people “in the trenches” a company couldn’t survive. What I’m saying is, the companies use people to make money and people use companies to make money. Not many people work for the pure enjoyment of it. I use my job to take care of my family, to pay bills and to eat. It’s kind of like a disfunctional relationship where the company gets the better part of the deal, my part helps me sustain. The company can survive without me, but I couldn’t survive without the company.

By James

June 27, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Funny, I here everyone putting ‘men’ in this category. All men are either ignorant pigs who leave poor women cold and alone barefoot & pregnant. Or, they are wonderful fathers who would do anything for thier children. Well, guess what folks: It ain’t black & white! My biological father has a very well cared for family in a nice home and works hard to ensure his other children are well cared for. He would be put up as the ‘perfect’ father. Yet, 15 years earlier he got a 17 year old virgin girl pregnant. He has refused to have anything to do with this first child & actually told me (the bastard child) not to call, as he does not want to set a bad example for his other children.

Let’s tell it for what it is. If people would be honest about thier mistakes & take responsibilities for thier actions, most of these problems would not exist. However, our society expects us to keep such a ‘hollier than thou’ image that they do not allow us to fail. If you do, then you are so beaten down that you just can not climb your way back. And yes, extreme Liberals allow folks to roll in thier own mistakes and never take responsiblity. We need a more moderate stance. There is too much of Extreme Conservativism or Extreme Liberalism. We need to come back together and stop hating each other for our differences.

By Bruce

June 27, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Netbanker,

Twice now you have alluded to, as you see it, that ONLY conservatives are wealthy business owners. Are you really expecting us to believe that?

To answers your questions, yes my employer is very understanding when it comes to family matters.

By Netbanker

June 27, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Another thing I see happening is that children seem to be treated as score cards rather than kids. I’m amazed at the competition for the right day care, schools, camps, activities, etc. The classic ‘soccer’ mom who runs herself and her kids ragged going from activity to activity in order to build a kiddie resume so their child can attend the right .

I grew up in a family that placed value on time together over stuff. We generally lived a bit below the means of most of our neighbors, but the kids in the neighborhood tended to be jealous of the adventures my family took going camping for several weeks every summer and on weekends instead of renting a luxury house at the beach or always having a new car or paying for cable TV or having our own phones. It was because my parents didn’t really care too much about what the neighbors had or keeping up with the Joneses that instead of buying things we spent our resources learning new things and creating memories.

By Eaton

June 27, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Ken, to me it’s a “wing” issue because one side has chosen to make it an absolute. The only “legitimate” family is a married man and woman with their children. Anything else is wrong and should be discouraged at all costs. Disagreeing with that position means you are anti-family and anti-American. That’s pretty much what the Shauntis of the world believe.

That doesn’t get us anywhere, though. There are cases when families don’t belong together, where either the father OR the mother is utterly unfit for parenthood - I know both.

Is it wrong for a mother (or a father) to intentionally use a child as a weapon against the other? YES! Is it wrong to deny a willing (and fit) parent a full relationship with a child? YES! But does that mean that we should encourage marriage at all costs, or encourage fathers (or mothers) who don’t need to be parents to be involved in their children’s lives? No.

It’s what I said earlier - every case is different. We can’t just complacently sit back and assume that the two-parent system is going to work every time.

By Ms Harris

June 27, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

It’s truly a sad state of affair when women are given such an incredible amount of free reign. Yes, it takes 2 to make a baby but when a woman doesn’t so anything to prevent pregnancy, than it’s her SOLE responsibilty. I forgot to take my pill, I didn’t schedule my Norplant shot. Honey, who’s fault is that? Oh well, the man should take some of the blame. Men cannot get a shot or take a pill to prevent pregnany, so it’s on you. Is it that tard to remember to take a pill about the same time each day? Also, it’s amazing to me that people just take and take from the government and don’t feel the least bit bad about it. I go to school with a woman who told me that formula was so expensive that she chose to go on WIC. I said, “How ambarrasing that you cannot even afford to feed yor child” and she was offended. Really now, let’s get in into perscpective.

By Netbanker

June 27, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Ben I don’t disagree. I suppose my issue really comes down to the dysfunctional part you mention whereby companies have higher profits, CEO’s make more, stock is award to executives and it’s all on the backs of the common worker…who’s salaries aren’t keeping up with inflation.

By Ben

June 27, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

But what a lot of divorced couples fail to realize is despite their differences they BOTH still have an obligation to the child or children. No you don’t have to stay married, but you have to be MATURE enough to understand that your ex is still the father or mother of your child and maintain a civil relationship for that child or children.

Have your differences, fine, but not at the expense of the child.

By Eaton

June 27, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

Gosh, I can’t IMAGINE anyone being offended by someone saying “How embarassing that you can’t even afford to feed your own child”. How amazing.

By Netbanker

June 27, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Bruce..let me clarify…I don’t think that ONLY conservatives are wealthy business owners, but conservatives are the group that claims the mantle of family values yet put businesses ahead of families at the request of wealthy business owners.

By Ms Harris

June 27, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

If you choose to go on WIC and tell people about it, then you leave yourself wide open for comments. I work hard, study hard, and live a good and decent life. If someone is in front of me in grocery checkout line and pays with an EBT card, I’ve said on occasion “Almost like paying for it yourself, huh? ” I will be almost $13,000 in debt when I am finished with school. If I had a child when I enrolled, the gov’t would have given me about $9,000. That would have paid for daycare for the 1st year. Quite a bargain if you ask me.

By Eaton

June 27, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Funny, but when I see people struggling to put themselves through school with a child, I tend to feel compassionate rather than angry. I wonder why it’s any skin off your nose that someone is on WIC? Do you resent that child getting nutritious food so much?

Wait - let me guess - you’re a conservative Christian, aren’t you? That would explain the utter lack of compassion for your fellow human beings.

By Ms Harris

June 27, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

I was raised Catholic by 1 parent and am the 2nd of 6 kids. Kids don’t bother me, it’s women who keep having them irresponsibly that do. Again, it’s an issue of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I have a stepson that my husband and I can afford to feed and clothe. I have no responsibility to any other child, nor should I be expected to pay, donate, or spend time on someone who doesn’t effect me. I live a good life, if I wanted to be around poverty and ingorance I would. I’m sorry that you’re such a bleeding heart that you feel like everyone should try and make the world a better place. How sweet. Maybe when a single mom pays for my groceries, kid’s incurance or does something else nice for me, I’ll be more inclined to help her.

By Gina

June 27, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

As we speak, the child support law passed this session is under attact by many women’s groups because it states both parents income will be required in setting child support. Some women who want to be treated as equals apparently don’t really want to be treated equally when it comes down to money.

Most states require the income of both parents when setting child support. Georgia was one of the few who still used a range of percentages of the non-custodial parent’s gross income.

By Netbanker

June 27, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Ben..well said! I only know of a few couples who acutally put their kids first when it came to the divorce and afterward. In all cases they have agreed to never, ever speak poorly of the other parent to the kids and are always cordial to each other at the handoffs or when at events for the children.

By Archie

June 27, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Eaton first I liked your 3:20 pm post. However, criticism should be a part of any initiative and an acknowledgement of the past is important and as far as a solution I don’t know what that would be since this is a free society as someone said people are going to do things irresponsibly. I like both the conservative approach of speaking positively about the men like Proud Dad and others and I like the liberal approach of better education for poor women. Yes go after deadbeats but tell the regular guys that they are ok and fix the custody situation.

By mel

June 27, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Ms Harris, I can’t believe you are so judgemental of people you don’t even know. Be careful who you smart off to at the grocery store. One day you’re going to say something to the wrong person.

By Eaton

June 27, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Ooo. Ms. Harris called me a bleeding heart…I am so hurt. Yes, Ms. Harris, I guess I do want the world to be an overall better place. I do favor programs that let mothers feed their children. I do know several women who have used WIC who are not irresponsible, who just happen to work full time, and no, I don’t begrudge them or anyone else that money.

But hey. Maybe that’s just ignorant of me.

By RS

June 27, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

Um, at the risk of offending someone on here I happen to like VERY much (Eaton), I feel I must hop in, in defense of Ms. Harris. I’ve chosen, for many reasons, not to have children. So why do I have to heul myself off to work every day, in order to support OTHER people’s kids that I did not choose to bring into this world? If you can’t feed em, don’t breed em. it’s unfair to have kids & expect everyone else to subsidize them when your activities consist of going to the beauty salon, watching the soaps, taking drugs & having indescriminate sex. I know what I’m talking about; I regularly see that as I drive home from work every day. The other day I was on line at the supermarket checking out my groceries. A young woman with 3 unruly, sloppily-attired toddlers was in line in front of me, paying for her groceries with food stamps. She had an elaborate hairstyle, spike heel shoes & dragon-lady fingernails painted in a very gaudy design. And here I am, no makeup, hair scraped into a ponytail & wearing jeans I got at Goodwill & a top I bought at a garage sale. If a woman is a responsible person who’s fallen on hard times & is working/seeking work, that’s who WIC should go to, not the lazy ones I just described. Ms. Harris, good luck to you & your family; hope you can pay off your loan ASAP; Being in debt is no fun but hey, that’s YOUR fault, isn’t it? You should have been on crack, had a dozen babies each by a different father & contracted every social disease known to the CDC.

By Eaton

June 27, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

Hey RS - I know you and I have differing opinions on social programs, no big, and I do understand where you are coming from. I don’t particularly like seeing what I consider to be important social programs taken advantage of by people working the system.

I look at things like WIC a little differently though - because it’s not the mother you’re punishing by taking it away, it’s the child. If the alternative is a slowly starving baby, then I don’t mind that a tiny - that’s tiny percentage of my tax dollars go to fund this program and others like it. After all, a substantial chunk of those tax dollars are going to fund a war I am utterly opposed to.

I’m glad that there’s at least a little life being looked after in the midst of our glorious campaign of death.

By Netbanker

June 27, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

RS…I hear you on that one! I stopped going to Kroger City Center on Memorial Drive for that same reason. I was driving a 9 year old car, using coupons (still do), wearing older clothes, only buying things on sale and invariably I would end up in line behind someone like you described or sometimes even very well dressed. They’re putting steaks and all kinds of stuff on the counter and then they pull out a EBT CARD!!! I’m standing there thinking I’m eating chicken while you’re putting steaks up there and ultimately I’M PAYING FOR IT! Then they roll out of the store and into a new model lexus or SUV. I”m pinching my pennies to make sure I don’t have any debts and can be in a position to support myself in old age while my tax dollars are putting steak on someone else’s table. HELLO!!!

By Gina

June 27, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Ben,

Exactly! So many parents use the kids as weapons against each other and the children suffer emotionally.

By Gina

June 27, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

Julie,

I agree!

By Ken

June 27, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

I think Eaton needs to cut down his caffeine…

I don’t believe hardle anyone regardless of the political spectrum would ever say marriage at all cost or that the only legitimate family is one man or one woman. Of course every situation requires us to consider the cirmstances differently. However…

I do believe that most folks along would say the ideal situation would be to have a loving mother and a father. Ideal does not mean absolute. It means best case.

If we do not set our sights high as a society where will we end up? Can you find a flaw in striving for a society where each child grows up with a loving mother and father?

By Gina

June 27, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I have seen so many good fathers just beaten down by the family court system, their ex-wives or ex-partners. They are not satisfied until they have beaten them down financially, physically and emotionally. Some mothers are so vengeful, even when they initatiated the divorce, they will do anything to destroy the father of their children even if it means destroying the children.

There is not way we can make everyone do the correct thing. With fair laws in place, people are not as apt to take advantage.

By Eaton

June 27, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Ken, are you serious? Do you not read the newspapers or watch television? The right-wingers have been using that as a mantra since Gingrich engineered the “Pact with America” or whatever nonsense that was.

And yes, I find serious flaws in anything that purports to be the only ideal. It’s the most common, but common doesn’t mean ideal.

By Blablabla

June 27, 2005 05:08 PM | Link to this

Netbanker - like you’re not used to it? 15% of your salary (up to almost 90k) goes to subsidize somebody else’s retirement. Some portion on top of that goes to subsidize prescription drug benefits for somebody else. If you live in Atlanta, you pay property taxes for some truly awful public schools, irrespective of whether or not you have kids in the system. Some other portion of your tax dollars is going to pay for a decrepit sewer system. When faced with all that, I can understand, (although not necessarily agree with or condone) the responses of people like Ms Harris.

By Ben

June 28, 2005 07:49 AM | Link to this

Regardless of what people think makes up a traditional family, when people decide to bring a child into the world they MUST understand and accept a few things. The most important of these things is the fact that once that child exists, it is no longer about you. It is about that child, and making sure that child is cared for financially, physically and emotionally. Your well-being, your comfort, and your “happiness” come a distant second to that of the child’s.

If you can’t or aren’t willing to accept those basic and necessary fundamentals of parenthood, you should either not have children or make sure that those needs are taken care of in your absense. If you are married and end up divorced, guess what? Both parties are still responsible. And if you aren’t mature enough to handle the responsibility you still have to that child despite your differences with the ex, guess what? Too bad! You really don’t have a choice. The problem is people that are trying to raise children through divorce or separation of parents haven’t grown up themselves.

By Gina

June 28, 2005 08:14 AM | Link to this

Ben,

I agree with you. However, many women’s groups tell women that they aren’t financially responsible for their children and that the fathers should provide all the financial support. This is amazing since in Metro Atlanta many women make just as much as men.

By Ben

June 28, 2005 08:30 AM | Link to this

LoL. Gina - Well I guess the groups are HALF right!

By Whiley

June 28, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this

(another lie to bash women’s groups Gina)

WOMEN’S groups tell women that fathers should be at least 1/2 responsible. I personally think more than 1/2 since the mothers usually end up being the primary caregivers, even when both parents are working full time.

I think encouraging fathers to be fathers is a good thing. But should be done with positive reinforcement. Men don’t like to be scolded like children. (whether they deserve it or not)

By Ken

June 28, 2005 08:32 AM | Link to this

Eaton…

I don’t write something unless I am serious…

It is apparent that you have an issue with the idea that a a mother and a father presents the best environment for a child. I am not sure why, but it is apparent.

It may be because you don’t like Newt Gingrich and right-wing conservatives and you simply oppose anything they say. It may because you have experience either growing up or raising a child child in a single parent home. It may be something else, I don’t know. But I think the key to the discussion is ideal versus absolute.

Can you honestly say that two loving parents does not present the best possible situation for a child?

By Gina

June 28, 2005 08:33 AM | Link to this

Plus, there are many women who feel that even after a divorce, they should continue to be a stay at home mother and not work. They feel the father of their children should support their choice and support them along with the children.

Yet, the same women claim to fight for equal rights.

By Akeya

June 28, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this

The first thing many of us must remember is that the whole “just marry’em off” campaign is utter bull. Do people not understand that MANY OF THESE SINGLE WOMEN WHO GET MARRIED ARE ADDING THEIR HUSBANDS TO THEIR SOCIAL SERVICES CASES instead of GETTING OFF OF WELFARE?

Also, I’m quite tired of seeing men treated like ignorant buffoons who cannot fight their ways out of a paper bag. Men, do you not get tired of being portrayed as the poor, lost, silly dad who cannot so much as boil water? This is an instance where I agree with Shaunti. Why are we awarding full custody to women? Why are men relegated to visiting? This is crazy!! And we wonder why men don’t want to be involved….it’s because their role has been downplayed.

Now, there are some men that simply run away from the responsibility. Why should they stick around? The mom can just get on welfare and the men can duck and run at the mere mention of child support. Many quit good jobs just to avoid paying child support! Yeah, that’s real responsible.

Look at t.v. commercials, folks. Look how dad are portrayed. Their usually behind the woman holding the baby or in an inactive role, like sleeping with the baby on his chest.

I think that fatherhood initiatives are effective for those who truly are interested in being a father. You cannot force a man to be a father, just like you cannot assume that all women will make good mothers just because they have a child.

By Gina

June 28, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

I agree with you about encouraging father’s involvement in a positive manner.

I don’t want to name the groups, but there are some women’s groups in Atlanta that promote the mentality of women should have a choice about staying at home or not and men don’t have a choice whether to support just their children or support their children and women who are capable of earning a decent salary. I have attended some of their meetings and heard it from the leaders. It was amazing to hear the animosity against men. They feel most men are abusive and what is most disturbing, a few of the female legislators were there.

By Akeya

June 28, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this

Whiley, the only issue I have with fathers being more than 1/2 responsible is this: People tend to assume that just because a woman is the primary caregiver she is a GOOD caregiver. I have women come to my office all of the time complaining about not getting child support and the fathers of the children not doing anything with their child. These same ridiculous women are sitting in houses on Section 8 with the utilities off, the kids looking nasty, kids who are not learning anything at home or at school….we have to stop assuming that primary caregiver does not mean a good caregiver.

Ken- One loving parent can be jsut as good as two, as long as that one parent offers what both parents can. This is why I’m an advocate of getting rid of these silly gender roles. Men should be able to nurture and women should be able to pitch a ball. It’s that simple. In case something happens both parents should be equally capable of caring for children. It’s sad to see men have to learn how to nurture years after they’ve had a child because the wife/girlfriend left or died. The same applies for women. It’s sad to see women that were so gung-ho about being stay-at-home moms and then the man leaves or dies and she has to learn how to make a living for herself and her kids-something she should have been doing anyway.

By Ben

June 28, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

I agree that fathers should be urged to play their role, but like I said yesterday, a “be a good dad” campaign is only going to fall on deaf ears - just like a “Say No to Drugs” campaign is not gonna make a crackhead go cold turkey.

Being a good father, or mother, is not something you automatically pick up. You learn how to be a father or mother, or good man or good woman, through positive influences on your life and exposure to positive family values. (not the wing version, the other version)

By Akeya

June 28, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

Some corrections: their should be they’re and one of my dads should be plural…

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

Ken, I have no issue with a two-parent home. I simply find it hard to believe that you don’t think the religious right and the political right has used the two-parent male/female family unit as a weapon in its war against everyone different. All you need do is read the literature posted on the various “family” websites to see that, and to look back at the political campaigns of various Republican candidates.

I used Newt Gingrich as an example, by the way, because while he was trumpeting so-called “family values” from the rooftops and condemning everyone who didn’t measure up, he was divorcing his dying wife to re-marry the assistant with whom he was having an affair. He has since divorced THAT woman and married another assistant with whom he was having an affair. It was an example of the hypocrisy of those people.

Back to topic - yes, I will challenge the idea that the “ideal” family is two loving parents. The “ideal” family is any family that nurtures and loves and provides support and strength for its children. That’s it - it’s not form, it’s function.

And just so you know, Ken, I am the product of a normal, two-parent home. That’s really not the point, however.

By Gina

June 28, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this

Akeya,

Good points!

Some men are forced into a cash only society because when they get second jobs or a couple of part-time to supplement their primary job income to live, the mother of their child(ren) take them back to court to get a percentage of the income from the second and third jobs. They can’t save any money for the children and become frustrated by the system.

This is why there must be a fair system in place to ensure one parent isn’t taking advantage of the other parent and ensure both parent’s are doing their financial and emotional part of raising the child(ren).

By Gina

June 28, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

Akeya,

I am glad you pointed out that nurturing and earning a living aren’t gender specific.

By Akeya

June 28, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

my fingers must be tired this morning… jsut should be, of course, just

By Ms Harris

June 28, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

I appreciate the 2 (count ‘em, 2) people that agreed with me. I feel like I must apologize however because in reading my posts yesterday I realized that I sounded angry, bitter, and just like an all around vile person. I am not (at least I strive not to be). So again, I am sorry. That being said, I’m not quite sure what we can do to get the family back together. Short of mandatory birth control shots beginning at 13, we have to just sit back and hope for the best. :)

By Akeya

June 28, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

Why do we always feel the need to apologize for our anger? When we experience and witness injustices we are bound to be angry!

By Whiley

June 28, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

Akeya, I agree. Every situation is different & should be treated as such.

Women seeking child support should not suffer because some women are vultures. Men wanting a normal relationship with their kids should not suffer because some women are just darn revengeful. Good men shouldn’t be punished because there are a lot of abusive men out there. Women should not be punished for shielding their kids from abuse, but they also should not be assumed to be the best caregiver. What happens when both parents are bad?

I think a lot of men just “out of sight out of mind” concerning their kids. Not everybody can handle having kids around, even their own. Kids cry, whine, scream, talk a lot, use the bathroom a lot, have lots of questions, require constant visual supervision, must be fed, cleaned up after etc.

Not every man wants to be around that. Kids are a blessing in theory, the day to day direct contact is another thing. Women usually are the ones left to deal with all of it married our not. (I said usually) I assume that’s why there are a lot of tired, mad, overwhelmed women walking around. And they want some revenge & payback.

That’s what I observe anyway.

Encouragement of fathers can help improve the lives of everybody !

By Gina

June 28, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

Ms. Harris,

I understand your frustration. It is hard for me at times to see someone who is capable of earning a living, living off someone else. My only concern is the children. How do ensure the children are taken care of and not being taken advantage of by their own parents?

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

Gina, the problem is that some people - male or female - just aren’t fit to be parents. I don’t think we should be encouraging unfit parents, be they fathers OR mothers, to actively involve themselves with their children just in the name of having both parents involved.

