PDA

View Full Version : 1/4 American Women Childless, but Still Higher Birthrate Than Europe



SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008, 08:50 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/20/usa1

One in five women in America are remaining childless throughout their lives, twice the proportion of a generation ago.

A new survey from the US Census Bureau shows that 20% of women aged 40 to 44 were childless, up from 10% in 1976. Though the report - which is based on figures for 2006, the most recent year collected - stops at 44, the number of women giving birth after that age is statistically nominal.

The trend towards having children later in life and the growing proportion of childless women is in tune with patterns across developed countries. Fertility experts have been struck, though, by the steady decline in fertility in the US since the mid-1980s.

"The proportion of childless women has been increasing steadily by about one percentage point a year," said Jane Dye, the report's author.

The bureau's statistics give no clue as to whether US women are consciously putting their careers before their families and remaining childless, or are experiencing fertility problems perhaps as a result of trying to become pregnant towards the end of their fertile years.

Dye pointed out that the figures do give a clear indication of women's decision to have children later in life to allow them to complete their education and establish a career.

The tables show a spike in fertility among women with at least a bachelor's degree in the 30 to 34 age bracket.

"Women are waiting longer to finish their education so childbearing starts later," said Jennifer Manlove, a researcher specialising in teenage pregnancies with the organisation Child Trends.

Not only are highly educated women delaying pregnancy, but they are also more likely to remain childless. The proportion of graduates or those with a professional degree without children aged 40 to 44 rises to more than one in four - 27%.

That compares with just 15% - less than one in six - for women who did not complete their schooling.

The findings also highlight the shrinking of the average American family. In 1976, women on average had 3.1 children, but that figure had fallen by 2006 to 1.9 children. That is below the level of fertility needed to ensure a stable population - 2.1 children per woman is known in demographic jargon as "replacement-level fertility".

Expressed another way, 30 years ago 59% of women used to have three or more children, but that has also tailed off to just 28%.

There is also a striking variation in the frequency of childless women according to their race or origin. The proportion of white women, excluding those of Hispanic origin, who have no children is much higher than other groups at 23%.

Hispanic women are the least likely to remain childless at 14%, with black women at 16% and Asian women at 18%.

The report marks a huge stride in statistical understanding of fertility issues. For the first time the data has been drawn from a massive sample of 3m addresses across the US in the American Community Survey, allowing analysis of fertility annually and state by state.

The findings reveal, for instance, that Utah, Nebraska and Idaho in the middle and west of the US have the highest fertility levels while the north-east states of New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island have the lowest.


http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/13_paradox.shtml

BERKELEY – By all accounts, the 15 countries that comprise the European Union employ a more powerful arsenal of family-friendly social policies than does the United States. Yet, those countries have lower annual rates of marriage and childbearing.

In their article, "The Modern Paradox of Family Policy," published in the September/October issue of Transaction: Social Science and Modern Society, University of California, Berkeley, social welfare professor Neil Gilbert, and California State University, Hayward, sociology and social services assistant professor Rebecca Van Vorhis explore this odd contradiction.

"Although the U.S. has a higher rate of immigration (and immigrants tend to have larger families), and there are wide variations in marriage and childbearing rates among the EU countries, these factors do not account for the U.S.-European paradox of family policy," the authors write.

The United States is widely recognized as lagging far behind the advanced industrialized democracies of Europe in the development of family-friendly social policies such as maternity leave, day care, length of vacations and other benefits that reduce work-family conflicts, Gilbert says.

"Yet, in 2000," he continues, "the U.S. fertility rate of 2.06 - close to the replacement rate of 2.11- was considerably higher than that of the major industrialized countries of Europe."

Fertility rates ranged from 1.22 in Spain and Italy to 1.72 in Britain and 1.74 in France; the rate for Germany was 1.44, Sweden 1.54 and the Netherlands 1.66.

Although the numbers for marriage and childbearing are higher in the United States, the authors acknowledge that they are still low, since they are below replacement rate. They explored three hypotheses for these low numbers.

* Delayed marriage and childbearing.
"Birth control and women entering the labor force have changed things," Gilbert says. "People are putting off starting a family. A larger proportion of the population is going on to higher education." But, he adds, delayed choice explains only a fraction of the drop in numbers; it would not account for the level of decline being seen, because eventually, some of these women have children.

* Calculated choice.
"It's costly to have kids," Gilbert says, " so people are making a calculated decision to have only one child, or to not have any at all." The authors write: "Calculated choice also supports what might be called the 'female-independence hypothesis,' which is about sex, money and the quality of spousal relationships. According to this explanation, in the wake of the sexual liberation movement and increased female participation in the labor force, women have less need of husbands as economic providers and sexual partners than in earlier times."

* Women's misjudgment of men's participation.
"Unlike calculated choice, which implies a rational weighing of the costs and benefits associated with marriage and childbearing, the third explanation submits that the trends here are the result of a misjudgment by women," Gilbert and Van Vorhis write. Since both partners are working, women assume men will take on more responsibility at home, "but men have not stepped up to the plate," Gilbert says. "The bulk of responsibility still falls upon women." Women then think twice about having a second child, he says, or any children at all.

Although these three explanations may to varying degrees account for the overall diminishing of family structure in advanced industrial countries, the authors feel they do not explain how social policy influences that trend. Moreover, Gilbert and Van Vorhis believe they shed no insights into the discrepancy between the strength of family-friendly policies and the comparative rates of marriage and childbearing in Europe and the United States.

"So-called family-friendly policies give incentives for people to go to work," Gilbert says. "They are actually market-friendly policies," he continues, so they do not necessarily encourage having children. He explains that in some countries, while parents may be paid to stay home for a year with a new child, those parents had to have been working previous to staying home. In most cases, childcare is subsidized, sending parents back to work a short time after a child is born.

"Because these policies are market-friendly, they have devalued caring for children," Gilbert says. "So people think - why have kids?"

The effects of low fertility will have long ranging repercussions on society, the authors believe.

"For example, who is going to care for the elderly?" Gilbert says. "There will not be enough people to support seniors who are no longer in the workforce."
Gilbert also raises the point that low fertility "poses a dramatic threat to cultures. They will either shrink down to nothing, or immigration will increase, which can bring with it a whole new set of issues."

The authors have uncovered some possible solutions that warrant further investigation. For example, Germany has introduced a policy that people without children have to pay higher nursing home premiums, "so the cost of not having children, at least in Germany, has gone up," Gilbert says.

The authors do not see the current practice of the United States government putting money into encouraging marriage as a solution. "What they are doing here is funding counseling," Gilbert says, and there is no evidence that these 'soft' services work.

"We need to examine ways to create more flexibility," Gilbert says. "We need to allow people to make choices." Subsidizing people to stay home with children, as well as providing day care, he says, may give more people incentives to have children.

Adds Gilbert, "We need to recognize the market value of what has been done for free in the past."

