The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Paternity sweet if tried > Comments

Paternity sweet if tried : Comments

By Daniel Donahoo, published 11/5/2005

Daniel Donahoo argues for young men to embrace fatherhood.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Daniel says "Young men are not receiving the message that to be a young dad with a partner and a child is desirable."

How sure are we that that's true? It's entirely possible that young men are perfectly well aware of this. However, they'd also likely be aware that all to often that is not how things turn out. The young woman at least knows that if the relationship fails, she will most likely retain custody of the child, or children. The young man knows that the probable result of a relationship breakdown is a situation where at most he has some access to the children, who cannot be said to be living with him. He'll also know that he'll be paying child support into his forties.

If he's studies matters further, he'll realise that in some circumstances, he'll actually be supporting his ex, because he'll be providing more than half of her total income. In addition, he'll know that if he finds a new partner, and they have children, those children will be second class citizens when it comes to having access to his earnings.

So the balance of risks and benefits are different. It makes more sense for the young man to hold off waiting for what he perceives as being a better potential partner. After all, he doesn't have a ticking biological clock.

If we want young men to be willing to father children, we need to reduce the risks they take in the process.

Sylvia Else.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Wednesday, 11 May 2005 10:53:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another male maligning article from Daniel.

Britanny Spears is most likely having her baby as a type of fashion accessory, and one has to ask how many other women are like this, and how many sincerely want a family which will include the father?

There have been a number of books written on parenting by female authors that leave out the father completely, and even the Sex Discrimination Commissioner recently said that IVF was something that should only be discussed between a woman and her doctor. Where’s the father in her thinking processes?

I’ve also heard 17 yr old girls say that they won’t go out with a 17 yr old boy unless he has his own car.

To even think about getting married and having children the man has to have a lot of money, and if he goes ahead he has at least a 40% chance of rarely seeing those children in the future. That is now the situation for the man.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 11 May 2005 11:12:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daniel is clearly looking at issues faced by young men today he is not maligning men he is looking at reasons why they are afraid of commitment. Men are facing challenges they have never had to face before, its scary, sometimes negative things result and sometimes positive outcomes ensue.

Thank you Daniel for questioning and not getting into the blame game.
Posted by Ringtail, Wednesday, 11 May 2005 6:02:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, I really think you miss the point of Daniel's articles. I agree that they miss some significant issues facing men but they do address important concepts.

Being a father is a really good thing as is love. When I put the article in context with the issues you and I face it reminds me of the old adage, "it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all". A hard pill to swallow and in the case of broken marriage going really belly up with much harsher consequences than just a broken heart. Do we want young men to become old men never having known the joy of children? Me I'm about reform that makes it less appealing and harder to exclude dad's from kids lives.

The stuff Daniel is saying is important, someone else will need to write about the other side of the coin. Daniel is not the person to write those articles, he does do a good job at touching on the upside of relationships and fatherhood for men. Maybe the articles would be better if he understood what it is like to be isolated from your kids because someone else has other plans, to work hard and struggle financially because someone else does not wank to work etc. For his sake I hope he does not get to understand it too well.
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 11 May 2005 6:46:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daniel Said:
"This doesn’t mean young men are selfish or cruel. It means they are lacking the support and encouragement from society to take on the challenge of being a young dad"

Hence I reiterate my strongly held view that our Western 'Individualism' is a cultural 'black spot' which will result in widespread depression and mental illness as people try to 'go it alone' as they have been brainwashed into thinking is the 'way'.
We have so many 'strong independant women' movies and the such like these days, with unreal images like Charlies Angels full throttle etc, possibly convincing young women they really CAN go it alone.
I have only one thing to say to that idea HOGWASH ! Life is farrrr to complex and demanding to attempt this.

This is one reason why a fellowship of Christians is a very strong cultural and social force. In some ways it replaces the more traditional 'extended family', not that it SHOULD, but it seems to happen a bit this way. We all know who are the 'battlers' and single mums in our sub community and when crises develop, we can (and do) help.

Daniels point is well taken, young men are also victims of the 'glorious individualism' preached from when we were babies and allowed to cry ourselves to sleep in a room up the other end of the house from mum and dad. We all need to work toGETHER in the process of mutual support and encouragement for young mums and dads alike.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 11 May 2005 7:34:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
The article from Daniel is just another of those “men have to change their ways “ articles. There are hundreds of them. They are churned out almost daily, and they result from the notion that if there is anything wrong in society, then blame it on the male.

Most men want children, as it is a natural desire. But we now live in Fem-World, which is a mixture of feminism and consumerism, and it is an extremely hostile place for men and children if you consider the amount of abortion and divorce that is occurring, and most abortions and divorces are initiated by women.

To the modern woman, she is paramount, and the man is just a sperm donor and bank account. Fem-World tells the woman that she can use the man as a sperm donor and then keep his bank account. The man is totally disposable in the woman’s mind.

Daniel is suggestion that its “all men’s fault” because of the decline of marriage etc. That becomes misandry if the bigger picture is not looked at. In many ways it is absolutely incredible how males have anything to do with the female gender at all, considering what is occurring inside the mind of the modern woman.

To prove the above, all Daniel has to do is look at the relevant statistics, talk to women, read their literature, and maybe even talk to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner about men.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 12 May 2005 7:24:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Congratulations Daniel on a fine and sensitive article. Having children is incredibly rewarding but like anything worthwhile, it is also very hard. Until very recently, fathers weren't given much encouragement to participate in their kids lives. They were expected to bring home the bacon and not much more. My husband was one of the very first of the new wave. When one of our daughters cried, he got up and brought her in to me to feed, he changed nappies, did the washing, nurtured, comforted, sang to and played with them. To this day (18 years later) if they feel sick, they tell Daddy, they know he'll be much more sympathetic. (I tend to say get a bucket and go back to bed!) His view was that as I had compromised my career to be a mother (he did not have to, to be a father), the least he could do was take up the slack. He was continuously taunted and mocked by many of the men he worked with at the time. The fact that he did his own ironing was a source of much raucous (if not very witty) humour. He was called "Mother of the Year" not with admiration, but with scorn. This abuse came (sorry Timkins) exclusively from other men. Women thought he was fabulous and that I was incredibly lucky, as I am.
The relationship he has with our daughters today is a tribute to the stubborn effort he put in then. A lot of older style fathers seemed to think they were entitled to all the fun but none of the hard work. Relationships simply don't work that way.
Posted by enaj, Thursday, 12 May 2005 2:05:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
enaj, I'll be surprised if you get much complaint from Timkins. Guys who want the "little woman at home where she belongs" are no friend to those of us who want to maintain an active role as dads in our kids lives post divorce.

A big part of our concern is the hurt to our children and ourselves when that kind of involvement in our kids lives is taken away because the mum wants to live somewhere else or because she gets more welfare and C$A payments by having them most of the time or she wants all the say about how they are raised (and maybe sometimes vindictivness but I don't think that is a significant part of my ex's motivations).

We do know that there are cases where that is not what happens and some mums are left with the kids by an uncaring father and other cases where sanity rules and both parents continue with meaningful roles in their kids lives.

I liked Daniel's article as well. I do wish I had the skills to write more effectively about the other side of paternity. I do still hold to the idea that "it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all" and am trying to find ways to mix that with helping build understanding about the costs (not just financial) when it goes wrong. Not an easy task.
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 12 May 2005 2:58:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Enjay
The man you have described is not much different to many men, and I don’t believe he was laughed at by other men. In many ways it is women who are pushing men into the work place and away from children. Numerous studies have routinely shown that women expect men to be the main breadwinner, and they want the man to earn as much money as possible, which normally equates to more work hours.

On the child contact front, only 40% of custodial mothers (and there are 100,000’s of them) want the father to have more contact with his children, while 75% of those fathers only see their children every second weekend or less.

Women are gradually doing themselves out of a job. Many women have caesareans, and many women do not even breast feed. The only difference now is the womb, and the development of the artificial womb is not that far away. It is already being developed for animals, and that technology can be easily transferred for humans.

With the male pill and the artificial womb, it will give men much more choice. They can spend their money on women, or spend their money on such things as boats, and boats are probably less expensive and much less of a headache. If a man wants to be a father, he can choose to have a child with a woman, or through the artificial womb.

But then there will probably be articles on how men must “change their ways” and have children with women and not the artificial womb. However if women don’t start and change their attitudes, I think those articles will be falling on deaf ears for many men.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 12 May 2005 3:16:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know any mothers who HAVEN'T breast fed their children including myself.

No one wants a caesarian unless its life or death - the current inquiry involves too many doctors performing them rather than women requesting them.

My ex never contributed a single cent towards my children.

My current partner adores my kids and I am so happy they have a father figure now and the same goes for my friends who are mothers also - watching men enjoy their kids is a joy.

If I say I feel sorry for you Timkins, I'll no doubt receive sarcasm in return, but I do pity you, you really have a chip a mile high on this topic. I really hope you find a wonderful woman to love you. However, I fear you have alienated yourself from that possibility.
Posted by Ringtail, Thursday, 12 May 2005 4:23:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am so glad that Sylvia Else…. wrote her response.." If we want young men to be willing to father children, we need to reduce the risks they take in the process."

My initial read of Daniel Donahoo article left me in a sate of incredulous despair, particularly when I read that he works in government family policy - I thought … "with this sort of head-in-the-sand-advocate what chance does Fatherhood have in Australia".

I have spent many hours recently counselling disenfranchised dads that have child contact denied them - 8 years legal battles in one case against all forms of false allegations. I received a forum email from a 'second wife', who under similar legal battles has been accused of sexual abuse purely for the strategic advantage in the court. She declared that she "had enough" an was going to commit suicide - have had no more emails from her since -she had disappeared from the net.

80% of divorce is by women
Over 5 men kill themselves per day.
Over 3 of these per day are related to divorce and forced separation from children…
CSA suicide figures, Deadbeat Dad witch hunts, gender bias advocacy research, etc. etc. etc…

Daniel Donahoo needs to familiarise himself with the policies that are criminalizing fatherhood worldwide. At least start with a study of Dr. Stephen Baskerville professor a political science at Howard University - http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/

Young men are not afraid of commitment- they are afraid of the obvious life threatening dangers that fatherhood in a gender-biased society brings. They are given few safe options.

I believe that given the current anti-father laws and social and welfare policies, it is my moral duty to teach my boy about the great dangers of fathering a child.

My son is a keen surfer. If I spot sharks in the water I also tell him not to go in. This is what a Father does for their children - PROTECT!.

And for the record I have recently married again and plan to have another child…
Posted by silversurfer, Thursday, 12 May 2005 5:31:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I mentioned that I have recently married again and plan to have another child.

Many men are warned not to marry, … and certainly not to seed a child!

I advocate Fatherhood and the family, but I cannot belittle such advice.
Even a cursory knowledge of statistics related to forced separation, male suicide and the suffering of both Fathers and their 'stolen generation' of children, gives this warning a ring of common sense.

But this is what we are dealing with - a conflict between the political and social forces that drive fatherlessness and the age-old joyful experience of parenthood and family security.

An article by Stephen Baskerville's exposes the USA state of Massachusetts child seizure policies - a state run 'child protection' regime that places a bounty on the head of every child seized.

"Financial incentives and quotas created by the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997, … have resulted in a "child protection racket" rife with "baby stealing and baby selling," ... "I am appalled by how many times this pattern is repeated."

These cases typify "the new Orwellian [judicial] system, which has no protection for certain categories of unfavored perpetrators of 'crimes' against the state, such as parents," ... "It is a system skewed by political agendas, not truth...where government [is] intruding into family autonomy, paternal authority, child raising, and even minor family conflicts."

In the last few years we have witnessed an international rising of Fatherhood support… one that disseminates, via the Internet, research and opinion previously suppressed or misrepresented.

So I too offer a voice of encouragement to young men to consider their commitment to fatherhood.

I believe that, if we men avoid marriage then we have lost ground against the attack on the family. I have to lead my new wife into a future where we must navigate the very real and present danger of policies geared towards social engineering.