I realize I usually don’t like using anecdotal evidence, but I’m going to speak from personal experience here. My ex-brother-in-law is a terrible parent. He barely visits my neice and is certainly not active in her life, nor has he ever tried to be. He is, as Ben pointed out, a very immature and selfish person, even at 40-something, and he simply can’t make time for his own daughter.

When he does come, he is such an emotional leech that she is always upset. This Father’s Day, he appeared with a new wife that he hadn’t told her about. Oh, and he’s an abusive alcoholic.

So, there are people who just don’t need to be part of their children’s lives any more than is necessary, and I don’t think the state should be stepping in and “encouraging” them all in the name of conformity to some non-existent ideal.

By Ken

June 28, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

Eaton…

I would agree that the hard-right has used this issue just as the hard-left has used other issues. But should we oppose every idea that a differing political group takes just because we don’t agree with that group? That does not make any sense at all. I do not identify with the hard-left or the hard-right but I support their stances on individual issues.

Akeya…

I’m not sure if you realize it, but you actually support my original statement. Of course single parent families work, I know many people who grew up in single parent households. But like you said, that one parent needs to be able to give what both parents would normally. However, to call gender rolls silly, I think is quite, well, silly. Whether we like it or not, men are different than women. Equal, but different. Does this mean that men shouldn’t change diapers or that women need shoudl be forced to stay home and clean? Not at all. But if you believe that mena nd women do not bring different types emotional emergy to child, then I would have to disagree with you.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

Ken, I’m not going to argue this with you. I don’t disagree with the stance because the right took it, but because I believe it is wrong. There is no such thing as the perfect family structure.

By Akeya

June 28, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

Eaton- In my opinion gender roles are completely ridiculous. Yes, men and women may be different, but some of the gender roles that separate us are well, ridiculous. Just because we have differences does not mean we should not be able to offer the same things. I feel that this will not happen until we eradicate our desperate need for gender roles. I don’t understand why they are necessary in parenting.

By Lyrazel

June 28, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Blinders worn by political action groups always point at the mom, dad, kids and dog. This is what mass marketing has been pushing to comfort people to buy product. It is not reality in most American homes.

How do you instill traditional family values in young men for this TV lifestyle if he has never experienced it and possibly never will? Do you sit him in front of endless television and tell them from the age of 3: This is how it should be? The role of father is in transition equally as the roles for women have been changing and yet ludicrous alimony judgements have been plaguing our courts. Why charge a man who only makes $200/week $600/month alimony? You gear the whole system up for ultimate failure, establish a pariah factor with a catchy slogan—deadbeat dads—and yet do nothing to change a system woefully inadequate.

Since we are moving toward a daycare-raises-your-children society shouldnt the debate be more towards how do we help these children as a group learn nurturing and relationship skills—rather than split hairs about family values of days gone by.

By Archie

June 28, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

“I do believe that most folks along would say the ideal situation would be to have a loving mother and a father. Ideal does not mean absolute. It means best case.”

Ken I agree with that statement. I am not trying to offend anyone but there’s nothing wrong with it regardless of political party affiliation. I know there are gays that want children but that doesn’t make that statement wrong. I also liked Whiley’s 9:06 am post. I knew she could be positive about men.

For Eaton,best wishes with your niece but there’s really nothing wrong with Ken’s statement because we all know someone like your ex-brother-in-law but he said ideal not an absolute for each and every situation. We have to let go of this political thing sometimes. I don’t like Newt either but sometimes doing something positive trumps politics. I notice people are busy trying not to admit that that the political right may be right with their intent,that they just fight for the heck of it.

For Akeya, yes I do get tired of hearing negative things because I am a man and then I look and see women doing those things that have been hyped on men such as not doing housework, not watching the kid closely enough, and not cooking. It’s nice to hear some of the women here defend men.

By Ms Harris

June 28, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

It seems to me that everyone is up in arms about the “Faith-based” initiave, but if you are so opposed to it then what prey tell do you suggest? People have been left to their own devices and look where we are. Maybe we need help, and if you cannot draw strength from faith than I pity you. Maybe this is as good as it gets. Maybe this is all we can expect. I don’t know, but things are in such a dire state that maybe these faith based initiaves might be the way to go. I cannot foresee much more of a breakdown of family. It certainly cannot make things worse.

By Gina

June 28, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

Eaton,

When contact with a parent is detrimental to a child, contact should not be encouraged. I agree.

However, if the parent has changed their life and has gotten assistance with their problems, they should be given a chance to be a part of their child’s life.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

Sorry Archie, but I just think you’re wrong. Form is irrelevant. It’s results that matter.

And Ms. Harris, if you need some archaic, paternalistic, controlling idea of faith to draw your inspiration from, then I pity YOU. Frankly, I don’t see that you are much of a Christian anyway, based on your earlier posts.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Gina,

I agree, absolutely. I think that good parents should be part of their children’s lives.

By Archie

June 28, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

Gina your 9:40 am makes good sense.

“Why charge a man who only makes $200/week $600/month alimony? You gear the whole system up for ultimate failure, establish a pariah factor with a catchy sloganâ€â€?deadbeat dadsâ€â€?and yet do nothing to change a system woefully inadequate.” Thanks Lyrazel because that needs to come from a woman. When I say that I usually get met some heated words.

By Ms Harris

June 28, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Gee Eaton, well is what we have going on now working???? No, not really. So either put up or shut up. Let’s here some of your ideas. What do you think we should do as a society to make things better?? Have 2 parent families, keep teen girls from getting pregnant, make fathers more involved.Tell us how.Maybe you know something that the rest of us don’t, so please enlight me as how to help the American family. Cause so far you’re falling down on the job. You cannot make people stop or do anything they don’t want to do, granted. Also, marrying an abusive alcoholic doesn’t speak much of character, so I wouldn’t say too much about pity. Class marries class, baby.

Society is not working, oh but lets continue on the “Everone is free to be you and me” path. It’s been working so well so far.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Obviously alimony and child support should be scaled to income. On the other hand, I come into contact with credit reports as part of my job, and you would be amazed how many people with $300K homes and $65K cars and Neiman-Marcus cards etc. etc. etc. are also $60, $65K in arrears on child support.

There ARE deadbeat dads (and presumably moms) out there. Not every man paying child support is a victim of the system.

By Archie

June 28, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

Eaton we agree to disagree. I mean as far as I know only a man and woman can have a child so in my humble opinion it would be ideal that, that particular man and woman raise the child in a loving and healthy way. Results do count, but we agree to disagree.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

Oh, Ms. Harris you are so calm and reasoned when you lash out like an angry viper.

Just as an FYI, since you want to attack my family - we as a family collectively have more letters after our names than the alphabet. My father is a PhD, I’m an MBA, and my sister, who you so nastily insulted, has an MS in Speech Pathology. Everyone makes mistakes, dear, as your conception makes painfully obvious. Only an immature ninny assume otherwise.

And no, an obsessive clinging to religion will not reverse the negatives in our society. All the fundies like to scream that the rise of secularism has caused our downfall, but dear, that’s just bunk. There is a higher divorce rate among fundamentalist Christians than there is among moderate or non-religious people, just as an example.

Obviously you like easy answers, but there are none. How about we start focusing on improving people’s situations rather than condeming them because they don’t measure up to your standard? If you are so worried about making the world a better place, how about you stop assuming that everyone who is poorer than you is scum? How about you have just a teeny, tiny bit of compassion for other people?

Jesus would be so very, very proud of you.

By Whiley

June 28, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

Akeya, I agree. Every situation is different & should be treated as such.

Women seeking child support should not suffer because some women are vultures. Men wanting a normal relationship with their kids should not suffer because some women are just darn revengeful. Good men shouldn’t be punished because there are a lot of abusive men out there. Women should not be punished for shielding their kids from abuse, but they also should not be assumed to be the best caregiver. What happens when both parents are bad?

I think a lot of men just “out of sight out of mind” concerning their kids. And not everybody wants to have kids around, even their own. Kids cry, wine, scream, talk a lot, use the bathroom a lot, have lots of questions, require constant visual supervision, must be fed, cleaned up after etc.

Not every man wants to be around that. Kids are a blessing in theory, the day to day direct contact is another thing. Women usually are the ones left to deal with all of it married our not. (I said usually) I assume that’s why there are a lot of tired, mad, overwhelmed women walking around. And they want some revenge & payback.

That’s what I observe anyway.

Encouragement of fathers can help improve the lives of everybody !

By Ken

June 28, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Eaton…

I don’t want to argue either and we can agree to disagree. I simply wanted you to acknowledge you do not agree with a two parent ideal regardless of the political affiliation.

Akeya…

I think you sent Eaton your response instead of myself and we can also agree to disagree. I know that my wife and I bring entirely different things to the table. There will be things I will give to our children that she cannot and there will most definitely be things she can give that I cannot. The same goes for my mother and father and her mother and father and the mothers and fathers of nearly all of my friends and relatives.

I am comfortable with that. She is comfortable with that. In fact we find it comforting that we have a partner to provide the things we openly acknowledge we cannot.

By Akeya

June 28, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

Ken- and what happens if/when one of you is not there to “bring to the table” your particulars?

By RS

June 28, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Eaton: I see exactly where you are coming from but it’s actually the abusers of the welfare system who are punishing their own children. As I stated in a post yesterday, I often see welfare skanks dressed to the nines with the bling-bling, gold jewelry, manicures & fancy hairdos, trailed by a litter of dirty, skinny kids. Tells you where that money goes…And I know I sound like an evil person, but when I have experiences like Netbanker (carrying my generic & coupon purchases to my KIA while the welfare mother parked next to me stuffs her Lexus SUV with steak & lobster), that doesn’t exactly fill my heart with concern for kids I don’t know, many of whom will be carjacking me in 10 years. Gina & Akeya, you are both right on target, even Zack is, in this case. The media, by unfairly portraying & stereotyping ALL men as bumbling buffoons unfit to be around children, let alone parenting, doesn’t exactly encourage guys to be fathers. Ms. Harris: Glad to see you aboard today! No, I didn’t “get” at all that you are “vile”. What I DO get is that you seem to be a hardworking, responsible lady who is doing an admirable job raising a little boy who’s not even your biological son. Like all working people, you’ve been hurt & abused by the system. I feel the same as you & can sympathize with your frustration. I gope things work out for you, you deserve it.

By Ken

June 28, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Bravo Eaton…

Spoken like a true academic…! Let’s belittle people with our degrees and talk down to them from the ivory tower. The number of “letters” after your name does not mean doodle. What you do with those skills does.

You spoke of improving people’s situations… Well, offer up some ideas. It seems that you are very good at shooting down the thoughts of others without proposing any of your own yet another trait of a true academic.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

Akeya,

I think that those “somethings” can come from a variety of sources…extended family, for instance.

You know, it’s GREAT when kids have a stable upbringing with two biological loving parents. Really - it is. I did - it was great! But there are also terrible, horrible families where the child lives with his biological, married parents, who go to church and follow all the religious right’s Path to A Perfect Family.

But people take that and assume that a different kind of upbringing can’t be equally as great and equally as beneficial to the development of the child, and that’s just wrong.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

RS, I know what you mean, but there’s a problem with your example - they’re like the few red flowers scattered in with an entire bed of white.

Are there people who abuse the welfare system? Yes, absolutely. No question. But are there many many many more people who are using it as intended? Yes, also absolutely.

Sure, the welfare mamas with five baby-daddies dripping with bling stand out in the crowd, but what you don’t see are the ten people behind each one of them quitely ekeing out a living and trying to improve themselves.

It’s easy to get mad about the abusers and forget the people who aren’t playing the system.

By Tim

June 28, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Ben… I know you weren’t trying to offend anyone… but there is proof to the contrary that a mom/dad home is any better than a dad/dad or mom/mom home… neither is better than the other… like others have said… it is not how many people are bringing something to the table (or what sex they are)… what matters is what they are bringing to the table

Ken… if my partner and I were parents we would both would bring different things to the table… seeing as we are very different… I will just repeat… it doesn’t matter WHO but rather WHAT someone is doing for their children

RS… sorry I have to disagree with you… Ms. Harris (wondering if this may be the lovely ex-secretary of state of Florida) came off as (trying to say this as nice as possible) quite nasty yesterday… and she did nothing to help her cause when she insulted Eaton’s sister… that being said… I would be annoyed if I saw a leach living better than me too… but I think I would go about it a bit differently

By RS

June 28, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

Eaton: Sadly, from what I’m seeing, there are more welfare abusers than a lot of folks realize. Akeya, who works with the system, has confirmed this. If people are working & trying to eke out a living, that’s one thing. But I have a problem with the ones who don’t work because they don’t WANT to work. What have they done to deserve our tax money? I can’t think of one thing. I also believe in personal responsiblity. I’d NEVER have children with the mindset of “I can’t afford to raise my kids so I’ll mooch off the system & let the taxpayers do it for me”.

By RS

June 28, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

That’s ok, Tim. I certainly have nothing against any member of Eaton’s family & definately not against Eaton; I adore you both! (OH! How was gay Pride? I never made it out there Sunday; had a really evil sinus attack & the rain didn’t help)

By DeltaX

June 28, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

Akeya (but helpful to many),

Responding to the question of: Why do we always feel the need to apologize for our anger? When we experience and witness injustices we are bound to be angry!

To feel angry is perfectly normal, to act on it (especially in reaction vs action) is childish and never betters the situation.

When we act on it is when we should apologize. And if you are a really big person, you apologize for even considering directing the anger: this assists in changing those peptides we are so in love with.

By mel

June 28, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

RS, I went to a play group with 2 other moms who stay at home. Let me tell you: They were both on WIC. They both had degrees, but didn’t want to work because they felt “entitled” to stay home with their babies. One’s husband had been laid off and the other’s was in the military. They then told me that they felt “funny” in the WIC office because they didn’t belong. When I asked them why they didn’t look for a job, they acted as if that were a cardinal sin. And apparently, they aren’t the only ones from their area who do this. Then they proceeded to tell me about the high end baby boutiques where they shop. It was interesting, to say the least.

There have been times in my marriage where I wanted to leave, and same for my husband, but we stayed for our daughter. Obviously, we worked through those things, but at the time, they seemed insurmountable. I think perspective allowed us to make the decision because both of us grew up fatherless. We don’t want her to grow up that way when she doesn’t have to.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

RS, I also don’t like the folks who just don’t want to work and live off the system. You’ll get no argument from me there.

Don’t know about Tim, but Pride was great for me on Sunday, even with the rain. The parade was the longest I’ve ever seen, and even a very loud and obnoxious preacher with a loudspeaker smack at the entrance to the park couldn’t…um…rain on our parade…um…because Mother Nature took care of that…um…sorry for the pun…

My dad also had a blast, which was very cool.

By Tim

June 28, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

RS… I didn’t go… we were going to go Sunday… but I guess the other half thought he was going to melt or something… I was like ‘butch it up Mary and let’s go!’ but that didn’t work lol… so it was a quiet day at home :)

By Whiley

June 28, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

I find it interesting that more people seem to be enraged at mothers who seek assistance or don’t work outside the home, as opposed to the unbelievable amount of money criminals, sex offenders, murders etc cost us. While we are spending so much time tearing apart single mothers, we ignore fathers who disappear to avoid paying for their own children. We are furious at women who choose to stay home, we look down on working mothers calling them selfish. Yet nothing is said about fathers who pay on occasion, or always seem to be too busy to take the kids one weekend. Women, you just can’t win.

I say, don’t have children. Life is so much better & LESS PEOPLE TEARING YOU DOWN FOR ANYTHING YOU DO !

This is a discussion about encouraging dads to pay for & father their own children. Act like their kids exist ! This is not about welfare moms.

Instead of talking about the real problem, we just place the blame on women. Easy to do, & gets guys off the hook once again. yeay for patriarchy ! It’s still working just fine !

By RS

June 28, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Mel & Eaton: Unfortunately, those are not isolated cases & Mel, you’re right. The lazier & more entitlemen-centric (?) a person is, the more hostile & arrogant they are in defense of their own lazy lifestyle. I’m glad you & your husband cared enough to work out your differences; its always feels good to hear about a happy ending, especially since you seem like such a nice lady. Eaton: That’s great you & your dad (how empowering is THAT?) enjoyed Pride; sorry you couldn’t make it either, Tim, but there’s always next year. (“Butch it up, Mary”! You KILL me!)

By Dave

June 28, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Lazy liberal elite, greedy/racist conservatives. Is that all you people can do is rehash bad tv and talk radio dialogue?
Here’s an idea. Throw out your tv and turn off your radio, unless you’re listening to music.

Quit demeaning others, because when you do, your demean yourself.

Read a book or two, not by Thomas Friedman, George F. Will, or Al Franken, but by a novelist, a PhD, a philosopher.

What ever happened to thinking a problem through constructively?

By Akeya

June 28, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

DeltaX- Voicing your anger is not acting out. If Ms. harris had snatched the WIC coupons out of the woman’s hands is acting on anger. And I honestly don’t call someone who chooses to hide every feeling they have simply because it may anger someone a big person. I call that a coward.

Eaton- I completely agree with your 10:32 post. Different types of families can be just as productive and loving as the “traditional” family setup. But, those who are quietly eking out a living are usually those who are over the gross income limits for assistance.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Yeah RS, I admit I got a little teary when my 60-year old dad starting jumping and cheering when PFLAG walked by.

By Akeya

June 28, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

Mel- the women that you met are what I call the “princess” stay-at-home moms.
The kind that probably have nannies to care for the children while they do their aerobics and also probably can barely cook a decent meal. Maybe I’m wrong…

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Thanks for the advice Dave. But, by assuming that the rest of us haven’t actually read anything but pop politics, aren’t you kind of making demeaning assumptions about us?

By Akeya

June 28, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Whiley- I have a friend that is forever in court about her child support. She complains about not having time to do this or that. The father of the child is now married with a new baby. I asked my friend why she doesn’t push for him having more custody. She seems to be only concerned about getting monetary child support. The funny thing is that this guy doesn’t work. I often wonder how he supports his wife and child. I personally think that fathers should be given joint custody of children. Children aren’t placed in suspended animation just because someone works, goes to school, or even unemployed. Their needs are constant.

By Tim

June 28, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

Eaton… glad you had a good time… that is very cool about your dad… really says a lot about him! my mom is only 46 so she grew up in a much different setting and probably a little easier for her to accept… my sister informed me that our mom went to a drag show before I ever did… pretty cool chick she is :)

By RS

June 28, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Akeya, I agree about joint custody for dads. A lot of men WANT to participate in their childrens’ lives. A father can certainly contribute as much to the child’s life as the mother (the law of Yin & Yang; perfect balance!) Eaton, you are so lucky; Over the years I’ve heard so many sad stories about gay folks who encounter a complete lack of support from their families. My sister in law is a lesbian. She’s in her late 30’s & to this very day, her folks (my in-laws) don’t want anyone outside the family knowing what she is; they are in such denial about her sexuality & insist it’s “only a phase” & she “just hasn’t met the right man”. I’ve heard parents of gay children remark “If I’d known my son/daughter would grow up to be homosexual/lesbian, I’d never have had him/her”. One of the stupidest comments I’ve ever heard, bar none. And a long time ago, a friend of a friend came out to his parents when he was diagnosed with AIDS. At that point, they disowned him; he died alone. The fact that you were brought up with unconditional love & acceptance is probably one contributing factor to your being the fine person you are, dear!

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

Geeze Tim, way to make me feel old in my early 30s…my oldest sister is your mom’s age.

By Whiley

June 28, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

Akeya, sounds like there is a good reason your friend isn’t trying to push the father of her children to be more involved. He doesn’t work?? He has more kids & somehow the bills are being paid? Can we say drug user/dealer? Can we say mooch? I’d say he definitely wouldn’t set a good example for kids. I would limit exposure to him too. He still should pay for his own offspring. So you think that loser should get joint custody? Lovely. He’s a great role model to teach the next generation of boys to sit around & make women support & do everything for him. Excellent logic.

Ahem, the same stay at home moms who enjoy the good life with nannies are the same women who have husbands that JUST work, are never home, & barely see the kids. Aren’t they the ones paying for the nanny? OH….but the wife is the bad person here.

I think encouragement of fathers to show more interest in their kids is fantastic.

By Gina

June 28, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

Some statistics…

For example, the chief predictor of crime in a neighborhood is the percentage of homes without fathers.

According to national health statistics, children from homes without fathers are five times more likely to live in poverty, three times more likely to fail in school, two to three times more likely to develop emotional and behavioral problems, and three times more likely to commit suicide.

By mel

June 28, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

Thanks RS.

I wonder if, on a subconscious level, some women prepare themselves for the possibility that they will have to do it alone. Maybe they intentionally only let the father do so much with the baby, and only get “so close” to the kids.

It’s an interesting dichotomy; on the one hand, women want fathers to do their part and feel that they are equal partners, but on the other hand, women know that they could do it alone if they HAD to, and perhaps live in such a way that they are mentally prepared for the death or abandonment of the father. Maybe it’s akin to nature where most animal mothers do the nurturing, protecting, and guiding.

