From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Date: 27 Aug 92 06:23:58 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

> >Mothers' behavioral reports are often biased.
> 
> What does that have to do with performance on standardized tests?

When there is no control group, and the conclusion is based solely on
a single facet of an uncontrolled test, the value of the test is nothing.

> >And it's not meaningful to separate the influences of income and
> >marital status - because divorced women as a whole are so much poorer
> >than wives, she says.
> 
> I think that's the key point.  You *must* separate those influences in
> order to determine which of them  is causing the children to have low
> math and reading scores, and which of them is merely correlated with
> such scores.

There is some validity to you observation. However, Mr. Hoffmeyer has
only made allusion to studies which have been discussed (and verified)
in this forum rather repeatedly. Unknowing of this, your assertion makes
sense. However, awareness of what has gone before randers your concern
as moot. 

A number of studies have been produced here, along with the cites which
allowed many to test them. They were valid, and rather unquestionably
so. While Mr. Mott speaks of his 'longitudinal' study which crossed 3
years, studies by more eminently qualified organizations, spanning 20+
years, demonstrate Mr. Mott as not only incorrect, but incredibly so.

There is an old saying in science: It's rather easy to find materials
to prove a theory --if one only looks in the right place.

> >"In real life, being poor and divorced is usually one and the same."
> 
> "usually" is the key word here.

Yes, it is. Most people who have suffered divorce have experienced a drop
in disposable income. To assert that one gender is more responsible than 
another is a fallacious argument. Just as much as the (ex) wife suffers a
loss in the husband's income, the husband suffers the loss of his wife's.

If she wasn't financially contributing, then yes, she is probably dealing
with a radical loss of income RELATIVE to his. But how anyone can assert
that this is a disability VISITED by the man on the woman is plain wrong.

> >Mott's study, if anything, seems incredibly short-sighted....
> >  Ahhhh.  Mott's no flunky - the
> >difference can be solely attributed to the mothers' income and
> >educational background.
> >
> >OK, Mott, your science is absolute and utterly convincing.  Just round
> >off the figures and make the lack of money on the part of the mothers the
> >real problem - oh, and get these mothers educated while we're at it
> >(like it is something we can actively shove down their brains).
> 
> Do you have any evidence for your assertion as to his bad science?
> You seem to be claiming that he's lying ("round off the figures and
> make...); are you really doing that?

There's a TON of it to demonstrate the inaccuracy of Mr. Mott. Consult
your local high school.

> >You see, to Mr. Mott, children don't need fathers - they need rich,
> >well-educated mothers.  How do we get such things?  Lots and lots of
> >child-support to pay for lots of Fisher-Price stuff and alimony to pay
> >for moms' getting educations, perhaps?
> 
> He didn't say anything about the solution (at least, not in anything
> you posted); he only determined the _real_ cause of the problem.

You should have put 'real' in quotes. Maybe you believe that men are always
responsible for divorce, but I deal (daily) in many which were instituted
by women --at no fault of the man.

> >  She did notice some glaring ommissions in Mott's study
> >and some bizarre leaps of logic (a.k.a. "faith") in his conclusions.
> >What's that?  He got all his information from MOM!
> 
> I didn't notice any such statement in the stuff you posted.  Did I
> miss it?

Yes.

> >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.
> 
> Are these studies controlled for income level and mother's educational
> level?

No.

> >  Finally,
> >children of one-parent homes are much more likely to be poor.
> 
> So maybe it is the poverty that's the problem, and not the lack of a
> second parent.

No, the problem is clearly one (in the cases depicted by Mr. Moss) that
the problem stems from a lack of income from a second parent. To conclude
from that only one gender suffers is pretty bizarre.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights