Ustwo

While I think some of the hostility is unwarented, the statistics are questionable.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

doodlebird

hold it right there, shady.

the stats say x% of (insert insert misbehavior here) come from father homes. IT DOES NOT state any percentages from the total population of single parent homes.

for instance:
there are 10 rapists. 7 of them came from fatherless homes. thus YOUR 70%. there is no mention of how many single parent homes in total there are. perhaps there only 10 homes. in which case, 100% of single parent homes raise rapists. or perhaps there are 10,000 single parent homes. in which case, 0.001% of these homes are raising rapists. in the absence of all the info, the stats you have prevented are VERY skewed.

let's see some sample sizes.

__________________
xoxo
doodle

irateplatypus

http://www.fww.org/famnews/single-parents.html

Here is an AP story that may interest those in this discussion. Statistics appear to have been drawn from the 2000 census.
from the article...

105.5 million TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS - which is divided into...

24.8 million TRADITIONAL (2 parents w/kids) HOUSEHOLDS
9.8 million SINGLE PARENT (1 parent of either sex w/kids) HOUSEHOLDS

so... it appears that there are 34.6 million households with children in them total. these statistics reveal that 28.3% of all households with children are headed by single parents of either sex.

hope this helps the discussion. i couldn't readily find statistics that break it down further into how many of the single-parent households are headed by women. at least, not without mixing data sources.

speculation: i'm guessing single father homes are DRAMATICALLY outnumbered by single mother homes.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Gilda

Pulling a bunch of statistics out of a variety of sources like that is iffy at best. I agree that having two loving, well-adjusted parents is better than having just one. I also agree that the presense of a positive adult male role model is preferable to the absense, and in most cases this role moedel will come in the guise of the father.

Two things might be going on here. First, there are those children whose mothers were never married to their fathers in the first place. This isn't uncommon in poor areas, especially inner cities and poor rural areas. These households begin with two strikes against them.

Second, we have the families in which the parents are divorced. The divorce itself can be stressful on the children, causing a variety of acting out behaviors. In some of these cases, the absense of the father as a factor in the child's life is caused by custodial interference; a hostile mother not letting her children see their father. Is the cause of the problems here the absent father, or the hostility shown by a mother more concerned with getting revenge on her ex than the welfare of her children.

So yes, having a good father involved is better than not. I think we can all agree on that. Having a good, well-adjusted parent involved is what is most important.

This does not mean that the absense of a father, by itself, will cause children to have psychological problems. My children will be raised in a household with no father present (because there won't be a father to be present) and I have no doubt that they have the same opportunity to be healthy and well-adjusted as children in a household headed by a heterosexual couple, and the research bears me out on this.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Astrocloud

My personal theory is that there is a negative image presented by the remaining parent in a fatherless home. My personal experience is that women who are divorced are "just a little bitter" towards men. This doesn't make a good impression on children -who grow into mom's stereotype.

sapituca

And research on bread indicates that:

1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.

4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!

6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and osteoporosis.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.
8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.
9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.

10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

meembo

Couldn't agree more. I'm a divorced dad whose six-figure-income ex couldn't care less about the two boys she bore. I raise them 25 out of 30 days on about a tenth of what she makes.

The prejudice I experience as a primary parent WHO HAPPENS TO BE A MAN is reflected pretty clearly in this thread. Fatherhood advocates are always assumed to "have an ax to grind". What is a motherhood advocate? The idea is completely assumed by 99% of the poulation, but there are plenty of fathers and children out there who want and need Dad to be a presence in their lives, and that presence is actively discouraged by moms who are more interested in battling with dad than providing what's best for their children.

I hope that anyone who posts to this thread from now on indicates whether or not they have kids, whether they have a spouse helping to raise those kids, and whether they had a dad in their home growing up. I think the picture would quickly clear. My dad had the shittiest childhood I ever heard of, but he was a fantastic dad, and continues to be my role model. I love my mom, and even my ex--I feel sorry for her, more than anything else -- but when my significance and importance as a father is questioned, I bristle, and I make no apologies.

I am angry, and prejudiced by experience, and certain that my presence as a dad is literally saving my sons' lives.

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

Gilda

I have no children, but do plan on having children within the next few years, and I do have a spouse to help raise the children. My parents were married the whole time I was growing up and still are.

I, too, tend to get annoyed when this subject comes up, annoyed by the implication that my children will somehow be harmed by not having a man in the home.

My problem with presenting such statistics out of context is that it implies that fathers are necessary to a child's healthy upbringing and that the absense of a father in a child's life by itself spells dire consequences for the child. There are so many other factors involved that this cannot really be said.