By mel

June 28, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

Akeya, I think you are right.

Gina, statistics also show that married men commit fewer crimes.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

Gina, the problem with statistics like those is that there is no established causal link. It’s likely that the absence of the father is not the cause of these conditions, but another symptom of a greater overlying cause, probably poverty.

If you were to take a sample of single-mother households from a typical middle-class demographic only, I suspect that none of these statistics would be relfected in that population.

By Archie

June 28, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

Replying to Akeya’s 11:38 post I agree with the joint custody and even if the guy is unemployed he still deserves to see his child and even if he isn’t a good role model based on someone’s subjective opinion he still deserves to see his child. Many people need to understand that someone can find fault with you regardless of your ways and there is no perfect person. For some people being gay is a poor role model,for others it’s being an alcoholic, for some it’s a guy that works every day,for some it’s a woman that’s a minister,for some it’s a republican,etc. People deserve to see their kids and if they are harmful then maybe the government should step in but if they are bad models … well that’s in the eye of the beholder. I don’t believe someone on welfare owns a Lexus although they may drive a Lexus. I think Whiley was right to say let’s focus on the topic at hand.

By RS

June 28, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Mel, you raised a compelling point about some women subconsciously preparing themselves for divorce proactively; maybe it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy too? If divorce is in the woman’s subconscious, maybe it’s negatively impacting the marriage, therefore presenting an unhappy outcome? And it certainly IS true about more problems emerging from broken families; look where most of the crime is coming from…

By Ben

June 28, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

Tim - You’re right I wasn’t trying to offend anyone. The reason I say mom/dad is not because I have issues with dad/dad or mom/mom. I think any home that raises children properly and provides for, nurtures and teaches them is a perfect environment. But like Archie said, children are born to a mom and dad and the ultimate responsibility falls on them. I stated earlier that “If you can’t or aren’t willing to accept those basic and necessary fundamentals of parenthood, you should either not have children or make sure that those needs are taken care of in your absense.”

I come from a place where, and still believe that, it takes a village to raise a child. But those days are long gone!

By Whiley

June 28, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

I don’t believe that most divorced dads REALLY want 1/2 custody. It’s too much work. How many shows have we seen where dad’s switch places with mom & they are completely shocked, overwhelmed, stressed, & don’t even have time for a shower? They are always so happy when mom comes home. hehe

Gina, you’re really weird. Or a man trying to push an agenda. The old one of blaming everything on women instead of taking responsibility.

I’ll tell you what, I wouldn’t have children today if you paid me. No way.

Positive reinforcement encouraging dads should be started today ! Commercials with cute kids having a ball doing fun things with dad. Lots of hugs.

Sugar coat it all & for God’s sake don’t show a crying baby with dirty diapers that need changing ! Or a crying 2 year old ! Or paying for a car load of diapers, wipes, baby food, snacks & everything else ! Wiping up a food covered kid that’s throwing his lunch all over the kitchen floor !

By Tony

June 28, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

Contrary to popular opinion, MOST fathers are:

A person who is forced to endure childbirth without an anesthetic. He growls when he feels good and laughs very loud when he is scared half-to-death.

A father never feels entirely worthy of the worship in a child’s eyes. He is never quite the hero his daughter thinks. Never quite the man his son believes him to be. And this worries him sometimes. (So he works too hard to try to smooth the rough places in the road of those of his own who will follow him.)

A father is a person who goes to war sometimes… and would run the other way except that war is part of an important job in his life (which is making the world better for his children than it has been for him).

Fathers grow older faster than other people, because they, in other wars, have to stand at the airport and wave goodbye to the uniform that climbs on board the plane.

And, while mothers cry where it shows, fathers stand and beam… outside… as they endure the pain inside.

Fathers are men who give daughters away to other men who aren’t nearly good enough, so that they can have children that are smarter than anybody’s.

Fathers fight dragons almost daily. They hurry away from the breakfast table off to the arena, which is sometimes called an office or a workshop. There they tackle the dragon with three heads: Weariness, Works, and Monotony. And they never quite win the fight, but they never give up.

Knights in shining armor; fathers in shiny trousers. There’s little difference as they march away each workday.

And when a Father passes away, and after a good rest, he won’t just sit on a cloud and wait for the girl he’s loved and the children she bore. He’ll be busy there too… repairing the stars, oiling the gates, and in general helping smooth the way for others.

Author unknown.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

By the way, the point of my post about the statistics was this: Let’s say that poverty is the primary causal force behind the statistics that Gina quoted. Why do we assume that reintroducing a father who, presumeably, was irresponsible or selfish enough to leave a pregnant woman behind and alone in the first place a good thing? Is this person a role model? Would he contribute to a decrease in the various statistics, simply by being present? Somehow I doubt it.

I suspect - and not having the numbers in front of me, I can’t say with certainty, but I suspect that if you were to isolate the demographic most represented in single-parent homes, the urban poor, that you would find the statistics stated are equally true in that population.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Yeah…the author is unknown because no one would willingly fess up to that drivel.

By Whiley

June 28, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

RS,that’s a good one I’ve never thought of ! “subconsciously preparing themselves for divorce” Yet another clever way to blame women for absent fathers.

By Akeya

June 28, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Whiley- The father of my friend’s child, to my knowledge, lives off of student loans. But hey, women on food stamps and other welfare programs oftentimes aren’t doing any better than he is and they have full custody. As for the husbands of the princess stay-at-home mommies, they should be devoting equal amounts of time to their children. Here again, men are thought of as wallets instead of as parents.

Archie- please don’t be disillusioned. There are people on welfare that own homes and luxury cars because they lie, cheat, and steal their ways through the system. I have discovered many fraud cases in which clients own very expensive resources.

By mel

June 28, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Whiley, I wasn’t blaming women for absent fathers. I was simply saying that it could be one factor that contributes to the current culture. If men don’t feel needed, and if they know society expects them to leave, then it does become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

By Whiley

June 28, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Oh ok Mel, I agree. Everyone needs to be treated as important. :)

By DeltaX

June 28, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Why not mandate joint custody with equal monatary/emotional responsibility in all cases as the default? (if someone has an abuse issue, there is still an avenue to voice that)

And if one of the parents cannot measure up to the childs needs or is found to be neglectful, they have less custody and pay more?

By Ken

June 28, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Eaton…

I don’t think I have read a post completely condemning households without a mother and father at the head. Yet you seem to blast away.

I do not know why you have decided to be so hostile toward families that are made up of a mother and a father, especially knowing that you grew up in that environment and consider yourself as having a good childhood. Can you tell us why? I suspect you you have been hurt in the past. If so, that was the action of a specific individual not an entire demographic of people.

By DeltaX

June 28, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Why is it that people (not just the ones on here) roleplay these situations as if niether party knew of the others shortcomings?

We all know, very few exceptions aside, that people know what the person they are considering marrying is like; a bum is a bum, unmotivated is as does, etc. But people marry and have kids with them anyhow, are surprised that it fell apart (due to the forseen stuff), and are further surprised that the same behavior is present in divorce?

Bottom line is people have to grow up - all people including males and females. No bandaid with fix the problems that arise from this childish/selfish -ness.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Ken, let me speak slowly so you can understand. I have…no…hostilities…towards…two-parent…households.

I have…hostilities…towards…people…who…think…that…the…only…perfect…families…are…two-parent.

Is that better, Ken?

By Akeya

June 28, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Delta- Doesn’t sound bad to me…

By Zack

June 28, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis—I can mention abortion anytime I want; I have freedom of speech. As for people accepting or rejecting my beliefs, I don’t look to other people for verification.

Eaton—If you don’t condemn the actions inside abortion clinics, don’t say anything about Eric Rudolph. It’s scary and sad that something so insanely and overtly wrong can be embraced by people, like you. Why don’t you try to tell me how abortion differs from the Holocaust, my friend? Abortion is actually worse because it attacks the utmost innocent life and yes, I can say that Rudolph does not deserve to be put to death for his actions. Each abortionist in this country needs to be put on death row, yet you defend this horrible action. You and your type are albatrosses to society, and your ridiculously-wrong beliefs are becoming more and more accepted because, unfortunately, there are more and more people like you.

How in the world can you defend the killing of innocent life? You can’t. Nothing you can say will substantiate a defense of it.

Brian Curtis—Since you addressed me, would you like to go a step farhter and try to tell me that men are NOT mistreated by today’s status quos? You love to fuss and argue, so I guess you’ll try to work up a refute to that statement. Good luck.

RS—I’m sorry that you’re being deprived while others are sponging off the government. You’re absolutely right that your tax dollars should not go to those who have more children than they can afford, which is why it offends me when you’ve asked me how many children I’ve <—— adopted when I’ve shown my stance against abortion. If people are having more children than they can afford, it’s not my fault. It’s not the childrens’ fault. Having abortion as an option is in no way an answer. I believe in government assistance to help the children in question, and I believe the parents should have to pay it back, not be rewarded for their irresponsibility.

A guest column in the AJC once spoke of how public schools today are geared toward accommodating the worst student in the class, so instead of educating the 29, for example, the one is accommodated. We see this terrible strategy in other forms in our society, and for our country to be as great as it could be, we need to wake up to these terrible realities and change.

By Tim

June 28, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

Ben… I totally agree that full responsibility falls on the parents… I now understand what you were saying… I guess just from my perspective I have not only see a mom and dad have a baby but also 2 moms have a child together or two dads have a child together… by using surrogates… so I guess we agree but are just saying it in different ways

By Ben

June 28, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

That’s what I’ve been saying DeltaX!

By Ben

June 28, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Tim - We definitely agree. Those 2 moms or surrogates got the babies from somewhere. lol. Those “parents” did the right thing if they couldn’t raise their child.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Zack, we’re tired of your abortion tirades. Go away. No one cares. The day that you can muster up the slightest bit of concern for a LIVING person is the day I eat my hat.

Please just…go away. Crawl back into your hole, you pitiful little stoat.

Bye bye Zackie - I think I hear the warden calling you.

By Tim

June 28, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

sorry Eaton you’re not old by any means… my mom just had children when she was pretty young… early thirties isn’t old… my ‘partner’ (I really don’t like that word or SO… anyone help me another word lol) is 30

By DeltaX

June 28, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Ben - Sorry I missed your posts. I had to scan them to catch up;)

I see the same number of childish/selfish actions being taken by both men (more overt) and women (more incidious) in the divorce route; no-one is absolved by any means and to try to argue one gender is worse than the other is also childish/selfish - this is not about mothers and fathers for those of you who would like to argue it as such. This is also not about YOU.

Fairness for mom or dad is out the window at this point.

It is about cleaning up our adult ways as to not screw any more kids out of a childhood. Geeze.

By Archie

June 28, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

I have not read where someone said the only perfect families are two-parent. Plenty of people have said the ideal family would be headed by mom and dad. Thanks Akeya for the eye-opening information. I have a good father and I kinda agree with Ken he does different things than mom does and I agree with Akeya that dad does need to know how to cook,etc. For the record Whiley I did change the diaper,clean up after the child, etc. and I loved it. Whiley some people here have agendas and they want to read about male-bashing but you just keep on being positive about women and men.

By Whiley

June 28, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

BYE ZACK ! Thanks for playing !

By Whiley

June 28, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

“you just keep on being positive about women and men.”

Archie I’m trying. It’s easy just to get mad & give up & just complain all day long about how things are.

You loved the grind of childcare? Can I marry you? hehe

By Ben

June 28, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

No big deal. I was just pointing out that we were getting at the same thing. We can argue all day about who is supposed to change diapers and who is supposed to work, but the bottom line is all of that garbage should have been determined before hand. And if your relationship leads to divorce, separation or whatever, too bad. You still have an obligation to the child.

RESPONSIBLE parents consider these things before having children and RESPONSIBLE know that divorce or separation is hard enough on kids without the other BS that goes along with it.

By Ben

June 28, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Archie - I changed diapers and cleaned up after my daughter, but I would go so far to say that I enjoyed it — especially the diapers!

By Archie

June 28, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Thanks Ben for the 12:36 post. I am married Whiley but keep being positive.

By Ben

June 28, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

wouldn’t

By DeltaX

June 28, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

FYI- I opted to be the stay at home dad when my wife and I decided to have kids (hear that? Decided!).

I did so for 7 years, then got back up to speed in my career after the youngest was 7, re-entered the workforce and kept on trucking wo missing much os a beat.

Was it work? Yes. But we knew that having kids would be.

Why? Cause someone had to, did not matter who - and I wanted to be close to my kids.

What if I was abandoned by my wonderful wife? It would have been hard, but what would my choices have been afterwards?

I will tell you: To be Or Not to BE. That IS the ONLY question.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

All of these great parenting stories and discussions of responsible parents are great, but what about the kids who are products of not-so-great parents and not-so-responsible adults? Aren’t they who we’re really talking about?

A good dad doesn’t need to be encouraged, nor does a good mom. The courts probably don’t have to step in on custody issues where both parents are responsible adults and caring parents.

What about the kids whose parents ARE petty and who have either fathers or mothers who don’t care about them, who aren’t in the picture, or who use them as a weapon against the other person?

Aren’t they what’s important? I doubt it does little Timmy any good to wag your finger at him and lecture him because his parents weren’t responsible when he was conceived. Everyone’s all: “Responsible parents decide they want to have kids!” Well, yeah…but if we were talking about responsible parents we wouldn’t have any issues at all…

By Ben

June 28, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

That’s kind of the point though Eaton.

Let’s compare it to gun laws for a second. There’s no need to inforce them because it’s not the people that follow them that are the problem.

It’s the people that aren’t mature enough for parenthood, the people that don’t put the well-being of their children first that are the problem. No propaganda campaign is going to change them.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Yeah Ben, but everyone’s sitting around shaking heads saying “They should have been responsible”.

The reality is they weren’t. Accept. Move on. What’s the solution?

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

By the way Ben, I’m going to avoid the contentious topic of gun control. Aren’t you proud of me!

By Gina

June 28, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Whiley,

I am not weird and I am definitely all woman. And the depiction of men in the media as helpless is false. My Dad and Granddad were just as nurturing as my Mom and Grandmom. I think one of the things a child receives from their Dad is a sense of security.

Archie, you are correct in stating that a man should have access to his children even if he doesn’t live up to some preconceived notion of others. An unemployed father can still contribute in other ways.

By DeltaX

June 28, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I am coming from the point of view that if we have legal avenues for people to take advantage of, the majority of people will by default.

So we have to set up a system that EXPECTS adults to act like adults, and has if/then clauses for those that fall short. As soon as we have general trends to provide for inequalities (majority of children going to mothers, and requiring only $ from fathers by DEFAULT) we will guarantee mothers who abuse the system and fathers who think it is alright to spilt.

I believe that if the clauses were consequences, people would be less apt to accept that they have fallen below standards.

By Ben

June 28, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

I agree Eaton, but the solution is rather difficult to come by. It’s hard to convince somebody who doesn’t, hasn’t or never will care about anything more than themselves. Parents that can’t accept the fact that they have to make “serious” personal sacrifice when children are involved will not respond to a be a better parent campaign.

I’m not trying to start an argument here, but your accept, move on, what’s the solution is the same principle I was applying with the war last week. But enough of that.

The solution, I guess, is to provide children positive influences that demonstrate love and caring for a child, that demonstrate the important role of both parents. I don’t know! It’s a vicious circle like I keep saying. Children that aren’t taught parental responsibility, turn out to be irresponsible parents. Children of divorced parents that watch them feud, will probably feud with their spouse if they divorce. Children are products of their environment. Some learn and develop otherwise, but the majority don’t, and the majority don’t have the opportunity.

By Ben

June 28, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Yes, Eaton! lol. Very proud. But I think guns and deadbeat dads or moms might provide a solution! lol (just kidding!)

By mel

June 28, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Good question, Eaton. Ok, so you have two irresponsible people who have conceived. Or two responible people, who change once the baby is born. At some point, someone makes the decision to leave. Married or single, it doesn’t matter. The father either decides he will leave, or the mother drives makes him leave. What led to this decision? Because at some point, this couple had the opportunity to put the child first and put their own selfish feelings on the back burner. Obviously, one or both of them felt that the child’s needs were not as important as what he or she wanted. That’s the crux of the issue. We need to figure out why.

Barring abuse or neglect, it is better for the child to have both parents around. With equal time spent by both parents. We all agree on that. So maybe Shaunti is right. Maybe we need a campaign to educate people about the social, economic, emotional, and psychological consequences of absentee fathers. Hell, maybe that should be taught in health class during the birth control discussion. Maybe if more parents believed that had no other option but to raise the child, the situation would change.

I remember going to a father’s day church service a few years ago. The preacher was talking about the epidemic of fatherlessness, and he explained that each generation does better than the one before it, yada yada. He said that today’s fathers are only going to do better than what they grew up with, and for many, that is no man at all. I don’t agree with this. I think that enables fathers by giving them an out. There shouldn’t be the excuse that “I never had a father, so this is the best I can do”. My husband had no father, but he just IS ONE. There is nothing else for him to do. There is no other option for him, in his mind.

By mel

June 28, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

Delta, I was posting at the same time you were, but I agree with you.

By Brian Curtis

June 28, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Zack: I was making the point that you have freedom of speech, and you do. But you don’t have the right to babble endlessly about abortion and praise murderous sociopaths without other people shouting you down and calling you on your stupidity. That’s because WE have freedom of speech, too.

As for the rest of your drivel, others have said it best-by ignoring you.

By Ken

June 28, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Eaton…

Thank you for the clarification. I did not understand the first time because your latest post contradicts your past statements. Perhaps, in fact, we do not disagree at all.

By Archie

June 28, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

I think the posters have already proposed solutions to the fatherhood problem. Some people may not want to hear them. Fix custody rules was proposed. Work harder on marriages because many have talked about the pitfalls,etc. of divorce as far as the children are concerned. Encouraging fathers was proposed. I know that’s just psychological but it feels good to hear something nice. Also someone suggested fixing the welfare system. There is no mathematical formula to make people perfect fathers because as I said even if you work everyday, or even you are a minister, or even if you pay every dime of child support someone will say you’re not good enough because you may have some different view of the world. I don’t believe in forced marriages. Someone also proposed more family-friendly work policies. I think taken as a whole there have been plenty of solutions proposed, it’s just we may not like them all.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

I guess my real question is that Shaunti’s suggestion that we encourage fathers just doesn’t ring true. Maybe this is circular logic, but if the father’s were worth having around, wouldn’t they already BE around?

Maybe it’s just that I feel strongly about this because the likelyhood of my every having a child is so small and I would very much like to be a parent, but I think that if I DID have a child, I would fight like hell to be a part of his or her life.

If a father or mother has to be goaded or coaxed into being a part of his or her child’s life, then maybe they don’t NEED to be a part.

This brings me back around to what I think is important - a loving supportive family whatever it’s makeup. In my neice’s case, she’s had my dad, my mom and me as very active parts of her life. I’m sure there are other families that are the same.

So what I think Shaunti SHOULD be saying is it doesn’t matter what makes the family, it only matters that the child is loved and supported. She isn’t though - she’s pulling out the One Mother, One Father card, and THAT’S why I think she’s really playing the “wing” card.

I think that Ben (and Hillary, sorry Ben) were absolutely right in saying “It takes a village”.

By lozen

June 28, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Gina, you have a real problem with women. In every one of your posts you show that you only see the worst in all women. I do not believe every woman you meet in your various volunteer positions is a free loader. I guess I live in a different world from yours. What I see are the women I work with who are single parents although they are married. Women who take 99 percent of the responsibility for home, children, laundry, shopping, cleaning, homework, running the kids around to places, cooking, making sure clothes and lunches or lunch money are ready for the next day. And they work 40+ hours a week outside the home. And I simply do not believe there are women’s groups of any kind, anywhere, telling women to take advantage of the fathers of their children. There may be groups telling women not to be taken advantage of in divorce settlements. There may be groups trying to help women get what their children are entitled to from the father. But I do not believe your picture of a world full of women who lie around eating bonbons while the fathers get shafted. Whiley is right. When women stay home to take care of their children we call them lazy free loaders. If they work, everything wrong in the world is their fault for not being there with the kids. Just let a father get custody and watch the whole neighborhood praise him and help him and talk constantly about what a saint he is. Let the mother get the kids and she’s supposed to get a job (and continue to do all the parenting) instead of taking advantage of her ex! I do not believe the mother’s salary should be considered in child support equally with the father’s unless they have joint custody and he takes care of the kids just as many hours per week as the mother does!

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Ok Ken, if you think it contradicts, so be it…please point out one sentence where I said that I was hostile towards two-parent families? Saying it’s not the ideal is not the same as being hostile…claiming something is an “ideal” is playing in absolutes, and I prefer not to do that.

By Jack

June 28, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

The family unit was shot down when both spouses started working and the children’s parents sent them off to childcare centers. Call me a bigot, chavinist pig or whatever. Children should have BOTH parents. Preferably one spouse should stay home with the children at least until they start elementary school.

By mel

June 28, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I think we all agree that what’s most important is that the child be loved by whomever is raising him. But let’s start at the beginning. With the two people who conceived the child. They have the responsibility to raise the child. It’s prudent for society to try to find solutions to the problem, whether they are left or right wing solutions.

