Posted on 06/11/2003 5:50:44 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
This Father's Day, more than one quarter of all children in the United States will live in homes without fathers. Even this statistic masks the epidemic of fatherless children in America, however, since many children in two-parent households live with stepfathers instead of their own.
Who's responsible for the burgeoning rate of fatherless families? It's been popular in recent years to blame negligent men for abandoning their children, but a recent federally funded report by Child Trends suggests that women may be more of the problem than men.
Most Americans agree that children are better off being raised in two-parent families-and with good reason. Children raised in single-mother households are more likely to do poorly in school and are twice as likely to drop out of school or become parents themselves while teenagers. Nonetheless, significantly more women than men believe that one parent can raise a child successfully, according to the Child Trends report.
Overall, 42 percent of women, but only 26 percent of men, said that one parent can bring up a child as well as two parents together. A far greater number of black women said that single parents were as good as two parents in raising children -- 64 percent. Not surprisingly, this is roughly the same percentage of the black population that is now born to single mothers.
Women also appear less likely to stay married "for the sake of the children" than men.
While attitudes toward divorce have become increasingly tolerant since the 1960s-along with skyrocketing divorce rates over the same period-fewer women than men believe "when there are children in the family, parents should stay together even if they don't get along," according to the study. Only 12 percent of women, compared with 20 percent of men, said they agreed with the statement, while nearly half of both men and women said that "Divorce is usually the best solution when a couple can't seem to work out their marriage problems."
Of course divorce doesn't always mean a loss of contact between parent and child, but, statistically, contact between non-custodial parents (85 percent of whom are fathers) and their children remains quite limited. Sixty percent of children see their non-custodial parent at least occasionally, but that leaves 40 percent who have no contact with the nonresident parent. Non-custodial parents have contact with their children only 70 days out of the year, on average, and sometimes only for a few minutes.
The situation is worse for poor and minority children. Barely more than one out of two black, nonresident fathers (51 percent) saw their children even one time during the previous year, while only 48 percent of Hispanic, non-custodial parents maintained any contact with their children, and 47 percent of non-custodial parents living in extreme poverty did so.
Father's Day should be more than an excuse to buy new barbecue grills and power tools. The holiday began when a Spokane, Wash., woman-who was raised by her father after her mother's death-set out to get national recognition for the roles fathers play in the family. Sonora Smart Dodd's campaign to honor fathers became a national phenomenon in 1924 when President Calvin Coolidge proclaimed the first Father's Day, and it became a permanent holiday in 1966 when President Lyndon Johnson declared the third Sunday in June for its celebration.
As Mrs. Dodd understood, fathers play crucial roles in their children's lives. Ideally, they teach them love, respect and discipline. A father's relationship with his daughter is often the best predictor of whether she will grow up to have a lasting, fulfilling relationship with her own spouse. A father's relationship with his son is critically important to the development of self-discipline and a healthy, respectful attitude toward women.
Like Mother's Day, however, Father's Day has become more a tribute to Madison Avenue than a true celebration of parenting these days. Instead of using the day to consume more material goods, wouldn't it be better to spend the time reflecting on the meaning of fatherhood?
Women's liberation and feminism have destroyed more families than ANYTHING ELSE.
My mother was awarded custody of us kids, but dad had visitation. He never bothered to take advantage of that. Mom was also awarded child support, but Dad never paid a dime. We kids didn't get gifts or cards from him either. We got a couple of letters right after the split, but that was the end of it.
There are both mothers and fathers out there who don't do right by their kids. We can blame the courts all we want, but it's up to the parents (both of them) to do the right thing.
Yes, and by men too.
Amen. This generation has found a way to blame men for this societal ill, and paint women out as "victims". Truth is, that if women kept their knees together like most of them used to do until marriage, the problem would disappear. With women flaunting their bodies and making themselves sexually available today, with impunity, naturally men will run around like dogs chasing them. But there is equal, (or greater) responsibility on women to set the moral tone of the relationship, and to set the national tone of morality. It's just human nature; women make themselves easily sexually available, men will take advantage. Women return to thier dignity and morality, and men will follow. And their men will respect them more too.
It takes an irresponsible young woman AND an irresponsible young man to produce a child.
This is one account, and no doubt there are many more like it. But the truth is that most men are decent human beings and truly want to be good fathers, this is human nature. But I also know that once a woman dumps her husband and gains custody of the children, it becomes very hard for the father to see his children. He may have some half-baked Court "visitation" right, (which are quite unenforcable anyway), but when his ex-wife tells him the kids are sick, or they are busy, or they don't want to see him, or the host of other manipulative ways they use to discourage the father's efforts, (including just being mean and offensive to him), it becomes almost impossible. As for me, being a member of a Father's Group I can say with all truth and sincerity that many, many wonderful fathers are out there fighting like mad just to see their chidren, and they are being fought tooth and nail by their ex-wives to prevent this. Face the facts ladies, when the wife dumps the husband and gets the kids, the home, the car, and part of his income, she usually doesn't want him around, and she will do whatever it takes to make him disappear. Including lying and using the children, whether it harms them or not.
You have to take this argument nationally; and since women get custody in 90% of all divorce cases, it's just ridiculous to claim that men are somehow using the kids agaisnt the ex-wife or girlfriend. It's just not happening.
