Discussion:
Who is teaching the women?
(too old to reply)
jjonah
2003-08-08 13:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Driving the Divorce Rate: Who’s Teaching the Women?

August 3, 2003

by Art Lemasters

We know that with other things being equal, more children have healthier
lives if they have both mothers and fathers in intact families. We have
learned that with the high divorce rate, something needs to be done to
train fathers to stay with their families and that far too many fathers
abandon their wives and children, unwilling to abide by their
responsibilities… We’ve been on the wrong track.

Wives have been filing for divorce at about twice the rate (more, in
some places) of husbands. See the study report, “These Boots are Made
for Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce” (Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas
W. Allen, 2000, The American Law and Economics Association) in which an
enormous number of divorce certificates from four U.S. states were analyzed.

Why have so many supposedly conservative ministers and socio-political
writers sermonized exclusively on the problem of husbands abandoning or
being “absent” from their wives and children? Are we really doing women
any good service by refusing to truthfully define the problems
instigating the high rate of divorce in order to make it lower? Are we
doing the potential children of divorce any good by the same?

So how can we assure that fewer children will suffer from the ill
effects of divorce? According to the Brinig and Allen report, no-fault
divorce and “who gets the children” are the predominant motivations—not
“cruelty” (“6%,” with all forms of cruelty, including adultery). We have
allowed the saturation of our media and government with subjective
feminist propaganda, full of exaggerations, to divert our attention from
the prevalent causes of divorce. We need to know more about those
prevalent causes before we can take effective action to lower the
divorce rate.

Who’s teaching the women? We know that many socially conservative
organizations are now teaching men to be good fathers. Think about it.
Women are learning about issues of marriage and dealing with husbands
through Women’s Studies courses (feminist and humanist propaganda),
local “battered women’s shelters” (which disseminate more of the same in
each community) and many other kinds of organizations that teach women
to be independent—independent from husbands. Women are also taught by
such organizations to know the incentives to divorce (propaganda and
tactics that make divorce an easy lifestyle option for them). Most
conservative organizations have been recipients of some of the same
liberal, anti-family propaganda—many without knowing it.

The Brinig and Allen report should be sufficient to dispell the common
myth that fathers, more often than mothers, abandon their families, but
there are other sources of fact on the same issue. Two more references
are “Who Divorced Whom: Methodological and Theoretical Issues” [Sanford
L. Braver, Marnie Whitley and Christine Ng. Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage Vol 20(1/2) 1993, p.1.] and the May 21, 1991 National Center
for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report [Vol. 38, No. 12
(S) 2].

Many conservative organizations and organizations of faith are teaching
men to be good fathers and husbands. That may solve part of the problem,
and it is a good effort. Who will teach women to be good wives and mothers?

[Adapted from first publication to the Family Operations forum on
February the 1st, 2001.]


Art Lemasters
Art Lemasters lives in the Rocky Mountains of the USA. He enjoys
snowboarding, hiking, four-wheeling and building projects with family.
Art has been an active family and fatherhood advocate since the World
Wide Web was new.
jjonah
2003-08-11 15:36:41 UTC
Permalink
I see nobody has responded to this question.

I have my answer. Nobody is teaching the women. Could this be why
there are so many pissed off NOW feminists in the world? Unrealistic
expectations?

Prince Charming was never going to rescue you.

You will not be able to have children after age 40.

You simply cannot "have it all".

You must sacrifice.

You must cooperate.

You must work smart AND hard.

You must compromise.

You must play the game in place before you can change the rules of the game.

Finally, if you are better at it than your coworkers, you will receive
the recognition.

(why is it that those who complain the loudest about the work they do,
usually do the least?)
Post by jjonah
Driving the Divorce Rate: Who’s Teaching the Women?
August 3, 2003
by Art Lemasters
We know that with other things being equal, more children have healthier
lives if they have both mothers and fathers in intact families. We have
learned that with the high divorce rate, something needs to be done to
train fathers to stay with their families and that far too many fathers
abandon their wives and children, unwilling to abide by their
responsibilities… We’ve been on the wrong track.
Wives have been filing for divorce at about twice the rate (more, in
some places) of husbands. See the study report, “These Boots are Made
for Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce” (Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas
W. Allen, 2000, The American Law and Economics Association) in which an
enormous number of divorce certificates from four U.S. states were analyzed.
Why have so many supposedly conservative ministers and socio-political
writers sermonized exclusively on the problem of husbands abandoning or
being “absent” from their wives and children? Are we really doing women
any good service by refusing to truthfully define the problems
instigating the high rate of divorce in order to make it lower? Are we
doing the potential children of divorce any good by the same?
So how can we assure that fewer children will suffer from the ill
effects of divorce? According to the Brinig and Allen report, no-fault
divorce and “who gets the children” are the predominant motivations—not
“cruelty” (“6%,” with all forms of cruelty, including adultery). We have
allowed the saturation of our media and government with subjective
feminist propaganda, full of exaggerations, to divert our attention from
the prevalent causes of divorce. We need to know more about those
prevalent causes before we can take effective action to lower the
divorce rate.
Who’s teaching the women? We know that many socially conservative
organizations are now teaching men to be good fathers. Think about it.
Women are learning about issues of marriage and dealing with husbands
through Women’s Studies courses (feminist and humanist propaganda),
local “battered women’s shelters” (which disseminate more of the same in
each community) and many other kinds of organizations that teach women
to be independent—independent from husbands. Women are also taught by
such organizations to know the incentives to divorce (propaganda and
tactics that make divorce an easy lifestyle option for them). Most
conservative organizations have been recipients of some of the same
liberal, anti-family propaganda—many without knowing it.
The Brinig and Allen report should be sufficient to dispell the common
myth that fathers, more often than mothers, abandon their families, but
there are other sources of fact on the same issue. Two more references
are “Who Divorced Whom: Methodological and Theoretical Issues” [Sanford
L. Braver, Marnie Whitley and Christine Ng. Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage Vol 20(1/2) 1993, p.1.] and the May 21, 1991 National Center
for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report [Vol. 38, No. 12
(S) 2].
Many conservative organizations and organizations of faith are teaching
men to be good fathers and husbands. That may solve part of the problem,
and it is a good effort. Who will teach women to be good wives and mothers?
[Adapted from first publication to the Family Operations forum on
February the 1st, 2001.]
Art Lemasters
Art Lemasters lives in the Rocky Mountains of the USA. He enjoys
snowboarding, hiking, four-wheeling and building projects with family.
Art has been an active family and fatherhood advocate since the World
Wide Web was new.
jjonah
2003-08-11 19:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by jjonah
I see nobody has responded to this question.
What question? All I see is an article. Did you accidentally snip your
question from the original post?
It is the title of the piece. Oops. (and in the header)

