Personally, having grown up in a violent anti-feminist home, I just want other kids to be able to grow up in a non-violent home. I don't care if there are one or two parents, or whether both or one was male or female. I don't really care who is in a home, as long as the kids are safe, cared for, and loved. Somehow, this seems to be beyond many societies capabilities, including the US.
btw: If the majority of families in the US are now made up of single mothers, why wouldn't the majority of family problems be associated with them? When the majority of families were made up of men and women, and there were hardly any single mothers or fathers, weren't the majority of family problems associated with male/female families? Otherwise, if the majority of families are made up of single fathers, will families miraculously have no family problems? Maybe all men should be given custody of all children, and we'll see how they deal with "family issues", and we'll see the stats in 10 years, hopefully, all family problems will be gone and women will need to work outside the homes and support the male nurturers.
Answered By: edith clarke - 8/14/2010 |
|
Answered By: Out With A Bang !!!! - 8/13/2010 |
|
Your wife removed you from your home dude NOT people who campaign for global equality
Source(s):
Take some responsibility for your own failings please
Answered By: TomTwisted - 8/13/2010 |
|
I have another stat you can add on:
99?f all feminists are old, ugly bitches who need to g******d.
Answered By: Mongolking - 8/13/2010 |
|
Wah, wah, wah. Most men leave their children out of their own free will. No one is driving them to do it.
Edit: Some of you people are either very naive or being willfully obtuse. Sure, there are men who are pushed out of their children's lives, but the majority who leave do it because they want to. Stop pretending that everything is the fault of women and take some responsibility for your own actions.
Answered By: L - 8/13/2010 |
|
Your question is ignorant. You're assuming all feminists think that the father should be removed from the home. This is only the extremist part of the group. Most moderate feminists just want equal rights and opportunities as men. Yes, some are all man-hatey but this is generally a small group.
@ L
Your comment is ignorant as well. You're blaming the actions of a few and stereotyping them across the whole gender. Would it be fair if I were to say all women should belong in the kitchen and clean the house to take care of the children? They're naturally more nurturing...
Answered By: |[Sacred]| - 8/13/2010 |
|
You make it sound as if divorce is an easy decision. It's not for most people. I'm not a feminist, but I did file for my divorce. I did it considering what it would be like for our kids to grow up in an abusive, dysfunctional household. One of them was already showing signs of anger issues and another, anxiety. I am not sorry I filed for divorce and got myself and kids into therapy. It's called breaking the cycle.
Answered By: Cosmic Catastrophe - 8/13/2010 |
|
You really shouldn't have posted this question because basically what you are saying is that all these kids are killing themselves because their father left.
Therefore he damaged the family unit and their upbringing.
Do you have any statistics on the amount of single fathers raising kids??? Anyone ?
Answered By: Iggy [who got me suspended?] - 8/13/2010 |
|
I didn't "drive" him from the home, because of some movement. Here's the catcher, though... He's still very much involved in their lives. THAT'S the part that sometimes hard to do. You can't MAKE a man be a father, just as you can't MAKE a woman be a mother... Any woman can be an incubator, just as any man could be a s***m deposit-er...
Answered By: dark eyes - 8/13/2010 |
|
All fathers are saints right?
What are the stats of kids that live with piece of crap fathers?
@L...ignorance is bliss. There are many good fathers denied time with their children either by the mother, the courts or both.
Answered By: The Lorax - 8/13/2010 |
|
I am sure they didn't think of that... feminist do not care about their kids as much as they care about besting men in something that means nothing compared to raising kids who do not go crazy and start raping and killing women who remind them of their mothers.
Answered By: Green Eyed Angel - 8/13/2010 |
|
I'm not a feminist, but it strikes me as silly to assert that having no father is the cause of such things. I'd be rather inclined to say that having no GOOD father figure is what plays a greater role in such things. Also not having a good mother figure would contribute.. I know plenty of people who grew up fatherless and had none of the problems mentioned, then again their mothers were good and they had positive male role models as well. I think it's not the absence of a father that screws people up, but rather the absence of any positive parental care that causes such things. Why did these people have no fathers around? that I think is the pertinent question.. I mean could it be that having a father who abuses substances contributes to kids following the same path? fathers who commited suicide? fathers who were rapists? fathers who dropped out of highschool??
Answered By: Kelly + Eternal Universal Energy - 8/13/2010 |
|
Of course they didn't consider any of these things.
Have you ever heard of a feminist considering ANYTHING other than their own retarded "logic" and ideology?
Answered By: Du'Kai Dubai - 8/13/2010 |
|
I'm not a Feminist but at the same time though where does personal responsibility come into this? Men have a little thing called free will that they have exercised to leave that family home you might expediently forget.
Answered By: Sunshine - 8/13/2010 |
|
A lack of stable parental figures is definitely a source of dysfunction. Feminists might note that some fathers initiate divorces and that many women who file for divorce are not feminists. But the fact remains that the culture of weak marital bonds was initiated by feminists.
Feminists are the sole cause of high divorce rates in America. The blood of our children is on their hands.
Answered By: Raj Gere - 8/13/2010 |
|
NOES!!!
I am is not worryd about teh evul menz being removeded from them superiorous homes of teh wondyful womyn nor is am i conserned for teh childrun, halve of whom am is evul patriarchialistic bois.
I am is just happey to be seeing teh evul menz runned out of thems own homes and handings over halve his moneis to hims superiorous womyn who no wants him any mores.
Answered By: Tehab waah - 8/13/2010 |
|
They're feminists, what do you expect?
Edit: Oh wow, more feminists demonizing fatherhood. What a surprise...
Answered By: infamy - 8/13/2010 |
|
I don't think that many of the rank and file feminists know about that agenda.
Answered By: Lab Tech - 8/13/2010 |
|
Men's rights groups use flawed methodology to make false claims about the impact of fatherlessness. In Fatherhood and Fatherlessness (Australia Institute, Discussion Paper No. 59, November, pp. 21-23) Michael Flood reveals the junk science behind the National Fatherhood Forum's claim that "boys from a fatherless home are 14 times more likely to commit r**e".
(Source: Flood, Michael (2003) Fatherhood and Fatherlessness. The Australia Institute, Discussion Paper No. 59, November, pp. 21-23. To order the full report, go here.
This paper has critiqued simplistic claims about the relationships between fatherlessness and social problems, particularly claims about family structure, divorce and children's well-being. But there is a broader problem in much of the rhetoric about fatherlessness: its flawed methodology. In populist texts such as Popenoe's Life Without Father (1996) and in public statements and materials by some fathers' advocates, discussions of fatherlessness are characterised by the confusion of correlation and causation, the reduction of multiple social variables to bivariate associations, the highly selective use of research evidence, neglect of contradictory or competing evidence, and treatment of small differences as if they were gross and absolute (Coltrane 1997, p. 8). Bogus statistics, with no factual basis, are used by some advocates for fathers' rights in asserting their political agendas.
To give one detailed example, the claim that 'Boys from a fatherless home are 14 times more likely to commit r**e' was part of the '12 Point Plan' released by the National Fatherhood Forum in June 2003. The assertion was highlighted in media coverage of the Fatherhood Forum(1) and it is one of the claims commonly made by those who argue for the destructive effects of father absence on families and society. Yet this statistic is an invention. And although it has no basis in fact, it is regularly repeated on the websites of men's and fathers' rights, child custody and conservative Christian groups such as the Australian Men's Network.(2)
To assess the claim's accuracy, its origin must first be determined. The National Fatherhood Forum's '12 Point Plan' cites Rex McCann's On Their Own: Boys growing up underfathered (2000, p. 47). McCann cites a fathers' rights newsletter on the Internet. The relevant article in this newsletter(3) cites an American men's newsletter, Getting Men Involved: The Newsletter of the Bay Area Male Involvement Network (Spring 1997). The statistics themselves are attributed to a 1994 email message by Marty Dart.(4) It is here finally that we see how this 'statistic' was constructed. The text states, '80?f rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)' It then goes on to state, 'These statistics translate to mean that children from a fatherless home are: ... 14 times more likely to commit r**e'.
The 'boys are 14 times more likely' statistic was thus constructed from the finding in a 1987(5) journal article on typologies of r**e that 80 per cent of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. There are six problems with the statistical extrapolation being performed here.
(1) First, '80 per cent of rapists' does not translate into boys being '14 times more likely'. In 1985, approximately 20 per cent of children aged 0-17 in the US lived with a single mother (Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan 2002, p. 54). If children from fatherless homes were proportionately represented among rapists, then they should be 20 per cent of the population of rapists. So if 80 per cent of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes, then children from fatherless homes are four, not 14, times more likely to commit (this type of) r**e. In e-mail correspondence, Marty Dart, the author of the original figures, himself acknowledged that the numbers appear faulty.(6)
(2) The statistic shows correlation, not causation. Both the absence of a father in a household and children's rates of r**e perpetration may be shaped by other factors, such as poverty, violence and drug use. Marty Dart does not note, for example, that half to three-quarters of the 108 convicted and imprisoned rapists in the study were physically abused as children and many were neglected (Knight and Prentky 1987, pp. 414-415).
(3) A study among 108 convicted prisoners in Massachusetts cannot be extrapolated to the population at large.
(4) Even if this extrapolation were plausible, the claim takes no notice of changes over time in fatherlessness, r**e and a host of other social factors. Contemporary repetitions of the alleged statistic rely on material which is 16 years old.
(5) According to the text, it is not 80 per cent of all rapists, but 80 per cent of rapists with a particular motivation (and again it is not clear how this translates into the '14 times' figure).
(6) While the 1997 text states that children, not boys, are 14 times more likely to commit r**e, commit suicide, suffer behavioural disorders and so on, 'children' becomes 'boys' in most repetitions of these claims.
Thus, the source for an alleged statistic regularly circulated in 2003 turns out to be an inaccurate and misleading extrapolation of a figure from an article written a decade and a half ago.
In contrast to such simplistic accounts of r**e's causality, contemporary scholarship assumes that violence is 'a multifaceted phenomenon grounded in an interplay among personal, situational, and socio-cultural factors' (Heise 1998, pp. 263-264). The perpetration of sexual assault by men and boys is shaped by attitudes and norms related to gender and sexuality, definitions of masculinity as dominant and aggressive, unequal power relations in families and communities, and economic and social marginalisation.
1 See for example, 'Boys with absent fathers 'more likely to r**e',' The Age, 26 June 2003.
2 See the following websites for some uses of this 'statistic': the Australian Men's(4) Even if this extrapolation were plausible, the claim takes no notice of changes over time in fatherlessness, r**e and a host of other social factors. Contemporary repetitions of the alleged statistic rely on material which is 16 years old.
(5) According to the text, it is not 80 per cent of all rapists, but 80 per cent of rapists with a particular motivation (and again it is not clear how this translates into the '14 times' figure).
(6) While the 1997 text states that children, not boys, are 14 times more likely to commit r**e, commit suicide, suffer behavioural disorders and so on, 'children' becomes 'boys' in most repetitions of these claims.
Thus, the source for an alleged statistic regularly circulated in 2003 turns out to be an inaccurate and misleading extrapolation of a figure from an article written a decade and a half ago.
In contrast to such simplistic accounts of r**e's causality, contemporary scholarship assumes that violence is 'a multifaceted phenomenon grounded in an interplay among personal, situational, and socio-cultural factors' (Heise 1998, pp. 263-264). The perpetration of sexual assault by men and boys is shaped by attitudes and norms related to gender and sexuality, definitions of masculinity as dominant and aggressive, unequal power relations in families and communities, and economic and social marginalisation.
1 See for example, 'Boys with absent fathers 'more likely to r**e',' The Age, 26 June 2003.
2 See the following websites for some uses of this 'statistic': the Australian Men's Network
Answered By: Deirdre O - 8/13/2010 |
|
My dad got up and left one day, me and my sister came home from school one day and he was gone. When my mom got home she found the same thing we did, he was just gone. She didn't drive him out for about a month after she didn't even know were he was! After that is when she filed for device. I guess this would be a statistic in your "70?f no fault divorces are filed by women, not men."and "Women get custody most of the time in our sexist family courts" statements. Feminism has nothing to do with people not being compatible, or one of the partners being irresponsible, ex. I don't consider my self a feminist, but you probably would because I think that men and women should be considered equals, but I also think that people from different races,and countries of origin,and circumstances should be considered the equals that they are. Because were all people. All people with different statistics, but that's not what defines a person. Honestly I think their are a lot of feminists who go way to far, as any one dose with any movement, they can seem as sexist as the males who validate the movement. And I'm all for equality so this strikes me as awful, but so dose any form of discrimination. And I have to say that I thank them for making such a huge difference even if some of them try to take it to far.
So my answer is no, they did not think about it because it was neither their intent or cased by them. Understandably some die hard feminist could have driven their husbands out, of whose husbands I feel sorry for. But their aren't that many rabid feminist, less probably who ever got married, less agin who if they actually found a guy who they like and who put up with it. So sure, some people may go nutty about any case but the statistics your quoting are incorrect, or not directly tied to feminism.
Answered By: plokij - 8/13/2010 |
|
This question presumes that feminists even care about the well-being of society. They don't. If crime rates go up because of weak family structures that just reinforces their anti-male, anti-family narrative -- so why should they care?
Any facts that contradict their agenda simply do not exist.
Answered By: Tothepoint - 8/13/2010 |
|