Fathers matter

[Baz]

I thought this metric was interesting.....shouldn't we as a society be placing more emphasis on the family unit?

[Oh Haha]

+1

[ltusler]

+2

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Baz

I thought this metric was interesting.....shouldn't we as a society be placing more emphasis on the family unit?

Absolutely. Unfortunately there is more emphasis on material possessions that family connections.

[john70t]

I don't think "father's left" is the right description to use.
Perhaps "not present" would be better.

In many cases the father is driven off and/or forbidden to be stay involved, by the hostile female as an act of revenge.

[manbridge 74]

Of course fathers matter.

Sad that they are portrayed as dopes in entertainment. Can't think of one show where they are shown as hard working or intelligent. Or even important to their loved ones. Biggest myth ever.

[Hugh R]

Jeff, I like your new signature.

[manbridge 74]

Why, thank you.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Of course fathers matter. Who else would the courts be able to force to pay tens of thousands of dollars to b**chy ex / former spouses under the guise of "providing for the children"?

According to our legal system males are good for exactly one function in the universe - accreting money to all hand over to former spouses so the mothers can (hopefully) make all the decisions and perform every other function in raising the kids. Fathers are not deemed to be good for anything else.

Sorry to be bitter / cynical but I've seen this play out in court way too many times with people close to me (both friends and family - the result is always the same: mothers get the kids and fathers get the bill, little or no contact and are all but scoffed at for thinking they're of any value). It's total BS but that's the way it is. The only way a father gets "custody" or really any meaningful say in his kids' upbringing is if the mother and her whole family are to die in a car wreck or something - and even then it's not a guarantee.

[Tobra]

Worse than that PoP, we have an entitlement system that is uniquely suited to encouraging fathers not to be involved in the upbringing of any children they have sired.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Don't disagree. I think a lot of this could be called "living down to expectations".

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by john70t

I don't think "father's left" is the right description to use.
Perhaps "not present" would be better.

In many cases the father is driven off and/or forbidden to be stay involved, by the hostile female as an act of revenge.

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Of course fathers matter. Who else would the courts be able to force to pay tens of thousands of dollars to b**chy ex / former spouses under the guise of "providing for the children"?

According to our legal system males are good for exactly one function in the universe - accreting money to all hand over to former spouses so the mothers can (hopefully) make all the decisions and perform every other function in raising the kids. Fathers are not deemed to be good for anything else.

Sorry to be bitter / cynical but I've seen this play out in court way too many times with people close to me (both friends and family - the result is always the same: mothers get the kids and fathers get the bill, little or no contact and are all but scoffed at for thinking they're of any value). It's total BS but that's the way it is. The only way a father gets "custody" or really any meaningful say in his kids' upbringing is if the mother and her whole family are to die in a car wreck or something - and even then it's not a guarantee.

Misogynist often - why yes, I think you do...

Of course fathers matter - but, there are a lot of factors that feed into the teen pregnancy rate - the first is poverty.

And since most teenaged pregnancies occur in low income/poverty neighborhoods, you probably have to view the 'missing father' equation differently than the misogynistic views above. In those areas fathers are often missing because they are in jail, or are deadbeat dads. Between the over 1.5 million low income dads are incarcerated at any one time, and are not working to support the family (obviously), and over 100 billion in unpaid child support by deadbeat dads, many of the mothers are left in poverty. And what else does poverty exasperate? The ability to get birth control, that too is a huge factor in teenage pregnancy.

So while some would love to paint women as heartless money grabbers, who deny fathers' their rights, I think you would find, in the case of teenaged pregnancy, the problem is complex, and that poverty is the largest contributing factor to teenaged pregnancy.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

See above. if we as a society continue to talk the talk ("fathers matter") but not walk the walk (i.e. continue to send the message that men are only good so long as the checks keep coming) men are going to say "what the hell is the point?" Despite what you might think, men aren't stupid. If there's no benefit to hanging around and they're going to be penalized either way, why not choose the path that gives them some tiny bit of freedom and enjoyment in life? Also, if men are expected to pay for the overshelming majority of so-called "child care expenses" (as defined by the mothers and subject to no audit or scrutiny - can include nail salon visits, Cadillac Escalades and junkets to Maui with new boyfriends and the kids left at home - all examples I've seen personally) why should they burden themselves more? I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it but I think a lot of it comes down to an attitude of "if she's going to take my money then she can change all the diapers and deal with all the nonsense - screw this". I can sort of see where they're coming from.

Of course most of it is the result of exactly what I said above - "living down to expectations". We have a mysandric "just-us" system that panders to women as the perpetual victims and gleefully destroys mens' lives in the hope that it will "send a message". Well if the message is resentment and a decreased identification as a "father figure" after being fleeced and kicked to the curb, told in not so many words that his opinions and positions regarding child-rearing are inferior to womens' and given a fraction of time with kids as the mothers simply because he's got a penis, then job well done.

A "shared custody" / 50-50 situation is the best and most fair (that goes for money too, which will never happen since no politician wants to alienate the "female vote" by pushing for change to child support or alimony laws) but in practice it never happens. I've seen people (all good parents) pay little or tons in court and the outcome is a rubber stamp all the time: kids, house and money go to mom, the bill goes to dad. Oh and you can see the kids four days a month. What a deal! Can you at all see why a lot of guys get disgusted and say "eff this"?

To get guys to identify with their roles as "fathers" we need to start showing that we value them as such - and they're not just considered conduits for money to be channeled to the women who obviously know what's best for the kids (har-har). If it happens in my lifetime I'll be surprised. Of course the very best situation is for women to include the fathers, want to have them around, show they're valued and actually include them. But that runs against the notion of strong "liberated women" and feminist principles right? If women treat a guy like a father he'll tend to act like one. If you punt him once the kids are born and go after just his money and house d'ya think he's really going to? Try "standing by your man" and valuing him, then maybe more men will do what they're meant to - be good fathers to their kids.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

See above. if we as a society continue to talk the talk ("fathers matter") but not walk the walk (i.e. continue to send the message that men are only good so long as the checks keep coming) men are going to say "what the hell is the point?" Despite what you might think, men aren't stupid.

< snip >

To get guys to identify with their roles as "fathers" we need to start showing that we value them as such - and they're not just considered conduits for money to be channeled to the women who obviously know what's best for the kids (har-har). If it happens in my lifetime I'll be surprised.

Well, if I had to go by you and John70t regarding teenaged pregnancy rates (which is what this thread is about, not an opportunity to spew whatever bile you might have regarding your mistreatment at the hands, and courts, regarding the women in your life) I would say, yep, men are stupid. However, thank goodness most aren't and understand that teen pregnancy rates have a lot more to do with poverty than evil women who kick dads out and take them for every penny (remember that is your side of the story, every story has two sides.)

Teen pregnancy is a complex problem, and again, the largest contributing factor seems to be poverty - which would sort of negate your idea that the mothers of these girls who get pregnant are living the high life with their Escalades and junkets to Maui. That really doesn't happen in the 'hood', the dads who are missing there are often in jail or aren't paying any support whatsoever.

Rather than misdirect to vent your particular hatred for women, how about looking at the problem rationally - teen pregnancy is firstly a poverty problem, and those women who are raising children in poverty aren't the ones who are getting thousands a month in child support - they wouldn't be living in poverty if that were the case.

Again, remove the misogynist blinders - it might do you some good to look at this problem reasonably.

[wdfifteen]

There are good fathers and bad fathers. Some are not good for anything but generating money.
My DIL's ex is a real piece of work. When his sons were 5 he told them they weren't getting anything for Christmas because they were bad. Their mother had to get them gifts from "dad" to try to keep them from being effed up. The next year he didn't get them anything because he said their mother took all his money from him. But he bought his girlfriend a motorcycle for Christmas that year. He told the oldest boy that if he had behaved better his little brother wouldn't have died of cancer. The poor kid still thinks he is responsible for his brother's death and has serious emotional issues - depression, self mutilating, etc. The boys have been asking why he doesn't marry his live-in girlfriend. He tells them it is because their mother takes all his money and he can't afford to get married. When oldest asked how he could afford his motorcycles (he has 4 or 5) and annual trip to Sturgis he got a smack in the face and was told it costs a lot less to spend two weeks in Sturgis every year than to get married.
Some kids are better off without a "father."

