The liberal a-holes really did take the Moynihan report to heart. (Reporting on the destruction of Black society due to fatherlessness). What they are doing, they are doing on purpose.
Every time this issue is measured, it comes out the same. Broken homes with the father absent = fucked-upness. Happy homes with a strong man as the father = happy, well adjusted children. Every single time. And yet, you have various groups creating policy on weird theories with no basis in observation, often very superficial in their reasoning. The theory is just a thinly veiled excuse to cover an agenda. Of course, they don't believe their own nonsense. They know full well what they are doing. They are just hoping that their theory will go unobserved because it quickly becomes revealed as bullshit and lies by anyone with the skill and knowledge to assess it.
The best way to handle this is to, first, identify who they are specifically. A good example is how you can see that the entire profession of psychology has ceased doing what it is supposed to do (treat mental illness) and is instead acting as the manipulative arm of something sinister. For God's sake, absolutely forbid your woman from seeing a therapist (boy, did I learn this the hard way).
The second thing to do is to say no to them. Marginalize them. When a vote comes up to divert time money and resources to them, vote no. Repeat this basic pattern over and over again until the people involved no longer matter. Don't listen to their arguments and bullshit. Pay attention to what is directly observable and can be reasonably inferred from that. If what a person wants, works, keep it. If it doesn't, kick them to the curb.
Do not accept attempts to argue away what can plainly be seen by everyone. A theory that contradicts reality is wrong, and probably only exists to fool you into doing something stupid.
Previous Bonecrker Index Next
Every time this issue is measured, it comes out the same. Broken homes with the father absent = fucked-upness. Happy homes with a strong man as the father = happy, well adjusted children. Every single time. And yet, you have various groups creating policy on weird theories with no basis in observation, often very superficial in their reasoning. The theory is just a thinly veiled excuse to cover an agenda. Of course, they don't believe their own nonsense. They know full well what they are doing. They are just hoping that their theory will go unobserved because it quickly becomes revealed as bullshit and lies by anyone with the skill and knowledge to assess it.
The best way to handle this is to, first, identify who they are specifically. A good example is how you can see that the entire profession of psychology has ceased doing what it is supposed to do (treat mental illness) and is instead acting as the manipulative arm of something sinister. For God's sake, absolutely forbid your woman from seeing a therapist (boy, did I learn this the hard way).
The second thing to do is to say no to them. Marginalize them. When a vote comes up to divert time money and resources to them, vote no. Repeat this basic pattern over and over again until the people involved no longer matter. Don't listen to their arguments and bullshit. Pay attention to what is directly observable and can be reasonably inferred from that. If what a person wants, works, keep it. If it doesn't, kick them to the curb.
Do not accept attempts to argue away what can plainly be seen by everyone. A theory that contradicts reality is wrong, and probably only exists to fool you into doing something stupid.
Previous Bonecrker Index Next
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Daniel Moynihan: “By 1983 the poverty rate reached its
highest level in 18 years….The principal correlate had been the change in family structure, the rise of the female-headed household.” (Family and Nation, p. 95)
Here are some of the observed effects of removing a father to the position of a visitor in a child`s life.
"Based on our clinical experience with a number of latency aged and adolescent girls whose parents divorced during their oedipal years, we postulate that particular coping patterns emerge in response to the absence of the father, which may complicate the consolidation of positive feminine identification in many female children, and is observable during the latency years. We illustrate both the existence of these phenomena and implications for treatment:
1. intensified separation anxiety
2. denial and avoidance of feelings associated with loss of father
3. identification with the lost object
4. object hunger for males." "In an earlier study by Kalter and Rembar at [Children's Psychiatric Hospital, University of Michigan], a sample of 144 child and adolesce atients, whose parents had divorced, presented [for evaluation and treatment] with three most commonly occurring problems:
63% Subjective psychological problem (defined as anxiety, sadness, pronounced moodiness, phobias, and depression)
56% Poor grades or grades substantially below ability and/or recent past performance
43% Aggression toward parents Important features of the subgroup of 32 latency aged girls were in the same order: 69% indicating subjective psychological distress 47% academic problems
41% aggression toward pa ts.
Clinical Observations on Interferences of Early Father Absence in the Achievement of Femininity by R. Lohr, C. g, A. Mendell and B. Riemer, Clinical Social Work Journal, V. 17, #4, Winter, 1989
Also see:
Bonecrcker #109 – The Benefits of Boys-Only Schools
Zenpriest #1: Women Raised Without Fathers
Zenpriest #22 – “Broken Men” and Women’s “Fixing” Them
Excerpt from Baskerville, S. Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family. Nashville: Cumberland House Publishing, 2007
“Virtually every major social pathology of our time: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy and scholastic failure, unwed pregnancy, suicide and other psychological disorders – all these correlate more strongly to fatherlessness than to any other single factor.[1] According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, “Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional, and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than those who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.”[2] The overwhelming majority of prisoners, juvenile detention inmates, high school dropouts, pregnant teenagers, adolescent murderers, and rapists all come from fatherless homes. Children from affluent but separated families are much more likely to get into trouble than children from poor but intact ones, and white children from separated families are at higher risk than black children in intact families. The connection between single parent households and crime erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime[3].”
[1] Attempts to attribute these behaviors to poverty or racial discrimination have been refuted by studies that control for these variables. See Urie Bronfenbrenner, “Discovering What Families Do,” in David Blankenhorn, et al. (eds.), Rebuilding the Nest: A New Commitment to the American Family (Milwaukee: Family Service America, 1990), p. 34; Ronald Angel and Jacqueline Angel, Painful Inheritance: Health and the New Generation of Fatherless Children (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993), p. 188. Even left-wing scholars concur: Norman Dennis and George Erdos, Families Without Fatherhood (London: Civitas, 2000).
[2] Horn and Sylvester, Father Facts, p. 15.
[3] Elaine Ciulla Kamarck and William Galston, Putting Children First (Washington: Progressive Policy Institute, 1990), p. 14.