I have to lead my son as well.
Sharks in the water!
Posted by silversurfer, Thursday, 12 May 2005 5:49:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Silver, your take on the American 'child protection' thing is just capitalism and economic rationalism gone totally mad !

Its where privatization and capitalism lead to if not checked by a higher set of ethics and values.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 12 May 2005 8:59:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz, agree with your post.

S/surfer 'you can lead you wife to water but you can't make her think'
Marriage is a partnership, your wife is your equal, you walk together. I think another divorce stat is about to be added.

Daniel, s/surfer is the type who gives marriage and, therefore, fatherhood a bad name.

I was married to a control freak who would also use physical violence to make his point, consequently I am one of the 80% of women who filed for divorce. It has taken me years to learn to trust again and I have found someone who does adore children and is confident in himself that he doesn't need to dominate women and children just to make himself feel 'like a man' (whatever that is).

I think a lot of men (and women) truly lack confidence in themselves - a lot of courage is needed to be a parent. Young men need to be encouraged and supported. There is little acknowledgement of family needs in the workplace and people are expected to place their careers above everything else. Too many mixed messages going on, particularly for men. Keep up the questions Daniel, you are making men think and thats a good start.

Cheers
Posted by Ringtail, Friday, 13 May 2005 8:01:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail,
Partnership in marriage went out with no-fault divorce and the feminist concept of family, which is the removal of the father after procreation and the requirement that he pays child support to the mother without having any say in how that money is spent.

I agree with Silversurfer in that sons do have to be educated about the thinking processes of the modern woman and about feminism. For every female CEO there are probably 1,000 women who are now welfare dependant. Wherever feminism goes there eventually becomes a shortage of children or not enough money to afford the welfare payments, and that is now happening in our own society.

Daniel best start to look at the real statistics. About 25% of women do not want children or a family. Out of what is left, about 50% of those women will want divorce and the removal of the father. This now leaves about 30% - 40% of women in society who want a proper family with children and a father, and society will be totally dependant on this minority of women.

If society wants the lies, deceit and bias of feminism, then the only real long term option is for society to go to the artificial womb. There are some ethical question concerning the artificial womb http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/biolink/student/olc2/g-bioe-17.htm ,but the alternatives are a lack of children or a lack of funds to provide for the welfare payments.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 13 May 2005 9:05:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good grief. As if Timkins' silly misogynist crusade isn't enough, we're now joined by Silverfish, who proudly proclaims his literal paternalism. No wonder you guys have trouble relating to women who want to be more than wombs from which your progeny issue.

While I don't necessarily share Daniel's optimism, at least he obviously likes women and operates from a position of partnership with them - which I think is a better premise on which to base a relationship than the thinly disguised paternalism of the likes of Timkins and Silverfish.

In all of Timkins' bleating about the supposed plight of men, I don't think I've read the word "love" once. That might also be a clue as to why he is obviously so unhappy.

Personally, and contra Daniel's article, I don't think young men or women should be encouraged to reproduce until they have some idea of what life is actually about... probably around their early 30s. Having become a father at the age of 20, and subsequently entering into a doomed marriage, I often regret my many failings as a husband and father as far as that broken family is concerned. Although I subsequently remarried and am doing a much better job of fathering my other kids, it will always be a source of sadness to me that I was unable - due mainly to youth and inexperience - to be there for my eldest.

Also, grandfatherhood in one's 40s can be a slightly confronting experience. Just as well I have a grey beard ;)
Posted by garra, Friday, 13 May 2005 9:14:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garra,

You know very little about me, but it is noticed how you so often use personal inferences and innuendo. The word “love” has rarely been used by feminists in the past, but the word “payment ” certainly has. This is money that has to be paid by the man to the woman.

The ongoing development of the artificial womb is not silly at all. The technology involved is simply an extension of IVF technology, and feminists have been strong advocates of women using IVF. Feminists have had few qualms about single women using IVF to produce children, so feminists should have few qualms about single men using the artificial womb to produce children also.

