PDA

View Full Version : Why children brought up by both parents feel the benefit for decades



ahsan28
02-13-2008, 05:10 AM
Why children brought up by both parents feel the benefit for decades

12th February 2008

Children behave better, learn more and are better adjusted if their father is involved in their lives, a major study shows.

Researchers found that a good relationship between youngsters and fathers had a positive effect that could last for decades.

In low-income homes, regular contact was also seen to lead to less juvenile crime.

Anna Sarkadi, of Sweden's Uppsala University, where the research was carried out, said: "Our detailed 20-year review shows that overall, children reap positive benefits if they have active and regular engagement with a father.

Various studies that showed that children who had positively involved father figures were less likely to smoke and get into trouble with the police, achieved better levels of education and developed good friendships with children.

The review, published in the latest issue of the journal Acta Paediatrica, looked at 24 papers published between 1987 and 2007.

They found that children who lived with both a mother and father had fewer behavioural problems than those who lived with their mother only.

Behavioural problems in boys, and psychological problems in girls, were also less frequent. Intelligence, reasoning and language were more advanced in children who had good contact with both parents.

Fathers and mothers complement each other and together provide a richness of care within the family that you can't replicate in any other setting.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1774
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
xboxisdead
02-13-2008, 05:23 PM
Following on the spectacular success of protests by fathers in the UK, the article below, "Divorce as Revolution" has just been published in the summer issue of The Salisbury Review (their 20th anniversary issue). SR is one of the most prestigious political magazines in Britain. During the 1980's it developed its reputation in part by introducing the writings of eastern European dissidents to the English-language world, so they are accustomed to airing previously unheard voices. Several years ago, they published articles by John Campion, one of the best fathers' issues writers, alas no longer active. This article was written some months ago, and the challenge in the final line is apparently being answered by fathers in Britain.

"The Salisbury Review is simply the best contemporary journal of conservative thought. It manages to be both sound and stimulating. I read it regularly," says Lady Margaret Thatcher.

"The Salisbury Review's small circulation understates its influence. One can see it in Ministers' waiting rooms, in Oxford and Cambridge colleges, in the odd Embassy." The Guardian

Their site is at http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~salisbury-review/ .
To send a letter, go to salisbury-review@easynet.co.uk .
To subscribe (worth doing), go to http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~salisb...view/index.htm .

For Glenn Sacks' interview this weekend with some of the protesting UK fathers, see http://www.hisside.com/ .

Stephen Baskerville

***************************************
Stephen Baskerville, PhD
Department of Political Science
Howard University
Washington, DC 20059
202-806-7267
703-560-5138
For more than 30 articles from over 4 years, see my website:
http://www.members.cox.net/sbaskerville/index.htm
***************************************


The Salisbury Review, vol. 21, no. 4 (Summer 2003), pp. 30-32.


Divorce as Revolution

by

Stephen Baskerville



For some thirty years now a quiet revolution has been waged throughout the Western world. Most people are now familiar with the social consequences of the divorce explosion: the growth of single-parent homes and massive increase in fatherless children. The Pandora’s box of social problems this has released has also reached general awareness. Virtually every major personal and social pathology can be traced to fatherlessness more than to any other single factor: violent crime, substance abuse, unwed pregnancy, truancy, suicide, and more. Fatherlessness far surpasses both poverty and race as a predictor of social deviance.

These problems are alarming enough in themselves. What is seldom appreciated is that they are also responsible for a vast expansion in the power and reach of the state. In fact, so is divorce itself. In contrast to its social fallout, the political consequences of divorce are hardly understood at all, yet they may ultimately be the most destructive.

The result of three decades of unrestrained divorce is that huge numbers of people – many of them government officials – now have a vested professional and financial interest in encouraging it. Divorce today is not simply a phenomenon; it is a regime – a vast bureaucratic empire that permeates national and local governments, with hangers-on in the private sector. In the United States divorce and custody comprise over half of civil litigation, constituting the cash cow of the judiciary and bringing employment and earnings to a host of public and private officials, including judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, mediators, counsellors, social workers, child support enforcement agents, and others.

This growth industry derives from the impact of divorce on children. The divorce revolution has spawned a public-private industrial complex of legal, social service, and psychotherapeutic professionals devoted to the problems of children, and especially children in single-parent homes. Many are women with feminist leanings. Whatever pieties they may voice about the plight of fatherless, poor, and violent children, the fact remains that these practitioners have a vested interest in creating as many such children as possible. The way to do it is to remove the fathers.

It is commonplace today that fathers are disadvantaged in divorce courts everywhere when it comes to child custody. In today’s political jargon we attribute this to ‘discrimination’ and ‘gender bias’. But this does not convey the half of it. Divorce courts and their huge entourage of personnel depend for their existence on broken, single-parent homes. The first principle of family court is therefore: remove the father. So long as fathers remain with their families, the divorce practitioners earn nothing. This is why the first thing a family court does when it summons a father on a divorce petition – even if he has done nothing wrong and not agreed to the divorce – is to strip him of custody of his children. While mothers also fall afoul of divorce courts, fathers are their principal rivals.

Once the father is eliminated, the state functionally replaces him as protector and provider. By removing the father, the state also creates a host of problems for itself to solve: child poverty, child abuse, juvenile crime, and other problems associated with single-parent homes. In this way, the divorce machinery is self-perpetuating and self-expanding. Involuntary divorce is a marvelous tool that allows for the infinite expansion of government power.

No-fault divorce is the middle-class equivalent of public assistance, creating single-parent homes among the affluent as welfare did among the poor. In the United States, where the trend began, all the major institutions of the divorce industry were originally created as ancillary to welfare: juvenile/family courts, child support enforcement, child protection services. No-fault divorce extended these ‘services’ to the middle class because that was where the money was, and with it political power.

Like welfare, divorce involving children is almost wholly female-driven. Though governments invariably claim that fathers ‘abandon’ their children, there is no evidence this is true, nor even that fathers agree to most divorces. Cautious scholars like Sanford Braver of Arizona State University consistently find that at least two-thirds of divorces are filed by women, usually with no legal grounds. Yet lawyers and feminists report much higher proportions. Shere Hite, the popular researcher on female sexuality, found ‘ninety-one percent of women who have divorced say they made the decision to divorce, not their husbands.’

This is hardly surprising, given the almost irresistible emotional and financial incentives the industry offers mothers to divorce, including automatic custody plus windfall child support and other financial rewards, regardless of any fault on their part. A Canadian/American research team found that ‘who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce.’ What we call ‘divorce’ has in effect become a kind of legalised parental kidnapping.

Once the father loses custody, he becomes in many ways an outlaw and subject to plunder by a variety of officials. His contact with his own children becomes criminalised in that he can be arrested if he tries to see them outside of authorised times and places. Unlike anyone else, he can be arrested for running into his children in a public place such as the zoo or church. In the United States fathers are arrested for telephoning their children when they are not authorised or for sending them birthday cards. Fathers are routinely summoned to court and subjected to questioning about their private lives. Their personal papers, bank accounts, and homes must be opened and surrendered to government officials. Anything a father has said to his spouse or children can be used against him in court. His personal habits, movements, conversations, purchases, and his relationship with his own children are all subject to inquiry and control by the court.

Despite prohibitions on incarceration for debt, a father can be jailed without trial for failure to pay not only child support but the fees of lawyers and psychotherapists he has not hired. A judge can summon a legally unimpeachable citizen who is minding his own business and order him to turn over his earnings or go to jail.

As the logic of involuntary divorce plays itself out, divorce is forced on not only one parent but both. Mothers are not only enticed into divorce with financial incentives, in other words; they are being pressured into it by threats against their children. Last year, Heidi Howard was ordered by the Massachusetts Department of Social Services to divorce her husband or lose her children, although authorities acknowledged neither parent had been violent. When she refused, the social workers seized her children and attempted to terminate the couple’s parental rights. Massachusetts News reporter Nev Moore says such cases are common in Massachusetts.

Family law is now criminalising rights as basic as free speech and freedom of the press. In many jurisdictions it is a crime to criticise family court judges or otherwise discuss family law cases publicly. Under the pretext of ‘family privacy’, parents are gagged from publicly disclosing how government officials have seized control of their children. In Australia it is a crime for a litigant to speak publicly concerning family courts, even without mentioning specific cases.

In Australia, the US, and Britain, family courts have closed web sites operated by fathers’ groups. Britain, Australia, and Canada have all resurrected archaic laws prohibiting the criticism of judges in order to prosecute fathers’ groups. In the United States judges cannot be sued, but they can sue citizens who criticise them. The confiscation of property can also be used to criminalise political opinions. Following his testimony to the US Congress critical of the family courts, Jim Wagner of the Georgia Council for Children’s Rights was stripped of custody of his two children and ordered to pay $6,000 in the fees of attorneys he had not hired. When he could not pay, he was arrested.

The swelling hysteria over ‘domestic violence’ appears fomented largely for similar ends. ‘All of this domestic violence industry is about trying to take children away from their fathers,’ writes Irish Times columnist John Waters. ‘When they've taken away the fathers, they'll take away the mothers.’ Donna Laframboise of Canada’s National Post investigated battered women’s shelters and concluded they constituted ‘one stop divorce shops’, whose purpose was not to protect women but to promote divorce. These shelters, often federally funded, issue affidavits against fathers sight-unseen that are accepted without corroborating evidence by judges to justify removing their children. Special domestic violence courts in Canada can now remove fathers from their homes and seize their houses on a mere allegation of domestic violence.

Divorce, not violence, is also behind the explosion of restraining orders, which are routinely issued without evidence of wrongdoing, separating fathers from their children and homes. Almost 90% of judicial magistrates in New South Wales acknowledged that protective orders were used in divorce – often on the advice of a solicitor – to deprive fathers of access to their children. Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, writes that restraining orders are doled out ‘like candy.’ ‘Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply,’ and ‘the facts have become irrelevant,’ she reports.

Fathers are further criminalised through child-support burdens, which constitute the financial fuel of the divorce machinery, underwriting unilateral divorce and giving everyone involved further incentives to remove children from their fathers. Government claims of unpaid child support constitute one of the most dishonest and destructive hoaxes ever foisted on the public. In a US government-funded study, Sanford Braver discovered that most fathers pay fully and on time and that ‘estimated’ arrearages are derived not from official records but from surveys of mothers. Braver’s findings have never been refuted by any official or scholar. Yet ever-more draconian ‘crackdowns’ and arrests continue.

Last summer Liberty magazine published documentary evidence that ‘deadbeat dads’ are largely the creation of civil servants and law-enforcement agents with an interest in giving themselves criminals to prosecute. In most jurisdictions, child support guidelines are set by enforcement personnel, the equivalent of the police making the laws. These officials can separate children from their fathers, impose impossible child support obligations, and then jail fathers who inevitably fail to pay.

Child support trials operate on a presumption of guilt, where ‘the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant,’ according to the US National Conference of State Legislatures, which favours aggressive prosecutions. Contrary to Common Law and the US Constitution, courts have ruled that ‘not all child-support contempt proceedings classified as criminal are entitled to a jury trial,’ and ‘even indigent obligors are not necessarily entitled to a lawyer.’ Thus impoverished parents who lose their children through literally ‘no fault’ of their own are the only defendants who must prove their innocence without counsel and without a jury of their peers.

Cases like Darrin White of British Columbia are the result. With no evidence of wrongdoing, White was denied all contact with his children, evicted from his home, and ordered to pay more than twice his income as child and spousal support, plus court costs for a divorce he never agreed to. White hanged himself from a tree. ‘There is nothing unusual about this judgement,’ said a British Columbia Supreme Court Judge, who pointed out that the judge applied standard support guidelines.

Fathers driven to suicide by family courts are acknowledged by officials in Canada, Australia, and Britain. A suicide epidemic has been documented by Augustine Kposowa of the University of California in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Kposowa attributes his finding directly to family court judgements, though media reports of his study emphasised fathers’ lack of ‘support networks’.

Why is so little opposition heard? Though the conservative media are waking up, the silence of conservative politicians is deafening, given that every prophecy about the dangers of judicial activism, bureaucratic aggrandizement, and ideological extremism is vindicated in the war on fathers. What is perhaps most diabolical about the divorce industry is its ability to co-opt so many people, including its critics. By creating problems to be solved – and then dispensing government money to solve them – the machine gives everyone an interest in fatherless children. Even critics develop a stake in having something to criticise.

In Canada and the US, domestic violence legislation dispenses a gravy train of federal money to the states/provinces and localities. This is often earmarked with appeals to ‘law enforcement’, though the effect is to divert it from the prosecution of criminals to the prosecution of fathers. Likewise, child support enforcement is propelled by federal payments rewarding local governments for each dollar collected, filling local coffers and giving officials an incentive to squeeze revenue from (after they have forced divorce on) as many fathers as they can find.

Especially questionable are government enterprises to ‘promote fatherhood’, which disperse grants to local governments and organizations ostensibly to ‘reunite fathers with their children’. Yet they are premised on first separating them from one another. What is advertised as a program to facilitate ‘access and visitation’ means supervised contact centers, where fathers must pay to see their children in institutions. ‘Encouraging good fathering’ means state-sponsored television advertisements with actors depicting fathers abandoning their children. One American state receives federal money to implement ‘Five Principles of Fatherhood’, including: ‘give affection to my children’ and ‘demonstrate respect at all times to the mother of my children’. One cannot help but wonder what penalties the state will bring to bear on fathers who fail to show sufficient ‘affection’ and ‘respect’.

Involuntary divorce is the instrument not simply of tyrannical judges, unscrupulous lawyers, and doctrinaire feminists, but of a new political class whose interest is to subject the private corners of life to state control. Two conservative scholars recently argued in the Journal of Political Economy that the vast expansion of governmental machinery during the twentieth century proceeded largely from women acquiring the vote. Women, far more than men, voted to create the welfare state. But: ‘Why would men and women have differing political interests?’ ask John Lott and Larry Kenny. ‘If there were no divorces . . . the interests of men and women would appear to be closely linked together.’ The premise of their question invites the answer: ‘As divorce or desertion rates rise, more women will be saddled with the costs of raising the children.’ Conservatives have accepted the feminist argument that the arm of the state is a necessary defensive shield to protect women from the costs of divorce, attributed to male desertion. But male desertion is not a major cause of divorce. The welfare state and expansive government therefore are not defenses against divorce but preconditions for it. Divorce is a political weapon and an offensive one at that, promoted by the same bureaucratic and ideological interests that are undermining and politicising fatherhood and expanding the power and reach of the state to deal with the consequences.

What then can check the march of the unilateral divorce machine?

One theme of intellectuals who dissented from the ideological-bureaucratic dictatorships of eastern Europe was ‘nonpolitical politics’: to oppose ideology not with contrary ideology but with non-ideology, to resist politicisation by re-creating the ordinary business of ‘civil society’ and private life. If any group should adopt this philosophy today, it is fathers. For all the effort to ‘restore fatherhood’ through programs like Fathers Direct, ultimately the only ones who can restore fatherhood are, of course, fathers themselves. Almost by definition, fathers alone can truly ‘save the children’ by re-creating the family with themselves in it.

In so doing, fathers may also hold the potential to start redeeming a political culture that for thirty years has been sinking into the mire of permanent rebellion. Their current plight indicates how far the divorce ‘revolution’ has brought us all into a brave new quasi-Freudian world where not only traditional institutions are attacked and brought low, but so now are private individuals, simply because they hold the most basic position of human authority, the head of a family. Whether they are up to the challenge remains to be seen.

Stephen Baskerville is a Professor in the Department of Political Science, Howard University, Washington DC.
Reply

xboxisdead
02-13-2008, 05:30 PM
In my humble opinion men should not get married. He simply donate his sperms let the women either hetro or homo raise the children. Let children raised by single mom much like a cow raising her young, or a monkey raising her young.
Reply

The Ruler
02-13-2008, 05:36 PM
^Women are emotionally weak and would most probably break down on the thought of never knowing her 'child donor'. Other than that, and the fact that there would be a huge out cry of protest, there is also the issue of being a 'single mum'; which, speaking without any experience, must be difficult.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
xboxisdead
02-13-2008, 05:45 PM
Quote, "Liúyú de Lian
^Women are emotionally weak and would most probably break down on the thought of never knowing her 'child donor'. Other than that, and the fact that there would be a huge out cry of protest, there is also the issue of being a 'single mum'; which, speaking without any experience, must be difficult."

Hold on a second. I thought women have demanded that they are equal to men and are better than men and far more superior than men and more stronger and powerful than men and that we don't need men and blah blah blah?

Perfect, I agree in all of them. So women, please go out there get a sperm donor , get pregnant, raise your child alone, work and generate money like every man out there who have done it for thousands of wears and take care of your children. I am positive somewhere out there, there will be an ENTIRE holiday protest for the SUPER women and super mom who works, raise their children to super human being. Go for it ladies. If you cannot handle it on your own, then have another woman to raise your children while you go out there and work. You will be playing the role of a man and she will be playing the role of a mother. If you find you want to play the role of a man then by all means you can be the mother and the other woman working to pay you.

As for a huge cry of protest there shouldn't be...when men know their role and women know their role there will be no more cry of protest. Men will provide the sperm (until scientists find a better way of replacing that role) while women work and raise their children on their own. All children will have the last name of the mother and will inherit from the mother. Done, bang.

You said " there is also the issue of being a 'single mum'" this will disappear when social reconstruction is completed in a efficient way. If the role is very hard, then a woman will take the role of a man, she will be the husband and the wife will be the mother...bang problem solved.

Don't worry about men, we will know very will that women are not their source for children and men will find another way of procreating on their own. Children will be raised by single mom and single dad problem solved. Single mom will have either sperm or artificial genetic makeup and she will be living with another woman, the single father will use his sperm and an outside host (no woman needed) to raise his children. Two problems will be solved:

A) Men will no longer suffer through child support, problem with the mother...blah blah blah
B) Women proofed they don't need men and they can do it on their own.
Reply

The Ruler
02-13-2008, 06:03 PM
Originally Posted by foodyt
Quote, "Liúyú de Lian
^Women are emotionally weak and would most probably break down on the thought of never knowing her 'child donor'. Other than that, and the fact that there would be a huge out cry of protest, there is also the issue of being a 'single mum'; which, speaking without any experience, must be difficult."

Hold on a second. I thought women have demanded that they are equal to men and are better than men and far more superior than men and more stronger and powerful than men and that we don't need men and blah blah blah?

Two words: Extreme Feminist.

People who aren't really appreciated.

Perfect, I agree in all of them. So women, please go out there get a sperm donor , get pregnant, raise your child alone, work and generate money like every man out there who have done it for thousands of wears and take care of your children. I am positive somewhere out there, there will be an ENTIRE holiday protest for the SUPER women and super mom who works, raise their children to super human being. Go for it ladies. If you cannot handle it on your own, then have another woman to raise your children while you go out there and work. You will be playing the role of a man and she will be playing the role of a mother. If you find you want to play the role of a man then by all means you can be the mother and the other woman working to pay you.

Please. For the sake of the other children out there, let's not get into homosexuality.

As for a huge cry of protest there shouldn't be...when men know their role and women know their role there will be no more cry of protest. Men will provide the sperm (until scientists find a better way of replacing that role) while women work and raise their children on their own. All children will have the last name of the mother and will inherit from the mother. Done, bang.

'Easier said than done', goes the saying.

You said " there is also the issue of being a 'single mum'" this will disappear when social reconstruction is completed in a efficient way.


How do you plan on doing that? A child's imagination isn't very helpful here.

If the role is very hard, then a woman will take the role of a man, she will be the husband and the wife will be the mother...bang problem solved.

Technically, to be a husband, and to play th role of one, you have to be a male [as far as my knowledge goes]. So to be a woman and to play the role of a husband must be... Pretty difficult.
:w:

PS: I dislike long posts.
Reply

Aishaa
02-13-2008, 06:03 PM
Both parents in an ideal world, of course is beneficial to children, feeling that they are in a safe and happy loving enviroment.

Unfortunately, it is not an ideal world,:cry:

Many men leave the upbringing of their children to thier wives, having little or no involvement with the children. So the women are practicly single mothers anyway!

Its a shame that this problem exists, but nevertheless it does.

So then, the children learn by example, they become what they see, so the cycle continues.
Reply

xboxisdead
02-13-2008, 06:22 PM
Your quote, "Please. For the sake of the other children out there, let's not get into homosexuality."

Your only problem with homosexuality is the children other than that you are all for it. However if the entire society follows this route then the children will find it to be normal and therefore there will be no problem for children. Other problem raising boys in this regard, you can have ALL girl children then there will be no problem. Problem solved.


Your quote, "'Easier said than done', goes the saying."

Naturally nothing is easy in this life. You have to work and strive to reach this goal, but if you rally a group and work together as a team to change this construct and show statistics about why we should head this road then there will be no problem. Naturally, lots of people will fight back and there will be disagreements and blah blah blah, there might even be wars, but that is how we progress in life. We fight for it even if it mean battles.

Your quote, "How do you plan on doing that? A child's imagination isn't very helpful here."

This is how I plan on doing it. Make it illegal for men to play the role of fatherhood and husband. Second, make it only the women have FULL power of raising children, men's role is only sperm and that is that. Second, remove men from workforce where women exist and put women in the workforce (don't complain about it being hard, go to university, school get a degree, education and graduate. If there are no men at school and university where you live then the women can be thought by female classes. Anyway, in USA majority of students are female so this proofs it can be done easily), this way women study, graduate, work and raise children on her own. Men will have a separate place in the country where he will work and will have equal opportunities for education and jobs, the education system will cater to men's psychological make up.

Now women will work and raise children on her, bingo. Society will split in half, men in one side and women in one side...men and women can meet, to talk, share ideas, blah blah and sexual intercourse and that is that. Men will raise his own children and women will raise her own children.

Your quote, "Technically, to be a husband, and to play th role of one, you have to be a male [as far as my knowledge goes]. So to be a woman and to play the role of a husband must be... Pretty difficult."

Women have being saying that can play the role of men and better and that they the women should have the penis. Perfect, in that case your statement is illogical, women can play the role of men and husband and they should do that. One woman will be the husband and the other woman will be the wife. I suggest if you plan to do this to make sure all your babies are girls, this way you will not have problem. You will live in an all female society and men will do the same. If men cannot handle this, then they will have to find away to alter their make up to survive in their new environment. Everyone will be happy.
Reply

xboxisdead
02-13-2008, 06:23 PM
Originally Posted by Aishaa
Both parents in an ideal world, of course is beneficial to children, feeling that they are in a safe and happy loving enviroment.

Unfortunately, it is not an ideal world,:cry:

Many men leave the upbringing of their children to thier wives, having little or no involvement with the children. So the women are practicly single mothers anyway!

Its a shame that this problem exists, but nevertheless it does.

So then, the children learn by example, they become what they see, so the cycle continues.
The reason for that dear is because there is a MAJOR attack in the role of fatherhood and men in general. Watch TV and you will see it. TV is a non-stop vagina box...why should a man bother even get married there is no benefit for him.
Reply

Aishaa
02-13-2008, 06:52 PM
Originally Posted by foodyt
The reason for that dear is because there is a MAJOR attack in the role of fatherhood and men in general. Watch TV and you will see it. TV is a non-stop vagina box...why should a man bother even get married there is no benefit for him.
His benefit SHOULD be to see his children grow with the knowledge he has taught them, a sense of pride and echeivement.

But if men are happy to see women get all the benefit of praise for how their children have grown, that makes him weak.. and just a donor.
Men who do not partake in thier childrens lives shouldnt have children in the first place.
Reply

xboxisdead
02-13-2008, 06:54 PM
Why should a man care to see the benefit of the children when these children are not his in the first place? He will raise his own children...these women will raise her own children by either using sperm donor or using genetic artificial sperm that have no genetic connection to the man from the first place.
Reply

Aishaa
02-13-2008, 07:26 PM
Originally Posted by foodyt
Why should a man care to see the benefit of the children when these children are not his in the first place? He will raise his own children...these women will raise her own children by either using sperm donor or using genetic artificial sperm that have no genetic connection to the man from the first place.
Firstly, I do not agree with donors to single or Lesbian women.

I was actually referring to the average family rather than donors.

I cant actually imagine a reason WHY a man would WANT to be a donor.. its not as if its a huge ammount of money.
Its just creating life in a non idealic enviroment.
Reply

xboxisdead
02-13-2008, 07:31 PM
I agree with the part why should men be donors. It is best not, because now these women can sue these donors to pay for child support and he will end up paying 60k or so for child support if not more. It is best that sperm is generated artificially from a bone cell or skin cell not coming from a man at all coming from another woman. Of course when a sperm is made from a woman it will only come as an X chromosome, therefore the babies will be 100% female, no male children coming from the sperm made out of a woman. So it is a win-win.
Reply

Aishaa
02-13-2008, 07:41 PM
A sperm cannot be created from a skin cell or bone. Only DNA can be extracted, which added to a forming egg can transform the way the egg develops.

The egg would have already had to have been fertilized by a sperm. This is only availible in one place! lol

I have heard about women sueing the donors for child support.. and that is disgusting!.. It was her decision to have it alone, she should get on with it.

As for the man, now most men know that this is likely, less men are coming forward, and for some good honest childless couples who need a donor, it is they who will suffer.

Trust greed to be the spoiler in anything constructive.
Reply

Eric H
02-13-2008, 08:01 PM
Greetings and peace be with you foodyt;

In my humble opinion men should not get married. He simply donate his sperms let the women either hetro or homo raise the children. Let children raised by single mom much like a cow raising her young, or a monkey raising her young
This does not sound like Islamic teaching.

In the spirit of praying for peace in marraige.

Eric
Reply

ahsan28
02-13-2008, 09:19 PM
Originally Posted by foodyt
In my humble opinion men should not get married. He simply donate his sperms let the women either hetro or homo raise the children. Let children raised by single mom much like a cow raising her young, or a monkey raising her young.
I think a study was conducted in US in which women chose sperm donors to father their children, who were then raised in homes, completely void of fathers. The study ended with the conclusion to maintain traditional family values for healthy upbringing of children, which can't be ensured by mothers alone.
Reply

The Ruler
02-16-2008, 10:59 AM
Originally Posted by foodyt
Your only problem with homosexuality is the children other than that you are all for it.

I dislike it when people jump to conclusions. Do refrain from it in the near future. Homosexuality is detested in Islam. As a muslim woman, it is my duty to refrain from things that are not allowed in Islam.

However if the entire society follows this route then the children will find it to be normal and therefore there will be no problem for children.

If the entire society follows this route, Islam will perish from their hearts. We don't want that.

Other problem raising boys in this regard, you can have ALL girl children then there will be no problem. Problem solved.

Scientifically, 'ALL' female children is not possible. Besides, if the earth was populated with females, there would be no males to 'donate' their sperm cells.

Naturally nothing is easy in this life. You have to work and strive to reach this goal, but if you rally a group and work together as a team to change this construct and show statistics about why we should head this road then there will be no problem. Naturally, lots of people will fight back and there will be disagreements and blah blah blah, there might even be wars, but that is how we progress in life. We fight for it even if it mean battles.

I don't think majority of this world's population's goal is: "To cover this word with female homosexuals".

This is how I plan on doing it. Make it illegal for men to play the role of fatherhood and husband.

If you want that, go ahead.

Second, make it only the women have FULL power of raising children, men's role is only sperm and that is that. Second, remove men from workforce where women exist and put women in the workforce (don't complain about it being hard, go to university, school get a degree, education and graduate. If there are no men at school and university where you live then the women can be thought by female classes. Anyway, in USA majority of students are female so this proofs it can be done easily), this way women study, graduate, work and raise children on her own. Men will have a separate place in the country where he will work and will have equal opportunities for education and jobs, the education system will cater to men's psychological make up.

Ignoring the fact that you have two "second"s, if you want life to be that way, why don't you be the first one to lead?

Now women will work and raise children on her, bingo. Society will split in half, men in one side and women in one side...men and women can meet, to talk, share ideas, blah blah and sexual intercourse and that is that. Men will raise his own children and women will raise her own children.

You're forgetting one main thing: not every human being thinks as pathetically as you do.

Women have being saying that can play the role of men and better and that they the women should have the penis. Perfect, in that case your statement is illogical, women can play the role of men and husband and they should do that. One woman will be the husband and the other woman will be the wife. I suggest if you plan to do this to make sure all your babies are girls, this way you will not have problem. You will live in an all female society and men will do the same. If men cannot handle this, then they will have to find away to alter their make up to survive in their new environment. Everyone will be happy.
You're a disgusting person.
Reply

xboxisdead
02-16-2008, 12:02 PM
I personally don't believe in homosexuality either way however I am tired of all the signals I am getting here in the West. Those things I mentioned to you are what I have being taught the best route here in the West. In high school I was taught that fathers are unnecessary that they are simply culture invention and that mothers are the true parent. In television we constantly get signals we don't need men, scientists are inventing their own sperm, men are weak, inferior and unnecessary. I open a radio 90% of the talk show are female to female oriented, TV is a non-stop female oriented box. All the people in the TV shows are run by lesbians, you watch two lesbians having children, we don't need men, you watch shows about majority of the celebrity women having children with no daddy, either from sperm banks or adoptions. It is OK for a woman to adopt or get inseminated from a sperm bank but it is WRONG for a man to adopt. "A man cannot adopt alone he needs a mother!" whines the adoption lady. "Oh but yes dear, you want how many daughter? Three, sure sure." Purrs the adoption lady as she hands her three daughters to this single mother who is alone living by herself. This single mother and news media of all sort encourages her action and further entails about how we don't need men. Look at this super mom: She is a super mom, she can raise, work, be a mother, daddy all at ones. "Oh, don't worry honey." gently the mother tells her teenage daughter who is no more fifteen years old who is knocked up by some deadbeat boyfriend who she picked purposely under the guise of love, "We will take care of the child for you. That deadbeat of a boyfriend will pay for the rest of life (technically speaking)." This goes to the media to encourage more teenage girls that it is ok for you to get knocked up at a young age. Many girls now are over sexed, boys are lost and there are no hope for them anymore.

Signals and signals about how men are dogs, pigs, they cannot do anything right, they cannot raise children, you watch it non-stop show, men are animals. If women left the country, they will lock their children in cages as they scratch their balls, drink beers with friends and hit themselves in walls because they are headless apes without women....we need to tame these animals. The signal you keep getting. Society are pressuring men to be more into the role of fatherhood yet at the same time society are tearing men apart and giving him signals we don't need you as a role of fatherhood.

Listen to this most hateful audio out there toward men: http://www.971freefm.com/episode_dow...tentId=1468519

Now there is a whole show JUST TELLING men it is ok to be a man:
http://www.971freefm.com/episode_dow...ntentId=778830

"Men are stupid! Men are dogs! Boys are stupid throw rocks at them" are the signals we keep getting over and over and over and over, "It just shows we don't need men!" are the signals we keep getting, "It just shows that society run by women are better."

Is it my fault then that I have learned what I am taught and trying to tell you women out there if you are indeed better than men and can everything better than men and that you don't need men. Then do it! Proof it! Stop talking about it! Proof it! Becoming a president and a mother and a father at the same time. No, no....better yet. RUN AN ENTIRE nation on your own. All I ask is you don't use ANYTHING invented by a man. All I ask is that you invent your own society and show us all that is indeed we don't need men. That is indeed society run by women are better...that society should compose only of female. Proof it, please!
Reply

xboxisdead
02-16-2008, 12:06 PM
As for your logic that we need men if anything but for his sperm then that is a good reason to harvest them, then don't worry somewhere or another scientists will find a solution to that problem. Don't you worry yourself about it. I guess it is easier to replace a man than it is to replace a woman's reproductive system.
Reply

Ebtisweetsam
02-16-2008, 12:18 PM
Originally Posted by foodyt
In my humble opinion men should not get married. He simply donate his sperms let the women either hetro or homo raise the children. Let children raised by single mom much like a cow raising her young, or a monkey raising her young.
R u on drugs Bro? What you said is TOTALLY against Islam.....:hmm::uhwhat
Reply

xboxisdead
02-16-2008, 12:26 PM
You are right, I take back my words. It just I am tired of this anti-male, anti-fatherhood propaganda I need to express why it is in my chest, I am full of rage for all this hateful things I keep hearing and watching. It is tiring.
Reply

Ebtisweetsam
02-16-2008, 12:43 PM
Originally Posted by foodyt
You are right, I take back my words. It just I am tired of this anti-male, anti-fatherhood propaganda I need to express why it is in my chest, I am full of rage for all this hateful things I keep hearing and watching. It is tiring.
Im sorry u feel this way...... I too am in a non-muslim country and i will never change my feelings about these issues. True you do see alot of Garbage in the West, but sadly Muslim countries are in hot pursuit. :cry:
Reply

The Ruler
02-16-2008, 03:13 PM
Originally Posted by foodyt
You are right, I take back my words. It just I am tired of this anti-male, anti-fatherhood propaganda I need to express why it is in my chest, I am full of rage for all this hateful things I keep hearing and watching. It is tiring.
You ought to try and get better company. You must also, drill into you a fact: not all women are feminists. We are satisfied with the roles that Islam has bestowed on us, period.

As much as I'd like to reply to that way-too-long-post of yours, I believe that it'll be pointless, as it seems you've regained consciousness; or have freed yourself from the grasp of the devil (I kid).

:w:
Reply

ummsara1108
02-16-2008, 04:03 PM
Originally Posted by foodyt
Quote, "Liúyú de Lian
^Women are emotionally weak and would most probably break down on the thought of never knowing her 'child donor'. Other than that, and the fact that there would be a huge out cry of protest, there is also the issue of being a 'single mum'; which, speaking without any experience, must be difficult."

Hold on a second. I thought women have demanded that they are equal to men and are better than men and far more superior than men and more stronger and powerful than men and that we don't need men and blah blah blah?

Perfect, I agree in all of them. So women, please go out there get a sperm donor , get pregnant, raise your child alone, work and generate money like every man out there who have done it for thousands of wears and take care of your children. I am positive somewhere out there, there will be an ENTIRE holiday protest for the SUPER women and super mom who works, raise their children to super human being. Go for it ladies. If you cannot handle it on your own, then have another woman to raise your children while you go out there and work. You will be playing the role of a man and she will be playing the role of a mother. If you find you want to play the role of a man then by all means you can be the mother and the other woman working to pay you.

As for a huge cry of protest there shouldn't be...when men know their role and women know their role there will be no more cry of protest. Men will provide the sperm (until scientists find a better way of replacing that role) while women work and raise their children on their own. All children will have the last name of the mother and will inherit from the mother. Done, bang.

You said " there is also the issue of being a 'single mum'" this will disappear when social reconstruction is completed in a efficient way. If the role is very hard, then a woman will take the role of a man, she will be the husband and the wife will be the mother...bang problem solved.

Don't worry about men, we will know very will that women are not their source for children and men will find another way of procreating on their own. Children will be raised by single mom and single dad problem solved. Single mom will have either sperm or artificial genetic makeup and she will be living with another woman, the single father will use his sperm and an outside host (no woman needed) to raise his children. Two problems will be solved:

A) Men will no longer suffer through child support, problem with the mother...blah blah blah
B) Women proofed they don't need men and they can do it on their own.

Your statements are rediculous....
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-16-2015, 08:14 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-28-2011, 11:09 AM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-06-2006, 03:42 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-17-2006, 12:36 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!