By Netbanker

June 28, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Eaton, Tim makes me feel old too and I’m only in my pre-40’s. I think he needs to be disciplined, but we can’t beat him up because that would be gay bashing. He might enjoy a spanking. A stern lecture, maybe? Oh wait…how about forcing him to get a really bad hair cut?!

By DeltaX

June 28, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I know of 5 divorced fathers right now who (after years in some cases) won custody of the kids, work full time, and are successfull at it. They have now formed a support group to encourage other divorced fathers step up as well.

These guys do not receive ANY money from their ex’s.

Why are you of the position that women cannot do the same?

Are you really saying that you (and women in general) are not capable of what people (namely guys in this instance) have proven CAN be done?

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Yeah Jack, well that’s great. But guess what. It’s not going to happen in every case. I don’t care how much you rant and rave and talk about the good ‘ole days, it’s not going to happen and, no matter how much you say I’m wrong, there are cases where it SHOULD NOT happen.

Try being a realist for a change, Jack. It might agree with you.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Yes mel, but Shaunti’s solution, and - sorry guys, the right-winger’s solution - doesn’t care about the child first and foremost, it cares about the appearance of the two-parent household. You heard Jack - kids NEED BOTH PARENTS. PERIOD. So what if one of those parents is a drunk, or abusive, or just neglectful and selfish? Jack says he still needs to be around because that’s how we’ve ALWAYS done it. Two parents. Yup, it’s the only way.

It’s that “the only way” thinking that is so, ultimately, unhelpful.

By Gina

June 28, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I don’t have a problem with women. I have a problem with any parent, whether male or female, who doesn’t feel they should be financially responsible for their children.

If we ever met, I will take you to a meeting of one of the groups I discussed and let you hear for yourself.

The income of both parents should be considered in setting child support and will be in Georgia as of July 2006.

By Tim

June 28, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Netbanker… SORRRRRRRRRY lol… PLEASE don’t make me get a bad haircut! lol… whatever I did to make you feel old I take back!

By Archie

June 28, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Eaton you’re too hung-up on this right-wing,left-wing thing. You’re displaying the extremism on the left that you bash Jack for. Mel posted a good one at 3:34 pm. There is no reason to putdown Jack. He simply has a point of view and he’s entitled to it. Anyway good post Mel it’s something others have been saying using different words.

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Just be glad you have enough hair left to have a choice, Tim. I’m pretty much limited to the short buzz now.

By lozen

June 28, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Deltax, no I’m not saying women can’t do the same. Hundreds of women do it everyday compared to the five guys you know!

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Archie, if you mistake flexibility for extremism, then I’m sorry. I don’t try to force anyone into “one way” and Jack does. Sorry, that’s the truth. If I were saying “Everyone should be part of single-parent and same-sex households” then you could call me extreme.

By DeltaX

June 28, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Lozen, So, yours is a moot point.

Neither men or women are “entitled” to a comfortable existance, it is their responsibility to create it - not anothers job to provide it.

No matter he situation.

And given you know women who do it, and I know men who do it; that proves anyone CAN do it.

Now you only have to see that everyone should do it - for themselves.

By Netbanker

June 28, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Eaton…discretely bring light to the problem of gay adoption and parenting. Most gay people have to fight like hell just to be able to adopt a child. Gay people go into parenting with full consciousness and awareness of what it will really take. Yet we are least likely to be able to adopt or are even banned in some states.

Here’s an excerpt from a speech by TX State Rep. Senfronia Thompson that is as good an explanation as any:

“We have worked hard at putting our prejudices against homosexuals in law. We have denied them basic job protections. We have denied them and their children freedom from bullying and harassment at school. We have tried to criminalize their very existence. But, we have also absolved them of all family duties and responsibilities: to care for and support their spouses and children, to count their family’s assets in determining public assistance, to obtain health insurance for dependents, to make end-of-life or necessary medical decisions for their life partners—- sometimes even to visit in the hospital, even to defend our own country. And then, we can stand on our two hind legs and proclaim, “See, I told you homosexual families are unstable.”

By Eaton

June 28, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

Net,

I didn’t want to bring it up for fear that I’d be accused of always harping on the gay thing :-) but since you DID bring it up…

Yes - real quandry here. Gay people don’t just make a mistake and “whoops!” there’s a baby. As you said, it’s a very deliberate decision. (Have you read the non-fiction The Kid?) And yet, as you said, we’re the last to be able to adopt.

Which brings me back yet again - yeah Archie - to my “wing fixation”. The right wing…yeah seriously…can’t stand the idea of a gay family, even though they might be great parents. So are the best interests of the child considered? Nopers. Only the appearance of normality.

By lozen

June 28, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

What is my “moot point” Deltax? I’m not talking about the comfortable existence of the men or women. I’m concerned about the comfortable existence of the children.

By lozen

June 28, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

Yeah, Netbanker and Eaton! I know gay families and single gay parents and the care, attention, and love I see there are amazing. The child wasn’t a slip up and it was all planned. It takes commitment, determination, and lots of cash to adopt if you’re gay. Most gay people don’t adopt until they’re mature enough to know what’s required; I think their children are very, very fortunate.

By DeltaX

June 28, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

What is my “moot point� Deltax? I’m not talking about the comfortable existence of the men or women. I’m concerned about the comfortable existence of the children.

And the comfort of the children is a direct responsibility of their parent guardian. Meaning neither mom or dad should expect the other to pay anything, but instead should provide the comfort themselves - seeing as we proved it is possible.

By DeltaX

June 28, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

You stated that “I’m concerned about the comfortable existence of the children.”

That is crap. Read your post…I will highlight it so you can understand that your point was for the WOMAN.

Gina, you have a real problem with women. In every one of your posts you show that you only see the worst in all women. I do not believe every woman you meet in your various volunteer positions is a free loader. I guess I live in a different world from yours. What I see are the women I work with who are single parents although they are married. Women who take 99 percent of the responsibility for home, children, laundry, shopping, cleaning, homework, running the kids around to places, cooking, making sure clothes and lunches or lunch money are ready for the next day. And they work 40+ hours a week outside the home. And I simply do not believe there are women’s groups of any kind, anywhere, telling women to take advantage of the fathers of their children. There may be groups telling women not to be taken advantage of in divorce settlements. There may be groups trying to help women get what their children are entitled to from the father. But I do not believe your picture of a world full of women who lie around eating bonbons while the fathers get shafted. Whiley is right. When women stay home to take care of their children we call them lazy free loaders. If they work, everything wrong in the world is their fault for not being there with the kids. Just let a father get custody and watch the whole neighborhood praise him and help him and talk constantly about what a saint he is. Let the mother get the kids and she’s supposed to get a job (and continue to do all the parenting) instead of taking advantage of her ex! I do not believe the mother’s salary should be considered in child support equally with the father’s unless they have joint custody and he takes care of the kids just as many hours per week as the mother does!

How many references to the “comfortable existence of the children” do you see?

I see none. In fact I see a disfunctional relationship in whole from what you described.

By RS

June 28, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Zack, that is true that the surplus of kids spawned by irresponsible drug addicts etc are not the kids’ faults, nor yours, nor mine….It’s half the governments’ fault, for enabling this, & half the parents’ fault for being so irresponsible. People need to THINK before they surrender to whatever animal lusts of the moment that drive them…oh, wait, they DO think & I can tell you exactly what they’re thinking: “The heck with self-restraint! The heck with birth control! The more babies I have, the bigger check I’ll get from Uncle Sam each month; hey this is great! I’ll never have to work! Mr. & Ms. Taxpayer will take care of me forever!” These are the WOMEN. No father in sight. No wonder why there IS a problem of men not being around to take care of their offspring. We’re dealing with gals who have multiple kids by multiple men & are hard-pressed to tell you who the fathers even ARE. As for teachers pandering to the most troublesome student; ever hear the saying “The squeaky wheel gets the most oil?”

By Ben

June 29, 2005 07:26 AM | Link to this

Eaton - I don’t mind being lumped with Hilary (sometimes!) so no need to apologize. Here’s the deal folks, like most of us are saying, no amount of propoganda is going to encourage people to grow up and accept their responsibility. Today’s adults are too concerned about themselves and could really care less about their spouse, ex or whatever. The only way to really end this is to embrace our children and teach them what is right, and show them what family is about. It starts with them because parents and adults today are a lot cause. There’s no hope!

Burn bad parents, not the flag! Torture bad parents, send em to Gitmo! (Sorry Eaton and DeltaX, had to do it!)

By Bruce

June 29, 2005 07:52 AM | Link to this

Isn’t all this we are discussing what Planned Parenthood supposed to be doing? Teaching people how to be good, responsible parents? Just make it manadority for every person 13 or older to attend PP. They have all the answers……don’t they?

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 08:19 AM | Link to this

Ben, darn it! I passed on gun control - couldn’t you have exercised similar restraint! :)

Bruce, I don’t think Planned Parenthood claims to have all the answers. It’s just one organization trying to help with the problem.

By Ben

June 29, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

Eaton - I probably could have, but it was early and I had to do it. As you can tell, there are certain things I have very strong feelings about, and children are at the top of that list.

By Archie

June 29, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

“Which brings me back yet again - yeah Archie - to my “wing fixationâ€?. The right wing…yeah seriously…can’t stand the idea of a gay family, even though they might be great parents. So are the best interests of the child considered? Nopers. Only the appearance of normality.”

Eaton I understand you’re gay but doesn’t mean you have to disagree with something that makes good sense. It would be ideal if the biological parents took care of their child. Obviously that’s not going to happen all the time but let me point out that there are some left-wing that aren’t crazy about gay parents. That’s why Ben and I said this isn’t a wing thing. As I have said before you can’t be concerned about the right-wing because some folk may never like you. You are thinking about your situation and not the big picture which is fatherhood. Fatherhood is not easy and if you acquire a child I hope you’re ready. There are places in the USA where gay people can adopt. Since I am not gay I have not done any major research but I have read about in various newspapers. I say to anyone don’t concern yourself with the left or the right because there is prejudice in both camps. As a straight man I am not going endorse anything else but then a person would be crazy to seek my approval, heck live your life. I have voiced support for gay marriage but I won’t be going to any parades and it’s not necessary. All people deserve happiness,including the right-wing.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

Archie, I’m not thinking about my situation at all. I’ve been discussing nothing but the big picture. I’m sorry if you are so hung up on being non-confrontational that you refuse to acknowledge that positions like Shaunti’s are very much rooted in right-wing ideology.

Netbanker and I used the gay adoption example to show that the concern of the conservatives who are driving this debate is not about the welfare of the children but the preservation of their belief that the only legitimate family is a married father and mother, not because of any personal axe.

By Archie

June 29, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

Shanti is conservative and I can’t be confrontational towards her for that. I disagree with her most of the time but as a father myself I can’t dismiss all of her opinions. Eaton you guys have to push for benefits inspite of prejudice and you will have my vote on some issues. I have not read where anyone said only the biological parents can do a good job but it would be highly satisfactory if the biological parents took care of their children specifically fathers since that’s the topic.

By RF

June 29, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

Definitely there is societal predjudice against gay adoption. I’ve been lucky- I was given custody of my two nephews through Dept. of Family and Children Services, who are much more open minded. The caseworkers I’ve had haven’t even asked about my personal life. I’m beginning adoption proceedings soon at the encouragement of the department. Generally, as long as you can provide a clean, loving home, they are very supportive. Slowly, some areas of our society are discovering that a good home is a good home, regardless of parental lifestyle. There will continually be those who preach and legislate against it, but we have to keep trying and pushing for change. It’s much easier for a single gay person than a gay couple, but at least we’ve made that little bit of progress.

By Ken

June 29, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this

Eaton…

I don’t know anyone who would every say “ideal” is an absolute. Ideal simply means the best possible scenario. And sorry, but I do believe that a loving mom and dad represents the best possible scenario. The only one… No, but definitely the best.

As for your and anyone else’s agreement that “it takes a village” I would agree, to a certain degree. It is difficult for any parent to raise children when they are bombarded outside the home with what we see in our culture today. However, I certainly hope noone would ever take the primary function or responsibility of raising a child from the parent(s), regardless of who they may be.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

Ken, I’m pretty sure that no one has suggested taking away a child from a willing and competent parent.

By Tim

June 29, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

Ken… there is research that clearly shows that ‘a loving mom and dad represents the best possible scenario’ is simply not the case… it is not any better than having 2 moms in a home or 2 dads in the home… the best possible scenario is a home with love and stability and it doesn’t matter if it comes from a mom and dad… or dad and dad… or mom and mom… or aunt and uncle… or etc

By Archie

June 29, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Tim where is this research? Can I get a link or something?

By Tim

June 29, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

I read it in Psych journals during college… I didn’t get it online

By Bob

June 29, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

If you want to live a deviant lifestyle(GAY), care enough about the children not to include them in your household.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

Thanks Bob, for your ignorance, intolerance, and stupidity.

Please go away now.

By Susan

June 29, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

I agree with Bob, what are you trying to show the children if you are raising them in a Gay household? That it’s OK to be weird, that most everyone looks at us like we are freaks, alienation. I don’t see anything positive in raising children in that environment. Give the children a chance.

By Lex

June 29, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

I agree with Bob, the ignorant ones here are the Gays, if you want to be queer, let it only effect your life. I know misery loves company, but don’t let the company be innocent children.

By Nathan

June 29, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Bob’s right. They call them Queer’s for a reason. How does that child(raised by weirdo’s) have a decent perspective of life? Or a chance for happiness?

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

Ooo, who thinks that Bob, Lex and Susan are the same person?

Ignorance is bliss - y’all must be the happiest people in the world.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

By the way, Lex, before you go accusing others of ignorance, you should learn the difference between “effect” and “affect”.

By lozen

June 29, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Bob, just go live your own “normal” lifestyle - I’m sure you’re a great parent who is teaching his children to respect others and not to be judgemental fools.

By Tim

June 29, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

I was hoping people could still read an incredible article written by a 13 year old girl… the headline was “Gay parents set a loving example for chilren”… for those who were not fortunate enough to read this article… Mary is a 13 year old black girl who was given up for adoption… she was finally adopted… by two men… why don’t all of you Bobs, Susans, and Lexs go talk to this young woman… her story is incredible… if it were up to people like you she would probably still be waiting for someone to come along and love her… how sad you people are

(unfortunately the article is now in archives and now have to pay to read it)

By lynda

June 29, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Eaton, why do you even answer these people? They are obviously trying to get a rise out of you! Going back and forth makes you just as immature as them. Ignore them and they’ll go away. None of us want them here!

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

loz, they’re obviously all the same person. Unless four people, all with fifth-grade language skills, have logged on at the same time.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

I wouldn’t expect you to understand, Lynda.

By Bob

June 29, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

I want to thank all the support I got on my statement. I’m sorry it offended some, but the truth hurts.

By Tim

June 29, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

Bob… how would you if truth hurts… you wouldn’t know truth if it came up and bit you on the a*

By lozen

June 29, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Deltax, I can only conclude that what got your panties in such a twist yesterday was my standing up for women. I will always stand up for women; I am one. You can’t separate women and children since 99% of the time mothers are the ones who take care of the children. Yes there are a few exceptions to that, but that doesn’t change the fact that most children are cared for by their mothers after a divorce. And no, there’s no reason for them to do it by themselves. It takes two to create a pregnancy and the children produced need to be cared for by both parents. If both parents are working when it’s time to decide on child support then the non-custodial parent should pay more since the custodial parent has most of the physical care of the children. That’s my opinion, and if you want to call my opinions crap, well, please feel free.

By lozen

June 29, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Bob, I’m sure Jesus would be proud of you.

By Dr. Bill Smythe

June 29, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

Having done extensive research in child development, I must disagree with children being raised by homosexuals. These children grow up with severe disavantages, they go through massive inferiority complexes, humiliation by their peers, etc. They are raised with low morals etc. I have written a book on the subject”The f*’s guide on family” I can send you one if you want.

By Bob

June 29, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Don’t know any person named Jesus.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

Why are we plagued with fools and idiots? Is there a short-bus convention in town today, or a Klan rally?

By Susan

June 29, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Yea Eaton you are plagued by fools and idiots, apparently the people you listen to on a regular basis. Bob and the rest of these people(against homo’s raising children) have it right.

By Tim

June 29, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Susan… why don’t you shut up and listen to the children being raised by gay parents… but you wouldn’t want to do that b/c then all it would prove is that you’re ignorant and have no other reason other than hate to say the idiodic things you are saying

By RF

June 29, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Ignorance is so comical. We must have a few narrow-minded rednecks to keep us balanced, otherwise the world might just make sense!! Come visit with my two boys and you’ll see Bob’s ideas just don’t work. They’re perfectly normal even if I am a quirky queer!

By Lex

June 29, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Well if Gays want to raise children, maybe they should get married first? We should vote on it, oops we already did. How did that come out? 78% against. You freaks have found a site to get together and think that there are more of you than really exist. You are such a minority, that you should be irrevelant.

By lozen

June 29, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Dr. Bill Smythe? What a laugh; now you are funny! Ha, ha, ha, ha!!! Canada is joining Amsterdam and one other country in legalizing gay marriage. Just one more instance of a progressive, open minded, educated group of people.

By Ben

June 29, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Ignorance should be irrelevant, and all dumb as*es should be banned, burned instead of the flag and used for munitions testing. (sorry Eaton, had to do it again!)

By lynda

June 29, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

You know Eaton, I’m starting to see what others have said about you. All you do is argue like a child. These people are beneath you, and you still hurl insults back and forth like a kid on a playground. I am a member of many blogs and message boards, and trust me, if we all just ignore them, they will go away.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Interesting observation Lex. If we’re such a minority, and so very irrelevant to your life, then why is it that you fundies nearly break your necks to attack us every time someone so much as mentions gays?

I’m sure you’ve never actually read or even seen Shakespeare, - and I don’t mean the fishing rod, hick - or anything other than TV Guide for that matter, but the phrase: “The Lady doth protest too much, methinks” comes to mind.

By Nathan

June 29, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

I personally have nothing against Gays, I think everybody should have a few around to LAUGH AT. We could dress them up like clowns and throw things at them, sorry they might enjoy that. Weirdo’s

By RF

June 29, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Oh my, who opened the gate to the trailer park?? Somebody check the IQ level here today? I think it just plummeted to single digits!

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry Lynda, but I don’t ignore ignorance when it’s directed at me. If you think that makes me childish, then, well, it’s your right to do so.

I used to meekly ignore the f* and queer jokes and the nasty, spiteful comments, but then I decided to show a little backbone. Nothing hurts a homophobe more than getting thrashed by a homo.

So, feel free to just ignore any comments made that you find childish.

By Lex

June 29, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

RF, If the IQ level is in single digits you should feel right at home. Anyone who would take your stance, is an absolute fool, with no consideration for anyone else.

By Tim

June 29, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

ok… Bob, Susan, Lex, and Nathan are all the same person… scroll back up and look at the first post… Bob was the first person to post… and then Susan, Lex, and finally Nathan… then they each had a second post in the exact same order… good lord… how challenging that was to figure out… I was just waiting for Nathan’s 2nd post until I brought that to everyones attention :)

lozen… I saw that… I just wish they had good beaches lol :)

By Netbanker

June 29, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Thanks for educating me about myself. I stand corrected and now realize that last night I baked a deviant lasagne for dinner, walked my deviant dog, washed and folded my deviant laundry, ran my deviant vacuum cleaner, donated $200 deviant dollars for a Fisher House, gave deviant flowers from my deviant garden to one of my non-deviant neighbors just because I knew she’d enjoy them, talked to my non-deviant parents on my deviant phone…OIY! No wonder I’m so exhausted…I never knew how hard it was to live a deviant lifestyle.

But back in reality land…I do agree with Ken that “a loving mom and dad represents the best possible scenario.” The key here is that they are loving and responsible as well as needing to understand setting limits, enforcing rules, and communicating with their children. I know several wealthy families who are loving and responsible adults in the traditional sense, but lord have mercy do they need Nanny 911! The kids totally rule the households and in 2 of them the parents have the kids in therapy at the ages of 5 and 7. The problem isn’t the kids, but the parents letting the kids rule the house. In both cases the Mom’s left the professional world to raise their kids.

Ben (and Hillary’s) point about ‘it takes a village’ has truth to it. It isn’t about stepping in to raise someone else’s child so much as it is about the general welfare of the children who live near you. How many of us had the experience growing up that you did something you probably shouldn’t have and when you got home your Mom/Dad already knew about it because they received a phone call from a neighbor who just happened to see you while glancing out the window or brining in the laundry, etc? My impression of today is that the person making the phone call would receive a thank you, but would be blasted to mind their own @#%& business!

Tim…I recall that letter she wrote and it was very touching. I’ll see if I can dig up some research on the psych stuff. There are more long-term studies of children raised by gay parents that are showing the kids to be more accepting of differences in other people and being emotionally well adjusted. Did it sometimes hurt the kids to be teased about having gay parents? Sure, but no more than being teased about having an obese parent, or the child of the town drunk, or being poor, or anything else.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Tim, buddy, check out my 10:29 and 10:43 posts. I beat ya to it ;-)

By Tim

June 29, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

oh wait… now ‘it’ is mixing it up a bit… trying to throw us for a loop

By Lex

June 29, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

So now the queer’s think we are all the same person. That sounds like something queer’s would do, anything to be a freak. But it’s funny.

