Posted on 03/18/2002 6:34:14 AM PST by AUgrad
Reuniting Fathers With Their Families
by Stuart A. Miller and Rich Zubaty
Eighty-five percent of prisoners, 78% of high school dropouts, 82% of teenage girls who become pregnant, the majority of drug and alcohol abusers—all come from single-mother-headed households. Less than 1% of any of these categories come from single-father-headed households. This seems to indicate that the problems children encounter are not related to single-parent households, but are related specifically to single-mother-headed households. So, should we blame the mothers or the fathers? Perhaps, neither. There is no question that father-absence has reached epidemic proportions. According to Wade Horn of the National Fatherhood Initiative, we must reverse the trend in seven to eight years or it will be too late to do so.
How has our government responded to this crisis? By continuing to drive fathers out of the family. It is bad enough that some fathers abandon their families, but it is unconscionable that our federal and state policies drive fathers away from their families. With 80+ percent of divorces involving children resulting in sole-mother-custody, combined with a “no man in the house rule” and “presumptive sole-mother-custody” in welfare cases, we are not blameless from a policy perspective. We must change our policies, practices and procedures to specifically include fathers in families. If not, we can be certain that social spending will continue to increase and we will be plagued with an ever burgeoning population of maladjusted children who will fill our prisons and wreak havoc on society.
Social research data reveal that our blind reliance only on the nurturing value of mothers is inadequate and misplaced. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, a child living with his/her divorced mother, compared to a child living with both parents, is “375% more likely to need professional treatment for emotional or behavioral problems and is almost twice as likely to repeat a grade of school, is more likely to suffer chronic asthma, frequent headaches, and/or bedwetting, develop a stammer or speech defect, suffer from anxiety or depression, and be diagnosed as hyperactive.”
However, these afflictions were surprisingly uncommon in the 15% of single-parent households headed by men. A study of all state child protective services agencies in the country--by the Children’s Rights Coalition, a child advocacy and research organization in Austin, Texas--found that biological mothers physically abuse their children at twice the rate of biological fathers. The majority of the rest of the time, children are abused because of single-mothers’ poor choices in the subsequent men in their lives. Incidences of abuse were almost non-existent in single-father-headed households.
The data show that placing children only with mothers is likely to be detrimental to children and society, so why do we continue public policies favoring sole-mother-placement? Have we become so paternalistic toward women that it anesthetizes our common sense?
Surprisingly few people realize that, until the end of WW I, U.S. laws and courts automatically placed the children of divorce not with their mothers, but with their fathers. For thousands of years societal conventions instructed the placement of children with their fathers in most cultures all over the globe. Why? Because it works. It puts children with their strongest protectors and it puts boys with their traditional guides to civilized manhood. Yet, these essential fatherhood roles—protector and civilizer—seem to have been forgotten, today.
Never before have fathers been cast aside as they have been in the United States during the last 30 to 40 years. Never before has such a strong society become as threatened as we are, for this solitary reason. Regrettably, as long as we continue to hold to the relatively new idea that only mothers are capable of being parents, and ignore the essential role of fathers, our children will remain at risk.
What is needed? Our Father in heaven and our fathers here on earth—as well as a society that values them, includes them, and encourages their involvement in their families.
March 18, 2002
Stuart A. Miller and Rich Zubaty are political analysts for the American Fathers Coalition in Washington, D.C.
Either you didn't read the article, or you missed that the author has already normalized the data against the total single parent household figures:
"Eighty-five percent of prisoners, 78% of high school dropouts, 82% of teenage girls who become pregnant, the majority of drug and alcohol abusers—all come from single-mother-headed households. Less than 1% of any of these categories come from single-father-headed households. This seems to indicate that the problems children encounter are not related to single-parent households, but are related specifically to single-mother-headed households.The article then goes on to say:
"However, these afflictions were surprisingly uncommon in the 15% of single-parent households headed by men."Did you get that? Roughly eighty percent of the problem kids are coming from the roughly eighty-five percent of single-parent homes headed by women, less than one percent of the problem kids are coming from the fifteen percent of single-parent homes headed by men.
