Fathers the key to child behavior
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net... "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "Joy" wrote in message ... Geez, just noticed the cross post on my earlier response. Before anybody gets all up in arms at the idea that I'd ask about kids whose fathers are less than sterling, I'd like to point out that this was intended as a legitimate question (which would have been understood in the one group on this distribution list that I normally post to). There seem to be a lot of studies on the negative effect on kids of having less contact with a parent after a divorce - but this always seems to refer to kids who actually had a significant relationship with both parents before the divorce. My "What about those kids whose fathers didn't pay attention to them *before* the divorce?" question was referring to those kids who, well, didn't have a significant relationship with both parents before the divorce. I don't think I've ever seen a study on the effect of divorce on those kids, and wondered if there are any such studies. -------------------- I don't know about any studies but in my case my dad was away from home a lot and when he was home he had no idea what to do with two kids. He never wanted kids but followed the script and had them anyway. He was never abusive to us he just didn't know how to act around us. After the divorce, once or twice a year my mom would drive to his place, (couple hours away), and drop us off. It put him on the spot but he tried his best. When I was a teenager I spent a few days with him and while he was still unsure about it we got along well mainly because I was able to have 'adult' discourse with him. He remarried to a very strong, family-oriented woman who was finally able to bring him out and he became a very loving grandad. As an adult I spent more time with him and we got to know each other and to like and love each other. He just had no use for kids. So I think a lot of the time dads don't pay as much attention to the kids is because they are working long hours or they have no idea what to do with them. I don't want to dilute anything you said about your personal situation and relationship with your dad. However, there is another factor that comes into play many times. Mothers can be very critical of dads trying to parent children. They resent intrusion by fathers into an area they consider a woman's protected domain. In fact, some mothers are threatened emotionally by fathers trying to parent. The end result is the mothers drive fathers away and are extremely critical of everything fathers attempt to do, until the fathers give up. Actually, I read something quite interesting recently, which (to summerize) goes like this: The concept of the kids being the woman's domain and that woman are better suited to parenting is a new concept, really since the 1950's/60's. Prior to the turn of the last century, and even up through the beginning of the previous one, father's were deemed better parents, and had the social weight behind them. Around the 1920's/1930's (dates may be off), this changed and the impression of mother's being the better parent emerged due to a change in society. This changed in the late 1930's and 1940's as people (fathers) went off to war, and the mothers were thrown into the workforce to make up for this. Upon the father's return, women moved back out of the workforce, and so in the 1950's they regained their prominence as the better parent for the children. However, as women moved back into the work force and we ended up with dual income families, that tie has become more tenuous. It is just that society has not adjusted. Go figure. Rambler |
Fathers the key to child behavior
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net... "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "Joy" wrote in message ... Geez, just noticed the cross post on my earlier response. Before anybody gets all up in arms at the idea that I'd ask about kids whose fathers are less than sterling, I'd like to point out that this was intended as a legitimate question (which would have been understood in the one group on this distribution list that I normally post to). There seem to be a lot of studies on the negative effect on kids of having less contact with a parent after a divorce - but this always seems to refer to kids who actually had a significant relationship with both parents before the divorce. My "What about those kids whose fathers didn't pay attention to them *before* the divorce?" question was referring to those kids who, well, didn't have a significant relationship with both parents before the divorce. I don't think I've ever seen a study on the effect of divorce on those kids, and wondered if there are any such studies. -------------------- I don't know about any studies but in my case my dad was away from home a lot and when he was home he had no idea what to do with two kids. He never wanted kids but followed the script and had them anyway. He was never abusive to us he just didn't know how to act around us. After the divorce, once or twice a year my mom would drive to his place, (couple hours away), and drop us off. It put him on the spot but he tried his best. When I was a teenager I spent a few days with him and while he was still unsure about it we got along well mainly because I was able to have 'adult' discourse with him. He remarried to a very strong, family-oriented woman who was finally able to bring him out and he became a very loving grandad. As an adult I spent more time with him and we got to know each other and to like and love each other. He just had no use for kids. So I think a lot of the time dads don't pay as much attention to the kids is because they are working long hours or they have no idea what to do with them. I don't want to dilute anything you said about your personal situation and relationship with your dad. However, there is another factor that comes into play many times. Mothers can be very critical of dads trying to parent children. They resent intrusion by fathers into an area they consider a woman's protected domain. In fact, some mothers are threatened emotionally by fathers trying to parent. The end result is the mothers drive fathers away and are extremely critical of everything fathers attempt to do, until the fathers give up. ----------------------- Oh I agree. A woman may feel that by the dad being a good father that that somehow diminishes her being a good mother. Or that people may think that the dad is a better parent than her. I think a lot of men stay away because they know it is going to cause an uproar if they insist on being around and don't want that to affect the kids. ~AZ~ |
