So I say....

Like I said....you have "your limited knowledge" and I have sound scientific research to back up what I say. You can "truly believe" until the cows come home but you 'truly belive"

1 - doesn't stand as proof
2 - can't be support based off your own truly believe
3 - doesn't hold up the measure of reality.

What you are going off of is "COMMON SENSE" and that is fine, but common sense is just that.........common......its bland, and uncritical.

word? You don't say. and this brother is a part of it. It also has to do with social structure, it also had to do with parental lessons, on and on and one. The financial standing is just one criteria.

Here what we do know, based off something strong than unsupported believe and "I know a lot of people who"

- children in two parent homes, (as a group) out perform on ever measurable level children in single parent homes.

- Children in homes where the children reported the mother and father were always fighting and argument. OUT PERFORMED children single parent homes (so much for its better for the kids if we separate)...really that's a lie. Parents used to kids to justify their reasons to separate.

I never took you for really about that obtuse to suggest that "you can still be a family if the mother and father are not together" What movie have you been looking at. This is reality. That's why they call it "broken home" but the family unit is not strong, NOR together. Not matter how cordial. Use that common sense of your how can one hold tight a family when once isn't even there?

huh?

 

What a dreamer you are...but I like it, I like it. The separation add a new layer of guilt and stress. Competition and emotions. And that is even before we throw step parents in the mix....and the ones that end up paying the most are the children caught in the middle.

 

Now i know you "truly believe" and you are more than welcome to keep believing but...I'd like to throw this bit of reality at you. You relie too much on "common sense"...and that's just it. Common sense is for commoners, think critically brutha. You don't have to agree with me, but Imma need you to think a bit more critically in the future.

- 37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights.

- 40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse."

- "Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s continued contact with his children...."

- Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated 16%.

- "The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent contact with the children."

- "A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with their children."

- "Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their fathers, after divorce."

- "Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage father's efforts to visit their children."

- "Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their marital or post-marital relationship."

- In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more.

 

So what your saying is just having two parents in the home no matter their relationship good or bad is better than two seperate loving households where the parents just co parent.
And you expect me to believe that home where there's constant arguing is better than a home of peace and love just as long as there are two parents? Dude that's straight horseshit because your only constant is two parents regardless of situation. So if the father is absuive to the mother its still better than if she were single doing it alone? Simply being in the home DOES NOT always equal success there's a lot more to it.
And you saying families where the parents who bicker out perform those from single homes because chances are there are two incomes opposed to one in a single family. My point is two parents living seperately happily who are still involved with their kids are far better than two living together causing constant tension. We more often then not excel in less stress filled enviornments and I don't need scientific proof to back it up I'm smart enough to figure that out youngin.

 

the problem the legal system wiegh heavily against men in allowing to have unfettered access to the kids and shared parenthood. so much so there is a movement where fathers are fighting to get access to the kids.

here is a lady from ACFC (american coalition for fathers and children) is America's Shared Parenting Organization "Children Need Both Parents"


[YOUTUBE]xTrVk7zMykk&feature=player_embedded#at=91[/YOUTUBE]

women be blocking heavily against men in getting to the kids then turn around and say he is a dead beat

 

I'm telling you that the common wisdom that "its better to separate for the children" is pretty much wrong.

I expect you to think critically which you don't do

If "IF" was a 5th we'd all be drunk. We can "IF" until we are both blue n the face.

Pretty much. That's what I'm saying...and there is REAL data to support this. Again you can BELIEVE what you want, but the reality is the common wisdom doesn't work here.

I'm telling you that the common wisdom that "its better to separate for the children" is pretty much wrong.

I expect you to think critically which you don't do

If "IF" was a 5th we'd all be drunk. We can "IF" until we are both blue n the face.

Well this must be a new point, because you initial point was "You don't need to stay together to be a family" which is flat out wrong and a bit silly.

Pfft.....you are going to need something more than "Hey I'm smart enough to figure it out"...you might be.

...but as of yet, you have not.

 

The idea that a family can stand together with the family is separated is silly.

 

But there's also the issue that a family is no longer a family when they can't stand each other.

So, what, then you stay together out of principle?

My parents should've divorced decades ago. They didn't. Sometimes, I hate them for it. The relationship I saw growing up is not how a healthy relationship is supposed to be. I didn't even know married people slept in the same bed until I was a teenager and visited some friends.

Gee, thanks, Mom and Dad. I'm so glad you stayed together...for my brother and I. That was super helpful.

 

Great post DB. I'm glad someone else chimed in besides me.

 

No problem, MF.

I see both sides of the argument, but I don't think it can really be argued one way or another in absolutes.

 

So I say,
drink a little more
have a little more sex
Sleep a little less
Dance a little more
Dress a little outrageous
Flirt a little less
Have a class
Pray a little more
love a lot stronger
dont let her go
Live a little more
Multiply
La vida loca.





LoL, just messin' with y'al.

 

I never argued in absolutes Ymra is. I didnt present the other side of his argument which is children living in a two parent home is always better. I never argued for kids to grow up in single family homes I just think when two people know they aren't happy together why be together? Who benefits? The two miserable spouses or the kids who suffer through their parents constant unhappiness?

 

No, I know..but I'm still saying, I don't think this is a situation that can be discussed or concluded in absolutes.

I think that if two people aren't happy, the worst thing you can do is stay together. It teaches kids all of the wrong lessons about what a healthy relationship is, and as far as I know, that's not the lesson you want to pass on to your children.

No one benefits. If you're unhappy in your marriage, get out. If you have children, then you need to sit them down and explain what's going on in a way that they can understand...and you can add to the explanation later. You do much more for a kid if they understand that sometimes things just don't work out, and you have to know when to cut your losses and move on.

 

Here is the problem with your idea. MOST families don't state together for the children.........period. And we can see the affects of this in everyday life. We can see the behavioral, emotional, educational, economical affects of this. So people can say "its best not to stay together if you are not happy" as compared to what actually?

When can look our history in this country and see how our children lived when the family unit remained together.

No choosing a concrete side is safe it allows you to say "you can't say all" or "it depends" which is true but is really not stance at all. And I'm not saying that ever family that stays together will work. What I'm telling you is HARD numbers beyond your limited personal experience and Dreaming Blue "my family" shows that children raised in this fictitious broken but still together family unit are at an automatic disadvantaged.

Again "I" think is cool and all, but "I" think doesn't speak to reality. And the more families broke up the more the ills of society were visited on our children.

 

soooooooooooooooooooo growing up with no father is what its supposed to be? Well...hell....in this current state of our society you might be right. Far better for you to see mom and dad in your life...

...then waking up and being raised with a hole missing and wondering. Now Mr. F LOVES to bring in extremes, I'm shocked you didn't tell me your dad was kicking your ass or raped you and then ask "So Ymra was that better"

that's some shit F would do.

I'm going to tell you like I tell my brother Mr. F....ok..well I've never debated with you so maybe I won't....

My parents had 9 children. (7 of us are Marines)....and I know towards the end they simply couldn't stand each other. Unlike your parents, my parents focused on us...no fighting, no arguing, no bickering....hell when I turned 18 and my parents finally separated we were SHOCKED!!!!!!!

My parents put their children first. Sadly, your parents did not or could not do it but they did stay together to ensure you had all the tools you needed....and you would have "sometimes" hated them anyway. That's the job of children. duh.

...I hated my parents sometimes but it didn't have anything to do with them staying together, I twas mostly because they were parents. What you don't understand is what you gained because of their sacrifice. How your life would have been if your parents would have said "Screw what is best for my children, "I" want to be happy"

...and you seem a little unappreciative in that regard. Perhaps a bi-product of their sacrifice is your selfishness.

who knows.

 

Dude let me school you on "hard" numbers when it comes to statistical analysis. Its based on small sample groups that are suppose to be representative of the whole pie and results are dependant on what questions are being asked not what's actaully going on. For example a sample group might show an abundance of single mothers who have kids don't perform well in math and one could assume that being a single mother means your kids won't do well in school. What the numbers in a particular study might not show is for that particular sample group the single mother might be struggling to stay above the poverty line and we both know being poor and living in poverty is a bigger indicator of performance than just being a single parent. You're pretty much doing what most people do in an argunent and that's bring your personal situation into an argument. I'm glad your parents being together worked out for you but I'm sure that's not the case for everyone. Truth is people with determination and drive will make it if they want to. Parental involvment doesn't have as much to do with it as we sometimes think. And don't have numbers to back it up but I look at the lives of so many professional athletes who came from single homes that. Knew what they wanted and fought hard to get it. Sometimes no matter how much nurture you get it comes from your own personal nature that determines success.
But back to my previous argument I think its easy to deduce that parental involvement probably has more to do with success than just your parents being together.
You're a smart enough guy, do you honestly think your parents both being under the same roof lead you to a successful life or them just being involved in your life made the difference?

 

My selfishness? For recognizing that their dysfunctional relationship was the reason I ended up with an abusive exBF because I really had no honest idea how relationships were supposed to work? My entire life, I saw my mom calling my dad names (asshole, stupid, ignorant) in front of my face. I had no other positive relationship models, so that's how I assumed things worked.

It took a long time, and a lot of therapy once I was safely away from that ex, to recognize where I got the idea that belittling one's partner was the way things worked. It seems crazy, right? To just not know something like that- but I didn't. And it happens all of the time- are you really trying to argue that MY parents were better off staying together with the sort of environment they were creating for my brother and I? Just because there was a father and a mother in the home? Bullshit.

I would imagine that your parents also didn't *hate* each other- I'm sure they didn't really like each other. It does happen. Two parents who hate each other are not going to work out as parents... and some people can manage to stay a team in order to raise children. Some cannot.

This is why I say you cannot argue this in absolutes. You will never convince me that a two parent households in all situations is the best road to take if things aren't working, just as I will never convince you. MFs arguments aside, people have to do what's best for them when things become unbearable.

Also, you automatically jump to the absolute that if a parent isn't present in the home, they are absent. Really, Ymra? That's unfair. Just because parents don't live together, doesn't mean they have to be uninvolved. Many parents who have separated are present for their children frequently- it doesn't stop them from being a parent (unless they didn't want to be a parent anyway, in which case, it's a totally separate issue- they're doing the kids a favor).

AND there's a huge movement now you may have heard about- happily married couples living in separate households. I read about one couple in a magazine that maintained two apartments in NYC- she lived with the kids, and he had his old place, and it worked out for them. He was there every day before the kids got up for school, saw them off, and he was there when they got home from school, for dinner, homework, etc. He pretty much slept in his apartment from time to time, and he worked there.

I don't think parenting is as much about physical presence as mental presence. Someone who's in the home every single day but who could care less what the children are doing vs someone who has the kids on weekends and makes every moment count- which is the better parent? The one who stayed, or the one who's engaged?

 

Well said DB but it seems like he's rooted in his beliefs

 

Yup. That's the problem I generally have with Marines. Lol

 

Bravo Mr. Yrma for stating the obvious. People just dont get it. Ok there could be several scenerios here. lets say that parents could say "look we are not cool together but for the sake of the kids and finances we will stay together until they are out of high school . until then you do your thang and I do mine and keep it out of site OR we can divorce now and the parent outside the home will see the kids everyday and I will give you child support or whatever money needed."

the problem with that is WOMEN arent that logical. why I say women because 90% of the time (absence of way out the way situations) they get custody of the kids. when they get custody they start with a power trip and hold the kids hostage and say I want this or that or for whatever reason (could be it wasnt like she thought it would be or she hate the fact you moved the fuck on). This usually hurt the kids more than anything.

You will never see women get racked over the coals like me do on TV and in the courts. They love talking about dead beat dads but they will never talk about women who alienate fathers nor will they get punished like dead beat dads. Look at Halle berry....no one really talked about the alienating part of it. they focused on the race issue and the star factor. But they never called her a power tripping woman. then all of the sudden they work it out. Im sure she start seeing that she wasnt getting the positive press she thought she would get. look at kim basinger and alec baldwin. alec got the bad in of the deal. later on him and his daughter got their relationship back but Kim fucked it up and made him look bad in the media. no one looked at both sides.

lets not talk about how fucked up the kids are when they dont have both parents around because the mom is being an asshole.