By Tim

June 29, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Netbanker… thanks… I don’t have the resources at work to look that stuff up… I am sure I have some studies in journals at home… but that wouldn’t do any good here :)

Eaton… I know ya did ;) but I just wanted to point that little coincidence out to everyone else just in case they weren’t sure

By RF

June 29, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Sticks and stones Lex, sticks and stones… could be four people, they just have to work together to come close to complete sentences!

By Robert

June 29, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

What is this the queer hotline? There is enough queer’s here to have a circle jerk.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Perhaps it’s the fact that you keep using the same poorly written sentences and hackneyed insults every time. If you really want to fool people, you should work a little harder. That’s assuming you’ve got the mental chops for it, which I doubt.

By RF

June 29, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

How would you know Robert unless you’ve been in one? Noone was criticizing you, yet you feel compelled to bash something you know nothing about. Typical, typical…

By lozen

June 29, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

Well, imagine, Robert is thinking about circle jerks! Surprise! Surprise! The only man I’ve ever known personally who hated “queers” and went out with a group of his Navy buddies to beat them up, just happened to be a real loser in the sack according to his wife. It’s those unconscious desires in you that you need to check out, gay bashers.

By Robert

June 29, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

F*’s not getting any respect. Some things never change. I pity the queer’s, but they deserve it.

By Susan

June 29, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

I’ll be a little nicer than these guys, but gays don’t need to influence children.

By lozen

June 29, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

RF, how wonderful that you stepped in to take care of your nephews. Bringing up children is a hard job and I’m sure you didn’t have to take on that job, but chose to out of concern and love for the kids. I applaud you for being there for them.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

Who else is bored with the bigots?

By Bob

June 29, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

I feel that I have been fairly civil in expressing my opinion. I have the welfare of the children in mind. Sorry.

By Tim

June 29, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Susan… how many gay families do you know?

By RF

June 29, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

You know, I think I’m just going to go home to my kids, who I really don’t see how I can “influence” other than to teach them to love and respect people, be nice to my neighbors who I also can’t “influence”, and try not to laugh too much at the obvious lack of information some people here seem to have. This WAS an intelligent debate until just a few minutes ago. Like I said, they just shouldn’t open the gate to the trailer park too often!

By kimberly

June 29, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

Lozen’s right. Truly straight men are not threatened by the gay tendancies of others. When truly straight men get checked out by another man, they mumble to themselves, “Yeah, you WISH.” Truly straight men aren’t afraid that someone else might see them talking to the wrong person and suspect them of being gay. They aren’t afraid of exhibiting their natural “feminine side” which might give others the wrong idea. Truly straight men are comfortable in their own masculinity and sexuality. They know whom they want to scr*w tonight, and they know what to say to her when the time comes. YOU GAY BASHERS are lashing out at others because you can’t deal with yourselves. Please, STOP TORTURING WOMEN. You don’t love us. Get some therapy.

By lozen

June 29, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

All the children I know with gay parents are great kids. I think, based on my experience, that more children need to be with gay parents. I have never seen children with what appears to be gay parents, running amok in restaurants. I’ve never once heard of a child who grew up in a gay home bullying other kids or beating up other kids. The kids I know are taught good manners and consideration for others. They are lucky to have conscientious, responsible parents…Just the kind of parents we’ve been discussing here that all parents should be.

By Tony

June 29, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

F-A-M-I-L-Y by: Author Unknown, Source Unknown

I bumped into a stranger as he passed by, “Oh, excuse me Please” was my reply. He said, “Please excuse me too; Wasn’t even watching for you.” We were very polite, this stranger and I. We went on our way and we said good-bye. But at home a different story is told, How we treat our loved ones, young and old.

Later that day, cooking the evening meal, My daughter stood beside me very still. When I turned, I nearly knocked her down. “Move out of the way,” I said with a frown. She walked away, her little heart was broken. I didn’t realize how harshly I’d spoken.

While I lay awake in bed, God’s still small voice came to me and said, “While dealing with a stranger, common courtesy you use, But the children you love, you seem to abuse. Look on the kitchen floor, You’ll find some flowers there by the door. Those are the flowers she brought for you. She picked them herself: pink, yellow and blue. She stood quietly not to spoil the surprise, and you never saw the tears in her eyes.”

By this time, I felt very small, and now my tears began to fall. I quietly went and knelt by her bed; “Wake up, little girl, wake up,” I said. “Are these the flowers you picked for me?” She smiled, “I found ‘em, out by the tree. I picked ‘em because they’re pretty like you. I knew you’d like ‘em, especially the blue.” I said, “Daughter, I’m sorry for the way I acted today; I shouldn’t have yelled at you that way.” She said, “Oh, Mom, that’s okay. I love you anyway.” I said, “Daughter, I love you too, and I do like the flowers, especially the blue.”

Are you aware that:

If we die tomorrow, the company that we are working for could easily replace us in a matter of days. But the family we left behind will feel the loss for the rest of their lives. And come to think of it, we pour ourselves more into work than to our family - an unwise investment indeed.

So what is behind the story?

You know what is the full word of family?

FAMILY=(F)ather (A)nd (M)other, (I) (L)ove (Y)ou!

Fill life with love and bravery and we shall live a life uncommon.

By Netbanker

June 29, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

Bullies are always the ones who have the issues. Their need to tear down someone else in order to feel better about themselves is way to obvious. Fighting back only feeds that sense. Robert, Lex, Susan, Nathan…you have my pity and sympathy.

By RF

June 29, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

Thanks Lozen, and believe me it’s been worth every minute of it. I don’t get much personal time anymore, but the satisfaction of parenting makes any sacrifice worth making. I just wish some people could see the love and devotion it takes and quit letting their homophobia get in the way of the facts!!

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Thanks Tony. As usual, you completely miss the point. And as usual, all you have to offer is some maudlin cut-and-pasted story that is so badly written it hurts to read.

But thanks!

By Netbanker

June 29, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children in the United States had at least one gay or lesbian parent (Baker v. State, 1999).

Numerous well-respected authorities agree that children of same-sex parents are as healthy, happy and well-adjusted as peers with heterosexual parents:

The American Psychological Association, representing more than 155,000 psychologists, states that children of gay and lesbian parents are at no disadvantage psychologically or socially compared to children of heterosexual parents.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the nation’s leading pediatric authority with 57,000 members, says that children who grow up with gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children with straight parents.

The National Association of Social Workers, with nearly 150,000 members, agrees that research on gay and lesbian parenting shows a total absence of pathological findings in their children.

“Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.â€? — Charles J. Patterson, researcher at the University of Virginia, 2004

Sixty percent of adoption agencies accept applications from gay and lesbian couples, and about 40% of agencies have placed children with parents they know to be gay or lesbian, according to a 2003 survey by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. (However, it is still common practice for public and private agencies to restrict gay and lesbian participation to specific and sometimes less popular adoption programs, such as special-needs adoption programs.)

Research shows that gays and lesbians are just as fit to parent as heterosexuals, possessing the same abilities to nurture and provide stable homes:

David K. Flaks et al, Lesbians Choosing Motherhood: A Comparative Study of Lesbian and Homosexual Parents and Their Children, 1995.

Charlotte J. Patterson & Raymond W. Chan, Gay Fathers and Their Children, 1996.

Judith Stacey & Timothy Biblarz, Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter, 2001.

Children of gay and lesbian parents experience no significant differences in quality of peer relationships, nor do they experience more struggles with self-esteem.

Susan Golombok et al., Children in Lesbian & Single-Parent Households Psychosexual & Psychiatric Appraisal, 1983; Fiona Tasker & Susan Golombok, Growing up in a Lesbian Family, 1997.

Sharon L. Huggins, A Comparative Study of Self Esteem of Adolescent Children of Divorced Lesbian Mothers and Divorced Heterosexual Mothers, 1989.

Mary E. Hotvedt & Jane B. Mandel, Children of Lesbian Mothers, 1982.

Gay and lesbian couples enjoy the same degree of relationship health and satisfaction, and stay together long-term at the same rates, as opposite-sex couples.

Charlotte J. Patterson, Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men, 2000.

Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz, American Couples, 1983.

L.A. Peplau and Susan D. Cochran, A Relationship Perspective on Homosexuality, 1990.

Lawrence A. Kurdek, Lesbian and Gay Couples, in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Identities Over the Lifespan: Psychological Perspectives, 1995; Relationship Stability and Relationship Satisfaction in Cohabitating Gay and Lesbian Couples: A Prospective Longitudinal Test of the Contextual and Interdependence Models, 1992; and Relationship Quality of Partners in Heterosexual Married, Heterosexual Cohabitating, and Gay and Lesbian Relationships, 1986.

Please note: Studies cited above represent only a sampling of gay and lesbian parenting research, which comprises more than 50 peer-reviewed studies over 25 years.

By Archie

June 29, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Thanks Netbanker for your 11:27 post. I would like to read your research just for curiosty’s sake. You are trying to be objective and pay no attention to folk that don’t like you. Just keep on pushing.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

Darnit Netbanker, there you go being relevant again. Does this mean I have to stop insulting the morons and start acting like an adult again?

By Archie

June 29, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

Thanks Netbanker for the 12:11 post. Now we know what the point of reference is for some and it could be good reading.

By RS

June 29, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Dedicated to Susan, Robert, Lex, Nathan & Dr. Smythe: BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY! NO INTELLIGENT LIFE HERE! Tim, I sure did read that very empowering story about 13-year old Mary. Anyone with even half a functioning brain can see why a child raised in a stable, loving gay household is better off than a child raised in a hetero, but dysfunctional home where there is violence and/or substance abuse, neglect, poverty etc

By Netbanker

June 29, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Anti-gay sentiments are based on an obession with SEX…primarily other people’s sex. It is only with gay people that this litmus test is applied and it is only with gay people that others use sex as the sole definition of who we are. Do these same people worry about the husband/wife couple who have kinky sex or are swingers? No…they don’t worry about heterosexual sex despite the exponential growth of on-line porn, chat sites, etc. So long as a ps and a v*a are involved it’s OK. It doesn’t matter to them that sexual activities are but a miniscule facet of what makes a person who they are.

By Tony

June 29, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

There was this Hindu who saw a scorpion floundering around in the water. He decided to save it by stretching out his finger, but the scorpion stung him. The man still tried to get the scorpion out of the water, but the scorpion stung him again.

A man nearby told him to stop saving the scorpion that kept stinging him.

But the Hindu said: “It is the nature of the scorpion to sting. It is my nature to love. Why should I give up my nature to love just because it is the nature of the scorpion to sting?”

Don’t give up loving. Don’t give up your goodness. Even if people around you sting.

By RF

June 29, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

And when my sons score higher on the SAT than children from so-called “normal” families, what will be the explanation gang? Could be that I spend time reading to and with them, doing homework and projects, and focusing my time and energy on making sure they are the best developed individuals they can be. Imagine that—would the homophobes believe we actually do more than think about sex??

By Netbanker

June 29, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Eaton, you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to. I learned a long time ago while a geek on the debate team that those trying to throw off a discussion because they really don’t have a point or one that they can back up with logic tend to use personal attacks.

This is soooo true in the business world where folks will try to finger point to avoid acceptance of responsibility or to move ahead with a hidden agenda. Remaining focused on the issue or problem at hand while not addressing personal attacks removes the power from the attacker, makes others view them in a lesser light, and adds to your credibility. In face-to-face situations, you pull your attacker to the side AFTER the meeting for a personal discussion in which you rip them a new one quietly, calmly, and efficiently. Using the ‘velvet glove over iron fist’ method is exceptionally effective.

Just a little advice from an older brother.

By Netbanker

June 29, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Thanks Archie. In all honesty, I haven’t read all those studies personally, but they are peer reviewed so we know that they aren’t coming strictly from a ‘Focus on the Family’ type group that starts with a conclusion and then looks for examples that support their supposition. Happy reading!

By Bruce

June 29, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

RS,

I do not believe you gave a very good comparison in your last post. A child would be better off in ANY home than a dysfunctional home where there is violence, durg abuse, neglect and poverty. Try comparing apples to apples. Unless you feel that all hetero families are dysfunctional, violent, drug addicts, living in poverty.

By RF

June 29, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Dang, netbanker, there you go taking all the fun out of it. But you are definitely correct-fighting insults with insults just makes everyone look foolish. Hard to resist though…

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

Bruce, you are dodging the issue. You and your fundy friends all declare that no child is better off in a gay home. Just like ole Roy Moore in Alabama awarding custody of a child to her abusive father for the sole reason that the mother was a lesbian. Just as a side note, that god-fearing, Jesus-loving man went on to say that he would like to execute the woman for being a lesbian.

RS’s comparison is SPOT ON. People who are adamantly opposed to gay adoption WOULD rather see a child in a home that is dysfunctional or abusive than see that child living with two gay parents. And I think if you were being honest, Bruce, you would admit that you feel that way as well.

By Netbanker

June 29, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Of course it’s hard to resist fighting back over senseless and stupid remarks…that’s just human nature. I only have so much emotional energy every day so why waste it on ego-addicts who are only looking for their next fix from someone they can get a rise out of. I won’t be an enabler. Besides there is a sense of satisfaction that comes from realizing that you actually are a stronger and better person than they…and knowing that they ultimately realize it too.

By Netbanker

June 29, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Eaton that case was really shocking to me. Without a doubt the mother was the more emotionally mature and stable person, but being a lesbian was enough to place the child in harm. Roy Moore absolutely did NOT put the child’s welfare first.

What is frustrating in the gay adoption cases is that the side claiming how detrimental it is never has to offer proof about their suppositions. Now that there are peer-reviewed studies spanning 25 years, they still don’t want to accept them yet they can’t meet the same standard of proof with their own long-term, peer-reviewed studies.

By Bruce

June 29, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

I do not believe you can show any post that supports that I have sided with either side on this issue this week. I have intentionally stayed out of this fight. And you could not be more WRONG about anything than to think I would want a child to grow up being abused in any way. But to compare a STABLE, LOVING home to a DYSFUNCTIOAL, ABUSIVE home is not a true comparasion and you know it. Sometimes you seem so intelligent and then other you sound so stupid.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Bruce it is SUCH a valid comparison. The only reason you don’t want to acknowledge that is because accepting the comparison shows how deeply flawed the anti-gay adoption or anti-gay parenting arguments really are.

I have used the Roy Moore example - this CLEARLY shows that there are people who DO value heterosexuality over the welfare of a child, so I think the comparison is absolutely true.

There are people - many people in this part of the country - who believe without fail that a child would be better off in a dysfunctional HETEROSEXUAL home than in a LOVING AND STABLE HOMOSEXUAL home. I don’t see how the comparison can be more valid…

By Gina

June 29, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

We must respect another’s choice on who they love and not disrespect that person because they choose to live their life differently.

Lozen, I agree with DeltaX. You don’t want women to be financially responsible for their children. I know many men who have their children quite often and if they don’t, it is because the mother is controlling the contact. It will happen even more now with the new guidelines that are passed.

I hope a bill that was introduced last session makes it through next session. It states a custodial parent can’t ask for a modification in child support if they are in violation of a court visitation order. This would help when non-custodial parents are controlled and kept from excercising their visitation. More often than not, the custodial parent threatens them with going back to court to increase child support if they pursue their visitation.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

here you go Bruce - a direct quote from Moore: “the homosexual conduct of a parent creates a strong presumption of unfitness that alone is sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children or prohibiting the adoption of the children of others.”

Now, you read that and tell me that he and others like him wouldn’t place a child into an abusive, dysfunctional environment rather than into a stable home with gay parent. You read that and tell me the comparison is wrong.

By RS

June 29, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Bruce, maybe you only skimmed my post?? Of course not all hetero homes are imperfect & of course not all gay households ARE. The point I was bringing up is that a child is better off in a functional environment than a dysfunctional one. This is true whether the functional loving home is gay or hetero & the abusive one, by the same token, gay or hetero. My bad; maybe I should have clarified it.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Gina, you make it sound like there are all these divorced women out there living the high life while their poor disenfranchised ex-husband toil away to pay all their bills.

Every single mom I know works full time, and several of them have ex-husbands that go months between child support payments.

Why do you harbor such resentment for single mothers?

By RF

June 29, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

Well, despite what the critics may think, my well-adjusted, non-traditional family is doing pretty good. We’re off now to the library, so I can hopefully find some non-bigoted reading for them. My only hope, and indeed one driving force in my life, is that they grow up with open, intelligent minds, and learn to use plural and possessives correctly in writing! We may not be a mom and dad kind of family, but I bet you wouldn’t know the difference as we whiz by in our SUV headed for the soccer field. And believe me, the kids are indeed better off than they were in the neglectful, abusive, drug-infested environment they were in when my heterosexual sister and brother-in-law (or more appropriately OUTlaw, as we like to refer to him in the family) had custody of them. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t really prove the point, but I gladly stand as an example of the possibilities if people will just give us a chance!

By Gina

June 29, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

The new child support guidelines will help ensure both parents, custodial and non-custodial, are contributing to the financial support of the child and not just the non-custodial parent.

It is one thing to be a stay at home mom when you are married and it is the decision of “both” parties. It is another to do it when you are divorced. It is not wrong to ask the other parent to help support the children, but it is wrong to ask the other parent to support your choice and your lifestyle. If you are divorced or an unwed parent, you are responsible for yourself and the children. The other parent is responsible for themselves and the children. Neither party should support another grown person!

By Pam

June 29, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

I am a heterosexual woman and RF makes me feel ashamed. I gave custody of my two children when they were 8 and 3. My husband filed for divorce and custody and I had no money for an attorney so I let him have them and didn’t fight. I was the one who wanted to get divorced. My kids would be better off with him I believed because I would do to them as my parents did to me. If I had them we would have to live in public housing and I wanted better for them. I could not give them the things their father could. He had a good job. I was making so little because of no training or experience. Their stepmother hated me. The first time we met she said to me that I was a terrible person for not keeping my kids. So I hated her back. The children suffered. I was too young when I got married and got kids. I believed I should be a virgin and I married too young to have security and sex. It was selfish and not responsible of me. I saw them every other weekend and more until he move to another town and then he would not let them come to me on the bus. I hope someday they can forgive me and I can forgive myself. I say God bless you to RF and other people who take care of children.

By TT

June 29, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

I don’t know if it’s just me, but TT’s posts don’t come through - they’re in a different font from everything else and get cut off mid-sentence.

Anyone else have that problem?

By Brian Curtis

June 29, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

TT, you’ve got to work on this formatting problem with your posts. We can’t read the ends of the lines.

By lozen

June 29, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Isn’t it amazing Eaton to listen to Gina’s version of reality? The divorced women I know do work, and most of them make far less money than their exs. We all know women don’t make as much money as men except for the professional class. We all know in 99% of cases, divorced mothers do all the childcare. There are statistics showing how divorced men are better off financially a year after a divorce, but the mother and the children are much worse off. But we gotta do something about all this divorce! It’s so much better for kids to live with two parents that can’t stand each other than to live with a happy single parent!

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

I mean, I’m sure there are people like Gina says, but I suspect that they are the ex-wives of very wealthy men. This is certainly not the norm.

Typically, it sounds like the wealthy folk are driving the legislative process once again, spending tax payer dollars on legislation that benefits primarily them.

By Archie

June 29, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

I don’t have an issue with what Gina says. She is simply pointing out some of the issues that men run into and some of scams run by women. You should not support the lifestyle of the grown person. Children should not be used as a weapon. Having said that I did follow up on the references given by Netbanker and it was interesting reading. Equality between the sexes doesn’t mean praise the woman or don’t criticize the woman it means be fair and Gina is providing good information just as Netbanker did earlier.

By Whiley

June 29, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

I don’t care what anyone says. Gina is really a man that was probably abusing or neglecting his wife. She left him & took the kids with her. She has a restraining order against him but he still has to pay child support. Gina’s mad & he’s looking for someone to blame.

By RS

June 29, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Pam: STOP BEATING YOURSELF UP!! Actually, surrendering custody was incredibly unselfish. I see so many people bring kids up in atmospheres of grinding poverty, disease & crime because they MUST have kids, under any circumstances, usually the worst. You were young &, I’m guessing, probably manipulated by your ex. He sounds like a lousy person & so does that b_ch he married; they deserve each other. I only hope they didn’t manage to turn your children against you. (Me too, Eaton & Brian; I’m having the same problem with TT’s posts)

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 29, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Gina, You do not take into account, single mom’s such as myself, who have NEVER received child support. I still allow my daughter’s father to call her from his jail cell.

I have moved on with my life, but I know that her father is more important than child support.

I do hope that when he finally get’s out of jail, that he doesn’t end up married to someone like you. I belive that your “type” would be the worst kind of step parent. You are too focused on the money and what a bad parent the childs mother is. What type of message does that send to the child from someone like yourself. Children usually have this type of mindset, “This woman” doesn’t like my mom/dad so I hate her/him.

I have dated men with kids and I love their kids as if they were my own. Dads are important, but single moms can raise educated and self-sufficeint children.