The artificial womb is being partly used already within IVF and Stem cell research, and the complete artificial womb for humans may be only 10 –20 yrs away. There could be a lot more men willing to become fathers by using the artificial womb, as they can choose when to have children, make a choice of eggs etc. They can’t be accused of rape, abuse, or exploitation of women, and they won’t have to worry about such things as paternity fraud, missing a child support payment, child contact or visitation times etc.

If nothing changes then the artificial womb is likely to become the future world of fatherhood, and in many ways it is an extension of past feminist philosophies.

Next feminists will start saying that they like the male gender.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 13 May 2005 3:42:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, there are a number of reasons why I would like to see an artificial womb developed (a potential alternative to abortion being one).

Replacing real mothers is not one of them. I suspect that there is a lot we still have to learn about the value of fluxuations in hormones, movement, sound etc on the development of the foetus in the womb before it could be used for anything other than emergency life saving.

I still contend that the heart of the issues men face in family law are not with honest feminists but rather those who misuse feminism to persue unfair advantage and to build division. The ones who misuse feminism are hurting the cause of those who want true equality as much or more than they are hurting men. Not all feminists are like that and I think that we are better served by engaging in dialog with the honest feminists than by continual broad scatter attacks on feminism. There were and are area's where women have been treated unfairly. I support the removal of all discrimination based on issues which are not relevant to the item being considered. If a person's gender does not make a substantial difference to their ability to do something then it should not be a factor in decision making etc.
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 13 May 2005 4:02:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins , I can't say that I have any interest in artificial wombs. I promote and advocate marriage and reconciliation between men and women - including LOVE - that word that we have been accused of not using within our 350 word quoter. If men (and women) continue to avoid the marriage commitment then those that push gender separatism will have achieved their goal.

I just don't think that such reconciliation can happen unless men can voice their concerns about the state of affairs without fear of misandrist attack. Reconciliation will be assisted when both genders address the political and social forces that oppose their loving union or inflame tension, and join forces to resist those that attempt to social engineer our culture in into their own ideological nightmare - ie. the fatherless society.

I agree with Robert - the woman's movement is currently fractured, and many women have protested the movement's hijacking by radical separatists. I am very supportive of the equity feminists - as they seek equality rather than domination. One example is Wendy McElroy at ifeminist: http://www.ifeminists.net/index.php

The more contemporary Equity Feminists are not fairly represented by the media and it would be ideal if contemporary women's movement worked with the men's movement to expose the political cronies of old fashioned Separatism.

As to the personal attacks by Ringtail and garra - I admit that these hurt - particularly ringtails cursing of my new marriage, and garra's unintelligible criticism of my admitting parenthood. I thought that parenthood was pretty well on topic with Daniel's article??

But both Ringtail and garra have relied on ridicule, slur, and vicious presumption rather than intelligent critique of the content of the message string. While speeding through some glassy tubes today I decide that they don't warrant reply
Posted by silversurfer, Friday, 13 May 2005 6:08:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
S/surfer, I do apologise for my comments stating that you give fatherhood a bad name - I wouldn't know if you are a good father or not. However I stand by my comments about 'leading your wife'. I keep getting a visual image of a cow with a ring in her nose!

You either walk with your wife/partner side by side or you walk alone. Maybe this is way so many men are afraid of fatherhood - they think they should lead and women don't want to be led. I don't really believe that.

Women/feminists are not one homgenised group with the same opinion/agenda. Quelle surprise. Just like men we have differences of opinion. Once again stating bleeding obvious. Therefore, we are just as fractured a group as are men. Maybe this is what scares young men - women are variable. I don't believe that either. Not all men are that stupid.

I go back to positive support, role models, self esteem and confidence. A man who believes in himself and sees women as people too has nothing to fear.
Posted by Ringtail, Saturday, 14 May 2005 10:12:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail, thanks for the apology.

If you have a visual image you should 'own' it - it does not fit my family experience at all. I discussed relationship roles with my wife for a long time before marrying (and tested the relationship dynamics). This included issues of leadership. She is a bold strong woman who rejects and hates (her words) the victim status assigned to woman by decades of gender separatist ideology.

She can speak for herself - so here she is … "My image of our marriage is one of holding hands with each other to face life together. When I disagree with my husband we can discuss and change direction together. I respect the differences between men and women and there are some areas that my husband can give me guidance on. I give him guidance on other areas that I am skilled in. I want a man who has leadership qualities. That does not mean that he is always pulling me around by a 'ring in the nose'. But through his wisdom, and strength can provide direction and protection for my family when needed."

Back to me - Silversurfer - my wife is completely cognisant with the issues of the fatherless society that I have touched on previously. In fact she runs a web site and participates in a forum that attracts a lot of request for help and information from 'second wives' who are trying to help their husband survive the devastating impact of forced separation from their children - ongoing legal battles, false accusations, Parent Alienation Syndrome, and offcourse the poverty brought about by legal battles and CSA harassment
Posted by silversurfer, Saturday, 14 May 2005 11:40:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert, Silversurfer
I would agree that marriage is best, but at the same time there should be continuing research into the male pill and artificial womb. Both will help liberate men from any exploitation, manipulation or blackmailing by a woman, simply because she has a natural womb.

Single male parent families are now the fastest growing family type in the US, and studies into those families have shown that they are generally better than single female parent families, despite minimal support being given to the father.

So for a child:- being born from an artificial womb to a single male parent family is likely to be better than being born to a single female parent family.

The gender feminist’s version of a family is a single female parent family with the mother blackmailing the father for child support while being on welfare and having a series of transient affairs with other men. This model has been running for about 30 yrs and the results have been a large scale social disaster. There has been a decline in marriage to a record low and a decline in the birth rate to below replacement levels, but at the same time a major increase in welfare, high levels of abortion, child poverty, child abuse etc. A complete social disaster.

So if marriage cannot be resurrected then the next best option would be to go for the artificial womb and single male parent families. Continuation of the gender feminist’s version of a family is really not an option for much longer, as society will either run out of children or run out of money for the welfare payments
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 14 May 2005 12:36:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringy, where in the world do you get this idea that male female relationships which are not culturally your cuppa, mean a man views a woman as less of a human being ?

Islam has indeed institutionalized such a view, but the Christian concept of Christ\husbands\Wives\Children is not a value judgement on the humanity of women. (believe it or not)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 14 May 2005 12:57:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I lwill define my concepts about leadership in the family, and then relate it to fatherhood - the original topic of discussion.

Pop culture promotes an image of leadership that is focused on control and power. A more spiritual definition of leadership positions the leader as a servant. An example of this type of leadership is represented by Gandi and Jesus. Therefore leadership involves selflessness and sacrifice. I have talked with many women who are crying out for strong men who can be this type of leader in the family.

To take this back to the original theme of Daniel's article, kids also need leadership, and when a father commits himself to providing this, and is supported by his wife to do so, the children thrive on the sense of security and direction that a man can bring.

A lack of support by the female partner for the father's role, and appropriate leadership undermines the family unit. Gender separatist ideology exerts a lot of pressure on relationships here. It defines all relationships in terms of power balance and attributes a pathological deficiency to men - the need to control (among other favourites like pathologically prone violence). I reject this sort of stereotyping, and its totalitarian roots. I have met both male and female control freaks.

But the ideology of male pathological deficiency is propagated by separatists and consumed by the public, and therefore the community gives young men the message that it is politically incorrect to show masculine leadership qualities in relationships, or to undertake the same with their children. This message contributes further mass psychological pressure to the already pervasive political and legal forces that cause men to rightfully fear fatherhood.

In this sort of culture it is simply not a safe environment for fatherhood - politically, legally, and in the home - that is if your partner undermines your role.

If we want to encourage young men to enter fatherhood we must address the social and political disincentives rather than placing even more blame on the men. This will only enforce the destructive propaganda of male pathological deficiency.
Posted by silversurfer, Saturday, 14 May 2005 6:29:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, being a part time single dad myself I have some interest in the topic. I have not seen a lot of serious research on outcomes for kids in single parent families related to the gender of the carer. Whilst we are a growing group there have not been a lot of male led single parent led households around. On the substantiated child abuse stats kids appear to marginely better off in the single parent male led household than a single parent female led household but I suspect that some of the diference could be put down to how difficult it is for a dad to have substantial residency of his kids. The abusers are very rarely going to get residency.

We need a fairer system when families do breakdown. We need the kind of common sense in the system that does not reward the person who moves to a different area or aleniates the kids from the other parent with more residency and money.

We also need to move past the stage where such a high proportion of families are breaking down. That means changes for both men and women. We may need different expectations for long term relationships and roles within the relationship. We need less politics and more honesty when dealing with issues like child abuse and family violence. We need fairer outcomes when families do breakdown which relate more to the role individuals have played.

We need to find a way past the battle and move on to healthy partnerships founded and grown with love.

Paternity can be a heartache when it is used against you, it can and should be one of our greatest joys. Loving and nurturing a child as they grow is not to be missed.
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 14 May 2005 7:41:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
There are various reports and statistics into single or custodial fathers at http://www.scfn.org/

For children:- it appears that marriage is best, followed by single male parent households, followed by single female parent households.

There is the adage that “fathers give children their childhood”, but feminism has given children not much more than abortion, poverty, welfare, divorce, abuse, loss of their gender identity etc.

The article by Daniel basically stipulates that men must commit themselves to women, but the past 30yrs should be reason enough for men to learn that they should never be placing themselves into a position where they can be manipulated or exploited by women, or become dependant on women for anything, and this includes parenting children. A father has to be prepared to become a single father parent at any time.

If a man is uncertain about a woman he should stay well away, and men should be further investigating single male parenting, as it is better for children than feminism and single female parenting.

After 30 yrs of feminism, the marriage rate is at a record low, and marriage may never be reinstated or resurrected enough. So the next best option for society is to progress single male parent families.
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 15 May 2005 11:08:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, dispite the pain that I am going thru I still have not given up hope in two parent families or in love.

I am hoping that the current crisis is a transition thing for society. That we will work our way through it and come out the otherside with new tools and understanding which give couples a better chance of making a sucess of long term relationships.

That may take a while.

Right now I think a lot of men don't know what is expected of them. Some still hold to the idea of being the head of the house (I wonder if that was really ever the way it worked), other like myself wanted a partner and got something sadly different. Expectations are changing for us and we need to address those changes.

I also think that a lot of women are still coming to grips (or failing to do so) with accepting the responsibility that comes with the changed roles. If someone else is not the head then the buck stops with you. Many appear to place a high priority on a man's wealth when considering him as a partner and yet expect the man to be at home and not at work when needed.

We do need big fixes to Family Law and welfare so that the genuinely needy are helped but those who insist on creating their own hardships wear the consequences of doing so.

Single parent male lead households are better than some of the alternatives but I think that if they occurred as frequently as the female lead variety we would see little difference in outcomes.

There are things my former wife brings to my son's life which I cannot, just as there are things I bring to his life which she cannot. If at all possible kids need two parents actively involved in their lives, rather than focussing on creating more single parent families lets put our energy into keeping both parents in kids lives.

Mums and dads are both needed in kids lives.
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 15 May 2005 9:13:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lovely post RObert, don't give up hope. I have found someone who treats me as his equal, loves me loves my kids (which is a real challenge given that they are teenagers).

I too, see marriage/relationships as a partnership between two equals working towards the same ideal and growing together. This is not easy. I do not look towards my partner for leadership but I do ask his opinion - whether I follow it or not is my choice. I don't understand the type of women who want men to support them financially - I am too independent to tolerate that lifestyle. I think those women are becoming dinosaurs just as men who always want to be in control are a dying breed. Change is painful, however, the fact that men are questioning their roles and identity is a positive step towards achieving emancipation.

Regards
Posted by Ringtail, Monday, 16 May 2005 8:09:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
I too hope that the marriage rate increases, but I think the chances are rather slim. Marriage has now lost nearly all meaning.

To a Family Court judge, a marriage certificate is just a piece of paper, and they will not regard a married couple as having any more priority or relevance than a couple in a de facto relationship (even though de facto relationships are generally far worse than married relationships).

I don’t think that cultural change alone will bring about a significant increase in the marriage rate, and of course blaming men is not going to help much either, as quite often men are just being used as scapegoats.

If there is to be an increase in marriage there has to be something tangible. There has to be changes to law, and government has to develop programs to help strengthen marriage, but I don’t see either happening because too many people in government are too afraid of the feminists. There were pro marriage programs advocated by government in the US, and feminists attacked those programs wholesale, and I see no real signs that feminists have become pro marriage.

So there is a great probability that law and government will not change much, but men have to reinstate themselves back into family. Nearly 1 in 4 families are now single parent families, (a major increase from 1 in 17 in 1971) and 90% of single parent families are headed by women, (although feminist of course don’t see this as gender inequality). If men don’t start to reinstate themselves back into families then men have no future.

If a marriages fails, the father has to do all he can to get 50/50, or his children will not have a father. If a man cannot find a woman who wants a real family and does not think of him as being a paypacket, then he should be perusing other options for fatherhood. This can be adoption, or in the future it can be the artificial womb. There aren’t too many other options for many men or for society.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 16 May 2005 11:25:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are so many people throwing fuel and fire crackers into the relationship fire these days, that many men and women dont like to sit too close to it. And it has nothing to do with fear of committing to the furnace. It has to do with the fact that we KNOW that it WILL go bang from time to time. Plenty of people are walking around with second and third degree burns.

Its not fear. Its a pragmatic and grown up assessment of risk versus reward. An assessment that is natural to humans and essential to survival.

The idea that people avoid relationships/marriage due to fear is very patronising, condascending, arrogant and pretentious. Our minds wont be changed by talking to us like little children. In fact the more condascending, then the more we dig in our heels and ignore the know-it-alls.

Maybe traditionalists and family fascists just cant bear to see some of us thinking for ourselves and making our own choices. It keeps them up at nights, writing sanctimonious articles. Ah the sheer horror of defining ourselvew according to our own convictions. What will the politicians and media hacks do and say if we dont follow their dictates from craddle to grave?
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 18 May 2005 4:43:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donahoo’s article is profoundly sad. It reads like a projection of personal experiences
For instance –

“….the pert models on the front of glossy magazines whisper sweet nothings in their ear and coax them away. They find themselves back on the nightclub dance floor grooving away for a freedom that offers them very little.”

Oh I can see sticky fingers prints on well thumbed copies of Playboy still on the newsagents stand.

Or

“Is there really freedom in being single? The only real freedom is sexual liberation. And, the number of people who are prepared to sleep with you limits even that. Single life can be lonely. A frustrating search for a significant other - then another and another and so on.”

It sounds like someone missed out on what they perceive as their fair share of “sexual liberation”.

Then

“Our society should work harder to make sure those relationships can be strengthened and maintained.”

- Wrong – individuals should work harder to live up to the commitment they make in entering into a relationship – it has nothing to do with “society” – it has only to do with individuals dealing with each other.

Oh we could go on –

Basically it is a load of bunkum, “journo piffle”, something to notch up a score on the word counter.

Donahoo - “Society is dead – there are only individuals and their families”… I won’t tell you who said it but it does come from a very reputable source – a source which has already outlived and outshone all the wannabe sociologists of today.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 9:04:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, much as I detest the tendency so prevalent for personal responsibility to be passed off onto "society" I would be greatly saddened if I believed your quote about society being dead.

It would be a very sad world without community beyond your own little fiefdom. We may well struggle to get the balance correct between personal liberty and the well being of the community and our world views will be reflected in where we think that balance should rest.

I do agree that the reponsibility for maintaining long term relationships rests with the individuals involved yet at the same time want a safety net to help the genuine victims when that goes wrong. What I don't want is a safety net which aids those who cause the problems or who consistantly fail to act responsibly.

Finding that balance is an ongoing challenge but one I embrace as one of the joys of being part of human society. Survival of the fittest has it's place but compassion for those outside our immediate circle is one of the things which helps us rise above mere survival.
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 11:18:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy