Men’s Rights movement spins a study
| June 30th, 2003Imagine, for a moment, that you’re a scholar who specializes in work that benefits the “men’s rights” movement. And imagine that you’ve just conducted a study on the effects of “move-aways”; that is, the effects on children when the parents move more than an hour apart from each other post-divorce.
By an amazing coincidence, your study comes out just in time to be used as evidence in a prominent California trial that men’s rights advocates are very interested in.
But here’s the problem: Your study finds that children who live with their mother suffer next-to-no-harm from being moved more than an hour away from the father (or when the father moves more than an hour away from the child). In fact, the only children who seem significantly harmed by move-aways are children in the custody of their fathers - which is not the message you want to send, and not the message the men’s rights movement wants to hear.
For instance, in your measure of “personal/emotional adjustment,” the kids who are the healthiest are the ones who stayed with mom while dad moved away - they scored even healthier than those kids who had both parents stay in close range. The only kids who scored significantly worse than the “neither parents moved” kids were the kids who lived with their dads.
| Nither parent moved | Kid moved w/mom | Kid remained w/dad | Kid moved w/dad | Kid remained w/mom | |
| Persona/emotional adjustment measure (higher is better) | 20.57 | 20.23 | 19.26 | 17.32 | 21.16 |
This is a little atypical - generally, the kids who had neither parent move do best, but none of the others are significantly below par - except, by some measures, those kids who are living with their dads. These findings seem to show that there’s little reason for courts to forbid mothers to move out of “the best interests of the child.” So what do you do?
No problem - you just average all the kids together in your press release! That way, you can claim that all kids whose parent moved away did badly - when, really, it’s just the low scores of the lives-with-dad groups pulling the overall average down.
What’s galling is, this study will be brought into court and used by father’s-righters to argue that non-custodial dads should be able to prevent custodial moms from moving, “for the good of the child.” In fact, if this study’s findings have any validity at all, they seem to show that it doesn’t cause children in mother’s custody any significant harm to live more than an hour from their father; and that fathers who sue to prevent moves aren’t improving the lives of their children, they’re just exerting control over their ex-spouse.
So do I think this study shows “men are worse custodial parents,” or some such malarkey? No; I’m convinced that the methodolgy of this study is so dubious, it doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. (Which is, to be fair, also what the study’s authors say.)
But if it does show anything - and I don’t think it does - then it shows that kids in father-custody are in trouble. But somehow, I don’t think that’s a message that the men’s rights groups promoting this study will emphasize. Instead - like this mensnewsdaily report - they’ll report the averages, but leave out the specifics.
For more info, check out Trish Wilson’s blog (Trish is very on top of this story). For a summary of the results, check out Liznotes. To read the study itself (Pdf format), click here. To read the study’s press release, click here.
June 30th, 2003 at 9:54 pm
Lying With Statistics Yet Again
This comment was written by CalPundit.LYING WITH STATISTICS YET AGAIN….When parents divorce and one parent gets primary custody of the kids, what happens if that parent then moves out of town, thus cutting the children off from their other parent? Well, according to a new…
Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 12:05 am
Hmmm… does this mean that a woman can go to court to prevent her ex-husband from moving? Seems like it would be an equal protection issue under the constitution.
As a social worker, I do agree that the methodology is flawed. It is more pop science than legitimate.
This comment was written by Marie Foster.Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 1:22 am
The big indicators that there’s a problem with this study:
the largest change from the control group (neither parent moves) is merely 15%, which coupled with the fact that there is one case where the child scores higher in one move case than in the control would strongly indicate that the differences are merely random statistical chance rather than indicative of any causal relationship.
And that’s without even looking at the methodology.
In the meanwhile we have an inconclusive study that will likely be used for political purposes. How is this different than business as usual. (yes I’ve been feeling really cynical lately. I attribute that to the fact that Bush raised $3.5 million today. grr)
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 8:54 am
Aren’t there rules about the admissibility of scientific evidence in court? Doesn’t this fail?
This comment was written by Adam.Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 10:21 am
Thanks for the link, Barry. :)
What I’ve noticed from various comments on the blogs that have reported on this study is that the protests arise when mom wants to move with the kids. Dads are just as likely to move after divorce as mom (Braver’s study indicated as much), but dads who move with the kids or (especially) away from the kids and mom aren’t greeted with the same sense of outrage as moms who move with the kids. Fathers’ rights advocates keep talking about how much kids need their dad’s presence and influence in their lives. You’ve seen those squishy “fatherlessness” statistics. So, wouldn’t it stand to reason that they would be just as vocal about non-custodial dads willingly moving away from their own children as they are about moms who move?
Of course, there’s nary a peep about that.
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 10:54 am
Another interesting point, about the APA journal that printed that study: the editor of the journal is Ross Parke. Ross Parke co-wrote “Throwaway Dads: The Myths and Barriers that Keep Men From Being The Fathers They Want To Be” with Armin Brott. That book was pure propaganda and poor research that came out at about the same time the state fatherhood projects were becoming part of welfare reform.
I noticed that Parke created his own differentiation between the usual grassroots father’s rights groups we know with what he called “Good Fatherhood” movement. Parke placed David Blankenhorn and the National Fatherhood Initiative in his “Good Fatherhood” category. He never placed himself in a category but he believes his “Good Fatherhood” category was the only one that in his opinion that offered the most for fathers. It’s easy to see where he was going. The “Good Fatherhood” groups sought to participate in and benefit from welfare reform public policy like the creation of the fatherhood projects and male involvement initiatives. There is a lot of federal money in those programs.
Parke and Brott are favorites of the fathers’ rights movement. Brott and Stuart Miller (of the American Fathers Coalition and the American Coalition for Fathers and Children — both are essentially
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.one group) co-wrote “Dead Broke Dads” for Playboy in 1996. It’s a fathers’
rights complaint about having to pay child support — published in a skin
magazine.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 8:32 pm
“…It’s a fathers’ rights complaint about having to pay child support — published in a skin magazine.”
Would that such tripe could be confined strictly to the pages of porn mags. It’d be that much easier to ignore.
This comment was written by Amy S..Report this comment to the moderators
July 21st, 2003 at 3:25 am
Amy, I was the first father’s rights guy to go on national TV in 1994 advocating the elimination of child support. Men have issues too you know. We support father’s custody as well. My “Masculist Trinity” page is linked to my name if you want to learn more about our agenda.
I would refer people to Warren Farrell’s book “Father and Child Reunion” as an objective masculist view of the research and problem. Wallerstein’s longitudinal studies are still de riguer the last I heard. Fatherhood fares darn well in those studies especially taking into consideration the diminished investment of the now majority non traditional mother.
There’s one good outcome of the past thirty years of feminism and that is father’s started taking back their children and became heavily involved in the nurturing professions. It was women’s involvement in the latter a hundred years ago that served as the rationale for mother’s custody.
Us men thank you feminists Amy.
Tom Smith
This comment was written by Tom Smith.The American Union of Men (AUM)
Report this comment to the moderators
September 1st, 2003 at 5:37 am
Please check out: http://www.geocities.com/feministaman/ for more information on the three little stooges, Liz Kates, Trish Wilson, and Cindy Ross!
This comment was written by feministaman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 1st, 2003 at 5:54 am
You know you’re doing a good job when the anti-feminists throw a hissy-fit over your work. CONGRATULATIONS and GOOD GOING, Trish!!!!
This comment was written by bean.Report this comment to the moderators
September 1st, 2003 at 6:33 am
Bean, so that’s why pro father activists are being accused of everything under the sun, just to name a few, incest, pedophilia, and wanting to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment? They must be doing something darn good!
Watch http://www.geocities.com/feministaman/ carefully ’cause more lies will be challenged.
This comment was written by feministaman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 1st, 2003 at 11:17 am
And here, all this time, I had no idea that “promulgated” was actually a synonym for “challenged.”
When faced with facts, the weak will tremble — and dedicate web pages to the objects of their fear.