OK, let me ask...

WHO is teaching the women? By who is teaching, please refer to the
article. Thanks.

alt.fan.earl-curley removed. WTF is earl-curley?
Jade
Post by jjonah
I have my answer. Nobody is teaching the women. Could this be why
there are so many pissed off NOW feminists in the world? Unrealistic
expectations?
Prince Charming was never going to rescue you.
You will not be able to have children after age 40.
You simply cannot "have it all".
You must sacrifice.
You must cooperate.
You must work smart AND hard.
You must compromise.
You must play the game in place before you can change the rules of the game.
Finally, if you are better at it than your coworkers, you will receive
the recognition.
(why is it that those who complain the loudest about the work they do,
usually do the least?)
Post by jjonah
Driving the Divorce Rate: Who’s Teaching the Women?
August 3, 2003
by Art Lemasters
We know that with other things being equal, more children have healthier
lives if they have both mothers and fathers in intact families. We have
learned that with the high divorce rate, something needs to be done to
train fathers to stay with their families and that far too many fathers
abandon their wives and children, unwilling to abide by their
responsibilities… We’ve been on the wrong track.
Wives have been filing for divorce at about twice the rate (more, in
some places) of husbands. See the study report, “These Boots are Made
for Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce” (Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas
W. Allen, 2000, The American Law and Economics Association) in which an
enormous number of divorce certificates from four U.S. states were analyzed.
Why have so many supposedly conservative ministers and socio-political
writers sermonized exclusively on the problem of husbands abandoning or
being “absent” from their wives and children? Are we really doing women
any good service by refusing to truthfully define the problems
instigating the high rate of divorce in order to make it lower? Are we
doing the potential children of divorce any good by the same?
So how can we assure that fewer children will suffer from the ill
effects of divorce? According to the Brinig and Allen report, no-fault
divorce and “who gets the children” are the predominant motivations—not
“cruelty” (“6%,” with all forms of cruelty, including adultery). We have
allowed the saturation of our media and government with subjective
feminist propaganda, full of exaggerations, to divert our attention from
the prevalent causes of divorce. We need to know more about those
prevalent causes before we can take effective action to lower the
divorce rate.
Who’s teaching the women? We know that many socially conservative
organizations are now teaching men to be good fathers. Think about it.
Women are learning about issues of marriage and dealing with husbands
through Women’s Studies courses (feminist and humanist propaganda),
local “battered women’s shelters” (which disseminate more of the same in
each community) and many other kinds of organizations that teach women
to be independent—independent from husbands. Women are also taught by
such organizations to know the incentives to divorce (propaganda and
tactics that make divorce an easy lifestyle option for them). Most
conservative organizations have been recipients of some of the same
liberal, anti-family propaganda—many without knowing it.
The Brinig and Allen report should be sufficient to dispell the common
myth that fathers, more often than mothers, abandon their families, but
there are other sources of fact on the same issue. Two more references
are “Who Divorced Whom: Methodological and Theoretical Issues” [Sanford
L. Braver, Marnie Whitley and Christine Ng. Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage Vol 20(1/2) 1993, p.1.] and the May 21, 1991 National Center
for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report [Vol. 38, No. 12
(S) 2].
Many conservative organizations and organizations of faith are teaching
men to be good fathers and husbands. That may solve part of the problem,
and it is a good effort. Who will teach women to be good wives and mothers?
[Adapted from first publication to the Family Operations forum on
February the 1st, 2001.]
Art Lemasters
Art Lemasters lives in the Rocky Mountains of the USA. He enjoys
snowboarding, hiking, four-wheeling and building projects with family.
Art has been an active family and fatherhood advocate since the World
Wide Web was new.
John Jones
2003-08-11 19:31:13 UTC
Permalink
jjonah wrote:
[...]
Post by jjonah
alt.fan.earl-curley removed. WTF is earl-curley?
Arguably one of the worst Usenet kooks and crackpots that ever
lived. Drank himself to death some years back. Kook day (June
26) is named in 'honor' of Earl Gordon Curley.
Peter J Ross
2003-08-12 01:01:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:31:13 GMT, a team of surgeons from soc.men
Post by John Jones
[...]
Post by jjonah
alt.fan.earl-curley removed. WTF is earl-curley?
Arguably one of the worst Usenet kooks and crackpots that ever
lived. Drank himself to death some years back. Kook day (June
26) is named in 'honor' of Earl Gordon Curley.
And you don't see the irony in mentioning these facts while being a
soc.men regular, do you?
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
The official soc.men FAQ:
<http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/Soc.men/faq.html>
Daedalus
2003-08-11 20:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by jjonah
Post by jjonah
I see nobody has responded to this question.
What question? All I see is an article. Did you accidentally snip your
question from the original post?
It is the title of the piece. Oops. (and in the header)
I think anyone reading the post and seeing it was the title of the
piece, as I did, assumes you are just posting an article as many other
people do on soc.men.

The article title is rhetorical. Since you never stated you wanted an
answer to the question, it's difficult to expect anyone to do so.
Post by jjonah
OK, let me ask...
WHO is teaching the women? By who is teaching, please refer to the
article. Thanks.
But you already stated the answer you were looking for. It's pretty
obvious what argument you were trying to make, so what is the point of
answering you NOW?
Post by jjonah
alt.fan.earl-curley removed. WTF is earl-curley?
The ghost of usenet past. [re-added]

Do you know who Karl Malden is?

Jade
Post by jjonah
Jade
Post by jjonah
I have my answer. Nobody is teaching the women. Could this be why
there are so many pissed off NOW feminists in the world? Unrealistic
expectations?
Prince Charming was never going to rescue you.
You will not be able to have children after age 40.
You simply cannot "have it all".
You must sacrifice.
You must cooperate.
You must work smart AND hard.
You must compromise.
You must play the game in place before you can change the rules of the game.
Finally, if you are better at it than your coworkers, you will receive
the recognition.
(why is it that those who complain the loudest about the work they do,
usually do the least?)
Driving the Divorce Rate: Who’s Teaching the Women?
August 3, 2003
by Art Lemasters
We know that with other things being equal, more children have healthier
lives if they have both mothers and fathers in intact families. We have
learned that with the high divorce rate, something needs to be done to
train fathers to stay with their families and that far too many fathers
abandon their wives and children, unwilling to abide by their
responsibilities… We’ve been on the wrong track.
Wives have been filing for divorce at about twice the rate (more, in
some places) of husbands. See the study report, “These Boots are Made
for Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce” (Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas
W. Allen, 2000, The American Law and Economics Association) in which an
enormous number of divorce certificates from four U.S. states were analyzed.
Why have so many supposedly conservative ministers and socio-political
writers sermonized exclusively on the problem of husbands abandoning or
being “absent” from their wives and children? Are we really doing women
any good service by refusing to truthfully define the problems
instigating the high rate of divorce in order to make it lower? Are we
doing the potential children of divorce any good by the same?
So how can we assure that fewer children will suffer from the ill
effects of divorce? According to the Brinig and Allen report, no-fault
divorce and “who gets the children” are the predominant motivations—not
“cruelty” (“6%,” with all forms of cruelty, including adultery). We have
allowed the saturation of our media and government with subjective
feminist propaganda, full of exaggerations, to divert our attention from
the prevalent causes of divorce. We need to know more about those
prevalent causes before we can take effective action to lower the
divorce rate.
Who’s teaching the women? We know that many socially conservative
organizations are now teaching men to be good fathers. Think about it.
Women are learning about issues of marriage and dealing with husbands
through Women’s Studies courses (feminist and humanist propaganda),
local “battered women’s shelters” (which disseminate more of the same in
each community) and many other kinds of organizations that teach women
to be independent—independent from husbands. Women are also taught by
such organizations to know the incentives to divorce (propaganda and
tactics that make divorce an easy lifestyle option for them). Most
conservative organizations have been recipients of some of the same
liberal, anti-family propaganda—many without knowing it.
The Brinig and Allen report should be sufficient to dispell the common
myth that fathers, more often than mothers, abandon their families, but
there are other sources of fact on the same issue. Two more references
are “Who Divorced Whom: Methodological and Theoretical Issues” [Sanford
L. Braver, Marnie Whitley and Christine Ng. Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage Vol 20(1/2) 1993, p.1.] and the May 21, 1991 National Center
for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report [Vol. 38, No. 12
(S) 2].
Many conservative organizations and organizations of faith are teaching
men to be good fathers and husbands. That may solve part of the problem,
and it is a good effort. Who will teach women to be good wives and mothers?
[Adapted from first publication to the Family Operations forum on
February the 1st, 2001.]
Art Lemasters
Art Lemasters lives in the Rocky Mountains of the USA. He enjoys
snowboarding, hiking, four-wheeling and building projects with family.
Art has been an active family and fatherhood advocate since the World
Wide Web was new.
jjonah
2003-08-11 20:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daedalus
Post by jjonah
Post by jjonah
I see nobody has responded to this question.
What question? All I see is an article. Did you accidentally snip your
question from the original post?
It is the title of the piece. Oops. (and in the header)
I think anyone reading the post and seeing it was the title of the
piece, as I did, assumes you are just posting an article as many other
people do on soc.men.
The article title is rhetorical. Since you never stated you wanted an
answer to the question, it's difficult to expect anyone to do so.
Post by jjonah
OK, let me ask...
WHO is teaching the women? By who is teaching, please refer to the
article. Thanks.
But you already stated the answer you were looking for. It's pretty
obvious what argument you were trying to make, so what is the point of
answering you NOW?
Ahhh, nice tactic. You've already made up your mind, so I'm going to
attack you instead of trying to answer the question.
Post by Daedalus
Post by jjonah
alt.fan.earl-curley removed. WTF is earl-curley?
The ghost of usenet past. [re-added]
Do you know who Karl Malden is?
You're role model?


