[Post Toasties]

Let me restate. By grouping the very different actions of two groups of men together, you are doing less than nothing to clarify or resolve any problem here.

In effect, by obdurately failing to acknowledge this distinction, you are implicitly promoting the unsupported assumption that men who are being divorced by their wives are really no different or at least no less blameworthy in their actions than those who consort with unwed mothers and casually victimize women.

This blaming of all men for the actions of some is patently ridiculous, partly because it is really nothing but obfuscation in the final analysis, and assuming such absurdities can do nothing to help the situation.

Clearer now?

[Balto_Boy]

In effect, by obdurately failing to acknowledge this distinction, you are implicitly promoting the unsupported assumption that men who are being divorced by their wives are really no different or at least no less blameworthy in their actions than those who consort with unwed mothers and casually victimize women.

I am making no such relation between the 2 groups of men. I was commenting the the problem of fatherlessness in general and on the reason for the majority of it in particular. Even if we assume that every divorce is the woman's fault - which is no where near the truth - the fact remains that the majority of fatherless children are born out of wedlock. Men have the ability and the choice to prevent 100% of this. That many choose not to can't be blamed on the divorce courts.