View Full Version : Hello!!!
Hey guys,
I could do with a little help sometimes. I know i'm not the only guy here...so how about it.
It gets a little hot in some of these debates and i'm vastly outnumbered at times. LOL.
It's all in good fun. I get more assistance from some of the mothers than you guys.
But i do genuinely believe Bubhub could benefit from more input from males and that would possibly contribute to greater and more interesting debate about some of the more contentious issues.
Hi SoloDad,
I'm usually hanging around the techie help threads. Safer over there :yes:
Xanthic,
You cracked me up, thanks for that. I needed the laugh. Honestly though, it can get a little rabid, and i'm certain there is some frothing at the mouth over some of the threads i've started and the comments i have made.
I have had to constantly remind some posters of the concept of debate and discussion.
Some posters - unfortunately the majority have been ladies - seem to forget that intelligent debate over controversial issues has actually won them many of the freedoms and rights that they enjoy and take for granted today.
(1) The right to vote...women didn't have it until someone asked why not.
(2) Ladies weren't even allowed in a public bar until around the late 60's.
(3) No fault divorce was introduced in the 70's...mostly to protect women.
(4) Single mothers pension...introduced i believe around 1964.
(5) The right to be more than 'tea and tidy' in the armed services and the police forces.
And that's just off the top of my head..i'm sure with a little effort i could come up with at least a dozen more examples.
The offer still stands to join me and risk life, limb and sometimes sanity. Seriously though i reckon up until now it's been a bit of an exclusive club. That needs to change, as do many of the narrow minded and bigoted opinions of men that exists in the minds of some.
I did pose a question to one mother that i considered relevant.
"If mothers have traditionally been the primary carers for children of intact and separated families for many, many decades. Then shouldn't a portion of the responsibility for the attitudes and behaviours of adult males of today be borne by them. Not to mention the high levels of truancy, promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse and aggressive behaviour of children from broken homes."
Her response..."Not at all, you men are flawed from the moment you are born and there is nothing a mother can do about that."
I have a feeling she was serious.
bigbadbrad
17-03-2009, 14:38
Hi Guys'
Solo Dad - I have to say that if this is how you normally post in the main part of the forum, I am stunned the girls have not beaten you up more. While some of your points are valid they could be seen as funny or as confrontational (depending on the reader). I do not want to stifle your enthusiasm but would suggest that you take care as I need my few guys to stay healthy!
I think your point about blaming poor behaviour of adult males on Mums is REALLY wrong!....... but as this is a forum you are entitled to your opinion.
I have to admit they I have been staying out of the rest of the forum to just cater to the Dads.
Having said that I strongly encourage Dad's to post freely within the parts of the forum they feel they can participate in so that the ladies can get a male perspective.
I am working hard at all the Expo's recruiting blokes for the forum so the more we post the more we will get.
I will try and set aside some time for posting outside the Dad's section each week:cool:
Regards
BBB
Hi Brad,
Thanks for your comments, i have taken them on board.
Your quote:- [I think your point about blaming poor behaviour of adult males on Mums is REALLY wrong!....... but as this is a forum you are entitled to your opinion.]
I think this is where i - or others - are getting the wrong point about my posts Brad. It may be in my writing style. As an investigator for the media i am used to asking very direct and often pointed questions which people confuse as an accusation.
You see, in my opinion i am asking a question, not making an accusation.
I will try to curtail and soften the posts a little in the future. I respect and appreciate your constructive critique.
Thank you for your attempts to get more men on these boards. We need them to get more balanced opinion, but even more importantly this site allows men a non confronting avenue of understanding women and how they sometimes feel and think. That's important.
bigbadbrad
18-03-2009, 14:22
Hi Solo Dad,
It is my experience that some of the forum members could make a compliment sound like an accusation!
I strongly support differing views being put up in the forum but toning it down slightly would be good
Keep up the good work!:thumbsup:
Regards
BBB
Are women allowed to post in this area at all? Because I am sure some of us ladies would love to be able to respond to some of the things in this thread:)..
"If mothers have traditionally been the primary carers for children of intact and separated families for many, many decades. Then shouldn't a portion of the responsibility for the attitudes and behaviours of adult males of today be borne by them. Not to mention the high levels of truancy, promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse and aggressive behaviour of children from broken homes."
Her response..."Not at all, you men are flawed from the moment you are born and there is nothing a mother can do about that."
I have a feeling she was serious.
My view to the above question would be this...the father role in the past has seen to be breadwinner. You go to work, earn the money and come home to eat dinner. The father role is one that has had to evolve and at this current stage we face a bit of a crisis. We are at a cross roads as to what importance a fathers role is in a childs life and solodads replies that I am familiar with are in retort to some mothers alluding that fathers are just not that important, when in actual fact they are vital.
You have to understand, being a father is a difficult thing when you love your child to bits but you can not see your child every single day. How would you feel if by default your child's place was deemed by society to belong with the other parent?
I doubt this man is sexist. He loves his daughter and wants to be a better man for the benifit of her wellbeing.
Mischief
12-04-2009, 20:04
May I remind everyone to please read the rules before posting again.
Dad's chat IS a moderated section and the same rules and infractions apply here as they do within the rest of the forum.
lukaelmo
12-04-2009, 20:15
You see, in my opinion i am asking a question, not making an accusation.
I am not sure either if the girls are allowed to post in here, but I did want to say that your question got me interested. I didn't think of it at all as an accusation, rather it's something I'd not thought of before and would like to think about further.
Mischief
12-04-2009, 20:28
Are women allowed to post in this area at all? Because I am sure some of us ladies would love to be able to respond to some of the things in this thread:)..
Women are allowed to post in this section, as long as it is relevant and RESPECTFUL! Like I said above, the same rules apply here as it does anywhere else on the forum.
People are entitled to their opinions, however they may NOT abuse another person with them. Such actions will result in infractions, as it would anywhere else on the forum.
Primarily, this is a section for the male members of our forum to discuss their feelings on life and parenting without being shot down by female members of our forum.
Any further abuse in this thread will result in it being closed until the moderators have reviewed it further.
Fuchsia!
12-04-2009, 20:29
May I remind everyone to please read the rules before posting again.
Dad's chat IS a moderated section and the same rules and infractions apply here as they do within the rest of the forum.
So what does that mean? We aren't allowed in here?
If thats the case, where is the area for just women?
ETA just rad your last reply, ok fair enough, where is the womans area only where we can discuss things
Thinking about your 'question'...
Okay well the three serious relationships I have ever had, also the only bad men I have personally come across IRL excluding father.
Number 1- He is really insecure but really manipulative.. Since he messed around with me, he has since done the exact same thing to 3 other girls. He would threaten to kill himself if you ever broke up with him, constantly beat himself down to gain your sympathy, abuse you, make you feel inferior constantly, lie about soooooo many things. His mother was married to his father, he raped her, abused her and then jumped off a highrise. She was so screwed up after that she then would bring man after man through her house, infront of her boys, who would abuse her, abuse them. Before she met her husband she was a christian, went to church every sunday, was a great, strong woman (my mum grew up with her).
Number 2- He comes from an intact muslim family, his father treats her like a doormat but she is actually really happy with it that way. As she says the kitchen is hers, she never has to worry about eating his bad cooking. She likes it the way it is, they have worked hard for their family to the point where they are now in their 50's and have sever healthy problems. The problem is they worked so hard for their family, they never thought that maybe their children should pull some weight so they don't know how to take responsibility for things and their reaction to being told what to do or having pressure put on them is anger. He lashed out at me a couple of times and basically could not cope with the idea of being a father (although now 2 years on he is making a little bit of an effort which I think is fantastic).
Number 3- He comes from an intact family, Dad is an abuser and Mum has been copping it for over 20 years. He has 7 kids, most of which he doesn't have anything to do with (which were not to his wife). He also would beat his children he was involved with. X spoke of one time he thought his father was going to kill him when hitting him. Now this ex is also an abuser. He has 3 dvos against him from previous girlfriends, he has severe depression and a drug problem. He is also a criminal, he has trouble accepting working for his money when there are other ways to get money. He also jumps from girl to girl because he cannot be single because then he starts to hate himself because he has no one divert his feelings for himself on, he admits to this.. He has major anger issues and recently has stolen his daughter from her mother.
Now going by this I do not see any of this as the mothers problems.. Just as these mothers not being strong enough to leave when they should have, which to me shows just how bad their relationship must have been to be that scared to leave. Really, very sad.:(
Gosh I have bad luck!:laughing:
Mischief
12-04-2009, 20:33
Jax - I will leave that question to BigBadBrad to answer for you. But I think you will find that 99% of this forum is posted in by only women. :)
Solodad: I have been trained as a journalist and can easily see where that argument fails. Deliberate provocation is not equal to asking a direct question.
When in doubt, replace your use of the word "women" in a post with "a black person". If such a thing would be repellent and demonstrating racism, then your original post was repellent and demonstrating sexism.
Hope that helps :)
bigbadbrad
14-04-2009, 10:13
Hello to all
I am about to reopen this thread because a Forum is a place for discussion and even arguement if it is done in a respectful way.
I can tell all that this thread has caused quite an upheaval in mod land and urge all participants to abide by the rules.
IF YOU DO NOT LIKE WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN OR DISAGREE WITH A POST THAT IS FINE BUT YOU MUST NOT BREAK THE RULES WHEN REPLYING! The other option is to just not read the thread if it makes you too angry.
In reply to Jaxcoop's question about 'where is the womans area only where we can discuss things' I would point out that the majority of the forum is female orientated. One of the reasons for the Dad's chat section is to encourage more males to join the forum because we tend to think quite differently to women, wether this is good or bad I do not know....... but I think it is important to have more men in here as it is a great place to learn, get advice and support.
So I look forward to all posters abiding by the rules and respecting each others opinions
Sincerely
BBB
With the members permission this is the question which seems to have caused the most interest.
"If mothers have traditionally been the primary carers for children of intact and separated families for many, many decades. Then shouldn't a portion of the responsibility for the attitudes and behaviours of adult males of today be borne by them. Not to mention the high levels of truancy, promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse and aggressive behaviour of children from broken homes."
To me this is a genuine question and in no way is meant to offend, belittle, upset, cause hurt or demean women in any way.
I look forward to hearing your opinions and discussing this question further. Throughout this site there are many, many ladies who have sole responsibility for raising their male offspring.
I would like to give another interpretation (my own) to this question.
[Mary and i had a child. Mary left me when the child was 1 year old. I raised the child single handed. Mary returned on the scene when the child was 18 years old. The child now uses all manner of drugs, is very promiscuous, has little or no respect for women, has a criminal record for stealing and violence, is aggressive towards women, rarely went to school, and drinks alcohol heavily. Mary then goes on to blame or hold me partially responsible for this outcome.]
Personally i believe Mary has every right to think this way. Sure i can blame TV, the childs peers, societal influences etc. But at the end of the day, haven't i failed somewhat in my job as a parent. Shouldn't i take responsibility for the outcome?
[The above is quite possibly how i should have worded the question in the first place.]
Fuchsia!
14-04-2009, 11:01
To me this is a genuine question and in no way is meant to offend, belittle, upset, cause hurt or demean women in any way.
I look forward to hearing your opinions and discussing this question further. Throughout this site there are many, many ladies who have sole responsibility for raising their male offspring.
I would like to give another interpretation (my own) to this question.
[Mary and i had a child. Mary left me when the child was 1 year old. I raised the child single handed. Mary returned on the scene when the child was 18 years old. The child now uses all manner of drugs, is very promiscuous, has little or no respect for women, has a criminal record for stealing and violence, is aggressive towards women, rarely went to school, and drinks alcohol heavily. Mary then goes on to blame or hold me partially responsible for this outcome.]
Personally i believe Mary has every right to think this way. Sure i can blame TV, the childs peers, societal influences etc. But at the end of the day, haven't i failed somewhat in my job as a parent. Shouldn't i take responsibility for the outcome?
[The above is quite possibly how i should have worded the question in the first place.]
No i wouldn't blame the father at all, nor the woman.
I would tend to think that the mother re appearing on the scene has brought up some possibly suppressed feelings and she is reacting to them and acting out of character.
No you shouldn't take responsibility unless you caused these things to happen like you had drugs and alcohol or brought crime into her life.
She is 18 now and she is an adult and needs to take responsibility for her actions.
No i wouldn't blame the father at all, nor the woman.
I would tend to think that the mother re appearing on the scene has brought up some possibly suppressed feelings and she is reacting to them and acting out of character.
No you shouldn't take responsibility unless you caused these things to happen like you had drugs and alcohol or brought crime into her life.
She is 18 now and she is an adult and needs to take responsibility for her actions.
:iagree: Absolutely.
Take someone I know for example. He was raised by his mother, his father was abusive towards his mother and himself. His father was in and out of his life until adulthood. He didn't grow up taking drugs, drinking alcohol, getting into crime. Oh but he sure did have a reason to go off the rails! He now owns his very own successful business, has a beautiful family, lives comfortably and has his head screwed on. Because he took control of his life.
Basically my point is, there are soo many factors to how a child will turn out. To blame one parent soley is ignorant and stupid.
Also, I understand different people take things differently, we arn't all wired the same.
Take my loser of an ex, he had a crappy childhood and he is all doom and gloom still. He had two paths to take. He could have gotten on with his life and made something of it, but he chose the latter. When you become an adult you become responsible for yourself and you can't keep blaming everyone else.
So if i understand Jaxcoop and xxLillixx correctly, you are both saying that parents aren't responsible for how their children turn out?
I was always of the opinion that we were to some degree responsible for the adults our children became. Surely we are the ones that provide them their ethics, morals and values.
Or have i misunderstood?
Ana Gram
14-04-2009, 13:06
Free will is a huge factor upon one's choices in life. Plus I find that one's peers also play a huge part in attitudes and behaviour. Blaming it on the primary carer is far too easy.
So if i understand Jaxcoop and xxLillixx correctly, you are both saying that parents aren't responsible for how their children turn out?
I was always of the opinion that we were to some degree responsible for the adults our children became. Surely we are the ones that provide them their ethics, morals and values.
Or have i misunderstood?
Parents are the only influence? Not poverty, peers, media, teachers???
I certainly know I had more than one influence growing up, and now.
NibbleCurlynBub
14-04-2009, 13:13
Maybe instead of looking at the part women as mothers had to play in raising men today, we should look at the fathers as well.
Many fathers have issues as well, many focus on work and don't spend much time with their kids, many are emotionally distant, many don't teach boys how to be men, some don't know how to be good men themselves.
Maybe instead of pointing the finger at mothers, we should be investigating both of the adults who are supposed to be involved with creating, raising and nurturing a child.
Expecting boys to be taught how to be men by women doesn't seem all that logical.
Maybe instead of blaming the people/person that IS there and involved, we should be looking at the people that aren't involved enough.
Ana Gram
14-04-2009, 13:15
Couldn't we also say that in the particular examples used, the reason could also be father's who do not contribute to the raising of children?
ETA: Snap NCB
Fuchsia!
14-04-2009, 13:16
So if i understand Jaxcoop and xxLillixx correctly, you are both saying that parents aren't responsible for how their children turn out?
I was always of the opinion that we were to some degree responsible for the adults our children became. Surely we are the ones that provide them their ethics, morals and values.
Or have i misunderstood?
Of course we are the ones that instil morals and ethics and values into our children, but its up to each individual adult to make the choice if they wish to use them.
Some children learn these things without their parents, some learn from their parents, some will grow up and want to do exactly the opposite to their parents.
There are so many varibles it is impossible to say that because you raised a child a certain way that will be how they turn out.
My parents instilled in me ethics and values, but i still went of the rails when i was younger, drugs, alcohol, stealing..the works.
But it was my choice to be like that, i ended up taking responsibility for my actions and changed my ways.
Fuchsia!
14-04-2009, 13:17
Maybe instead of looking at the part women as mothers had to play in raising men today, we should look at the fathers as well.
Many fathers have issues as well, many focus on work and don't spend much time with their kids, many are emotionally distant, many don't teach boys how to be men, some don't know how to be good men themselves.
Maybe instead of pointing the finger at mothers, we should be investigating both of the adults who are supposed to be involved with creating, raising and nurturing a child.
Expecting boys to be taught how to be men by women doesn't seem all that logical.
Maybe instead of blaming the people/person that IS there and involved, we should be looking at the people that aren't involved enough.
And that too. They are very good points indeed
I'd love to see some more DADS weighing in on this. It is such an important issue!
Referring to your original question, SD -
the key word is "portion". In my view, there is absolutely nothing sexist or demeaning about that statement because "portion" means exactly that.
The parent (male or female) influences a major portion of the child's behaviour.
The other parent's absence can be an influence on the child's behaviour.
The media is an influence.
The child (or adult's) environment is an influence.
Poverty is an influence, as is access to education.
Genetics and personality are an influence, one I would argue is hugely underestimated.
The argument that an adult has to step up and take responsibility is certainly valid ... BUT one could also argue that is in itself learned behaviour. A child has to be taught to take responsibility for their actions, and be strong and flexible enough to overcome adversity.
Once again, parenting, plus genetics, plus environment.
Not a simple question .... :detective:
SuperGranny
14-04-2009, 13:33
hi, to go back to solodad original post, yes I do think the primary care giver is the most influentual person for the first few years of the childs life. After that there are many many influences, and I think it becomes a case of "I hope I have done the right thing with my child". It is hard for a single parent to raise a child, be it mum or dad, the job is best done in a loving enviroment with both parents commited to the best outcome for the child at all times. I think I understand what solodad is saying, that whoever is the sole parent , whoever has the most contact with the child should accept the larger amount of responsibility for the result. I agree with that comment, Marie.
Chellegoth, i agree with you entirely. The reason could also be the fathers that don't contribute to the raising of the children.
But then, that is apportioning some blame to the father, and rightly so. Conversely then, logic might dictate that some of the 'blame' should also be shared by the mother.
Jaxcoop, is it possible that the reason you finally took responsibility for your actions was in part due to the values, ethics and morals instilled in you by your parents?
I'm not trying to blame any one parent, and forgive me if it comes across that way.
What i am saying is that in my opinion, a part, (large or small) should be borne by the primary carer, or both parents in an intact household.
Nibblecurlynbun, i agree with your post and you raise a very good point about expecting mothers to teach boys how to be men.
Of course we are the ones that instil morals and ethics and values into our children, but its up to each individual adult to make the choice if they wish to use them.
Some children learn these things without their parents, some learn from their parents, some will grow up and want to do exactly the opposite to their parents.
There are so many varibles it is impossible to say that because you raised a child a certain way that will be how they turn out.
My parents instilled in me ethics and values, but i still went of the rails when i was younger, drugs, alcohol, stealing..the works.
But it was my choice to be like that, i ended up taking responsibility for my actions and changed my ways.
:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:.
Whilst we all try to instill morals and manners into our children, we have no control over how they chose to conduct themselves as adults.
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-04-2009, 13:46
"If mothers have traditionally been the primary carers for children of intact and separated families for many, many decades. Then shouldn't a portion of the responsibility for the attitudes and behaviours of adult males of today be borne by them. Not to mention the high levels of truancy, promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse and aggressive behaviour of children from broken homes."
To me this is a genuine question and in no way is meant to offend, belittle, upset, cause hurt or demean women in any way.
I look forward to hearing your opinions and discussing this question further. Throughout this site there are many, many ladies who have sole responsibility for raising their male offspring.
I would like to give another interpretation (my own) to this question.
[quote=SoloDad;3643206]
[Mary and i had a child. Mary left me when the child was 1 year old. I raised the child single handed. Mary returned on the scene when the child was 18 years old. The child now uses all manner of drugs, is very promiscuous, has little or no respect for women, has a criminal record for stealing and violence, is aggressive towards women, rarely went to school, and drinks alcohol heavily. Mary then goes on to blame or hold me partially responsible for this outcome.]
.]
Lets call the other parent "Jack" (however we all know the child is most likely to be left alone with Mary)
Jack may then say to mary
"really mary, where the bloody hell were you?" "you are more responsible because you left and didn't give a toss, if you had then maybe we wouldn't be in this situation, as we could have parented together!" "at least I was here parenting"
Personally i believe Mary has every right to think this way. Sure i can blame TV, the childs peers, societal influences etc. But at the end of the day, haven't i failed somewhat in my job as a parent. Shouldn't i take responsibility for the outcome?
.]
Mary failed even more so as she wasn't even around. At least the other parent tried.
[The above is quite possibly how i should have worded the question in the first place.]
Yes it is but you didn't, you quoted your self in a conversation where you appeared to be answering with your own opinion. I respectfully say I believe it to be your opinion.:) I must say I don't think it's very fair to change the goal posts after the fact.
When a mother raises a child alone without help from the father and manages do well and the child is successful in life, which is very hard (I should know I have a teenager), then the mother should get a round of applause and so should the child. Because they have despite the devestation and rejection felt by the child, managed to overcome great difficulties in order to succeed in life. Often mother and child are living in poverty and have great hurdles to over come. If they manage this then yes they alone should be thanked, because in spite of the terrible actiona of another that do have lasting effects, somhow they managed.
If however things don't go so well, and the child does have problems, maybe drug abuse, school drop out etc etc, Then no the mother alone is not to blame. She was left alone to raise her child. NOT her fault! She was probably left in poverty with little access to jobs etc due to having to look after the child alone and probably having left her job and lost skills due to taking care of the child. Moreover social supports in this country are few and far between, so it's little wonder some children end up having troubles. It is not so much the custodial parent's fault ,as the fault of society and the lack of support from others - Namely the missing parent if things go wrong.
