10 ways to be a better father

In article ,
toto wrote:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:39:40 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:

Yes, the child has a real dad out there somewhere. The child will
suffer from her actions until it is reunited with his father.

My father was born in a home for unwed mothers. When his mother later
married, her husband refused to let my father live with them, because,
he said, he wasn't going to raise "some other man's *******."

My father may have been hurt by never knowing who his bio-dad was,
though when he was older and Grandma offered to tell him, he decided
he'd rather not know.

He was DEFINATELY hurt -- badly -- by being rejected so thoroughly by a
man he knew.

1 - Not all men WANT to be reunited with a child they sired.
2 - Regardless of what happens with the bio-dad, it is definately
hurtful to be rejected by the man who you thought was your father, and
who claimed to love you. I can't imagine the pain of being told that
that love was conditional upon biological relatedness.

Another pertinant story. My cousin eloped with a man twice
her age (she was 17 at the time) and became pregnant.
When he learned that she was pregnant, he abandoned her
and divorced her. She returned home and her mom helped
her through the pregnancy and helped with the baby until she
remarried a few years later.

She and her new husband had 3 biological children. However,
the *other man's child,* my cousin's oldest was beaten and
despised until she ran away at 11 and was adopted by her
grandmother. My cousin was beaten by him too. She was
a waitress, sole financial support of the family. He couldn't
keep a job. She finally divorced him (and yes, she initiated
the divorce, Bob). She moved and supported the children
until they were grown. She died from cancer some years
ago. Her children are doing ok, but they sure didn't have a
real father.


Which actually raises an interesting question: in the studies of who
initiates the breakup in the case of divorce, what, exactly, is
considered? If it is "who filed for divorce" that would not seem to be
adequate information. I had a friend a few years ago who had been
abandoned, and when she wanted to start dating again, she had to prove
that she had searched for her husband before she could divorce him.
(She never found him, by the way. Even his own family didn't know
where he'd gone.) He definately left her -- but in the stats, since
she is the one who filed for divorce, is she the one credited with the
breakup?

Or, in the case you describe above, is a woman credited with initiating
the breakup when she leaves because of domestic abuse?

I suspect that who really "initiated" the breakup is hard to know most
of the time; people seldom keep their unhappiness entirely to
themselves. With others of you, I suspect that *most of the time* there
are two people at fault, to at least some degree.

Just curious as to whether or not anyone here knows what the statistics
actually measure.

(Note newsgroups other than misc.kids have been stripped. What's the
point?)

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:26:36 -0500, Nan wrote:


You know Dorothy... no amount of reasonable logic is ever going to be
accepted by these guys.

Nan

Yeah, I konw.

I should probably stop, but maybe some lurkers will *get it.*


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

toto ) writes:
On 21 Nov 2003 03:20:25 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

Funny thing this... When I reported on a case that was covered
by National Canadian media, and went all the way to the Canadian
Supreme Court, I was told that I was using anecdotes, that weren't
worthy.

I was not the one who objected to anecdotes. I don't know who that
was, but you might attempt to realize that not everyone here is the
same.

I'm just pointing out that posters *hypocrisy*.

Which did NOT come from soc.men...

I have no objection to using anecdotal evidence at all and it was Bob
and you who told me that this was not worthy.

As proof of societal trends, no. When *added* to trend proofs, they
make for *examples*.

I never said anything
about that with your post of a case. I didn't answer that post at
all.

I was keeping the record honest.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

In article , Bob
wrote:

Nan wrote:
Bigotry rocks some people to their absolute cores.

Nan

It sure does, doesn't it NAN. You ought to know.



Oh my lord, he's actually been reduced to, "I know I am, but what are
you?"

(Cross posting cut)

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

toto ) writes:
On 21 Nov 2003 07:11:18 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

toto ) writes:
On 21 Nov 2003 03:16:35 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

BYW, when a man is proven, by DNA, to NOT be the father, then he
DIDN'T sleep with the woman, at least not when that child was created.

That much is true. That's about your ex-wife.

Not " mine ", but in general, yes.

But how did you feel about the child before you knew this?

Did you change his diapers? Did you put her to bed and read her
stories? Did you go to his school play? Did you help her with her
homework?

Did you feel good when s/he called you daddy and said that s/he
loved you?

" But, how did you feel about your husband before you ****ed around
on him ? Did you fix his meals ? Do you go to his work functions ?
Did you help with his familial tasks ? Did you feel good when he
called you 'wife' and said that he loved you ? "

You're saying that women can change their minds, but that men
*can't* be allowed to.
Thats misandry, of course.

You continue to REFUSE to face the *woman's actions*.

Because you hate men.

Andre

No, I perfectly understand that the man no longer loves his wife
and that the wife didn't love her husband when she *****ed around on*
him at all.

