Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
From: arothman@eve.wright.edu (Aric C. Rothman)
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:15:33 EST
Distribution: na
Organization: Wright State University
Keywords: man-bashing, father-bashing, political correctness, hysterical
Summary: Don't take it anymore

In article <1992Sep2.031427.29353@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.034455.24878@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>> Source: USA Today, August 24, 1992
>> 
>
>Geeze, lighten up.  It's not like USA Today is widely regarded as
>the in place to look for sociological research.  It's not the Journal
>of Child Development or the New England Journal of Medicine.  This
>is like being all up in arms because People Magazine or the Enquirer
>has sensational headlines about Fergie's tits.

The fact that this drivel appears in a popular nationwide publication
like USA Today is reason to act up, not lighten up.  The typical reader
of USA Today is less likely to read this article in a critical manner
than the typical reader of the mentioned journals.  Since this article
is compatible with the current man-bashing mentality in the media,
anyone taken in by the flood of anti-father propaganda would read this
article, quietly add a mental tick mark in her list of reasons why men
are scum, and then turn to Ann Landers.

As long as the public's crap detectors are numb to man-bashing nonsense,
speaking out loudly against it, regardless of the source, will continue.

>
>I guess you don't think that parental income or education has any
>influence on IQ or childhood achievement?  It has no influence
>on the amount of time and attention that parents can pay their
>kids, or on the kinds of opportunities kids can have?  Why don't
>you site your studies that back this up, and we'll take a look
>at their methodology.
>

Are you suggesting that a child's IQ and his parents' incomes are
linked?

><lots of hyperbole while the author vents his other frustrations
>with alimony and women and blames it on to Mott for suggesting something
>he doesn't like >
>

Insensitive comments concerning the awful experience Aaron has gone through does
little to refute his observations.

>> You know it.  Mott's simply flouting the standard "Women good, men bad"
>> rhetoric of modern-day - oh, I hate to say it - "feminism" - and writing
>> dad out of the picture as some unneeded sperm donor.

Not an untrue characterization of the article, IMO.

>
>one who's "flouting" the socalled standard.  The closest word I
>can think of that you probably mean is "flaunt", but you probably
>think that I'm showing off that I'm a well educated mother with a <--
>high income.  But I am still married to my children's father so     |
>I probably don't fall entirely into your category of awful women.   |
>>                                                                   |
>< more hysterical ranting against Mott and divorced mothers >       |
                                                                     |
                                                                     |
More hysterical ranting against Aaron --------------------------------

Aaron makes an ironic mistake in word choice, and rather than make some
attempt at debating the issue, you pounce on this error.

(By the way, did Aaron ever use the term "awful women," and if so, in
what context.  I think your trying to stereotype Aaron as a misogynist.)

>> Well, folks, even though Marilyn Elias tried to jump on the Murphy
>> Brown bandwagon, neither she, nor Mr. Mott, did much to convince me to
>> go along for the ride.  Many studies that note the educational
>> achievement of older children of single mothers show convincingly that
>> these kids, in general, will achieve lower than their counterparts from
>> two-parent homes.  These kids have a much higher rate of juvenile
>> delinquency and have higher crime rates.  These kids will also be in a
>> much higher risk category for teenage suicide and drug use.  Finally,
>> children of one-parent homes are much more likely to be poor.
>
>Well, since you're the pied piper of scientifically unbiased studies
>with sound methodology, perhaps you could give specific references
>for some of these studies, instead of the ambiguous "studies show".
>You can leave out USA Today as your references.  Other thoughts
>aside, you've made the case that the studies they print aren't always
>the most scientifically accurate.
>

Did Aaron relegate USA Today to the same level as the National Enquirer,
or did he take issue with this specific article?   Prehaps you've seen an
article in USA Today that supports Aaron's position, hmmm?

>> Mott might have noticed that - he might not have.  But he implies a
>> socialistic solution to that problem - give the moms more money and more
>> education.  Who picks up that tab, Mr. Mott?  You?  You wouldn't be
>> advocating having all these deadbeat dads pay more for their children
>> and for the education of their wives, would you?
>
>Nothing you've quoted indicates Mott advocated any remedy, expressed
>or implied, whatsoever for anything.  Aren't you the one who just said
>these kids were more likely to be poor?  What was your remedy for that,
>if it wasn't their parents' having more money from somewhere?
>
>> Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
>
>Kate Perkins

Get it from the remote-control-wallet/pseudo-dad of course!  Don't you know
that's all their good for?  The only good thing they can contribute
toward their childrens' welfare is an endless supply of cash, no questions asked

Aric Rothman

Newsgroups: misc.kids