Kid is fussy

"Mystified One" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...
:
:
: No one here gives a **** about your pathological need to bash your
: ex-husband.
:
: Why are you pumping your children for information about how their father
is
: doing? And why are you accepting your children's interpretation of his
: situation as fact? Why are you trying to make people believe you are
: happier now because you are divorced? These are some good questions for
you
: to bring up in therapy, if you ever go.
:
:
I'm not pumping them for information. The information was available
through
a social report done by the court system. I wouldn't dare pump my kids
for
any information.

Nice snip job. You took out the part about "what my kids tell me" and
changed it to "information...available through a social report done by the
court system." That's just total BS because any court report regarding
your case would not report out on the status of his current marriage.

Mothers who pump their children for information about their ex's are abusing
their children. It puts the children in the position to tattle on their
fathers and deliver the "good news" mom wants to hear to get their mother's
approval. That's child abuse no matter how you try to diffuse attention
away from what you originally said.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
k.net...
:
: "Mystified One" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
: ink.net...
: :
: :
: : No one here gives a **** about your pathological need to bash your
: : ex-husband.
: :
: : Why are you pumping your children for information about how their
father
: is
: : doing? And why are you accepting your children's interpretation of
his
: : situation as fact? Why are you trying to make people believe you are
: : happier now because you are divorced? These are some good questions
for
: you
: : to bring up in therapy, if you ever go.
: :
: :
: I'm not pumping them for information. The information was available
: through
: a social report done by the court system. I wouldn't dare pump my kids
: for
: any information.
:
: Nice snip job. You took out the part about "what my kids tell me" and
: changed it to "information...available through a social report done by the
: court system." That's just total BS because any court report regarding
: your case would not report out on the status of his current marriage.
:
: Mothers who pump their children for information about their ex's are
abusing
: their children. It puts the children in the position to tattle on their
: fathers and deliver the "good news" mom wants to hear to get their
mother's
: approval. That's child abuse no matter how you try to diffuse attention
: away from what you originally said.
:
Only thing the kids really tell me is their father fights a lot with their
stepmother. And yes, the only place I know about his finances is through
the social report via the Domestic Relations Office.

You go, girl!

"Kim" wrote in message
news:KIG_e.278678$tt5.258153@edtnps90...
:
: "Mystified One" wrote in message
: ...
: I'm willing to bet it happens when you're stuck with a child all day and
: can't get any adult stimulation.
:
: The years I spent at home with my kids almost drove me nuts! I love
them,
: but I like being reminded I'm human, too.
:
: Awwwwwwwww thanks but yaknow I'm not... My babies are 18 1/2 and 14 years
: old... I need a break from reality some days and if using the term sammich
: (which I used as a child and my children hav NEVER used) pleases me then
: dammit I'm going to...
:
:
: "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
: ink.net...
: :
: : "Kim" wrote in message
: : news:ldj_e.193333$wr.180374@clgrps12...
: : Hi Anna!
: :
: : There are whole grain pastas AND vegetable pasta's... MUCH better if
: : Darrell
: : is going through a fuzzy spell... My boy - back in the day - would
: only
: : eat
: : peanutbutter and banana sammiches and a glass of milk... Brekky,
lunch
: and
: : dinner!
: :
: : Why do mothers talk like babies when addressing adults? Sammiches?
: Brekky?
: : What the heck is a "fuzzy spell"? Are you children having children?
: :
: :
:
:
:
:

"Kim" wrote in message
newsKG_e.278699$tt5.124251@edtnps90...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Mystified One" wrote in message
...
I'm willing to bet it happens when you're stuck with a child all day
and
can't get any adult stimulation.

Single mothers stuck all day with children are welfare queens. Weak
women
are responders who rely on other people to provide them with personal
happiness and emotional stimulation. There is no excuse for a MATURE
woman
to talk like a baby!

Poor Bob needs his eyes checked... I didn't say I was mature... Nope I do
NOT remember writing that at all...

That's right you didn't say you were mature! And I'll accept the fact you
are not mature.

But what you failed to recognize is many men have been single parents and
know how to take care of young children. One of the adult male child
rearing skills is to bring adult language into the parent/child relationship
and not talk baby talk. When their children are over 14 years of age like
one poster here admitted to doing it is totally inappropriate to be talking
baby talk. Children pick up on the emotional maturity of their parents and
talking like babies is not a mature sign for mothers to be proud of
displaying.

"One of the adult male child rearing skills is to bring adult language
into the parent/child relationship and not talk baby talk."