Conclusion? Men certainly are better at parenting alone than are women. If you don't like it, go dig up some figures of your own.
Your use of the words "fraudulent" and "fraud" with regard to the author of the study are off base. The so-called "journalist" who reports on the study ignored the percentage of single-parent mothers and hid the single-parent father figure in the middle of the article among some other statistics discussing mental health. It was probably an oversight that the editor left it in, but it's there. See my prior post.
Those statistics don't prove a thing!
God says that kids need a mother and a father. "That" is what we know works.
Most parents at home with children are mothers. And fathers still don't provide 50% of the care for children after work. (Not saying there's anything wrong with that. I'm in a "traditional" marriage. I also have about 600% more opportunity to abuse the kids.) Furthermore, a significant percentage of the children in this country probably don't even know who their father is, so it would probably be hard for him to abuse them. The typical father with custody has a job, and was married to the child's mother. That shows stability right there. Of course, that doesn't mean that his ex-wife is unstable. Just that you can't compare "him" to a welfare mother.
The typical single mother--well, she mght be a stable, divorced woman and have a job...or maybe not. Maybe she was never married. She might be on welfare. May very well be a high school dropout. Do these statistics prove that men are better? No....it just proves that the counterpart to the welfare mother, the irresponsible father, isn't seeking custody, and doesn't stick around long enough to abuse the kids. so there are no statistics showing what lousy fathers they might make.
You're wrong. The data says you're wrong. The data above says that 80% to 90% of the incarcerated criminal sociopaths out there were raised by single mothers. That cuts across all racial and socio-economic lines so you can stop with the bigoted "inner city" minority inferences. There's tons more data out there to back that up. Then there's the hard cold fact that less than 1% of the sociopathic population were raised by single fathers. This raises the spectre of an interesting missing piece of the puzzle. There's a 10% to 15% of the ner' do well types that were raised by two parent or "other" types of parenting systems (or lack thereof). That says that not only do single fathers, statistically, do better than single mothers, but they do better than two parent families. You wanna lay claim to any kind of conservative philosophy, then you can't excuse crime with poverty, and you can't hold one sex responsible for the failures of the other. The score is in, and its not looking good for the two legged team.
And, yes, there is a link between crime and poverty. Poverty is not an excuse for crime, but there is a link, nonetheless. And "inner city" has everything to do with where the majority of poor people live.
Single fathers self-select from the best types of fathers--fathers who want to be involved in their children's lives. How many deadbeats do you know who fought for custody of their children? When you compare fathers with custody to mothers with custody, you are not making a fair comparison.
Again, the self-selection of the most dedicated fathers probably accounts for the difference in statistics when compared to married couples, as well.
Apparently, God had it all wrong. Kids don't need two parents.....just a father. Yeah, right.
Sure....all the deadbeat dads get a pass in your book, because they aren't raising the kids. Every time a "single" irresponsible father allows his kids to be raised by a "single" irresponsible mother, you chalk that up as a penalty to mothers only. Laughable!
I'm not the only one to point out the flaws in the article.
To promote marriage, as both the Pope and Jr. advocate recently, one needs to teach boys how to be good spouses. No need to sell a single mother on the advantages of an extra pair of adult hands to share life's burdens. It's the run-of-the-mill pampered boy-male who expects to be waited on hand and foot that is the ruination of society.
It never ceases to amaze me that women who consider themselves so civilized that they would never use the word "n!**er with a black person, or even the word f@**ot to a homosexual, have no problem whipping out the word "deadbeat" to any man they meet. My wife hears angry bigots like you all the time at the supermarket or the gym, and it makes her fuming mad that her son, her father, and her husband have to share the same air as such stupid ignorant sows who wouldn't know how to survive for one credit card billing cycle without a man to sponge off of.
Since I don't believe in no fault divorce, and believe divorce should be legal, but rare, it's hard for me to discuss this matter. Kids need to LIVE with two parents.Custody, and the dissolution of the marriage itself are individual subjects with unique standards for review.
When the court evaluates whether a licensed marriage should be dissolved, the determination is based on an irreconsilable breakdown of such marriage (this would assume there has been an attempt). "No-fault" means fault is not considered in adjudicating such a breakdown. Is it irreconsilable? What is an objective finding here?
Custody is another matter entirely. In order for the issue to be a justicable question, it must first be shown a natural parent has, or must surrender this right. "No-fault" has no application here. This is an adjudication of a right. Not so with a marriage approved by application to the state.
Are you starting to see the difference? Best interest standards are criteria to assure the state is careful in the placement of it's wards. There is no connection until the state takes control from a natural parent. The subject is placement, not fitness, in this case. Has this doctrine been mis-applied? It most certainly has! Can we fix it? I think we should try. What do you think?
Funny how the feminist snake oil labeling all men as "deadbeats" and all women as victims of men behaving badly attract little interest on FR anymore except for sarcastic, bitter, bigoted liberals and a few divorce attorneys looking for pointers.
Careful of those facts! You might get bitten on the nose.
DADDY'S PINK ROSE Her hair was up in a pony tail,
her favorite dress tied with a bow.
Today was Daddy's Day at school,
and she couldn't wait to go.
But her mommy tried to tell her,
that she probably should stay home.
Why the kids might not understand,
if she went to school alone.
But she was not afraid;
she knew just what to say.
What to tell her classmates
of why he wasn't there today.
But still her mother worried,
for her to face this day alone.
And that was why once again,
she tried to keep her daughter home.But the little girl went to school,
eager to tell them all
about a dad she never sees,
a dad who never calls.There were daddies along the wall in back,
for everyone to meet.
Children squirming impatiently,
anxious in their seats.One by one the teacher called,
a student from the class.
To introduce their daddy,
as seconds slowly passed.At last the teacher called her name,
every child turned to stare.
Each of them was searching,
for a man who wasn't there."Where's her daddy at?"
she heard a boy call out.
"She probably doesn't have one,"
another student dared to shout.
And from somewhere near the back,
she heard a daddy say,
"Looks like another deadbeat dad,
too busy to waste his day."The words did not offend her,
as she smiled up at her Mom.
And looked back at her teacher,
who told her to go on.
And with hands behind her back,
slowly she began to speak.
And out from the mouth of a child,
came words incredibly unique.
"My Daddy couldn't be here,
because he lives so far away.
But I know he wishes he could be,
since this is such a special day.
And though you cannot meet him,
I wanted you to know.
All about my daddy,
and how much he loves me so.He loved to tell me stories,
he taught me to ride my bike.
He surprised me with pink roses,
and taught me to fly a kite.We used to share fudge sundaes,
and ice cream in a cone.
And though you cannot see him,
I'm not standing here alone.Cause my daddy's always with me,
even though we are apart
I know because he told me,
he'll forever be in my heart"With that, her little hand reached up,
and lay across her chest.
Feeling her own heartbeat,
beneath her favorite dress.
And from somewhere in the crowd of dads,
her mother stood in tears.
Proudly watching her daughter,
who was wise beyond her years.For she stood up for the love
of a man not in her life.
Doing what was best for her,
doing what was right.
And when she dropped her hand back down,
staring straight into the crowd.
She finished with a voice so soft,
but its message clear and loud."I love my daddy very much,
he's my shining star.
And if he could, he'd be here,
but heaven's just too far.You see he was a fireman
and died just this past year
When airplanes hit the towers
and taught Americans to fear.But sometimes when I close my eyes,
it's like he never went away."
And then she closed her eyes,
and saw him there that day.And to her mother's amazement,
she witnessed with surprise.
A room full of daddies and children,
all starting to close their eyes.Who knows what they saw before them,
who knows what they felt inside.
Perhaps for merely a second,
they saw him at her side."I know you're with me Daddy,"
to the silence she called out.
And what happened next made believers,
of those once filled with doubt.Not one in that room could explain it,
for each of their eyes had been closed.
But there on the desk beside her,
was a fragrant long-stemmed pink rose.
And a child was blessed, if only for a moment,
by the love of her shining bright star.
And given the gift of believing,
that heaven is never too far
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.