Sigurd
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008, 12:01 PM
The difference is that over here in Europe the number of people that are having children is not going back as dramatically as the number of children they have. If 100% of the population has one child each, then that is a lower birthrate than if 30% of the population have 4 children each. I have two aunts in America who are mothers-of-seven and mothers-of-five, respectively, having a larger family seems more accepted as well as easier to support across the pond than here. And finally, chances are that the strong Christianity, especially Catholicism leads to a higher birth-rate too. In fact, even in Austria, here in Tyrol we have much higher birth-rates than the Viennese, that is once you deduct the Muslim mothers in Vienna of course. :P

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, September 4th, 2008, 06:52 AM
Good observation, perhaps a better way to fix the demographic problem is to accept that a certain portion of women are going to want to have careers instead of children, and instead focus on finding ways to encourage large families. The trick is to find a way that doesn't encourage derelicts to have large families.

aus_princess
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 03:59 AM
this becomes a socio-economic problem, I am single and i know if i had a child now i could not afford the time off work, nor the childcare costs better loan the cost of schooling, healthcare, clothing, food etc.
Even if i had a partner i would still find it daunting not having the funds saved for "emergencys". I have just finished my masters and entered the workforce a year ago and i wouldnt dream of having a child until i have at least 5 years of savings under my belt.
It's one thing for myself to live paycheck to paycheck, but having a child poses responsibilities of not being raised in a welfare home to a single mother like i was.
We all want what's best for our children, and i am no exception.

CrystalRose
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 07:00 AM
I can relate with aus-princess.
The cost of living and workforce in California isn't exactly geared towards women who want to have children. The people who do have children (here) can barely afford one child let alone 2-4 to keep up with the 'replacements' we need. you do have to question the quality of life in California. If doctors are moving out of California because of the high costs... and aus_princess for example (with a masters) find it difficult to have children what's that say for the rest of the population? Only idiots are breeding? Women are holding back, women want the best for their families, am I right ladies? Smart women would rather wait and 'do it right' even if it's well into their 40's. Now, we have all these careless people having children expecting society to pick up the pieces for them. I had mentioned in ‘goals for preservation’ thread that we need to have some sort of non-profit organization targeting young couples, encouraging them to have families. Valuable for preservation. Invest in our children, for they are the future. As we can tell by these numbers, something needs to change. The chances of having a healthy child at age 40 is less and less likely compared to a woman who has a child in her younger years.
:doh;( btw:fskadiraw

mischak
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 07:57 AM
this becomes a socio-economic problem, I am single and i know if i had a child now i could not afford the time off work, nor the childcare costs better loan the cost of schooling, healthcare, clothing, food etc.
Even if i had a partner i would still find it daunting not having the funds saved for "emergencys". I have just finished my masters and entered the workforce a year ago and i wouldnt dream of having a child until i have at least 5 years of savings under my belt.
It's one thing for myself to live paycheck to paycheck, but having a child poses responsibilities of not being raised in a welfare home to a single mother like i was.
We all want what's best for our children, and i am no exception.

I suppose you would have a husband/father in the picture as well? That's not exactly the same as having to raise a child on your own with one income..

aus_princess
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 05:13 PM
A man has nothing to do with it. i need and want financial flexibility and freedom for my myself and my family.
my mother had a "man" too, and he left when i was 2 years old and we had nothing.
you cant rely on anybody in this world except yourself.

Jäger
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 05:27 PM
A man has nothing to do with it. i need and want financial flexibility and freedom for my myself and my family.
If this keeps you from having a family, it sounds like a pretty bad plan.

aus_princess
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 05:28 PM
oh and what's better? raising a child in poverty? i don't think so.

Jäger
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 06:01 PM
oh and what's better? raising a child in poverty? i don't think so.
A better plan would be to get a man who is not going to leave you after 2 years.

aus_princess
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 06:16 PM
ok well when you grow a vagina you can decide when is a good time to have babies and when isnt :D
and like i said, you cant rely on anybody. who knows what's going to happen in 2 years time? i cant control anybody else.

Jäger
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 06:32 PM
and like i said, you cant rely on anybody. who knows what's going to happen in 2 years time? i cant control anybody else.
You can't be sure of your self reliance either.
And you don't have to control a man to make him not leave you, you just have to look for someone who won't. :)

aus_princess
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 06:39 PM
haha ok then, go and find me someone who wont :)
Family structure has changed over 50 years, people are just so quick to get divorced, that to is not a good situation for a child to be in.:(

Hanna
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 06:44 PM
oh and what's better? raising a child in poverty? i don't think so.

Poverty is a disease, and I'm a pretty luck girl in this case, and I hope all the forum members are lucky too.

Æmeric
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 06:51 PM
haha ok then, go and find me someone who wont :)
Family structure has changed over 50 years, people are just so quick to get divorced, that to is not a good situation for a child to be in.:(

You can blame the women's movement for that. No-Fault divorce was one of the demands of feminists. The social changes over the last 50-years that were advocated by feminists were suppose to be for the benefit of women, to free them from the repression they suffered at the hands of men. Ironic how it how turned out.

aus_princess
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 06:59 PM
women arnt the only ones who leave a relationship, men are just as quick to give up, or not even bother at all for that matter. Many facets of family life have changed, for society as a whole not just for women. I just know that i dont want to end up a statistic, so hence the reason im only around the corner from 30 and still single. That's how its gonna be.

Deary
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 07:35 PM
A man has nothing to do with it. i need and want financial flexibility and freedom for my myself and my family.
my mother had a "man" too, and he left when i was 2 years old and we had nothing.
you cant rely on anybody in this world except yourself.

A man has everything to do with it. Afterall, he is likely going to be the bringer of the larger income or only income. Nobody plans every detail. Nobody has all the money they'd like to. The majority of couples learn to make do when they first are married and have children even if that means not living in the lap of luxury for some time. It is also vital to have a good support system. In the case of my parents and cousins, they either lived with their families in the same household or nearby so there was always someone to help with the baby. They were also friends with their neighbors as the majority of them went to the same church. Should you not make the mistakes of your mother and find a respectable man with a well-paying job, you shouldn't have too much to fret over, but five years of saving for a child is quite a long time. I don't mean any offense by this, but you're 27. You risk losing the one thing that matters in the world should you decide to wait much longer until you have all in the bank account you think is enough. Reliance is something you had better get used to in life, because you're going to need it more than anything when you start a family of your own.

aus_princess
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 07:57 PM
oh really and who said that a man is going to earn more then me? im on over 100K a year, second year out of college and its only going up, i see MYSELF as the MAJOR breadwinner. If you want to hide behind a man that's fine, I dont need that to validate my life. After all, i was speaking on the perspective of MY life, and what I want, not on anybody els's.

Deary
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 09:22 PM
oh really and who said that a man is going to earn more then me? im on over 100K a year, second year out of college and its only going up, i see MYSELF as the MAJOR breadwinner. If you want to hide behind a man that's fine, I dont need that to validate my life. After all, i was speaking on the perspective of MY life, and what I want, not on anybody els's.

The problem is, what you want might very well cause you some major issues in the future. In most cases, not all, the man earns more than the woman, especially in this country. I'm genuinely curious as to how are you going to find time to be a wife and mother when you're busy making +$100,000 a year. It most often does not appeal to men desiring family to have a partner who brings in more money than he and has a demanding career. The women I have known put aside their jobs to live by the income of their husbands, not to hide, but because they understood the importance of their presence during their marriage and young child's life. That has brought them more happiness and validation than any career or amount of money ever could.

aus_princess
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 09:35 PM
The problem is, what you want might very well cause you some major issues in the future. In most cases, not all, the man earns more than the woman, especially in this country. I'm genuinely curious as to how are you going to find time to be a wife and mother when you're busy making +$100,000 a year. It most often does not appeal to men desiring family to have a partner who brings in more money than he and has a demanding career. The women I have known put aside their jobs to live by the income of their husbands, not to hide, but because they understood the importance of their presence during their marriage and young child's life. That has brought them more happiness and validation than any career or amount of money ever could.


ok the simple fact of the matter is, i have masters degree, and i did not study at the world BEST universities for 8 years to simply to give up my dreams of a fulfilling career for a child, or worse yet, a man!
perhaps you need to step out of the 1950's and realize that women today CAN HAVE IT ALL!
the women i admire most in this world have a career, a husband, a family and a life and manage to balance it all with everyone's best interests at heart and do a damn good job of it!
I really couldn't give a stuff if a man is intimidated by my success or not, any man worth anything will accept and love me for me and support me in my career aspirations as much as his own. end of story.

Jäger
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 10:45 PM
The women I have known put aside their jobs to live by the income of their husbands, not to hide, but because they understood the importance of their presence during their marriage and young child's life.
Women who can't find fulfillment in a family are gene junk anyways.


ok the simple fact of the matter is, i have a f***ing masters degree, and i did not study at the world BEST universities for 8 years to simply to give up my dreams of a fulfilling career for a child, or worse yet, a man!
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=854071&postcount=32

flemish
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 11:00 PM
Telling Aus-Princess to just find a man who won't leave her is like telling her to develop psychic abilities. It would be wonderful if a man would tell you he's a complete jerk before you got involved with him. My father left me and my mother when I was three years old, and we lived in dire poverty. He was in the position to help us out financially after he left, but just didn't give a hoot about us. I can relate to the fear of getting involved with and maybe even marrying a horrible man who you thought was Mr. Right, at first. Also, it would be unfair to bring children into a marriage or relationship that isn't stable.
In my opinion, the lower birthrate in the West can be attributed to changes in society's attitudes regarding the interaction of young men and women around eighty years ago. According to a documentary I was watching on sexuality, dating and choosing one's marital partner is a relatively new concept that came about in the 1920's. From what I understand, marriages were more or less arranged back then, and people were under much more pressure to stay in them. Another thing, contraception wasn't anything like it is today back then,so you had tons of children. When people started dating, they must have felt freer to have premarital sex, and that very likely led to the demand and creation of more effective contraceptives which decreased the birthrate.
In my opinion(here I go again), the pill gave women a different outlook on their lives since they new they wouldn't have to put their aspirations on hold anymore to take care of families, if they didn't want to. That led many women to put off having children, or not have them at all. Up until that time women never really had a choice in the matter.
I get the sense that today's generation of Western women are being unduly blamed for the declining birthrate. This problem has it's roots in the shift in society's attitudes almost a century ago, and now we are experiencing it's cumulative effect.
Since I am an only child, I wouldn't have a brother or sister to lean on if I ended up a single mother in some sort of hardship(I am childless). There are probably other women who can say the same. When you have children, you want what's best for them, and if you feel you can't give children a decent life, you shouldn't have them. Raising children isn't inexpensive. If you can't feed them, don't breed them. Increasing the number of whites in Western countries is a good idea, because we are being out bred by other people who are immigrating to our lands. Yet before a Westerner decides to have more children to increase our numbers, they should be practical. They should take their circumstances into account.

aus_princess
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 11:01 PM
NOBODY is saying that they are not taking fulfillment in having a family, we are on the other hand, debating the order of priorities in the life of women in today's society.

Kreis AnnA
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 11:13 PM
I postponed having children till after I got my degree. But instead of going into the workforce I chose motherhood and continued with education as my children grew. But first and foremost, I was lucky in love.:)

aus_princess
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 11:16 PM
I postponed having children till after I got my degree. But instead of going into the workforce I chose motherhood and continued with education as my children grew. But first and foremost, I was lucky in love.:)


that is wonderful Kreis Anna, and if given the opportunity 10 years ago, i probably would have done the same, but you have to work with what you've got, and i, like most people are just trying to make the most of it.

Jäger
Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 11:34 PM
Telling Aus-Princess to just find a man who won't leave her is like telling her to develop psychic abilities. It would be wonderful if a man would tell you he's a complete jerk before you got involved with him.
A woman shouldn't be so naive as to think she could judge a man, better she asks another man for advice who is capable of staying with his wife (in healthy cases the father, but any would do better than the woman herself).


From what I understand, marriages were more or less arranged back then, and people were under much more pressure to stay in them.
Marriage is a vow, sticking to your word is a question of honor, and ideally is even state law (law of contract), feminist bitched all day about not getting out of marriage, and now they are bitching about not getting anyone to stick with them. :|


When people started dating, they must have felt freer to have premarital sex, and that very likely led to the demand and creation of more effective contraceptives which decreased the birthrate.
As a side note in e.g. the Frisian society, premarital sex with the potential partner was encouraged, and demanded, and only when the woman got pregnant the man was allowed to marry her (and vice versa) because a union which could not result in children was a waste of resources.
However it is true that contraception only increased irresponsible behavior, and should thus be forbidden (natural contraception, like the symptothermal method, excluded), or should only be available to couples who already have at least three children.


I get the sense that today's generation of Western women are being unduly blamed for the declining birthrate. This problem has it's roots in the shift in society's attitudes almost a century ago, and now we are experiencing it's cumulative effect.
Who blames them for this here? Blame and guilt has nothing to do with this.


When you have children, you want what's best for them, and if you feel you can't give children a decent life, you shouldn't have them.
There is a difference whether you are consciously deciding against children because of your selfishness, or whether you really can't.


Yet before a Westerner decides to have more children to increase our numbers, they should be practical. They should take their circumstances into account.
So when is a situation practical? Obviously after your logic, you can never count on your husband, so how much savings before the first child can be born and live a potential fatherless life?


NOBODY is saying that they are not taking fulfillment in having a family, we are on the other hand, debating the order of priorities in the life of women in today's society.
If you give your career the primary priority, then your children will suffer.


If you think that me having an education and a career AND wanting a family is feminist then perhaps you are the missing-link neanderthal/cro-magnon scientists having been looking for.
Of course it is feminist, you want to replace the man in your family.

Deary
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 01:11 AM
NOBODY is saying that they are not taking fulfillment in having a family, we are on the other hand, debating the order of priorities in the life of women in today's society. If you think that me having an education and a career AND wanting a family is feminist then perhaps you are the missing-link neanderthal/cro-magnon scientists having been looking for. good luck with that!

You wish to keep your career when you are married with children even when you don't have to. Already you have made it a priority above motherhood. Having a career is demanding. You will likely have no choice but to spend more of your time at the office than with your family. Many wives and mothers with careers of their own are forced to send their children to daycare centers. Strangers raise their children more than they do. They don't have the opportunity to cook for their family and give them all the things in life money can't buy. They often can't be around when they are needed most. There are painful repercussions when women cling to their careers. Family goes on the backburner, and our society fails to function. As the studies indicate, the idea that women can have it all has proven disaterous.

Patrioten
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 01:12 AM
Starting a family today is indeed a gamble. The social norms and family values of yesterday are gone, the sense of duty and purpose that used to make up the foundation of fatherhood/motherhood in the past, has in today's society to a large degree vanished and been replaced by family defeatism and sheer selfishness.

Our traditional moral fibres, our values and our social order, has been thrown on top of the ever growing scrapheap of history, together with the rest of our traditions and heritage, and it's the kids today that pay the price for the selfishness and immaturity of the generations that followed in the wake of the 60s cult of the individual, and doctrines of cultural marxism.

Strong, healthy families require a strong and healthy society. Likewise, a strong and healthy society requires strong and healthy families. The institution of family has in western society been undermined and weakened by forces bent on destroying the traditional social order, and when the families crumble, so does everything else in our society. The family is the bedrock on which society rests. In our time, this bedrock has been cracked and smashed to pieces, and we all suffer for it. The kids suffer the most however, but their parents are too caught up with themselves and their own needs to notice this, or even care enough, to protect their children from the harm that they inflict on them when their family falls apart infront of their eyes.

As I've said in the past, people today want all the rights in this world, but no duties to go along with them. And as long as this attitude continues to roam free in our society, it will continue to devastate our families, our communities and our nations. We are already suffering because of this, and future generations will suffer even more as our increasingly destructive and anti-human lifestyles are passed down to the next generation. The heritage that our children stand to inherit is nothing short of poisonous in its present form, and if we don't actively try to achieve a ressurection of our own heritage, of our roots, and in so doing return to a traditional understanding of what it means to be a father, of what it means to be a mother, of what it means to be a family and of what it means to be a community, there is little hope for us and our children.

Mrs. Lyfing
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 01:30 AM
I think there is 1,000 ways a women can work and still have children, and a husband. Yes, it is very important to probably stay home with infants, but ya know...kids can start Pre-K or Head Start here at about 4 years old. So, its not like kids are always gonna be babies. That gives plenty hours in the day for a job or part time job. ( or school )

Here's the key thing though, no, you can't be a workaholic and a hand's on dedicated mom all the time, but you can find balance in a job, from making something homemade and maybe selling it to, a home based job, to being a teacher. We as men and women have many opportunities now and some people find that to be wonderful. They want to live. :-O

Another thing, women don't always fall in love with men who went to college and can support them on their own, considering today's prices and the price of children. ( doesn't necessarily make him a bad man, either ) he could be a mechanic or a plumber or whatever. Some people also find comfort in money matters, having plenty of, being prepared...as well feel the things they have and can give their children with money is more important than time.

Some here seem like life has always handed them cookies...if so, it will change. ;) We are just simply going to and will always do what we gotta do.

Patrioten
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 02:16 AM
I think there is 1,000 ways a women can work and still have children, and a husband. Yes, it is very important to probably stay home with infants, but ya know...kids can start Pre-K or Head Start here at about 4 years old. So, its not like kids are always gonna be babies. That gives plenty hours in the day for a job or part time job. ( or school )

Here's the key thing though, no, you can't be a workaholic and a hand's on dedicated mom all the time, but you can find balance in a job, from making something homemade and maybe selling it to, a home based job, to being a teacher. We as men and women have many opportunities now and some people find that to be wonderful. They want to live. :-O

Another thing, women don't always fall in love with men who went to college and can support them on their own, considering today's prices and the price of children. ( doesn't necessarily make him a bad man, either ) he could be a mechanic or a plumber or whatever. Some people also find comfort in money matters, having plenty of, being prepared...as well feel the things they have and can give their children with money is more important than time.

Some here seem like life has always handed them cookies...if so, it will change. ;) We are just simply going to and will always do what we gotta do. The functioning family TM is not a product of materialism. Materialism alone does not make for a strong and well-functioning family. We are richer and materially more well-off than we have ever been on average, but our families are more unstable than ever before. Materialism does not equal family bliss.

You can have 10 years worth of wages on your bank account, it still wont insure you from a family collapse. For a family to stay together and remain strong, you need will-power, determination and values. Close family bonds is a plus, so is strong bonds with the extended family.

We were indeed handed alot of cookies compared to our grandparents and great grandparents and so forth, but although cookies may be sweet and tasty, they don't contain much nutrition. Nutrition comes in the shape of good role models, good values, sound expectations and demands, that's the stuff that makes one grow and mature.

We also have the problem of people having expectations on life that cannot possibly be met, and who when they realize this, lose all sense of purpose and meaning whilst having nothing to fall back on, nothing which is so innately human that virtually anyone can strive to achieve it and find purpose and meaning in realizing it. We have come so far so fast from the reality of our ancestors, of barely getting by, that we are now losing our perspective on things. Starting a family, providing for yourself and your family, living in your own home in a safe and friendly neighborhood, sending your kids to an orderly school, socializing with friends and relatives, living a normal life, it simply isn't enough anymore. But what do we want instead? We can't all be celebrities and bathe in money. The majority of us wont, myself included. We must be able to find purpose in a life which is available to us, for else we shall wander the earth in agony for the rest of our lives. Accepting your fate is a virtue that our ancestors believed in and lived by. Religious or not, it helped them cope with reality. When you accept the hand you have been dealt, and the limitations of your existence, you can start to live a fulfilled life and find purpose in it.

aus_princess
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 03:13 AM
You wish to keep your career when you are married with children even when you don't have to. Already you have made it a priority above motherhood. Having a career is demanding. You will likely have no choice but to spend more of your time at the office than with your family. Many wives and mothers with careers of their own are forced to send their children to daycare centers. Strangers raise their children more than they do. They don't have the opportunity to cook for their family and give them all the things in life money can't buy. They often can't be around when they are needed most. There are painful repercussions when women cling to their careers. Family goes on the backburner, and our society fails to function. As the studies indicate, the idea that women can have it all has proven disaterous.

oh god i feel like im in an episode of wife swap, being stuck with a redneck hillbilly family who have no concept of the modern world.
ok here it is, ive met women whos husbands have died/left, have 3-4 children under the age of 6, have managed to work, run a household and raise sucessful well adjusted children who are all the more appreciative of the downfalls that life can bring.
if you want to breastfeed your children into adulthood then go at it.
this conversation is getting BORING, im moving on, you do the same.

CrystalRose
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 03:22 AM
A man has nothing to do with it. i need and want financial flexibility and freedom for my myself and my family.
my mother had a "man" too, and he left when i was 2 years old and we had nothing.
you cant rely on anybody in this world except yourself.

Your dad gave you 2 years? Lucky! ;) My dad gave me 2 weeks. What doesn't kill us only makes us that much more stronger, right? Financial flexibility and freedom is why women like us choose to have our careers. So, family life seems like a reoccurring 'dream' at the moment.

Jäger
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 07:09 AM
ok here it is, ive met women whos husbands have died/left, have 3-4 children under the age of 6, have managed to work, run a household and raise sucessful well adjusted children who are all the more appreciative of the downfalls that life can bring.
Well adjusted to the hedonistic life, to continue that crap.
There are many scientific indications that a fatherless "family" has biological and social disadvantages for the children.


Sexual activity. In a study of 700 adolescents, researchers found that "compared to families with two natural parents living in the home, adolescents from single-parent families have been found to engage in greater and earlier sexual activity."
Source: Carol W. Metzler, et al. "The Social Context for Risky Sexual Behavior Among Adolescents," Journal of Behavioral Medicine 17 (1994).

A myriad of maladies. Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

Drinking problems. Teenagers living in single-parent households are more likely to abuse alcohol and at an earlier age compared to children reared in two-parent households
Source: Terry E. Duncan, Susan C. Duncan and Hyman Hops, "The Effects of Family Cohesiveness and Peer Encouragement on the Development of Adolescent Alcohol Use: A Cohort-Sequential Approach to the Analysis of Longitudinal Data," Journal of Studies on Alcohol 55 (1994).

Drug Use: "...the absence of the father in the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in the greater use of alcohol and marijuana."
Source: Deane Scott Berman, "Risk Factors Leading to Adolescent Substance Abuse," Adolescence 30 (1995)

Sexual abuse. A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.
Source: Beverly Gomes-Schwartz, Jonathan Horowitz, and Albert P. Cardarelli, "Child Sexual Abuse Victims and Their Treatment," U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Child Abuse. Researchers in Michigan determined that "49 percent of all child abuse cases are committed by single mothers."
Source: Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay, "A Study of Child Abuse in Lansing, Michigan," Child Abuse and Neglect, 8 (1984).

Deadly predictions. A family structure index -- a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed -- is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males.
Source: Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, "Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult and Elderly Suicide: Are There Common Underlying Structural Factors?" Social Science Research 23, 1994.

High risk. Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

Suicidal Tendencies. In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families.
Source: David A. Brent, et al. "Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Peers of Adolescent Suicide Victims: Predisposing Factors and Phenomenology." Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 34, 1995.

Confused identities. Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity.
Source: P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf, Fatherless Children, New York, Wiley Press, 1984.

Psychiatric Problems. In 1988, a study of preschool children admitted to New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients over a 34-month period found that nearly 80 percent came from fatherless homes.
Source: Jack Block, et al. "Parental Functioning and the Home Environment in Families of Divorce," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (1988)

Emotional distress. Children living with a never-married mother are more likely to have been treated for emotional problems.
Source: L. Remez, "Children Who Don't Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems," Family Planning Perspectives (January/February 1992).

Uncooperative kids. Children reared by a divorced or never-married mother are less cooperative and score lower on tests of intelligence than children reared in intact families. Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.
Source: Greg L. Duncan, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Kato Klebanov, "Economic Deprivation and Early Childhood Development," Child Development 65 (1994).
Unstable families, unstable lives. Compared to peers in two-parent homes, black children in single-parent households are more likely to engage in troublesome behavior, and perform poorly in school.
Source: Tom Luster and Hariette Pipes McAdoo, "Factors Related to the Achievement and Adjustment of Young African-American Children." Child Development 65 (1994): 1080-1094

Beyond class lines. Even controlling for variations across groups in parent education, race and other child and family factors, 18- to 22-year-olds from disrupted families were twice as likely to have poor relationships with their mothers and fathers, to show high levels of emotional distress or problem behavior, [and] to have received psychological help.
Source: Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro, "Long Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment and Achievement in Young Adulthood." Journal of Family Psychology 7 (1993).

Fatherly influence. Children with fathers at home tend to do better in school, are less prone to depression and are more successful in relationships. Children from one-parent families achieve less and get into trouble more than children from two parent families.
Source: One Parent Families and Their Children: The School's Most Significant Minority, conducted by The Consortium for the Study of School Needs of Children from One Parent Families, co sponsored by the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the Institute for Development of Educational Activities, a division of the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, Arlington, VA., 1980

Divorce disorders. Children whose parents separate are significantly more likely to engage in early sexual activity, abuse drugs, and experience conduct and mood disorders. This effect is especially strong for children whose parents separated when they were five years old or younger.
Source: David M. Fergusson, John Horwood and Michael T. Lynsky, "Parental Separation, Adolescent Psychopathology, and Problem Behaviors," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 33 (1944).

Troubled marriages, troubled kids. Compared to peers living with both biological parents, sons and daughters of divorced or separated parents exhibited significantly more conduct problems. Daughters of divorced or separated mothers evidenced significantly higher rates of internalizing problems, such as anxiety or depression.
Source: Denise B. Kandel, Emily Rosenbaum and Kevin Chen, "Impact of Maternal Drug Use and Life Experiences on Preadolescent Children Born to Teenage Mothers," Journal of Marriage and the Family56 (1994).

Hungry for love. "Father hunger" often afflicts boys age one and two whose fathers are suddenly and permanently absent. Sleep disturbances, such as trouble falling asleep, nightmares, and night terrors frequently begin within one to three months after the father leaves home.
Source: Alfred A. Messer, "Boys Father Hunger: The Missing Father Syndrome," Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, January 1989.

Disturbing news: Children of never-married mothers are more than twice as likely to have been treated for an emotional or behavioral problem.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, Hyattsille, MD, 1988

Poor and in trouble: A 1988 Department of Health and Human Services study found that at every income level except the very highest (over $50,000 a year), children living with never-married mothers were more likely than their counterparts in two-parent families to have been expelled or suspended from school, to display emotional problems, and to engage in antisocial behavior.
Source: James Q. Wilson, "In Loco Parentis: Helping Children When Families Fail Them," The Brookings Review, Fall 1993.

Fatherless aggression: In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed "greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households."
Source: N. Vaden-Kierman, N. Ialongo, J. Pearson, and S. Kellam, "Household Family Structure and Children's Aggressive Behavior: A Longitudinal Study of Urban Elementary School Children," Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 23, no. 5 (1995).

Act now, pay later: "Children from mother-only families have less of an ability to delay gratification and poorer impulse control (that is, control over anger and sexual gratification.) These children also have a weaker sense of conscience or sense of right and wrong."
Source: E.M. Hetherington and B. Martin, "Family Interaction" in H.C. Quay and J.S. Werry (eds.), Psychopathological Disorders of Childhood. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979)

Crazy victims: Eighty percent of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals come from broken homes.
Source: J.B. Elshtain, "Family Matters...", Christian Century, July 1993.

Duh to dead: "The economic consequences of a [father's] absence are often accompanied by psychological consequences, which include higher-than-average levels of youth suicide, low intellectual and education performance, and higher-than-average rates of mental illness, violence and drug use."
Source: William Galston, Elaine Kamarck. Progressive Policy Institute. 1993

Expelled: Nationally, 15.3 percent of children living with a never-married mother and 10.7 percent of children living with a divorced mother have been expelled or suspended from school, compared to only 4.4 percent of children living with both biological parents.
Source: Debra Dawson, "Family Structure...", Journal of Marriage and Family, No. 53. 1991.

Violent rejection: Kids who exhibited violent behavior at school were 11 times as likely not to live with their fathers and six times as likely to have parents who were not married. Boys from families with absent fathers are at higher risk for violent behavior than boys from intact families.
Source: J.L. Sheline (et al.), "Risk Factors...", American Journal of Public Health, No. 84. 1994.

That crowd: Children without fathers or with stepfathers were less likely to have friends who think it's important to behave properly in school. They also exhibit more problems with behavior and in achieving goals.
Source: Nicholas Zill, C. W. Nord, "Running in Place," Child Trends, Inc. 1994.

Likeliest to succeed: Kids who live with both biological parents at age 14 are significantly more likely to graduate from high school than those kids who live with a single parent, a parent and step-parent, or neither parent.
Source: G.D. Sandefur (et al.), "The Effects of Parental Marital Status...", Social Forces, September 1992.

Worse to bad: Children in single-parent families tend to score lower on standardized tests and to receive lower grades in school. Children in single-parent families are nearly twice as likely to drop out of school as children from two-parent families.
Source: J.B. Stedman (et al.), "Dropping Out," Congressional Research Service Report No 88-417. 1988.

College odds: Children from disrupted families are 20 percent more unlikely to attend college than kids from intact, two-parent families.
Source: J. Wallerstein, Family Law Quarterly, 20. (Summer 1986)

On their own: Kids living in single-parent homes or in step-families report lower educational expectations on the part of their parents, less parental monitoring of school work, and less overall social supervision than children from intact families.
Source: N.M. Astore and S. McLanahan, Americican Sociological Review, No. 56 (1991)

Double-risk: Fatherless children -- kids living in homes without a stepfather or without contact with their biological father -- are twice as likely to drop out of school.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Survey on Child Health. (1993)

Repeat, repeat: Nationally, 29.7 percent of children living with a never-married mother and 21.5 percent of children living with a divorced mother have repeated at least one grade in school, compared to 11.6 percent of children living with both biological parents.
Source: Debra Dawson, "Family Structure and Children's Well-Being," Journals of Marriage and Family, No. 53. (1991).

Underpaid high achievers: Children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes. Almost twice as many high achievers come from two-parent homes as one-parent homes.
Source: "One-Parent Families and Their Children;" Charles F. Kettering Foundation (1990).

Dadless and dumb: At least one-third of children experiencing a parental separation "demonstrated a significant decline in academic performance" persisting at least three years.
Source: L.M.C. Bisnairs (et al.), American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, no. 60 (1990)

Son of Solo: According to a recent study of young, non-custodial fathers who are behind on child support payments, less than half of these men were living with their own father at age 14.

Slip-sliding: Among black children between the ages of 6 to 9 years old, black children in mother-only households scored significantly lower on tests of intellectual ability, than black children living with two parents.
Source: Luster and McAdoo, Child Development 65. 1994.

Dadless dropouts: After taking into account race, socio-economic status, sex, age and ability, high school students from single-parent households were 1.7 times more likely to drop out than were their corresponding counterparts living with both biological parents.
Source: Ralph McNeal, Sociology of Education 88. 1995.

Takes two: Families in which both the child's biological or adoptive parents are present in the household show significantly higher levels of parental involvement in the child's school activities than do mother-only families or step-families.
Source: Zill and Nord, "Running in Place." Child Trends. 1994

Con garden: Forty-three percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household -- 39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers -- and an additional 14 percent lived in households without either biological parent. Another 14 percent had spent at last part of their childhood in a foster home, agency or other juvenile institution.
Source: US Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Prison Inmates. 1991

Criminal moms, criminal kids: The children of single teenage mothers are more at risk for later criminal behavior. In the case of a teenage mother, the absence of a father also increases the risk of harshness from the mother.
Source: M. Mourash, L. Rucker, Crime and Delinquency 35. 1989.

Rearing rapists: Seventy-two percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. Sixty percent of America's rapists grew up the same way.
Source: D. Cornell (et al.), Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5. 1987. And N. Davidson, "Life Without Father," Policy Review. 1990.

Crime and poverty: The proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rate of violent crime and burglary, but the community's poverty level does not.
Source: D.A. Smith and G.R. Jarjoura, "Social Structure and Criminal Victimization," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25. 1988.

Marriage matters: Only 13 percent of juvenile delinquents come from families in which the biological mother and father are married to each other. By contract, 33 percent have parents who are either divorced or separated and 44 percent have parents who were never married.
Source: Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Social Services, April 1994.

No good time: Compared to boys from intact, two-parent families, teenage boys from disrupted families are not only more likely to be incarcerated for delinquent offenses, but also to manifest worse conduct while incarcerated.
Source: M Eileen Matlock et al., "Family Correlates of Social Skills..." Adolescence 29. 1994.

Count 'em: Seventy percent of juveniles in state reform institutions grew up in single- or no-parent situations.
Source: Alan Beck et al., Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987, US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1988.

The Main Thing: The relationship between family structure and crime is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature.
Source: E. Kamarck, William Galston, Putting Children First, Progressive Policy Inst. 1990

Examples: Teenage fathers are more likely than their childless peers to commit and be convicted of illegal activity, and their offenses are of a more serious nature.
Source: M.A. Pirog-Good, "Teen Father and the Child Support System," in Paternity Establishment, Institute for research on Poverty, Univ. of Wisconsin. 1992.

The 'hood The likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is raised without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent families.
Source: A. Anne Hill, June O'Neill, "Underclass Behaviors in the United States," CUNY, Baruch College. 1993

Bringing the war back home The odds that a boy born in America in 1974 will be murdered are higher than the odds that a serviceman in World War II would be killed in combat.
Source: US Sen. Phil Gramm, 1995

Get ahead at home and at work: Fathers who cared for their children intellectual development and their adolescent's social development were more like to advance in their careers, compared to men who weren't involved in such activities.
Source: J. Snarey, How Fathers Care for the Next Generation.Harvard Univ. Press.

Diaper dads: In 1991, about 20 percent of preschool children were cared for by their fathers -- both married and single. In 1988, the number was 15 percent.
Source: M. O'Connell, "Where's Papa? Father's Role in Child Care," Population Reference Bureau. 1993.

Without leave: Sixty-three percent of 1500 CEOs and human resource directors said it was not reasonable for a father to take a leave after the birth of a child.
Source: J.H. Pleck, "Family Supportive Employer Policies," Center for research in Women. 1991.

Get a job: The number of men who complain that work conflicts with their family responsibilities rose from 12 percent in 1977 to 72 percent in 1989. Meanwhile, 74 percent of men prefer a "daddy track" job to a "fast track" job.
Source: James Levine, The Fatherhood Project.

Long-distance dads: Twenty-six percent of absent fathers live in a different state than their children.
Source: US Bureau of the Census, Statistical Brief . 1991.

Cool Dad of the Week: Among fathers who maintain contact with their children after a divorce, the pattern of the relationship between father-and-child changes. They begin to behave more like relatives than like parents. Instead of helping with homework, nonresident dads are more likely to take the kids shopping, to the movies, or out to dinner. Instead of providing steady advice and guidance, divorced fathers become "treat dads."
Source: F. Furstenberg, A. Cherlin, Divided Families . Harvard Univ. Press. 1991.

Older's not wiser: While 57 percent of unwed dads with kids no older than two visit their children more than once a week, by the time the kid's seven and a half, only 23 percent are in frequent contact with their children.
Source: R. Lerman and Theodora Ooms, Young Unwed Fathers . 1993.

Ten years after: Ten years after the breakup of a marriage, more than two-thirds of kids report not having seen their father for a year.
Source: National Commission on Children, Speaking of Kids. 1991.

No such address: More than half the kids who don't live with their father have never been in their father's house.
Source: F. Furstenberg, A. Cherlin, Divided Families. Harvard Univ. Press. 1991.

Dadless years: About 40 percent of the kids living in fatherless homes haven't seen their dads in a year or more. Of the rest, only one in five sleeps even one night a month at the father's home. And only one in six sees their father once or more per week.
Source: F. Furstenberg, A. Cherlin, Divided Families. Harvard Univ. Press. 1991.

Measuring up? According to a 1992 Gallup poll, more than 50 percent of all adults agreed that fathers today spend less time with their kids than their fathers did with them.
Source: Gallup national random sample conducted for the National Center for Fathering, April 1992.

Father unknown. Of kids living in single-mom households, 35 percent never see their fathers, and another 24 percent see their fathers less than once a month.
Source: J.A. Selzer, "Children's Contact with Absent Parents," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50 (1988).

Missed contact: In a study of 304 young adults, those whose parents divorced after they left home had significantly less contact with their fathers than adult children who parents remained married. Weekly contact with their children dropped from 78 percent for still-married fathers to 44 percent for divorced fathers.
Source: William Aquilino, "Later Life Parental Divorce and Widowhood," Journal of Marriage and the Family 56. 1994.

Commercial breaks: The amount of time a father spends with his child -- one-on-one -- averages less than 10 minutes a day.
Source: J. P. Robinson, et al., "The Rhythm of Everyday Life." Westview Press. 1988

High risk: Overall, more than 75 percent of American children are at risk because of paternal deprivation. Even in two-parent homes, fewer than 25 percent of young boys and girls experience an average of at least one hour a day of relatively individualized contact with their fathers.
Source: Henry Biller, "The Father Factor..." a paper based on presentations during meetings with William Galston, Deputy Director, Domestic Policy, Clinton White House, December 1993 and April 1994.

Knock, knock: Of children age 5 to 14, 1.6 million return home to houses where there is no adult present.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Who's Minding the Kids?" Statistical Brief. April 1994.

Who said talk's cheap? Almost 20 percent of sixth- through twelfth-graders have not had a good conversation lasting for at least 10 minutes with at least one of their parents in more than a month.
Source: Peter Benson, "The Troubled Journey." Search Institute. 1993.

Justified guilt. A 1990 L.A. Times poll found that 57 percent of all fathers and 55 percent of all mothers feel guilty about not spending enough time with their children.
Source: Lynn Smith and Bob Sipchen, "Two Career Family Dilemma," Los Angeles Times, Aug. 12, 1990.

Who are you, mister? In 1965, parents on average spent approximately 30 hours a week with their kids. By 1985, the amount of time had fallen to 17 hours.
Source: William Mattox, "The Parent Trap." Policy Review. Winter, 1991.

Waiting Works: Only eight percent of those who finished high school, got married before having a child, and waited until age 20 to have that child were living in poverty in 1992.
Source: William Galston, "Beyond the Murphy Brown Debate." Institute for Family Values. Dec. 10, 1993.


63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: 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 (Source: Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children.)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)
http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html
(Some of those points are just correlations, still indications for something greater though)

And here http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=57079


if you want to breastfeed your children into adulthood then go at it.
Nice choice of terms, however by definition that is exactly what parents are supposed to do, care for children until they become adults. Interesting that you even try to dodge that. :thumbdown


this conversation is getting BORING, im moving on, if you had any brains ud do the same.
:hush


Financial flexibility and freedom is why women like us choose to have our careers.
It is true, from something ill rarely stems anything healthy, that is certainly why no one should lay blame on those who try to follow such a path, however any state which wants to have a cultural future should either abandon female protection (in a more anarchic way) or sanction their hedonistic behavior (the state order approach ;)), and then the rest will follow.

CrystalRose
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 07:32 AM
While growing up I knew a lot of 'rich kids' who had both parents.. and were secretly abusing drugs and alcohol way before any of the children who were considered lower class, or parentless. Why? because they had the money to buy those fancy drugs. ;) Sure most parentless children fall under those statistics.. there must be some exceptions? Also, the kids who had both parents were often bailed out of sticky situations. ie paid people off to keep it out of public view. Unfortunate, the poor kids had to serve time for their irresponsible deeds.. being documented.. and with criminal record. Giving people fancy statistics.

Thrymheim
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 07:55 AM
Single mothers can do a good job mine did, my father was there till I was months. My mother is an alcoholic, and smokes 40 a day, I do not and I only drink every couple of weeks and have been drunk less that 5 times in my life, So dispute her faults she managed not to pass them on. I certainly didn't abuse drugs, nor did I do anything in the way of criminal behaviour. Maybe you would consider me as a failure because I'm in my late 20's and have no children, nor am I likely to have in the next 5 years at least, but that is life now.
I suspect that some of these stats come from the areas such parents are forced to live in rather than their ability as parents.

CrystalRose
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 08:09 AM
A better plan would be to get a man who is not going to leave you after 2 years.

Where do you 'find' those? Does one really know how long someone will stick around?

Jäger
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 08:25 AM
While growing up I knew a lot of 'rich kids' who had both parents.. and were secretly abusing drugs and alcohol way before any of the children who were considered lower class, or parentless.
The absence of parents is not limited to mere physical absence.
If a child goes the wrong way, in 99% of the cases it is because of the absence of parent(s), and be it "just" spiritual absence.
A child needs love and security(snugness?), since being rich is not anymore an indication of genuine achievement, rich people are not really any indication of a better family.
Those people try to bribe the child to compensate for their absence, and of course the child will abuse this.


I suspect that some of these stats come from the areas such parents are forced to live in rather than their ability as parents.
The sheer number of such correlations makes this highly unlikely.

And there are simple biological measurable effects:


The following is from an article in the (Canadian) Report Newsmagazine, Daddy's girl matures later — Stepfathers are shown to produce 'precocious puberty' in young females, by Candis McLean, 2001 04 16, p. 46

ONE in six girls in Britain now enters puberty by eight years of age, according to recent research. This compares with one in 100 a generation ago. "Girls are now having sex before their great-great-grandmothers had their first period. Half of all girls in Britain will have entered puberty by the age of 10," announced Professor Jane Golding, director of the study at Bristol University's Institute of Child Health last June after tracking the development of 14,000 children from birth. In North America, one in seven Caucasian girls and half of African-American girls enter puberty (develop breasts or pubic hair) by the age of eight. The parade of suggested triggers has included obesity, pollution and food additives (see this magazine, Nov. 16, 1998). New research, however, suggests a radical new theory--that the father-daughter relationship is also a very important factor in when girls mature.

One of the leaders in this research, American Bruce Ellis, is a psychology professor at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. ...

According to Prof. Ellis' research,

"The clearest finding to emerge from this research was that it was the absence of warm, positive family relationships, rather than the presence of negative, coercive family relationships, that forecast earlier pubertal development in girls." But, while warm relations with both parents predicted later puberty, the more relevant was "father-daughter affectionate-positivity"; in fact, the more time spent by the father in childcare when the daughters were four to five years old, the less pubertal development by Grade 7. ...

Prof. Ellis does not think that pheremone exposure within the home is the only factor at work. He continues, "It is also likely that girls who have high-investing fathers in the home tend to begin sex and dating at a later age and thus have less pheromonal exposure to male dating partners in early adolescence." He concludes his article (to be published in a book [whose title is] Just living together: Implications of cohabitation for children, families, and social policy) with the statement that the inherent instability of cohabiting unions--an average duration of about two years--means any children will be three times as likely to live with a biologically unrelated parent which could result in earlier onset of puberty. In girls, this is associated with negative health and psychosocial outcomes: greater risk of breast cancer in later life, unhealthy weight gain, higher rates of teenage pregnancy, low birthweight babies, emotional problems such as depression and anxiety, and problem behaviours such as alcohol consumption and sexual promiscuity. [My emphasis —WHS]
http://fathersforlife.org/divorce/chldrndiv.htm
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-73461537.html?jse=0

Or ever heard of pheromones? These are results of T-Cell variants (to spot a different immune system and thus produce more resistant offspring), every human has four, and a child gets two from his father and two from his mother.
Women find those men most attractive that have the two T-Cell variants that their father has, but didn't pass them to his daughter.
This is a simple indication of importance, not that it was known to be important to follow such a pattern, still, it indicates some bigger connection, since with step-dads this is not the case.
There are many indications that being either fatherless or motherless is a very heavy burden for a child, be it conscious or not.


Where do you 'find' those? Does one really know how long someone will stick around?
You can take preemptive measures to at least increase the chance thousandfold. Of course there is no certainty, there are things like fatal accidents and more, still, a character of a man is telling in this regard, and can be spotted.

SwordOfTheVistula
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 09:00 AM
Where do you 'find' those? Does one really know how long someone will stick around?

You can never know anything for sure, but you can make a fairly accurate judgment. I guess it is much harder for people to evaluate members the opposite gender than of the same one, which is why they used to have arranged marriages&matchmakers.

For example: whether they are from a traditional family background, what their overall belief system is, do they flirt with every woman they see, do they try to pick up women at bars, do they have hobbies&activities associated with 'picking up girls' (clubbing, etc, and leading a 'party lifestyle' in general), do they have close friends who cheat or sleep around (or done this themselves) a lot, do they talk a lot about women they have previously been in a relationship with in either a derogatory or bragging fashion, have they previously walked out on jobs because of a personality dispute or argument with a boss or co-worker...I could come up with a lot more, 'avoid these kind of guys'.

Probably most women could come up with a similar 'avoid these type of girls' list.

There's a couple problems in modern society: one is that people view marriages as just extended dating and not as a basis for family, and thus look for an 'activity partner' rather than someone who would make a good person to raise a family with. Also, it is harder to actually tell in many cases, so you have to date the person longer before marriage, but that's just something you have to deal with I guess.

Hamar Fox
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 09:26 AM
It's strange that women so often equate work with "freedom". Never in my life have I known a man who found work liberating. Feminism is a capitalist's dream.

CrystalRose
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 09:32 AM
It's strange that women so often equate work with "freedom". Never in my life have I known a man who found work liberating. Feminism is a capitalist's dream.

True, to an extent. :) We (women) have to work (school) in order to survive until we find 'the one' to settle and have a family with. And after the children are off to school I wouldn't mind working from home or office.

Bärin
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 10:02 AM
There's nothing wrong with a woman working but work is not "liberation", what kind of bullshit is that? Work is a duty we have to the state and to our families, and to be frank I'd laugh at any woman who said my previous job was a liberation. Especially since it involved manual labour it wasn't anything like it. "Liberation" is when I sit on the couch and my husband spoils me with a huge dinner. :D
Like I said in the other thread there is a time in a woman's life when she should stop or cut down work: pregnancy and small baby/child raising.

MockTurtle
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 04:43 PM
ok the simple fact of the matter is, i have masters degree, and i did not study at the world BEST universities for 8 years to simply to give up my dreams of a fulfilling career for a child, or worse yet, a man!
perhaps you need to step out of the 1950's and realize that women today CAN HAVE IT ALL!
the women i admire most in this world have a career, a husband, a family and a life and manage to balance it all with everyone's best interests at heart and do a damn good job of it!
I really couldn't give a stuff if a man is intimidated by my success or not, any man worth anything will accept and love me for me and support me in my career aspirations as much as his own. end of story.

Just out of curiosity, what is the point of your membership here then? From what I can gather, you seem to be more of a militant individualist with a dose of feminist doctrine thrown into the mix. This is a forum for people interested in Germanic preservationism, first and foremost. Naturally, most people here tend to be more 'family minded' than is the norm for society generally, which is pretty easy to understand given that its a prerequisite for 'preservation' altogether.

Perhaps you might find better dialogue on a different forum that has an ideological tone more compatible with your own?

Thrymheim
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 04:47 PM
^Ah but don't you realise the modern "liberated woman" can hold down a full time job, raise the children and keep house? Therefore she now does twice the work, real liberating isn't it.

Æmeric
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 04:53 PM
"I think women have a right to work anywhere they want to...as long as they have dinner when we want it."


John Wayne


:thumbup

Jäger
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 04:53 PM
Ah but don't you realise the modern "liberated woman" can hold down a full time job, raise the children and keep house? Therefore she now does twice the work, real liberating isn't it.
Feminism was never intended to liberate anyone to begin with.
Just have a look at the most avid supporters of this degenerative doctrine.

Jäger
Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 06:37 PM
i have the right to be on any forum i want to, so go fuck yourself idiot.
You are mistaken, you are at the whim of the Administrator(s).
You don't have the right to enter anyone's house, as you please.

DanseMacabre
Monday, September 8th, 2008, 09:09 PM
Aus Princess has demonstrated how deeply feminism has infected our society. Even some so called racial preservationist women spout feminist garbage. I hear it from women all the time "we don't need a man", "women can do anything a man can do only better". Along with Marxism, Feminism has proven to be an insidious foe. It seeks to reverse the natural gender roles, feminise men and make women more masculine. Perhaps this plays a not so small role in the dwindling birthrate of Germanics? Feminism attacks the very heart of a nation, the family. Everything falls apart from there.

Teuton
Monday, September 8th, 2008, 09:22 PM
Indeed, but it would be fine(If only a little.) if it was all women who were slowing the birthrate in Europe, but that's not the case.

The Traditional Europeans in those countries are the ones struck by this feminisim, while the Muslims are breeding like flies, thus making sure that in about 20 years time Muslims would rule that country.

Just my 2 cents...:D