I think that what is most important is the presense of at least one good parent, of either sex; your experience, meembo, would seem to indicate that a good father can raise healthy kids even in the absense of a caring mother. I have no doubt that there are millions of households out there headed by a single father whose children are healthy and well-adjusted, just as there are millions of households headed by a single mother with no involved father whose children are healthy and well-adjusted.

I agree completely that it's better for good fathers to be involved in their childrens lives than not, and that mothers who interfere with this are doing their children more harm than good. I agree that there should be no presumption in favor of the mother in determining custody in divorce cases. I also believe that it's entirely possible for a child to grow up in a household with only one parent or with two same sex parents and be healthy and well-adjusted. The presense or absense of a mother or father, while having an impact, is of lesser importance than the presense of at least one good parent, of either sex, and the absense of toxic influences.

People who are finding fault with the statistics aren't attacking fatherhood per se, but the idea that single mothers are indadequate to raise a child on their own in the absense of a father, which is patently not true. I'd say the same of single fathers in the absense of an involved mother.

Perhaps the most important factor in the above statistics is that the father is absent, but that the household is headed by a single parent. I think we can all agree that two good parents are better than one good parent.

Pehaps the most important factor is that single parent households, usually headed by a woman, are more likely to be poor, and poor households are more likely to produce children with the problems listed.

Perhaps the reason the father is absent in some of these households is because he was a poor father, and that's the cause of the problems.

Perhaps the reason the father is absent is that the mother is hostile and keeping him out of her children's lives, and it's this hostility, the mother's toxic influence that is the source of the problem, and not just the absense of the father.

There are too many other factors to isolate to make the claims that the stats in the OP do.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

j8ear

That's exactly the point. It has nothing to do with the total populations of fatherless homes. It has to do with the populations of antisocial and deviant persons.

Total populations are irrelevant to the statistics.

The largest percentage of individuals from fatherless homes turns out normal without any significant issues what so ever.

It's the percentage of deviants from fatherless homes that's interesting.

For example, FBI profilers know that upwards of 90% percent of serial killers are 30-40 something, white males. This says nothing about 30-40 something white males..it says something about serial killers.

It's a starting point, a commonality occuring with such a frequency that it ~can~ be statistcally interesting. We can use this data to start weeding out risk factors, increase the pool of knowledge and eliminate or more likely at least mitigate them.

I too am somewhat taken aback, although not entirely surprised, by the hostility shown towards the toppic of this thread.

The family courts are so unduly stacked in the mothers favor, it's rediculous, imho. I think this thread illustrates nicely the hostility towards men and father's currently so fashionable in our society.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

j8ear

I feel compelled to address this because simply put...your children will be harmed without a man in the house.

Children need to raised by a mother and a father. Currently social changes not with standing. It's possible, but not ideal, by any stretch of reason, to think that the alternatives are "just as good." They aren't. Not by a long shot.

In the situation you describe yourself in, your children's mother will have ~failed~ at her marriage, at best she would have made a bad decision in the first place. How is this ideal? Your children will be harmed. They may weather the storm superbly and come out as exceptional people, but they will have had to struggle with issue to do so. Energy tapped from the development of other potential squandered.

It's not a zero sum game. You can't swap one situation for another equally. Some will work adequately, but only one is ideal. That is a two parent mother/father loving family. Anything less is not ideal and is harmful, even if harm which can be overcome.

my .02 cents

-bear

/btw..I don't mean to single you out, embarrass or put ~you~ on the spot as an individual. You provided something quotable for me to illustrate my point.

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Seeker

j8ear, I can see where you are coming from, but sometimes it is just not possible to have a father/male in the house. There are many circumstances, either by choice or by chance, that a single parent will raise a child/children in a home, being either a sole mum or a sole dad.

I think you are putting too much weight into your views because if a child is missing either influence, there are usually others that can help fill the gap. A grandparent, friend, or neighbour.

I think it's a cultural conditioning in which you find only one view being ideal. I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but for instance, in small villages the community will raise the young, the ideal of a mother and father is not as important or the same as we find them in our current society.

__________________
To those who wander but who are not lost...

~ Knowledge is not something you acquire, it is something you open yourself to.

j8ear

I agree completely. I do. My point is that their is only one ideal and anything less then the ideal is harmful. Especially since the "ideal" is required in the first place.

I don't want to minimize the potential or capability of those situations which are not ideal...I instead want to point ot that only the ideal is, well, ideal...and the rest are therefore less then ideal, and neccessarily harmful.

Lets not confuse harmful with damaging. But let's at least come to grips with the reality that less then ideal is harmful, so we can be aware of the harm and mitigate it's consequences.

\Not in anyway intending to flame,/

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Seeker

I don't see this as flaming... it's a good discussion

I think I was questioning your view of "ideal", the bolded above shows the point I was questioning.

I think a single parent, when considering the overall wellbeing of a child, will take action and bring family, friends, a network of people into the childs life everyday to fill the gap of a missing 'father figure'. This is saying that there are some single moms who will look out for, and see the needs of a child to have this balancing factor.

In the greater scheme of things, I think I would agree that there are many single moms who don't, or can't focus on this aspect. That I can agree is less than "ideal" and harmful. Is this the point you were making?

I think I fight the view, or your perception of "ideal" because I see it as a factor that brings a stigma toward single moms. Being one myself I find it to be a very limiting belief in society. I cannot change the fact that I am a single mom, it would be easier for me to see others looking at my actions, and seeing what I put into my situation rather than just looking at me and saying that my position is "less than ideal". And trust me, I know I have felt at times that my situation is "less than ideal" and I can see where I would have preferred to have a partner... sometimes it's really difficult. Those are the times that I have sought the networking aspect of community/village type arrangements. That is where I have started to look more deeply at our view of "ideal"...

I think there is truely room for some adjustment on our view of ideals in this regard...

__________________
To those who wander but who are not lost...

~ Knowledge is not something you acquire, it is something you open yourself to.

Gilda

I strongly disagree, and the American Academy of Pediatrics agrees with me:

The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1–9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.

What exactly gave you the impression that one of us had a failed marriage? This is the first and only marriage for both of us, and it is strong and healthy.

I disagree, and again, the American Academy of Pediatrics agrees with me:

Children born to and raised by lesbian couples also seem to develop normally in every way. Ratings by their mothers and teachers have demonstrated children’s social competence and the prevalence of behavioral difficulties to be comparable with population norms.8,24 In fact, growing up with parents who are lesbian or gay may confer some advantages to children. They have been described as more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children than children whose parents are heterosexual.25,26

In 1 study, children of heterosexual parents saw themselves as being somewhat more aggressive than did children of lesbians, and they were seen by parents and teachers as more bossy, negative, and domineering. Children of lesbian parents saw themselves as more lovable and were seen by parents and teachers as more affectionate, responsive, and protective of younger children, compared with children of heterosexual parents.25,27 In a more recent investigation, children of lesbian parents reported their self-esteem to be similar to that of children of heterosexual parents and saw themselves as similar in aggressiveness and sociability.15

Children in all family constellations have been described by parents and teachers to have more behavioral problems when parents report more personal distress and more dysfunctional parent-child interactions. In contrast, children are rated as better adjusted when their parents report greater relationship satisfaction, higher levels of love, and lower interparental conflict regardless of their parents’ sexual orientation. Children apparently are more powerfully influenced by family processes and relationships than by family structure.

My children will be raised by an educational professional and a medical professional, which will give them some advantage in the areas of education and health care over children whose parents aren't reading teachers and nurses/paramedics. This doesn't mean that children are harmed by not having a reading teacher and nurse in the home. Those things can be provided by people outside the home, just as positive adult male role models can come from outside the home. Less than ideal does not equal harmful.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

tim2shady

WOW....this thing really took off. Glad to see/read everyone's input. The most important point I hoped people would find is that EQUALITY is needed in our family court systems to protect our children from "losing" a PARENT (Dad, Mom, or guardian..other terms welcome for homosexual parents). When a court rules, without proper cause, to award primary custody to one PARENT vs. ANOTHER PARENT, the child(ren) lose(s). Again, unless proper cause is shown. I believe proper cause is somewhat relative, however, I feel something drastic would need to happen or have happened in order to justify having nothing less than an equal parenting-time situation.

I'm a little torn at saying "something drastic would need to happen" because I wouldn't want the court, or any other party, to wait around until something drastic did happen, where the child was seriously harmed. But I assure you, with today's system it MUST BE drastic to get a judge to listen.

For example, my son almost died from Drano ingestion while in his mother's care. I still don't know if I will have a shot at getting more parenting time with my son. He has never been seriously harmed in my care. He has "fall down go boom" and scratch his knee in my care. I've never been arrested, I provide financial support, and my son and I have a great relationship.

I'm a non-custodial parent currently fighting in family court for nothing less than equal parenting-time with my child. He deserves it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

__________________
mean people suck.....period.