quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

To my mind there is no doubt whatsoever that in the public presentation at least a major imbalance exists in the legal responses to the problems that arise between men and women who are involved in a failed emotional relationship. It appears women can do no wrong and are able to financially ruin a man regardless of the details of the failure of the relationship.

As for violence it is perfectly obvious that women are capable of doing their share but for some reason this is not treated in the same way as if a man is involved.

I was watching one of those home improvement programmes recently and the man was slogging his guts out working 10 hour days doing all the necessary reconstruction work. His female partner was shown bring him sandwiches and a cup of tea. The thought crossed my mind that if that relationship failed the female would be described has having made a significant contribution to the build and awarded 50% or more of the property. Justice ?

It has at last been admitted that many women routinely ignore, with impunity, court orders requiring access by the father to his children. This is so in the UK anyway.

As per usual, you are a million miles wide of the mark and you're also highlighting your narrow-minded perspective again.

There is far more to a relationship than work and, increasingly, this is becoming less of an issue as to achieve a certain standard of living in this country both parents/partners work. Regardless, the woman in the relationship is entitled to (not given) a fair portion of the fruits of their collective labour because she makes an equal contribution to the overall relationship.

I would love to see this proof that "many women" deny men access to their children. Can you post a link and also state exactly what you mean when you say "many".

Where have you been living NG? Do you remember "Fathers For Justice", the superhero costumes and so on? No? Or were they not reported in the Socialist Worker?

To quote your own opening remarks - "as per usual, you are a million miles wide of the mark".

There are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of divorced fathers whose ex wives deny them accesss to their children - in direct violation of court orders, which had the man violated them would be punished severely - and nothing is done but another court order (if the father can afford it), which again the mother totally ignores with impunity. Meanwhile of course, these fathers are denied any chance to not send maintenance payments for their children, since the helpful CSA deducts this from their wages. All cards are in the woman's hands and she knows it.

Women are people too. And sometimes they can be bad people.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: Morrigel

People who think that there is something "natural" about the poor performance of young white and African-American boys in American schools need to ask themselves why Jewish-American and Chinese-American boys do not have these performance problems.  Are they fundamentally less "male" than their white or African-American counterparts?  Or are they simply products of a culture that actually values education, and recognizes education as a valid and manly road to success as a human being?  I would say the latter.

--M

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

I’d love to see any actual “studies” that were able to define a “traditional role” for a father, let alone make a statistical connection between that and a male child’s educational performance. More likely it is found that children from single parent homes have a harder time at school than those with two parents. The trauma of family break ups and the resultant lowering of living standards, plus the disruption, isolation and relocation these often bring, have far more to do with bad performance at school than some nebulous “traditional father” function.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Studies have shown that boys perform better if they have a father around and that father fullfills a traditional paternal roll. I suspect Jewish and Chineese are more likely to conform to the traditional family unit where white and black families have a much larger proportion of absent fathers.

quote:

I think it is fair to say, for better or worse, feminism in more affluent stratas of society and poverty and other social/cultural problems in lower stratas of society have undermined the traditional family unit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
The one thing the report honed in on as a possible reason for the decreasing standards of boys was the increasing absence of a dominant male figure in their lives. Boys who have a dominant male figure in their lives on the whole out perform boys who don't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Morrigel

Lol...ok.  And how many of these boys enjoying the wondrous influence of a "dominant male figure" were doing so in households where the mother was absent?  Because unless boy children of single fathers are doing considerably better in school than the boy children of single mothers, you have proven nothing except that two > one.  Kind of a no-brainer.

quote:

Morrigel: "In my opinion, if the "traditional family unit" was only stable because the women in it were unable to vote or receive equal pay for equal work, it was a piss-poor institution which needed to be destroyed--very much like the economy of the American South prior to 1865."

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Paternal figure would probably be a better expression than dominant male figure. Since girls don't react negatively in situations where the sole parent is a mother but boys do, one can extrapolate that it is the absence of the male figure that is the reason for the disparity in achievement between boys and girls.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissifytoserve
Hmmmmm....
Summing it up....
I don't think males are as bad as some people claim they are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Morrigel

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Paternal figure would probably be a better expression than dominant male figure. Since girls don't react negatively in situations where the sole parent is a mother but boys do, one can extrapolate that it is the absence of the male figure that is the reason for the disparity in achievement between boys and girls.

I would say it was a stretch to say that girls don't react negatively, simply because their negative reaction cannot be measured in terms of performance at school.  We have no way of knowing how a negative reaction might manifest in later life.

As for absence of the male figure--again, where are the numbers on the sons of male single parents?  Are they notably better performers in school?  If not, then what we have proven is not that boys need paternity--what we've proven is that boys need more than one parent.

I'd also like to know how boys tend to react, statistically, in a situation where there has NEVER been a paternal figure (i.e., the family was abandoned by the man during the pregnancy or the first few years) versus those boys who suffer the breaking of the home when they are old enough to understand and be emotionally hurt by what is happening.  It seems to me that people are trying to interpret this data as "boys need paternal figures", but what the numbers may really be showing us is that males in our society are much less emotionally resilient than females--something which has been already proven over and over in studies of adults.

Rates of serious pathology, depression , "acting out" or suicide following emotional trauma like break-ups or divorces are much higher in males than females, in our society.  I suspect this is because males are acculturated to have so few outlets for emotional expression--their coping mechanisms are vastly reduced by the necessity to conform to their gender role.

--M