The big lie here is that they ignore single father homes which do as well as two parent homes. It is the FATEHR, not the 2 parents who makes the differnce for children. That fact is much too hot of a potatoe for any "study" to even mention it.

Blessings

Bob

Amen Bob. I figured this one out and mentioned it at Glenn Sacks. I brought up the subject of how too many women go "Oh I would never spank my child" and act like such a position is a virtue. Women have far more trouble administering discipline. So children usually turn out better in single male households as opposed to single female households.

I take heart when I realize feminists had to subjugate the males to succeed because they realized women would follow like sheep. It would have been impossible to get men to hate women the way women hate men today.That's why nature, which is all about survival, demands that men run things.

Glad you agree, Stephen. In order to sluff off the feminist war on men and win back our society we don't even have to hate women like women hate men. All we have to do is to remmeber that women don't matter. Women are irrelevant to the working of every part of society from families to the production of every necissary part of life. Its not surprising that women can't raise children, women can't do anything well. And in fact women are incompetent at virtually everything. Women just don't matter.

Blessings

Bob

Although I agree with you that it's the Father making the obvious difference here (and the omission of a single father home says a lot), I can't help but wonder if you woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning...

We don't have the "opportunity" to witness the extent of the damage that would be caused if scores of children were alienated from their mothers. No studies would ever have prepared society to comprehend the full effect of not having fathers in the home. We only see a clear and true picture because we've actually undertaken such a devastating cultural experiment.

The total damage of children being denied their mothers could only be told if the same experiment were reproduced in reverse. I can guarantee you there would be negative effects.

The effects would be different as the lessons and benefits derived from mothers and fathers are quite different.

Suggesting that fathers were unnecessary in the lives of their children was indulgent and ignorant on the part of feminists. Suggesting that mothers are unnecessary is the same.

My dad taught me many things in life; my love of music, literature, to stand up for what's right, to take pride in who I am.....My mother taught me about kindness, charity, generosity and compassion. I can't imagine what I would have lost if I'd been denied the benefit of either of their parenting and guidance.

Actually, Kim, there is a huge pile of studies and they are consistent. Children raised without mothers succeed in every part of life just as well as do children in 2 parent homes. The "full effect" of not having mothers is virtually no measurable effect at all.





Women would like to believe that, but it's not supported by a very large number of studies. Other than biological reproduction which takes both male and female, the female half of the human population becomes rapidly irrelevant after birth. Children raised in single parent father homes do just as well as children raised in two parent homes. There are no measurable negative effects from losing the mother despite a century of feminist whining.


Wrong. Fathers and mothers are not interchangable. Fathers are very important for the success of children. Mothers are not. Without fathers children do poorly in every study. Without mothers, children do as well as with mothers. The feminist lie wrong, but the reverse is true.



Anecdotes aside, many decades of research shows no negative results from the lack of mothers. Mothers are pretty much irrelevant and unnecissary to the success of children after weaning.

Blessings

Bob

I can agree with most of what you generalise, Kim, but this, above, is an entirely personal matter and may be affected by selective memory and an -unusual for you - bias in perspective. Kindness, charity, generosity and compassion are as male as they are female. Indeed the spread and usefulness of these qualities is more male than female.

Who builds organisations like Rotary or the Buffalos or Apex or any other of the hundreds of social charity groups one finds in all of our cities and towns? Who builds charity hospitals? Who started Medicin san Frontiers? Who is behind Care and Oxfam? If the Catholic Church -a quintessentially male organisation - pulled out of charity, much of the western world's hospital system would collapse. A thousand other instances could be listed.

Who were the doctors dispensing kindness and compassion in a practical manner at two in the morning before women muscled in making their outrageous demands for three day weeks between 10am and 3 pm, regardless of when bones break or babies arrived? Who did all the hard graft that benefitted others?

Men are behind most expressions of kindness, charity, generosity and compassion. Women claim them - and no doubt have these qualities - but do not seem to do anywhere near as well as men at spreading the benefits.

In the home today, men's kindness, charity, generosity and compassion is marginalised when it isn't denied altogether. The mum of your day may well have been the one who kissed the sore knee better but these days she would be Sainted for that. It will soon be an item on the nightly TV news. Indeed, she is considered a Saint from the moment her periods start these days. Dad doesn't get a look in.

Was your dad not being generous, charitable etc when he slogged away all day, outside the comforts of his own home, to provide for you and your mum? Wasn't that generosity far, far more needed and essential than the sore knee kissing? Dad didn't have to do it, giving his all and all of the reward for his labours to his family. Did he keep much for himself? Did the mum of yesterday sacrifice one tenth of what dad did? Dad did it everyday, year after year. Yet you only recognise mum for her charity, kindness etc.

Children need both mother and father. That was the crux of the thread. Without dad the kids do not generally succeed. I am sure the same could be said for mum too. Not that there is any proof - as you point out. I guess we have to have 'faith' that it is so. But our society's 'experiment' with killing off dads has produced a generation of mums very unlike your mum. I see precious little kindness, charity, generosity and compassion from most of today's mothers. Most are crude, thick, greedy, unwashed and unlovely and wouldn't have a nice thought from one day to the next. Instead they grasp and whine and blame, teaching their children to do the same. Positive and beneficial action would be even rarer.

Yes, Percy, that was the crux. My point was that they each brought important things to the table, they each played a crucial role in who I became.

I wasn't downplaying any of my fathers contributions, either. Those were the areas they each focused on. Those were the things they would take time to pull me aside and specifically teach me the value of. I don't consider 'standing up for what's right and taking pride in myself' to be of any less worth than 'kindness, charity, generosity and compassion'.

They taught me those values, along with many, many more each and every day of their lives simply by the way they lived their lives. And, yes as you mentioned, such examples on the part of mothers DO grow rarer and rarer every day.