4 ms·

This whole article is talking about absentee fathers, but every example is listing why the mother left or kicked out the father. Nowhere in the article is ment

by jjk166 2y ago

This whole article is talking about absentee fathers, but every example is listing why the mother left or kicked out the father. Nowhere in the article is mentioned the obvious common denominator - women are no longer utterly dependent on their husbands. People didn't stay together more often in the 50s because the couples were better, or because people were held to higher standards, it was because getting out of a terrible marriage was incredibly difficult if not impossible, and even if successful would cause immense hardship. The article also simply takes for granted that it's a bad thing that these nuclear families do not stay together. While it's true that just directly comparing the children of single mothers to those raised by two parents the former tend to be worse off by a number of metrics, this disadvantage disappears once you normalize for the socioeconomic conditions of the mother, and indeed they are actually slightly better off. People aren't irrationally making their lives harder, they take actions they feel will be beneficial, and it's unsurprising that they have a good idea of what would be personally beneficial. While the exact mechanism is up for debate, the leading theory is that in underprivileged communities where people tend to have children at a young age a heavy reliance on multi-generation family is more beneficial than the nuclear structure (or in other words, when you have a kid at 18, your 40 year old mother can probably provide a lot more resources and experience than a 19 year old guy). You can't simply say that men aren't stepping up; the world has changed, mostly for the better, and as a consequence family structures are going to look different now from what they once did.

bluefirebrand 2y ago
> the world has changed, mostly for the better This remains to be seen, honestly There are an awful lot of unhappy men out there and they are going to boil over eventually
- belorn 2y ago
  It may be less boiling over, and more exiting. A major increase in suicides, increasingly fewer people willing to do jobs, and a ever aging demographic with increased pressure on social support and health care. Everyone looses with no clear path forward.
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    Well, mass shootings are increasing as well That would seem to qualify as "boiling over" to a certain extent to me
    - 4gotunameagain 2y ago
      That is a US centric issue. There are a lot of "unhappy men" in the rest of the western societies as well, and no atrocities like that. Thankfully.
      - kohbo 2y ago
        Mass stabbings then
      - corimaith 2y ago
        That sounds more covering the issue rather than addressing the root cause.
        4gotunameagain 2y ago
        I've never heard of a treatment where the symptoms aren't treated while the root cause is sought and hopefully tackled.
- squigz 2y ago
  Let's hope they learn to grow up before that.
caeril 2y ago
> the mother left or kicked out the father > the world has changed, mostly for the better Yeah, maybe. There have been a few analyses on this topic, and depending on the source, the live-in boyfriend or stepdad is somewhere between 2 and 8 times more likely than the biodad to physically or sexually abuse the kids. If you're going to divorce the father in order to "find yourself" or whatever contrived excuse you need, you should at least take a vow of celibacy or something.
- lolc 2y ago
  Well the first part about who is likely to be an abuser I can see how one would argue that. But why focus on the mother about what she should be doing in a divorce? Responsibility for the children rests with both parents! Even if in the end it's often the mother actually stepping up. I find that's a central part of the article, that societal pressire for men to look after their children is lacking. And they don't on their own measure up. There's no easy answer, and telling the mothers they are responsible for absentee fathers is too easy a take.
  - caeril 2y ago
    > often the mother actually stepping up I don't think the evidence bears this out. It's often the mother's lawyer optimizing her post-divorce income (via child support) by agitating for as much of the custody split as possible, in a family court system that is systemically biased against fathers being awarded custody. I will edit this with citations if I find time later.
    - lolc 2y ago
      Of course the courts are biased against males! Males are much less eager to take on custody. And I claim that without even checking, because it's in plain sight and also a main thread of the article we comment under. I'd be very surprised if you would show otherwise. That to me explains but of course does not excuse the bias in courts.
    - pwthornton 2y ago
      Plenty of men get joint custody, and in many jurisdictions, this is the default. The law cannot help it that there are so many bum men. This article is about that. Whether or not low expectations are the reason remains to be seen, but there is an epidemic of worthless bum men.
silexia 2y ago
Men are discriminated against in the form of affirmative action and other programs now that explicitly take resources from them and give them to others. Many men now expect the government to take care of women in the form of food stamps, Medicare, social security, welfare type programs and thus do not contribute or participate. This leads to more children being raised without fathers, which has been proven time and again in studies to harm them greatly. It's time for us to trust the science again and do what we can to keep families together so that children gain all the advantages of having an involved father.
blackbear_ 2y ago
> this disadvantage disappears once you normalize for the socioeconomic conditions of the mother Link?
- jjk166 2y ago
  https://theconversation.com/having-a-single-parent-doesnt-determine-your-life-chances-the-data-shows-poverty-is-far-more-important-217841 https://theconversation.com/having-a-single-parent-doesnt-de...
  - b800h 2y ago
    I'm slightly cautious about that contribution. The author describes the focus of her work as being that of 'changing society', albeit largely on encouraging breastfeeding. If someone is a campaigner rather than a disinterested researcher then their words should be treated as such, especially outside of formal research pieces.
    - jjk166 2y ago
      You don't need to take the author's word for it. The blue text are links to the formal research pieces being cited.
RandomThoughts3 2y ago
> This whole article is talking about absentee fathers, but every example is listing why the mother left or kicked out the father. Because the article takes the very rational and supported by the article side that these mothers were actually founded in kicking them out. > The article also simply takes for granted that it's a bad thing that these nuclear families do not stay together. No, the article goes much further that that. It points out that upper-class and middle-class people like to pretend and promote that the nuclear family doesn't matter while themselves acting like it does. The main thesis of the article is that modern culture is actually undermining the poor while being mostly posturing. > You can't simply say that men aren't stepping up It's a good thing that it's not what the article is saying then.
- jjk166 2y ago
  > It points out that upper-class and middle-class people like to pretend and promote that the nuclear family doesn't matter while themselves acting like it does. Rich people say you don't need a yacht. Yet, rich people buy yachts. Clearly yachts are very important for becoming and staying rich, and the wealthy are undermining the poor with their "yachts are a luxury" posturing. It is to be expected that people encountering different circumstances would adopt different behaviors. That well-off people are more likely to live in a nuclear family does not mean living in a nuclear family is the reason they are well-off, nor does it mean that people in worse circumstances would be better off if they made the same choices.
  - illiac786 2y ago
    This is not what the parent wrote. Not having a yacht is not like “having a worse yacht by xyz criteria”, hence that comparison just does not work. There is always a family. I personally agree with the parent here, it might be helpful to read the article again.
    - jjk166 2y ago
      Okay fine. Rich people say your car doesn't need to be a Lamborghini, a Toyota Corolla is fine. Yet, rich people buy Lamborghinis. A Toyota Corolla is a worse car by xyz criteria. Clearly having a better car is very important for becoming and staying rich, and the wealthy are undermining the poor with their "you don't need a sports car" posturing. I think it would be helpful for you to reread the article, specifically: > Norms were loosened around being an absentee father. So more men took the option. > But nobody wants to admit it because it upsets people. > Instead, we retreat to discussions of poverty and economics because talking about family and parenting makes people feel weird and judgmental. > But young men will only do what’s expected of them. > And a lot did use to be expected. There were social norms to work hard, provide, take care of loved ones, and so on. > Today, these norms have largely dissolved. > Young men have responded accordingly.
lazyeye 2y ago
Im guessing you're one of these people described in the article that had a stable, family upbringing?
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  I would assume that to be true as well. As someone who had only one parent available, this is an annoyingly trite opinion. Of course socioeconomic effects contribute as well, this is again trivial.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    You've misunderstood the claim, which is not that socioeconomic effects contribute, but that they dominate.
    - raxxorraxor 2y ago
      I understand the claim but I don't agree with it. I specifically don't believe the differences disappear if you correct for socioeconomic factors, however you would seriously accomplish that. Money isn't the only stress factor, it is that a child suddenly can become the primary relation to their parent and they might even be alone with that in case of only child. Of course additional family and siblings and a bunch of other environmental factors would have an effect too. I do think it has an influence, but it cannot be reduced to that. To state the opposite is probably just bad science like in so many cases. It is the hypothyroidism explanation of social sciences. But that was your claim: > this disadvantage disappears once you normalize for the socioeconomic conditions And the tirade about families changing hints as the usual ideological slant. But for nobody under 50 divorces are anything new.
- jjk166 2y ago
  Your guess is incorrect, though I could be Mr. Roger's kid and that wouldn't change the data.

by jjk166 2y ago

bluefirebrand 2y ago

> the world has changed, mostly for the better This remains to be seen, honestly There are an awful lot of unhappy men out there and they are going to boil over eventually

belorn 2y ago
It may be less boiling over, and more exiting. A major increase in suicides, increasingly fewer people willing to do jobs, and a ever aging demographic with increased pressure on social support and health care. Everyone looses with no clear path forward.
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
  Well, mass shootings are increasing as well That would seem to qualify as "boiling over" to a certain extent to me
  - 4gotunameagain 2y ago
    That is a US centric issue. There are a lot of "unhappy men" in the rest of the western societies as well, and no atrocities like that. Thankfully.
    - kohbo 2y ago
      Mass stabbings then
    - corimaith 2y ago
      That sounds more covering the issue rather than addressing the root cause.
      - 4gotunameagain 2y ago
        I've never heard of a treatment where the symptoms aren't treated while the root cause is sought and hopefully tackled.
squigz 2y ago
Let's hope they learn to grow up before that.

caeril 2y ago

> the mother left or kicked out the father > the world has changed, mostly for the better Yeah, maybe. There have been a few analyses on this topic, and depending on the source, the live-in boyfriend or stepdad is somewhere between 2 and 8 times more likely than the biodad to physically or sexually abuse the kids. If you're going to divorce the father in order to "find yourself" or whatever contrived excuse you need, you should at least take a vow of celibacy or something.

lolc 2y ago
Well the first part about who is likely to be an abuser I can see how one would argue that. But why focus on the mother about what she should be doing in a divorce? Responsibility for the children rests with both parents! Even if in the end it's often the mother actually stepping up. I find that's a central part of the article, that societal pressire for men to look after their children is lacking. And they don't on their own measure up. There's no easy answer, and telling the mothers they are responsible for absentee fathers is too easy a take.
- caeril 2y ago
  > often the mother actually stepping up I don't think the evidence bears this out. It's often the mother's lawyer optimizing her post-divorce income (via child support) by agitating for as much of the custody split as possible, in a family court system that is systemically biased against fathers being awarded custody. I will edit this with citations if I find time later.
  - lolc 2y ago
    Of course the courts are biased against males! Males are much less eager to take on custody. And I claim that without even checking, because it's in plain sight and also a main thread of the article we comment under. I'd be very surprised if you would show otherwise. That to me explains but of course does not excuse the bias in courts.
  - pwthornton 2y ago
    Plenty of men get joint custody, and in many jurisdictions, this is the default. The law cannot help it that there are so many bum men. This article is about that. Whether or not low expectations are the reason remains to be seen, but there is an epidemic of worthless bum men.

silexia 2y ago

Men are discriminated against in the form of affirmative action and other programs now that explicitly take resources from them and give them to others. Many men now expect the government to take care of women in the form of food stamps, Medicare, social security, welfare type programs and thus do not contribute or participate. This leads to more children being raised without fathers, which has been proven time and again in studies to harm them greatly. It's time for us to trust the science again and do what we can to keep families together so that children gain all the advantages of having an involved father.

blackbear_ 2y ago

> this disadvantage disappears once you normalize for the socioeconomic conditions of the mother Link?

jjk166 2y ago
https://theconversation.com/having-a-single-parent-doesnt-determine-your-life-chances-the-data-shows-poverty-is-far-more-important-217841 https://theconversation.com/having-a-single-parent-doesnt-de...
- b800h 2y ago
  I'm slightly cautious about that contribution. The author describes the focus of her work as being that of 'changing society', albeit largely on encouraging breastfeeding. If someone is a campaigner rather than a disinterested researcher then their words should be treated as such, especially outside of formal research pieces.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    You don't need to take the author's word for it. The blue text are links to the formal research pieces being cited.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago

> This whole article is talking about absentee fathers, but every example is listing why the mother left or kicked out the father. Because the article takes the very rational and supported by the article side that these mothers were actually founded in kicking them out. > The article also simply takes for granted that it's a bad thing that these nuclear families do not stay together. No, the article goes much further that that. It points out that upper-class and middle-class people like to pretend and promote that the nuclear family doesn't matter while themselves acting like it does. The main thesis of the article is that modern culture is actually undermining the poor while being mostly posturing. > You can't simply say that men aren't stepping up It's a good thing that it's not what the article is saying then.

jjk166 2y ago
> It points out that upper-class and middle-class people like to pretend and promote that the nuclear family doesn't matter while themselves acting like it does. Rich people say you don't need a yacht. Yet, rich people buy yachts. Clearly yachts are very important for becoming and staying rich, and the wealthy are undermining the poor with their "yachts are a luxury" posturing. It is to be expected that people encountering different circumstances would adopt different behaviors. That well-off people are more likely to live in a nuclear family does not mean living in a nuclear family is the reason they are well-off, nor does it mean that people in worse circumstances would be better off if they made the same choices.
- illiac786 2y ago
  This is not what the parent wrote. Not having a yacht is not like “having a worse yacht by xyz criteria”, hence that comparison just does not work. There is always a family. I personally agree with the parent here, it might be helpful to read the article again.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    Okay fine. Rich people say your car doesn't need to be a Lamborghini, a Toyota Corolla is fine. Yet, rich people buy Lamborghinis. A Toyota Corolla is a worse car by xyz criteria. Clearly having a better car is very important for becoming and staying rich, and the wealthy are undermining the poor with their "you don't need a sports car" posturing. I think it would be helpful for you to reread the article, specifically: > Norms were loosened around being an absentee father. So more men took the option. > But nobody wants to admit it because it upsets people. > Instead, we retreat to discussions of poverty and economics because talking about family and parenting makes people feel weird and judgmental. > But young men will only do what’s expected of them. > And a lot did use to be expected. There were social norms to work hard, provide, take care of loved ones, and so on. > Today, these norms have largely dissolved. > Young men have responded accordingly.

lazyeye 2y ago

Im guessing you're one of these people described in the article that had a stable, family upbringing?

raxxorraxor 2y ago
I would assume that to be true as well. As someone who had only one parent available, this is an annoyingly trite opinion. Of course socioeconomic effects contribute as well, this is again trivial.
- jjk166 2y ago
  You've misunderstood the claim, which is not that socioeconomic effects contribute, but that they dominate.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    I understand the claim but I don't agree with it. I specifically don't believe the differences disappear if you correct for socioeconomic factors, however you would seriously accomplish that. Money isn't the only stress factor, it is that a child suddenly can become the primary relation to their parent and they might even be alone with that in case of only child. Of course additional family and siblings and a bunch of other environmental factors would have an effect too. I do think it has an influence, but it cannot be reduced to that. To state the opposite is probably just bad science like in so many cases. It is the hypothyroidism explanation of social sciences. But that was your claim: > this disadvantage disappears once you normalize for the socioeconomic conditions And the tirade about families changing hints as the usual ideological slant. But for nobody under 50 divorces are anything new.
jjk166 2y ago
Your guess is incorrect, though I could be Mr. Roger's kid and that wouldn't change the data.