If you can't answer the question, change the subject.
Post by Daedalus
Jade
Post by jjonah
Jade
Post by jjonah
I have my answer. Nobody is teaching the women. Could this be why
there are so many pissed off NOW feminists in the world? Unrealistic
expectations?
Prince Charming was never going to rescue you.
You will not be able to have children after age 40.
You simply cannot "have it all".
You must sacrifice.
You must cooperate.
You must work smart AND hard.
You must compromise.
You must play the game in place before you can change the rules of the game.
Finally, if you are better at it than your coworkers, you will receive
the recognition.
(why is it that those who complain the loudest about the work they do,
usually do the least?)
Post by jjonah
Driving the Divorce Rate: Who’s Teaching the Women?
August 3, 2003
by Art Lemasters
We know that with other things being equal, more children have healthier
lives if they have both mothers and fathers in intact families. We have
learned that with the high divorce rate, something needs to be done to
train fathers to stay with their families and that far too many fathers
abandon their wives and children, unwilling to abide by their
responsibilities… We’ve been on the wrong track.
Wives have been filing for divorce at about twice the rate (more, in
some places) of husbands. See the study report, “These Boots are Made
for Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce” (Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas
W. Allen, 2000, The American Law and Economics Association) in which an
enormous number of divorce certificates from four U.S. states were analyzed.
Why have so many supposedly conservative ministers and socio-political
writers sermonized exclusively on the problem of husbands abandoning or
being “absent” from their wives and children? Are we really doing women
any good service by refusing to truthfully define the problems
instigating the high rate of divorce in order to make it lower? Are we
doing the potential children of divorce any good by the same?
So how can we assure that fewer children will suffer from the ill
effects of divorce? According to the Brinig and Allen report, no-fault
divorce and “who gets the children” are the predominant motivations—not
“cruelty” (“6%,” with all forms of cruelty, including adultery). We have
allowed the saturation of our media and government with subjective
feminist propaganda, full of exaggerations, to divert our attention from
the prevalent causes of divorce. We need to know more about those
prevalent causes before we can take effective action to lower the
divorce rate.
Who’s teaching the women? We know that many socially conservative
organizations are now teaching men to be good fathers. Think about it.
Women are learning about issues of marriage and dealing with husbands
through Women’s Studies courses (feminist and humanist propaganda),
local “battered women’s shelters” (which disseminate more of the same in
each community) and many other kinds of organizations that teach women
to be independent—independent from husbands. Women are also taught by
such organizations to know the incentives to divorce (propaganda and
tactics that make divorce an easy lifestyle option for them). Most
conservative organizations have been recipients of some of the same
liberal, anti-family propaganda—many without knowing it.
The Brinig and Allen report should be sufficient to dispell the common
myth that fathers, more often than mothers, abandon their families, but
there are other sources of fact on the same issue. Two more references
are “Who Divorced Whom: Methodological and Theoretical Issues” [Sanford
L. Braver, Marnie Whitley and Christine Ng. Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage Vol 20(1/2) 1993, p.1.] and the May 21, 1991 National Center
for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report [Vol. 38, No. 12
(S) 2].
Many conservative organizations and organizations of faith are teaching
men to be good fathers and husbands. That may solve part of the problem,
and it is a good effort. Who will teach women to be good wives and mothers?
[Adapted from first publication to the Family Operations forum on
February the 1st, 2001.]
Art Lemasters
Art Lemasters lives in the Rocky Mountains of the USA. He enjoys
snowboarding, hiking, four-wheeling and building projects with family.
Art has been an active family and fatherhood advocate since the World
Wide Web was new.
jjonah
2003-08-11 20:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by jjonah
Post by Daedalus
Post by jjonah
Post by jjonah
I see nobody has responded to this question.
What question? All I see is an article. Did you accidentally snip your
question from the original post?
It is the title of the piece. Oops. (and in the header)
I think anyone reading the post and seeing it was the title of the
piece, as I did, assumes you are just posting an article as many other
people do on soc.men.
The article title is rhetorical. Since you never stated you wanted an
answer to the question, it's difficult to expect anyone to do so.
Post by jjonah
OK, let me ask...
WHO is teaching the women? By who is teaching, please refer to the
article. Thanks.
But you already stated the answer you were looking for. It's pretty
obvious what argument you were trying to make, so what is the point of
answering you NOW?
Ahhh, nice tactic. You've already made up your mind, so I'm going to
attack you instead of trying to answer the question.
Post by Daedalus
Post by jjonah
alt.fan.earl-curley removed. WTF is earl-curley?
The ghost of usenet past. [re-added]
Do you know who Karl Malden is?
You're role model?
