Why Children should be raised with their biological father.

Nemester · 2014-01-14T22:58:46+00:00

This is an X-post from /r/HBD /u/accountt1234 destroys the single mother apologists in /r/politics with studies demonstrating the harm caused by raising...

[–]puaSenator10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

If anyone wants to hear a good TRP/MRA podcast from a pretty intelligent philosopher, check out Freedomain ep 2578 "Are women held morally responsible?" There is a lot of good stuff in that podcast. Especially the part about women initiating divorce.

There is a good chunk in it with a lot of supporting data showing that single fathers are much more effective than single mothers. Ideally, both parents add value, but if you had to choose one over the other, it's best for society and the child's future to go with the single father. Mainly because fathers surprisingly are the main influence of teaching empathy, male bonding, and hardwork. Children of single fathers get in FAR less trouble in school, and do much better in life.

What's funny, is society sort of recognizes this. You often hear about the struggles a child had to overcome being raised by a single mother. But when it's a single father, society just sort of shrugs like it's not that big of a deal.

Also, something I've personally noticed is that many people in the male self-help sphere tend to have father issues. In the seduction relm, it's crazy how high that number is. Just about EVERY single serious seduction member can tell you a story about their shitty relationship with their fathers. So many guys have to go out and reestablish their masculinity, because they never had positive male figures teaching them how to be a man. Seriously, I would have never have guessed if you would have asked me 2 years ago.

[–]specter5041 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrinkyDrank0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nemester[S] 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hajimotto 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]dropit_sphere6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Here's the linked section Initiation from Wikipedia article Divorce in the United States :

The National Center for Health Statistics reports that from 1975 to 1988 in the US, in families with children present, wives file for divorce in approximately two-thirds of cases. In 1975, 71.4% of the cases were filed by women, and in 1988, 65% were filed by women.

According to a study published in the American Law and Economics Review, women currently file slightly more than two-thirds of divorce cases in the US. There is some variation among states, and the numbers have also varied over time, with about 60% of filings by women in most of the 19th century, and over 70% by women in some states just after no-fault divorce was introduced, according to the paper.

^about ^| ^{/u/dropit_sphere can reply with 'delete'. Will also delete if comment's score is -1 or less.} ^| ^{To summon: wikibot, what is something?}

[–]dropit_sphere2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hajimotto 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dropit_sphere3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hajimotto 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]DrinkyDrank-8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nemester[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]DrinkyDrank-7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nemester[S] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DrinkyDrank-4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dropit_sphere0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Usually the woman has to initiate the divorce to get away from the husband,

Well, yes. Being married to someone means that they will have a habit of being around.

This doesn't mean bio-dad has no choice, it means bio-dad consistently chooses to fuck off rather than parent their child.

Ah, so when a guy marries a woman, it's because he's planning to stay married to her and fuck off? In that case, why even marry her?

All of your moral rage is directed at dudes who get women pregnant and don't marry them. And frankly, I agree with you. I would advise women to wait until marriage before they have sex. Whatever relationship they have at the time of childbirth, it's more likely to endure if it's marriage (see Figure IIIA). Which is so blindingly obvious that I don't even asdfasdfdsf---if you want a guy to stick around, a big ceremony where he promises to do exactly that is probably a pretty good indicator. But I'm just a shitlord, what do I know.

But it is some pretty great verbal jujitsu you've got there---that women dissolving the family is proof that men are the real family dissolvers. If men filed in the majority, would you take that as evidence that they did it because their wives were so horrible?

[–]DrinkyDrank-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]dropit_sphere-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

First of all, let me just say I took a closer look at those stats and they look like bullshit anyways. We should just drop them.

I suggest we don't. The data are so clear that scientists are no longer studying whether women file more, but why they file more. I am not pulling this out of my ass here.

My real point is that bio-dads who don't get custody usually didn't fight for custody, regardless of what their relationship is to the mother. If the father isn't willing to do what needs to be done in order to parent the child, it's probably for the best that he isn't in the child's life.

Well, let's look at this.

First, it is not necessarily a particularly noble trait to fight for custody, all things being equal. You want realtalk about "best interests of the child?" Don't get divorced.

Second, while it is true that most men don't fight for custody, neither do most mothers. In fact, most custody cases aren't fought at all.

It is fruitful to consider what parents want, though (from the above link):

Custody arrangements desired by the parents

	Mothers want	Fathers want
Sole possession to mother	82%	29%
Sole possession to father	3%	33%
Joint possession	15%	35%
Other	-	3%

Well, hmm. What can we deduce?

Mothers really want their children with them, and only with them
Fathers seem evenly split between only with them, only with the mother, and joint custody.

Things become particularly clear when you realize that immediately after parental separation, kids are 67% likely to remain with the mother, in the marital home.

Well this is odd. Who paid for the house (it doesn't matter if he unfairly got the money through patriarchy secret bro-signals and institutionalized sexism, who paid for the house?)? Who is ejected from it?

I mean, if I wanted to just fuck off and throw responsibility to the winds, I think I'd rather kick other people out of the house I paid for, and stay in it myself, thanks. I mean, if it's all the same.

I propose that there's a different kind of reasoning going on here. It goes like this: "I don't want to force my kids to move, so they're staying in the house. Jimmy is three years old and only has daycare for four hours in the morning. I have work until 5:30 at the earliest. Wife works four hours in the morning, and really wants to see her children. I guess I'd better go find an apartment."

[–]DrinkyDrank0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Again, I don't want to open the statistical can of worms, so lets presume they're correct for your argument's sake.

Obviously, not getting divorced at all is in the best interests of the child, but that's not what we're talking about here. Divorces happen, regardless of why or who initiates it. The Courts take this stance as well, they don't give two shits about why a couple breaks up (unless domestic violence is involved), they only look at where the child's best interests lie. That being said, it's also true that the child is best off when the parents make an earnest effort to reach a mutual agreement. If this fails, it is up to the Court as a neutral institution to either help mediate an agreement between the parents, or make findings as to the child's best interests. It is each parents job to advocate their position and fight for the arrangement they feel is best for the child. My argument is that fathers are less likely to do this, which explains the statistical discrepancy you see.

The other big mistake you're making in your analysis is the idea that a man's income during marriage is his separate property. It's not, unless you have a signed pre-nup agreement saying otherwise. In the eyes of the government, at its core marriage is an economic contract. Once you sign into that contract, you're looking at 50/50 ownership of everything that is acquired during the marriage. This means mortgage payments. If a man works and a woman keeps house, they pay off their mortgage during the marriage, and then get divorced, guess what? The woman has as much claim to the house as the man. They can either try to buy the other out, get rid of the home and split the equity, or whatever else they agree to. The woman is also entitled to spousal support because it was her income too that the man was earning. The logic here is sound, in my opinion. The woman has supported the man's household, which freed him up to go earn the money. Thus, she is entitled to her share of that money. If the man doesn't like this, he shouldn't have entered the contract in the first place.

In my experience, what usually happens is that the man and woman come to some sort of mutual agreement regarding real property and support. First, men are usually willing to allow the woman and child to stay in the home because they want the child to maintain that stability. Second, men will actually offer to continue making mortgage payments in lieu of spousal support, thus maintaining his share of the equity should the house be sold down the road. If the man stays in the house, he has to pay the mortgage payments in addition to spousal support, and he might even get nailed with the woman's moving costs. In other words, this is a mutually satisfactory arrangement, not men getting screwed out of their entitled property.

In terms of reaching a custody agreement, a full-time working dad is going to have to make some big adjustments if he wants 50/50. He's going to have to make sure he can drop-off/pick-up the child from school, have time in the evenings to attend extracurriculars and help with homework, make sure the child has an appropriate living space, etc. Mothers don't need to make these sorts of adjustments, because they've always been the mom. The root cause of this isn't a bias in the court system, it's a result of natural social situations in which the mother becomes the primary caretaker by default. If men want to change this, the impetus is on them to make the transformation to full-time parent. This is what I mean by fighting for custody.

[–]dropit_sphere1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endorsed ContributorInvalidity10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrinkyDrank-4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I work for a divorce attorney as a paralegal. I've learned to see both sides of these sorts of issues. Usually couples get divorced because their relationship simply is not working. I've never seen a woman "bear a man's child only to divorce him so that she can get alimony and child support" because the woman is usually in a much better position economically if the man just stays in the household and provides support directly. I've also learned that the sexual bias that people complain about is usually masking some other deficiency. When a man loses his custody fight, it's easy to blame it on his sex and a lot harder to look at the best interests of the child and why the man might not be up to the challenges of parenting. There's always a reason, and the Court's do their damnedest to ensure 50/50 as often as possible.

[–]ThePragmatist4212 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

When a man loses his custody fight, it's easy to blame it on his sex and a lot harder to look at the best interests of the child and why the man might not be up to the challenges of parenting. There's always a reason, and the Court's do their damnedest to ensure 50/50 as often as possible.

This is nice to believe, but it is not true. I've heard judges tell a man (my best friend at the time) "it doesn't matter what she's done, I'll never give custody of children to a man."

My daughter has been exposed to violence with her mother, moved 12 different times in 8 years, been evicted 4 times and had a man in her household that ended up in jail after killing my daughter's dog with his car.

The judge still wouldn't give me custody of my child after dropping $50,000 in attorney fees. I actually still don't have a custody agreement because i judge refused to issue one since he felt the "standing agreement" was good enough.

My daughter is much older now, and there is no longer a need to pursue custody and she spends the majority of her time with in my household now. It would of been nice to have some say so in how she was brought up until this point though. When it comes to Child Custody, Child Support and Alimoney men are second class citizens.

I've had another friend who married a woman that was on her way to having a third child when they met. She has two other children with two different men. Every time she was starting to run out of money or her husband would start to show some balls, she would divorce him, collection child support and get re-married in a few months. My friend wasn't the smartest for marrying her obviously. All the signs were there.

I'll admit that the previous case is not typical, but men losing custody battles for no other reason than their gender is very real. Especially in the south.

[–]DrinkyDrank-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePragmatist422 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endorsed ContributorInvalidity6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You've never seen or you've never heard a woman claim that she was doing so?

I want to be able to discuss this in a civil and constructive manner but I feel as if you have a clear bias in your argument. Your first statement doesn't preclude any alternatives and only presumes to suggest that single mothers are in the state that they are in because of negligent fathers.

What a lot of people don't realize is that "relationships not working" can be a symptom of a variety of things that extend beyond just simple relationship dynamics. There are plenty of relationships where a female stays with an abusive male and doesn't have a problem with it. Is that not considered a relationship that is not working?

I tend to see a lot of excuses for a divorce such as, "he doesn't give spend enough time with me," "he's not as helpful around the house," "he doesn't love me," etc. etc. But in most of these cases, those husbands tried to go beyond what they were already doing (and most of the time what they were doing was well beyond sufficient).

Can you ask a man to quit his job so he can spend more time with his wife? Does he not become a negligent father because he can't provide for his family?

Furthermore, a lot of marriages result in deadbedrooms (hey, there's a subreddit for this!) where there is virtually no sex and intimacy. And yet, a lot of males in these relationships continue to provide for their marriage. Is this not a relationship that is failing?

EDIT: The point I am trying to arrive at is that a lot of what you don't see, is the reason why a marriage is "failing". Women lose attraction to their husbands but a lot of people, both male and female, will try to rationalize that as, she's stressed, she's just had kids, her hormones are out of whack, etc. They will try to justify it to no end without realizing that a woman's loss of attraction is the reason why the marriage is failing.

[–]DrinkyDrank-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dropit_sphere3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]vaker3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MartialWay0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]vaker0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ohms_law3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]DrinkyDrank-9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Go read your state's family code. Chances are, there's a statute which states that the primary standard for establishing custody and visitation is the child's best interests, and the secondary standard is ensuring equal parenting time. Something like California's FC 3040:

§ 3040. Order of preference (a) Custody should be granted in the following order of preference according to the best interest of the child as provided in Sections 3011 and 3020: (1) To both parents jointly pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 3080) or to either parent. In making an order granting custody to either parent, the court shall consider, among other factors, which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and continuing contact with the noncustodial parent, consistent with Sections 3011 and 3020, and shall not prefer a parent as custodian because of that parent's sex. The court, in its discretion, may require the parents to submit to the court a plan for the implementation of the custody order.

[–]disso3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrinkyDrank1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, yeah, that's exactly how the system should work. The custodial parent is paying more of the child's costs because they are living with and directly supporting the child from their own pocket, so the custodial parent should be the parent receiving support. It doesn't matter if the custodial parent is the mother or father, if they are not paying what they should the state will sue them and garnish their wages. The bottom line is that the Courts are a neutral system. If fathers are losing custody more often than women, its because the Courts are consistently findings that the father cannot provide for the child as well as the mother can, not because there is some sort of sex bias. I know this because I have helped fathers win custody many many times. I have also seen fathers lose custody many many times, and it wasn't because of the Court, it was because they just didn't care enough to make the necessary changes that would allow them to properly care for a child.

[–]disso1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was saying that the parent gets custody because they are receiving support(not vice versa). Custody had never been brought to question but the man is by default sued for child support by the State's Attorney. They make sure to establish paternity and do the financial affadavit, but there is never any question or consultation about father's rights or custody arrangements. Yes, that is something a father should have to see a lawyer for, but then it's not fair for him to lose a fair chance at custody because he agreed to pay child support when the state's attorney sued him for it.

It sounds like you are in an amazingly fair district. I have almost no experience at all in the legal system. Some counties around here have a reputation for not giving a damn what the circumstances are the woman gets custody and the father pays and will never have an adjustment based on a decrease in pay. Anyways, I'm just trying to say that cultural, societal, and regional norms still affect how these things actually play out in court.

[–]DanReggins4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]DrinkyDrank-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points3 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]DrinkyDrank-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zenlike0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]vaker3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm getting really tired of people who keep demanding complete support of ideas by peer-reviewed citations on internet forums. It's basically a tactic to dismiss inconvenient ideas when there is a lack of peer reviewed research pro (and contra). Just because there is no research yet, it doesn't guarantee that the idea is bad.

Even the existence of peer-reviewed papers is not a 100% guarantee. Fake papers have been successfully published in journals exposing quite significant shortcomings in the review process. Many results are not reproducible. Also there is always the possibility of circle-jerk, say among womyn studies 'researchers' who peer-review each other's nonsense.

I mostly trust peer-review in math|physics|CS|engineering. I've slightly less confidence in medical papers. I don't have much confidence in social sciences.

[–]zenlike1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]darkkite-7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Title	Why Children should be raised with their biological father.
Author	Nemester
Upvotes	22
Comments	46
Date	January 14, 2014 10:58 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1v88iq/why_children_should_be_raised_with_their/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/why-children-should-be-raised-with-their.10014 https://theredarchive.com/post/10014

Comments