Is there any point in me spending time composing a thoughtful comment, or will you delete it any way?

So, I guess my mother did me a major disservice by not remarrying after my father died when I was three.

Can you provide even one example of a reasonably well known person espousing the view that you are suggesting here? That is, that there is never anything wrong with a woman having a child out of wedlock? Of course a single teenaged girl having a child without financial and emotional support or readiness is far from ideal. A financially secure single woman who decides to have a child via artificial insemination is a far different matter. So is, as you point out, a same sex couple that are committed to each other but are prevented by law from marrying. Lets not forget that many single parent families are created by death, divorce, abuse, abandonment, and lack of education about or access to birth control.

The problem with "prejudice" is that it seeks to impose judgement without full knowledge of the facts --- it tends to label and denounce and degrade an individual by making assumptions without having to really think or understand. That is what makes it dangerous and often hateful. Your recent post about the killing of a single mother with several children by different fathers was full of assumptions and stereotypes. You didn't know that woman, you didn't know the circumstances of her life. But you chose to make her less than human, to suggest that her life was expendable because she fit your prejudiced view based on some of the information about her children.

Is there any point in me spending time composing a thoughtful comment, or will you delete it any way?

Is there any chance that you actually will post a thoughtful comment?

Thoughtful posters take a little time to understand the context of where they are posting by reading the blog beforehand. If you had done that, you would already know Amy's thoughts on when to delete posts and block users and wouldn't have to ask stupid questions. But you didn't think of that.

Sarah, sorry, were you not able to sound out the words above?

At the very least, children need two-parent, intact families to have the best shot in the world.

And yes, I think a 26-year-old woman who has six children with five different drug dealers in eight years and then takes up with another is a terrible mother, and raising children at substantial risk for doing exactly as she did -- if they live that long.

Do you have children and a drug dealer who's around them all the time? If you do have children, and you don't have a drug dealer or other person engaged in often-violent crime in their lives...why not? (Since you seem to think it's such a savory way for children to be raised, from your criticism of me of me above.)

If anyone fails to think, kitten, it's you.

prej·u·dice (prj-ds)
n.
1.
a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
tr.v. prej·u·diced, prej·u·dic·ing, prej·u·dic·es
1. To cause (someone) to judge prematurely and irrationally. See Synonyms at bias.
2. To affect injuriously or detrimentally by a judgment or an act.

Amy, you appear to be proud of your "prejudice" against women who have children out of wedlock. According to the definition, you would apparently be proud of holding unreasonable preconceived judgements. You accuse others of holding equally unreasonable preconceived judgements, albeit of the opposite nature. However, I cannot think of a single person who would hold the all or nothing viewpoint that there is never anything wrong with having children without a partner when one does not have the financial or emotional resources to do so. I can think of many people who would be cautious in condemning a person who has done so without first trying to understand the full picture of that particular individual's life.

Someone needs to explain to "fallenfathers" the difference between correlation and causation.

Amy, I am not impressed by your sarcasm and intellectually dishonest form of discussion. I am not a "kitten". I am a 45 year old woman with a master's degree. Whatever my life circumstances as a woman and parent are, they are irrelevant here. The women you are seeking to debase and dehumanize are still humans, and so are their children.

As far as having the best shot in the world, we have a presidential candidate who is a graduate of harvard and a senator who was raised by a single mother. So I'm not sure that your statement of fact is really all that true.

Apparently if someone disagrees with you, you decide it is open season to insult them and make snide accusations about their intelligence. I posted a fairly civil comment to you, and you decided to insult me. Why should I have respect for your point of view?

"A financially secure single woman who decides to have a child via artificial insemination is a far different matter."

It is only slightly a different matter. The single teenage mother is foolish, and the financially secure single mom is selfish. Neither has the best interests of the child at heart. No amount of money can substitute for two loving parents.

Sarah, thanks for reminding me of something I already know: That people who have expensive college degrees don't necessarily know shit.

The women you are seeking to debase and dehumanize are still humans,

Sarah, how do you know what my motives were?

Because you're dim, you aren't able to put together that you don't "dehumanize" a dead woman.

The presidential candidate didn't have a mother who rode a lot of uncondomned drug dealer dick, and lived with a drug dealer, to her children's peril.

How can an unwed, 26-year-old woman possibly take anything resembling bare minimum adequate care of six children? Do you think those children got to go to the dentist?

Sarah, based on what you've written above, I have to agree with you: you're not a kitten. You're a moron.

Additionally, what I called for in that entry -- for leaders of the black community to speak out against such behavior (unwed teen mothers having six daddyless children and living with yet another drug dealer) -- you see that as a bad thing?

Sarah, I have a hard time believing that you and all the others being sent over here by Sadly Pathetic are as dumb as your comments seem to indicate. Thus, I think you're here, not to engage in a discussion, but to disrupt my site. If you are, however, as dumb as your comments seem to indicate, and you think it is just HORRIBLE that I would suggest black leaders speak out against creating lots of daddyless children with drug dealers...please don't reproduce.

Sarah,

From a quick trip to dictionary.com here are a couple you left out:
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
6. to affect with a prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable: His honesty and sincerity prejudiced us in his favor.

It's a tricky word with a number of subtly different alternate meanings, but I think the point Amy was making is related to the judgment root in the word. She was strongly advocating judging people based on their actions.

The single teenage mother is foolish, and the financially secure single mom is selfish. Neither has the best interests of the child at heart. No amount of money can substitute for two loving parents.

And thanks, Snake. Well-put, and exactly right.

What's being debated here -- as if there would need to be any debate amongst people who don't have their head holes stuffed with iceberg lettuce -- is what's in the best interest of the child, to say the very least.

The way I see it, there should be plenty of shaming for any woman whose desire to have a cute little thing in her life supercedes the best interest of a child. White, black, or drug-dealer-dick-riding of any color.

Where do those SadlyPathetics stand on the rights of a child? (Rights of...who?)

Amy, I've stayed out of things these last few days because it seemed another voice is the last thing this poo-flinging "debate" needed. But Sarah Schaefer raises a good point: It's easy to create this strawman of "liberals" who "celebrate" out-of-wedlock parenting and single-parent homes, but far more difficult to find an actual living human being who does so. Can you?

It's also easy to say "children need intact families to have their best shot in the world," which is about as daring as saying they need three squares a day and a warm place to sleep. Of course that's going to be the best start, but it's not the only start from which a person might have a reasonable shot at a decent life. Throughout human history, mothers have died in childbirth and fathers in battle or otherwise, and their children have found their way into the adult world in one piece. Run down a list of American presidents and see how many lost parents early in life and managed to put it behind them.

But you can't universally condemn single-at-birth mothers and give a pass to single-right-after-birth ones. You've been very admiring of your late friend Cathy Seipp, for instance, who was divorced from her husband when her child was very young and somehow managed to bring her up to be a responsible adult. Did you hector her about her selfishness? I doubt it -- she was your friend. But surely you don't think she was a rare exception; millions do it every day. People are imperfect and not every complication in life can be anticipated.

Pliny the Elder said we must be kind to one another, for we all carry a great burden. I don't know your burden and you don't know mine, or anyone else's. Lighten up just a little.

Thanks, Shawn. Missed that comment of hers. She's yet another disingenuous "progressive." I like people who argue fair. Leaving out the essential part of the definition in an attempt to win a specious argument is not fair debating.

Sarah just lost her advicegoddess.com privileges!

Anyone who wants to come over here and play fair in this forum is welcome, no matter how critical you are of me or my ideas. If you are using dimness -- either because you are dim or because you think it's subversively deceptive -- to disrupt the discussion, you will be banned.

Think of it as Internet eugenics.

I think intact families are the ideal, yes.

But, look at Obama -- his mother did not give birth to a litter of children with various disappearing drug dealers.

And as for Cathy Seipp, Maia's dad was in the picture all along, and was at the hospital when she died. Do you think it would have been productive of me to tell her, "Cathy, you need to date?" And bring a stepdad in to the picture? Stats show that's not good for the child. And her intention all along was to have an intact family, but it didn't work out that way. Furthermore, Cathy was an excellent mother and gave her child values. Do you think an unwed 26-year-old mother with six children at that point, from various disappearing drug dealers, is able to do the same?

I know many divorced people, we all do. And yes, spouses die. But, there's a difference between people who try and fail to give their kids an intact family than people who don't see it as a necessity.

But do you really think I'm wrong to say black leaders should condemn out-of-wedlock births by teen mothers? Had they done so, this woman might've developed herself and a career and met a nice man and married him and had one or two children, and taken them to the dentist, and raised them in a safe neighborhood.

I'll do anything but lighten up on this.

"But you can't universally condemn single-at-birth mothers and give a pass to single-right-after-birth ones."

Of course you can. Nance, the single most important distinguishing point that you gloss over here is that the praiseworthy single mothers are those who do not become single of their own volition.

Anectodal, but I've known several materially successful women who celebrated single-motherhood-by-choice. These were the same women who would typically say things like: "why should I be denied parenthood just because I can't find a man?" without once recognizing the inherent egocentrism of their "noble" intentions.

You really don't see the difference between this and a widowed mom? Seriously?

Sarah Shaeffer: "But you chose to make her less than human, to suggest that her life was expendable because she fit your prejudiced view based on some of the information about her children."

I realize you're new to this topic - its been going on for several days now and, believe me, there's a LOT of catch-up reading to do - but Amy has NEVER said or suggested Tarika Wilson's life was expendable. Never. Neither has anyone else here. She is saying - and I'm saying - that the choices you make in life can and do affect how that life turns out - and Ms. Wilson made a string of bad choices. These choices were certainly not beneficial to her children, or herself. These choices are not the reason she's dead - that rests entirely on the police - and she is not "expendable" regardless of the choices she made. And again - nobody here has said that she was.

Oddly, I just had breakfast with friends, and we talked about another friend who just found out she's pregnant with twins. "I know people who've had surprise pregnancies", she says, "But I'm the only one I know who's having a litter."

I like people who argue fair. Leaving out the essential part of the definition in an attempt to win a specious argument is not fair debating.

To be fair, I wasn't accusing her of leaving it out of a copy and paste - she likely copied from somewhere else. I was accusing her of the more general fault of not knowing the full definition and not looking very hard to find the part that matched the way you used it.

What's being debated here -- as if there would need to be any debate amongst people who don't have their head holes stuffed with iceberg lettuce -- is what's in the best interest of the child, to say the very least.

I find that I must take umbrage at this egregious insult to iceberg lettuce.

What Sarah and the rest are unable to grasp is that no woman is emotionally or financially secure enough to raise a child solo. She's gonna fall back on someone.

So who's the 35 year old college graduate that was so busy with her career that she "forgot" to find a mate going to fall back on when she has her child via artificial insemination? At the very least, she's going to burden her parents with the task of raising and shaping her infant child's mind. Otherwise, she's going to ship that child off to the care of a disinterested third party, and then wonder why her teenager shares none of her moral views.

In this day of readily available contraception, there is nobody who can say with a straight face that women have no choice but to have loads of children they cannot possibly care for.

So trying to say "you don't know her circumstances, you can't judge her" is a load of horse shit. And all of you know it, but it goes against your grain of accepting everything and standing for nothing to asmit it.

Oh, and as to the celebration of single motherhood? I say look no farther than Rielle Hunter - who proudly put no father on the birth certificate of her child.

Amy has NEVER said or suggested Tarika Wilson's life was expendable.

Thanks, catspajamas -- that's a distortion created by the Sadly Pathetics to mobilize their tiny little thugs to disrupt my site.

I've said over and over, I think it was horrible she was killed, and horrible that the SWAT team would do a raid on a house with six children in it.

But your life choices affect the quality of your children's lives.

And Shawn, even if she's just too dim to know that "prejudice" means more than bigotry, I just can't have the discussion here sink to the level it has thanks to the Sadly Pathetics the other day.

And again, I've used the term litter to describe various types of women, of various colors and socioeconomic backgrounds (including white, superwealthy women).

...the praiseworthy single mothers are those who do not become single of their own volition.

If filing for divorce, negotiating a divorce settlement and signing divorce papers isn't of one's own volition, I don't know what is.

Hey brian, or me, as you prefer, come kick my ass! I want to see you sweet talk some Tor operators...that would be hilarious.

Douche.

Amy: "I think intact families are the ideal, yes."

I'd like to add, imho, that I think intact supportive/functional/happy families are the ideal.

We all know, or at least we should, that there a few things that give our children advantages: two parents who get along, who care for their children, who don't drink, abuse drugs, or beat them, or each other. Life has a way of throwing stuff at you, though. People die, or leave, or fall off the wagon, or have breakdowns, or ... and then you have to get by with what you have.

Unfortunately some people seem to just assume that everything will turn out all right despite what should be obvious warning signs: the baby's father won't leave, or won't go to jail, and his drug-dealing won't negatively affect the family. So, then either he leaves, or she throws him out. Then she takes up with another guy, another drug-dealer, and has another child, and then that guy leaves, or she throws him out. And then ... Really, at some point wouldn't you think, "Well, this plan isn't working"?

I have a friend since high school who married twice in her twenties - both guys that she knew had smacked their previous partners around. When they both started smacking her around she was honestly surprised. She's just married for the fourth time - she tells me he's a very gentle guy "when he doesn't drink". In every wedding photo he appears in he's got a beer in his hand. Is it just me, or should I be worried??

I completely agree, Nance. Absent abusive or dangerous behavior, parents shouldn't divorce until their children are grown. (And by "grown," I mean "18," not "35, when they've finally realized what they want to be when they grow up.")

Nance, there's a huge difference between trying and failing in having an intact family, where the kids' welfare is considered as a primary value, and riding a lot of uncondomned drug dealer dick and letting the pregnancies fall where they may.

I have some friends who are divorced, and the fathers are typically extraordinarily involved in those kids' lives.

One friend I can think of had a wife that just made their lives together hell -- not good for the children to be in a high-conflict atmosphere. He is just an incredibly devoted dad, and he and the mom would never knowingly put their kids in harm's way. The mother stayed home with the kids when they were small. And they are two working middle-class people, and they have only two children, which they had as mature, working adults in their 30s. Rather different from Tarika Wilson, no?

I completely agree, Nance. Absent abusive or dangerous behavior, parents shouldn't divorce until their children are grown. (And by "grown," I mean "18," not "35, when they've finally realized what they want to be when they grow up.")

I've written about this, and I agree. I've called it the "delivery room to dorm room" plan.

But I can't stop people from getting divorced. But, when it comes to the rights of kids, and speaking out for maintaining intact families, I'm just to the right of Dr. Laura.

I have to find her last book -- the one I did the LA Times Festival of Books panel with her on -- but she said something pretty amazing about keeping a family together. Will go look for it now.

I wish all the ass clowns would go get sanctimonious somewhere else. It is impossible to argue with agenda-driven morons, because things like facts and the truth just bore them. And you can't just 'agree to disagree' with them. They are all for freedom of speech as long as you don't say something that contradicts their emotionally driven agenda. If they disagree with you, their only recourse is to lob rocks from the cheap seats.

A year or two ago I took the non-normie test at non-normie dot com, after someone posted a link to that site from Amy's blog. Whoever that was, thanks, because it certainly cleared up questions I had about what motivates people to argue so passionately against something without logic or reason.

There is no logic or reason that can justify that a 26 year old woman with 6 kids from 5 drug-dealer boyfriends is a good mother. You can't tell her that because she's dead. You can't tell the people that are defending her actions because they identify with 'her cause', whatever the fuck that is. And to them, 'her cause' is to attack anyone who states the obvious facts about what happened to her, and call that person racist.

If you are gonna run with the big dogs you have to pee in the tall grass.

I'll stop now because I would hate for the group from sadly no to beat me up after study hall.

Can't find it right now. Basically, it was something like "If your life depended on it, wouldn't you find a way to make your marriage work?"

Well, how about if your children's lives are much better for it?

It is impossible to argue with agenda-driven morons, because things like facts and the truth just bore them. And you can't just 'agree to disagree' with them. They are all for freedom of speech as long as you don't say something that contradicts their emotionally driven agenda. If they disagree with you, their only recourse is to lob rocks from the cheap seats.

Exactly, Sterling. Well-put.

And to all my regular commenters, sorry about all the yahoos -- please know I'm dealing with this (through software, mostly, and deleting comments of those who seek to disrupt instead of discussing), and feel free to point out people who should be deleted/banned so the discussion here doesn't degenerate into the level of tripe there is over at SadlyNo!

"If your life depended on it, wouldn't you find a way to make your marriage work?" Well, how about if your children's lives are much better for it?

That's what it all comes down to. When you have a child - or surprise, find you're having one and decide to keep it - your primary focus, your responsibility, must be the welfare of that child.

Because we have a problem with tiny-dicked thugs coming in here to disrupt the discussion, please refresh your browsers when you see disruptive comments. I'm deleting them.

Also, the person who just posted the same piece of spam three times as "brain" may have some difficulty posting in the future on sites that use my anti-spam software, as I've reported your three identical many hundred word comments of nonsense as spam, and will do so to all who spam my site in hopes of disrupting the discussion.

Yup, lettuce!

"I've used the term litter to describe various types of women, of various colors and socioeconomic backgrounds"

As terminology goes, that would fit in quite splendidly in any editorial in the pages of either 'Der Sturmer' & 'Vollkischer Beobachter' about 75 years ago.

Thinking: it's not just for breakfast anymore!

the financially secure single mom is selfish.

How is it "selfish" to give life to a child that you can support? "Selfish" as opposed to what? Not having a child at all?

Are you saying that, even when the mother can afford to raise the child without welfare, it is better for the child to simply never be born than to grow up without a father?

Are you saying it would be better to abort than to give birth to a fatherless child?

But do you really think I'm wrong to say black leaders should condemn out-of-wedlock births by teen mothers? Had they done so, this woman might've developed herself and a career and met a nice man and married him and had one or two children, and taken them to the dentist, and raised them in a safe neighborhood.

Do you really think unidentified "black leaders" have that much influence over random black people and that the only reason problems exist in the black community is because their "leaders" refuse to speak out?

the fact that you're lying through your teeth makes you an asshole, raijin. S,n deletes comments of anyone that doesn't toe the progressive line. Disagree with their analysis of Iraq? Deleted! Disagree with their position on the destruction of conservatism? Deleted!

Oh, and to the impersonator: were I so inclined, the manner of taking care of you is simple - just let it be known that there's an assclown using their network not for its intended purpose of allowing people to get around firewalls, but for enabling the anonymous spearing and spamming of comment boards. I suspect you'd find yourself having a bit more trouble, either because the operators involved in Tor will do something about you, or they won't, and Tor connections will start getting mass-blocked at the router level. Either way, you lose.

It would therefore be in the interests of the legitimate users of Tor for you to cut the shit. Unless, of course, you don't care that you're harming Chinese dissidents. You DO care about them, right?

Do you really think unidentified "black leaders" have that much influence over random black people and that the only reason problems exist in the black community is because their "leaders" refuse to speak out?

Tawana Brawley.

My gut reaction is that there are other contributing factors besides being "fatherless" in those statistics. It's quite likely that the fatherless condition of those children is a byproduct of other impacting issues, like poverty or the mother's problems. Often a woman loses the man in her life because she is dysfunctional -a druggie or promiscuous or mentally ill - and therefore not an adequate parent either. Yes, the child is then technically "fatherless," but that is not the most relevant factor in the child's failure to succeed.

I mean, as a GAL, I see a lot of GOOD moms, who are single. Maybe they were always single, or maybe they became single not through their own volition. Many also have men in their lives who fulfill the father role.

So, I personally don't think it's the "fatherless" part that necessarily causes the issues for these kids. It's the type of parent(s) they have.

My theory is that Obama's mother, who raised 2 kids successfully, could've also raised 4 kids successfully if she'd had to. But a messed-up mom like Tarika would've likely been unsuccessful with only 2 children.

And it could be argued, in this age of global overpopulation, that anyone who wants to give birth to children is selfish. I applaud someone like Angelina Jolie, who popularizes adoption, even as single mom, because we need more of that. There are too few foster families and adoptive homes for children that already exist. After all, what will happen to Tarika's children now?

So, I don't like to put a stigma on single motherhood. If a parent has love, emotional stability, and consistency to offer, I think she...or he...or he and he...or she and she...will do a good job. I've seen it time and again, and it really doesn't have much to do with the marital status. There are some really bad two-parent families out there.

The Kenosha Kid and lovelysoul make an important point - all of the data in the world about this issue should just be a correlation - something is related to something else. The relevant example: kids of single parents commit suicide more often, and have other negative outcomes.

The problem is, no matter how often this relationship is found, it's only a relationship, and it doesn't mean that having only one parent makes a kid suicidal, there's probably a lot of other stuff going on (lovelysoul provides lots of possibilities), and although it might seem logical to say that having only one parent is the cause of kids not doing well, that's actually not a valid conclusion given the evidence.

To most people this might seem like a silly distinction, but for those of us who have had it pounded into our heads during statistics and experimental methodology classes, it's actually an important point.

After saying that, I still think that it's fine to argue that people need to take responsibility when bringing kids into the world, and there is lots of evidence suggesting that they will have a better shot, even though it can't be conclusive.

I've written about this -- how statistics measure probabilities within a population, and do not definitively say what will happen to an individual.

But come on, unwed mother, six children by 26 from five different drug dealer sex partners, and living with a drug dealer...what in there seems like a way to raise healthy, productive children with good values -- let alone kids who aren't caught in the crossfire (either from police or other drug dealers). Do you have children? Are they around drug dealers? I'm guessing the answer is no, if you do have children. And why would that be? Would you imagine that drug dealers around children would set a terrible example and endanger those children?

The arguing that's gone on here is so ridiculous in light of this being the real question. It's about a child's right, and the Tarika Wilsons of the world can fuck up their own lives by taking up with numerous drug dealers, but they have no right to give birth to and raise daddyless children in this environment, and somebody ought to say so.

I agree with Amy. She speaks the truth.
Why are the angry women posters her so vivid in their condemnation of common sense? Having a child out of wedlock is not "empowering" - it is child abuse, and it is willful child abuse. Many single women find themselves in the predicament of being pregnant. They have many choices of what they can do, including aborting, going full term and legally abandoning the child, going full term and putting the child up for adoption, going full term and placing the financial burdon on an unwilling "father". Sadly, women most often do not chose to place the child in the BEST environment through adoption. Instead, they sentence the child to statisitically proven under achievement.

But, as they say, THAT is HER choice. And nobody elses.

Now, isn't that empowering?

Exactly right, David. It's about what's best for the child.

Women who can't find a partner (like the selfish "single mother by choice" woman my sister knows, who my sister describes as "single mother by choice because she's too disagreeable to find a partner") should get a cat.

One other thing that keeps coming up in this and other recent threads - this "jumping to conclusions about someone without knowing all the facts" stuff.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the truth is, we all have to make lots of decisions every day very quickly. It's one reason why we've evolved to show emotions on our faces and read the emotions on other peoples' faces. We evolved to be able to figure out really quickly if someone is friendly or going to try to kill us, and we still need to be able to do this. Quick decision making often results in better decisions than slower decision making, and is also often the sign of an expert.

Sure, all of us (ALL of us) make assumptions about people with little information. Myself, I'm not 100% comfortable assuming that a never-married woman with a lot of kids is a horrible parent - but I'm 99% comfortable with it, you bet.

You want to know how much time I'd need to make a decision about whether someone was a good parent? Give me a one-second look at one of their kids.

"How is it "selfish" to give life to a child that you can support? "Selfish" as opposed to what? Not having a child at all?"

*Selfish to have a child knowing that the child will not have loving, dedicated second parent in its life.

"Are you saying that, even when the mother can afford to raise the child without welfare, it is better for the child to simply never be born than to grow up without a father?"

*Frankly, yes. And being able to raise a child without the public dole should be neccessary, not a sufficient, condition for parenthood. Cripes. When did self-sufficiency devolve from social requirement to praise-worthy goal?

Are you saying it would be better to abort than to give birth to a fatherless child?

*Again, yes. Also, its telling that contraception doesn't even register as an option for you.

One other thing that keeps coming up in this and other recent threads - this "jumping to conclusions about someone without knowing all the facts" stuff.

Yeah, I "jump to conclusions" that a woman who is an unwed mother to six daddlyless children fathered by five different drug dealers and then takes up with another is a bad mother. The facts stated just above MAKE HER A BAD MOTHER -- one who shows little or no concern for the welfare of her children.

This woman didn't die when a meteorite struck her house. She died because the police came in there because she lived with a drug dealer. Should she have been shot? No. Do I think it's wrong for the SWAT squad to break in in a house with kids? Yes. But, did she die due to her association with a drug dealer? Yes.

And again, in what universe is a woman who has a drug dealer in a house of six children, let alone six daddlyless children, a good mother?

Dearest Amy,

How nice of you to start this post with a reference to yet another right wing nut job. This Dalyrimple book is published by Encounter Books, known mostly for publishing laughable ideologues. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encounter_Books).
Of course, Encounter is supported by a variety of right-wing foundations because, well, because most of the stuff they publish is tripe which couldn't make it without subsidy in the actual marketplace. (See: http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=98) In short, Encounter Books is more or less a vanity press whose aim is to reinforce the right-wing echo chamber. I am sure going to rush out and take your advice on this topic.

Do you ever read anything published by say, a university press. You know, the sort of stuff that has to pass through a blind review process? Or do you just read stuff that is vetted by other right-wingers? The latter is great because it can reconfirm your dubious prejudices (oops!). But you might just learn something from the former.

Finally, I don't recall any comments saying that it is just peachy for kids to grow up without a father. The simple point is just that having and raising children on your own is not a capital offense.

To overturn a prejudice is not to destroy prejudice as such. It is rather to inculcate another prejudice.

This is the logic of bigots, and also convenient for justifying hatred.

The arguments for or against social policies regarding the alleged necessity of two parent families is not prejudice based, unless you prefer to make it so.

Also, using the stats re single parent households as a basis an attack on lesbian or gay parenting is just moronic. Most of those stats arise from broken households or other issues causing family instability that having nothing to do with your argument regarding gays and lesbians.

Or put another way, using stats based more often than not on crack moms getting serially pregnant with drug dealing dads is not a valid basis for attacking parenting by gays and lesbians.

To me, the stats are symptomatic of the male's alienation from the home and family. Simply put, fatherhood has been reduced to sperm donor and children raised in this environment are living it.

In my opinion, a father is for life and not subject to the whims of a judge, politician, activist or Mom.

PS, came across your blog through Glen Sacks... thank-you for you attention and effort.

Amazingly, I don't care who publishes a book -- whether it's a right-wing foundation or whether it's self-published. I actually just read the book and see if the ideas in it seem to make sense. In this case, they did.

It must be much easier, not having to think, and just feeling smugly satisfied that something is utter shit without ever turning a page.

FYI, I read the same journals Ph.D.'s in psychology, anthropology and evolutionary psychology do, and I'm respected by researchers in the field for being somebody who does her homework. I write a love advice column, but it's important to me, when applicable, that it's backed up by good data. And my coach in what's good data is one of the best, if not THE best person in that field in the country or perhaps the globe.

I care if HE thinks my thinking is shoddy. Somebody like you, who assumes that Dalrymple could have nothing of value to say, because he's not approved by the hilariously named "progressives," I don't care if you respect me. I just hope you'll go back into your hole and stop dragging down the discussion here with me explaining what should be elementary stuff to anyone who thinks for themself.

Or put another way, using stats based more often than not on crack moms getting serially pregnant with drug dealing dads is not a valid basis for attacking parenting by gays and lesbians.

Uh, hello?

I'm a rather staunch supporter of gay rights, and gay parents, who tend to be very good parents because they don't have kids by accident, for starters. Did you not notice the bit above that I posted from my friend Judy Stacey's gay/lesbian parenting research? Or did you just get your marching orders from "Sadly No!" and come over here to post without reading what I wrote.

Amy,

This is as fruitless as debating feminists over at Glenn Sacks. Strawman after strawman after strawman.
Your point is clear to any person with any sense. I am sorry you have to put up with this nonsense and I wish I could put forward the crystalline argument that would make them abandon their strawmen and admit the obvious truth of what you are saying. But you and others have reiterated it so many times and so well I certainly couldn't do it any better. This is no different from thugs at colleges heckling speakers they don't agree with or PC speech codes preventing opinions they don't like.
The crippling feature of trying to debate people like this is simple - they believe wholeheartedly that their viewpoint is virtuous, pure, all that is good and right in the world. Therefore any viewpoint differing from theirs must necessarily be all that is evil (see "concrete thinking"). Because of that dichotomy, they feel no compulsion to constrain themselves to fair debate, honest, good faith interpretation of the opponents arguments and refraining from strawmen. The opponent is evil, and all is fair in the destruction of evil.
You and others on this board are hobbled by those constraints. It is disgusting to see and maddeningly frustrating to deal with, I know. But these people will never be convinced. The only reassurance I find is in reminding myself that somebody might be looking at the board, or listening to the argument, who is unconvinced wither way and is willing to give the issue a fair hearing. That person cannot help but see the difference in the arguments. Certainly, as the "war on poverty" groans on, and on, and on, with not only a complete lack of discernable progress but daily lost ground to show for it, more and more people begin to listen.

Thanks, Wolfman. You're absolutely right. What's sad is this mob mentality by people who call themselves "progressives." If anything, through this, I have a much lower opinion of people on the left.

I have all sorts of right-wing acquaintances who think I'm an idiot on issues they are firmly in favor of. They wouldn't DREAM of doing what these "progressives" have done -- sending over a mob like this to muck up the discussion here and attack my site with 3,000-word spam posts, one after the next, and to post lies about me on Wikipedia, forcing Wikipedia to lock my page.

Anyone who supports such behavior is a thug as well.

Their way of fighting dirty, and sans reason, is against everything "progressives" claim to be for. The site, SadlyNo! is the "echo chamber" that they accuse the right wing of having. They lump me in with the "right wing echo chamber" types when I'm a Kerry-voting, anti-Iraq war fiscal conservative who's anti-death penalty, pro-gay rights and gay marriage. I'm not that easily labelable, but never mind that. Hard to attack me unless you turn me into a right-wing cartoon.

They are thugs, and fascists, and it saddens and disgusts me.

I wasn't disagreeing that Tarika was a bad mother, or that single motherhood is something to be undertaken just because it's "empowering". Anybody with teenagers will tell you that it's NOT "empowering"! lol That's a very dumb reason to become a parent. So is collecting welfare.

My point is that Tarika's statistical likelihood for failing her children applies because she was messed up and made dysfunctional choices - not solely because the children were "fatherless." In fact, they were not "fatherless". They just had bad fathers.

I am a single, financially stable woman, in my early 40s, and I've been thinking lately about adopting a needy child. Yet, if I were to look at those statistics, I'd think, "Whoa, my child will be more likely to commit suicide or drop out of school because he/she will be "fatherless".

Yet, rationally, I know that I have a lot more to offer a child than many two-parent families, and I also have a proven track record of success as a parent, already having raised two children basically alone.

Being from the 50s, my ex had the viewpoint that his role as a father was simply to provide financially. He was a workaholic, who rarely interacted with our kids, by choice. I see many wonderful, interactive dads, like Amy's neighbor, but he just wasn't one of them. We actually have a neighbor, who took my kids fishing, diving, waterskiing, and so forth. To me, and them, he is really more like their dad than their own.

So, I object to the implication that it would be a predictable failure for me to raise a child as a single parent. That alone is not what determines success. It is only one contributing factor, and just because it is often a factor in the lives of those children who do poorly doesn't make it applicable to everyone. That is just a statistical truth in the lower socioeconomic levels, which skews the whole picture against single motherhood.

Whenever I see these discussions, there is always the "I am reaching the end of my fertility years and I haven't found Mr Right argument" I am seeing that with "libarbarian's" post. How about A single financially well off woman ADOPTING! Why create another child in the world when there are so many that are already here, unless it is to create a mini me? It is just selfishness. There is a segment on the local TV station called Wednesdays child that features children waiting to be adopted. It breaks my heart seeing these kids, whose greatest wish is to have someone to call mom or dad. And yet there are so many women who want get pregnant......I don't get it.

I tend to think these people agree with you whole heartedly and are attempting to protect their little piece of pie (or are hesitant to give up because this stepping stone is part of a plan to a promised utopia).

...a head of you you see dark figure crouched in an unlit room... Yes, these darn dark figures! It's this lady's fault that, not only did she have her children fathered in a way that met with Amy's disapproval, she was born with less than luminous skin.
Edit | Reply Bitter Scribe Advice Goddess Blog Sadly, No

Sorry, but what kind of lowlife approves of six children left daddyless by a woman who screws a bunch of drug dealers?

And if you commit crimes, or live with a criminal, you imperil the lives of your children.

This guy knows that. I mean, you'd have to be retarded not to. These comments are meant to disrupt my blog.

Lovelysoul, sperm that finds an egg doesn't a daddy make.

And now the thugs are attacking Glenn Sacks for daring post about this. He just got the same huge piece of spam I did, from the same IP:

http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=24.98.38.117

Glenn Sacks link-led me here; glad to make it.

The GAL above who called herself "lovely soul" seems be one of those far-too-common "single moms can do little wrong" folks. She emphasizes how bad many two-parent families are. She seems identified with helping people escape from them. She talks about women being divorced not of their own volition--but most divorces are done by women, who file the papers and hire the lawyers. Have any of you ever met the kind of single mother who says, "Yes, I filed for divorce, but he gave me no choice, so it was not of my own volition--in fact, he caused the end of the marriage." When you say, "The one who filed the papers is the one who ended the marriage" they are shocked at such crude directness.

You meet these ex-wives by the bucketful on dating sites. I have to pull myself back here from expressing rage at the dishonesty of these women. I have met many who have broken up their families, egged on by girlfriends and lawyers. They did not work with their husbands, or do family therapy, not more than just enough to give them cover. They did not respect their children's need for a father. They simply busted up the family: hired the laywer, filed the papers, grabbed the kids and the child support, and split. From then on, having violated the marriage, they present themselves as victims, martyrs, forced into being aggressive. (This "he made me do it" stance by aggressors is not limited to family life: right now Putin is doing it. He's presenting big Russia as victimized by the tiny mouse-country Georgia. Male or female, sociopaths do this stuff all the time, on scales small and big.)

On dates, you can tell these lying female scumbags by the answers they give you when you ask two questions: "What percentage of the marriage problems did you cause?" and "What good qualities of your ex-husband do you wish he would supply in greater amounts to the children." I have met a score of women, on dates, who would give a baffled "what the hell does that question mean?" answer to the above. These were one-meeting encounters, of course.

Of course there are a few good women, and thoughtful and caring women, who actually had little choice but divorce. But I'd say many of the divorcing moms, even in the middle class, are selfish and self-justifying and far, far from being single-mom saints. They cripple their children, and then they say, "Their father made me do it."

