You are tough on women, Kim. It is fair enough, I suppose.

I am one woman who has walked the walk alone raising my children. I don't mind too much.

And I have always put older men on a pedestal to my sons. It is character building for them.

But then again I could do it alone. And I have much support to be grateful for.

What you don't notice is the other side of the coin.

Step fathers are men too. They don't deserve to be put in a box as bad men no more than the natural fathers do. And to be honest step fathers have done wonders for children. Just ask the children themselves.

Religion is not going to rule. Nature will. And nature is a funny thing. You can't expect from it.

And besides when religion rules; women whose husbands die are suppose to remarry and thus a step father comes along. And these women are not marrying for love but convenience.

You are tough on women, Kim. It is fair enough, I suppose.

I am one woman who has walked the walk alone raising my children. I don't mind too much.

And I have always put older men on a pedestal to my sons. It is character building for them.

But then again I could do it alone. And I have much support to be grateful for.

What you don't notice is the other side of the coin.

Step fathers are men too. They don't deserve to be put in a box as bad men no more than the natural fathers do. And to be honest step fathers have done wonders for children. Just ask the children themselves.

Religion is not going to rule. Nature will. And nature is a funny thing. You can't expect from it.

And besides when religion rules; women whose husbands die are suppose to remarry and thus a step father comes along. And these women are not marrying for love but convenience.

I'm not tough on all women, Julie, only those who are willing to sacrifice their children for companionship. I'd much prefer a world where they didn't exist, but unfortunately, they do and I can't imagine a scenario where I was being too hard on them for that.

I'm not putting stepfathers in a bad box, I believe if you re-read my post you'll find that I made it clear that "the majority of men would never abuse a child, sexually or otherwise". However, my post wasn't about stepfathers, or single mothers who do the best job possible raising their children. It was about the very real phenomena of mothers who care far more about finding their next man then they do about the welfare of their children.

Quote from Kim

I'm not tough on all women, Julie, only those who are willing to sacrifice their children for companionship. I'd much prefer a world where they didn't exist, but unfortunately, they do and I can't imagine a scenario where I was being too hard on them for that.

I'm not putting stepfathers in a bad box, I believe if you re-read my post you'll find that I made it clear that "the majority of men would never abuse a child, sexually or otherwise". However, my post wasn't about stepfathers, or single mothers who do the best job possible raising their children. It was about the very real phenomena of mothers who care far more about finding their next man then they do about the welfare of their children.

I am pretty speechless at the moment.

I really wondered what women could be like not caring for their children and then defended myself and other women. I shouldn't have taken it personally. Nor against the group I am with.

But all this is a small amount of women now. Things have been changing for years and there may be a big powerful clash coming up in the business and labour sector with women.

It almost looks like a full gigsaw these days to me.

The statistics are wooly. It isn't "step-fathers" it is the stream of 'boyfriends' that may abuse, and usually with the mother's conivance.

The difference?

If a woman who has the misfortune of losing her husband, to death, then her devotion to her child is admirable. It does not have to be anymore of a 'sacrifice' than any other parent, such as one who is deserted, who holds her dignity and duty clear. Devotion is not a sacrifice. It is a Grace. Grace is sometimes hard.

A single mother in either case is as able to form a good and lasting, beneficial relationship as anyone else - with perhaps the aspect of a child already in the picture that might limit some of the field. She needs to take as much care in the selection of her new mate as any other women (and any other man) ought to do. Just getting a temporary 'boyfriend' for sexual gratification is as stupid as it is usual. This is the mother's poor choice.

A well formed relationship with a good man who readily takes on the complex role of step-father through a clear Love for the mother, rather than simple lust, is available if sought and nurtured with care over a period of time when the man's - and her own - character can be properly assessed. Most - MOST - step fathers are regular decent chaps. They take their responsibilities seriously. They are 'committed'.

'Boyfriends' are not committed and a single mother with a 'boyfriend' living-in, isn't committed either.

If a woman who has the misfortune of losing her husband, to death, then her devotion to her child is admirable. It does not have to be anymore of a 'sacrifice' than any other parent, such as one who is deserted, who holds her dignity and duty clear. Devotion is not a sacrifice. It is a Grace. Grace is sometimes hard.

Well said, Percy.

Quote from Kim

I remember hearing once, Dr. Laura Schlessinger saying that if you have children and you decide to divorce, that should mean that you will be single until after your children are grown. I thought it was a bit extreme when I first heard it, but it's making more and more sense to me all the time. They say that with every man a single mother brings into the home, her children's risk of abuse raises 20%. With that statistic, a woman who dates only 5 men while raising her children, will have raised their chances of being abused 100%. Looking at that number, I can very well support what Dr. Laura says. Looking at that number, one has to question the wisdom of mothers getting primary custody of their children in a divorce. I saw these statistics quoted on a forum once and a woman made a post trying to turn it around into an attack on men because 'they were the ones doing the abusing'. Just to clarify, because I wouldn't want to contribute in any way to the unfair stigma already placed upon men concerning abuse....the majority of men would never abuse a child, sexually or otherwise. The point of the statistics, however, is not about men. It's about the mothers who are supposed to protect them. An outside, unrelated party is not so much the problem as is the caretaker who brought that person into their children's lives.
More...

Yes, children raised in single mother homes are far more likely to be abused than children raised with their fathers. Dr. Laura's statistics hide the fact that it is the mother, not her latest fuck, who is most likely to be abusing the children. Females do about twice as much child abuse, including sexual abuse, as men do. The second most likely abuser is mother's latest fuck, but he's in second place to the divorced or single mother. She's more likely to be abusing the children if she's focusing on getting laid and bringing in a parade of men, but its not the men doing the abuse. Dr. Laura conveniently skips over that part.

Dr. Laura also always promotes the feminist female power notion that it is the female who has authority to decide if and when the father may see or contact his children. She often suggests that mothers report men to the blue gun thugs for "abuse" but never suggests similar criminal persecution of female abusers. Aside from her opposition to abortion, Dr. Laura is a complete feminist.

The statistics on child abuse for children in single mother homes are so bad that taking children away from their fathers should be prima-facia criminal child abuse. The home of their father is the only safe place for children. Before feminism, children always belonged to their father unless there was some reason why not such as death, etc.

It's time to get past the feminazi anti-family theories like "custodY" and return to pro-family law that assumes children belong to their fathers unless proven otherwise.

Blessings

Bob

Quote from Kim

I'm not tough on all women, Julie, only those who are willing to sacrifice their children for companionship. I'd much prefer a world where they didn't exist, but unfortunately, they do and I can't imagine a scenario where I was being too hard on them for that.

I'm not putting stepfathers in a bad box, I believe if you re-read my post you'll find that I made it clear that "the majority of men would never abuse a child, sexually or otherwise". However, my post wasn't about stepfathers, or single mothers who do the best job possible raising their children. It was about the very real phenomena of mothers who care far more about finding their next man then they do about the welfare of their children.

Sacrifice? Commitment? Putting the children's needs above your own?

you're so old school Kim, this is the new age, the bad old days are gone, we're free now aren't we?

Sacrifice? Commitment? Putting the children's needs above your own?

you're so old school Kim, this is the new age, the bad old days are gone, we're free now aren't we?

I know....me and my crazy talk.

It's time to get past the feminazi anti-family theories like "custodY" and return to pro-family law that assumes children belong to their fathers unless proven otherwise.

I think any rhetoric that promotes children belonging with one parent OR the other is anti-family. Children belong in homes where both their father and mother are present.

[I think any rhetoric that promotes children belonging with one parent OR the other is anti-family. Children belong in homes where both their father and mother are present.

Agreed.

Both parents are, IMHO, wholly and totally, jointly and severaly, completely responsible for their children. It is a personal issue, not simply financial. For a court to part parents from their children is anti-family. For one parent to part the children from the other and bugger off to 'find themselves' is anti-family. For one parent to leave the children to the other and bugger off is anti-family. For a parent to poison a child's mind from the other parent is anti-family.

I recall a story of a family written by John Murtari. It was a very poor family - dirt floors, kids walking barefoot to school, use of the belt to punish the kids. The parents who were far, far from the best - indeed incompetent and neglectful by modern comparisons in many respects.

Should these parents have been separated from their children? Punished? Should the State have 'intervened'? Taken the kids away from violent, neglectful parents?

It was John's own childhood.

John is a devoted father who has been jailed and gone on hunger strike in order to be with his son. He had a distinguished career as a test pilot with NASA. Not a dummy by any stretch. He has a profound non-violent philosophy and an exceptionally warm, generous and forgiving heart. His upbringing would be condemned today and an army of figgin' zozhial verkers moved in. But John turned out to be an intelligent, constructive and very well balanced individual with huge Character.

Most generations going way back before this century were brought into a world of comparative squalor and neglect. I don't advocate that of course; no need to go backwards. But generations begat generations all revering Family, no matter the circumstances, all the way up to this wishy washy one where Family is reviled, officially and predominantly by women. Led by Feminists.

Family used to be the Rock upon which civilisation was built. That rock is being reduced to dust by dungaree-clad harpies with sledgehammers assisted by State operated jack-hammers raised up by bastards in black robes.

Some in the MRM often take up the chant that children should 'belong' to fathers.

It's time to get past the feminazi anti-family theories like "custodY" and return to pro-family law that assumes children belong to their fathers unless proven otherwise.

Ludicrous. This is mixing up two quite distinct and dangerous concepts. The Father and the Mother belong to and with the child.

Sure the idea of 'custody' is dangerous. It is the language of the prison system. Pro-family is not about just the Father 'ownership'. It is Father, Mother, Child.

One cannot fight anti-family, femonazi philosophies by imposing ludicrous accountabilities just on the Father. That just perpetuates the wrong that is currently being wreaked, just in the other extreme.