Excellent information, Trish. Keep those mentally promulgated anti-woman fist shakers shivering in their little knit booties, now, won’t you?
This comment was written by Tina.Report this comment to the moderators
September 1st, 2003 at 3:20 pm
Oh, this is a riot. Thanks, Tina and Jenn. I’ll keep ‘em jumping.
“Feministaman” sounds like a cheesy Troma film character. Whoever-it-is also is too chicken to provide a real name.
I find it telling that the first thing a fathers’ rights advocate brags about here is his (unsuccessful) drive to eliminate child support. Now that’s a child-centered approach — petition to do away with one means of supporting children. It makes it so clear to me that fathers’ rights advocates are not concerned about what children need.
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
September 1st, 2003 at 4:23 pm
Trish, not to burst your bubble, for now you are just noise! Make your domain name registrations public. Post some pictures, and tell us who is sponsoring you. Then talk about who is a chicken.
This comment was written by BeatDeadDad.Report this comment to the moderators
September 2nd, 2003 at 2:23 am
Your post is akin to the town gossip telling others to quit gossiping — as he’s standing in line to buy a celebrity gossip rag.
This comment was written by Tina.Report this comment to the moderators
September 2nd, 2003 at 7:23 am
[This post contained too many insults for this blog - calling other posters "slaves" and whatnot. So I deleted it. --Amp]
This comment was written by Tom Smith.Report this comment to the moderators
September 2nd, 2003 at 11:04 am
Tom,
Intelligent people don’t have to resort to insults in a debate. If you want to keep posting on this site, start acting like an intelligent person. Otherwise I’ll ban you. This is your only warning.
Maybe it’s true that Trish hasn’t bugged you - but you and the other guys here are sure acting as if she bugs you very much indeed. Otherwise you wouldn’t be bothering to swarm here and attack her and make websites dedicated to attacking her and then declare loudly that she doesn’t bother you; you’d just ignore her.
Seems like Trish’s work is really bothering you folks. Good going, Trish!
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 2nd, 2003 at 11:05 am
By the way, I notice that not ONE men’s rights person here has attempted to defend the way the study this post was about was spun by men’s righters. Apparently it’s much easier for you folks to attack Trish than to attempt to discuss the actual issue this post is about.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 2nd, 2003 at 11:40 am
Barry, the mens’ rightsters in here remind me of the men’s rightsters on AOL who used to write hundreds of posts saying that they were going to ignore me. :)
The kind of reaction I’m getting from some of guys here only shows me that my work is definitely on the right track.
BTW, one of our cats had kittens two nights ago. I’m going to try to get pictures up on my blog as soon as I can. That way I can compete with Kevin Drum’s cute spherical cat head photos. Those pix are hard to beat.
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
September 2nd, 2003 at 1:28 pm
But isn’t that what it’s all about? “Mens’ rights” (sorry, I just can’t write that without quotation marks) advocates aren’t really concerned at all with how good men are, but with how awful women are. And Trish’s debunkery work is precisely the medicine needed. Tasty stuff it is, too. Here’s one father who applauds your work, Trish.
This comment was written by Dan J.Report this comment to the moderators
September 3rd, 2003 at 8:51 am
ampersand and other feminist men,
i was a registered democrat. i supported and contributed regularly to most female issues. i had no clue how laws were against men after divorce, until it happened to me. i saw with my own eyes how children can be taken away based on hearsay and false evidence. please don’t tell me i am making this up. what most men experience after a bitter divorce is real. i am sure divorce is not easy on women either. divorce is a nasty thing. no one said it would be fair. but more men are getting hurt when it comes to seeing their children after a bad divorce. many men are accused of things that they are not. do any of the female activists see that side? why are we blind to the reality of the pain that men experience? the pain is universal. men, women, children are all victims of the divorce industry. why do we have to keep fighting each other? why do we put women up against men? why do we use children against dads? why cannot we see the problems without accusing each other? why should any man who raises a concern be shut out? why the name calling? why should you accuse a man of abuse or incest when all he wants is to have some relationship with his kids? all he wants is to be able to visit his kids. sure some women may want to move away after the divorce, and some men might be angry and not want them to move away. the anger after divorce is acceptable, but shouldn’t someone help these fighting people come together and make some sacrifices for their kids? may be the woman should move away, but let the father see his kids during the summer. but no nothing is rational in this system. the way the laws are written and executed, the anger and hate remains years after the divorce. people please help stop this madness. stop fighting each other and instead correct the problems in a way that everyone will win.
