Fathers Matter

I came in late, but Rick has a valid point. All the data that has come in and backed up the contention that it is better to have TWO committed parents in the household.
Yes, the black population has suffered the greatest, and the effects are deeper and again, borne out of the data collected.

Not much of a debate there, more like...what are we going to do about it?

fdd2blk said:

is this sarcasm?

Click to expand...

No, it isn't sarcasm. One person can usually only bring in half the income that two people can bring in, yes?

doobnVA said:

No, it isn't sarcasm. One person can usually only bring in half the income that two people can bring in, yes?

Click to expand...

teaching pigs to sing, ...




what if the single person is a bank manager and the two people together are burger king night shift workers?

Free Cheesburgers!! Ka CHING!!!

CrackerJax said:

Free Cheesburgers!! Ka CHING!!!

Click to expand...

1 + 1 = rich

doobnVA said:

No, it isn't sarcasm. One person can usually only bring in half the income that two people can bring in, yes?

Click to expand...

Note the word in bold.

According to Rick Berman, a person making minimum wage earns an average of $50,000 per year. LOL!

doobnVA said:

Note the word in bold.

Click to expand...

doesn't change a thing.

2 people living together USUALLY have 2 jobs because they are poor.

ever notice you see a lot of rich single people?

fdd2blk said:

2 people living together USUALLY have 2 jobs because they are poor.

ever notice you see a lot of rich single people?

Click to expand...

No, never noticed that.

Things are different here than in CA. The median income where I live is $30,000.

We're talking about families (as in people with children). People with children have more expenses than people who don't. Hence the need for both parents to earn an income.

doobnVA said:

No, never noticed that.

Things are different here than in CA. The median income where I live is $30,000.

We're talking about families (as in people with children). People with children have more expenses than people who don't. Hence the need for both parents to earn an income.

Click to expand...

sounds like you work at burger king. lol


you live in a different world. you shouldn't even be in this section. explains why everything in politics confuses you. i apologize, i didn't know.

fdd2blk said:

sounds like you work at burger king. lol


you live in a different world. you shouldn't even be in this section. explains why everything in politics confuses you. i apologize, i didn't know.

Click to expand...

mmhmm.. In a year I'll have my degree in political science. I think it's YOU who is confused. I live in the real world, where people are poor. You live in CA, right? LOL.

doobnVA said:

mmhmm.. In a year I'll have my degree in political science. I think it's YOU who is confused. I live in the real world, where people are poor. You live in CA, right? LOL.

Click to expand...

lol because i'm nOT poor. funny stuff.

get on with your almost bad self.

fdd2blk said:

lol because i'm nOT poor. funny stuff.

get on with your almost bad self.

Click to expand...

No, because you live in CA, which is vastly different than the rest of the US.

I'm not poor, but I've BEEN poor. I know people who ARE poor. I volunteer at the soup kitchen, the homeless shelter, and with a group that passes out blankets and coats to the people who live in the highway overpasses and pitch tents in the woods because the homeless shelter is FULL. We also collect donations of books and bicycles to give to underprivileged families. Why do I do this? Because I know what it's like to be poor, that's why.

So yeah, I am pretty badass, thanks.

Anybody care to address my analogy?

What is the difference in the scenario I laid out on page 1?

Also, if the father is so important to a successful upbringing for a child, why do you guys oppose 2 fathers, when both men are homosexual? In that case are we going to switch the focus of the debate to "oh well mothers are very important too!"? If that's not the case, shouldn't the title of this thread actually be "Traditional Families Matter"?

I'm fairly positive this entire thing is stemming from a few of your guys' homophobia towards homosexual males...

I don't oppose two men raising a child.

One of them needs to be able to wear a dress and pumps tho.... for the sake of the child.

Rickwite put a post that said FEMINISM CAME ALONG TO UNDERMINE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FATHER.

feminism came along because most of the men were in Europe fighting world war 2.

the women left behind were doing the men's work, exactly the same work, for less money, were treated like garbage, AND a whole host of other factors.

Then when the men came back from the war they expected women, who had held the country up for a couple of years, to just go back home, and let the men in charge.

a lot of married women did, but the single ones who felt they did not need a man to survive, they just needed a job, put up a fight.

to assume that the feminist movement had something to do with undermining fathers is ignorant at best.

it was a movement based on social equality. if it somehow had some sort of effect (which is probably minimal) on the make-up of a traditional family, it was an unintended consequence, collateral damage if you will...

my opinions on the subject are shared by the comic George Carlin: women want the same wages, same jobs, same benefits, same everything, but when you go out on a date who pays?? 'nuff said....

redivider said:

Rickwite put a post that said FEMINISM CAME ALONG TO UNDERMINE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FATHER.

feminism came along because most of the men were in Europe fighting world war 2.

the women left behind were doing the men's work, exactly the same work, for less money, were treated like garbage, AND a whole host of other factors.

Then when the men came back from the war they expected women, who had held the country up for a couple of years, to just go back home, and let the men in charge.

a lot of married women did, but the single ones who felt they did not need a man to survive, they just needed a job, put up a fight.

to assume that the feminist movement had something to do with undermining fathers is ignorant at best.

it was a movement based on social equality. if it somehow had some sort of effect (which is probably minimal) on the make-up of a traditional family, it was an unintended consequence, collateral damage if you will...

my opinions on the subject are shared by the comic George Carlin: women want the same wages, same jobs, same benefits, same everything, but when you go out on a date who pays?? 'nuff said....

Click to expand...

And none of those women participated in the government sponsored killing of other people. Id say that having a job and not having to endure the nightmare of war was the better end of the stick compared to what the men were forced into.

Perhaps if Women want to be treated so equally maybe we should only draft women for the next 200 years to fight wars, leave the men at home to work.

redivider said:

Rickwite put a post that said FEMINISM CAME ALONG TO UNDERMINE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FATHER.

feminism came along because most of the men were in Europe fighting world war 2.

the women left behind were doing the men's work, exactly the same work, for less money, were treated like garbage, AND a whole host of other factors.

Then when the men came back from the war they expected women, who had held the country up for a couple of years, to just go back home, and let the men in charge.

a lot of married women did, but the single ones who felt they did not need a man to survive, they just needed a job, put up a fight.

to assume that the feminist movement had something to do with undermining fathers is ignorant at best.

it was a movement based on social equality. if it somehow had some sort of effect (which is probably minimal) on the make-up of a traditional family, it was an unintended consequence, collateral damage if you will...

my opinions on the subject are shared by the comic George Carlin: women want the same wages, same jobs, same benefits, same everything, but when you go out on a date who pays?? 'nuff said....

Click to expand...

That did happen but it is a teeny tiny part of Feminism. There is much more to it.

PadawanBater said:

Anybody care to address my analogy?

What is the difference in the scenario I laid out on page 1?

Also, if the father is so important to a successful upbringing for a child, why do you guys oppose 2 fathers, when both men are homosexual? In that case are we going to switch the focus of the debate to "oh well mothers are very important too!"? If that's not the case, shouldn't the title of this thread actually be "Traditional Families Matter"?

I'm fairly positive this entire thing is stemming from a few of your guys' homophobia towards homosexual males...

Click to expand...

Of course Mothers matter. But most of the time it is the Father who leaves the home and not the Mother. Mothers are nurturers which is important and they serve as roll models for girls.

Fathers however serve a distinct purpose. It is males that commit nearly all the crime and cause all the trouble in society. It is the males that need the strong hand of another male. Consider the phrase "wait until your father gets home." Perhaps the most feared phrase in the world. "Wait until your mother gets home" doesn't quite have the same effect. Nor does "wait until your sister gets home." It is the fathers that young boys seek to emulate and from whom they derive their identity. Fathers are the ones who keep young men in line and teach them how to become men.

I am not convinced that women are as capable of doing that as are men due to the obvious; one can not teach something they themselves don't know.

Anyway, the statistics clearly demonstrate that intact families raise healthier children who are more likely to do well in school and less likely to get in trouble. And of course these things are very good determinants of the future earning of the child.

In recent years there has been an assault against the importance of fathers and an attempt to suggest that single parent homes and other alternative lifestyles such as cohabitation are just as good. The research shows that this simply isn't true.

redivider said:

feminism came along because most of the men were in Europe fighting world war 2.

Click to expand...

Nope. The feminism movement didn't start taking effect until the early 1970s.

I spent years in route sales where I had to get into homes. I can tell you with no doubt that up until about 1972 or so, about 90% of homes had a housewife at home.

The Black communities were effected earlier though ... starting with LBJ's Great Society policies. Poor families were better off without a father in the home because of welfare checks. Babies became money. The more babies the mother had, the more money on the welfare check.

In many poor Black communities, the federal government replaced the father in the home.

For those who don't believe this, just read some of Dr. Thomas Sowell's articles and books.