I've seen many a father using baby talk with their kids. To say men
only use adult language with their children and only women use baby
talk is ridiculous.

wrote in message
ups.com...
"One of the adult male child rearing skills is to bring adult language
into the parent/child relationship and not talk baby talk."

I've seen many a father using baby talk with their kids. To say men
only use adult language with their children and only women use baby
talk is ridiculous.

Do a Google search using "mothers baby talk." Here is one of many articles
about research into mothers using baby talk more frequently than fathers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2729867.stm

My point was this tendency for mothers to use baby talk more carries over as
the children mature. The mother here who acknowledged having a 14 year old
child, but was still using baby talk to communicate, was a specific example
of my point.

Fathers on the other hand, use more direct communication with less ambiguity
in their speech patterns. Child Trends, a non-partisan group who does
research studies regarding child development, writes extensively about how
fathers modeling life skills are part of positive father involvement for
children. Child Trends concludes fathers have disproportionate influence on
children in many areas. One is competence in social interactions. Another
is the father influence on a child's gender role development. Adult
language and communication skills are key elements children learn from
fathers, not a bunch of baby talk.

I read the article and there was nothing negative in it toward either
gender. Actually, the research showed that mothers communicate better
and less ambiguously with their babies.

I tend not to read too much into any "findings" by pro-mother or
pro-father groups. These groups like to just add fuel to the fire and
encourage gender bias. Both parents are important in a child's
development.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I read the article and there was nothing negative in it toward either
gender. Actually, the research showed that mothers communicate better
and less ambiguously with their babies.

I tend not to read too much into any "findings" by pro-mother or
pro-father groups. These groups like to just add fuel to the fire and
encourage gender bias. Both parents are important in a child's
development.

You are looking at research bias about parenting in a myopic way. The issue
is not research bias by pro-mother or pro-father groups. The real issue is
the grossly limited research conducted on the relationship between children
and fathers and how fathers contribute to child outcomes. The bias is in
the academics ignoring the father-child relationship and focusing almost
exclusively on the mother-child relationship. A few scholars are starting
to wake up to this fact and address this underlying research bias.

That is why when mothers hear some of the facts brought out in the latest
father-child relationship research they react as if the scholarly findings
are not valid. Or worse they refer to the father-child relationship
findings as "pro-father." The real bias is in mothers only relying on
pro-mother research and rejecting any new research that doesn't fit the
pro-mother template.

"'Kate" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:22:07 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
the following was posted in blue dry erase marker:


wrote in message
roups.com...
I read the article and there was nothing negative in it toward either
gender. Actually, the research showed that mothers communicate better
and less ambiguously with their babies.

I tend not to read too much into any "findings" by pro-mother or
pro-father groups. These groups like to just add fuel to the fire and
encourage gender bias. Both parents are important in a child's
development.

You are looking at research bias about parenting in a myopic way. The
issue
is not research bias by pro-mother or pro-father groups. The real issue
is
the grossly limited research conducted on the relationship between
children
and fathers and how fathers contribute to child outcomes. The bias is
in
the academics ignoring the father-child relationship and focusing almost
exclusively on the mother-child relationship. A few scholars are
starting
to wake up to this fact and address this underlying research bias.

That is why when mothers hear some of the facts brought out in the latest
father-child relationship research they react as if the scholarly
findings
are not valid. Or worse they refer to the father-child relationship
findings as "pro-father." The real bias is in mothers only relying on
pro-mother research and rejecting any new research that doesn't fit the
pro-mother template.

Are you completely out of your mind? How long have you been studying
family therapy?

I am not out of my mind. I have been studying family issues for years.

A pivotal point in the sea change of family relationships research came
after the 1996 Clinton Administration's Fatherhood Initiative. Many family
therapy professionals finally had the light bulb go off that all of the
family research in the post-feminist movement era had been based on
assumptions made about fatherhood based on what women said about it. Public
policies, social programs, and spending priorities were based on input from
women only or researchers who set out with an agenda to prove pre-research
assumptions about women's plight post divorce.

What has changed is family research including fathers has started to alter
many of the false assumptions made by researchers who neglected to include
fathers in their data gathering and research findings. A good example is
Dr. Sanford Braver's book "Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths" published in
1998 where he discusses the largest federally funded research project ever
to include fathers and their role in parenting. Another good example is the
newest stuff published by Child Trends in Washington, DC.

In his research Dr. Braver found there was no scientific evidence to backup
the stereotypes about fatherhood that fathers abandoned their families,
fathers didn't pay child support, fathers were irresponsible, fathers aren't
involved in their children's lives, etc. What he found instead was when he
interviewed fathers there was no scientific data to support those
conclusions and the real picture of fatherhood was 180 degrees from popular
opinion.