Fathers the key to child behavior
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net... "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "Joy" wrote in message ... Geez, just noticed the cross post on my earlier response. Before anybody gets all up in arms at the idea that I'd ask about kids whose fathers are less than sterling, I'd like to point out that this was intended as a legitimate question (which would have been understood in the one group on this distribution list that I normally post to). There seem to be a lot of studies on the negative effect on kids of having less contact with a parent after a divorce - but this always seems to refer to kids who actually had a significant relationship with both parents before the divorce. My "What about those kids whose fathers didn't pay attention to them *before* the divorce?" question was referring to those kids who, well, didn't have a significant relationship with both parents before the divorce. I don't think I've ever seen a study on the effect of divorce on those kids, and wondered if there are any such studies. -------------------- I don't know about any studies but in my case my dad was away from home a lot and when he was home he had no idea what to do with two kids. He never wanted kids but followed the script and had them anyway. He was never abusive to us he just didn't know how to act around us. After the divorce, once or twice a year my mom would drive to his place, (couple hours away), and drop us off. It put him on the spot but he tried his best. When I was a teenager I spent a few days with him and while he was still unsure about it we got along well mainly because I was able to have 'adult' discourse with him. He remarried to a very strong, family-oriented woman who was finally able to bring him out and he became a very loving grandad. As an adult I spent more time with him and we got to know each other and to like and love each other. He just had no use for kids. So I think a lot of the time dads don't pay as much attention to the kids is because they are working long hours or they have no idea what to do with them. I don't want to dilute anything you said about your personal situation and relationship with your dad. However, there is another factor that comes into play many times. Mothers can be very critical of dads trying to parent children. They resent intrusion by fathers into an area they consider a woman's protected domain. In fact, some mothers are threatened emotionally by fathers trying to parent. The end result is the mothers drive fathers away and are extremely critical of everything fathers attempt to do, until the fathers give up. ----------------------- Oh I agree. A woman may feel that by the dad being a good father that that somehow diminishes her being a good mother. Or that people may think that the dad is a better parent than her. I think a lot of men stay away because they know it is going to cause an uproar if they insist on being around and don't want that to affect the kids. ~AZ~ |
Fathers the key to child behavior
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net... "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "Joy" wrote in message ... Geez, just noticed the cross post on my earlier response. Before anybody gets all up in arms at the idea that I'd ask about kids whose fathers are less than sterling, I'd like to point out that this was intended as a legitimate question (which would have been understood in the one group on this distribution list that I normally post to). There seem to be a lot of studies on the negative effect on kids of having less contact with a parent after a divorce - but this always seems to refer to kids who actually had a significant relationship with both parents before the divorce. My "What about those kids whose fathers didn't pay attention to them *before* the divorce?" question was referring to those kids who, well, didn't have a significant relationship with both parents before the divorce. I don't think I've ever seen a study on the effect of divorce on those kids, and wondered if there are any such studies. -------------------- I don't know about any studies but in my case my dad was away from home a lot and when he was home he had no idea what to do with two kids. He never wanted kids but followed the script and had them anyway. He was never abusive to us he just didn't know how to act around us. After the divorce, once or twice a year my mom would drive to his place, (couple hours away), and drop us off. It put him on the spot but he tried his best. When I was a teenager I spent a few days with him and while he was still unsure about it we got along well mainly because I was able to have 'adult' discourse with him. He remarried to a very strong, family-oriented woman who was finally able to bring him out and he became a very loving grandad. As an adult I spent more time with him and we got to know each other and to like and love each other. He just had no use for kids. So I think a lot of the time dads don't pay as much attention to the kids is because they are working long hours or they have no idea what to do with them. I don't want to dilute anything you said about your personal situation and relationship with your dad. However, there is another factor that comes into play many times. Mothers can be very critical of dads trying to parent children. They resent intrusion by fathers into an area they consider a woman's protected domain. In fact, some mothers are threatened emotionally by fathers trying to parent. The end result is the mothers drive fathers away and are extremely critical of everything fathers attempt to do, until the fathers give up. ----------------------- Oh I agree. A woman may feel that by the dad being a good father that that somehow diminishes her being a good mother. Or that people may think that the dad is a better parent than her. I think a lot of men stay away because they know it is going to cause an uproar if they insist on being around and don't want that to affect the kids. ~AZ~ |
Fathers the key to child behavior
"Tiffany" wrote in message ...
That is an ancient argument. Still valid, as well. If that were the case, everyone could say to those paying tons of support to greedy women that THEY asked for is also as they had sex with the greedy women. This is a Red Herring. The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple having serial unprotected sex is going to be a pregnancy. Therefore she chose poorly, as the result *will always be* a pregnancy. The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple marrying is *not* tons of support to greedy women. This result is due to the currect C$ laws in the mostly Anglo-West. This can change. Human biology cannot. The result *will not always be* a divorce and CPS CS payments. Laws and sexist attitudes make it so, not a man's poor choice. In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple having serial unprotected sex was going to be a pregnancy. In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple marrying *was not* tons of support to greedy women. The laws have changed since 1970. Human biology has not. You assume female greed when a man pays CS. Interesting assumption, coming from a(n apparent) woman. T "Editor -- Child Support News" wrote in message ... He was apaprently good enough for you to have had sex with, wasn't he? "Joy" wrote in message ... What about those kids whose fathers didn't pay attention to them *before* the divorce? |
Fathers the key to child behavior
"Tiffany" wrote in message ...
That is an ancient argument. Still valid, as well. If that were the case, everyone could say to those paying tons of support to greedy women that THEY asked for is also as they had sex with the greedy women. This is a Red Herring. The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple having serial unprotected sex is going to be a pregnancy. Therefore she chose poorly, as the result *will always be* a pregnancy. The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple marrying is *not* tons of support to greedy women. This result is due to the currect C$ laws in the mostly Anglo-West. This can change. Human biology cannot. The result *will not always be* a divorce and CPS CS payments. Laws and sexist attitudes make it so, not a man's poor choice. In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple having serial unprotected sex was going to be a pregnancy. In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple marrying *was not* tons of support to greedy women. The laws have changed since 1970. Human biology has not. You assume female greed when a man pays CS. Interesting assumption, coming from a(n apparent) woman. T "Editor -- Child Support News" wrote in message ... He was apaprently good enough for you to have had sex with, wasn't he? "Joy" wrote in message ... What about those kids whose fathers didn't pay attention to them *before* the divorce? |
Fathers the key to child behavior
"Tiffany" wrote in message ...
That is an ancient argument. Still valid, as well. If that were the case, everyone could say to those paying tons of support to greedy women that THEY asked for is also as they had sex with the greedy women. This is a Red Herring. The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple having serial unprotected sex is going to be a pregnancy. Therefore she chose poorly, as the result *will always be* a pregnancy. The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple marrying is *not* tons of support to greedy women. This result is due to the currect C$ laws in the mostly Anglo-West. This can change. Human biology cannot. The result *will not always be* a divorce and CPS CS payments. Laws and sexist attitudes make it so, not a man's poor choice. In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple having serial unprotected sex was going to be a pregnancy. In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple marrying *was not* tons of support to greedy women. The laws have changed since 1970. Human biology has not. You assume female greed when a man pays CS. Interesting assumption, coming from a(n apparent) woman. T "Editor -- Child Support News" wrote in message ... He was apaprently good enough for you to have had sex with, wasn't he? "Joy" wrote in message ... What about those kids whose fathers didn't pay attention to them *before* the divorce? |
Fathers the key to child behavior
"Lee" wrote in message m... "Tiffany" wrote in message ... That is an ancient argument. Still valid, as well. If that were the case, everyone could say to those paying tons of support to greedy women that THEY asked for is also as they had sex with the greedy women. This is a Red Herring. The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple having serial unprotected sex is going to be a pregnancy. Therefore she chose poorly, as the result *will always be* a pregnancy. She choose poorly, he choose poorly. Human nature also dictates that no human is perfect, therefor not perfect in its choses. The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple marrying is *not* tons of support to greedy women. This result is due to the currect C$ laws in the mostly Anglo-West. This can change. Human biology cannot. Human biology doesn't need to change, the way couples act when faced with disicions that should be based on the needs of children DO NEED TO CHANGE. The result *will not always be* a divorce and CPS CS payments. Laws and sexist attitudes make it so, not a man's poor choice. When a divorce happens, it is the act of one of those persons to use the law to the best of interests. IF one isn't greedy, they won't feel the need to use those laws. In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple having serial unprotected sex was going to be a pregnancy. In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple marrying *was not* tons of support to greedy women. The laws have changed since 1970. Human biology has not. You assume female greed when a man pays CS. Interesting assumption, coming from a(n apparent) woman. I assume nothing, I am basing that statement on the millions of posts on this newsgroup about greedy women.\ |
Fathers the key to child behavior
"Lee" wrote in message m... "Tiffany" wrote in message ... That is an ancient argument. Still valid, as well. If that were the case, everyone could say to those paying tons of support to greedy women that THEY asked for is also as they had sex with the greedy women. This is a Red Herring. The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple having serial unprotected sex is going to be a pregnancy. Therefore she chose poorly, as the result *will always be* a pregnancy. She choose poorly, he choose poorly. Human nature also dictates that no human is perfect, therefor not perfect in its choses. The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple marrying is *not* tons of support to greedy women. This result is due to the currect C$ laws in the mostly Anglo-West. This can change. Human biology cannot. Human biology doesn't need to change, the way couples act when faced with disicions that should be based on the needs of children DO NEED TO CHANGE. The result *will not always be* a divorce and CPS CS payments. Laws and sexist attitudes make it so, not a man's poor choice. When a divorce happens, it is the act of one of those persons to use the law to the best of interests. IF one isn't greedy, they won't feel the need to use those laws. In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple having serial unprotected sex was going to be a pregnancy. In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple marrying *was not* tons of support to greedy women. The laws have changed since 1970. Human biology has not. You assume female greed when a man pays CS. Interesting assumption, coming from a(n apparent) woman. I assume nothing, I am basing that statement on the millions of posts on this newsgroup about greedy women.\ |
Fathers the key to child behavior
"Lee" wrote in message m... "Tiffany" wrote in message ... That is an ancient argument. Still valid, as well. If that were the case, everyone could say to those paying tons of support to greedy women that THEY asked for is also as they had sex with the greedy women. This is a Red Herring. The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple having serial unprotected sex is going to be a pregnancy. Therefore she chose poorly, as the result *will always be* a pregnancy. She choose poorly, he choose poorly. Human nature also dictates that no human is perfect, therefor not perfect in its choses. The logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple marrying is *not* tons of support to greedy women. This result is due to the currect C$ laws in the mostly Anglo-West. This can change. Human biology cannot. Human biology doesn't need to change, the way couples act when faced with disicions that should be based on the needs of children DO NEED TO CHANGE. The result *will not always be* a divorce and CPS CS payments. Laws and sexist attitudes make it so, not a man's poor choice. When a divorce happens, it is the act of one of those persons to use the law to the best of interests. IF one isn't greedy, they won't feel the need to use those laws. In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple having serial unprotected sex was going to be a pregnancy. In 1940 (100b.c., etc...) the logical result of any fertile heterosexual couple marrying *was not* tons of support to greedy women. The laws have changed since 1970. Human biology has not. You assume female greed when a man pays CS. Interesting assumption, coming from a(n apparent) woman. I assume nothing, I am basing that statement on the millions of posts on this newsgroup about greedy women.\ |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com