Stop the gay hating, because it only shows how hateful people can be. There are lots of cases where gay parents have raised successful children or do you think being gay is something that just started happening during the last presidential debates.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

Geeze Archie, what are you, Switzerland?

Netbanker cited peer-reviewed studies and the official positions of numerous national and international professional organizations. All Gina has done is told wild stories about entire clubs of women who conspire to force their husbands to pay them enough alimony and child support so they don’t have to work. One is good information, the other is not. If Gina can provide legitimate, verifiable statistics showing how many women are actually doing this, that would be different.

I think Whiley is wrong though - I think it more likely that Gina is the second wife of a man whose first wife has not remarried and so continues to receive alimony or child support. I suspect Gina is a strong traditionalist where gender roles are concerned, too.

By Pam

June 29, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

thank you RS - you’re a good person. I wish my ex had married somebody like you instead of the one he did. She also hated my daughter because everybody said she looked just like me. My poor daughter was so unhappy. She came to live with me when she was 14 but it was too late and she was on drugs already. She’s okay now and she’s a great mother with three children. My son did turn against me and his wife hates me and so I never got to know those grandchildren at all. I just wish I could have known then what I know now and that I had been a stronger person then. Thank you again for your kind thoughts.

By Bruce

June 29, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

I have a nephew that is gay. Recently his SO beat him up and almost put him in the hospital. Now if you are so willing to put me in the same boat with Roy Moore then I put you in the same boat as my nephew’s SO. Since you believe that all Conservatives/Christians are the same as Judge Moore, then I can say ALL gays are the same. Now do you understand stupid?

By RS

June 29, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

You’re welcome, Pam. You did what you knew in your heart was the right thing. A caring parent doesn’t want to see his/her children hungry, cold & sick. You made the supreme sacrifice. Now why would you wish someone like your ex on me? (Ha!) Sounds to me like his witch of a 2nd wife is jealous of you and your daughter; I’m glad your daughter’s story had a happy ending. That’s sad your son & his wife are so obstinate; look at it as THEIR loss but unfortunately, several innocent people (you & the grandkids) are the ones caught in the crossfire; I only hope & pray that gets resolved.

By lozen

June 29, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

Amazed, I believe there are many, many more women like you who didn’t get any help financially or otherwise from their child’s father! And as Eaton points out, Gina has shown us no proof the women she talks about even exist. I sure haven’t met any of them! I am not trying to say all women are saints or all men are devils. I know several men who are wonderful fathers; my son is one of them. But I’ve lived long enough and seen enough to know women are usually the ones who get stuck with all the childcare after the divorce and many of them get no child support either. So the mother and children live on the edge and do without. I agree with Eaton; Gina is the second wife.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

Yes Bruce. After that post I do indeed understand stupid.

By Eaton

June 29, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

Ok, now that that’s out of the way.

Bruce, I admit that I do indeed assume, based on things you have written in the past, that you would be adamantly opposed to gay adoption or even gay parents retaining custody of their own children. If I was in error then I apologize.

That said, I was not using Roy Moore to suggest that ALL Conservatives felt that way. You said that a comparing a bad home to a good one was not a fair comparison, and I simply offered that as evidence that those comparisons were, indeed, made, in the real world, that there are people who favor a bad home over a good one because of a gay parent.

By Whiley

June 29, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

I’VE GOT IT ! Gina is Zack’s 2nd WIFE ! ! !

By joe

June 29, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

The Betrayal of Work: How Low-Wage Jobs Fail 30 Million Americans and Their Families by Beth Shulman.

An astonishing 35 million Americans work full time but do not make a living wage. They are nursing home staff, poultry processors, pharmacy assistants, ambulance drivers, child care workers, data entry keyers, janitors. Indeed, one in four American workers lives in or near poverty. Despite the great wealth of the United States, these low-wage employees have lower living standards than comparable workers in other industrial nations. (I recommend this book for those of you so quick to judge poor people on gov’t assistance.)

By Netbanker

June 29, 2005 05:15 PM | Link to this

Hey kids, I’m back from some meetings and a sad moment saying farewell to a co-worker who has been activated and is being sent to Iraq. I grew up in an Army town with a Dad who worked on base so most of our friends and neighbors were somehow associated with the military. I was in college the last time I’ve had to give anyone my family’s traditional farewell when troops were geing shipped out. I’ll share it with you should you need to send off a coworker, friend, or neighbor and aren’t quite sure what to say, but I hope you never will have to speak these words:

“You embody the best of who we are as people and what we stand for as a nation. We are proud of you and offer our humble thanks for your service. We have no right to ask anything more of you, but in our selfishness we will. We ask you to keep your eyes and your ears open, keep your head and your a* down, and come home to us safely. God bless you and godspeed, my friend.”

Ok…gotta go wash my face right now. The last time I said that was the first Gulf War and my friend came home in box.

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

Lozen, You wrote: “We all know in 99% of cases, divorced mothers do all the childcare.”

But it is s gross generalization, and irrelivant unless you address only those x% - but you do not know who they are. So what if 85% (look it up in ama) of serious mental disease afflicts women - does that mean that I can put them all down? Of course not. Would you use numbers to reflect ALL black people, Gays, etc?

I suspect you would not, which means a guy hurt you pretty badly, and I AM sorry you experience. But you can own it if you want.

When you see and remedy the anger filled bias you have in wanting to condem ALL guys, we may be able to talk - until the, I reccomend you watch What the Bleep, bc you have some serious peptides reacting. Ken Wilber would be good for you too.

[plus - you never adress the topic we get on anyways. I disproved that your prose was in concern for the child, but you ignored that quite well]

By Jack

June 30, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

Bruce - Eaton not only understands stupid, he lives it. Bless his heart.

By Bruce

June 30, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

Now that’s fgunny right there, I don’t care who you are….

By Tim

June 30, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

therrrrrrrrrrrrs creepy :)

scurry back to Munchkin Land Jackie

By Bruce

June 30, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

Opps, I had better get this in before the spelling police gets me. That is FUNNY not FGUNNY.

By Archie

June 30, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Lozen is entitled to do what others do that is attack someone and call them names because they have a different opinion. I have heard many women say the things that Gina has said on this blog but she is called a man or a second wife or a conservative. She can’t tell her story unless she verifies it but others can say anything and no proof is required. Some of the most critical things I have heard said about women are from women and they are not necessarily conservative women. Even Diane herself said she was tired of the way white males were portrayed on the tv screen. Why not bash Akeya because she has had some stories about scheming women?

Anyway gays have a better chance of becoming fathers in Spain as of yesterday. This nation will legalize gay marriages and adoptions nationwide in the near future in my opinion and then we can talk about why gay fathers don’t pay child support or some other issue.

By Tim

June 30, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

git-r-done Bruce

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

Oh clever Jack…you took my joke and…reused it. You are so smart, you poor little old man.

Bruce, ya still got your head stuck in the sand?

By Ken

June 30, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

DeltaX…

Your last post was wonderful until you recommended “What The Bleep…” for viewing. What a load of crap, that should not be recommended for anything.

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

Eaton, What Gina sees (as well as I - uncle is a divorce atty), does happen on a very large scale and regularly, but these are the (few areas like this, granted) white lower-middle to upper clas guys that are screwed regularly.

And in these cases, the father has no rights hardley at all. Why else would it be so impossibly difficult for a father to get custody? That is a simple litmus for you - it is about as difficult as a gay couple…and no offence, but this IS his child!

And that is what I care to address, since these ARE the guys who want to be good fathers, but regularly get frustrated and begin new families.

(all that said, I will agree that Gina comes off harsh, but if she sees what my uncle does - I can understand why it has effected her so)

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

I don’t question that women frequently get full custody - but I do question the assertion that women use child support and alimony not to work. I know how much money it costs to live as a single person. I know how much it costs to live as a single mom with a child. I just find it very hard to imagine that anyone not already wealthy could shell out the required dough to keep a woman and her child in the kind of aimless luxury that Gina keeps describing.

By joe

June 30, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

Jack how do you know how Eaton lives? Why are you so obsessed with him. Have you been stalking him? I don’t know any other way you could know how he lives. Oh, unless it’s all in your mind. Are you imagining what Eaton does in bed Jack? Does it pop into your mind at night when you go to bed? Come drifting through during the day? You really need to explore your unconscious desires.

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

Ken, You think What the bleep is crap?

The science is sound, granted the opinions are exactly that - opinions on what all the science means.

I can respect that you dissagree with the opinions in the movie - I do not agree with you, but we do not have to;)

Thanks for the comment.

By lozen

June 30, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

Well, Deltax I’ll agree with you about some guys getting screwed. Of course it happens. I worked for a man in the early 70’s who went to court with all his business financial figures (well, he did adjust them a tad) when his wife divorced him. He expected her to ask for quite a bit of alimony and child support. He was absolutely blindsided when she accused him (in cobb county) of being homosexual, a drug user and a draft dodger. She got custody, a bunch of money, and he couldn’t see the kids without supervision. It was very unfair. He really loved his kids and wanted to be with them. Then she moved to Florida so he had to go there once a month to spend his allowed 3 or 4 hours with them under her supervision. Gina generalizes over and over and makes it sound as if all women are users, so I generalize back at her. Women get screwed during divorces and men get screwed during divorces. Women get screwed in marriages and men get screwed in marriages. Gina can make it appear that all women are out to get men and that doesn’t bother you at all. But it sure bothered you when I defended women. Hum. Wonder why that is?

By Tim

June 30, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

lol @ Joe… that’s some funny stuff :)

DeltaX and others… I am sure that there are some women that do take advantage of the system during a divorce… but those are the upper class women… women in the working class don’t have that type of luxury… I also wanted to say that if a woman was a stay at home mom and her husband decides to file for divorce… then hell yeah he should have to pay alimony AND child support… not her fault he followed his p*** to other pastures… that womans job was and still should be to take care of her children and the man still should have to support them… she shouldn’t be forced to find a job because her husband leaves her

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

Eaton, I also agree like your statement: “but I do question the assertion that women use child support and alimony not to work.”

To talk about that was never in my point. Lozen takes any chance she can to go on and on about how because of a % of guys actions, that I (and all guys) are somehow responsible for that % of guys actions.

We (Lozen and I) have gotten into this before with the same outcome - she will say “no I do not think that,” but when showing her the previous posts she made: She simply states that “Yes, All guys are responsible for the sins of s %”

And that abuse is not tolerated - especially when I have done what most women complain about - and enjoyed it. I worked/raised kids at home for just over 7 years, and then re-entered the work force with little difficulty. I loved it being at home with the kids and would do it again - happily.

Oddly, a lot of women felt as though I was freeloading. Can you appreciate that? Women in general will complain and call domestic work a control issue, but when a guy performs the job, he is put down?!?!

The double standards here are insane.

By Tim

June 30, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

DeltaX… “…raised kids at home for just over 7 years…” that is actually my dream ‘job’… I don’t think there could be no greater accomplishment (for me at least)

By RS

June 30, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

Netbanker: My best wishes are with your co-worker & I extend my condolences for the friend you lost in the Gulf War. Eaton: I’ve seen that so many times; the same women who sue for custody/alimony/child support are the same ones who set out to marry well-off men & pop out babies as an excuse to be “stay at home moms” & just sit home, get taken care of & watch the soaps all day. Not ALL women are like that, of course, but most hetero men I know have come across this type of gold-digger & the sad part is how they use their children as pawns

By joe

June 30, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

Oh, well Deltax so we’ve gotten into this before, have we? What was the name you used then? Was it Reggie? And I haven’t said you or all men are responsible for the actions of - well to be accurate, quite a few men. But here’s my question for you: even if I did, why do you take it so personally? If you’re such a great guy why would you identify with it? I don’t see Eaton or Netbanker or Tim getting all pushed out of shape by what I say. What is your problem, Deltax/Reggie whatever name you’re using this week?

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

Lozen,

Gina can make it appear that all women are out to get men and that doesn’t bother you at all. But it sure bothered you when I defended women. Hum. Wonder why that is?

You should not tell people what bothers them or not, you will get little response seeing as you do not know me better that I.

I agree that Ginas general statements make sense to bother you like yours bothers me. But you use generalizations to combat her generalizations - eye-for-eye? Or more like Ignorance-for-Ignorance?

Well, I addressed your generalizations (especailly since your premise is hypocritical) - and not by throwing more ignorance around, but instead I tried to show you that the arguement you THINK you have with me is non-existent: That I am not responsible for all guys - Again.

What exactly do you THINK we are argueing here? Re-read the posts first maybe?

By Rainbow Mom

June 30, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

Lozen “But we gotta do something about all this divorce!”

Wait, didn’t the haters of GA get their constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage? Wasn’t the amendment supposed to end divorce, end domestic violence, end out of wedlock children, make mother’s more loving, make father’s more responsible, make abortion unnecessary, make children honor and respect their parents and magically turn all families into the Cleavers? I thought once you people got your constitutional amendment that cancer was supposed to be cured, the economy was going to sky rocket, Bin Laden was going to be found, the troops were coming home, and the good aliens were going to arrive as well.

HA! Stupid straight people. You just can’t seem to get it that gay and lesbian people are in no way responsible for your problems and social ills.

By joe

June 30, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Yes, Tim that would be the dream job of a lot of people. But heaven forbid some mother who is divorced wants that job! She needs to get her butt to work outside her house and put those kids in daycare and pay half that huge weekly bill too because we can’t have the father of the kids supporting her lifestyle! That’s Gina’s rant!

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Lozen (joe? not sure what your pulling here), Can you not refrain from childish remarks?

I had entered a dialog with you but do not remember who all was a part. To get into the remedial tangents you provide is dissapointing. Try addressing a single point.

I have once again provided common ground, but you are plain spitefull.

Tim, I dissagree. If I had gotten a divorce after raising the kids, it would be my responsibility to get a friggen job!

It is my life and I am responsible for my happiness - no one else.

By lozen

June 30, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Joe, I can speak for myself thank you and I really don’t appreciate your post! You speak for yourself and I’ll do the same. Deltax, you think I’m throwing ignorance around here! Ha, ha, ha! Man, reread your last post. Rainbow Mom, yeah the sanctity of marriage is safe now in GA fer shur.

By lozen

June 30, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

“To get into the remedial tangents you provide is dissapointing.”????? ;-> Deltax, bless your heart for trying so hard to establish some common ground. I guess I’m just a woman and too spiteful to understand your manly logic.

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Maybe so lozen, maybe so.

By lynda

June 30, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

It’s funny how some people here refuse to believe what Gina says, and even defend these women, but let someone bring up a welfare mother, and all hell breaks loose! Rich or poor, some women are shady! We don’t need to defend one class just because they “appear” one way! And if you stay home and you husband leaves, why can’t you put your kid in a good daycare and go to work?!!

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

BTW,

Whiley is Joe.

You should at least cover up your default meter if you are trying to snow me.

By Tim

June 30, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

DeltaX… if I were put in the same situation I would probably get out and get a job too… all I said was that if a couple decides that one of them is going to stay home with the children then that is their job… I just don’t believe that a stay at home mom or dad should be forced to leave their children in daycare and find a job if their spouse decides it is time for a divorce… if the stay at home parent decides to get out and get another job then so be it… but I don’t believe they should be forced… the ex spouse should pay alimony and child support… we will just obviously have to agree to disagree on this one

my step-mom is a stay-at-home mom… if my dad came home one day and just up and decided he didnt like being married to her anymore then yes he does need to foot the bill… because if not… then the main ones that would suffer would be my two younger sisters

By Whiley

June 30, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Once again, this isn’t about the SMALL PERCENTAGE of women that are abusing the system or a father. This is about do we NEED to encourage fathers to be fathers. YES ! ABSOLUTELY ! If encouragement helps ONE man step up to the plate, then ABSOLUTELY DO IT. Start the campaign now.

It’s ridiculous how this conversation is being turned to blaming women for men not acknowledging their own offspring. We ALL KNOW that the norm is single/divorced women take on 100% of everything. With little or no help.

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Whiley, I agree that most women have responsibility of the kids on divorce, so lets change the norm.

Starting with the fact that just about all women get custody as a default unless they are proven terrible or opt out.

Instead, lets award true 50-50 custody; and move forward from there. It could follow a pretty simple if-then route that uses curent laws wo creating new ones.

Tim, I do not believe anyone has the right to believe things WILL NOT change. That includes an agreed upon marraige system. If one wants that, create a new pre-nup’ish agreement.

By Ben

June 30, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

Tim - If you work for a company and that company folds, should you still get paid? The stay at home arrangement becomes null and void after a divorce. Men should most definitely support their children. In some cases they should provide alimony, but not to the extent where the divorced spouse is given a free ride.

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

I think it comes back around to what we talked about at the beginning of the discussion - it all comes down to a case-by-case analysis. I agree that if a stay-at-home parent is divorced by a working parent, the divorcing party should be able to afford to pay to allow the divorced to continue to be a stay-at-home parent if that was the agreement they came to prior to the divorce. I also agree that child support shouldn’t be used to just live a life of leisure.

All women are not good parents, all men are not bad parents, etc. etc. etc. It serves no one to use absolutes, especially the kids.

By Tim

June 30, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this

DeltaX and Ben… I see where y’all are coming from… but in my own personal opinion the stay at home parent should not be forced to leave their kids with someone else… the children are the real ones that would hurt in that situation… but like I said… if I were in the situation I think that I probably would have to make the tough decision and get a job because I wouldn’t want to have to rely on someone else for my child(s) well being

By Ben

June 30, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

Tim - I feel the same way you do, and I would make sure my wife and daughter were taken care of. But it’s kind of unreasonable to expect a man to take care of the ex-wife. Child support definitely, but the parent left with the child has to ante up and contribute.

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

I don’t know that I agree with that Ben. What if the husband and wife agree upfront that the wife will be a stay-at-home mom? What if the wife gave up her own career to do so? Then, what if the husband has an affair and divorces the wife?

Or reverse wife/husband - I’m not picky about the gender thing.

By Whiley

June 30, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

This is too frustrating to read this week. I can’t read anymore. It is very sad to me that so many people are still so backward:

If there is abuse in a marriage, it’s the woman’s fault, she should have known better. If she has to leave an abusive marriage, she’s being selfish. She’s just bored. If she wants to stay home with the kids, she’s a mooch. If she works, she’s selfish. If she seeks a divorce she’s selfish. If she needs financial assistance, she should have never gotten divorced. If her ex is irresponsible & she is concerned for the safety of her small children in his care she is selfish & manipulative.

And let me say, if you work & take on 100% of the childcare & housework, married or not you are a “single mom”. I can’t listen to the sexist double standard blaming everybody else garbage this week. Without a doubt we REALLY NEED to encourage fathers to be fathers. NOT blame women for their absence. Talk to you all next week ! Still love ya !

By Gina

June 30, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

I missed quite a few posts. For those who feel I am a man or a second wife, I am neither. I am a single, female without children but I know about the inequities in family court. My volunteer work has given me the inside view of many groups that assist women as well as men. My family, friends and co-workers have been affected by the biases. I just feel a person should be looked at by their character and not their gender. I am not one to support a woman just because I am a woman if she is wrong.

As far as being focused on money, I am not. However, isn’t money the thing most women are focused on when they are no longer married to the father of their children or never married? They don’t look at the other ways a child can benefit from a father.

I am not cold-hearted, but I feel an adult should be responsible for themselves. Both parents should be financially responsible for their children. I am not letting men off the hook, I just don’t feel it is right for an adult to support another adult.

By lozen

June 30, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

Ben, what if the ex-wife worked while he went to law, medical, dental school and then they decided to have children? So she quits her job after he gets established and has two kids right away. Then, when the kids are two and three he decides he wants to marry his secretary. Do you think that husband should support his ex-wife at least until the kids are in school?

By Tim

June 30, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

lozen… he should support her a lot longer than that… she was the one the invested in his career she should make a profit too

(I would say the same if the roles were reversed)

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Gina, I’m not trying to be antagonistic here, but your claims of objectivity and impartiality are belied by this sentence: “However, isn’t money the thing most women are focused on when they are no longer married to the father of their children or never married?”

I think the key phrase here is “most women”.

By Amazed

June 30, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

If I were a custodial parent who actually “received� child support, I would:

1.Make sure the non-custodial parent had 50-50 custodial opportunities. 2.We would split the expenses 50-50, the chores 50-5 0, etc…… This would include: a. daycare expenses b. daycare late fees – on the day in which each of us are late c. dropping and picking the kids up at school,
daycare, summer camp and extracurricular activities d. laundry –would be split into your week and my week. e. cooking – would be split into your day and my day (during the week) f. home work – would be your job the day you cook. g. Dr. Appointments and sick days would be shared as
well (this includes dispensing medication/picking it up and staying at home) h. Clothing cost would be split 50-50 (I would ask the judge to include a cost analysis adjustment for each year) – because children usually require clothes at least twice a year. i. Camp cost, plus a “child� vacation at least once a year.

I don’t mind sharing the cost, but I would require the non-custodial parent to share the time and give the love that I give. You will notice that I used non-custodial parent and not husband/wife. Some will say, that it’s just “not practical�. Those will be the parents who should pay more child support. Or, the judge should say “make it work�.

To the custodial parents, worried about the new child support laws, you can make it work in both of your favors. It would encourage more family involvement on both parts and love can be spread through day to day and weekly contact.

The law was past because non-custodial were said to be taken advantage of - but no real standard was set in place to ensure that there would be more involvement. Make sure the non-custodial parent gets that day to day contact.

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

I’m not so sure about the 50-50 thing myself…everyone is talking about the best interests of the child but it sounds like we’re really trying accomodate the parents instead.

I can’t imagine that bouncing a kid back and forth like a rubber ball is particularly positive…

By Netbanker

June 30, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Thanks RS. I really appreciate it. So far this ‘war’ on terror hasn’t hit home, but it will every time I walk past that darkened office until Ed comes home.

By Carl

June 30, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

The problem has grown way beyond the ability of private initiatives to have any real impact. The government should control all sexual behavior be it for procreation or recreation. Licensing sexual activity (SA) will allow officials to develop government regulated initiatives to force fathers to behave properly and see to the needs of any resultant children. Only government oversight will reduce surplus sexual activiy, foster proper parenting, and see a corresponding decline in absent fathers.

By Amazed

June 30, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I don’t like the 50-50 idea that much myself, but I feel like sometimes the non-custodial parents are getting off easy as well.

An example: last summer my friends and I planned a weekend of fun on their weekends “OFF”. However, two of the fathers did not show-up to pick-up the children. Two of my friends could not make the trip, because of the non-custodial parents. The other friend and I, went as planned. Behold “whom did we see” - one of the noncustodial parents - who did not show-up for their scheduled weekend visitations with the kids.

Another example of a similar situation: Another friend has a child who is sick constanly and she has to take-off from work at least twice a month for doctor visits. The non-custodial parent said that their job did not allow them to take off twice a month for that type of situation. My mouth is still open from that response, I couldn’t believe it. My friend has lost several jobs because of this and the non-custodial parent has been promoted in their position several times.

Eaton, I can go on and on….. about the 50-50 situations. I am the friend, that everyone brings their complaints to regarding the non-custodial parent. I’m the only one who does not receive child support. I have had to help get them out of situations that the non-custodial parent has placed them, on numerous occassions. I am the baby sitter when the non-custodial parent does not show-up. I am fortunate enought to have an excellent career that allows me to help those in need, because my situation is similiar to theirs. Sometimes, I laugh at them because I know that if my childs father were not in prison, I would be in the same situation. Every time I speak with him, he tells me that he owes me a lot. I tell him you don’t have a clue.

By Jack

June 30, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Whiley, the encouragement should be for Dad to pay or go to jail. If the husband abuses the wife, he should pay AND go to jail or under the jail. If the woman supports the man while he is in school, he should certainly support her when he is finished. If they have kids, until they are 18.

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I agree that 50-50 may not be the best case, but the point is to set a norm that is 50-50. If the parents want to diviate from that bc of a special situation, they can draw it up with a lawyer.

And seeing as marriage was traditionally for the society, not the couple and not out of love until recently; maybe this is an indicator that we need a legal document explaining the expected exit strategy along with a marraige licence: If one parent stays at home to care for the kids, the breadwinner must support said caregiver for half (with a 4 year cap or such) the same time period. Or, If one schools the other, compensation of some sort is required.

We have to set the system up so that guys cannot THINK that monitarily supporting the children is not a placeholder for being a father.

We also do not need a system where you have to fight your but off and pay a lawyer tons of $ to have 50-50 custody. This send the wrong message to guys everywhere.

Most people (unfortunately) will take advantage of a system that alows loopholes - male or female. Which is why all of them must be taken care of, regardless of who abuses the system “more.”

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Amendment to prose.

Double negative got me. It should read:

We have to set the system up so that guys cannot THINK that monitarily supporting the children is a placeholder for being a father.

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

Sorry DeltaX, your plan just won’t work…we don’t believe in exit strategies in this country.

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Eaton, And extit strategy is just another word for “future responsibility”

I agree totally, This counrty does not promote responsibility; and not just for men or women, but uni-laterally.

Such a shame the US has done what it has with its previous power and wisdom…

By Bruce

June 30, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

A week or so ago we were all up in arms saying “this is America and we have the right to free speech, etc… Well, whatever happen to freedom to pursue happiness? Don’t get me wrong take care of the kids, but ya’ll left them behind sometime yesterday. If you are not happy in your relationship why must you be forced to A) Stay in it or B) Shell out big money for leaving. If it’s the kids being taken care of I am all for it, but I do not think a person, male or female, should have to take care of the SO just because happiness has left the building. Relationships are a two way street and unless there is abuse both parties are responsible for its breakup. I know it isn’t that way in all cases but (I’ll use someone else term) in the “NORM” it takes two.

The funny thing is time after time we have heard the liberals on this blog say, “The government should stay out of our personal lives”. But this week are you saying the government has to do something. Which is it do you want the government involved or not? Again, I say yes by all means take care of the children, but let the adults fend for themselves.

By Ken

June 30, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

I don’t know if I would call it a “shame” what the U.S. has done with it’s power and wisdom.

This is still the best country in world, but we definitely can and should continue to attempt to do better.

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

I am not suggesting more govmt, but morphing the current cultural norm and govmt practices.

Extras would have to be taken up with a lawyer and paid for; barring abuse and such.

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Marriage is a legal contract given sanction by the government. As such, the courts have a right and responsibility to oversee the dissolution of said contract and ensure that it is equitable and fair.

It’s not the same as government poking around in your sex life or getting involved in your reading habits.

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Ken, I feel that the holes we have dug will consume us. Granted, we are still rolling from momentum, but that will not cover what has to be done.

We have sat on our asses too long, the work will be uphill, and the only ones interested in DOING any of it are the fanatics.

I feel a move coming on.

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Eaton, Being that it was originally a legal document, but marraige has turned since then to be a union of two people out of love. We could cover both the same sex union issue and divorce.

New documents for all!

A spiritual union document that is from whatever spiritual institution you prefer (church, town hall, satanistic club,witches of america, chicken bloodletters org…)

And a contract document setting up expectations in and out of marraige.

I like it;)

Thoughts?

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 30, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Speaking as a liberal - I do not need the government to tell me to take care of my child. But, some people (both liberal and conservatives)just do not want to do the correct thing, when it comes to their children. This is not about the government, protecting someones right or eliminating discrimination.

Child support laws are helpful to both liberal and conservatives, because it keeps “everyone” from having to take care of other peoples children.

Look at what is happening with the Atlanta Housing Projects - if child support laws and blood test were being forced, the government would not be taking care of so many people. Anyone receiving adequate child support would and should be forced to take care of themselves. If you don’t know the father, you can just get a job or give out the names of everyone who has the possibility to be your babies daddy. There will always be a need for some government assistance to some who may need it. However, there should be a reasonable limit. Such as (4-5) years or less - whatever timeframe it would take to become educated enough to provide for your family.

A lot of the family issues that exist today, were brought about through government programs. The only reason we didn’t now about the Abandonment issues before the 50’s is because of the shame. The only reason we know today is because of TV, newspaper, radio, internet, etc……and statistics.

By lozen

June 30, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

Ken, may I ask how many countries you’ve lived in? It seems you would have to live in many different countries to know which is best. And my second question: What is it about the U.S. that you think makes it the best?

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

Delta, I was mostly responding to Bruce’s “but you liberals” comment.

Personally, for me the concept of marriage as a civil contract is rather important, and keeping the spiritual thing out of it equally so. Certainly the love component and the spiritual component exists for most people. I hope when I find the right person to settle down with that those qualities are present - but in order for marriage to be equally applied to all consenting adults, I think the concept of it as, first and foremost, a legal construction bestowing a set of concrete rights and responsibilities is paramount.

By Zack's friend

June 30, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Marriage was not originally a legal document. Marriage was created by God for the welfare of children and everyone. If people didn’t get married you would never even know who the real father of the children is! You heathens don’t even know where holy matrimony comes from! And you think your so smart! And you better leave my friend Zack alone you gay loving, murder loving, ACLU supporting freaks.

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Eaton, But would you oppose ALL unions requiring a spiritual half and a contract half.

Seems this could clear up a good bit…

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Would anyone like to join me in a big laugh now?

By lozen

June 30, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Oh, Lord! Please please protect us from your followers!

By Carl

June 30, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

As I said perviously, government is the only control that will work. Government licenses marriage; government should license sexual activity, procreation, and enforcement of parental duties.

By Amazed

June 30, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

Zack’s friend June 30, 2005 02:59 PM

Just because you are married, does not mean you are the father. There have been many married couples (fathers) that have come to find out later, that they are not the father of a child conceived in marriage.

I don’t believe that God intended marriage to become a litmus test for paternity.

Don’t get me wrong Zack’s Friend, marriage is a great thing for the right people.

By Ken

June 30, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Daggumit Lozen… Guess you got me…

I base that on comments from folks who have recently emmigrated here. Some are refugess that our church has helped. Others I’ve met working some of the least desired, most demanding jobs around.

Not too long ago I met a man from the Ivory Coast driving a taxi, his exact words were “America is heaven on Earth.”

One day people will realize that no society will ever be perfect and despite our shortcomings we should embrace the wonders of America rather than constantly condemn her.

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Well tell Zack that I am truely sorry for hurting his feelings and if he needs me to drop by and kiss hi boo boo better….naw, never mind.

He can keep his boo boo;) He seems to like it.

BTW, if marraige was so holy, why did everyone have lovers on the side?? Why were kids hooked up, enforced by religion, at 10yrs and younger??

It was for the welfare of the society and families to keep their money. Not out of love or praise of god.

Idiot.

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

I don’t believe in seperate but equal, DeltaX, if you’re suggesting the government actually sanction multiple legal forms of marriage.

If you think about it, we already have the system you mention. Any spiritual leader of any recognized religion can perform a marriage ceremony that bestows spiritual sanction upon a couple. Those not seeking religious marriage can go to a JP for a completely god-free marriage. What is constant across the methods is the rights and responsibilities granted by the governement.

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Carl, “As I said perviously,”

And like your perviously (had to be sure I spelled it in a manner you would understand) posted prose, we shall ignore word via idiots.

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Ken, I’m sure that a person from the third world when transplanted into any of the developed Western Nations would think it was heaven on earth.

I don’t need to proclaim that my country is the greatest to love my country. I recognize its strengths and its faults. We surpass other nations in some areas, and are surpassed in others.

Claiming uncritically that we are “the greatest” only hurts us. It encourages the arrogance of which our neighbors and allies accuse us. It prevents us from seeing our flaws, and prevents us from seeking inspiration from our friends who may be doing some things than we.

Love America, yes, but with your eyes open, not shut.

By Carl

June 30, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Eaton is hitting what I’ve been saying: government is the key to controlling and enforcing human behavior, in this case sexual activity and parental duties.

By Linda

June 30, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

I have just a short antedoctal comment about fatherhood. I started teaching before the “sexual revolution,” left teaching to rear my own family, and came back to teaching years later after the “sexual revolution, when it had become common for people to not “repress” any of their sexual desires. Now I am teaching the children who are the product of all of that “healthy” sexuality with its “me first” and its absence of fidelity and lack of commitment. Sit with me one day and read the journal writings of the depressed, lonely, and angry teen-agers who are without supportive fathers. I don’t know if the “government” can do anything about fathering (or mothering), but somebody better. This is affecting all of society.

By lozen

June 30, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

There was a vent today that said, “I’ve been thinking and I’ve come up with something good to say about Bush. He makes me appreciate what a great country this was.”

By DeltaX

June 30, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I am not sure what we are missing in dialog, but it seems that I must not be making myself clear.

You write: “What is constant across the methods is the rights and responsibilities granted by the governement.”

Correct, but I do not believe that one set of rights and responsibilities cuts it any longer. There are too many different types of relationships out there; and that is only considering the heteros. So why not have a rules/regulations document made by the couple illustrating their expectations and requirments?

Just to make sure you uderstand me: I am suggesting that BOTH documents are required for all marraiges.

By Netbanker

June 30, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Marriage was created by God…HAHAHAHAHAHA. God must have been worried about chattel and property (What’s my mantra?…Follow the Money) So God is worried about money. which is what George Carlin has been saying for a long time. TV preachers claim to be close to God and look at how much money they seem to need. Or the pastors of those Mega Churches. Creflo Dollar’s name alone makes me roll on the floor laughing.

As an fyi…the God that Zack’s friend talks about is the god of the jews and jewish lineage is MATERNAL since it was (until fairly recently in human history) impossible to prove paternity. A child born of a jewish man and gentile woman is not considered jewish unless the woman has converted prior to birth.

By Netbanker

June 30, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Lozen….I loved that vent. And this one from yesterday…”The problem is there are so many stupid people and nothing eats them.”

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

Carl, please don’t associate your nonsense with me, OK? Thanks.

Please return to obsessively reading Aldous Huxley

By RS

June 30, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Zack has a friend???!??!?????

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

yes, RS, an imaginary one.

By RS

June 30, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Eaton: Oh, I get it! Is that the same friend (?!) who’s dating Zack’s blow-up dollie??

By Ken

June 30, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Since when does the government grant anybody rights? If I am not mistaken, we the people of this country grant the government rights. We have the ability to grant them and to take them away.

The institution of government does nothing but infringe upon the rights and freedoms given to us by God.

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

I’m not going to go there Ken, because I really wouldn’t be civil, and I’m trying really hard to be civil these days.

By Dakotawoman

June 30, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Linda, your note about angry and depressed teens has set me off! Society needs to change. There are more ways to give young people support than the nuclear family; we just refuse to do it. We refuse to think of our children as belonging to all of us as native americans did. But we all surely suffer the consequences if someone else’s kids are depressed and angry. We refuse to set up real systems that would teach people to be good parents. Oh well, we should just keep doing it the way we’ve always done it. That’s an individual responsibility. We refuse to set up after- school programs with well paid and dedicated people to give kids support. Many of us complain about paying our taxes to support the schools if we don’t have kids in school! We refuse to have government sponsored day care as so many other industrialized nations do. We refuse to create organized groups to mentor teenagers and younger people. We refuse to have a shorter work week and more time off so parents can spend more time with their children. We don’t want the gov’t to help poor people with our tax money. Why, we don’t even have health care for a huge number of the children in our society. That’s socialism! So, we don’t want to give any help at all to the millions of people in our society who eke out a bare day-to-day living on minimum wage and their children. Sorry, all those things would cost money. The only thing that doesn’t cost us money is the nuclear family where we get all that free labor from mothers. As netbanker says, “Follow the money.”

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

Dakotawoman, it never ceases to amaze me when all of the good, loving loudly-proclaimed Christians who make up the bulk of the US population get so angry and outraged when tax dollars are spent to help others, and are so complacent, and even happy, when they are spent to develop weapons and to wreak havoc.

We can’t have anything that might smack of socialism without people getting upset, but we applaud a president who believes that we should be researching new forms of nuclear weapons.

By lozen

June 30, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

Ken, as a woman with a lot of native american and african american friends, I can assure you god did not give us any rights. We had to fight for all the rights we’ve acquired in this country.

By DD

June 30, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

How about a dose of truth.

It’s all about the money in the USA. Your emmployer doesn’t really give a damn about you just the work you do.

Family court is terribly unfair to men who are just viewed as walking wallets. Most women are inherently vengeful and will do anything even do life long harm to thier own children for vengence.

Most men are prone to violence and will harm you and thier children when angered.

Initatives to encourage fathers would only be applicable to the cronically poor and in Atlanta thats code for black. A large numbers of black men who can’t be involved with thier family cause thier in jail, usually for drugs.

Men and women both commit adultery.

Mother and fathers don’t really have the best intrest of the child at heart and just use the kid as a weapon to get what they want.

In the USA it’s all about me me me.

Children are an expensive time consuming pain in the a* to raise.

The truth is easy to spot because it usually hurts.

By Eaton

June 30, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

In my experience, when someone claims to have a dose of truth it means they’re about to regurgitate a litany of simplistic and often erroneous soundbytes overheard while listening to talk radio.

By lozen

June 30, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Eaton, well at least not as many people are applauding our prez now! Bring on those nuclur power plants. It’s the only way we can stop our dependency on fossil fuel and still control energy so my budds and I can charge for it. Never mind where we’ll put the radioactive material. Let us not ever consider putting any money into research on clean wind, solar, or water power!

By Archie

July 1, 2005 08:18 AM | Link to this

Eaton that 4:33 pm post yesterday was a good one. Yes, we have had to fight for the rights we acquired in this country Lozen.

By Carl

July 1, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

Eaton - My nonsense? Did you not say that rights and responsibilities are granted by the governement? And in another post you said we can’t have anything that might smack of socialism without people getting upset? Did I err in thinking you are for a strong central liberal government?

By Jack

July 1, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

I think my tax money should be spend helping irresponsible men be real fathers to the children they helped create. I also want some of my money to help the panhandlers so they won’t have to stand out in the weather with nike tennis shoes and levis begging for money that others worked for. And some for the pious united nations. And Africa. And Mexico.

By Lyrazel

July 1, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

I hope the future generations of children will see through mistakes of previous generations and learn to not pop babies off as if a type of reward for taxes, self-gratiification or in accident. Maybe one day parenting will be taught to all boys and girls for a rewarding future of loved and wanted children…perhaps your children will learn to respect their selves and partners in a way this generation and others behind it could never grasp. Good luck, happy friday.

By Eaton

July 1, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

Carl, whatever fantasies and delusions about a liberal government you may have absorbed from talk radio, rest assured that the government control of people’s bodies and behaviors is utterly abhorent to any real liberal. Using public funds to help pay for programs designed to assist the greater good is hardly analogous to dictating behavior.

By Carl

July 1, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

What is wrong with enlighten government dictating behaviors if it assists the greater good? For example China - a socialist nation - limits the number of children a couple can have. China is progressing and rivaling the US as superpower in all aspects.

By Eaton

July 1, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

China is a communist nation with a free market economy, Carl, not a socialist nation. Also, China’s one-child per family regulation is now having serious repercussions on its economy, particularly the agrarian segment. The Chinese cultural prejudice against female children has led to many couples selecting not to have girls, so men now outnumber women as much as 4 to 1, particularly in rural, agricultural areas. There is a significant problem with urban flight in China now, as young men head to the cities to find a wife. So you see, that particular plan hasn’t worked out well.

China’s current prosperity can be more attributed to their conversion to a free market economy which has created a sizeable and still-growing middle class. Any economist will tell you that a strong middle class is essential to a healthy FME.

Besides, it’s not always about power. The case could be made that controlling various behaviors benefits “the greater good”, but that leads to facism and totalitarianism. Orwell, anyone?

By Bobb

July 1, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

To: Eaton, you said, in defense of liberalism, “Using public funds to help pay for programs designed to assist the greater good is hardly analogous to dictating behavior”. How does this stack up against the liberal side of the Supreme Court dictating that government can make you sell your property to someone else if it is for the greater good? How is taking my money or my property - without recourse - to give to others not a form of dictating behaviors of those giving and receving. I don’t listen to talk radio, so I base my opinions of liberal and conservative ideas on what I hear from the horses mouth.

By Eaton

July 1, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

Bobb, Eminent Domain is written into the Constitution. It’s hardly a new thing. The only reason the particular case went to the Supreme Court was because the town in question was using private enterprise to develop the land. However, the city council plan was clearly designed to benefit the entire community by creating large numbers of jobs and bringing in significant wealth.

I know that conservatives have made a big stink over this one, but they are being disingenous at best. After all, ole Shrub himself used Eminent Domain to build a baseball stadium for his own team.

And Bobb…three of the five justices in the majority were appointed by Republicans. Hardly the “liberal side”.

By Tracie

July 1, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

I really hate I missed this blog days ago when it started because I am really surprised at some of the comments. First, to Gina, Ms Harris, RS and Akeya, you all are unbelievable. I was once a single mom with one son. I regularly worked two jobs to support us. My son’s father is deceased so raising him alone was not a choice, but it’s amazing all of the hate you all spit about women. I agree with several other comments, Gina must be a man or a woman very jealous of mother of her husband’s child, she is extremely angry and seems to be a member of the “women hater club”. No one is perfect and I don’t agree with living off welfare or keeping kids from their fathers, it’s childish and shows immaturity. I am well aware of people who do just that but I also know men that run from place to place trying to avoid paying child support. Regardless of how the child got here, it takes two to tango, so wear a condom and you don’t have to worry whelther or not she took her pill! I can’t count how many times my god- daughter has waited on the front steps for a father that never shows up. I can’t count how many times promises of “the check is in the mail” have been untrue. I can’t count how many times she has been told “daddy loves you”, but yet he doesn’t show up to her birthday party or school graduation. These are just some examples, and when this happens who do you think is left to pick up the pieces and try to comfort the child..that’s right the mom, so until either one of you has been in this situation your comments are unfair and come from a place you haven’t been. I think it is the responsibilty of both parents to support their child, no one person is more important, and “no one” should have to motivate you to take care of what is yours. The average child support award rarely covers the child’s $500 daycare so the mother is the one coming up with that plus more. In case you didn’t know child support is for food, rents, lights, water, clothes, insurance, medical copay, activities, personal products and anything else the child needs. So unless the father is financially wealthy, the child support award is not enough for her to live off. Also, contrary to what you all believe most men don’t want custody, because they don’t want the responsibility of taking care of a 2 year old on a day to day basis. There are men that want to be active paticipants in there child’s life and they should have that right without obstruction from a bitter ex, but don’t get on here acting like that is the majority. I am now a married mother of three. I work full-time and am a junior working towards my degree in Political Science after that I have 3 years of law school to attend, but years ago I had to seek assistance and had I been the lady in the grocery line that you spoke so nasty to we would have had a big problem. You don’t know what happened to her to put her in that position. I had a great job with IBM, making very good money, but after 9/11 I was laid off. My entire department was outsourced to India, and the employment compensation was 1/4 of what my weekly income had been. It took me a year to find another job which currently pays $15k less than what I was making, so unless any of you have been there, don’t judge people you don’t know, it only makes you look ignorant.

By Bobb

July 1, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Eaton, I’m aware of Eminent Domain, but isn’t it limited to taking land for public use? How does making someone sell their land for another’s private enterprise adventure fit into that? Besides, “designed to ” does guarantee success. Private enterprise projects go belly up everyday, and government involvment generally gurantees it will or at best means keeping it on the public dole forever (ex. AMTRAK). It’s only a short step from telling us that the government has first ownership rights to all property for any use to them telling us they have first rights to how we think and behave.

Whatever, you may be opposed to others dictating your personal behavior, but it hardly sounds like you are opposed to dictating to others if it is for the “greater good”.

Weren’t the three judges appointed by Republicans when the Democrats held a majority in Senate? Hardly a climate to get anyone but a moderate to left appointee through, umless you wanted them ruined for life like Justice Thomas.

If Soros gets the Nationals, lets see if he uses his own money to build a new ballpark. Turner managed to milk Atlanta for one.

By Eaton

July 1, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Bobb, the definition of public use was integral to the decision. The city wasn’t creating the area just becuase it wanted to develop for financial. The city was dying due to the loss of its major industries. The plan in question was designed to keep the town alive, and was therefore considered public use, according to the court.

And I never said I agreed with the decision, Bobb. You just assumed based on liberal and conservative labels that are actually pretty meaningless in this circumstance. You’ll note that the oft-accused-of-being-too-liberal AJC today features an editorial expressing concern for that same decision.

As for the judges - I realize the Republican mantra is to blame Democrats for everything no matter who the president is, but even the most biased legal scholar would never accuse the Supreme Court of harboring any far-left liberals. The most liberal among them is a moderate centrist at best. If the court were more liberal, we might have had a different President today.

And Bobb, I really wasn’t discussing the public funding of stadiums in general - only pointing out that conservatives use Eminent Domain as much as anyone. Thanks for attempting to redirect the conversation, though. Nice red herring.

By Bobb

July 1, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Eaton, you can’t have it both ways. In your 10:48 post you obviously agree with the towns approach and the courts ruling. Now at 11:46 you claim you never said you agreed with the descison despite your defense of it previously. First it is “nothing new” and the “only reason” it got to the court is because it involved private enterprise; now you say I’m putting words in your mouth. Which way is it?

By Eaton

July 1, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Bobb, only a conservative would have to be so narrow. First, I was merely objectively discussing the decision and the reasons behind it, not agreeing or disagreeing. You DO know what “objective” means, don’t you?

Second, I was responding to your statement that it was a “liberal” decision by pointing out that Eminent Domain was not a new concept and could hardly be blamed on liberals or conservatives.

The case DID fall under the purview of the court because it represented an expansion of scope in previous interpretations of Eminent Domain. I’m sorry if you can’t handle a simple discussion of facts without trying to read some kind of ideological position into it.

By Bobb

July 1, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Eaton, your words speak for themselves when comes to labeling others, objectivity, and handling a discussion without reading idelogical position into it, so don’t go getting nasty and personal on me. Talk about red herrings - you still haven’t answered the question: Do you or do you not agree with the court’s, to quote you, “…expansion of scope in previous interpretations of Eminent Domain”?

By Eaton

July 1, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Well, Bobb, you don’t get personal and I won’t OK?

I think the decision has some disturbing far-reaching implications. I don’t want to see property seized for the sole purpose of building a wal-mart and making some developers richer.

However, I think they did rule correctly on the merits of the specific case. The vast majority of affected property owners had sold, and the development was clearly intended to revitalize the community and was not simply a cash-cow for developers.

See Bobb. Shades of grey. It’s not all black and white like Shrub thinks it is.

By Jack

July 1, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

When the government starts taking people’s property en-mass for more tax money, let the revolution begin!

By Linda

July 1, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Dakotawoman, thanks for your thoughtful response. Your ideas of a mentoring program and after-school program have already been adopted by the school where I teach. We have a very caring and concerned school system. The after-school program is staffed with certified teachers from our school who work with the students with their homework and on many other projects. The whole community is very involved in supplying a variety of experiences for the students. The program is continuing through the summer. During the school year the students are at the school until 6:00 and then buses take them home. The cost per student averages $5 per week. My students who attend (including immigrant non-native English-speaking children) have all told me they like the program very much. Our mentoring program is also well-organized and well-run. The mentors are at the school quite frequently and are very involved in the students’ lives.

I said all that to make my point again about the difference in what I see from when I first began to teach during the vietnam era. At that time two Democratic presidents had sent our young people to fight in a very unpopular war. We were watching the body bags on the evening news every night. There was no choice about going or not going into the military. Every young man had a two year obligation to serve in the military at age 18 because of the universal draft.

There were also no mentor programs or after-school programs, etc. during those days. We were at war in an uncertain world. At that time, like now, I was teaching English to teen-agers. Given what we know now about brain development in teens, my students were at the peak for risk-taking and hormone product. On the other hand, as we now know the judgement centers of their brains were not yet fully formed. In other words, they were typical teens. Yet I cannot recall EVER reading from any of their writings the sad, depressed, hopeless, and angry type of writing I am seeing from too many of my students NOW.

The bottom line is, no matter what sociological experiment we may wish to foster on these students next, none will work until we read what they write and let them tell us what is wrong. How can we fix what is wrong? It will take a change in the hearts of the people who gave them life. It will take putting them and their needs before ours for the brief time that they are children. It will take commitment and fidelity and responsibility and letting them be children instead of adults. What I am reading is coming from broken hearts. And those broken hearts will impact generations to come.

By DeltaX

July 1, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Further clarification (seeing as a few just do not get it):

Being a father that would not find himself in the situation of splitting on my family IF a divorce happened, and being a friend of many divorced fathers that are sick of the system prejudging them as deadbeats; I am strongly against seeing more laws passed that hurt us good guys.

I absolutely agree there is a huge issue with some guys not owning up to their responsibility; but do not tie the hands of good guys in the process. I do know that this causes those good ones to say “screw it, I will start another family.” These guys do feel remorse for this as well but have tried for years to find a comprimise.

So my approach is to better the situation without causeing harm to those that do not fit the criteria of deadbeat.

But, when I hear talk of “all guys” must pay for the wrongs of some (even if it was a majority - it still is unjust to screw an innocent), or that it is a guy issue; I get pretty down on the black/white absolutism being appied and address it.

Some of you have disliked the rebuttle of catagorizing all guys as preditors and all women as victims. Sorry that you feel such hostility in the subject, but I feel even minded people need to contribute to these issues, not hot-head children who can only spout off and stomp your foot.

Good luck to you all.

By lozen

July 1, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

The careful crafting of images and messages on TV, in advertising, and in politics is shaping the way Americans think and act. In uncertain times, legendary graphic artist and marketer Milton Glaser is questioning how people’s responses to these symbolic messages is affecting democracy. “Everything is spun in terms of achieving a certain result,” he says. “The fascinating thing about it is that the public, who’s grown up conditioned by advertising, perfectly accepts political misrepresentation this way.” KILL YOUR TV! QUESTION EVERYTHING!

By lozen

July 1, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Thank you Tracie for sharing your story. It might make some of the woman haters on here see what happens to real women. But, then again, maybe not. I think they just want to hate and aren’t interested in real stories too much. I hope things improve for you and your children. Best of luck.

By Bobb

July 1, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Eaton, you still want it both ways. Rationalize the courts decision in this particular instance all you want, but you are more on the mark about it have disturbing far-reaching implications. The Supreme Court has eaten into a fundamental right and basically said there is no private property any more; it all belongs to government and loaned out to whomever it sees fit. Government, like rust(and developers), never sleeps and they will be rationalizing all kinds of “for the greater good” projects if left to their own devices.

By Tracie

July 1, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Thanks Lozen, I just hate when people deal in absolutes, especially those that are on the outside looking in. All women aren’t victims and all men aren’t abusers, but people need to be absolutely honest when approaching such a sticky subject and quit twisting and hiding from the truth.

By Eaton

July 1, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Well Bobb, I guess I just realize that things aren’t always black and white. The world’s a complex place, as much as the Karl Rove’s of the world would like us to believe otherwise. Let’s hope that future cases are held to the same standard as this one.

The 5th amendment still limits Eminent Domain to public use, so there is hardly “no recourse” as you said earlier, nor has this decision effectively made all private property public. That is an hysterical reaction rather than a logical one.

Frankly, I’m far more frightened of whomever George W. Bush appoints to take O’Connor’s place. What’s that sound? Oh…it’s our basic civil rights eroding away.

By Jack

July 1, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Tracie - You go Girl!

By HARD40

July 1, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

There so many single parents in this town. It’s so sad. Single parenting causes so many social problems. Children of single parent mothers are more likely to drop out of school, become single parents before they are 21, and let’s face it become unproductive members of society. I just don’t understand why these women don’t take precautions, so they won’t become pregnant in the first place. It defies commonsense and logic how a woman would choose to struggle alone, impoverished, while the man who got her pregnant is free to go on with his life like nothing happened. I have compassion for single mothers too, women and children are victimized by single parenting. Everyone loses in this alternative family unit, the woman, her children, and society.

By Jack

July 1, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

So Eaton you’re saying taking one’s property through eminent domain and giving it to a developer to build a Walmart is for public use? Public use is schools, libraries etc.

By Jack

July 1, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

In some countries women are legally allowed to kill their spouse if they find out they are having an affair. Not a bad idea. It would keep certain men from going from one woman to another leaving broken families in theior wake. Yes, I am old fashioned.

By Eaton

July 1, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

Jack, I realize you lack reading comprehension skills, but even you should be able to read this sentence with accuracy: “I don’t want to see property seized for the sole purpose of building a wal-mart and making some developers richer.”

The Court - that’s the Court Jack, not me - specifically said that the city in this case met the standard for public use because the project, while using private devlopers, was strictly for the purpose of rescuing the city from its inevitable decline. It wasn’t to make a few people richer, it was to save the community as a whole.

I doubt that any judge down the line would rule that building a wal-mart meets the standard of public use.

By RS

July 1, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

HARD40, you asked why women have unprotected sex, therefore resulting in unwed pregnacies. Of course none of u can speak for ALL women, but did you ever consider that some do it deliberately because the government enables them and actually rewards them for having baby after illegitimate baby?

By Jack

July 1, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

Eaton, you obviously have NO people skills.

By Eaton

July 1, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Not really Jack - you just p** me off. Actually I have great people skills, but I don’t give a flying flip if you like me or not. You’re a backwards jackass with no redeeming qualities. You also don’t manage to answer questions.

By lozen

July 1, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Deltax, You are the immature child who stomps his foot when someone disagrees with you.

By lozen June 28, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this Gina, you have a real problem with women. In every one of your posts you show that you only see the worst in all women. I do not believe every woman you meet in your various volunteer positions is a free loader. I guess I live in a different world from yours. What I see are the women I work with who are single parents although they are married. Women who take 99 percent of the responsibility for home, children, laundry, shopping, cleaning, homework, running the kids around to places, cooking, making sure clothes and lunches or lunch money are ready for the next day. And they work 40+ hours a week outside the home. And I simply do not believe there are women’s groups of any kind, anywhere, telling women to take advantage of the fathers of their children. There may be groups telling women not to be taken advantage of in divorce settlements. There may be groups trying to help women get what their children are entitled to from the father. But I do not believe your picture of a world full of women who lie around eating bonbons while the fathers get shafted. Whiley is right. When women stay home to take care of their children we call them lazy free loaders. If they work, everything wrong in the world is their fault for not being there with the kids. Just let a father get custody and watch the whole neighborhood praise him and help him and talk constantly about what a saint he is. Let the mother get the kids and she’s supposed to get a job (and continue to do all the parenting) instead of taking advantage of her ex! I do not believe the mother’s salary should be considered in child support equally with the father’s unless they have joint custody and he takes care of the kids just as many hours per week as the mother does!

By DeltaX June 28, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this Lozen, I know of 5 divorced fathers right now who (after years in some cases) won custody of the kids, work full time, and are successfull at it. They have now formed a support group to encourage other divorced fathers step up as well. These guys do not receive ANY money from their ex’s. Why are you of the position that women cannot do the same? Are you really saying that you (and women in general) are not capable of what people (namely guys in this instance) have proven CAN be done?

*By lozen June 28, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Deltax, no I’m not saying women can’t do the same. Hundreds of women do it everyday compared to the five guys you know!*

By DeltaX June 28, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Lozen, So, yours is a moot point. (I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean!) Neither men or women are “entitledâ€? to a comfortable existance, it is their responsibility to create it - not anothers job to provide it. No matter he situation. And given you know women who do it, and I know men who do it; that proves anyone CAN do it. Now you only have to see that everyone should do it - for themselves.

*By lozen June 28, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

What is my “moot point� Deltax? I’m not talking about the comfortable existence of the men or women. I’m concerned about the comfortable existence of the children.*

By DeltaX June 28, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this Lozen, What is my “moot point� Deltax? I’m not talking about the comfortable existence of the men or women. I’m concerned about the comfortable existence of the children.

And the comfort of the children is a direct responsibility of their parent guardian. Meaning neither mom or dad should expect the other to pay anything, but instead should provide the comfort themselves - seeing as we proved it is possible.

By DeltaX June 28, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this Lozen, You stated that “I’m concerned about the comfortable existence of the children.� That is crap. Read your post…I will highlight it so you can understand that your point was for the WOMAN. (Here Deltax pasted my first comments to Gina again with woman highlighted)

How many references to the “comfortable existence of the children� do you see? I see none. In fact I see a disfunctional relationship in whole from what you described.

*By lozen June 29, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Deltax, I can only conclude that what got your panties in such a twist yesterday was my standing up for women. I will always stand up for women; I am one. You can’t separate women and children since 99% of the time mothers are the ones who take care of the children. Yes there are a few exceptions to that, but that doesn’t change the fact that most children are cared for by their mothers after a divorce. And no, there’s no reason for them to do it by themselves. It takes two to create a pregnancy and the children produced need to be cared for by both parents. If both parents are working when it’s time to decide on child support then the non-custodial parent should pay more since the custodial parent has most of the physical care of the children. That’s my opinion, and if you want to call my opinions crap, well, please feel free*

By DeltaX June 30, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

Lozen, You wrote: “We all know in 99% of cases, divorced mothers do all the childcare.� But it is s gross generalization, and irrelivant unless you address only those x% - but you do not know who they are. So what if 85% (look it up in ama) of serious mental disease afflicts women - does that mean that I can put them all down? Of course not. Would you use numbers to reflect ALL black people, Gays, etc? I suspect you would not, which means a guy hurt you pretty badly, and I AM sorry you experience. But you can own it if you want. When you see and remedy the anger filled bias you have in wanting to condem ALL guys, we may be able to talk - until the, I reccomend you watch What the Bleep, bc you have some serious peptides reacting. Ken Wilber would be good for you too. [plus - you never adress the topic we get on anyways. I disproved that your prose was in concern for the child, but you ignored that quite well]

*By lozen June 30, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

Well, Deltax I’ll agree with you about some guys getting screwed. Of course it happens. I worked for a man in the early 70’s who went to court with all his business financial figures (well, he did adjust them a tad) when his wife divorced him. He expected her to ask for quite a bit of alimony and child support. He was absolutely blindsided when she accused him (in cobb county) of being homosexual, a drug user and a draft dodger. She got custody, a bunch of money, and he couldn’t see the kids without supervision. It was very unfair. He really loved his kids and wanted to be with them. Then she moved to Florida so he had to go there once a month to spend his allowed 3 or 4 hours with them under her supervision. Gina generalizes over and over and makes it sound as if all women are users, so I generalize back at her. Women get screwed during divorces and men get screwed during divorces. Women get screwed in marriages and men get screwed in marriages. Gina can make it appear that all women are out to get men and that doesn’t bother you at all. But it sure bothered you when I defended women. Hum. Wonder why that is?*

By DeltaX June 30, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this Eaton, I also agree like your statement: (WHAT?)“but I do question the assertion that women use child support and alimony not to work.� To talk about that was never in my point. Lozen takes any chance she can to go on and on about how because of a % of guys actions, that I (and all guys) are somehow responsible for that % of guys actions. We (Lozen and I) have gotten into this before with the same outcome - she will say “no I do not think that,� but when showing her the previous posts she made: She simply states that “Yes, All guys are responsible for the sins of s %� (Nope, never said it!) And that abuse is not tolerated - especially when I have done what most women complain about - and enjoyed it. I worked/raised kids at home for just over 7 years, and then re-entered the work force with little difficulty. I loved it being at home with the kids and would do it again - happily. Oddly, a lot of women felt as though I was freeloading. Can you appreciate that? Women in general will complain and call domestic work a control issue, but when a guy performs the job, he is put down?!?! The double standards here are insane.

By DeltaX June 30, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this Lozen, Gina can make it appear that all women are out to get men and that doesn’t bother you at all. But it sure bothered you when I defended women. Hum. Wonder why that is?

You should not tell people what bothers them or not, you will get little response seeing as you do not know me better that I. I agree that Ginas general statements make sense to bother you like yours bothers me. But you use generalizations to combat her generalizations - eye-for-eye? Or more like Ignorance-for-Ignorance? Well, I addressed your generalizations (especailly since your premise is hypocritical) (What?????????) - and not by throwing more ignorance around, but instead I tried to show you that the arguement you THINK you have with me is non-existent: That I am not responsible for all guys - Again. What exactly do you THINK we are argueing here? Re-read the posts first maybe?

(The argument I think I have with Him??????)

By lozen June 30, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

“To get into the remedial tangents you provide is dissapointing.�????? ;-> Deltax, bless your heart for trying so hard to establish some common ground. I guess I’m just a woman and too spiteful to understand your manly logic.

By DeltaX June 30, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Maybe so lozen, maybe so.

Is anyone surprised that Deltax finally agreed with me? From the small part of what D. said that I could understand, it seems he has me mixed up with someone else, takes it as personal criticism when I wrote a post about women being the ones who take care of children most of the time, and generalizes constantly about women in a negative way but then gets mad as all get out if someone else generalizes about women in a positive way. Deltax seems to have some problems with women in general and me in particular. He seems to take it as personal criticism if I say something good about women. I just wish he could express those problems more clearly, listen to what I say, and not blame me with things I didn’t say. I noticed that he is able to dialog with the other men on the forum with some respect. And of course, he really likes Gina’s comments!

By DeltaX

July 1, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

Lozen, He seems to take it as personal criticism if I say something good about women.

Umm. Re-read your prose and see that I only reacted when generalized neg. about people (in tis case it was guys, but be it back etc., I would address you still).

Maybe so lozen, maybe so. I was agreeing that maybe I(meaning you) guess I’m(you again) just a woman and too spiteful to understand your(me here) manly logic. (and a snotty statement at that)

From the start you are unable to keep a straight conversation. That is a big clue into what your point is, whether to argue and say snotty words or have a discourse that volleys.

You state you were on a debate team? Sheeze - they did not explain you should stay on topic? How about the early item of you claiming you were talking about children, but your rant was slandering guys from a womans point of view???

And yes, when we talked before you plainly stated that you blame guys (NO INFERENCE HERE YA IDIOT) for the wrongs of others. You do not recall, no wonder - that is what happens when you spout off without thinking.

And possibly above all….This WAS about assisting FATHERS! (IDIOT AGAIN - and I usually refrain from directly calling names, but your a spitefull person that has no capability to have this conversation without having to make it about YOU.

You find life unfair? Well you made the choices.

The adults in the room will understand, the children will cry “But it is unfair!!”

Again, this topic was not about your agenda of bashing guys and trying to make the good ones suffer for they errs - or yours.

Just do not reply, you have nothing to offer.

By DeltaX

July 1, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

Bottom line:

Courts should madate 50-50 split in custody as well $. The individuals involved should have to care for the kids during their time with them. IF the father does not hold up his end, the courts only the will award full custody to the mother and charge the father for child support.

I have known dozens of fathers now that enter divorce wanting custody. EVERY SINGLE ONE!!! And none are awarded it,the ex’s are spitefull and make visitation a pain, creating rifts bw the father and child, are still not the enforcer of rules (making dad even more unlike-able), spend the $ on whatever they please (like mortgage of the four bedroom house she got in settlement - and he pays the mort!!!)

You do not believe the above - your ignorance, not mine.

Do not tell me about unfair. It is all over. We can put it out where we see it, but I am not having a “mine is worse than yours” child fight!