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

"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~

"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~

"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~

"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?

"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?

"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?

"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.\

"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.\

"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.\