Oops, (typo) Your role model?
Post by jjonah
If you can't answer the question, change the subject.
Post by Daedalus
Jade
Post by jjonah
Jade
Post by jjonah
I have my answer. Nobody is teaching the women. Could this be why
there are so many pissed off NOW feminists in the world?
Unrealistic expectations?
Prince Charming was never going to rescue you.
You will not be able to have children after age 40.
You simply cannot "have it all".
You must sacrifice.
You must cooperate.
You must work smart AND hard.
You must compromise.
You must play the game in place before you can change the rules of the game.
Finally, if you are better at it than your coworkers, you will
receive the recognition.
(why is it that those who complain the loudest about the work they
do, usually do the least?)
Post by jjonah
Driving the Divorce Rate: Who’s Teaching the Women?
August 3, 2003
by Art Lemasters
We know that with other things being equal, more children have
healthier lives if they have both mothers and fathers in intact
families. We have learned that with the high divorce rate,
something needs to be done to train fathers to stay with their
families and that far too many fathers abandon their wives and
children, unwilling to abide by their responsibilities… We’ve been
on the wrong track.
Wives have been filing for divorce at about twice the rate (more,
in some places) of husbands. See the study report, “These Boots
are Made for Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce” (Margaret F.
Brinig and Douglas W. Allen, 2000, The American Law and Economics
Association) in which an enormous number of divorce certificates
from four U.S. states were analyzed.
Why have so many supposedly conservative ministers and
socio-political writers sermonized exclusively on the problem of
husbands abandoning or being “absent” from their wives and
children? Are we really doing women any good service by refusing
to truthfully define the problems instigating the high rate of
divorce in order to make it lower? Are we doing the potential
children of divorce any good by the same?
So how can we assure that fewer children will suffer from the ill
effects of divorce? According to the Brinig and Allen report,
no-fault divorce and “who gets the children” are the predominant
motivations—not “cruelty” (“6%,” with all forms of cruelty,
including adultery). We have allowed the saturation of our media
and government with subjective feminist propaganda, full of
exaggerations, to divert our attention from the prevalent causes
of divorce. We need to know more about those prevalent causes
before we can take effective action to lower the divorce rate.
Who’s teaching the women? We know that many socially conservative
organizations are now teaching men to be good fathers. Think about
it. Women are learning about issues of marriage and dealing with
husbands through Women’s Studies courses (feminist and humanist
propaganda), local “battered women’s shelters” (which disseminate
more of the same in each community) and many other kinds of
organizations that teach women to be independent—independent from
husbands. Women are also taught by such organizations to know the
incentives to divorce (propaganda and tactics that make divorce an
easy lifestyle option for them). Most conservative organizations
have been recipients of some of the same liberal, anti-family
propaganda—many without knowing it.
The Brinig and Allen report should be sufficient to dispell the
common myth that fathers, more often than mothers, abandon their
families, but there are other sources of fact on the same issue.
Two more references are “Who Divorced Whom: Methodological and
Theoretical Issues” [Sanford L. Braver, Marnie Whitley and
Christine Ng. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage Vol 20(1/2) 1993,
p.1.] and the May 21, 1991 National Center for Health Statistics,
Monthly Vital Statistics Report [Vol. 38, No. 12 (S) 2].
Many conservative organizations and organizations of faith are
teaching men to be good fathers and husbands. That may solve part
of the problem, and it is a good effort. Who will teach women to
be good wives and mothers?
[Adapted from first publication to the Family Operations forum on
February the 1st, 2001.]
Art Lemasters
Art Lemasters lives in the Rocky Mountains of the USA. He enjoys
snowboarding, hiking, four-wheeling and building projects with
family. Art has been an active family and fatherhood advocate
since the World Wide Web was new.
Daedalus
2003-08-13 17:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by jjonah
Post by Daedalus
Post by jjonah
Post by jjonah
I see nobody has responded to this question.
What question? All I see is an article. Did you accidentally snip your
question from the original post?
It is the title of the piece. Oops. (and in the header)
I think anyone reading the post and seeing it was the title of the
piece, as I did, assumes you are just posting an article as many other
people do on soc.men.
The article title is rhetorical. Since you never stated you wanted an
answer to the question, it's difficult to expect anyone to do so.
Post by jjonah
OK, let me ask...
WHO is teaching the women? By who is teaching, please refer to the
article. Thanks.
But you already stated the answer you were looking for. It's pretty
obvious what argument you were trying to make, so what is the point of
answering you NOW?
Ahhh, nice tactic.
Huh? What do you think is going on here?
Post by jjonah
You've already made up your mind, so I'm going to
attack you instead of trying to answer the question.
Are you talking in first person narrative from my perspective, or
simply responding? You don't write very clearly.

I did not attack you. I simply pointed out that you have no license to
gloat at people when no one understands what you are talking about.
Why are you so sensitive? Or is it paranoia?

I have no interest in answering "the question". I have no interest in
the topic you are bringing up. I just thought I would help you become
a better communicator. Clearly you are not interested in making sense.
Post by jjonah
Post by Daedalus
Post by jjonah
alt.fan.earl-curley removed. WTF is earl-curley?
The ghost of usenet past. [re-added]
Do you know who Karl Malden is?
You're role model?
That was uncalled for. You've hurt me deeply jjonah. See if I ever try
to help you write better again.

There is no shame in being as respectable as Karl Malden - Nose and
all. Look how many people he helped get credit cards and a wide
variety of financial services. He helped real families in need.

What have you done?
Post by jjonah
If you can't answer the question, change the subject.
Will you get over yourself and your ridiculous question?

Jade
Post by jjonah
Post by Daedalus
Jade
Post by jjonah
Jade
Post by jjonah
I have my answer. Nobody is teaching the women. Could this be why
there are so many pissed off NOW feminists in the world? Unrealistic
expectations?
Prince Charming was never going to rescue you.
You will not be able to have children after age 40.
You simply cannot "have it all".
You must sacrifice.
You must cooperate.
You must work smart AND hard.
You must compromise.
You must play the game in place before you can change the rules of the game.
Finally, if you are better at it than your coworkers, you will receive
the recognition.
(why is it that those who complain the loudest about the work they do,
usually do the least?)
Driving the Divorce Rate: Who’s Teaching the Women?
August 3, 2003
by Art Lemasters
We know that with other things being equal, more children have healthier
lives if they have both mothers and fathers in intact families. We have
learned that with the high divorce rate, something needs to be done to
train fathers to stay with their families and that far too many fathers
abandon their wives and children, unwilling to abide by their
responsibilities… We’ve been on the wrong track.
Wives have been filing for divorce at about twice the rate (more, in
some places) of husbands. See the study report, “These Boots are Made
for Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce” (Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas
W. Allen, 2000, The American Law and Economics Association) in which an
enormous number of divorce certificates from four U.S. states were analyzed.
Why have so many supposedly conservative ministers and socio-political
writers sermonized exclusively on the problem of husbands abandoning or
being “absent” from their wives and children? Are we really doing women
any good service by refusing to truthfully define the problems
instigating the high rate of divorce in order to make it lower? Are we
doing the potential children of divorce any good by the same?
So how can we assure that fewer children will suffer from the ill
effects of divorce? According to the Brinig and Allen report, no-fault
divorce and “who gets the children” are the predominant motivations—not
“cruelty” (“6%,” with all forms of cruelty, including adultery). We have
allowed the saturation of our media and government with subjective
feminist propaganda, full of exaggerations, to divert our attention from
the prevalent causes of divorce. We need to know more about those
prevalent causes before we can take effective action to lower the
divorce rate.
Who’s teaching the women? We know that many socially conservative
organizations are now teaching men to be good fathers. Think about it.
Women are learning about issues of marriage and dealing with husbands
through Women’s Studies courses (feminist and humanist propaganda),
local “battered women’s shelters” (which disseminate more of the same in
each community) and many other kinds of organizations that teach women
to be independent—independent from husbands. Women are also taught by
such organizations to know the incentives to divorce (propaganda and
tactics that make divorce an easy lifestyle option for them). Most
conservative organizations have been recipients of some of the same
liberal, anti-family propaganda—many without knowing it.
The Brinig and Allen report should be sufficient to dispell the common
myth that fathers, more often than mothers, abandon their families, but
there are other sources of fact on the same issue. Two more references
are “Who Divorced Whom: Methodological and Theoretical Issues” [Sanford
L. Braver, Marnie Whitley and Christine Ng. Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage Vol 20(1/2) 1993, p.1.] and the May 21, 1991 National Center
for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report [Vol. 38, No. 12
(S) 2].
Many conservative organizations and organizations of faith are teaching
men to be good fathers and husbands. That may solve part of the problem,
and it is a good effort. Who will teach women to be good wives and mothers?
[Adapted from first publication to the Family Operations forum on
February the 1st, 2001.]
Art Lemasters
Art Lemasters lives in the Rocky Mountains of the USA. He enjoys
snowboarding, hiking, four-wheeling and building projects with family.
Art has been an active family and fatherhood advocate since the World
Wide Web was new.
nethead8
2003-08-12 21:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by jjonah
I see nobody has responded to this question.
I have my answer. Nobody is teaching the women. Could this be why
there are so many pissed off NOW feminists in the world? Unrealistic
expectations?
You haven't been paying attention. Anti-men feminists have been "teaching"
American women for the past thirty years or so. And now we are seeing the
rotten fruit of that. And there aren't that many NOW feminists. Current estimates
of their membership is about 100,000. Keep in mind we are talking just about
the U.S. here too. American feminism doesn't hold much sway in many parts
of the world, and no, I'm not talking about the Middle East or Afghanistan.
I believe it was Fred Reed who gave young American men the advice recently
to travel outside the U.S. a little, and get to know non-American women.
I have.... It's a real eye-opener.

Jack
RC Moonpie
2003-08-12 22:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by nethead8
And there aren't that many NOW feminists. Current estimates
of their membership is about 100,000.
and give half of them the choice between keeping their hard line femme
ideals or a 5 carot diamond and a chance to be on "Who Wants To Marry
My Whore?", and they'll drop those ideals like last years fashion
accessory.
nethead8
2003-08-13 01:11:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by RC Moonpie
Post by nethead8
And there aren't that many NOW feminists. Current estimates
of their membership is about 100,000.
and give half of them the choice between keeping their hard line femme
ideals or a 5 carot diamond and a chance to be on "Who Wants To Marry
My Whore?", and they'll drop those ideals like last years fashion
accessory.
Lots of them seem to be opting out to have babies, get married, and the like....

Jack
RC Moonpie
2003-08-13 14:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by nethead8
Post by RC Moonpie
and give half of them the choice between keeping their hard line femme
ideals or a 5 carot diamond and a chance to be on "Who Wants To Marry
My Whore?", and they'll drop those ideals like last years fashion
accessory.
Lots of them seem to be opting out to have babies, get married, and the like....
natch.

biology kicks in about age 30.

and then there is the whole LUG thing.

Hey, i've changed my ideals as i aged too, it's human nature. Its just
funny to see these grrrrls so full of piss and vinegar, knowing that
ultimately, many of them will either end up sacking it all off for a
wedding ring and a house in the burbs with a white picket fence, or
the other option, stone cold and painted into a little corner of
misanthropy like Parge.
Daedalus
2003-08-13 17:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by RC Moonpie
Post by nethead8
Post by RC Moonpie
and give half of them the choice between keeping their hard line femme
ideals or a 5 carot diamond and a chance to be on "Who Wants To Marry
My Whore?", and they'll drop those ideals like last years fashion
accessory.
Lots of them seem to be opting out to have babies, get married, and the like....
natch.
biology kicks in about age 30.
and then there is the whole LUG thing.
Hey, i've changed my ideals as i aged too, it's human nature. Its just
funny to see these grrrrls so full of piss and vinegar, knowing that
ultimately, many of them will either end up sacking it all off for a
wedding ring and a house in the burbs with a white picket fence, or
the other option, stone cold and painted into a little corner of
misanthropy like Parge.
I thought you left soc.men when you ran out of thoughts a long long
time ago. I guess it's recycling day.

Jade
l***@earthlink.net
2003-08-14 17:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daedalus
Post by RC Moonpie
Post by nethead8
Post by RC Moonpie
and give half of them the choice between keeping their hard line femme
ideals or a 5 carot diamond and a chance to be on "Who Wants To Marry
My Whore?", and they'll drop those ideals like last years fashion
accessory.
Lots of them seem to be opting out to have babies, get married, and the like....
natch.
biology kicks in about age 30.
and then there is the whole LUG thing.
Hey, i've changed my ideals as i aged too, it's human nature. Its just
funny to see these grrrrls so full of piss and vinegar, knowing that
ultimately, many of them will either end up sacking it all off for a
wedding ring and a house in the burbs with a white picket fence, or
the other option, stone cold and painted into a little corner of
misanthropy like Parge.
I thought you left soc.men when you ran out of thoughts a long long
time ago. I guess it's recycling day.
Jade
Interesting response Jade! hehehe...And with the original poster
responding for women. Come on. Give me a break. First, women can have
children past 40 years of age so I don't know where he got his
"edu-ma-cation". Because the door burst open to give women
opportunities they didn't have before the 70s, that is frowned a upon.
I don't get the mean spirited people that would try to hold women down
and place them in the 60s where "they did what was told them." I'd
think the aspect of women being able earn their own living should be a
good thing, but maybe that's just me.
John Jones
2003-08-14 18:09:33 UTC
Permalink
[kook groups snecked]
Post by l***@earthlink.net
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:58:12 -0400, RC Moonpie
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:11:15 -0700, "nethead8"
Post by nethead8
Post by RC Moonpie
and give half of them the choice between keeping their hard
line
Post by l***@earthlink.net
Post by nethead8
Post by RC Moonpie
femme
ideals or a 5 carot diamond and a chance to be on "Who
Wants To
Post by l***@earthlink.net
Post by nethead8
Post by RC Moonpie
Marry
My Whore?", and they'll drop those ideals like last years
fashion
Post by l***@earthlink.net
Post by nethead8
Post by RC Moonpie
accessory.
Lots of them seem to be opting out to have babies, get
married,
Post by l***@earthlink.net
Post by nethead8
and the like....
natch.
biology kicks in about age 30.
and then there is the whole LUG thing.
Hey, i've changed my ideals as i aged too, it's human nature.
Its
Post by l***@earthlink.net
just
funny to see these grrrrls so full of piss and vinegar,
knowing that
Post by l***@earthlink.net
ultimately, many of them will either end up sacking it all
off for a
Post by l***@earthlink.net
wedding ring and a house in the burbs with a white picket
fence, or
Post by l***@earthlink.net
the other option, stone cold and painted into a little corner of
misanthropy like Parge.
[...]
Post by l***@earthlink.net
Interesting response Jade! hehehe...And with the original
poster
Post by l***@earthlink.net
responding for women. Come on. Give me a break. First, women
can have
Post by l***@earthlink.net
children past 40 years of age so I don't know where he got his
"edu-ma-cation".
Probably because he knows more about adult women than you seem
to. BTW, no one said it was impossible for women to have
children past age 40. The biological clock thing.
Post by l***@earthlink.net
Because the door burst open to give women
opportunities they didn't have before the 70s, that is frowned
a upon.

What opportunities would those be?
Post by l***@earthlink.net
I don't get the mean spirited people that would try to hold
women down
Post by l***@earthlink.net
and place them in the 60s where "they did what was told them."
Nor have you identified any that hold with this stupid strawman
argument.
Post by l***@earthlink.net
I'd think the aspect of women being able earn their own living
should be a
Post by l***@earthlink.net
good thing, but maybe that's just me.
Did anyone in this discussion say otherwise?
RC Moonpie
2003-08-14 18:26:08 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:09:33 GMT, "John Jones"
Post by l***@earthlink.net
Post by RC Moonpie
natch.
biology kicks in about age 30.
and then there is the whole LUG thing.
Hey, i've changed my ideals as i aged too, it's human nature.
It just funny to see these grrrrls so full of piss and vinegar,
knowing that ultimately, many of them will either end up sacking it all
off for a wedding ring and a house in the burbs with a white picket
fence, or the other option, stone cold and painted into a little corner
of misanthropy like Parge.
Post by l***@earthlink.net
I'd think the aspect of women being able earn their own living
should be a
Post by l***@earthlink.net
good thing, but maybe that's just me.
Did anyone in this discussion say otherwise?
i ddint intend to. The "sacking it for a wedding ring" had nothing to
do with a woman not working. All i was saying is the truth, that many
young, especially college age LUGs, will eventually drop the whole
angry gay grrrl schtick and get married and settle down. I've seen it.

And it's sort of funny to read them in here gnashing their teeth like
that....., knowing that in ten years, the angriest ones may well be
the prim social elite at the country clubs and would never get within
100 yards of a buzz cutted LLBean wearing man-hater.

I'm no different. When i was 20-25, i knew everything too. We all grow
and change you know.

well some of us do.
John Jones
2003-08-14 21:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by RC Moonpie
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:09:33 GMT, "John Jones"
->> Interesting response Jade! hehehe...And with the original
->poster
->> responding for women. Come on. Give me a break. First,
women
Post by RC Moonpie
->can have
->> children past 40 years of age so I don't know where he got
his
Post by RC Moonpie
->> "edu-ma-cation".
->
->Probably because he knows more about adult women than you
seem
Post by RC Moonpie
->to. BTW, no one said it was impossible for women to have
->children past age 40. The biological clock thing.
"The chances of becoming pregnant in any one month decrease
from
Post by RC Moonpie
20 percent in women over 30 years of age to five percent in
women
Post by RC Moonpie
over 40."
http://www.cogenttechnology.com/store/conunyourmos.html
Exactly. The chances decrease with each passing year. It's the
biological clock ticking.
Post by RC Moonpie
->
->> Because the door burst open to give women
->> opportunities they didn't have before the 70s, that is
frowned
Post by RC Moonpie
->a upon.
->
->What opportunities would those be?
The opportunity to get special gov't perks for being female -
"affirmative action," welfare, mommy-support, etc.
->
->
->> I don't get the mean spirited people that would try to hold
->women down
->> and place them in the 60s where "they did what was told
them."
Post by RC Moonpie
->
->Nor have you identified any that hold with this stupid
strawman
Post by RC Moonpie
->argument.
Correct.
->
->>I'd think the aspect of women being able earn their own
living
Post by RC Moonpie
->should be a
->> good thing, but maybe that's just me.
->
->Did anyone in this discussion say otherwise?
->
Usually the exact opposite is advocated, e.g., women should
support themselves rather than sponging off taxpayers and
ex-boyfriends.
Rather than reading what people write, Daedalus seems to
be having an internal dialog with an imaginary friend.
One of us screwed-up the attributions. I thought I was replying
to ***@earthlink.net , someone who seems enamored of
Jade/Daedalus and her opinions.
jjonah
2003-08-15 13:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@earthlink.net
Post by Daedalus
Post by RC Moonpie
Post by nethead8
Post by RC Moonpie
and give half of them the choice between keeping their hard line femme
ideals or a 5 carot diamond and a chance to be on "Who Wants To Marry
My Whore?", and they'll drop those ideals like last years fashion
accessory.
Lots of them seem to be opting out to have babies, get married, and the like....
natch.
biology kicks in about age 30.
and then there is the whole LUG thing.
Hey, i've changed my ideals as i aged too, it's human nature. Its just
funny to see these grrrrls so full of piss and vinegar, knowing that
ultimately, many of them will either end up sacking it all off for a
wedding ring and a house in the burbs with a white picket fence, or
the other option, stone cold and painted into a little corner of
misanthropy like Parge.
I thought you left soc.men when you ran out of thoughts a long long
time ago. I guess it's recycling day.
Jade
Interesting response Jade! hehehe...And with the original poster
responding for women. Come on. Give me a break. First, women can have
children past 40 years of age so I don't know where he got his
"edu-ma-cation". Because the door burst open to give women
opportunities they didn't have before the 70s, that is frowned a upon.
I don't get the mean spirited people that would try to hold women down
and place them in the 60s where "they did what was told them." I'd
think the aspect of women being able earn their own living should be a
good thing, but maybe that's just me.
Statistically speaking, it is "improbable". Women over 40 account for a
mere 2.5% of births in the United States every year. Not very good
odds, if you ask me. Teens account for 11% of births. So, let's see
where I got my "edu-ma-cation". The cdc.gov website genius.

And there are 10 million single moms in the US. That's a shame.

Procrastinators
Women who have their first baby after the age of 35 are twice as likely
to develop breast cancer as those who give birth while still in their
teens. As a matter of fact, postponing childbirth until your 30s seems
to be more risky than never having a baby.
http://www.smileandactnice.com/life/personalbreast/index.personalbreast.12.html

Far be it for me to say that you risk much more complications in
attempting to conceive after age 40. So I'll direct you to ivillage.com
http://www.parentsplace.com/expert/midwife/qas/0,,166246_100658,00.html

Finally, the risk of down's syndrome, mother's death, premature births,
higher miscarriage rates for those over 35.
http://www.wrtl.org/PregnacyAfter35.html#01

But I guess it's worth the wait to have a 60 year old woman attend your
high school graduation! Now make sure when the 60 year old is shopping
with the 18 year old, nobody mistakes her as "grandma".



Nobody is "holding the women down". Nobody is "holding anyone down".

The fact of the matter is that there are certain trade-offs when
entering and succeeding in the work force.
Daedalus
2003-08-15 15:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daedalus
I thought you left soc.men when you ran out of thoughts a long long
time ago. I guess it's recycling day.
Jade
heh. i got bored and left. i poke my big nose in here from time to
time.
And you're still as easily trolled as always. Still angry with me for
not agreeing to a hillbilly style geetar showdown?
as far as re-cycling, yer the nutcase that never left, and continues
the same endless whackjob masturbatory trolling. Really Jade, even a
hamster in a wheel takes a rest sometimes. But then i wonder if the
hamster has a better outlook on life than you do.
How do you know what I've been doing if you only "pop in from time to
time?"


Jade
Hyerdahl1
2003-08-16 18:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Who is teaching the women? Nobody?
Date: 8/12/2003 3:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
Post by nethead8
And there aren't that many NOW feminists. Current estimates
of their membership is about 100,000.
and give half of them the choice between keeping their hard line femme
ideals or a 5 carot diamond and a chance to be on "Who Wants To Marry
My Whore?", and they'll drop those ideals like last years fashion
accessory.
Well, I actually emailed a "whore" from Oregon who owns a condo and ranch and
has recently put herself thru law school. She's also a lesbian, but she
managed to use men to get to where she is today, a feminist lesbian with a law
degree. So, please don't knock "fashion accessories".
:-)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...