i know i will be attacked no matter what i say. some people have made up their mind before they give you a chance to tell your side. men are asked to be strong and to hide their emotions. but that’s the problem. we need open communication between the two gender. we need understanding. we don’t need name calling. we don’t need monitoring. we don’t need more accusations. most men who become active do it because of their love for their children. it is not right to listen on their private chats and broadcast it on a site as an evidence of their wrong doing. men and women need to vent. give them room. let them vent and rant and rave. concentrate on correcting the laws. don’t focus so much on fault finding.
This comment was written by jimcares.Report this comment to the moderators
September 3rd, 2003 at 4:11 pm
we don’t need more accusations (…) don’t focus so much on fault finding.
jimcares, as a “men’s rights” activist, don’t you feel yourself deceived by a movement which dishonestly distorts a study’s results in order to make them fit its agenda, hence falsely alleging that its claims are supported by statistical objectivity?
Personally, whenever this happens with movements I am close to, I am eager to denounce it before anyone on the other side does so, because nothing is more counter-productive and harmful to a legitimate purpose than statements based on lies and dupery.
Sorry, but this sounds too much like the current “Right or wrong, my country” attitude of Bush supporters (”No evidence of WMD? So what?“, etc.). This is no less than a crime against reason.
Also, do you feel correctly represented by people who have no better arguments than insults comparing women opposed to them as slaves, as Tom Smith did in this very thread (I had the time to read his offensive comment before Amp deleted it)? The “evidence of their wrong doing” is right here in front of you, proudly presented by themselves. Maybe you don’t want to look at it, but, please, let’s not pretend it has been obtained by “listen[ing] on their private chats“. By the way, if you want something to remain private, putting it on the Web is not exactly the best idea.
(Oddly enough, you do have something in common with a feminist, I mean feministe: both you and ms lauren don’t use capitals).
This comment was written by Jimmy Ho.Report this comment to the moderators
September 3rd, 2003 at 4:21 pm
(Oddly enough,…)
This comment was written by Jimmy Ho.With a grain of salt, of course.
Report this comment to the moderators
September 3rd, 2003 at 4:59 pm
And while I’m at it: I think it should read “neither you nor ms lauren use capitals” (not my native language, etc.).
This comment was written by Jimmy Ho.Report this comment to the moderators
September 3rd, 2003 at 6:28 pm
jimmy ho, you missed the point! you are judging and drawing your own conclusions. stop analyzing others! stop looking for faults. that’s what is missing from both sides. the two “movements” need to meet somewhere in the middle. i don’t know where that is, but i know that the gender war will only get ugly. i am opposed to wars, both abroad and here at home!
This comment was written by jimcares.Report this comment to the moderators
September 4th, 2003 at 11:47 am
Thanks for the kind words, Dan J. They made my day. :)
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
September 4th, 2003 at 11:54 am
jimcares,
I know that divorce is hard on men. It’s hard on everyone - men, women, and children. I want to make it clear that those who work on the feminist side of this issue have never said that men are never falsely accused of abuse or incest. False allegations are much more rare than fathers’ rights groups claim, but they do happen.
That said, I can’t stress enough that most fathers’ rights groups aren’t helpful for men. I have found that the vast majority of them too angry and combative to be of any real help to men going through divorce. They tend to encourage animosity, not healing, not moving forward. Far too many of the men who lead these groups, especially the better known ones, have records for domestic violence and child abuse. At the very least, they display controlling and hostile behavior. These people and groups do more harm to men than good.
Also, a very troublesome aspect of most of the groups is that they give very poor advice. Laymen aren’t supposed to give legal advice (it’s illegal), but far too many of them do anyway. Even if it isn’t legal advice, the “suggestions” they give are either gross misinterpretations of the law, the wrong way to approach things, or simply not helpful at all. One well-known dispenser of pro-se (do it yourself) advice for dads was disbarred in 1998 for 28 counts of unethical conduct. He has always represented men in divorce and custody cases. Charges included fraud and mismanagement of retainers paid to him by fathers. This man sits on the Board of Directors for the National Congress of Fathers and Children. A fathers’ rights attorney is currently under investigation in Massachusetts, and she may be disbarred. Far too many legal and psychological professionals have taken advantage of the “divorce industry” (court-ordered custody evaluations, psychological evaluations, guardians ad litem, creation of parenting plans, etc.) because there’s money to be made. Those “extras” and the combative ligation encouraged by fathers’ rights groups are what is driving up the cost of divorce today. Would you trust your hard-earned money, your life, your children, and even your ex to those kinds of people? I would hope not.
I agree with you that we need open communication between the two genders. Some therapy groups are good for individuals and/or couples going through divorce, but as usual it depends on the people who are going through the divorce. There are feminists out there who do what they can to make divorce easier, but they are far outnumbered by the angry fathers’ rights groups. You may want to look for books by Michael Kimmel, Michael Flood, Gerry Orkin, and Jack Straton. And don’t forget Ampersand and this blog. :) All have written about men, fathers, and divorce from a much healthier and more realistic angle than fathers’ rights activists. I’m glad you wrote in Amp’s comments section. Best wishes to you.
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
September 4th, 2003 at 5:32 pm
Most fathers’ rights groups are an oasis in the desert for fathers who have been marginalized. For fathers who thought their case was an anomaly, fathers’ rights groups offer the comfort of being in this together.
This comment was written by Jim L..Report this comment to the moderators
September 4th, 2003 at 10:19 pm
trish, may i ask why are you so actively involved in all this? did you have a custody/divorce problem like the rest of us, or are you a lawyer? you responded calmly to my comments, but i have seen you not so calm with others. my point is that everyone has some button that can be pushed to make them act out. but that doesn’t make them permanently angry. it is not abnormal to react with anger to what might remind you of a hurt past. many dads are hurt very badly. it is actually out of necessity that many fathers groups are formed. there are many free resources available for women going through divorce. government funds many centers for women. at least that’s how it was during my time. but men had no place to go. men are often viewed as the bad guy, the one at fault, in a family court.
men might be brought up to act tough, but inside they hurt just like anyone else, may be even more.
i am asking all sides to quit playing games with numbers and statistics. gender should not even be an issue in family law. fault finding should not be the focus. people get divorced for many reasons. what matters is that kids should have access to two parents, no matter how bad the parents have been to each other. the system should shift from fault finding to recovery. the system should not disconnect kids from either parent, instead it should work with the two to resolve their anger and become parents again, if you know what i mean. the focus at all times should be parent/child connectivity. our society is too disconnected! kids grow up with feelings of emptyness. many dads/moms who truly love their kids, are unable to give their love to their kids because they have been thrown out of their lives. kids in those situations grow up never knowing what the other parent had to offer. i can go on and on and bore you. but people start listening to the other side. don’t write them off just because they might remind you of some hurt past!
This comment was written by jimcares.Report this comment to the moderators
September 4th, 2003 at 10:34 pm
two parents matter to some extent - i will agree with you one this point.
obviously, primary parenthood applies to the parent who has had the most active involvement in care-taking for the child, generally the mother.
statistics cited that men work more than women do (this entitling them to bash feminist research)never fail to leave out where that work takes place - in the workplace and not in the homestead. it seems to me that if “men’s rights” groups want equal consideration in custody disputes, they might want to look deeper into gender-based division of labor in and out of the home and tearing down corporate poicies that don’t allow for paternity leaves and in-site daycare instead of arguing over mandatory child support and complaining what psychopathic bitches their ex-wives were.
the majority of the rhetoric i see coming from the “men’s rights” camp justifies vengefully ripping off their children to save a few bucks and maintain control over ended relationships.
This comment was written by ms lauren.Report this comment to the moderators
September 4th, 2003 at 10:35 pm
policies, i mean.
This comment was written by ms lauren.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2003 at 7:17 am
Absolutely. If these guys love their kids so much, then why do they want to deny them valuable monetary resources and make their mothers’ lives miserable? My father (divorced from my mother since I was three) has never acted like a victim a single day since then, and has always treated my mother, his current wife, and all of his other children and step-children with respect. And I never suspected that his divorce didn’t hurt him.
This comment was written by Dan J.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2003 at 8:33 am
joint custody and father’s right on debate
This comment was written by feministe.a few weeks ago, i responded to an issue brought by trish wilson that criticizes mandatory joint custody. yesterday, i got a response on my blog from jim l.: That’s the rub…being declared the “primary” parent (which is ridiculous unto…
Report this comment to the moderators
September 8th, 2003 at 9:51 am
Well now. Apparently BOTH sides have dirty hands. The NOW California study slapped together to counter Wendy McElroy’s article about how men are abused in the family courst system was just as tainted and poorly done. So both sides are bad. No one is an innocent angel. And certainly no one is a “victim”, male OR female.
Neither extremist side is helping. Both sides are trying to drop the perverbial bag of coke in the other’s living room and say “see! they are bad!”
There is this mad dash by both sides to show they are sweet innocent angels who are victimized while the other side is labelled the aggressor.
Maybe now that both sides are seeing that such tactics are for P’Toks perhaps they can both stop being children and focus on the people who need help namely the families involved. Time to grow up folks and that includes both sides. Women aren’t victims and neither are men so quit trying to look sweet and innocent like two spoiled kids who wrecked the house then their parents return from vacation.
Its almost like a giant macro divorce where the families in the middle of all this are like the children used against each parent but in this case the parents are the feminists and the men’s rights groups. Keep this up and both sides will make themselves obsolete. Neither side, including feminsists, have been shining beacons of nobility and honor. For every tainted and badly done study by any men’s movement there can be found just as many done by feminists. Black Sunday, 1 in 4 college girls raped, 150,000 women a year dying of annarexia etc are just a few examples.
And no, not everything is about the children. You don’t rob rights on both sides of the fence in the name of children. The 19th ammendment applies to everyone. “In the name of the children”, “For world Peace”, “For the safety of all”, “For a better tomorrow” all flip answer excuses to steal rights and depower the other side.
Maybe the real enemy isn’t abusive fathers or abusive mothers or pedophiles or bullies. Maybe the real enemy are the feminists and the men’s movements spending more effort fighting themselves and using these families as shields and swords. The real enemy are the jaded old farts with a five hundred pound chip on their shoulders.
This is the time to embrace logic and critical analysis. NO ONE IS THE VICTIM. No group is innocent. Why is that so hard for both sides to accept. Both are doling out bad studies. Both are abusive. Both hurt children and children hurt the parents. The ONLY way to deal with such nonsense is to use logic and critical analysys. There is no “see they are bad! There there!” study that’s going to make one side any worse than the other. There is no magic key that makes one group priviledged over the other.
The real enemy are the people (male and female) who are chasing this Marxist system of victim class structure and priviledge. Women are not victims. Men are not victims. Children are not victims. One eyed, one armed, albino single parent eskimos aren’t victims.
Nobody with half a brain is going to think either side is a sweet innocent victim desreving more priviledge than the other. And sadly, since the general populace is catching onto this the family courts have to resort to draconian tactics like taking kids without warrents to enforce their little infighting crap. In all this work to help these families the families end up getting the worse end of the stick.
This comment was written by Mason.Report this comment to the moderators
September 8th, 2003 at 7:14 pm
i’m not sure what mason was going for there, but i sure didn’t get it.
This comment was written by ms lauren.Report this comment to the moderators
September 9th, 2003 at 9:05 am
Very simple Lauren. Both sides have their hands dirty and are in fighting so much they aren’t helping the families that need it. Too busy playing who’s the biggest victim instead of helping. These families would be far better off if both movements (feminism and men’s movement) simply butted out and left it up to the families to work out their problems.
This comment was written by Mason.Report this comment to the moderators
September 9th, 2003 at 2:01 pm
i humbly disagree. if anything, i think both sides would be better off working together for children’s interests instead of their own partisian interests.
This comment was written by ms lauren.Report this comment to the moderators
September 9th, 2003 at 4:29 pm
Actually yes. IF both sides worked together things would be better off for families. But they apparently aren’t doing too well at this cooperation.
But then if both sides worked together would there be “sides”? Or would this become one family focused effort?
This comment was written by Mason.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2003 at 7:27 pm
Gotta love it when the so-called mens’ rights groups resort to using Warren “Incest is harmless” Farrell to support their agenda. Yeah, there’s no one I’d rather quote to prove my desire to help children than a guy who’s opined that incest can be okay.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2006 at 4:24 am
Ampersand,
I know I’m a little bit late, but I think I should write this. The presentation you made of that study was a little bit disingenuous, don’t you think so?
There are 14 items analyzed in the study, but you conveniently chose the one (”Personal/Emotional adjustment”) which showed that kids who lived with mom fared significantly better than those who did not. This item is not the one who measures quality of life in general, it is correlated with the quality of interpersonal adjustment, got it? Perhaps being around a maternal figure in the early years really is essential when it comes to the quality of later relationships.
“General life satisfaction” is the one you should have chosen, and this item shows only meaningless differences between the groups.
I agree with you that the study is not conclusive, and the percentage of children who remained or moved with dad is too low (12%), which could explain most of the differences between kids who remained with dad and those who did not.
This comment was written by Rafael XXX.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2006 at 4:29 am
Correction: **This item is not the one which measures quality of life in general**
This comment was written by Rafael XXX.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2006 at 4:37 am
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.
[U. S. D.H.H.S. Bureau of the Census]
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
[Center for Disease Control]
80% of rapist motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
[Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14 p. 403-26]
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
[National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools]
70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes
[U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept., 1988]
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.
[Fulton County Georgia Jail Populations and Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992]
Nearly 2 of every 5 children in America do not live with their fathers.
[US News and World Report, February 27, 1995, p.39]
There are:
11,268,000 total custodial mothers
2,907,000 total custodial fathers
[Current Populations Reports, US Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991]
What does this mean? Children from fatherless homes are:
4.6 times more likely to commit suicide,
6.6 times to become teenaged mothers,
24.3 times more likely to run away,
15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders,
6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions,
10.8 times more likely to commit rape,
6.6 times more likely to drop out of school,
15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenager.
(The calculation of the relative risks shown in the preceding list is based on 27% of children being in the care of single mothers.)
and compared to children who are in the care of two biological, married parents, children who are in the care of single mothers are:
33 times more likely to be seriously abused (so that they will require medical attention), and
73 times more likely to be killed.
["Marriage: The Safest Place for Women and Children", by Patrick F. Fagan and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. Backgrounder #1535.]
This comment was written by Rafael XXX.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Gee, and each and every one of those things could be a result of the crappy circumstances caused when dads spitefully refuse to provide either monetary or emotional support. So whose fault is it again? If fathers are so damned important, then they have a responsibility to put their kids first, and not their scorched-earth fury at the woman who rejected them.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Rafael:
I think it would have been disingenuous if I hadn’t followed my mention of the “personal/emotional adjustment” statistic with this paragraph:
So you’re saying it was dishonest of me to mention an atypical statistic, when I in fact acknowledged in the very next paragraph that the statistic was atypical, and described what the typical findings actually were.
You can see that your argument is utter nonsense, can’t you?
You know what I do think is disingenuous? Your third post, in which you present a lot of raw statistics, unadjusted for dozens of other possibly-relevant factors, as if unadjusted stats prove anything at all. Furthermore, none of those statistics have anything to do with the moveaway issue which was the subject of this post. (If a child is living with a divorced mother who is thinking of moving out-of-state, then that child is already “fatherless” as your statistics use the term, regardless of if the mother moves or not).
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators