Real reasons behind the "Fatherhood Crises"...

You are clearly misunderstanding me or intentionally misrepresenting me. I merely stated that I don't believe a man HAS to be there, not that it's not the IDEAL scenario. Do you honestly believe that no single mother or father, nor a single gay couple has ever raised a healthy, successful child? If not, how do you in your mind explain this magical occurrence? Sheer luck?

To the first two sentences of your post: Opinion. There can be no objective conclusion on the matter, and there are many people who would very much disagree with you. And about Freud: Want to know what else is Freud 101? The "Oedipus complex", which similar to other claims he made is patently unfalsifiable. I've been compelled to ask: Do you believe every one of Freud's claims, across the board?

I am the middleground. As I stated earlier, I don't believe a man absolutely has to be part of the picture. (That is called "being reasonable" or "using reason", as out of over 6 billion people, I can assume within reason, that one of them, somewhere, at some time, was raised in a non-standard family and is both healthy and successful. If you can't agree with that notion, then I question your reasons as well as your integrity.)

Lastly, nice massive soapbox. Please try to keep this... restrained.

How far do you think a loving mother figure goes when she lives in a decent environment and is both willing and able (financially and otherwise) to care for her children? Do you think this loving mother figure's children are doomed to poor development, and ultimately social and financial hardship?

 

Wow.

i was trying to answer your question honestly, no need for contempt.

yes it's possible to raise a healthy individual in a single parent household, no it's not the ideal. you asked why the emphasis on the presence of a male father figure, i responded that it is best for the development of the child, not that it was impossible to do without. I could also play football with one of my arms missing, it's possible, it's best if i have both arms though.

please reread my post, i basically agreed with you. hence the term father figure, it doesn't have to be the biological father or even the partner of the mother, but a positive male figure is better than no male figure. the important thing is that there is a positive relationship between the child and an adult member of the opposite sex on a regular basis.

it's also important to have a support network available to the child, ideally you would have both a male and a female presence, preferably several(aunts, uncles, other family). It's one of the reasons that a couple i know(both female) take the effort to have their young son have a lot of interaction with male figures(her brother and her partner's father) in his life. i was raised by a single parent and i have no problem with homosexual parents raising children, but i believe, psychology supports, and the stats show, that the presence of a positive male figure(preferably one that is able and willing to devote the time and resources, such as... i dunno... the father of the child) is normally nessecary for positive development and that the absence of one is detrimental.

and again, i'm sure that there are tons of people who grew up a different way and turned out okay, you asked about the role of the father figure and that's what i responded to. Your defensiveness leads me to believe you have an issue with this topic, but i could be wrong.

so no, it's not about the "magical" or "mystical" father.

i'm not certain what in particular you feel is wrong with the opinion i expressed, but if you could elaborate without the assumptions about myself and without the bad attitude that would be cool.

 

And yet when someone who is concerned about the issue per se tries to answer your questions, you ridicule and make faulty assumptions. humility is a virtue. if you don't care then why ask, and if your going to ask, why bother if you already have all the answers and are not interested in someone else's thoughts on the matter?

 

no, i don't think they're doomed at all. love and stability can make up for quite a lot. just as in families where a loving father is the single parent, children are ultimately aware that yes, they're missing something, but just about everyone knows that there's rarely an ideal situation. both parents ultimately bring something very important to the table in terms of raising their children. but a poor father, like mine was, brought nothing good. he was vicious, drunk and selfish. and yet i loved and missed him. however, there's any number of things that i know i missed out on, but i missed out on them when he was THERE, too.

 

You traveled about 4 (rather large) posts back, after the discussion had very much moved beyond that point, singled out a single line, and attacked it. Have you ever heard the term "quote mining" before? Some others like to call it "madness". If you want to play that game I can assure you that I can easily single out many, many areas of all of your posts and respond to them with a quip to create illusions for the audience for my benefit. Please stop wasting our time with these incredibly ridiculous soapboxes.

I'm interested in others' thoughts on the matter, but I stop being interested the very moment I see opinion being presented as fact, because that's a very, very good sign of thoughtlessness, bias/agenda and "I am right right now and I can never being wrong no matter you say". You made a very big mistake by opening your Freud post using the word "need" - you essentially ruined the entire foundation of that post along with your position on the matter. It hurt your character a lot, and you hurt your intregrity further in your last post in which you suddenly sing a more reasonable tune on the matter, similar to mine (backpeddling, basically). "Children need (i.e. "must have") this and that or this bad stuff will happen and I'm stating this with 100% certainty. I expect you to argue with my 100% certainty. Oh ya, and here's the rest of what I have to say, I'm sure you'll be enthralled to read it, now...."

- quote-mining
- soapboxing ("here's my opinion on the matter [stated as fact, worse yet, in authoritative manner]. oh but hold on, now i'm going to tell you how it is, and i'm also going to give you some laymen's history lessons in a poor attempt to support my truth-claim.)
- backpeddling (i think this, now i think that)
- presenting opinion as fact

mmmm, verbosiness

 

foundation of my post?
argue with 100% certainty?
"quote-mining"?

What the hell are you talking about?

i'm not arguing about anything, and i wasn't trying to debate you, i was just sharing my opinion/belief and reasons behind them.

i don't know what your problem is, but you're an asshole.

 

I have no issues with your post other than the two parts that I bolded.

The first one: This is a truth-claim thus proof is required or it becomes opinion. This is only fair.

Second one: Same thing here. That said, it's also really ambiguous. I don't want to misinterpret what you mean, so can you rephrase it?

 

how many perfect parenting situations are you aware of? where all the perfect little bits and pieces come together like a leave it to beaver show? do you know of many? i've never seen it, ever.

and i'm not interested in debate, i know you're likely a stickler for proper debate etiquette, proofs, statistics and all that, but i'm not. i'd have been on the debate team if i cared. there's only one kid i ever knew that came from a mostly decent family, wth two parents who mostly gave a shit. but there has yet to be a single one of the rest of us who hasn't, at some point in time, expressed a desire for something that's missing. that's not an insult to parents, that's life. if you want statistics, go get them.

 

My problem:

Just for you I'll admit that I'm horrible person with all kinds of evil intent. Can you admit that you generalized in the beginning of your Freud post about children "needing" a father figure, and that in doing so, made a false claim? I'm trying to get you to understand that there's a very significant difference between, "Children must have a father figure for good childhood development", and "Having a father figure is ideal for good childhood development, but not always necessary".

Okay, sir?

 

I really don't know the point of your first comment. Like, I don't know what it's in reference to.

About being a stickler:

"Proper debate etiquette": Have you not noticed the antagonistic nature of my posts? Do you think that that, for example, is proper debate etiquette?

"Proofs": Yes, I tend to like proof....

"Statistics": Perhaps you've noticed that I've mentioned no statistics. Here's a quotation that illustrates quite well what I happen to think about statistics: "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."

What I'm a stickler for is clear communication. Bad communication - or a lack thereof - is literally one of the biggest, most dooming problems that exists in this world today. Scale that down to an Internet message board: I don't want to spend 20 "extra" days debating with someone because their lack of understanding of their language caused them to "leave out" one tiny little word that would've completely changed the meaning of their entire argument and brought the debate to an immediate close.

 

fuck the sysytem and fuck bitches who abuse the system
i take care of my son since the day he was born even when his mom walked out
when he was 3 months old.she claimed i was the absent one when he wasliving with me.no one checked.for years she was getting money for my son and i had no idea
all the money she got [like 800 amonth] a never seen a penny and when i did find out
and reported it to welfare faud they said "too bad" and i had to pay back 8000
i havnt had a income tax refund ever

second babies mom got mad at me one day and out of the blue got child support
and we were still together and when i di dfind out and confronted her she claims
that she had no idea.what a bullshit liar..then after she apologizes and gives me some of her income tax money

my advice to fathers out there that have there kids is to not give a fuck about these bitches or the fuckin DA stay out of the system

 

AND WE SHALL CALL HIM.....THE GRAMMARIAN!!!

 

double post

 

i mean, honestly, man, how could you not know exactly what i was saying? even looking back it's perfectly obvious. why on earth would you spend an additional twenty days with someone whose communication you find to be unworthy or unclear? your nitpickiness is sorta dsitracting from the conversation.

 

Any chance we can get back on topic?

 

agreed.

i think that the history of american society, the one where men weren't supposed to be around for the births of their children except to hand out cigars, the part where they worked nine to five and handed out father advice during the family dinner and all that "sacred family" crap that i don't think ever actually happened created this bizarre twilight zone of fatherly perfection. mother's are in general the parent the child automatically turns to. most children would choose mommy over daddy in many moments. i think people are easily manipulated by those images of mother and child into thinking that every mother is better than any father. or even that having a mother means you can do JUST FINE without a father.

how can a mother who actually loves her children prevent them from seeing their father if he's a good father? if, however, he's abusive and disrespectful, it's a mother's right to protect her children. BUT THAT ALSO MEANS the mother needs to keep her trap shut about the father. raising your children to hate their father is fucking evil, unless he's evil. then you raise your children to be cautious. because you're not really going to stop them from loving their dad, no matter how many times you saw him hit your mother. at least, not all children will stop loving.

 

To your first comment: I already told you. Your post was way too ambiguous (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ambiguous). Furthermore you should understand that if someone is not you, they probably won't understand what you're saying as well as you do, no matter how clearly you say it.

Second comment: To you it is obvious. Why wouldn't it be? You're the one who said it. That doesn't mean everyone else is going to be able to decipher your ambiguous statements. And some people would rather have clarification of their meaning rather than just making wild assumptions about what you meant and putting words in your mouth.

Third comment: Because I feel obligated to defend myself. Made worse by the fact that my views were being completely misrepresented. It's called having dignity and wanting to maintain it (i.e. self-respect http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dignity). Being unworthy? I never said anyone is unworthy - that's you painting an imaginary picture of me. Being unclear? Yup. And I see it the same way you do, except that guess what? Amidst all that lack of clarity, I personally was being misrepresented, both directly and through some very unnecessary insinuations. That's where the problems began.

Your last comment: I care about having structured communication in which people don't make endless insinuations, rhetorical statements, implications and outright claims about each other personally. It becomes the victims' job to clean up the mess, and if they have any dignity at all they will feel obligated to do it, as they should. The worst part about this is that it's so very easy to destroy (i.e. have a dismissive, flippant, inconsiderate attitude, and make rhetorical statements, claims, assumptions, implications and insinutations over and over and over again about the other person) and so difficult to create (actually address the content of someone's post piece by piece rather than coming right out of the gate with, "You're wrong, and I'm not actually going to tell you why. [Insert lots and lots of stuff that both pushes your own agenda and in no way shape or form addresses the content of the other person's post]).

Having said that, let's look at your quote at the top of the page.

(for following part: refer to specific responses above for more reasons why)

First / second line: dismissive, inconsiderate, flippant, etc. - implies that a) my reading comprehension is bad / that "something" is wrong with me b) whatever you said wasn't actually unclear, regardless of the fact that everyone is different and interprets things differently (like you interpreting what just happens to be your own words as perfectly fine)

Third line: dismissive, inconsiderate, flippant, etc. - aside from the fact that i was obviously being facetious (20 days? clearly arbitrary and an exaggeration), you go on to take it upon yourself to speak for me

Fourth line: dismissive, inconsiderate, flippant, etc. - you continually define my desire for clear communication (pshhh, who needs this... this cause of much of the world's problems....) as "nitpickiness". what i think you're really saying is that you just don't want to put forth the effort that's required for this kind of conversation, so you just label label label everything into neat little packages for yourself and then move on

And you're right, this is distracting from the conversation. The irony here is that in looking back through this thread I see endless amounts of little fights (many of which you're part of) that aren't on-topic. The difference as I see it is that I'm actually providing something useful and intelligent here, on topic or not, as much as I'm sure you probably just don't care.

I truly don't want to continue wasting my life shoveling my way out of all the shit that's being tossed on me and this thread, and defending myself against people who are pretty much just bored with themselves, so what I'm going to do - if I can with my current status *crosses fingers* - is just put you on my ignore list. Please do the same to me, unless you really love me that much.

(this massive post is what's actually necessary to clear up the extent of damage that 1 paragraph of rhetoric does - sad isn't it? that's precisely why that style of argumentation is a complete nightmare for people who care to think.)

toodles

 

suc·cinct /–adjective 1.expressed in few words; concise; terse. 2.characterized by conciseness or verbal brevity.

pomp·ous /ˈpɒmpəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pom-puhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. characterized by an ostentatious display of dignity or importance: a pompous minor official.
2. ostentatiously lofty or high-flown: a pompous speech.

pe·dan·tic /pəˈdæntɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[puh-dan-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. ostentatious in one's learning.
2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.

ob·tuse /əbˈtus, -ˈtyus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhb-toos, -tyoos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
2. not sharp, acute, or pointed; blunt in form.

 

USELESS: of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile

Why? Because it's straight up true - I could make an endless list of adjectives that make you look bad, too. RE: USELESS.

Edit: And oh ya, BTW, I addressed the kinds of posts like the one above in my last comments. Surprising?

 

you're just pissed because mine was better. back to the discussion now, grammarian?