I may have done well raisning my child, I was lucky to have some opportunities that others have not had. I was lucky to have help that some others may not have had. Is it my daughters absent fathers fault if things go wrong? Hell yes it is, if he stood up became a man and took care of his responsibilities then those types of issues may not occur. It's very easy to point the finger at the parent doing everything and enduring all sometimes in very harsh situations.
A good analogy may be:
If I buy a business, and then leave my partner in charge, I don't support the business when it needs money, I don't work at the business when I should, In fact I'm not around at all. I don't even buy my business a christmas card;)
Suddenly the business fails, and I show up to abuse my partner for not running the business well. :confused: When in fact if I had have supported my business like I should, it may not have failed, as two hard working people are better then one.
However if the business succeeds despite my absence and lack of investment, could I take credit. Sure I could, but it would be wrong. Because I havn't done anything to deserve the credit and it is my partners success not mine.
When a mother raises a child alone without help from the father and manages do well and the child is successful in life, which is very hard (I should know I have a teenager), then the mother should get a round of applause and so should the child. Because they have despite the devestation and rejection felt by the child, managed to overcome great difficulties in order to succeed in life. Often mother and child are living in poverty and have great hurdles to over come. If they manage this then yes they alone should be thanked, because in spite of the terrible actiona of another that do have lasting effects, somhow they managed.
If however things don't go so well, and the child does have problems, maybe drug abuse, school drop out etc etc, Then no the mother alone is not to blame. She was left alone to raise her child. NOT her fault! She was probably left in poverty with little access to jobs etc due to having to look after the child alone and probably having left her job and lost skills due to taking care of the child. Moreover social supports in this country are few and far between, so it's little wonder some children end up having troubles. It is not so much the custodial parent's fault ,as the fault of society and the lack of support from others - Namely the missing parent if things go wrong.
I may have done well raisning my child, I was lucky to have some opportunities that others have not had. I was lucky to have help that some others may not have had. Is it my daughters absent fathers fault if things go wrong? Hell yes it is, if he stood up became a man and took care of his responsibilities then those types of issues may not occur. It's very easy to point the finger at the parent doing everything and enduring all sometimes in very harsh situations.
A good analogy may be:
If I buy a business, and then leave my partner in charge, I don't support the business when it needs money, I don't work at the business when I should, In fact I'm not around at all. I don't even buy my business a christmas card;)
Suddenly the business fails, and I show up to abuse my partner for not running the business well. :confused: When in fact if I had have supported my business like I should, it may not have failed, as two hard working people are better then one.
However if the business succeeds despite my absence and lack of investment, could I take credit. Sure I could, but it would be wrong. Because I havn't done anything to deserve the credit and it is my partners success not mine.
:iagree: :yelclap: very well worded:yes:
I'm trying to get word out to the Dads Jaq.
It isn't a simple question is it?
But i will continue to hold dear to me the belief that if i am proud of how my child turns out - as we often hear so many parents state - then i will also be ashamed, saddened and responsible when they don't turn out so good.
Yes i agree there are often so very many other 'influences', but i don't believe they are so insurmountable as to override or absolve the responsibility we have as parents as to what and who our children become.
Sockstealingpoltergiest, i think you may have misunderstood me. At no stage am i saying that either parent is alone in the blame. Just a portion of it.
Ana Gram
14-04-2009, 14:08
I disagree Solodad. I can only use myself as an example. My parents who are still happily together, raised both my brother and I the same. My brother has never done anything that can be considered unsavoury. I, on the other hand, certainly have. My parents have very little to do with it. My brother and I have the same values, morals and ethics, we have just gone about life very differently.
NibbleCurlynBub
14-04-2009, 14:09
I disagree Solodad. I can only use myself as an example. My parents who are still happily together, raised both my brother and I the same. My brother has never done anything that can be considered unsavoury. I, on the other hand, certainly have. My parents have very little to do with it. My brother and I have the same values, morals and ethics, we have just gone about life very differently.
:iagree: No matter how well or not you parent, your kids are always going to be individual people who see the world in their own way. Can't change that. :no:
Fuchsia!
14-04-2009, 14:12
Jaxcoop, is it possible that the reason you finally took responsibility for your actions was in part due to the values, ethics and morals instilled in you by your parents?
No i changed because i wanted to, because i was going to be a parent and i needed to step up to the plate.
SuperGranny
14-04-2009, 14:13
hi, just a thought to ssp, Howcome if the successful outcome deserves a round of applause and recognition for the mother, then the bad outcome is the absent fathers fault?? Is not the mother taking on too much on her sholders??? I think if the fathers is absent, how is the outcome his fault?? maybe the mother should thank the father for getting out of the way, so she could be successful without him. I'm trying to understand what you have said, I have read it through twice. I believe both parents are inpart responsible for the outcome, be it good or bad, both have to have some share in the results. Marie.
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-04-2009, 14:15
I'm trying to get word out to the Dads Jaq, but most seem to be at work. Or somewhere other than in front a pc anyway.
It isn't a simple question is it?
[quote=SoloDad;3643835]
But i will continue to hold dear to me the belief that if i am proud of how my child turns out - as we often hear so many parents state - then i will also be ashamed, saddened and responsible when they don't turn out so good.
.
And so you should be, She has two parents, who from your posts, seem to be able to cope with life and support her well. As would my husband and my self -if our son did well or not so well in life. Because we are both here, even if seperated I am confident we would still both be very active in our sons life, and both support him.
The other scenario didn't paint that picture!
My son is growing up with two loving parents, who are both capable of supporting him just about equally. This was not the case when I was single parent to my daughter, I had no job skills, I was living in poverty and I had no support from her father at all. It's far more difficult to parent her because of these fators then it is to now parent my son.
So absent or not very invovled parents do contribute to the well being of their children and it is their fault if their children don't do well in life. *see analogy above
Yes i agree there are often so very many other 'influences', but i don't believe they are so insurmountable as to override or absolve the responsibility we have as parents as to what and who our children become.
Sockstealingpoltergiest, i think you may have misunderstood me. At no stage am i saying that either parent is alone in the blame. Just a portion of it.
So really what you are saying is that when a parent is absent and the child doesn't turn out well, only a small portion of balme can be attributed to the sole parent. :) Yep I think we agree there.
SSP That was an awsome post:yelclap:
No you shouldn't take responsibility unless you caused these things to happen like you had drugs and alcohol or brought crime into her life.
She is 18 now and she is an adult and needs to take responsibility for her actions.
:yelclap:
He had two paths to take. He could have gotten on with his life and made something of it, but he chose the latter.
Those to statments together is what i feel as well.
Here is another situation (and i could come up with alot of different ones lol)
Mum is a SAHM that does arts and crafts with her kids cooks cleans plays with them takes them to playgroups ect... Dad works very hard to support DS, DD and DW working enough to be able to go on family holidays every holidays. kids have a wonderful life are taught all the right ways and never ever exposed to drugs alchole crime ect.... So in other words have a wonderful upbringing.
DS and DD grow to there teens, DS makes friends with a boy that comes from an abusive home. DS comes in contact with drugs and alchole and go off the rails a bit.
Mum and Dad try and help him but he runs away, DS and his friend go to a party and gang rape a young girl.
Whos fault it it?
I apologize if this statment upsets anyone its just another way of looking at it.
You could replace rape with murder.
Or look at every person sitting in the prison system, not every prisoner had a bad life, alot had a life that was TOO go and once they hit adulthood they wanted to try and make an easy life without havent to work for it.
There comes a time when a parent has done the best they can and a adult has to take resposability for his/her own life.
This is where Jax comment comes in, if the parent sat and smoked dope n front of there child that child will learn its ok to do so. But if the parent has dont everything in there power to show there children the right way then no there not to blame.
SD your situation with dad child and mary, well the bit that stands out to me would be that dad did his very best and mum walks back in and everything blows up BUT the "child" is 18 years old and knows right from wrong (i am assuming as dad hasnt had any problems before mum came back) and at 18 is old enought to make his/her own choices so i dot believe anyone but the young adult is to blame.
It so hard to put in to words though and its something that isnt as simple as left and right.
everyones lifes are different so it would be like a case to case answer. But all in all you can only do you very best with your kids and if mine do bad things as adults i will not blame myself, they are adults, and have there own minds and hearts.
Idonttrustjelly
14-04-2009, 14:18
Sorry, i have not read all of the previous posts yet... so if this has been said or argued ... then :rolleyes:.
"If mothers have traditionally been the primary carers for children of intact and separated families for many, many decades. Then shouldn't a portion of the responsibility for the attitudes and behaviours of adult males of today be borne by them. Not to mention the high levels of truancy, promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse and aggressive behaviour of children from broken homes."
This is a tricky one! It's not as black and white and simple as the question poses. There are so many factors to take into account and i think that i won't even be able to add half of them in... but i will try and make my answer as simple as possible.
I Believe there are two stages to this scenario.
1. It all depends on the mother/caregiver
and
2. what the child desides for themselves once they've become an adult.
For instance... if the mother/caregiver had not raised the child with good morals and behaviour... then the child would almost be expected to turn out with problems and yes... you could blame the mother/caregiver for inevitably ruining that childs life by not equiping them with the nessasary tools that they would need to resist such peer pressures as drugs and violence.
But... if the mother/caregiver has raised the child with love and spent time teaching them about negative influences that can be absorbed through Tv, radio, friends, schools magazines etc... then you can't blame the mother/caregiver for the actions the child will make once they have become an adult and have the right and conscience to decide what they want to do with their own lives.
So... in answer to the quetion above... i would say that it is both yes and no.
Yes if the mother/caregiver has not been a good role model for the child in their upbringing
then she is responsible for a portion of his behaviour...
but... No it is not her responsiblity of the adult male if the mother/caregiver has done all the "right" things and the end result has been disaster.
:) J
hi, just a thought to ssp, Howcome if the successful outcome deserves a round of applause and recognition for the mother, then the bad outcome is the absent fathers fault?? Is not the mother taking on too much on her sholders??? I think if the fathers is absent, how is the outcome his fault?? maybe the mother should thank the father for getting out of the way, so she could be successful without him. I'm trying to understand what you have said, I have read it through twice. I believe both parents are inpart responsible for the outcome, be it good or bad, both have to have some share in the results. Marie.
:eek:You cannot seriously think that any man should be thanked for being absent in their child's life:no:.
Wow, that's just blown me away.
Phyllis Stein
14-04-2009, 14:23
I find the question abhorrent and sensationalist. :) It's no more a genuine enquiry into social ills than a question such as "how much responsibility do Indigenous people bear for the injustices carried out against them?" is. They are both thinly veiled attempts to apportion blame to a historically disadvantaged and oppressed class of people, while absolving the dominant class from any responsibility.
A question I'd be happy to discuss would be something akin to "how does the gender of the primary caregiver affect the outcomes of the dependents?" My response to such a question would be something along the lines of this:
Good or adequate parenting is not mediated by gender, but factors such as class, education, poverty, personal autonomy and empowerment of the parent (all things that do impact unequally on the genders) have a significant impact on the outcomes of dependents. Therefore, social inequities based on gender (patriarchy) are detrimental to the outcomes of children reared by single mothers.
Jakois, many is the time that mothers on this site have been grateful that their male partner has left.
Claiming that he was either abusive, violent, alcoholic, selfish, drug addicted or all them. I have read the posts where mothers are thankful the father is no longer in the childs/mothers life.
And perhaps rightly so.
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-04-2009, 14:25
hi, just a thought to ssp, Howcome if the successful outcome deserves a round of applause and recognition for the mother, then the bad outcome is the absent fathers fault?? Is not the mother taking on too much on her sholders??? I think if the fathers is absent, how is the outcome his fault?? maybe the mother should thank the father for getting out of the way, so she could be successful without him. I'm trying to understand what you have said, I have read it through twice. I believe both parents are inpart responsible for the outcome, be it good or bad, both have to have some share in the results. Marie.
I actually think if a parent is left alone to raise a child and things are tough and the child "goes off the rails" so to speak then they still deserve a round of applause, because parentings a tough gig and even tougher when doing it all alone.
I think every time a parent bows out and doesn't do their very best to support a child then they should drink rotten eggs for eternity, and should take full responsibility for their actions. That includes acknowledging that if they were involved in their childs life and did their best it may benifit the child enormously.
They should also acknowledge that the other custodial parent while never perfect is still a better person and deserves respect for at least trying to do their best.
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-04-2009, 14:27
I find the question abhorrent and sensationalist. :) It's no more a genuine enquiry into social ills than a question such as "how much responsibility do Indigenous people bear for the injustices carried out against them?" is. They are both thinly veiled attempts to apportion blame to a historically disadvantaged and oppressed class of people, while absolving the dominant class from any responsibility.
A question I'd be happy to discuss would be something akin to "how does the gender of the primary caregiver affect the outcomes of the dependents?" My response to such a question would be something along the lines of this:
Good or adequate parenting is not mediated by gender, but factors such as class, education, poverty, personal autonomy and empowerment of the parent (all things that do impact unequally on the genders) have a significant impact on the outcomes of dependents. Therefore, social inequities based on gender (patriarchy) are detrimental to the outcomes of children reared by single mothers.
:iagree:
SuperGranny
14-04-2009, 14:27
hi jakois, im saying both parents should share the responsibility for the outcome. The sentence about thanking the father, was begun with 'maybe'. where I said "I believe, ..... " that is what I am actually saying as what I think. It is hard to get the message across inside a computer screen, cheers, Marie.
Jakois, many is the time that mothers on this site have been grateful that their male partner has left.
Claiming that he was either abusive, violent, alcoholic, selfish, drug addicted or all them. I have read the posts where mothers are thankful the father is no longer in the childs/mothers life.
And perhaps rightly so.
I am sure that they would have preferred that the father of their child stepped up to the plate and became a good role model though.
I do not think they should be thanked for being absent.
I think they should be ashamed that they were not adult enough to be a positive influence in the life of their child.
I find the question abhorrent and sensationalist. :) It's no more a genuine enquiry into social ills than a question such as "how much responsibility do Indigenous people bear for the injustices carried out against them?" is. They are both thinly veiled attempts to apportion blame to a historically disadvantaged and oppressed class of people, while absolving the dominant class from any responsibility.
A question I'd be happy to discuss would be something akin to "how does the gender of the primary caregiver affect the outcomes of the dependents?" My response to such a question would be something along the lines of this:
Good or adequate parenting is not mediated by gender, but factors such as class, education, poverty, personal autonomy and empowerment of the parent (all things that do impact unequally on the genders) have a significant impact on the outcomes of dependents. Therefore, social inequities based on gender (patriarchy) are detrimental to the outcomes of children reared by single mothers.
:iagree: :iagree: :iagree: :iagree:.
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-04-2009, 14:36
I am sure that they would have preferred that the father of their child stepped up to the plate and became a good role model though.
I do not think they should be thanked for being absent.
I think they should be ashamed that they were not adult enough to be a positive influence in the life of their child.
:iagree:
And I repeat that Phyllis Stein is right.:smiliedance:
I am sure that they would have preferred that the father of their child stepped up to the plate and became a good role model though.
I do not think they should be thanked for being absent.
I think they should be ashamed that they were not adult enough to be a positive influence in the life of their child.
In some situations is is probably better that a bad role model father be absent. I think Marie is saying in situations where the mother is doing her very best but the father is a very bad role model the mother would be thankful if the father wasnt around (well thats how i would be to)
I dont think she was saying it with the thought of the father being a good father.
I know that if my DS father was doing drugs or crime around i son then my son would be better of without him, and i would be very thankful if he walked away.
But i do agree that drop kick dads should be ashamed of themselfs but in most cases they dont care enough about themselfs let alone caring about being a father.
I am all for a dad that did wrong thats trying to do right being around, In my situation it took XP 4 years to wake up to himself and realise he was a bad role model but he came back with a better attitude and my son has a real father now.
MimiGrace
14-04-2009, 14:43
I find the question abhorrent and sensationalist. :) It's no more a genuine enquiry into social ills than a question such as "how much responsibility do Indigenous people bear for the injustices carried out against them?" is. They are both thinly veiled attempts to apportion blame to a historically disadvantaged and oppressed class of people, while absolving the dominant class from any responsibility.
A question I'd be happy to discuss would be something akin to "how does the gender of the primary caregiver affect the outcomes of the dependents?" My response to such a question would be something along the lines of this:
Good or adequate parenting is not mediated by gender, but factors such as class, education, poverty, personal autonomy and empowerment of the parent (all things that do impact unequally on the genders) have a significant impact on the outcomes of dependents. Therefore, social inequities based on gender (patriarchy) are detrimental to the outcomes of children reared by single mothers.
:iagree::iagree::iagree::thumbsup:well said
I find the question abhorrent and sensationalist. :) It's no more a genuine enquiry into social ills than a question such as "how much responsibility do Indigenous people bear for the injustices carried out against them?" is. They are both thinly veiled attempts to apportion blame to a historically disadvantaged and oppressed class of people, while absolving the dominant class from any responsibility.
A question I'd be happy to discuss would be something akin to "how does the gender of the primary caregiver affect the outcomes of the dependents?" My response to such a question would be something along the lines of this:
Good or adequate parenting is not mediated by gender, but factors such as class, education, poverty, personal autonomy and empowerment of the parent (all things that do impact unequally on the genders) have a significant impact on the outcomes of dependents. Therefore, social inequities based on gender (patriarchy) are detrimental to the outcomes of children reared by single mothers.
Mahna, you and I agree on many things, and our thinking often seems to come from the same feminist perspective.
This is why I am baffled by your response.
Various strands of feminism have acknowledged for many years that the attitudes of our MOTHERS are equally, or in some cases more responsible for the patriarchal values we often unknowingly perpetuate.
That is not denying that patriarchy exists, but understanding that women DO play a part in reproducing the very attitudes that enslave us. (As do men, of course.)
So why should it be a stretch to claim that solo parents - usually women - have shaped their children's attitudes, morals, values etc? If we believe that one parents absence can have an effect, can we not understand that another's presence will have an even greater effect?
SoloDad is not denying the wider social environment plays a factor. He is not claiming women are essentially bad or wrong or that single mothers are bad parents.
He is asking a perfectly valid question. Any sexism lays in the ANSWERS. And in the repugnant suggestions (not yours!) that he should not be allowed to ask in the first place because he happens to be a man.
Ok...For once i was lost for words. And it doesn't look like i'm the only one. My immediate response was to launch gratefully into a big thank you. But that might seem trite or even a little cute. To not acknowledge Jaq's words, well that would be ungrateful and rude of me.
Jaq, thanks a lot, i mean it.
So, in return, if anyone has ever considered i was teasing, tempting, taunting, inflaming or baiting. Let me assure you now, that it will not occur again. But, i want the same back. I have every right to be here, and i have every right to pose the tough and difficult questions that some people don't like me asking.
Moving on;
I believe that the greatest influences children can have are their parents. To blame external influences such as media, peer groups and other societal pressures as wholely or even largely responsible is in my opinion abdicating our responsibilities as parents.
It is up to us as parents to 'stay on top of' what is happening in our childrens lives. If we don't have time, then that is our fault. I'm not denying that i make this sound overly simplistic, but to me it isn't. Parenting used to be a full time job, these days it has become a part time job for many. I sacrificed an income just shy of what our Prime Minister earns, to be not just the parent i want to be, but the parent that i believe my daughter would want me to be.
If my daughter becomes a burden or a problem for society through her lack of morals, values and ethics, then it is my fault entirely. I'm not going to blame anything or anyone but myself. Because these influences happened on my shift, while she was in my care, and while i was responsible for her. It is up to me to deal with them as they arise.
So therefore, in my opinion the primary carer in a sole parent situation has to accept a large measure of responsibility for the outcomes. Be they male or female. Unfortunately responsibility also implies blame.
If your daughter is old enough to make bad decisions shouldn't she be old enough to take the blame? Given you have raised her in the best possible way you could.
Ok...For once i was lost for words. And it doesn't look like i'm the only one. My immediate response was to launch gratefully into a big thank you. But that might seem trite or even a little cute. To not acknowledge Jaq's words, well that would be ungrateful and rude of me.
Jaq, thanks a lot, i mean it.
So, in return, if anyone has ever considered i was teasing, tempting, taunting, inflaming or baiting. Let me assure you now, that it will not occur again. But, i want the same back. I have every right to be here, and i have every right to pose the tough and difficult questions that some people don't like me asking.
Moving on;
I believe that the greatest influences children can have are their parents. To blame external influences such as media, peer groups and other societal pressures as wholely or even largely responsible is in my opinion abdicating our responsibilities as parents.
It is up to us as parents to 'stay on top of' what is happening in our childrens lives. If we don't have time, then that is our fault. I'm not denying that i make this sound overly simplistic, but to me it isn't. Parenting used to be a full time job, these days it has become a part time job for many. I sacrificed an income just shy of what our Prime Minister earns, to be not just the parent i want to be, but the parent that i believe my daughter would want me to be.
If my daughter becomes a burden or a problem for society through her lack of morals, values and ethics, then it is my fault entirely. I'm not going to blame anything or anyone but myself. Because these influences happened on my shift, while she was in my care, and while i was responsible for her. It is up to me to deal with them as they arise.
So therefore, in my opinion the primary carer in a sole parent situation has to accept a large measure of responsibility for the outcomes. Be they male or female. Unfortunately responsibility also implies blame.
Your ex wife does her share though.
Sorry, but I'm not taking 100% responsibility for my son's ratbagishness when he has a useless father who makes my life a living hell and I have no support at all with anything :gloomy:
If anything has failed my son, it's the community for not offering us support. Same with most other single mothers I know (sorry, but I really cannot think of ANY full-time sole fathers).
Personally I find that silly that you are going to take the whole blame soley for all your daughters 'bad choices' so to speak.
To say you would take all the blame, you are talking about another independant person with a different personality and different thinking etc
Ana Gram
14-04-2009, 18:11
That's fine for you to think that Solodad, you are entitled to your opinion. I still don't agree though. I chose to guide my child with what I believe is the best way to live, it's up to her as to whether she agrees. She is an individual and has free will which I support whole heartedly.
Angike, sorry its probably my fault in my wording somewhere.
But i'm not suggesting anyone takes 100% blame, just a portion of it. Be they male or female.
xxLillixx, I really don't think that at 18 we can lumber a young person with that much responsibility, or blame. To me, it would mean i had still failed somewhere as she should know better, and i'm the one that should have taught her to know better. It still comes back to me.
Values, ethics and morals don't have a switch that goes off and on. They are either instilled properly or they are spoken about as throwaway lines.
Ana Gram
14-04-2009, 18:17
Values, ethics and morals don't have a switch that goes off and on. They are either instilled properly or they are spoken about as throwaway lines.
I don't agree. I still believe it is down to the individual and free will.
Again, my parents instilled the exact same values, ethics and morals into my brother and I. We still chose to do things a lot differently.
Angike, sorry its probably my fault in my wording somewhere.
But i'm not suggesting anyone takes 100% blame, just a portion of it.
xxLillixx, I really don't think that at 18 we can lumber a young person with that much responsibility, or blame. To me, it would mean i had still failed somewhere as she should know better, and i'm the one that should have taught her to know better. It still comes back to me.
Values, ethics and morals don't have a switch that goes off and on. They are either instilled properly or they are spoken about as throwaway lines.
You are kidding right 18:confused:
No solodad you didn't fail, you did what you could to instill her with the best morals, ethics and values. She failed you by not using those tools she was given as a child. Infact 18 is when you become repsonsible in the eyes of the law for your own mistakes.
Solodad did you listen you parents when you were younger did you take everything they said like a gospel? Did you ever do things that you shouldnt??
Talk to the parents of the Bali Nine. Every one of them is blaming themselves. I often have had to interview parents about the 'bad' behaviour of their children. The majority blame themselves in some way.
MummyDaddy
14-04-2009, 18:22
"If mothers have traditionally been the primary carers for children of intact and separated families for many, many decades. Then shouldn't a portion of the responsibility for the attitudes and behaviours of adult males of today be borne by them. Not to mention the high levels of truancy, promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse and aggressive behaviour of children from broken homes."
Going off to a meeting soon but would like to enter into the frey (although not so much now :)) with some initial thoughts.
1. I would be interested to read the statistics of children who go down the same path from 2 parent families.
2. I would be interested to read the socio economic background of these children.
3. I would be interested to read the age of the mother when she gave birth.
4. I would be interested to know if these mothers were given much support from family and other.
5. I would be interested to know if we are talking about a situation that was 20 years ago ie: in the 80s.
I think there are many reasons whiy a child raised in a single parent family with no interaction from the father may develop in this way.
I also believe that children from two parent families can go down this path.
xxLillixx, It could also mean that i didn't teach her to use the tools properly. And no, i'm not kidding about any of this. It is too much of an important subject to be treated lightly.
Talk to the parents of the Bali Nine. Every one of them is blaming themselves. I often have had to interview parents about the 'bad' behaviour of their children. The majority blame themselves in some way.
What are coincidence, 9 men involved in crime with nine parents blaming themselves, I don't buy it.
Blame blame blame, people always look beyond the real issue and find something or someone to blame to make peace in their lifes.
So why don't they lock up the parents then?????
MimiGrace
14-04-2009, 18:30
You are kidding right 18:confused:
No solodad you didn't fail, you did what you could to instill her with the best morals, ethics and values. She failed you by not using those tools she was given as a child. Infact 18 is when you become repsonsible in the eyes of the law for your own mistakes.
Solodad did you listen you parents when you were younger did you take everything they said like a gospel? Did you ever do things that you shouldnt??
I completely agree with this.
I am still sitting here a bit baffled that you could think people my age (because i was 18 not too long ago) are NOT accountable for their own actions :confused:
By what age should 'we' be held accountable for our own actions?
MummyDaddy
14-04-2009, 18:31
Various strands of feminism have acknowledged for many years that the attitudes of our MOTHERS are equally, or in some cases more responsible for the patriarchal values we often unknowingly perpetuate.
That is not denying that patriarchy exists, but understanding that women DO play a part in reproducing the very attitudes that enslave us. (As do men, of course.)
So why should it be a stretch to claim that solo parents - usually women - have shaped their children's attitudes, morals, values etc?
Well said ...
I believe that the greatest influences children can have are their parents. To blame external influences such as media, peer groups and other societal pressures as wholely or even largely responsible is in my opinion abdicating our responsibilities as parents.
Again - agree. It's easy to put the blame on others. Taking responsibility seems to be the toughest thing for any gender to do. Male in accepting an unwanted pregnancy and stepping up to the plate. Female in admitting she may have parented her child (on her own or other) and things didn't turn out so well. It's human to err, human's also don't seem to realise it's perfectly ok to own that error and move forward into a better future with that knowledge under their belt.
If your daughter is old enough to make bad decisions shouldn't she be old enough to take the blame? Given you have raised her in the best possible way you could.
Not sure why you're making this personal.
My understanding was that this was a question posed in general to create debate.
The thread isn't about what SoloDad does - or what you do. It's about debating the philosophy of parenting and how children can sometimes go off the rails. In this particular situation when under the care of a single mother.
I think SoloDad stated further back he was not having a go at anyone.
Ok xxLillixx, it's my fault for taking us there. But we are now off topic. Sorry about that.
Ana Gram
14-04-2009, 18:32
The Bali 9 still had free will. As does everyone.
MummyDaddy
14-04-2009, 18:35
Didn't Shapelle Corby come from a two parent home?
Does that scupper that theory?
Not sure why you're making this personal.
My understanding was that this was a question posed in general to create debate.
The thread isn't about what SoloDad does - or what you do. It's about debating the philosophy of parenting and how children can sometimes go off the rails. In this particular situation when under the care of a single mother.
I think SoloDad stated further back he was not having a go at anyone.
:confused: I don't think your following correcting my response was in reply to this:
If my daughter becomes a burden or a problem for society through her lack of morals, values and ethics, then it is my fault entirely. I'm not going to blame anything or anyone but myself. Because these influences happened on my shift, while she was in my care, and while i was responsible for her. It is up to me to deal with them as they arise.
Nothing personal?, simply giving a hypothetical scenario. Completely relavant to topic.
No Phoenix, Schapelle's situation wasn't a 2 parent home. One of my favourite subjects too. I think you have my full name, google it along with the word Corby. You'll see i know a great deal about them.
3 fathers, 5 kids. Mick Corby Snr and Rosleigh Rose split up when Schapelle was about 2 or 3 years old. Schapelle lived at various times with either mom or dad.
MummyDaddy
14-04-2009, 18:40
:confused: I don't think your following correcting my response was in reply to this:
Nothing personal?, simply giving a hypothetical scenario. Completely relavant to topic.
Ah - that will teach me to not read the whole thread ... thanks for clarifying.
I personally think it's better to have these discussions and not bring personal situations into it - as in 'this is what i do', it usually leads to personal attacks and going off track! JMO!
I agree Phoenix, it was my mistake. I doubt i will do it again.
MummyDaddy
14-04-2009, 18:43
No Phoenix, Schapelle's situation was this. One of my favourite subjects too. I think you have my full name, google it along with the word Corby. You'll see i know a great deal about them.
3 fathers, 5 kids. Mick Corby Snr and Rosleigh Rose split up when Schapelle was about 2 or 3 years old. Schapelle lived at various times with either mom or dad.
Aha ... and with regards to the situations you quote or have researched - what was their socio economic background.
My point being. If a child is raised by a single mother with no contact from the father yet has access to private schooling, lives in an excellent area, is given extra curricular opportunities, has great support from family and friends etc. does the rate of the child turning to drugs and crime remain the same or diminish?
Ah - that will teach me to not read the whole thread ... thanks for clarifying.
I personally think it's better to have these discussions and not bring personal situations into it - as in 'this is what i do', it usually leads to personal attacks and going off track! JMO!
I don't know what your talking about tbh? personal situations?
We need more people and some fresh input. At least if we are going to go around in circles, then we could make the circle bigger.
Well, they lived in a low socio-economic area. Low income earners. Rosleigh Rose worked several jobs. But they did always have some very grand and expensive toys...read between the lines there.
The kids all went to low socio-economic schools, all had contact with their bio fathers and their relationships with both parents was reputed to be very good.
I have some strong personal and professional opinions on this subject Phoenix and the terms of settlement between Network 7 and the Corby's are confidential, so i do need to be careful here.
We need more people and some fresh input. At least if we are going to go around in circles, then we could make the circle bigger.
You'll be outnumbered buddy heheheheh:p
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-04-2009, 18:49
Aha ... and with regards to the situations you quote or have researched - what was their socio economic background.
My point being. If a child is raised by a single mother with no contact from the father yet has access to private schooling, lives in an excellent area, is given extra curricular opportunities, has great support from family and friends etc. does the rate of the child turning to drugs and crime remain the same or diminish?
It diminishes.
It is a shame that all children arn't given the same opportunities in life.
Many women who are raisning children alone are blamed by society for their situation and offered little in regards to social support.
Obviously the life chances of the child mentioned above are going to be higher then the child from a poor scocio ecenomic area.
Phoenix i've been involved in many drug investigations with the Network and then with the Government.
My experience is that the wealthier the family, the better quality drugs the kids can buy.
I've done 3 drugs in school stories for TV. We had greater successes at the Private Schools than at the public schools.
But aren't we getting off topic again....and yes i am just as guilty.
xxLillixx...it's not personal.
MummyDaddy
14-04-2009, 18:55
I don't know what your talking about tbh? personal situations?
That's when you bring your own experience into the discussion like what SoloDad did before.
Speaking from a personal standpoint isn't particularly inducive in promoting discussion, it usually just creates argument that isn't productive or on point trailing off into pointless argument based off topic.
I've seen it happen hundreds of time on BubHub.
It's disappointing because it usually ruins otherwise intelligent debate which is great to see in this thread.
I agree SoloDad - new voices are needed.
I hate posting questions and receiving no answer or thought in response. It's why I usually never engage past a certain point in BubHub threads.
It would be great if there could be debate without nastiness!
Ana Gram
14-04-2009, 18:57
I'm not sure what more can be said here. You either agree with it or you don't :confused:
"It would be great if there could be debate without nastiness."
Yes please. I agree.
Chellegoth, lets hear what some other people have to say. How many of us here, a dozen!
I'll be back with some fresh voices shortly.
MummyDaddy
14-04-2009, 19:00
It's not off topic. It's actually very on topic.
It's pointing to other factors that are responsible for these 'people' ending up the way they are.
In your intial post SoloDad you lay the 'blame' at the single mothers feet - at their parenting abilities. You say that statistics show that children who come from Single Parent families are more likely to have a child that goes off the rails. You mentioned drugs, crime and more (correct me if i'm wrong), you spoke about morals.
My point is that their socio economic status has a lot to do with how the child ends up. Add to that a single parent situation in a low income, high crime area and it would seem the risk of the child ending up on a tragic path increases.
Or perhaps I am missing the point of your initial post - entirely possible!
Phoenix you are entirely correct. My mistake.
However not being picky here but i lay a "portion" of the blame, not all of it.
I agree with the point you make also, it is often very true.
MummyDaddy
14-04-2009, 19:15
SoloDad, yes please bring new voices! I am going to my meeting soon but glad I engaged to a point, will be back! Hope to see some argument that engages my interest and inspires new thought.
I agree with you by the way that there has to be a portion of blame at the parents feet.
I believe we live in a country where people can educate themself and pull themself up out of the gutter. However, there are plenty of people who like to wallow on their misery, they stay where they are because they believe they are trapped and can not leave their situations. What they don't realise is that they are trapped by the cage in their mind.
Education is the key I believe - have always thought that. I know it's hard to have a baby in your teens, to then get educated and do well - but it can be done.
Anyway - now i'm going off topic. Will come back after my meeting. Work always gets in the way of a good discussion!
forbetoel
14-04-2009, 19:21
My experience is that the wealthier the family, the better quality drugs the kids can buy.
This is very true. Although not better quality - just more expensive.
Phyllis Stein
14-04-2009, 19:36
Mahna, you and I agree on many things, and our thinking often seems to come from the same feminist perspective.
This is why I am baffled by your response.
Various strands of feminism have acknowledged for many years that the attitudes of our MOTHERS are equally, or in some cases more responsible for the patriarchal values we often unknowingly perpetuate.
That is not denying that patriarchy exists, but understanding that women DO play a part in reproducing the very attitudes that enslave us. (As do men, of course.)
So why should it be a stretch to claim that solo parents - usually women - have shaped their children's attitudes, morals, values etc? If we believe that one parents absence can have an effect, can we not understand that another's presence will have an even greater effect?
SoloDad is not denying the wider social environment plays a factor. He is not claiming women are essentially bad or wrong or that single mothers are bad parents.
He is asking a perfectly valid question. Any sexism lays in the ANSWERS. And in the repugnant suggestions (not yours!) that he should not be allowed to ask in the first place because he happens to be a man.
I didn't and wouldn't deny that women are reproducers of patriarchy, but I would add a qualifier in that they are not responsible for their position and choices in patriarchy in the same way or to the same extent that men are. Men have privileges that women simply do not. Men have access to more resources and the increased choices that follow on from them, hence they are far more responsible for the "state of the world" than women, whose options and choices are far more limited. It's both as simple and as complex as that.
My primary beef with the OP is in the wording and implications of his question/ statement. What is not included is as important as what is - to exclude any acknowledgement of the economic, social and political factors influencing women's lives implies that they are freely acting individuals unconstrained by patriarchy. It's akin to questioning the individual and group responsibilities of Indigenous peoples without mention of colonisation. It's impossible to separate the two.
"If mothers have traditionally been the primary carers for children of intact and separated families for many, many decades. Then shouldn't a portion of the responsibility for the attitudes and behaviours of adult males of today be borne by them. Not to mention the high levels of truancy, promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse and aggressive behaviour of children from broken homes."
"Responsibility" in the sense used above is a loaded word. Are women EVER responsible for men's violence, even their own sons? Of course mothers both model and teach their children the rules of patriarchy, but I wonder how much choice and therefore responsibility they bear in it. Not a lot, IMO. Responsibility here reads to me like victim-blaming.
My other issue with the OP is that it simply can't be read without reference to other statements the OP has made on the forum, which help paint a picture of his broader ideology, one not particularly complimentary to feminism as I read it. Such a question could never be expected to read as a "stand-alone" comment by any member. Perhaps if it had been framed with acknowledgement of it's controversial nature, and purely as an analytical exercise, my judgement may be less harsh.
Either way, I'm not asking for the post to be "disappeared", I'm simply engaging in the discussion the OP apparently wanted.
If you cant say something nice......
Phyllis Stein, i think you have placed a considerably greater emphasis on the word "responsibility" than was necessary or intended when i first placed the post.
If you wish to stay with that point then i think you should also acknowledge that the word preceding it "portion" should have similar emphasis.
If you have actually read many of my posts in this thread you will note that i am more than ready to take the 'blame' or 'responsibility' for the outcomes of my child. I have stated several times that if the man is the sole carer then the responsibility for the outcomes would be his. Please read the thread and my posts in their entirety.
I believe the question was re-framed when it was reposted by me, with sufficient disclaimers about the intention of the post. But aren't you continuing to argue about me, and not the topic?
Mrs Nietzsche
14-04-2009, 19:46
I would point out that the feminist explanation for any reinforcement of sexism/ other dodgy stuff in their sons/children generally is due to the fact that:
1. As women in a patriarchy, often the only way that women can attain any semblance of power is *through* thier sons. Therefore by producing sons that adhere to the patriarchal norms, they gain some measure of vicarious power.
2. As a disenfranchised segment of society, women often lack the means to do otherwise. Mothers are generally economically dependent on a man, or else impoverished, and neither of those two states are conducive to breaking the conventions in any kind of productive way with respects to how kids are raised.
Talk to the parents of the Bali Nine. Every one of them is blaming themselves. I often have had to interview parents about the 'bad' behaviour of their children. The majority blame themselves in some way.
This is where I think ppl are mixing up the question, even though they blame themselfs do other ppl blame them as parents?
Maybe that is whre the argument lies, Do we blame ourselfs for our childrens faults and failures, and do OTHER people blame childrens parents for the way there kids turned out.
So many parents that have lost a child blame themselfs but other people dont blame them because so many things in life and nature play a huge part of what will be.
"It would be great if there could be debate without nastiness."
Yes please. I agree.
Chellegoth, lets hear what some other people have to say. How many of us here, a dozen!
I'll be back with some fresh voices shortly.
I love healthy debate as well.
Maybe if SSP thread on this subject was reopened you may have more voices, as the thread title her is Hello and alot of members have no idea there is a debate going on.
After reading the responces i do see both side and understand ppls way of thinking.
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-04-2009, 19:58
I didn't and wouldn't deny that women are reproducers of patriarchy, but I would add a qualifier in that they are not responsible for their position and choices in patriarchy in the same way or to the same extent that men are. Men have privileges that women simply do not. Men have access to more resources and the increased choices that follow on from them, hence they are far more responsible for the "state of the world" than women, whose options and choices are far more limited. It's both as simple and as complex as that.
My primary beef with the OP is in the wording and implications of his question/ statement. What is not included is as important as what is - to exclude any acknowledgement of the economic, social and political factors influencing women's lives implies that they are freely acting individuals unconstrained by patriarchy. It's akin to questioning the individual and group responsibilities of Indigenous peoples without mention of colonisation. It's impossible to separate the two.
"Responsibility" in the sense used above is a loaded word. Are women EVER responsible for men's violence, even their own sons? Of course mothers both model and teach their children the rules of patriarchy, but I wonder how much choice and therefore responsibility they bear in it. Not a lot, IMO. Responsibility here reads to me like victim-blaming.
My other issue with the OP is that it simply can't be read without reference to other statements the OP has made on the forum, which help paint a picture of his broader ideology, one not particularly complimentary to feminism as I read it. Such a question could never be expected to read as a "stand-alone" comment by any member. Perhaps if it had been framed with acknowledgement of it's controversial nature, and purely as an analytical exercise, my judgement may be less harsh.
Either way, I'm not asking for the post to be "disappeared", I'm simply engaging in the discussion the OP apparently wanted.
:detective: I wonder if your posts will be debated or merely ignored except for the fact that you placed too much emphasis on the word responsibility?;)
I agree with your post bAaM, you pointed out some things that others have failed to see.
We do have some more people on their way. So hopefully we will get some new comments soon.
There really has been some fascinating viewpoints and opinions posted here. Much that i hadn't even considered.
I really liked the posts by Phoenix Rising, Phyllis Stein and Jaq. So very well written and informative. I got a great deal of pleasure reading them, they were incredibly informative and enlightening. So much that i hadn't even considered before. A big thanks to them.
Dreambeliever
14-04-2009, 20:03
thought id add my two cents worth...(im not great with words so bare with me)
i think that there are so many factors that influence a child and no one thing can be solely responsible. parents are obviously a large part of this but it can only take one senario, one particular situation or event in a childs life to send them along a particular path.
i also find the whole 'blame' thing a bit pointless. for me personally, in most situations i see no use in blaming someone. if your child goes down the 'wrong' path then i believe the only thing you should be thinking about is how to help your child get on a healthier and happy road in life.
forbetoel
14-04-2009, 20:15
I do think that there are a few woman who put all of ther negative views on males onto their little boys. I have seen it first hand.
'Some' women who maybe have had negative male role models fail to see the innocent little baby boy with all the potential to be a caring loving, gentle human being, and only see the baby as another bloody man.
RoarsomeMum
14-04-2009, 20:17
:iagree::iagree: (with what, Im not sure)
You all make valid points, yada, yada,
Portion is a nice non threatening word.. I'll take a Peice (or Piece) :yes::yelclap:
Phyllis Stein
14-04-2009, 20:29
Phyllis Stein, i think you have placed a considerably greater emphasis on the word "responsibility" than was necessary or intended when i first placed the post.
If you wish to stay with that point then i think you should also acknowledge that the word preceding it "portion" should have similar emphasis.
The word "portion" does little to mitigate the implications of the rest of the statement, which place women as bearing primary responsibility for their adult children's behaviour. Your logic is essentially that primary parent = primary responsibility for outcomes.
If you have actually read many of my posts in this thread you will note that i am more than ready to take the 'blame' or 'responsibility' for the outcomes of my child. I have stated several times that if the man is the sole carer then the responsibility for the outcomes would be his. Please read the thread and my posts in their entirety.
I have. Honestly, the initial question/ statement that you made has framed the entire discussion and can't be thrown away simply because it's no longer working for you.
I believe the question was re-framed when it was reposted by me, with sufficient disclaimers about the intention of the post. But aren't you continuing to argue about me, and the not the topic?
Not arguing with you at all. My reply was in response to Jaq's post and was entirely in keeping with the topic. :)
For the record and in the interests if discussion, if reference to the gender of the primary parent is removed, my response to the question: "Does the primary care-giver bear partial responsibility for the consequent behaviour of the children they care for?" is no. A parent, be they single or partnered is responsible only for being the best parent they can be with the resources, knowledge and choices open to them and in the context of the society they live in. Can they still negatively influence their children's outcomes? Of course. But they are not responsible for them. The failings of our society are where the bulk of that responsibility lies - parent's can only do their best to compensate for those failings.
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-04-2009, 20:31
I do think that there are a few woman who put all of ther negative views on males onto their little boys. I have seen it first hand.
'Some' women who maybe have had negative male role models fail to see the innocent little baby boy with all the potential to be a caring loving, gentle human being, and only see the baby as another bloody man.
I would think that the above examples would be few and far between.
forbetoel
14-04-2009, 20:34
I would think that the above examples would be few and far between.
I hope so, but I have seen it. I remember a thread a while back (maybe last year) where the expectant mother of a little boy was having these exact feelings.:gloomy:
I don't care if it hardly ever happens - it should never happen.
I don't care if it hardly ever happens - it should never happen.
:iagree:
That's why I think too much emphasis is placed on gender.
I know many men who treat their daughters differently to their sons simply because they are girls. In fact, my XBIL told his daughters on a daily basis that he would have been much luckier if he had boys because girls are 'only good for three things'.
People need to calm down altogether with the gender issue.
For the record and in the interests if discussion, if reference to the gender of the primary parent is removed, my response to the question: "Does the primary care-giver bear partial responsibility for the consequent behaviour of the children they care for?" is no. A parent, be they single or partnered is responsible only for being the best parent they can be with the resources, knowledge and choices open to them and in the context of the society they live in. Can they still negatively influence their children's outcomes? Of course. But they are not responsible for them. The failings of our society are where the bulk of that responsibility lies - parent's can only do their best to compensate for those failings.[/quote]
Phyllis, i disagree. In my opinion a parent has to bear a portion of the blame or responsibility. Who determines "best parent". Surely you have met or witnessed parents who really aren't trying to be good parents. Do we exonerate them? It's a cop-out to blame society when we fail as parents.
People aren't making the effort to be the best parent they can be in my opinion. I have met so many people who have completed University studies of 4 years or more to obtain a good career.
But have they completed 4 years of studies to be a "good parent".
What's more important? What contributes to the greater good of the many? Children are our future and they deserve every bit of effort we can make. I just don't believe many are making the effort, for whatever reasons.
Your mastery of the written word is exceptional and i am not trying to patronise you. If you wish to change my or anyones elses opinion, please continue, because i am very interested in what you have to say.
I'll be the first to admit that i might be just another ignorant male when it comes to what women go through and what they experience. But if i was to use your theory, then it's neither my parents fault, nor mine. It is society's. I don't accept that. My parents never tried to educate me thoroughly about women. I've had to read books, research the internet and ask questions. I won't let that happen if i have a son.
Also i'm not backing away from the original question or statement at all. I still stand by it. Women are in the main the primary carers.
misskittyfantastico
14-04-2009, 20:43
People need to calm down altogether with the gender issue.
The OP made it about gender from the very onset.
The OP made it about gender from the very onset.
I know ;)
Ana Gram
14-04-2009, 20:51
Ok, I am failing to see what the point of this is now. It appears that you just want us to agree with you :confused: You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, which I think it wrong, but banging on about it in a long winded argument is really not getting you anywhere.
And just quietly, if what you know about women, you have learned from books, the internet and "asking questions", you have quite a way to go.
misskittyfantastico
14-04-2009, 20:54
I know ;)
Ah, bugger me! Don't be all subtle Ang - I'll miss it.:D
Ok, I am failing to see what the point of this is now. It appears that you just want us to agree with you :confused:
That.
:)
Ah, bugger me! Don't be all subtle Ang - I'll miss it.:D
Hehehe :p
Chellegoth, It's not about me. There is no "us". There are a lot of ladies on this thread who have made some very good points. For either viewpoint.
I think you might be trying to make it an us and them argument, but it isn't working.
And yes, i might have "quite a long way to go" yet. But at least i'm interested.
Ana Gram
14-04-2009, 21:03
I think you might be trying to make it an us and them argument, but it isn't working.
:laughing: Um no. I don't think so.
Im not sure what the OP is actually asking, but after reading through the thread, this seems to be the old nature vs. nuture debate. The answer to "who is responsible for a child's behaviour/how they turned out" is different for every single child. Its part who parented, who didn't parent, genetics, environment, peers, the list is endless.
I sooooo no i posted this but then it wasnt there:confused:
I AM GOING CRAZY:eek:
Just a bit of editing ..because you love you & me
:laughing:You are sooooo Speshy Malol, You are on my list for the next awards for the member i want to meet IRL. OH and maybe you could take solodad as your date.
im sorry what is the question?
Bronny why does your sig say gone for good:hissy:You CANT go:(
Solodad, just wondering where you are recruiting your other 'voices' from?
I think if your after a healthy debate with different opinions you need to open it up to the WHOLE forum. there is no way of alot of members seeing this unless there told or in for a stickybeak like me:p
So are the ppl u are recruiting ppl that are going to come in with the same opinion as you I wonder??
Which would then mean that chellegoth would be right cause you bring ppl on your opinion to try and win your way of thinking.
Mrs Nietzsche
14-04-2009, 21:19
Just in case anyone is interested:
Numerous studies have examined the impact of divorce on parents and children, but most of these studies have been restricted to single-mother families. This study compared differences in role demands, relationships, and child functioning using the responses of parents and children in 30 single-mother, 30 single-father, and 30 intact families. Single fathers had better resources than single mothers, more positive parenting than married fathers, and relied more on friends than the married parents. Single mothers had less education, less prestigious jobs, lower incomes, and more economic strain than the other parents. They also had fewer social resources and more difficulty than married parents with the parenting role. Despite these disadvantages of single mother families, children in these families were no different than children in other families on most measures of well-being. The only problem that was identified in the functioning of children from single-parent families was with their behavior. These findings can be used to develop strategies to reduce risks and enhance the existing resources and strengths of single-parent families.
from: Comparison of role deamands, relationships, and child functioning in single-mother, single-father, and intact families (http://proquest.umi.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/pqdweb?index=5&did=85544182&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1239707749&clientId=13713)
Jeanne M Hilton, Stephan Desrochers, Esther L Devall. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. New York: 2001. Vol. 35, Iss. 1/2; p. 29
You can find oodles the same.
bAam, You're not going crazy, the posts were deleted. I imagine the moderators did that.
Also we are getting a lot of new people coming over from the General section. There is a thread there telling them all about it. No, they are not my cohorts or minions. I don't even know most of these people.
Word will get around. Just be patient. I'm in no hurry and it doesn't appear that anyone else is.
Please don't make this personal, it isn't. I've been fascinated by the views we have shared so far and many of them have allowed me to see so many other points of view. Isn't that what healthy debate is about?
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-04-2009, 21:23
I would love to pose a new question.
Solodad
Let's say your daughter grows up and has a child to the biggest drop kick on the planet. He buggers off and doesn't support her or her child. In fact he was abusive and alienated her from her friends and family, and she left her job years before to be a good home maker and take care of him;).
Your ex and your self can't help her out because you have passed away from a rare disease.
She tries her best to bring him up by her self, She loves him with all her heart.
She lives in a terrible area because that's all she can afford. She hasn't had an education because she left school early when she started seeing this man and got a job at the local take away shop.
She now works at the local take away shop 5 days a week, and the pay is terrible, she feels she can't leave because she hasn't got other job skills and has low self esteem from the years she was with "the drop kick dad". Her boss works her nights even though she feels it is important to be home with her son. She feels stuck as there is no one to look after him. If she quits she won't get anything and they will starve and in this ecenomic climate she feels lucky to have a job and also knows she will get cut off any centre link benifits for quitting.
She doesn't know it but at 15 her son starts taking drugs with his best friend who lives next door. One night they get high and do something regrettable and stupid, they break into the local high school to steal a computer. Because this is her sons third offence he gets sent to juvy. (he previously stole some clothes). At juvy he learns more about crime. He is angry at the world and thinks it's unfair, he sees his mum work her butt off and get shat on, and she has nothing to show for it. He has learnt that he may as well just take it.
So when he is released at 18 he goes on a crime spree. If nobody cares about you - you may as well take what you want!
Suddenly the father comes back and Yells at her "You are responsible for this"
from your grave how do you feel? Does he have the right?
On a side note, and because you do have a daughter I genuinely feel if you want to empower her as person, you may like to undertake some feminist studies and some sociology.:thumbsup:
Marie that is very interesting.
But i note the sentence "The only problem that was identified in the functioning of children from single-parent families was with their behavior."
Isn't that in the main what this thread is about?
Mrs Nietzsche
14-04-2009, 21:24
The Influence of Economic Strain, Coping with Roles, and Parental Control on the Parenting of Custodial Single Mothers and Custodial Single Fathers; [1]
Hilton, Jeanne M. (javascript:void(0);), Desrochers, Stephan (javascript:void(0);). Journal of Divorce & Remarriage (http://proquest.umi.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=7957&TS=1239708051&clientId=13713&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQD). New York: Dec 31, 2000 (http://proquest.umi.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/pqdweb?RQT=572&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD&pmid=7957&pcid=7849031&SrchMode=3). Vol. 33, Iss. 3/4; pg. 55
Abstract (Summary) The purpose of the study Was to develop and test a conceptual model, based on microstructural theory, that explained how sex of parent, economic strain, role coping, and parental control combined to predict the parenting behaviors of divorced custodial mothers and fathers. The sample consisted of 30 single mothers and 30 single fathers with custody of at least one child 6 to 10 years of age. The data were collected using standardized questionnaires that were administered during a two-hour interview in the respondents' homes. Results of a path analysis revealed that the higher economic strain of custodial mothers contributed to impaired role-coping strategies and loss of parental control, which ultimately interfered with parenting. These findings explain why low income has a pervasive negative effect on family functioning. Implications for family practice and policy are discussed.
SoloDad, I am wondering yet if you are seeing a pattern..
Maire, I am seeing a pattern. But it seems to be one that reinforces my original question.
Am i misunderstanding your posts somehow?
Mrs Nietzsche
14-04-2009, 21:29
Solodad - gender of the custodial parent is not a factor in those problems though.
Problems of single parents are related to lack of time and economic strain, etc - rather than bad parenting (or at least originate in those factors).
Mrs Nietzsche
14-04-2009, 21:31
My point is that your original post clearly implies that single mothers are bad parents. (Whether you admit it or not).
The research indicates that in some circumstances, parenting is compromised in single parent families (irrespective of the gender of hte parent), but that this is linked closely to *social* SOCIAL factors, not an deficiency of the parent.
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-04-2009, 21:33
Maire, I am seeing a pattern. But it seems to be one that reinforces my original question.
Am i misunderstanding your posts somehow?
Because obviously an absent parent causes problems, that lead to things like poverty etc that further impact the child.
:idea:The sole parent or majority care giver is the constant and obviously not the problem.
Phyllis Stein
14-04-2009, 21:42
Phyllis, i disagree. In my opinion a parent has to bear a portion of the blame or responsibility. Who determines "best parent". Surely you have met or witnessed parents who really aren't trying to be good parents. Do we exonerate them? It's a cop-out to blame society when we fail as parents.
Being the best parent you can be is necessarily a subjective* call made by the parent in question. An educated parent with plenty of social support can't be compared to a parent with little education struggling to make ends meet and with little to no support. Both (generally) do the best they can with what they have and it's a bit idealistic to demand more without acknowledging the reasons for their shortcomings.
I believe that pointing the finger at disadvantaged parents is the bigger cop out by the way.
*FTR, welfare organisations do refer to "adequate" parenting, focused on the concrete basics needed for a child to thrive. Attempting to define anything beyond that is a bit contentious though...
People aren't making the effort to be the best parent they can be in my opinion. I have met so many people who have completed University studies of 4 years or more to obtain a good career.
But have they completed 4 years of studies to be a "good parent".
Yes, well patriarchy hardly makes being the best parent you can be a worthy goal to aspire to, what with all the rewards and recognition involved. :rolleyes: Like all the "caring" professions really - crap (or non-existent) pay, difficult conditions, completely undervalued by society... etc etc. No wonder they're all considered women's work. :doh:
Phyllis Stein, being a "best parent" is subjective, i agree. But, using the same point you make, then aren't parents "with little education struggling to make ends meet and with little to no support", still responsible for the outcomes?
I agree that makes me sound a little harsh and uncaring. But to quote the law, "ignorance is no excuse".
I think anybody can tell the difference between how much they know and how much they don't.
I was ignorant once, about many things. But i made a conscious decision to change that. Since being a single dad i have completed many courses about child care and development. Surely i made a decision to remain ignorant or to learn more. (or am i misunderstanding your point?)
I agree that we all do the best we can. But then who determines "the best we can". It seems that it is all so subjective that at the end of the day we can't differentiate between cop-out and genuine effort.
I disagree that "patriarchy hardly makes being the best parent you can be a worthy goal to aspire to". I gave up a good career and an enormous income to be a parent. Being a "good parent" was more important. But then i think you are saying that i had the knowledge to make that decision.
I'm still wondering if i'm not getting your point. I have some female friends who have completed many feminist studies and i will consult with them tomorrow about much of what you have said. It's not a cop-out on my part. I truly wish to understand and appreciate your point.
I did read some Simone De Beauvoir and Erica Jong a few years ago so i do have some idea.
This is my take on the subject..people will misbehave given opportunity, and a lack of self limiting awareness. I think that the ABSENT parent causes the biggest amount of harm to a child..their absence is the biggest contributing factor to a child feeling unloved, unworthy and lesser than the person they should be valued as (I just watched INSIGHT, so now I am a bona fide expert on the subject).
Fundamentally, as human beings, we always want what we do not have..and unfortunately a lot of the children in sole parent households are struggling to obtain that missing parent's love and acceptance. I think that is a point that has been overlooked in this debate.
Also...back to Schapelle :laughing: I think anyone north of antartica knows the truth about that one.
And as far as poverty leading to drug abuse...What a load of absolute piffle. Every old boy I know has a raging drug problem. And every lawyer, and a couple of CEOs.
Mrs Nietzsche
14-04-2009, 22:06
But, using the same point you make, then aren't parents "with little education struggling to make ends meet and with little to no support", still responsible for the outcomes?
No.
You seem to be confusing ignorance with poverty btw.
misskittyfantastico
14-04-2009, 22:25
I'm still wondering if i'm not getting your point. I have some female friends who have completed many feminist studies and i will consult with them tomorrow about much of what you have said. It's not a cop-out on my part. I truly wish to understand and appreciate your point.
I did read some Simone De Beauvoir and Erica Jong a few years ago so i do have some idea.
You should invite them to join in the discussion. New and fresh input is so valuable.
MummyDaddy
14-04-2009, 22:28
Wow - back from my meeting and should now be working on my runsheet for my event tomorrow but no - pulled back in to read all the comments. It's made for interesting reading and so here are my thoughts!
1. As women in a patriarchy, often the only way that women can attain any semblance of power is *through* thier sons. Therefore by producing sons that adhere to the patriarchal norms, they gain some measure of vicarious power.
2. As a disenfranchised segment of society, women often lack the means to do otherwise. Mothers are generally economically dependent on a man, or else impoverished, and neither of those two states are conducive to breaking the conventions in any kind of productive way with respects to how kids are raised.
I like point 1.
Point 2 I think is very disempowering to women. I would like to live in a society where women understand they don't need to be dependent on a man, financially, emotionally, physically.
I know a lot of single mothers - not economically dependent on a man - and certainly not impoverished. Mind you, they work and worked bloody hard to achieve that.
I do think that there are a few woman who put all of ther negative views on males onto their little boys. I have seen it first hand
I agree - I have unfortunately seen this disgraceful behaviour too.
For the record and in the interests if discussion, if reference to the gender of the primary parent is removed, my response to the question: "Does the primary care-giver bear partial responsibility for the consequent behaviour of the children they care for?" is no. A parent, be they single or partnered is responsible only for being the best parent they can be with the resources, knowledge and choices open to them and in the context of the society they live in. Can they still negatively influence their children's outcomes? Of course. But they are not responsible for them. The failings of our society are where the bulk of that responsibility lies - parent's can only do their best to compensate for those failings.
I tend to agree with most of this... except for the part about it being societies fault if the child goes down the wrong path.
There would be a philosophical argument here I am sure that would ask 'but is crime bad? are drugs bad? why do we consider them bad?' because society says so. But that is a whole other debate!
Ok, I am failing to see what the point of this is now. It appears that you just want us to agree with you :confused: You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, which I think it wrong, but banging on about it in a long winded argument is really not getting you anywhere.
And just quietly, if what you know about women, you have learned from books, the internet and "asking questions", you have quite a way to go.
You fail to understand because you don't realise that the idea of debate is to make the other person agree with you or at least endeavour to enlighten them. Have you ever watched a debate on television? That is why SoloDad keeps banging on his point. I doubt he'll change his tune.
I disagree with your last point - at least SoloDad is trying. I wonder how many men we all know who try to learn more about women.
Don't stop a man from trying to learn about women whether you agree with him or not! Encourage, encourage, encourage! He may indeed be teaching his son all about women one day and if he passes on one piece of feminist ideology that brings a nicer man into this world then I am all for that!
So are the ppl u are recruiting ppl that are going to come in with the same opinion as you I wonder?
I think you'll find quite the opposite.
The only problem that was identified in the functioning of children from single-parent families was with their behavior.
I would ask - what behaviour was different? Were they more sympathetic to other peoples needs? Were they more flighty? What was the behaviour that was different.
I would love to pose a new question.
Solodad
Let's say your daughter grows up and has a child to the biggest drop kick on the planet. He buggers off and doesn't support her or her child. In fact he was abusive and alienated her from her friends and family, and she left her job years before to be a good home maker and take care of him;).
Your ex and your self can't help her out because you have passed away from a rare disease.
She tries her best to bring him up by her self, She loves him with all her heart.
She lives in a terrible area because that's all she can afford. She hasn't had an education because she left school early when she started seeing this man and got a job at the local take away shop.
She now works at the local take away shop 5 days a week, and the pay is terrible, she feels she can't leave because she hasn't got other job skills and has low self esteem from the years she was with "the drop kick dad". Her boss works her nights even though she feels it is important to be home with her son. She feels stuck as there is no one to look after him. If she quits she won't get anything and they will starve and in this ecenomic climate she feels lucky to have a job and also knows she will get cut off any centre link benifits for quitting.
She doesn't know it but at 15 her son starts taking drugs with his best friend who lives next door. One night they get high and do something regrettable and stupid, they break into the local high school to steal a computer. Because this is her sons third offence he gets sent to juvy. (he previously stole some clothes). At juvy he learns more about crime. He is angry at the world and thinks it's unfair, he sees his mum work her butt off and get shat on, and she has nothing to show for it. He has learnt that he may as well just take it.
So when he is released at 18 he goes on a crime spree. If nobody cares about you - you may as well take what you want!
Suddenly the father comes back and Yells at her "You are responsible for this"
from your grave how do you feel? Does he have the right?
On a side note, and because you do have a daughter I genuinely feel if you want to empower her as person, you may like to undertake some feminist studies and some sociology.:thumbsup:
You should write tv scripts SSP!
Also agree about your suggestion in undertaking some feminist studies and sociology.
Problems of single parents are related to lack of time and economic strain, etc - rather than bad parenting (or at least originate in those factors).
My point exactly. I would like a study done of single mothers - across the board - all ages, all socio economic backgrounds. These would be results I would listen to when viewing anything regarding single mothers and how their children turn out so to speak.
Being the best parent you can be is necessarily a subjective* call made by the parent in question. An educated parent with plenty of social support can't be compared to a parent with little education struggling to make ends meet and with little to no support. Both (generally) do the best they can with what they have and it's a bit idealistic to demand more without acknowledging the reasons for their shortcomings.
Yes, well patriarchy hardly makes being the best parent you can be a worthy goal to aspire to, what with all the rewards and recognition involved. :rolleyes: Like all the "caring" professions really - crap (or non-existent) pay, difficult conditions, completely undervalued by society... etc etc. No wonder they're all considered women's work. :doh:
I agree with your first point...
I find your second a little disturbing. Are you saying 'why try, when there is no recognition'. Surely we try because we love our child.
I'm sure we all realise it would be different in men carried the children and gave birth.
This is my take on the subject..people will misbehave given opportunity, and a lack of self limiting awareness. I think that the ABSENT parent causes the biggest amount of harm to a child..their absence is the biggest contributing factor to a child feeling unloved, unworthy and lesser than the person they should be valued as (I just watched INSIGHT, so now I am a bona fide expert on the subject).
Fundamentally, as human beings, we always want what we do not have..and unfortunately a lot of the children in sole parent households are struggling to obtain that missing parent's love and acceptance. I think that is a point that has been overlooked in this debate.
Also...back to Schapelle :laughing: I think anyone north of antartica knows the truth about that one.
And as far as poverty leading to drug abuse...What a load of absolute piffle. Every old boy I know has a raging drug problem. And every lawyer, and a couple of CEOs.
Ah BubMum, you know I think you rock - and you had me right up to the part where you said poverty doesn't lead to drug abuse. Unfortunately, poverty can and does lead to drug abuse. It's called escapism. Sure, plenty of high fliers have drug problems - they are trying to escape too!
But I completely agree with the first part of your post.
Some random thoughts:
*The Australian Temperament Project (http://www.aifs.gov.au/atp/) is a marvelous example of how you get what you're given. Some children are more robust than others, more resilient, more spirited, more fragile, more impressionable, more persistent or more easily damaged. Parents can either support or further derail their child, if their child has a temperament that will cause them to be more volatile or lacking in judgement.
*The 'Sure Start' program introduced by Gordon Brown in the UK, when he was in charge of the economy, was economic policy not social policy. Sure Start boosts disadvantaged areas with free childcare places for 2 and 3 year olds, amongst other things. Basically the theory is that is you get disadvantaged kids out of their homes earlier they have a better chance of fitting into school, learning to read, and then are less of a burden on the economy in the future.
*I like to think I'm a decent human being, but I come for a truly unpleasant background. The way my parents brought me up has had absolutely no impact on my achievements, or who I am as a person. If anything, their attitudes have served as a clear 'how not to' on just about every aspect of parenting. The best thing they ever did for me was send me to a 'nice' school, where I met 'nice' children and then tried to spend as much of my childhood in their houses instead.
*The most disturbed children I have cared for tended to come from homes with warring parents. Some of the nicest boys were being raised by their mums alone.
*From DHS (http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/office-for-children/cpmanual/Output%20files/Practice%20research/Output%20files/Execute/cumulative_harm_spg.pdf): "Researchers investigating brain development have used the term ‘toxic stress’ to describe prolonged activation of stress management systems in the absence of support. Stress prompts a cascade of neurochemical changes to equip us to survive the stressful circumstance or event. If prolonged (e.g., if a child experienced multiple adverse circumstances or events) stress can disrupt the brain’s architecture and stress management systems. In children, ‘toxic stress’ can damage the developing brain (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2001)"
*I reckon it's not so much the lone parent, of either gender, that is the issue, but the stress and distress that children suffer when they come from a home where they have been the subject of ongoing parental conflict.
*I draw comfort from the research on lesbian parents which shows that children raised just by women tend to do well, and often better than average.
Mrs Nietzsche
14-04-2009, 22:32
Originally Posted by Maire http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?p=3645345#post3645345)
The only problem that was identified in the functioning of children from single-parent families was with their behavior.
I would ask - what behaviour was different? Were they more sympathetic to other peoples needs? Were they more flighty? What was the behaviour that was different.
Did you excerpt that from the abstract I quoted? I can send you the article if you would like.
I have read quite a few studies on this - basically single parents with good support networks and adequate resources (both time and money etc) have children who perform the same (in terms of statistics) as those from 'intact' families...
bigbadbrad
14-04-2009, 22:33
Hello There,
Well this seems to be evoking a lot of discussion.
In my opinion every child is different, and impacted upon by thousands of viariables in their lives.
As parents, single or a couple, all you can do is arm them with tools to act to these thousands of variables in the best way possible.
I would also have to say that society makes it significantly harder for parents these days as it is practically impossible for families to provide all the things they want on a single income forcing both parents to work and therefore spending less time wih kids to arm them with the tools they need
However taking blame for your child's bad decisions after they have the 'tools', while natural, is inappropriate. and blame is pointless!!
Having said all of that...... parents who abandon their responsibilities and reduce the 'arming' of their kids with the 'tools' have no right to apportion blame period!!!!!!!!
More Dads posting would be nice!!
Regards
BBB
MummyDaddy
14-04-2009, 22:37
*The most disturbed children I have cared for tended to come from homes with warring parents. Some of the nicest boys were being raised by their mums alone.
*I reckon it's not so much the lone parent, of either gender, that is the issue, but the stress and distress that children suffer when they come from a home where they have been the subject of ongoing parental conflict.
*I draw comfort from the research on lesbian parents which shows that children raised just by women tend to do well, and often better than average.
SPC, all great points! I love reading your take on things.
Dr Phil says 'it's better to come from a broken home than to grow up in one'.
I think it's so very true.
misskittyfantastico
14-04-2009, 22:39
BBB, I just think that sollodad is, perhaps without meaning to, referring to women in a blerchy fashion. They ARE the primary carers. IHHO
Ana Gram
14-04-2009, 22:45
You fail to understand because you don't realise that the idea of debate is to make the other person agree with you or at least endeavour to enlighten them. Have you ever watched a debate on television? That is why SoloDad keeps banging on his point. I doubt he'll change his tune.
I disagree with your last point - at least SoloDad is trying. I wonder how many men we all know who try to learn more about women.
Don't stop a man from trying to learn about women whether you agree with him or not! Encourage, encourage, encourage! He may indeed be teaching his son all about women one day and if he passes on one piece of feminist ideology that brings a nicer man into this world then I am all for that!
I don't "fail to understand". I understand perfectly well. And yes, I have actually managed to catch a debate or two in my time. But thanks for being incredibly condescending once again.
Personally, I don't give a man points for trying. The effort has very little to do with it. The content of the effort is far more important to me. Coming onto a predominately female forum with a lot of single mothers and implying that they are to blame for any unsavoury behaviour from their children when said children have reached adulthood, is not a terribly wise way to learn about women in my eyes.
Phoenix.You know I love you too chickyboo...I am talking about the inference that drug dependency is exclusively a problem of the disenfranchised. It is rampant in society...on every level. I guess if you can pay for your drugs without having to resort to prostitution, trafficking or property or violent crime, then it is not officially classed as a problem.
Hmmmm, that reminds me of crystal meth shagging rabbits man.:barf:
misskittyfantastico
14-04-2009, 22:51
Personally, I don't give a man points for trying.
Indeed - that would mean I'd have to assume that by being male, they are somehow simple. I don't believe this to be true.
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-04-2009, 22:58
Indeed - that would mean I'd have to assume that by being male, they are somehow simple. I don't believe this to be true.
Exactly:thumbsup:
bigbadbrad
14-04-2009, 23:03
Be very careful!
Gender bashing will not be tolerated!
Keep it clean
Regards
BBB
MummyDaddy
14-04-2009, 23:09
I don't "fail to understand". I understand perfectly well. And yes, I have actually managed to catch a debate or two in my time. But thanks for being incredibly condescending once again.
Personally, I don't give a man points for trying. The effort has very little to do with it. The content of the effort is far more important to me. Coming onto a predominately female forum with a lot of single mothers and implying that they are to blame for any unsavoury behaviour from their children when said children have reached adulthood, is not a terribly wise way to learn about women in my eyes.
Then what do you fail to understand? You keep saying you don't understand why SoloDad argues his point - yet he is inciting debate? Perhaps you can explain what you don't understand because I don't understand why you don't understand.
You should give a man points for trying.
Effort has everything to do with it. If we didn't have effort we wouldn't have life.
I give anyone full points who attempts to educate themself about something they know nothing about - be that about the opposite sex or otherwise. Surely you value education?
By the way - I don't think BubHub has a lot of single mothers. I think the single mothers rate quite low in the scheme of users on this site.
Perhaps you have access to statistics that state otherwise?
Tam-I-Am
14-04-2009, 23:19
Be very careful!
Gender bashing will not be tolerated!
Keep it clean
Regards
BBB
I think that you may actually have missed the point of Tabula Rasa's post :)
Feminists the world over believe that a society based upon a patriarchy (as it's widely accepted that ours is) is not only disadvantageous to women in terms of social and economic welfare, education, workload, recognition of task, etc - but also disadvantageous to men in that it categorises and boxes them in to fairly tight and specific pigeon-holes - that is, a 'man' become a concept, a set of characteristics that make up something that the members of the patriarchal society go on to understand to be 'masculine'.
In such a society, because men (and women, for that matter) are seen to be some sort of homogeonous whole with certain defining characteristics, rather than a group of individuals, with rich and wide-flung diversity, they are often seen to be somewhat less capable of engaging in those traits seen to be iconically 'feminine' - most notably empathy.
Tabula Rasa's point, I believe, was that she does NOT believe that men are simple, and confined only to a pre-determined set of characteristics that define 'masculine' - but rather, are capable of as much reasoning, emotion, and empathy as women - and vice versa. Her post was actually anti-gender-bashing :)
A point I happen to very much agree with. :)
MummyDaddy
14-04-2009, 23:20
Did you excerpt that from the abstract I quoted? I can send you the article if you would like.
I have read quite a few studies on this - basically single parents with good support networks and adequate resources (both time and money etc) have children who perform the same (in terms of statistics) as those from 'intact' families...
Yes, please do. Being a single mother I would love to read that. I am also still interested in what the behaviour was that they listed as different. I believe this by the way - the research results that is. I come from a single parent home and am probably what would be considered a high flier by society - so it certainly didn't do me any harm. Oh and with regards to the socio economic thing - yep - I came from the wrong side of the tracks too. But through my mothers hard work, grit and determination she managed to raise me with some smarts in my back pocket! My single mother also put herself through university and two degrees with zero child support. So I guess we can all see where I have formulated my views that:
1. women don't need to be reliant on a man to succeed even if they come from poverty
2. female single parents do not all raise derolicts, drug addicts and criminals
3. there are many factors that lead a person down the road of malcontent parenting being one of them
At the end of the day, as someone else pointed out, children become adults and must take responsibility for their own behaviour. I think this is where parenting truly becomes key.
- Did we give our children a value and belief system?
- Did we instill morality?
- Did we enable them to live life not based on their feelings but rather on this schemata of values, beliefs and morality?
- Did we give our child a sense of security, love and stablity that allowed them to grow into a confident adult that did not need to escape into a life of crime, drug abuse or otherwise.
I don't think it hurts to have goals as parents, these can be as simple as 'i would like my child to be kind to others'. We do teach our children how to behave (in the sense the child models the parent) and we must take responsibility for this - but at the end of the day they will grow into their own person and at some point - the child becomes an adult and assumes responsibility for themself.
misskittyfantastico
14-04-2009, 23:24
Sh!t! Was the warning for me? My tongue was firmly in my belief that men and women are equal and worthy of mutual respect. There was no bashing intended:)
sockstealingpoltergeist
15-04-2009, 00:57
I think that you may actually have missed the point of Tabula Rasa's post :)
Feminists the world over believe that a society based upon a patriarchy (as it's widely accepted that ours is) is not only disadvantageous to women in terms of social and economic welfare, education, workload, recognition of task, etc - but also disadvantageous to men in that it categorises and boxes them in to fairly tight and specific pigeon-holes - that is, a 'man' become a concept, a set of characteristics that make up something that the members of the patriarchal society go on to understand to be 'masculine'.
In such a society, because men (and women, for that matter) are seen to be some sort of homogeonous whole with certain defining characteristics, rather than a group of individuals, with rich and wide-flung diversity, they are often seen to be somewhat less capable of engaging in those traits seen to be iconically 'feminine' - most notably empathy.
Tabula Rasa's point, I believe, was that she does NOT believe that men are simple, and confined only to a pre-determined set of characteristics that define 'masculine' - but rather, are capable of as much reasoning, emotion, and empathy as women - and vice versa. Her post was actually anti-gender-bashing :)
A point I happen to very much agree with. :)
:iagree:
BBB, Blame isn't pointless at all. It is a foundation of our punishment system which thrives throughout society. How does society hand out a punishment without apportioning blame and responsibility first? Blame and responsibility are intertwined. In schools, workplaces and in public, blame and responsibility exist to guide us in where we went wrong, why we went wrong and explain any punishment meted out to us. I don't mind being blamed for something if it is my fault. Then i take responsibility for my actions.
[If parents have a son, and that son commits a heinous crime against a woman, of course they are entitled to ask 'where they might have gone wrong'. That is asking themselves if they are somehow responsible, if they find an answer confirming they made mistakes. Then that is clearly apportioning blame to themselves]
Without blame and responsibility, we start on the slippery slope towards anarchy and anihilism.
Maire, my original post does not clearly imply that single mothers are bad parents. It is your opinion that it implies that. I respect your right to hold that opinion. But my opinion is that it doesn't state that. Surely you respect my right to have an opinion.
Chellegoth, chastising Phoenix Rising for challenging you is really hypocritical. I've lost count of the number of times you have tried to be dismissive of me. You're refusal to acknowledge that someone deserves points for trying is difficult to fathom. It lacks any common sense. I'm too am having trouble understanding why you don't understand. I did read that you don't see the point of the argument, then don't participate. That is your right, i'd give you points for that.
Phyllis Stein, I said i would research the question and i have. I sent the original question to a broad range of professionals...all female. As an investigator for the media for over a decade, please understand that my contact list is extensive, wide and varied.
I made a point of asking people who were in a position to critique the question. They included an Emeritus Professor and several other professors and then journalists and others involved in asking or posing questions. None agree with you so far. So i am going to have to defer to the professionals. The question may have been offensive to you. But in the wider scheme of what is acceptable in society today, it wasn't.
My trade is asking questions. Of anyone from the poorly educated to our leaders and most educated and wise. I have asked tens of thousands of questions on TV, Radio, print media and also in public. Certainly many have not 'liked' the questions, but i have found that it because they don't like the answers.
I should have trusted my instincts in the first place. This is a public forum, made up of people broadly representative of our society. Yes it lacks an equal number of men, but that is the only difference i can see.
My question still stands, and i believe that many have answered it wisely and informatively. Include yourself.
Pippi Longstocking
15-04-2009, 07:55
Maire, my original post does not clearly imply that single mothers are bad parents. It is your opinion that it implies that. I respect your right to hold that opinion. But my opinion is that it doesn't state that. Surely you respect my right to have an opinion.
It is also my opinion that the insinuation was that single mothers are to blame. I don't think Maire was alone in assuming that what you said was what you actually meant. Of course you are entitled to claim otherwise but we are not obligated to believe you.
Sockstealingpoltergeist, It isn't necessary to constantly repost other people's comments with a smiley proclaiming you agree. Their original comment was strong enough to get the point across. Perhaps if you made your own comment that might help more. The phrase "riding on the coat tails of others" could spring to mind here.
Many people do this as a way of backing up and agreeing with (hence the statement 'I agree') anothe rposter. Otherwise the thread becomes repetitive. I have wanted to follow Phyllis, Beany and a few others around waving that "I agree" placard like n angry feminist at a reclaim the night march. :cool:
Chellegoth, chastising Phoenix Rising for challenging you is really hypocritical. I've lost count of the number of times you have tried to be dismissive of me. You're refusal to acknowledge that someone deserves points for trying is difficult to fathom. It lacks any common sense. I'm too am having trouble understanding why you don't understand. I did read that you don't see the point of the argument, then don't participate. That is your right, i'd give you points for that.
I'm surprised that you don't find the idea of getting points for trying to be patronising and insulting. I would. Getting points for trying does not mean that you are succeeding.
Phyllis Stein, I said i would research the question and i have. I sent the original question to a broad range of professionals...all female. As an investigator for the media for over a decade, please understand that my contact list is extensive, wide and varied.
I made a point of asking people who were in a position to critique the question. They included an Emeritus Professor and several other professors and then journalists and others involved in asking or posing questions. None agree with you so far. So i am going to have to defer to the professionals. The question may have been offensive to you. But in the wider scheme of what is acceptable in society today, it wasn't.
And I could well have said that I have sent the thread in it's entirety to the High Poombah of The Matriarchy of the Amazonian Kingdom of women Laydeez. However, I'm pretty sure that a0. nobody would believe me and b). it'd be irrelevant anyway. What other people think of my opinion outside of the forum is not the point.
My trade is asking questions. Of anyone from the poorly educated to our leaders and most educated and wise. I have asked tens of thousands of questions on TV, Radio, print media and also in public. Certainly many have not 'liked' the questions, but i have found that it because they don't like the answers.
And my 'trade' (ok, so not a trade yet, I'm a student) is also about asking questions. Coincidentally, these questions refer to the topic at hand - what causes inequality? Who is to blame? How do we resolve issues of inequity and human rights injustices? I spend my days reading research papers on the topic. I study these papers, think critically about them, write my own papers on these issues. Check and mate, Private Investigator! :p
I should have trusted my instincts in the first place. This is a public forum, made up of people broadly representative of our society. Yes it lacks an equal number of men, but that is the only difference i can see.
Actually, I disagree. While Bubhub does have a diverse member group, it still cannot be described as broadly representative of the wider community. The very people you are disparaging here (those of low-socio-economic status) do not have access to computers and internet and therefore are not able to participate in the discussion.
My question still stands, and i believe that many have answered it wisely and informatively. Include yourself.
And your question is still offensive to many single parents doing the absolute best with what they have, despite the insidious corrosive effect of constant blame and criticism from those more privileged than themselves.
Guv'nor, i am uncertain of where exactly i am disparaging of people of low soci-economic status. I've re-read my posts and can't find it yet. Can you please find the post where i said this?
I think anyone should "get points for trying", however it wasn't my statement in the first place. I was agreeing with a lady who made the statement.
I disagree that Bubhub isn't representative of the wider community. I have the read the posts of many, many ladies on Bubhub of low socio-economic status.
I understand that you are a student studying a subject that includes inequality. Some of the lecturers, professors and journalists i asked for opinion actually teach, lecture and write on the subject too. Which i why i sought their opinion.
Much of what goes on in society is offensive to me. But to attempt to shut it down without discussion, information or debate is censorship and denying the rights of others to have an opinion and then to seek to have that opinion validated or not. To shut down or have 'disappeared' a question that offends some people, not all, may be how you prefer to deal with it. But it doesn't seem to be the preference of many ladies who haven't been offended by the question.
By the way, Guv'nor. How do you explain the conundrum that some ladies on Bubhub were offended, and some ladies weren't?
This is my take on the subject..people will misbehave given opportunity, and a lack of self limiting awareness. I think that the ABSENT parent causes the biggest amount of harm to a child..their absence is the biggest contributing factor to a child feeling unloved, unworthy and lesser than the person they should be valued as (I just watched INSIGHT, so now I am a bona fide expert on the subject).
Fundamentally, as human beings, we always want what we do not have..and unfortunately a lot of the children in sole parent households are struggling to obtain that missing parent's love and acceptance. I think that is a point that has been overlooked in this debate.
Also...back to Schapelle :laughing: I think anyone north of antartica knows the truth about that one.
And as far as poverty leading to drug abuse...What a load of absolute piffle. Every old boy I know has a raging drug problem. And every lawyer, and a couple of CEOs.
Bubmum, i agree with much of what you say here. But you can't say that every lawyer has a raging drug problem.
Also in my professional experience, low socio-economic areas do have a greater problem with drugs than higher socio-economic areas. I've done the investigations. We were able to 'score' more easily and more frequently in the aforementioned areas than the latter.
During our investigations we committed more resources to the wealthier areas. We didn't like the results. We tried very hard to prove that drugs use was equal in both areas. We couldn't. Ask any law enforcement officer. They will most likely agree. The one slight difference we did find was that the quality of the drugs improved in the wealthier areas.
Poverty has been proven in studies (i'm looking for them now) to be a contributor to drug use and abuse. Not just by association, but because lack of education, access to many facilities and resources.
It is also my opinion that the insinuation was that single mothers are to blame. I don't think Maire was alone in assuming that what you said was what you actually meant. Of course you are entitled to claim otherwise but we are not obligated to believe you.
Many people do this as a way of backing up and agreeing with (hence the statement 'I agree') anothe rposter. Otherwise the thread becomes repetitive. I have wanted to follow Phyllis, Beany and a few others around waving that "I agree" placard like n angry feminist at a reclaim the night march. :cool:
I'm surprised that you don't find the idea of getting points for trying to be patronising and insulting. I would. Getting points for trying does not mean that you are succeeding.
And I could well have said that I have sent the thread in it's entirety to the High Poombah of The Matriarchy of the Amazonian Kingdom of women Laydeez. However, I'm pretty sure that a0. nobody would believe me and b). it'd be irrelevant anyway. What other people think of my opinion outside of the forum is not the point.
And my 'trade' (ok, so not a trade yet, I'm a student) is also about asking questions. Coincidentally, these questions refer to the topic at hand - what causes inequality? Who is to blame? How do we resolve issues of inequity and human rights injustices? I spend my days reading research papers on the topic. I study these papers, think critically about them, write my own papers on these issues. Check and mate, Private Investigator! :p
Actually, I disagree. While Bubhub does have a diverse member group, it still cannot be described as broadly representative of the wider community. The very people you are disparaging here (those of low-socio-economic status) do not have access to computers and internet and therefore are not able to participate in the discussion.
And your question is still offensive to many single parents doing the absolute best with what they have, despite the insidious corrosive effect of constant blame and criticism from those more privileged than themselves.
Well I am going to wave my :iagree: proudly at the above post..
:iagree: with each and every sentence here.
I am disappointed I missed much of the debate that happened last night (sick Kiddies:().
There are some very insightful and well written posts in here:thumbsup:.
Pippi Longstocking
15-04-2009, 08:43
Guv'nor, i am uncertain of where exactly i am disparaging of people of low soci-economic status. I've re-read my posts and can't find it yet. Can you please find the post where i said this? Look, it's really basic to figure that out. You were disparaging single mothers. Single mothers statistically are of lower socio economic status. Ergo...
I think anyone should "get points for trying", however it wasn't my statement in the first place. I was agreeing with a lady who made the statement.
Yes, I realise it wasn't your statement to begin with. However, you failed to address my point - I would find it patronising that someone had said that you deserve points for trying even though you are clearly wrong.
I understand that you are a student studying a subject that includes inequality. Some of the lecturers, professors and journalists i asked for opinion actually teach, lecture and write on the subject too. Which i why i sought their opinion.
Once again, you missed the point. It doesn't actually matter who you state backs up your opinion. It's irrelevant due to the nature of posting on a forum. I could say that I have spoken to thirty gazillion Experts on any subject at all but no one is obligated to believe me. What I am debating here is your opinion. It doesn't matter to me that you allege other 'experts' agree with you. If indeed that were the case, I'd heartily disagree with them too.
Much of what goes on in society is offensive to me. But to attempt to shut it down without discussion, information or debate is censorship and denying the rights of others to have an opinion and then to seek to have that opinion validated or not. To shut down or have 'disappeared' a question that offends some people, not all, may be how you prefer to deal with it. But it doesn't seem to be the preference of many ladies who haven't been offended by the question.
Who's attempting to shut what down?! :confused: Dude, I abhor censorship (just ask the mods :laughing:). I would hate to see the discussion shut down, then I'd lose my opportunity to point out where and why you are wrong with your insinuation that single mothers are to blame for the woes of society. And, just to get in first before you quote that and say "where did I say that? Can you show me where I said that? I didn't say that?" etc, I am referring to your insinuation. ;)
By the way, Guv'nor. How do you explain the conundrum that some ladies on Bubhub were offended, and some ladies weren't?
That's really easy to explain, not only because Beany has explained it already. Women are not a homogenous group. Women, as victims of the patriarchy, are often completely unaware of their own oppression. That's the way it works. We think differently. We are educated differently. We are at different levels of awareness. In the same way that some men are misogynists, some are aware feminist-supporters and some are somewhere in between, women are a diverse group.
Pippi Longstocking
15-04-2009, 08:50
Poverty has been proven in studies (i'm looking for them now) to be a contributor to drug use and abuse. Not just by association, but by lack of education and resources.
I'd wager that drug problems in people experiencing poverty would be compounded by feelings of depression resulting from disenfranchisement and being blamed for their own situation by those so privileged that they are unable to recognise their privilege.
Phoenix, Guv'nor makes an interesting point as to why some women were offended and some weren't. I'd like to understand your opinion on her comment and why you don't appear to be offended by my question please.
You are a well educated, intelligent lady who seems to be quite well versed and understanding of patriarchy, womens issues and discrimination against women.
*Apologies for the "points" misquote. My fault, i'm sorry.
MummyDaddy
15-04-2009, 09:15
SoloDad, i wasnt directing what I said about the 'points' thing at you. I felt it was harsh that someone said they wouldn't give someone points for trying which was insinuating that they wouldn't give you points for trying to educate yourself about women in general. I thought you and I were agreeing on that one :)
I'm not offended because I don't take your question personally even though I am a single mother. I can see that a questioin such as this creates healthy debate about society, philosophy and the role of gender.
The only way someone could be offended by what you asked is if they were to take it personally.
If I was to read your question as a direct insult of my situation then of course I wouldn't like it.
However, as I can see that your question is purely to create debate I do not have a problem with it and quite enjoy the idea of getting into an in depth discussioin regarding something that is actually intrinsic in my life - that of the role of single mother.
Thanks Phoenix, we did agree on that one. I felt it was harsh too. (but i wasn't offended) I was just being cautious that any other readers may have misread my post. Probably being a little overcautious.
I agree with all of your above comments. We do have a choice to be offended.
I for one, am very much enjoying discussing this debate. It is a question that is intrinsic to the lives of many.
Sorry everyone, but i must go for the day. Father/daughter time. We're going dancing and then to the beach.
Pippi Longstocking
15-04-2009, 09:34
Sorry everyone, but i must go for the day. Father/daughter time. We're going dancing and then to the beach.
I look forward to you returning and addressing some of the many points made by myself and others. :cool:
Solodad..I meant every lawyer I know...and I know about 40 of them give or take a good day. The police? I have been at private parties packed to the rafters with the fine upstanding legal minds of our country, and every single one of them was holding. In walks about 20 police with sniffer dogs, and one arrest. Not very good policing. I wouldn't refer to the police for statistics, because you are talking about arrest records, not actual drug use.
Mrs Nietzsche
15-04-2009, 09:39
Phoenix, Guv'nor makes an interesting point as to why some women were offended and some weren't. I'd like to understand your opinion on her comment and why you don't appear to be offended by my question please.
I am offended because your viewpoint is basically the same as those who say Aboriginal people should buck up and get a job, and similar.
I am also offended that you ignore any post that contradicts your opinion.
I, for example, *cough* have posted research that establishes what you are saying is deeply flawed, but you choose to ignore it.
I would appreciate more time responding to the content of posts and less time commenting on how mature and intelligent people are.
SoloDad I'm not going to add anything to the debate as such, so much has been said that I already agree with. I can tell you that the way you 'debate' is probably a reason why most of the ladies aren't taking you seriously. I myself see a patern in your responses that makes me :hair:.
Eg.
I understand that you are a student studying a subject that includes inequality. Some of the lecturers, professors and journalists i asked for opinion actually teach, lecture and write on the subject too. Which i why i sought their opinion.
Why is that when someone offers you an opinion you follow it up with. Well I spoke to a lecturer or a bunch of feminists and they respect my opinion. It seems an awful lot like name dropping or occupation dropping. You know what, unless they come on here and offer their opinion it's not really valid!
Mr. Ogyny
15-04-2009, 09:46
"If mothers have traditionally been the primary carers for children of intact and separated families for many, many decades. Then shouldn't a portion of the responsibility for the attitudes and behaviours of adult males of today be borne by them. Not to mention the high levels of truancy, promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse and aggressive behaviour of children from broken homes."
Phyllis Stein, i think you have placed a considerably greater emphasis on the word "responsibility" than was necessary or intended when i first placed the post.
The wording was yours SoloDad. Now you are being pulled up on what you claim to be sloppy wording. Surely the only honourable, ethical and moral thing to do is to retract the word. Perhaps even rewrite the whole sentence to remove the inherent gender bias.
And let's face it, this is what this whole thread is about. It is an attack on women. There is no comment from you on the absentee fathers and the effect they have on the children. Rather it is an attempt to put the blame of the world's ills on women. But hey, if only those women had shut up and done whatever their partners wanted then the children would have two parents.
As far as your research into socio-economic status and drug use goes I don't think a PI is the best source for unbiased and knowledgeable reporting. You obviously aren't 'in' with the lawyer and politician set. If you were you would know that the drugs don't get offered around parties. Rather, a phone call gets placed and a man comes and drops off a discreet package. There's no seedy hanging around on street corners, there's no 'mate of a mate' networks. The drugs the wealthy get are also of a better standard than the ones the poverty stricken get.
Free will. Individual choice. They mean something SoloDad. They mean that a person makes their own choices. That to claim responsibility for someone else's actions is to diminish the mental capacitance of that person.
"I'll have to take responsibility for you dear, you can't handle it."
It's the Patriarchy man, and as a man it offends me.
Pippi Longstocking
15-04-2009, 09:47
I would appreciate more time responding to the content of posts and less time commenting on how mature and intelligent people are.
I'm gonna do it...dare me to? Watch me. I'm so totally gonna use that emoticon...wait for it...here goes...
---------->:iagree:<-----------
:laughing:
If we have a choice to be offended then we should be able to spout racist views all over the place, right? Because, well, it's up to the minority group to NOT be offended. I should, in the context of this forum, be able to tell women that have had unwanted c-sections that "c-sections save lives and clearly it was needed", right? Because people suffering trauma shouldn't take offence, it's their CHOICE to be offended.
Offence isn't a choice but offending is. If you have been told repeatedly by a variety of people across the board that the manner in which you are phrasing a question implies a number of offensive things, then surely you can take the responsibility to change that? We do. There's a difference between asking hard questions ("who or what are to blame for the ills of society?") and blaming on one subsection of society ("mothers need to take blame for the ills of society").
Mathermy
15-04-2009, 09:49
SoloDad I'm not going to add anything to the debate as such, so much has been said that I already agree with. I can tell you that the way you 'debate' is probably a reason why most of the ladies aren't taking you seriously. I myself see a patern in your responses that makes me :hair:.
Eg.
I understand that you are a student studying a subject that includes inequality. Some of the lecturers, professors and journalists i asked for opinion actually teach, lecture and write on the subject too. Which i why i sought their opinion.
Why is that when someone offers you an opinion you follow it up with. Well I spoke to a lecturer or a bunch of feminists and they respect my opinion. It seems an awful lot like name dropping or occupation dropping. You know what, unless they come on here and offer their opinion it's not really valid!
hmmm curious:detective: Something others have noticed too...
If someone was actually going to the trouble of calling up professionals on an almost weekly, if not daily basis with questions relating to posts on bubhub (if they were actually going as far as to do this and not just telling furfys that is), well, wouldn't this kind of behaviour get a bit embarassing after a while?
I mean don't dr's, lawyers, peads, psychologists etc have better things to do than field calls from people wanting to discuss bubhub posts? I know when I am offline I am busy enjoying my life, and I am sure my life rates pretty poorly on the interesting stakes in relation to your average lawyer etc...I don't give bubhub much thought at all.
I do know if I was calling my "friends" wanting to talk about bubhub all the time they might tell me to P-off and get a life. But perhaps I am just hanging with the wrong crowd do you think?
This is not an attack, but SD you keep saying you are merely posing questions. The simple use of the "?" symbol easily turns a statement into a question. Perhaps this will remove any confusion in the future.
SD, I think a lot of the debate comes from the initial post, not just the one phrase you have pulled out. It was extremely provocative and came across somewhat like a mysoginistic tainted manifesto. It may have been case of :footinmouth:, but even the mods (in this case BBB), gave you a friendly warning as to what is appropriate on the forum. I can understand due to that post why a lot of the women here would be inflamed by your conversation.
I have loved reading all the responses..you girls, and guys, are really a clever bunch of cookies. :goodvibes:
And SD, I would also add that of course you had problems scoring in the higher economic areas. Those people are more careful, more aware, less likely to take risks because they are not in impoverished desperation. It takes time to build up the contacts to score, to build trust, to become a part of an inner circle. (Sorry to go on and on about this, but I think drug use is pandemic in every area of society)
MummyDaddy
15-04-2009, 10:01
If we have a choice to be offended then we should be able to spout racist views all over the place, right? Because, well, it's up to the minority group to NOT be offended. I should, in the context of this forum, be able to tell women that have had unwanted c-sections that "c-sections save lives and clearly it was needed", right? Because people suffering trauma shouldn't take offence, it's their CHOICE to be offended.
Offence isn't a choice but offending is. If you have been told repeatedly by a variety of people across the board that the manner in which you are phrasing a question implies a number of offensive things, then surely you can take the responsibility to change that? We do. There's a difference between asking hard questions ("who or what are to blame for the ills of society?") and blaming on one subsection of society ("mothers need to take blame for the ills of society").
Yes - people choose to be offended. In the first instance a person may feel offended, probably because this is how they have been programmed to respond to things their entire life. However, taking on the feeling of the offence is a choice - as in letting it linger and feeding it.
As to your first point that's about how people live their life based on a value and belief system. Therefore if they think racism is awful then they wouldn't participate in it. On the other hand, you can't control other people's behaviour. But you can control your own.
Which leads to being able to choose how to respond to things. First instance 'I feel offended' second instance 'well i can't control how other people behave but i can control how I behave so I choose to not wallow in my feelings of being offended'.
Pippi Longstocking
15-04-2009, 10:03
Having worked in a needle exchange, I can assure you that drug use is rife across all demographics of society.
This may well be off topic, but solodad, can I ask that you stop referring to women as ladies? I object. I'm not a lady. You see, ladies wear underpants and I don't have any on. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
As far as your research into socio-economic status and drug use goes I don't think a PI is the best source for unbiased and knowledgeable reporting. You obviously aren't 'in' with the lawyer and politician set. If you were you would know that the drugs don't get offered around parties. Rather, a phone call gets placed and a man comes and drops off a discreet package. There's no seedy hanging around on street corners, there's no 'mate of a mate' networks. The drugs the wealthy get are also of a better standard than the ones the poverty stricken get.
This was posted while I was writing mine :laughing::cool:
I had to come up with an emoticon other than :iagree:
Ana Gram
15-04-2009, 10:04
Chellegoth, chastising Phoenix Rising for challenging you is really hypocritical. I've lost count of the number of times you have tried to be dismissive of me. You're refusal to acknowledge that someone deserves points for trying is difficult to fathom. It lacks any common sense. I'm too am having trouble understanding why you don't understand. I did read that you don't see the point of the argument, then don't participate. That is your right, i'd give you points for that.
Whatever issue I have with Phoenix Rising is not based upon this thread, so best not to even enter an opinion on that one thanks.
I have not tried to be dismissive of you, I am simply disagreed with all your arguments. And you have completely ignored all my opinions that I have entered into the discussion.
Repeating myself once again, no, I don't give points for effort. It mean very little to me from a [I]grown up[I]. Again and please make sure you read it, content of the effort is what I find point worthy. It is my personal opinion, you don't agree with it, that's perfectly ok. You live your life the way you see fit, I live mine the way I see fit. Being condescending while making an effort, sort of cancels out any effort you are making and that, unfortunately is how many of your posts tend to come across. It could very well be unintentional, written communication is a hard medium to do successfully.
Again, I didn't say I didn't understand. I said I don't see the point of continuing the same argument without accepting that other people have a different opinion. Which is how it appeared at the start of this thread. Quite different to lack of understanding.
MummyDaddy
15-04-2009, 10:06
pandemic
Ooh - I just got all goosey - BubMum you just used one of my favorite words! Not sure why I love it, but it does sound awesome ... it's almost as good as 'shiver' xx
Mrs Nietzsche
15-04-2009, 10:06
Phoenix - another response to offence is to spend time attempting to educate the offender on the error of their ways. This is not wallowing - it is an attempt to show the offender another way, a better way, the way to harmony, and peace for all...!!! . Ahem.
UNfortunately, in a majority of cases, offenders, particularly in cases of prejudice (such as mysoginism), said offender is not receptive to attempts at education and assistance.
Mr. Ogyny
15-04-2009, 10:07
:iagree: with you :iagree: ing with my post.
:laughing::laughing:
ETA: This was to Bubmum agreeing with me.
Pippi Longstocking
15-04-2009, 10:08
:iagree: with you :iagree: ing with my post.
:laughing::laughing:
:iagree: with you agreeing with her agreeing with you.
Mrs Nietzsche
15-04-2009, 10:09
Chellegoth, chastising Phoenix Rising for challenging you is really hypocritical. I've lost count of the number of times you have tried to be dismissive of me.
I would just like to state *clearly* that I have tried myself to be dismissive of you. In fact I believe I have succeeded? I don't know what's going wrong....
No, I can't control how other people behave but I can tell them why what they said was offensive, particularly when they are claiming that they can't see the reason.
And no, I don't think the victim of slurs should take the burden of blame for feeling the sting of them. I cannot call someone a "n!gger" and then say "it's just a word, you're choosing to be offended by it." It is no different to slapping someone across the face and saying "yeah well, you're choosing to let the pain linger". People, mature, grown up people, have an obligation to society to do the least harm and to respect the members of that society. Going around offending people, after the cause of the offence has been repeatedly laid out for them, makes the offending deliberate. Blaming their victims for taking offence is either ridiculous or out and out trolling.
Having worked in a needle exchange, I can assure you that drug use is rife across all demographics of society.
This may well be off topic, but solodad, can I ask that you stop referring to women as ladies? I object. I'm not a lady. You see, ladies wear underpants and I don't have any on. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:
I would just like to state *clearly* that I have tried myself to be dismissive of you. In fact I believe I have succeeded? I don't know what's going wrong....
:laughing:
sockstealingpoltergeist
15-04-2009, 10:12
:iagree: with the last 7 posts thats where it stops.:)
RoarsomeMum
15-04-2009, 10:14
You're refusal to acknowledge that someone deserves points for trying is difficult to fathom. It lacks any common sense.
We ALL deserve points for trying I guess.. My Point is that, YES, information, education, re-enlightenment and healthy debate are fantastic. (although this one seems messy and I STILL don't understand if its a gender argument or the old nature nurture debate being rehashed :confused:)
*I* am trying.. I am trying to learn as much as I can from all kinds of area's while STILL needing to be responsible for my Daughter 24/7. How do I juggle the time.... Is playing a game of peek 'a' boo more important than reading up on feminist literature or analizing studies on the behavioural charecteristics of the parents of kids who turn "bad"? - I am bright, but I am not a freaking genius, and there are only so many hours in the day.. I do what I can to be educated and active in my childs life..
To answer the OP Q, If Aurora turns out to be a crappy human being with poor Morals, then Yes, I indeed WOULD take a portion of blame. (as I imagine my parents, her father, and his parents would too) - but I guess I would get points for trying :confused:
I would just like to state *clearly* that I have tried myself to be dismissive of you. In fact I believe I have succeeded? I don't know what's going wrong....
:laughing::laughing::laughing::yelclap:
Hahaha Phoenix..Everyone has those little words that make them go goo:D
This is one for all of my ladies in the house (This should satisfy EVERYONE!)
.....A pandemic of peanuts.......
If this sentence has no effect on you, I reserve the right to go rumplestilstkin on all of you. I will work out the magic code...start handing over your first borns.
hmmm curious:detective: Something others have noticed too...
If someone was actually going to the trouble of calling up professionals on an almost weekly, if not daily basis with questions relating to posts on bubhub (if they were actually going as far as to do this and not just telling furfys that is), well, wouldn't this kind of behaviour get a bit embarassing after a while?
I mean don't dr's, lawyers, peads, psychologists etc have better things to do than field calls from people wanting to discuss bubhub posts? I know when I am offline I am busy enjoying my life, and I am sure my life rates pretty poorly on the interesting stakes in relation to your average lawyer etc...I don't give bubhub much thought at all.
I do know if I was calling my "friends" (my real life/not imaginary ones) wanting to talk about bubhub all the time they might tell me to P-off and get a life. But perhaps I am just hanging with the wrong crowd do you think?
Must say :iagree:...;).......:p
sockstealingpoltergeist
15-04-2009, 10:21
I am offended because your viewpoint is basically the same as those who say Aboriginal people should buck up and get a job, and similar.
I am also offended that you ignore any post that contradicts your opinion.
I, for example, *cough* have posted research that establishes what you are saying is deeply flawed, but you choose to ignore it.
I would appreciate more time responding to the content of posts and less time commenting on how mature and intelligent people are.
Interesting.
I have found that myself, intelligent debate is called for and then not responded to or addressed.:detective: Very interesting.
(although this one seems messy and I STILL don't understand if its a gender argument or the old nature nurture debate being rehashed :confused:)
At root, it is a nurture/nature debate but the way the question was phrased necessarily made it a gender debate by doling out "a portion" of the blame to women while leaving all the other factors nameless and therefore inconsequential as a result. The phrasing of the question, deliberately or not, vilifies women and thus puts us on the back foot, defending ourselves from the outset instead of discussing actual issues.
Incidentally, if the question was intended to put women in the hot seat, and was a "hard question" to allocate blame to us as a gender (clearly we are a homogenised group that all think, live, believe and act exactly the same way), then say so. You will not find a shortage of people willing to debate that "hard question".
Ana Gram
15-04-2009, 10:24
To answer the OP Q, If Aurora turns out to be a crappy human being with poor Morals, then Yes, I indeed WOULD take a portion of blame. (as I imagine my parents, her father, and his parents would too) - but I guess I would get points for trying :confused:
:laughing: excellent point!
MummyDaddy
15-04-2009, 10:42
Phoenix - another response to offence is to spend time attempting to educate the offender on the error of their ways. This is not wallowing - it is an attempt to show the offender another way, a better way, the way to harmony, and peace for all...!!! . Ahem.
UNfortunately, in a majority of cases, offenders, particularly in cases of prejudice (such as mysoginism), said offender is not receptive to attempts at education and assistance.
Then why try to enlighten them? Why take on their prejudice and own it? Why let it affect you and your life?
No, I can't control how other people behave but I can tell them why what they said was offensive, particularly when they are claiming that they can't see the reason.
And no, I don't think the victim of slurs should take the burden of blame for feeling the sting of them. I cannot call someone a "n!gger" and then say "it's just a word, you're choosing to be offended by it." It is no different to slapping someone across the face and saying "yeah well, you're choosing to let the pain linger". People, mature, grown up people, have an obligation to society to do the least harm and to respect the members of that society. Going around offending people, after the cause of the offence has been repeatedly laid out for them, makes the offending deliberate. Blaming their victims for taking offence is either ridiculous or out and out trolling.
"the victim of slurs should take the burden of blame for feeling the sting of them."
When did I say that? I didn't.
"Blaming their victims for taking offence"
When did I say that? I didn't.
I am merely offering a different philosophy on how we choose to react to things. If you are interested in this theory you might like to do some reading on Aristotle.
I could take offence at things written on this thread towards me for example your use of the word 'ridiculous'. If I chose to I could take that as you calling me or my opinions ridiculous which we would all agree would be putting me and my opinions down. Instead I choose to not let it bother me. My point is this.
We can not control how others behave.
We can control how we behave.
And I certainly agree that we can tell someone if they offend us. What I don't agree with is trying to re-educate them to not offend again. In my experience it doesn't work as you acnowledged.
Mrs Nietzsche
15-04-2009, 10:53
Then why try to enlighten them? Why take on their prejudice and own it? Why let it affect you and your life?
I am not sure, you will have to ask someone who does those things.
"the victim of slurs should take the burden of blame for feeling the sting of them."
When did I say that? I didn't.
"Blaming their victims for taking offence"
When did I say that? I didn't.
People choosing to take offence implies no wrongdoing on the part of the offender. Where the cause of the offence has been repeatedly highlighted and the response is "you are choosing to take offence", the offender is necessarily allocating the blame on the victim and taking no responsibility for their actions.
I could take offence at things written on this thread towards me for example your use of the word 'ridiculous'. If I chose to I could take that as you calling me or my opinions ridiculous which we would all agree would be putting me and my opinions down. Instead I choose to not let it bother me.
You could, yes, but you would be taking offence at something that wasn't said nor implied. I didn't call you ridiculous, I called the act of blaming one's victims for the offence caused to them ridiculous. You choosing not to let it bother you is great because, well, it wasn't directed at you anyway :)
We can not control how others behave.
We can control how we behave.
And I certainly agree that we can tell someone if they offend us. What I don't agree with is trying to re-educate them to not offend again. In my experience it doesn't work as you acnowledged.
Regardless of whose behaviour we can control or not, offence isn't voluntary. How we react to it, however, is. And the reaction of a number of women on this board has been to not tolerate it, to not leave it uncontested and to challenge the misogyny where we see it. By putting a spotlight on the insidious misogyny of society can we lay it bare for all to see - even if the offender closes their eyes to it, others will see, others will take note :)
sockstealingpoltergeist
15-04-2009, 11:00
We can not control how others behave.
We can control how we behave.
.
Exactly, that includes children and ex's. You can bring the horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Im still not sure what is actually being asked by the OP. One slant I have is that is could be derogatory, inflammatory poke at the women on this forum. But I am more inclined to think of it as a poorly worded sociopsychological research question, one that can be measured, and one that should have no assumption before the answer can be determined. That would make, to me, the original question become: "Do male children born to single mother parented families exhibit different behaviour to those male children born to alternative family arrangements?" or more generally "What role does the sex of the parent in single-parented families have on a child's well-being?" or something along those lines. The OP is suggesting that male children born to single mother families show more negative behaviour then those who don't, which is not really an acceptable way of asking a genuine, researchable question without provoking people because it already assumes the answer.
So, if that is what is genuinely being asked, I am not offended. This was actually one of our essay questions in undergraduate developmental psych. (I studied Psych at uni) No-one found it offensive because it wasn't presuming anything.
Researching the answer would be a mammoth task. It would require a longitudinal study of 20+ years, controlling for thousands of variables, with very small effect sizes. But, it has been researched many times before, with somewhat controversial findings. There are literally hundreds of research articles that address this question, it has been popular for 20+ years. I think an interesting one looks at the impact of an absent father on male children to single mother families compared to male children who had an active father involvement throughout their lives while being raised in a single mother family.
Here is the ref and abstract:
The Effects of Single-Mother Families and Nonresident Fathers on Delinquency and Substance Abuse in Black and White Adolescents. Thomas, G, Farrell, M.P & Barnes, G.M. Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Nov., 1996), pp. 884-894.
Abstract:
In this study, we examine the impact of single- mother families and nonresident father's involvement in single-mother families on delinquency, heavy drinking, and illicit drug use in Black and White adolescents by gender. The study is based on a representative household sample of over 600 adolescents and their parents. Using adolescent reports of support as an indicator of nonresident father involvement, we find that for White adolescent males, nonresident father involvement buffers the negative effects of single-mother families on delinquency, heavy drinking, and illicit drug use. Indeed, the highest rates of problem behavior are found among White male adolescents in single- mother families without the support of a nonresident father. However, for Black male adolescents, we find fewer problem behaviors when nonresident fathers are not involved in single-mother families.
Also, importantly, note that there was no significant difference in child behaviour between single-parent families with a non-resident father involved compared with two-parent (male/female) families.
Of course, you can't draw conclusions in regards to Australian society off one study alone, especially from an American study, but, I thought it was interesting to add to the mix.
Part of me wants to scream "Its all the responsibility of the absent father!!" in conclusion but that would be unfair, ignorant and far too controversial. ;)
:wave:
Just a quick pit stop before the beach.
Not sure who posted the statement that i am avoiding questions or statements. I thought i was replying. I just checked my posts and i was engaging with several people. Phyllis Stein in particular. Sorry if i missed some questions, but like all of you i do have other things that pull me away from Bubhub.
I choose to seek opinions from 'experts' when i am unsure about facts or have cause to question my own opinions. I thought that was a reasonable and rational thing to do.
I'm surprised that some of you haven't sought outside opinions. Surely there are more qualified people around than some of us that have specialised skills that can tell us if the question is offensive? I also did it because if the question was legally offensive then i would withdraw it and apologise.
But it does seem that many ladies on here with considerably more knowledge than myself about feminism, womens issues and patriachy didn't consider it offensive. I note that many of you have tried to use the terms 'us' and 'we' on this site. But in fact it doesn't appear that you are speaking for everyone, just assuming that you are.
Questioning my experience as an investigator without knowing anything about my background or experience is making wild and unsubstantiated assumptions. Other than that i won't deal with that topic unless someone can prove it necessary.
We can all choose to be offended at whatever we wish to. That is our choice. Comparing this topic to racial vilification is a bit of a stretch. Racial vilification is illegal. My post isn't. Do you have another comparison?
Guv'nor, the fact you are or aren't wearing underwear isn't of interest to me. It was also a very unnecessary comment. I note that Bubmum used the term ladies and is yet to receive a rebuke from you. But please rest assured, i will no longer refer to you as a lady. However as most of the ladies on this site refer to each other in that manner, i will continue to do so.
Ahem, i agree with you. It really is a part of the point of the debate here. Who takes responsibility for the outcomes.
Lilahh, thanks, you are correct. I have already admitted that i could have possibly worded the question 'better'. And the rest of your post is 100% accurate. Also, i am glad you weren't offended.
If i've missed anything, forgive me please. It wasn't intentional.
I'd love to see some more DADS weighing in on this. It is such an important issue!
Referring to your original question, SD -
the key word is "portion". In my view, there is absolutely nothing sexist or demeaning about that statement because "portion" means exactly that.
The parent (male or female) influences a major portion of the child's behaviour.
The other parent's absence can be an influence on the child's behaviour.
The media is an influence.
The child (or adult's) environment is an influence.
Poverty is an influence, as is access to education.
Genetics and personality are an influence, one I would argue is hugely underestimated.
The argument that an adult has to step up and take responsibility is certainly valid ... BUT one could also argue that is in itself learned behaviour. A child has to be taught to take responsibility for their actions, and be strong and flexible enough to overcome adversity.
Once again, parenting, plus genetics, plus environment.
Not a simple question .... :detective:
I think this comment needed to be stated again.
Mrs Nietzsche
15-04-2009, 11:55
Guv'nor, the fact you are or aren't wearing underwear isn't of interest to me. It was also a very unnecessary comment
ahahaaaa
omgg
I am going to die laughing
Questioning my experience as an investigator without knowing anything about my background or experience is making wild and unsubstantiated assumptions. Other than that i won't deal with that topic unless someone can prove it necessary.
Solodad I must have missed the post where someone has directly questioned your experience as an investigator. Maybe you could point it out.
As for myself, well I am a naturally suspicious soul.
As this is a Public Forum, we all can be a little suspicious as it is easy for someone to pretend to be something they are not.
Take me for example, in my Public Profile I state that I am a Rocket Scientist, when really I am not:).
Phyllis Stein, I said i would research the question and i have. I sent the original question to a broad range of professionals...all female. As an investigator for the media for over a decade, please understand that my contact list is extensive, wide and varied.
I made a point of asking people who were in a position to critique the question. They included an Emeritus Professor and several other professors and then journalists and others involved in asking or posing questions. None agree with you so far. So i am going to have to defer to the professionals. The question may have been offensive to you. But in the wider scheme of what is acceptable in society today, it wasn't.
(emphasis added)
I've been following the debate with interest, but from this comment I've concluded (hopefully not unfairly) that it's pointless to comment, as unless I can refer to an unnamed group of academics and professionals and journalists (in an unnamed speciality or field) (and an unknown number) then my point is not supportable.
Although I know a reasonable number of tertiary educated professionals (including myself). Perhaps I could phone them and ask them and then my point will be more valid.
I fail to understand how a journalist's opinion (a profession cited as having some sort of expert opinion) can trump anybody's else's opinion. If it was a journalist who has a particular interest in social sciences, perhaps. But "journalist" is a broad term. It encompasses everybody to a Today Tonight "journalist" who jams his foot (and camera) in Dave the Dodgy Plumber's door, to Andrew Bolt, to those who actually research and present unbiased accounts. (I apologise if you are, in fact, Andrew Bolt).
By all means, state your case and argue passionately, but don't support it (and, in turn, diminish another's argument) by unnamed and unverifiable anecdotal evidence.
I'm posting from work so I'm a bit rushed, and hopefully haven't misinterpreted your comments.
I think the professional advice i sought is relevant in this situation as one of the ladies is a Professor who lectures on matters pertaining to patriarchy and womens issues.
Another is a very highly placed employee of the Office of the Status of Women.
And another has served as a Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner.
All are contacts that i have known for many years through my media work. Yes there is mutual respect and even friendship. But i doubt that would be sufficient to 'cloud' their judgement of this issue.
Personally i consider all to be very qualified in this area and their views to be important and relevant.
I am asking for their permission to include their replies. If they agree, i will forward their emails to a moderator for verification. I am also querying the possibility and usefulness of this with a moderator.
Mrs Nietzsche
15-04-2009, 12:26
I will sign out of this thread now, if I can resist.
I think the professional advice i sought is relevant in this situation as one of the ladies is a Professor who lectures on matters pertaining to patriarchy and womens issues.
Another is a very highly placed employee of the Office of the Status of Women.
And another has served as a Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner.
All are contacts that i have known for many years through my media work. Yes there is mutual respect and even friendship. But i doubt that would be sufficient to 'cloud' their judgement of this issue.
Personally i consider all to be very qualified in this area and their views to be important and relevant.
(emphasis added)
I'm not in the social sciences, but would academics in (somebody help me here as I'm struggling) social work or some sort of research associated with the causes social problems, be better positioned to answer?
I think the women you have consulted would provide great insight, particularly on women's roles and other feminist issues, but not necessarily the original question which was:
"If mothers have traditionally been the primary carers for children of intact and separated families for many, many decades. Then shouldn't a portion of the responsibility for the attitudes and behaviours of adult males of today be borne by them. Not to mention the high levels of truancy, promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse and aggressive behaviour of children from broken homes.".
I'm not saying their views wouldn't be persuasive, I just don't see it as ultimately convincing, and such that you would "defer to them" as stated in your earlier post.
I'm all for anecdotal evidence and opinion, as long as it's not presented as anything more.
Phyllis Stein
15-04-2009, 12:33
SD, if you do in fact produce those responses, I'll evaluate them on their own merit. However, they are not a substitute for my own opinion, which has been informed by years of experience as a woman in our society combined with much reading and questioning of my own. I have no *need* to rely on authorities or experts to come to my own conclusions, though I'll certainly give them consideration.
Also, I think you'll find that even in feminist academic circles, there's rarely a genuine consensus. There are many interpretations of feminism out there, some I vehemently disagree with, though the educational status of the various camps is likely about equal. Thus, the appeal to authority is a rather flawed debate tactic. :)
Lastly, I think we've acknowledged that the framing of the original question was poor, that it pre-empted its own conclusions and thus, put women in a defensive position. I also noted that some studies had been produced a few pages back, which showed that the factors having the most impact on the outcomes in question were socioeconomic. I've yet to see a response from you regarding that.
Mr. Ogyny
15-04-2009, 13:01
I'm surprised that some of you haven't sought outside opinions. Surely there are more qualified people around than some of us that have specialised skills that can tell us if the question is offensive?
This is offensive.
"You little ladies can't form your own opinions. Why don't you go and ask someone to do your thinking for you?"
Incredibly offensive IMO. I hope the women on this site realise that not all men are this offensive because I'd hate to be lumped in with this man's opinion.
I also did it because if the question was legally offensive then i would withdraw it and apologise.
So it's okay to be morally offensive as long as you don't break any laws?
This seems to be the crux of the issue for you SoloDad. You care not for the moral and ethical implications of your slur to women, only in any legal ramifications. I think you need to pay more attention to what BigBadBrad is telling you.
This is offensive.
"You little ladies can't form your own opinions. Why don't you go and ask someone to do your thinking for you?"
Incredibly offensive IMO. I hope the women on this site realise that not all men are this offensive because I'd hate to be lumped in with this man's opinion.
So it's okay to be morally offensive as long as you don't break any laws?
This seems to be the crux of the issue for you SoloDad. You care not for the moral and ethical implications of your slur to women, only in any legal ramifications. I think you need to pay more attention to what BigBadBrad is telling you.
I cannot speak for all women, but I for one do realise that not all men are as offensive as some:).
Ana Gram
15-04-2009, 13:11
This is offensive.
"You little ladies can't form your own opinions. Why don't you go and ask someone to do your thinking for you?"
Incredibly offensive IMO. I hope the women on this site realise that not all men are this offensive because I'd hate to be lumped in with this man's opinion.
So it's okay to be morally offensive as long as you don't break any laws?
This seems to be the crux of the issue for you SoloDad. You care not for the moral and ethical implications of your slur to women, only in any legal ramifications. I think you need to pay more attention to what BigBadBrad is telling you.
It's not often that I have said this but :iagree: 100%!!
Mr. Ogyny
15-04-2009, 13:20
Hi Chellegoth. I admit to being quite surprised to finding myself nodding along with some of your posts too. :D
Ana Gram
15-04-2009, 13:24
Hi Chellegoth. I admit to being quite surprised to finding myself nodding along with some of your posts too. :D
:laughing: funny how things change
forbetoel
15-04-2009, 13:27
Hi Chellegoth. I admit to being quite surprised to finding myself nodding along with some of your posts too. :D
Bizarro world - and not in the good way.:p
Should there be any evidence of professors agreeing with you, Solodad, it wouldn't make a difference. I would still disagree with the basic premise because their (what can apparently be described as) faux levels of intelligentsia have no bearing on my ability to be able to successfully navigate through threads and detect thinly veiled misogynism where it exists. That they allegedly cannot/will not makes little difference.
They, thank you for restoring my faith in MANkind.
They, thank you for restoring my faith in MANkind.
:iagree::iagree::iagree: :yelclap:
Now befor i get jumped on for using anyu icons, I wasnt going to come back into this thread cause its just going round and round, it seems SD your not willing to accept other ppls way of thinking.
but I have come back in to be another to agree with some very smart posts.
I also let my dad have a read through this and got his opinion cause HE is the smartest man in THIS WORLD. And he agrees you are indeed now belittling woman, to start with I did think it as a debate but now i belive YOU have made it personal and are in not so many words attacking members.
So i do have a question for you, are you here on BH for a reason, eg to investigate for a dodgy media show/report? Cause you say your here as a father but i only see you starting debates about woman? I am actually a little worried and if you are infact here as a media spy (which u have told us MANY times is your line of work) then i in no way give you any rights to use what i have said on this website.
Why is that when someone offers you an opinion you follow it up with. Well I spoke to a lecturer or a bunch of feminists and they respect my opinion. It seems an awful lot like name dropping or occupation dropping. You know what, unless they come on here and offer their opinion it's not really valid!
Or in other words I am better cause i no high and mighty ppl.
The wording was yours SoloDad. Now you are being pulled up on what you claim to be sloppy wording. Surely the only honourable, ethical and moral thing to do is to retract the word. Perhaps even rewrite the whole sentence to remove the inherent gender bias.
And let's face it, this is what this whole thread is about. It is an attack on women. There is no comment from you on the absentee fathers and the effect they have on the children. Rather it is an attempt to put the blame of the world's ills on women. But hey, if only those women had shut up and done whatever their partners wanted then the children would have two parents.
As far as your research into socio-economic status and drug use goes I don't think a PI is the best source for unbiased and knowledgeable reporting. You obviously aren't 'in' with the lawyer and politician set. If you were you would know that the drugs don't get offered around parties. Rather, a phone call gets placed and a man comes and drops off a discreet package. There's no seedy hanging around on street corners, there's no 'mate of a mate' networks. The drugs the wealthy get are also of a better standard than the ones the poverty stricken get.
Free will. Individual choice. They mean something SoloDad. They mean that a person makes their own choices. That to claim responsibility for someone else's actions is to diminish the mental capacitance of that person.
"I'll have to take responsibility for you dear, you can't handle it."
It's the Patriarchy man, and as a man it offends me.
:iagree:
Now THERE is a member i am glad has come in, very good post.
.
This may well be off topic, but solodad, can I ask that you stop referring to women as ladies? I object. I'm not a lady. You see, ladies wear underpants and I don't have any on. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
You are tops Gov:laughing::laughing:
I think the professional advice i sought is relevant in this situation as one of the ladies is a Professor who lectures on matters pertaining to patriarchy and womens issues.
Another is a very highly placed employee of the Office of the Status of Women.
And another has served as a Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner.
You can include as many replies from your high and mighty as you like it wont change ppls views cause its all he said she said.
This is offensive.
"You little ladies can't form your own opinions. Why don't you go and ask someone to do your thinking for you?"
Incredibly offensive IMO. I hope the women on this site realise that not all men are this offensive because I'd hate to be lumped in with this man's opinion.
So it's okay to be morally offensive as long as you don't break any laws?
This seems to be the crux of the issue for you SoloDad. You care not for the moral and ethical implications of your slur to women, only in any legal ramifications. I think you need to pay more attention to what BigBadBrad is telling you.
:yelclap: Thank you, and in no way do I think all men are
of the same opinion. But i think there should be more men that think like you:yelclap:
Will go back to the fun part of the forum now.
Now befor i get jumped on for using anyu icons, I wasnt going to come back into this thread cause its just going round and round, it seems SD your not willing to accept other ppls way of thinking.
but I have come back in to be another to agree with some very smart posts.
I also let my dad have a read through this and got his opinion cause HE is the smartest man in THIS WORLD. And he agrees you are indeed now belittling woman, to start with I did think it as a debate but now i belive YOU have made it personal and are in not so many words attacking members.
So i do have a question for you, are you here on BH for a reason, eg to investigate for a dodgy media show/report? Cause you say your here as a father but i only see you starting debates about woman? I am actually a little worried and if you are infact here as a media spy (which u have told us MANY times is your line of work) then i in no way give you any rights to use what i have said on this website.
Do you think that might be the case bAaM?
If so, do we have the right to say we do not give SD the right to use any of our posts? I was under the impression that anything we type on here is public information anyway?
Thats why I do not disclose to much on here...
Can anyone answer that?
Jaqois - I don't think anything said in this forum could be of any practical use, because any direct quotes couldn't easily be attributed due to the nature of the forum's membership. However, we could, as a group, be 'used' to do somebody's thinking for them if they were researching a particular project.
Jaqois - I don't think anything said in this forum could be of any practical use, because any direct quotes couldn't easily be attributed due to the nature of the forum's membership. However, we could, as a group, be 'used' to do somebody's thinking for them if they were researching a particular project.
Thanks for clarifying.
I hadn't thought of it that way:o.
Mrs Nietzsche
15-04-2009, 16:04
If so, do we have the right to say we do not give SD the right to use any of our posts?
I am not personally worried, although this did occur to me. I feel I have no need for concern, as SD ignores any posts that contradict him and/or make sense.
I also can't imagine any media source running a story on such a politically superseded concept (women are to blame for everything) unless perhaps, fathersrightsnow puts out a publication, or SD is freelancing for i-hate-my-mum.com
In fact, I for one feel duped at having put one modicum of intelligent thought into an OP that is clearly a farce.
I am not personally worried, although this did occur to me. I feel I have no need for concern, as SD ignores any posts that contradict him and/or make sense.
I also can't imagine any media source running a story on such a politically superseded concept (women are to blame for everything) unless perhaps, fathersrightsnow puts out a publication, or SD is freelancing for i-hate-my-mum.com
In fact, I for one feel duped at having put one modicum of intelligent thought into an OP that is clearly a farce.
:laughing:. 'Tis very true what you say:yes:.
Mahna, you and I agree on many things, and our thinking often seems to come from the same feminist perspective.
This is why I am baffled by your response.
Various strands of feminism have acknowledged for many years that the attitudes of our MOTHERS are equally, or in some cases more responsible for the patriarchal values we often unknowingly perpetuate.
That is not denying that patriarchy exists, but understanding that women DO play a part in reproducing the very attitudes that enslave us. (As do men, of course.)
So why should it be a stretch to claim that solo parents - usually women - have shaped their children's attitudes, morals, values etc? If we believe that one parents absence can have an effect, can we not understand that another's presence will have an even greater effect?
SoloDad is not denying the wider social environment plays a factor. He is not claiming women are essentially bad or wrong or that single mothers are bad parents.
He is asking a perfectly valid question. Any sexism lays in the ANSWERS. And in the repugnant suggestions (not yours!) that he should not be allowed to ask in the first place because he happens to be a man.
:iagree:
You're right it does appear that the debate is going around in circles now.
However it has certainly been very interesting.
I have received the replies and am now awaiting a response from the moderator.
The emails are somewhat riddled with anecdotes and personal comments not relative to this community which is why i won't post them here. But i am very happy to forward them on to BBB if he considers it appropriate.
Under the relevant Acts, the initial question asked by me and intended for debate is not deemed to be discriminatory or offensive.
However as i'm sure someone will have some reason to be doubtful it has been suggested by both the Office for the Status of Women and also the Sex Discrimination Commissioners office that anyone who would like to confirm that the original statement made by me is not offensive or discriminatory they can call the Departments themselves.
They will respond in writing if you mail or email or fax. Or you can get an opinion over the telephone. The choice is your and then you will know for yourself.
Phyllis Stein i think from your last post i understood you to say that regardless of what these two offices state you will make up your own mind. (at least that's what i understood you to say).
So, doesn't that then confirm that it is up to the individual and if they choose to be offended then they will? But that doesn't necessarily mean it is in fact discriminatory or offensive.
:Under the relevant Acts, the initial question asked by me and intended for debate is not deemed to be discriminatory or offensive.
However as i'm sure someone will have some reason to be doubtful it has been suggested by both the Office for the Status of Women and also the Sex Discrimination Commissioners office that anyone who would like to confirm that the original statement made by me is not offensive or discriminatory they can call the Departments themselves.
They will respond in writing if you mail or email or fax. Or you can get an opinion over the telephone. The choice is your and then you will know for yourself.
Oh my dear sweet Lord. Are you serious?
Yes of course I am going to run and call the Sex Discrimination Commissioners office because I found your post offensive.
Priceless:laughing:.
Pippi Longstocking
15-04-2009, 16:59
Office for the Status of Women
Shouldn't that be Office of the Status of Ladies? :p
scrappydi
15-04-2009, 17:01
Oh my dear sweet Lord. Are you serious?
Yes of course I am going to run and call the Sex Discrimination Commissioners office because I found your post offensive.
Priceless:laughing:.
Im sorry, but I can't help it....ROFLMAO:laughing::yelclap::thumbsup::laughin g::yelclap::thumbsup:
BreakfastatTiffanys
15-04-2009, 17:03
Oh my dear sweet Lord. Are you serious?
Yes of course I am going to run and call the Sex Discrimination Commissioners office because I found your post offensive.
Priceless:laughing:.
:iagree: ROFL:laughing:
Ana Gram
15-04-2009, 17:15
I don't need an officially department to tell me whether a statement is offensive. How odd :confused:
Mrs Nietzsche
15-04-2009, 17:18
Priceless:laughing:.
Careful, Jakois, or I will report you to the Reserve Bank :rolleyes:
I can't wait to see all the emails from the important professors and learned folk!
Tam-I-Am
15-04-2009, 17:19
SD - First you suggest that the 'laydees' can't formulate an opinion that's reasonable, intelligent, and well-thought-out, without the assistance of academics - and then you suggest that we're incapable of understanding what we find personally offensive.
You're not helping your cause here.
Careful, Jakois, or I will report you to the Reserve Bank :rolleyes:
I can't wait to see all the emails from the important professors and learned folk!
:laughing:.. I really am quite :eek: and a little :dizzy: at the whole rational behind it.
NibbleCurlynBub
15-04-2009, 17:22
I don't need an official department to tell me whether a statement is offensive. How odd :confused:
I agree... :confused:
Phyllis Stein
15-04-2009, 17:22
However as i'm sure someone will have some reason to be doubtful it has been suggested by both the Office for the Status of Women and also the Sex Discrimination Commissioners office that anyone who would like to confirm that the original statement made by me is not offensive or discriminatory they can call the Departments themselves.
They will respond in writing if you mail or email or fax. Or you can get an opinion over the telephone. The choice is your and then you will know for yourself.
This is all a bit of a red herring, SoloDad. That people have taken offence to your original statement is a fact, even you admitted it was poorly constructed. I doubt anyone needs the stamp of approval from the SDC et al to tell them otherwise. :confused:
Phyllis Stein i think from your last post i understood you to say that regardless of what these two offices state you will make up your own mind. (at least that's what i understood you to say).
So, doesn't that then confirm that it is up to the individual and if they choose to be offended then they will? But that doesn't necessarily mean it is in fact discriminatory or offensive.
To equate the two would be erroneous. My statement was conveying a rejection of "consensus" or "expert" opinion as a replacement for my own. I'm happy to consider anyone's POV without necessarily agreeing with it, regardless of the number of letters after their name.
What you seem to be looking for is proof that something can be intrinsically offensive or conversely, inherently benign. Unfortunately, I don't believe such a legalistic framing of the problem is of much help. Something is offensive simply because someone finds it so. As for the idea of "choice", I believe the only choice that comes into it is how we choose to respond to something we find offensive. In my case, I'm very pro-freedom of speech, meaning I'm happy for your comment to stay, as long as I'm free to challenge it.
NibbleCurlynBub
15-04-2009, 17:24
SD - First you suggest that the 'laydees' can't formulate an opinion that's reasonable, intelligent, and well-thought-out, without the assistance of academics - and then you suggest that we're incapable of understanding what we find personally offensive.
You're not helping your cause here.
:iagree: with this too.
But what would I know, I've just insulted an intelligent post by posting a smiley face holding a sign.
Oh, and the smiley makes it no less intelligent and the poster no less entitled to an opinion. ;)
Oh come now, Laydees, we all know we should do and think only that which we are told. Individuality is unbecoming to a woman and you'll never find yourself a man. You wouldn't want to turn out to be ones of those single mothers that are the bane of society, would you?
NibbleCurlynBub
15-04-2009, 17:31
Oh come now, Laydees, we all know we should do and think only that which we are told. Individuality is unbecoming to a woman and you'll never find yourself a man. You wouldn't want to turn out to be ones of those single mothers that are the bane of society, would you?
:detective: Oh so THAT is what caused it.
Bit late to save me now. :laughing:
Mrs Nietzsche
15-04-2009, 17:34
Yes you're right Beany. I'd better get back to the kitchen. My apologies.
Yes you're right Beany. I'd better get back to the kitchen. My apologies.
And bake me a pie, woman.
No really.
A cherry one, please :D
Mrs Nietzsche
15-04-2009, 17:39
*am currently barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen*
The natural order is restored!
Oh come now, Laydees, we all know we should do and think only that which we are told. Individuality is unbecoming to a woman and you'll never find yourself a man. You wouldn't want to turn out to be ones of those single mothers that are the bane of society, would you?
:eek: ***scurries off to do her womanly duties***
Phyllis Stein, I don't believe i have denied you the right to "challenge" my views, posts or ideas. If i have please correct me.
I agree that i have been looking for "proof" and that is because of my belief system. Just because i believe something is so, doesn't mean that it actually is. I often seek second, third and fourth opinions. I don't believe in the safety of numbers syndrome and don't need a gang to support me.
When it was suggested that the question was offensive and discriminatory i sought to either confirm or deny that claim. From the information i have read here and elsewhere and the professional opinions received it is not.
However i do agree that some people have made the 'choice' to be offended, and i recognise that is their right. It doesn't make them right, it is just what is right for them.
It is also more to confirm that an educated body or individual experienced in the relevant areas agrees or endorses an opinion, thought or idea. I think many of us do that.
I have however taken a lot of your points and thoughts into consideration and they have given me much to consider. How applicable they will be in day to day life is yet to be understood. But please understand (for what it is worth) i have very much enjoyed having my ideas and thoughts challenged by you.
We live in a democracy Phyllis. How patriarchal it is, i'm not going to argue, because i don't know the answer. Consensus and expert opinion deserve to be respected and acknowledged. As does your right to an individual opinion.
When the Government or almost any professional body has to make a decision, they call in the 'experts' for their professional opinion.
But i still stand by the original post. It was a question. Not an accusation. The question had a right to be raised and discussed. You and i will probably continue to disagree about that however.
forbetoel
15-04-2009, 18:16
I took it as a question too. One that could be debated apon. I didn't really take it as the OP's view.
I think that some of it holds some merit if you take the gender issue out of the equation.
All of us have the power to leave a positive or negative impact on our children and of course other outside influences are going to play a huge part, but I hope when I have 4 caring, loving, tollerant, and kind grown men to proudly call my sons, that someone will recognise the positive contribution that I made.
So much of my parenting is based on how I could possibly F them up later on in life, and how to best avoid it and get the most positive outcome for them.
Anyway, I know I have gone off topic - sorry.
Phyllis Stein, I don't believe i have denied you the right to "challenge" my views, posts or ideas. If i have please correct me.
I agree that i have been looking for "proof" and that is because of my belief system. Just because i believe something is so, doesn't mean that it actually is. I often seek second, third and fourth opinions. I don't believe in the safety of numbers syndrome and don't need a gang to support me.
When it was suggested that the question was offensive and discriminatory i sought to either confirm or deny that claim. From the information i have read here and elsewhere and the professional opinions received it is not.
However i do agree that some people have made the 'choice' to be offended, and i recognise that is their right. It doesn't make them right, it is just what is right for them.
It is also more to confirm that an educated body or individual experienced in the relevant areas agrees or endorses an opinion, thought or idea. I think many of us do that.
I have however taken a lot of your points and thoughts into consideration and they have given me much to consider. How applicable they will be in day to day life is yet to be understood. But please understand (for what it is worth) i have very much enjoyed having my ideas and thoughts challenged by you.
We live in a democracy Phyllis. How patriarchal it is, i'm not going to argue, because i don't know the answer. Consensus and expert opinion deserve to be respected and acknowledged. As does your right to an individual opinion.
When the Government or almost any professional body has to make a decision, they call in the 'experts' for their professional opinion.
But i still stand by the original post. It was a question. Not an accusation. The question had a right to be raised and discussed. You and i will probably continue to disagree about that however.
Solodad, can I ask you why is it that when someone challenges your motives you do not reply?
I am starting to feel a little ignored:D.
Jakois,I mentioned in an earlier post that i am spending today with my daughter. My time with her is very precious to me and we enjoy it together uninterrupted. I have made a few posts when time has allowed today, but not many.
My daughter comes first.
Also, and this isn't directed solely at you Jakois. There are at least 8 other people who have posted comments stating very clearly that they aren't offended, consider the question relevant and made some very interesting comments that you and others have largely ignored or chosen not to respond to.
I am not the only person you can all debate this topic with. Why not challenge some of Phoenix Rising, Jaq, Joshcamgrandma, Spoon, Fishfan, Pegasus, Idonttrustjelly and forbetoel thoughts and comments? And they are just a few. They all made excellent points about the topic and i notice they haven't had a tenth of the attention i have received.
Does that strike you as a fair debate, or an attempt to shoot the messenger? I have responded to many points raised, and i haven't intentionally ignored you. So please, don't take it personally or feel offended. Perhaps if i was to see some of the others being debated with, i might consider this an unbiased, impartial, fair and reasonable debate.
That is how a fair debate is conducted.
I do acknowledge a few of you have debated Phoenix Rising, but also noticed many of you back away very quickly. She does have a rather excellent command of the english language doesn't she. And she is also very well informed on feminist and patiarchal issues. She loves a good debate, she even said so.
But much of it has degenerated into comments that border on ludicrous. I mean , one lady even thought it relevant to tell me she wasn't wearing underwear....like how immature is that?
Mathermy
15-04-2009, 19:32
Jakois,I mentioned in an earlier post that i am spending today with my daughter. My time with her is very precious to me and we enjoy it together uninterrupted. I have made a few posts when time has allowed today, but not many.
My daughter comes first.
Also, and this isn't directed solely at you Jakois. There are at least 8 other people who have posted comments stating very clearly that they aren't offended, consider the question relevant and made some very interesting comments that you and others have largely ignored or chosen not to respond to.
I am not the only person you can all debate this topic with. Why not challenge some of Phoenix Rising, Jaq, Joshcamgrandma, Spoon, Fishfan, Pegasus, Idonttrustjelly and forbetoel thoughts and comments? And they are just a few. They all made excellent points about the topic and i notice they haven't had a tenth of the attention i have received.
Does that strike you as a fair debate, or an attempt to shoot the messenger? I have responded to many points raised, and i haven't intentionally ignored you. So please, don't take it personally or feel offended. Perhaps if i was to see some of the others being debated with, i might consider this an unbiased, impartial, fair and reasonable debate.
That is how a fair debate is conducted.
I do acknowledge a few of you have debated Phoenix Rising, but also noticed many of you back away very quickly. She does have a rather excellent command of the english language doesn't she. And she is also very well informed on feminist and patiarchal issues. She loves a good debate, she even said so.
But much of it has degenerated into comments that border on ludicrous. I mean , one lady even thought it relevant to tell me she wasn't wearing underwear....like how immature is that?
and thus is the burden of the OP, Solodad..most people will respond to you because they assume that is what you are after:confused:
Perhaps you consider yourself more as a host of the discussion and are curiously taken aback by all the attention you have personally received?
and thus is the burden of the OP, Solodad..most people will respond to you because they assume that is what you are after:confused:
Perhaps you consider yourself more as a host of the discussion and are curiously taken aback by all the attention you have personally received?
:yes: I thought that was the point of opening a thread!!
.....not to mention, Phoenix Rising & co actually respond to posters questions and comments, they don't completely dismiss them!
MimiGrace
15-04-2009, 19:38
and thus is the burden of the OP, Solodad..most people will respond to you because they assume that is what you are after:confused:
Perhaps you consider yourself more as a host of the discussion and are curiously taken aback by all the attention you have personally received?
It almost seems to me like he's trying to stir up some kind of cat fight.
Pitch those that agree with him against those that don't? (now that its actually become a debate, rather than just a random comment)
or am i reading into this too much? (although i much prefer my theory to the idea that we're going to be quoted in an article for our opinions :rolleyes: as was mentioned a few pages back)
Malol, then the assumption is incorrect. No i'm not a host, nor am i "taken aback". It is just not how a debate is usually conducted. Phoenix Rising and several others have also made this point.
A topic is suggested, and then people debate it. To expect me solely to respond to every single post and for most posts to be directed at me still reeks to me of shoot the messenger. It is almost like bullying in the schoolyard.
Mimigrace...you've got it in one. Those for the topic and those against it. That is a debate.
Pippi Longstocking
15-04-2009, 19:40
Jakois,I mentioned in an earlier post that i am spending today with my daughter. My time with her is very precious to me and we enjoy it together uninterrupted. I have made a few posts when time has allowed today, but not many.
And yet not many of those few posts actually addressed any of the points other posters had raised.
Also, and this isn't directed solely at you Jakois. There are at least 8 other people who have posted comments stating very clearly that they aren't offended, consider the question relevant and made some very interesting comments that you and others have largely ignored or chosen not to respond to.
I am not the only person you can all debate this topic with. Why not challenge some of Phoenix Rising, Jaq, Joshcamgrandma, Spoon, Fishfan, Pegasus, Idonttrustjelly and forbetoel thoughts and comments? And they are just a few. They all made excellent points about the topic and i notice they haven't had a tenth of the attention i have received.
And yet, they weren't the ones that initially made the statement a lot of us object to. Of course you are going to receive more attention - you were after all the one that made the offensive post.
Does that strike you as a fair debate, or an attempt to shoot the messenger?
With respect, the only one that isn't engaging in fair debate around here would be your good self. Failing to address any counter points and just back-patting those that happen to agree with you actually doesn't make for a very good debate. It would be awesome if you could actually make some counter points.
[QUOTE]But much of it has degenerated into comments that border on ludicrous. I mean , one lady even thought it relevant to tell me she wasn't wearing underwear....like how immature is that? :laughing::laughing: Good one. One ladysaid that? I quite assure you, I am still not a lady and still not wearing knickers. Once again, I respectfully request that you abstain from referring to me as 'lady'. I am not a lady, no matter how much you insist I am. Perhaps in some of your internet googling and book-reading and talking to Queen High Professor of Laydeez you may have come across why many women object to being referred to as a lady. :laughing:
Ana Gram
15-04-2009, 19:40
I must have missed several posts as I can't see anyone backing away from anyone, except for the instances of completely ignoring someone's opinion.
Angike, i have responded to many posts and many comments. Go into my stats to confirm that before you make unfounded allegations.
Sorry everyone, but i must go for the moment. You all know the reason now.
Perhaps some of the ladies i mentioned in post number 234 are available.
sockstealingpoltergeist
15-04-2009, 19:41
We live in a democracy Phyllis. How patriarchal it is, i'm not going to argue, because i don't know the answer. Consensus and expert opinion deserve to be respected and acknowledged. As does your right to an individual opinion..
Answer = very patriarchal
When the Government or almost any professional body has to make a decision, they call in the 'experts' for their professional opinion..
Are you the government? I thought you were afiliated with Paranioa Tonight. Even most politicians are too ethical to be involved with shows like that.
But i still stand by the original post. It was a question. Not an accusation. The question had a right to be raised and discussed. You and i will probably continue to disagree about that however.
I havn't really seen you dispute the question though. Still avoiding debate and flexing your argument about it having a right to be raised:confused:.
No one is saying it didn't. They are saying it wasn't too well thought out and it was offensive. When exactly are you going to debate the issue at hand, times a ticking.
I can't be on here all night you know, I got me a job now, what wif all me new rights that I been findin out about wif you on the forum.;)
misskittyfantastico
15-04-2009, 19:42
I am not the only person you can all debate this topic with. Why not challenge some of Phoenix Rising, Jaq, Joshcamgrandma, Spoon, Fishfan, Pegasus, Idonttrustjelly and forbetoel thoughts and comments? And they are just a few. They all made excellent points about the topic and i notice they haven't had a tenth of the attention i have received.
I do acknowledge a few of you have debated Phoenix Rising, but also noticed many of you back away very quickly. She does have a rather excellent command of the english language doesn't she. And she is also very well informed on feminist and patiarchal issues. She loves a good debate, she even said so.
Do you want to sit back and watch the laydees mud wrestle? This thread is about your opinions regarding single mothers - debating with Phoenix Rising (while admittedly this would be, I'm sure an enjoyable and thought provoking experience) would only serve to disrail the thread. Perhaps Phoenix Rising or one of the othe lovely ladies you think so highly of will start a new thread.
Angike, i have responded to many posts and many comments. Go into my stats to confirm that before you make unfounded allegations.
I read those, then they were challenged. You seem to conveniently leave a lot of posts out.
This seems to have turned into a 'how to debate' debate :confused:
Pippi Longstocking
15-04-2009, 19:45
Malol, then the assumption is incorrect. No i'm not a host, nor am i "taken aback". It is just not how a debate is usually conducted. Phoenix Rising and several others have also made this point.
A topic is suggested, and then people debate it. To expect me solely to respond to every single post and for most posts to be directed at me still reeks to me of shoot the messenger. It is almost like bullying in the schoolyard.
Look Solodad - many of us have been here for several years. To have a very new member come in and tell us how to debate on this forum is just a wee bit presumptuous. We know how. We've been doing it for years. Well I have anyway. Ain't that right mods? :D
Mathermy
15-04-2009, 19:48
[quote=SoloDad;3648294]Malol, then the assumption is incorrect. No i'm not a host, nor am i "taken aback". It is just not how a debate is usually conducted. Phoenix Rising and several others have also made this point.
A topic is suggested, and then people debate it. To expect me solely to respond to every single post and for most posts to be directed at me still reeks to me of shoot the messenger. It is almost like bullying in the schoolyard.
quote]
Well I guess I could argue that someone chose to take offence to my comments (which were taken by many in the good humour in which they were intended) and they were deleted.
I think you have mistaken me for someone who wants to have a reasonable and adult conversation with you, frankly I have no intention of doing any such thing because I am unable to take you seriously. Rather I hang around to see what you are going to come out with next, much like watching a train wreck I guess.
Now carry on with your mature and intelligent discussion...;)
sockstealingpoltergeist
15-04-2009, 19:48
Look Solodad - many of us have been here for several years. To have a very new member come in and tell us how to debate on this forum is just a wee bit presumptuous. We know how. We've been doing it for years. Well I have anyway. Ain't that right mods? :D
:iagree:
But only between the washing and the cookin, and the votin! Did you know we can do that now?:eek: Tis a right history lesson.
Angike, i have responded to many posts and many comments. Go into my stats to confirm that before you make unfounded allegations.
Sorry everyone, but i must go for the moment. You all know the reason now.
Perhaps some of the ladies i mentioned in post number 234 are available.
.
I think you need to suck it up a little and be prepared for the backlash when you post something that you, as an accomplished journalist:rolleyes: would know will ruffle a few feathers.
If you don't want to dance Solodad don't start the music.
By the way, you do know that we can see you are online when that little circle is green dont you:).
:iagree:
But only between the washing and the cookin, and the votin! Did you know we can do that now?:eek: Tis a right history lesson.
Heck, what are we even doing here?! Since when did we learn to read and type :confused:
Especially me being the stoopid single mum who stupidly got knocked up and is on the path to ruining a little boy's life, ya know, being the custodial parent and all :rolleyes:
You're lucky SSP you now have a husband to save your children from drugs and alcamohol.
Pippi Longstocking
15-04-2009, 19:53
:iagree:
But only between the washing and the cookin, and the votin! Did you know we can do that now?:eek: Tis a right history lesson.
Lady-voting! Next thing y'know, the laydeez will be drinking pints at the pub with the menfolk! :eek:
:p
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.