This sounds good, but it's bunk. Human nature is simple in this regard. When the female makes herself sexually available to her boyfriend, he will respond --- in all honesty, what else can he do, refuse her? Right. Face it ladies, if you start acting morally your boyfriends will follow your lead; and there will be a hidden benefit for you too. Your boyfriends will start truly respecting you for who you are.
Replies like this one really highlite the problem. The loose morals of today's females is aboslutely glaring. They think birth control is the answer to this national crisis, and not a return to morality. Birth control is used today more than any other period in American history, and it does no good. Besides, most of the fatherless children are from divorced homes anyway --- so much for the birth-control argument.
Meaning both are acting irresponsibly.
You act as though men are just bags of hormones and have no ability to think of the consequences of their actions or have any self-control.
If this were all that made up a man, fathers would not be so important.
Maybe not as much (although that is a debateable point), it does happen.
I would agree with this. I also believe most women want to be good mothers.
First Things First: Promoting Fatherhood And Families
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: June 12, 2003; Author: Paul M. WeyrichSharing the Blame for Fatherless Kids
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: June 11, 2003; Author: Linda Chavez"Fathers Count"
Source: Mens News Daily; Published: June 7, 2003; Author: Isaiah FlairLets Talk About Paternity Fraud: Whats Going On?
Source: Parents Against Paternity Fraud; Author: Dr. Damon AdamsBills could end child support payments from men who aren't biological dads
Source: MLIVE.com; Author: The Associated PressViolence prompts closer look at plight of divorced fathers
Source: The Star-Ledger: Published: November 25, 2002; Author:| DAVID CRARYA Scarlet Letter Law Fla. Adoption Statute Pits Fathers Rights Against Womens Privacy
Source: ABCs 20/20; Published: September 20, 2002; Author: John StosselCa NOW to Sue Fathers Orgs. Under RICO
Source: FOX News; Published:October 29, 2002; Author: Wendy McElroyCalifornia Governor Davis Preserves, Protects Paternity Fraud
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: October 04, 2002; Author: Glenn Sacks and Dianna ThompsonNo Restraint On Restraining Orders
Source: CNSNews..com; Published: September 23, 2002; Author: Stephen BaskervilleThe Child Support Agenda
Source: Men's News Daily; Published: July 17, 2002; Author: Roger F. GayFathers Bear the Brunt of Gender Bias in Family Courts
Source: INSIGHT magazine; Published: July 29, 2002; Author: Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks'The Children Of Children' A Rockin' Window On Divorce
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: July 29, 2002; Author: Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths
Source: Men's News Daily; Published: July 22, 2002; Author: Roger F. GayWhy There Are So Many Women in the Fathers' Movement
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: June 21, 2002; Author: Glenn Sacks and Dianna ThompsonHow to end the war against divorced dads
Source: National Post; Published: March 28, 2000; Author: Donna Laframboise
Many encourage daughters to bear children that are abondened or forced onto the grandmother who collects all the various benefits. The matriarch controls the money and thus the collection of kids produced by the various daughters.
Kid are a cash crop.
In the feral inner city society, the young man has no say in the matter. He is offered free sex and encouraged to produce a child for which he is but one of several sperm donors. The resultant bastard is the source of funds for the extended family of the mother....aka the village.
Not really. Men will typically follow the woman's lead in morality...nowhere in history can we find a society of easy women, making themselves sexually available like they do today, and the men have pushed them aside and not taken advantage of the situtation. It's just human nature, for whatever reason you want to assign it, women set the tone of the relationship. They do today with sexual freedom, and they did yesterday with sexual abstinance till marriage. Is there responsibility for the guys? Sure there is. But if we are looking for real answers, and not just silly arguments, the return of morality and principles has to occur before anything will ever change. When women change, men will follow. I don't think it's plausable that we will ever see an America where our females are running around making themselves sexually available to young men, and the young men are all saying "No.. go away from me". The young men will always chase after the sex relation, and it's up to the young women to say, "no, not until there is a ring on my finger". This not only makes the young woman more desirable and respected by the young man, it brings back the foundation of a strong, principled society. It worked before, and it can work to save our society again. It's called morals, remember them?
Sister Number 1: married and divorced three times; all of her kids dropped out of high school, one actually managed to make something of her life at age 23--other two are still floundering around in their early 20's.
Sister Number 2: Mentally handicapped, never married
Sister Number 3: Fooled around on her husband (had two kids with him first) got pregnant by another man while still married to #1, married husband #2 who has been unemployed for 8 years. Oldest son dropped out of high school, eventually got his GED but still can't drive at age 25 because of a drunk driving accident 3 years ago. Oldest daughter made it through high school, has had one abortion already. Next oldest daughter is on probation for assaulting her parents and grandparents, spent a month in jail for the assaults, has been sexually active, running away and doing drugs since age 14. Youngest daugher is 8 years old, and I pray for her little soul every single day.
Sister #4: Married an abusive mean guy, made two babies with him. Divorced for 20 years now and still bitter. Son dropped out of high school but eventually got his diploma. Daughter miraculously is a good student at a university but has the same "I hate men and George" Bush hostile attitude as her mother.
Me: I'm a right wing wackoe who's "had it too easy" (according to my sisters) because I married a good Catholic man who's faithful, loving and is a good provider. Don't know how our 15 year old daughter will ultimately turn out, but so far she's a good kid who loves God, respects adults, and hasn't gotten into drugs, sex, or alcohol.
Yes, I agree--it's women (especially those with an attitude......) who are largely responsible for the false and WRONG notion that a single mom can raise a child just as well as two parents can!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.