OK...

But your wife is not a child and neither are you.

Non sequitur. The actor who chose to create that child is NOT
the man.

Justa s with " no taxation without representation ", the
principle of " no responsibility without the right to have
chosen what created that responsibility " is a serious part
of western law.

Thus you can take
care of yourselves. A child cannot and needs unconditional love
and emotional closeness to the people who s/he considers her
parents. S/he didn't change her mind about loving you or loving
her mother.

All well and nice, but utterly IRRELEVANT to the issue of making
non related people pay for it's upbringing.

No where am I saying you have to love your wife in this situation.
No where would I compel you to stay or to pay for the child. I am
asking you to *think* about the child instead of about yourself
though. That's what being a dad is about, it isn't about biology.

Cow****. That sort of " fatherhood ", as with that sort of
motherhood, is only to be *freely chosen*.

You're demanding that men be responsible for women's ****ing around.
thats an excellent way to *make sure that women keep ****ing around.

IOW, you want what you say you want not to be, to be further *enabled*.

Look up " tough love "...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:16:06 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:

Oh my lord, he's actually been reduced to, "I know I am, but what are
you?"

He pretty much started that way. It's compelling, in kind of the same
way a train wreck is compelling.

On 21 Nov 2003 17:26:29 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

That sort of " fatherhood ", as with that sort of
motherhood, is only to be *freely chosen*.

Certainly it should be freely chosen. But you did choose to
marry her and you did create a relationship with the child
The child was born. Presumably you wanted a child of your
own. You thought you had one and behaved as if this was
your own child. Assuming you love the child, why should
anything that someone else did change your love?

That is what I don't get...

Suppose you have two brothers. One of them is a cheat
and when you try to help him, he scams you out of a
lot of money, the other is an upstanding person who has
been scammed by this brother as well. Do you stop
loving the loyal brother because the other one cheated
you?


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:32:08 -0800, Rauni
wrote:

Some of Bob's gems!

http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/...oldenbull.html

The man is deranged.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

Joni Rathbun ) writes:
On 23 Nov 2003, Andre Lieven wrote:

"Jayne Kulikauskas" ) writes:
"Joni Rathbun" wrote in message
...

[]
Frankly, I don't believe a man should be forced to support a child
that is not his biologically. If the child is more than just a baby
and has grown to know and love that man as "Daddy," such abandonment
could, of course, destroy the child and any man that does that should
be castrated and removed from the gene pool. But no, he should not
be forced to care for a child not sprung from his very loins. And
in the long version of this story, the child will probably be
better off not knowing such a man.

How can you be so harsh?

Because of Ms. Rathbun's slavish adherance to the Feminist Principle:

" *Always* blame the nearest *man*, no matter what ! "

Far be it for her to *hold the author of the problem responsible*, IE-
Easy Mommy. Rather, the *man* is, in her view, *supposed* to *always*
*fix anything that the woman did wrong*, and if he doesn't, no matter
that SHE is the one *who ****ed around on her marriage and made a child
APART from her HUSBAND, if the husband doesn't totally take the bullet
of responisbility for HER*, HES the Bad Guy.

Another lame ass attempt at avoiding the issue.

Translation: " How dare you people not agree that women=blameless
for anything. How dare you actually want to speak about women's
responsibilities for their created messes. "

Perhaps you boys aren't playing with a full deck.

Translation: " Anyone who disagrees with me is mentally ill. I
learned this from the former Soviet Union, where they believed the
same thing.

Who knows.

Translation: " I know nothing, and thats fine. "

But I'm not into your cry baby blaming game.

Translation: " Daring to demand that women and men be *both* held
to the same standards of personal responsibility is bad for women.
Plus, only WE get to cry. "

My concern is with the resulting child

Translation: " My concern is with making sure that women always get
what they *want*, no matter what evils they do, and the messes they
make MUST always be cleaned up by men. "

whom you wish to blame for his or her mother's mistakes.

Lets see... YOU want to blame the man for what the Easy Mommy did.

I want to hold Easy Mommy *responsible*, and NOT make men clean up
her resulting messes...

Now, as it was Easy Mommy who made the mess, in the spirit of Real
Equality, I say, " let her clean up her own mess. " Period.

Thanks for showing, once again, that Feminists HATE the idea of
equality...

Your concern is only for you. yawn

Translation: " How dare men think of their own feelings and interests !
Only women's count... "

Your misandry proven. Plonk.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Andre Lieven" wrote:

Perhaps you boys aren't playing with a full deck.

Translation: " Anyone who disagrees with me is mentally ill. I
learned this from the former Soviet Union, where they believed the
same thing.

And how have you been characterizing those in this thread who
disagree with you?


P. Tierney