Shorter BT Mark Peters: Today I’d like to
And now a little reality from a single mom. While I realize the average, drooling, misogynistic fuckwit is always ready to blame feminists for everything, what you fail to realize (intentionally, I’m sure), and what your vaunted list of statistics completely ignores (again ... intentionally, I'm really sure), is that the children of single parents (yes, yes ... most of which are women) may or may not be more likely to suffer from behavioural issues because of poverty. Not because of the fact that they’re being raised by single mothers.
So perhaps you should ask yourself where the fathers of these children are instead of automatically blaming the women. But that doesn’t really fit into your mouthbreathing world view, now does it? Nor do actual statistics like, say, the ones found here in the US Census Bureau’s 2005 Report on Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support.
And your source ... Fathers for Life? Nice try. I’m sure an organization so preciously-named could never, ever, NEVER be accused of having a hidden agenda. After all, this is taken from the front page of their web site.
The website of Fathers for Life is in defence of men and fathers. It promotes fathers within, not without families.
Deadbeat fathers are a very small, minuscule minority and not representative of all men, just as deadbeat mothers are not representative of all mothers or women. However, we hear incessantly about deadbeat or violent fathers and men, while feminist activists and the feminist-dominated media sweep the issue of deadbeat mothers and far greater numbers of violent women in all cases of domestic violence (esp. when it comes to violence against children) under the carpet.
Our website illustrates how the all-pervasive vilification of men, of fathers and of the traditional nuclear family grew out of the systematic implementation of the agenda for the planned destruction of the family.
Pardon me but that is one of the most overblown persecution complexes this girl has ever witnessed. No ... really.
11 comments:
Hah. Lightweights. You want to see someone really tie it all together?
@Dr.Dawg the only thing your link "ties together" is mind-blowingly awful choice of colours...
Gawd, that Peters is an ignorant piece of shit.
And gosh, who thinks that is just terrific? Jo-Jo.
From one Father, feminist and son of a single mother.
Fuck you Peters you lying sack of crap.
Lulu
The statistics pertaining to children and single Moms, in particular, are gleaned directly from a Stats Canada report entitled "Growing up in Canada." Your readers might appreciate knowing that the statistics you malign come from legitimate sources and did not originate with FathersForLife; FFL simply aggregated them into a succinct list. I thought Stats Canada statistics would trump U.S. Census Bureau reports given we, uh, live in Canada, hence the reason I took care to incorporate them.
Your point about poverty and behavioural issues is important and is noted in the highlighted blockquote area at the top of the page at FFL. I'm surprised you missed it. But doesn't the link between poverty and single parenthood substantiate the need for fathers and two-parent households? Surely if the breakdown of the family, resulting in single parenthood, impoverishes more people and leads to increased problems in children then we should be doing all we can to keep families together. Surely if two-parent families result in happier children and less poverty then it can be said men/Dads play a critical role in the well-being of society. Surely Dads are a good thing. The knife cuts both ways, doesn't it?
I mean, are these statements not true, Lulu?
"Women and children need men who are committed, able, faithful, loyal, strong, principled, courageous, steadfast and loving. The world needs Dads, it needs engaged fathers, more than ever before."
I presume from your reference to deadbeat Dads ("ask yourself where the fathers of these children are") that you might halfway concur. Of course, by directing blame squarely onto deadbeat men and avoiding the question of the importance of men to families, you've mirrored exactly what FFL says is commonplace with radical feminists, as seen in the quote you took from the FFL site.
Granted, irresponsible men are partly to blame for poverty and single motherhood. Nobody denies that. But women aren't entirely without fault. The point is the negative impact of delinquency in men is evidence of their importance to the family. Were men unimportant then there would be no negative side effects to single parenthood. The hard truth, Lulu, is that men are very important to the family. Yes, women are too. And nobody is saying they are not. Certainly I haven't.
Today, however, is Father's Day. It is a day to honour the men who aren't deadbeat. When men are responsible adults who possess and exhibit the attributes given above, children and women, society in fact, are the beneficiaries. Which is to say, men have a very important role to play in the formation of healthy children and families.
That's the point of the post, Lulu. Had you not been given to blind rage you might have been able to make these distinctions.
--
Mike
Do you have anything valuable to add instead of profanity-laced ad hominem?
That website needs a woman's touch (specifically a boot to the owner's head). (Ops, falling for that violent female stereotype.)
Surely if the breakdown of the family, resulting in single parenthood, impoverishes more people and leads to increased problems in children then we should be doing all we can to keep families together. Surely if two-parent families result in happier children and less poverty then it can be said men/Dads play a critical role in the well-being of society. Surely Dads are a good thing.
Yes they are. But would you keep a family together at all costs? Even families where one of the parents is abusive? Is it okay if the wife is the one who's abused and the children are untouched? Extreme examples, but even though marriages are important in raising children, it's silly to have a knee-jerk reaction and say all marriages are healthy environments. They aren't.
More important, why is it up to the woman to keep a man in the family? I know a situation where a guy walked away from his family for another woman. And how many women actually say, "Gee, I've got the right to vote, I'm going to walk away from this marriage and make sure the kids never see their father." The breakdown of any relationship is more complex than this. Feminism or patriarchy aren't to blame.
As for feminism belitting the role of fathers... I see that accusation thrown around anti-feminist blogs. The trend in feminism with respects to parenting isn't about going it alone (that actually seems to be the traditional mode of parenting where the father brings home the bacon and then barely interacts with the children, the old 1950's stereotype... if all that's needed from men is money then why not single-parent with reliable child support payments. Even you would agree that men are more important in families than to take this limited role) it's co-parenting... where the father is encouraged to have an active role in the raising of a child.
That's the point of the post, Lulu. Had you not been given to blind rage you might have been able to make these distinctions.
"blind rage"? Looks like ad hominem to me. But no matter, moving right along...
--
Mike
Do you have anything valuable to add instead of profanity-laced ad hominem?
Do you, Mike? Or is it Mark? Why do you engage in ad hominem after just rebuking someone for the same?
And when did ONE, not two, not three, but ONE swear word constitute "profanity-laced"? Is it too much for you to stand being insulted and mocked that you try to classify it all as "profanity"?
Usually the profanity is provided as bait so fools like yourself will use that when your argument has been lost. It is a most effective way of determining when someone has lost an argument, when they moan that somebody else swore. Grow up. Be a man for a change.
You Mike/Mark, are a fool. You are playing the concern troll here, acting like it's only about honouring the good fathers. Baloney. It is men filled with their own inadequacy that try to find someone else to blame for their own failures. Real men prefer feminists, they are much more fun, much more aware and are generally much happier people to be around.
No proof of causality.
Done.
sharonapple88 -- I agree with pretty much everything you wrote at 10:05 PM.
To answer your questions:
But would you keep a family together at all costs? Even families where one of the parents is abusive? Is it okay if the wife is the one who's abused and the children are untouched?
No, of course not. Abusing people is never OK. I would argue that abuse between parents, whether it's man on woman or woman on man, is a form of child psychological abuse. Part of the reason many children struggle through divorces is that they just want their parents to love each other and are unable to comprehend why they do not. Witnessing spousal abuse torments the hell out of a child.
Where abuse is involved I would agree with separation. But neither is the preferred model.
liberal supporter --
Can you offer a rebuttal to any of the points made in the response to Lulu?
Sorry, not liberal supporter, but....
Some of those statitics quoted from the fathersforlife page are from the 80's and early to mid 90's (including the Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy (1991) <-- from google). They may still be accurate, but you have to admit that they're a bit out of date.
I tried googling the Stats Can Growing Up In Canada... couldn't find it. If you've got a link, I'd be interested in reading it.
Look, if the fatherforlife website really was about the importance of fathers, I'd be all for it... but really it's all about perpetuating the bitter fight that can happen during divorce, where one side holds all the goodness in the world and the other is slime.
Post a Comment