The point I was trying to make here is when people cling to the previous
erroneous assumptions about fathers and their lack of contributions to child
development that are based on mother only research responses are really
being biased because they are unwilling to accept the most recent family
research that is based on interviews with both mothers and fathers. When
fathers are interviewed the unbiased picture of fatherhood is no longer
filtered through the mother-only template.

"'Kate" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:38:49 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
the following was posted in blue dry erase marker:


I am not out of my mind. I have been studying family issues for years.

It shows. However, your ideas are not balanced. Actual classes in theory
and research would have helped.

Your take on family research is inaccurate. You appear to be studying or
remembering only what seems to make sense to you and filling in the
blanks. With regard to research, I can only say that's what got us here
in the first place - looking for what we want or expect to find. Bias.
It's inherent in the questions that we study. Good research includes a
discussion of researcher bias.

Would you agree that Dr. Lenore Weitzman, who hid her "research" raw data
from peer review for over 10 years has a bias? Did her "research" that
indicated falsely women were worse off financially post-divorce have an
impact on public policy for child support awards that still continue to this
day? Did Lying Lenore refuse to give up her basic data for the normal peer
review? Why did she do that? Is Lenore an example of researcher bias or
just a researcher with an agenda she wanted to prove through bogus research
and mathematical errors she ultimately blamed on a graduate assistant? I
may be filling in the blanks but to me Lenore Weitzman was a fraud!


I can guarantee you that there are some very basic reasons why research
is done on a specific population to the exclusion of other populations -
money, time, and special interest funding. Single mothers were an easy
target in a decade or two of skyrocketing divorce rates (no-fault
divorce, women's rights movements, equal education funding/scholarship
initiatives for women).

Single mothers are a special interest group that politicians pander to. The
NOW inbfluence has got spineless politicians so scared they will not talk
about reality with single women. The irony is NOW tries to represent single
women as strong individuals who can survive on their own. Yet all of the
policies they advocate are to make single women financially relient on men
and government programs.


Most of the research on single mothers was to their detriment. Again,
they were a new, easy to find population to study. The spin on these
studies was to do nothing more than reinforce the prevailing idea of
"family"... just like they're doing now with gay and lesbian couples
with regard to adoption and marriage.

The research approach then and the research approach now are just as wrong
headed. The outcome is pre-determioned before the data is in and that is
wrong and biased.


Single fathers comprised such a small population that it was difficult
to find enough research subjects for a statistically valid study.
Complicating matters, the court system was still awarding custody of the
children to mothers under the "Tender Years Doctrine" further decreasing
the number of single father headed homes.

I couldn't agree more. Gender neutral language in custody law is a shame.
Mothers continue to recieve placement custody 85% of the time, fathers get
custody 8% of the time, and other relatives, foster care parents, and the
youth authority get custody the other 7% of the time. Even with the
statutory change over to the "best interest of the child" standards for
custody fathers still get the same distribution of custody awards.

As I have tried to point out repeatedly, the problem with child development
outcomes research is the total lack of inclusion of fathers input into the
research data. This is what is changing and mothers don;t like to hear the
results.


In the last decade or so, there's been a push in the field of
psychological research toward positivism - i.e. families that have been
through difficult life situations and have NOT suffered negatively. The
majority of people do not suffer negative repercussions. Many, in fact,
grow from the experience - increased religiosity, stronger family bonds,
more community support (for example - check studies on Posttraumatic
Growth... the focus of my ongoing family therapy research). Positivism
is the primary reason why more single fathers are being included in
research. The ability to study populations differently, like via the
'net, is aiding the ability of researchers to have statistically
relevant results from minority populations; the increase in the number
of single-father led homes has helped a great deal.

Positivism is also why current studies on single mothers do not show the
bleak outcome that they once indicated for our children.

With all due respect, I think your ideas are lost in the intellectual mire
of family research definitions and have nothing to do with reality. If you
tell me a child is subjected to "postivism" I'll call BS. I have no clue
what "religiosity" "post traumatic growth" or "positivism" means. To me
those are intellectual BS terms that have little or no meaning related to
actual child outcomes from real parenting.

Quite frankly, the assumption more fathers are being awarded custody is
another phony research conclusion. I'll agree more fathers are being
awarded joint legal custody but I'll disagree more fathers are being awarded
more joint physical custody. There is a major difference between the two
and combining the two types of joint custody just muddies the waters more
between the issues we are discussing.