[Porsche-O-Phile]

So what are you suggesting be done? Maybe instead of locking up guys for minor or "victimless" crimes they're allowed to serve a home sentence so long as it's shown they're taking care of their kids? How might that work? Obviously it wouldn't at all for any guys sentenced for serious crimes but for guys busted for selling a dime bag and given five years under "three strikes" or whatever? Maybe...

Or we could try educating the girls to try actually keeping their knees pressed together as a good start - and trying to eliminate the "go have a baby to fit in - everyone else is doing it" culture that seems to exist at some inner city high schools. Education is usually a good start.

Last I checked, it takes two people to have sex and it's pretty difficult to get pregnant without having sex so... Maybe focus on that whole "accountability" thing with BOTH sexes? you have to admit there's not a lot of reason for women to fear accountability for having sex when they know if / when they get pregnant they can just go after the guy and get "free money" anyway. In fact it's probably an incentive for some ("go get myself knocked up and get a free ride for the rest of my life"). Maybe less so in really poor neighborhoods but maybe not... Maybe the standards are just lower. Dunno.

[Oh Haha]

Geez Pat, that guy needs a serious a$$ kicking.

Our kids get poopy with us when we tell them "No" for much less.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

So what are you suggesting be done? Maybe instead of locking up guys for minor or "victimless" crimes they're allowed to serve a home sentence so long as it's shown they're taking care of their kids? How might that work? Obviously it wouldn't at all for any guys sentenced for serious crimes but for guys busted for selling a dime bag and given five years under "three strikes" or whatever? Maybe...

Or we could try educating the girls to try actually keeping their knees pressed together as a good start - and trying to eliminate the "go have a baby to fit in - everyone else is doing it" culture that seems to exist at some inner city high schools. Education is usually a good start.

Last I checked, it takes two people to have sex and it's pretty difficult to get pregnant without having sex so... Maybe focus on that whole "accountability" thing with BOTH sexes? you have to admit there's not a lot of reason for women to fear accountability for having sex when they know if / when they get pregnant they can just go after the guy and get "free money" anyway. In fact it's probably an incentive for some ("go get myself knocked up and get a free ride for the rest of my life"). Maybe less so in really poor neighborhoods but maybe not... Maybe the standards are just lower. Dunno.

So, are we leaving the moms are evil because they take all of dads money in the case of most teenaged pregnancy? Oh, no we aren't because you still actually believe this happens a lot in poor neighborhoods. If anything those girls aren't getting 'knocked up' to squeeze blood out of a turnip (the guys they are having unprotected sex with don't have any money-think, POP, think - I know it is hard with your brain turned to misogynist mush, but think this through) if they are purposefully getting pregnant (usually not the case) it is to get TANF and government assistance, not money from some guy who probably has less than they do.

I love the idea of less incarceration for things like minor drug offenses. You agree with me and Obama and Rand Paul.. interesting.

While it is great to preach abstinence, in reality, it doesn't really work all that well.

Also, did you notice in my source that although the US as a higher rate of teen pregnancy than most of the 'western world' that US teens actually have less sex. Our problem isn't really rampant promiscuity, it is lack of 'knowledge' and 'access' to effective birth control.

So, this is a problem, but also remember, teen pregnancies are down about 40% from their peak, things are starting to 'sink in', TANF restrictions do seem to be working (you don't get paid for more than 2 kids), and both education, along with easy access to effective birth control do seem to be making a big difference.

[Rikao4]

Poverty is the reason..
get real ...
STUPIDITY is the reason...
and a big dose of Momma not saying..
don't ruin your life like I did..
these folks have babies..
like strays dropping a litter..
and puppies & babies are cute for a bit..
but..
raising & nuturing a child is another thing ..

Rika

[Baz]

For those who feel poverty is the biggest issue involved........


How does morality figure into the problem?


Morality is defined as follows:

Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior


Which factor might better help reduce the problem....more money or better morals?