There will always be irrational people who disregard scientific evidence, no matter how much of it there is. It's just that here we have a high concentration of them (nut-cases, that is).

How many more people are going to hold up the exception to try to prove a rule? That's what I meant by "hooting", before: posting without thinking.

-----

I have a friend at work who said one of the best things I've ever heard: "If your child has a hero and it's not you, there's something wrong at your house."

With two parents, any child can see two examples of how to behave, and there is always time for one parent to teach. That is not the sole purpose of the public school system.

It would be great if both genders could be represented, though it's not impossible to raise children correctly otherwise.

Ray S: "The GAL above who called herself "lovely soul" seems be one of those far-too-common "single moms can do little wrong" folks."

See I don't get that from her post at all. She's simply saying that single motherhood is not a guarantee that the child will turn out badly. There is no easy-to-follow plan for raising children. Sometimes, even if you do everything right, it turns out wrong, and we all know people who's parents did everything wrong and they turned out great anyway.

Your dating questionnaire is interesting though. If I'd ever been married my answer would be, "Sorry, I don't know you well enough yet to discuss my marriage with you."

Rad: "If your child has a hero and it's not you, there's something wrong at your house."

Excellent!

Well, Ray, you seem to have a bias, which I can't afford to have as GAL. I've recommended children be placed with single fathers, as well as single mothers, as well as two-parent homes. It doesn't make a difference to me. My role is to evaluate what is in the best interest of the child - not to advance some pro-female or pro-male agenda.

And my point, after having evaluated a lot of families in 20 years, is that it is very individual. Every child's best interests are unique. There isn't a one-size-fits-all ideal situation. In theory, yes, but in practice, no.

But I just have to say it's strange that you blame a woman for taking the steps to file divorce papers when she may, in fact, have been left for another woman. That happens, you know. What is she supposed to do - just hold off for years hoping he'll come back so she can say she was the righteous one who didn't file the papers?

Whoever files the divorce papers isn't necessariliy the guilty party. I'm sorry that you feel so disgusted by so many divorced women, but I've met just as many divorced men, on dates, who gave the same kind of lame answers. They are not all symbols of virtue.

I'm not saying there aren't selfish women too, so don't accuse me of a feminine bias. I know a lot of great guys who got left, but I also know a lot of good women who have been left through no fault of their own - just somebody wanting greener pastures. Happens on both sides.

I had a Gestalt psychology professor who was adamant that there was no place for shame in our culture. I'm an objective positivist utilitarian and believe most of our norms and belief systems evolved because they worked. Islam worked for a 15th Century tribal culture, unfortunately it's no longer the 15th Century. Shame is/was cross-cultural to inhibit certain behaviors harmful to the survival of the group. Imagine a tribe that immediately started mating upon menses w/o regard to outcome. I submit there may be a couple but they probably died out or weren't very successful. The successful groups (Spartans/Chinese/heck you can name them) that celebrate family and build structures and tax laws to reinforce certain behaviors flourish. It would seem contraceptives created stressors on the culture and I think most progressives are worried this is an attack on their sexual freedom. I'm a classic full blown liberal but I understand that there are about 6 billion people out there that don't have postmodern Western views and they are having lots of kids in families that are reinforcing their values.

The Kenosha Kid - Someone needs to explain to "fallenfathers" the difference between correlation and causation.

Tamsen - To most people this might seem like a silly distinction, but for those of us who have had it pounded into our heads during statistics and experimental methodology classes, it's actually an important point.

Well said: if people are going to spout evidence, it has to hold up.

In case anyone doesn't get the point, consider one of the stats in the OP: "85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes - 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)." FallenFathers would have us believe that the lack of a father has caused these youths to end up in jail. But all they have done is show a correlation. For all we know the causation could go in the opposite direction: perhaps these children are so badly behaved that they drive their fathers away before going on to commit worse crimes and landing in jail. Absent fathers might be a symptom, not a cause.

As much as destroying the family is central to PC politics, it will never succeed because the family is the natural social unit we have evolved to live within.

It's easy to create this strawman of "liberals" who "celebrate" out-of-wedlock parenting and single-parent homes, but far more difficult to find an actual living human being who does so. Can you? (Nance)

I can. It's been all over popular media.

And then I'd just agree with brian and snakehead. Can't do better than they on this topic.

Destroying the family isn't the goal of "PC politics." The progressive goal here is to make people like you consider that there are multiple configurations of men, women and children that can constitute a family. Sometimes a man isn't part of the equation. This is about destroying the narrow concept of "family" that so many hold up as the one true path.

I think shame has definitely been minimized in our culture - except maybe if you're a cheating politician or evangelical preacher.

Maybe we are evolving, in fact, to a stage where marriage is not so necessary, yet we could still have a mother/father set-up for our young, which might in fact work better than what we currently have in place.

I'm just think aloud. I have no strong attachment to this idea, except that it's interesting. In fact, the other day, when I was trying to determine if Amy was indeed a male-to-female transsexual (lol), I found an interview where she stated that IF she would ever have kids she wouldn't do it with somebody she was trying to have a ROMANCE with, she'd do it with this friend she has who'd make an excellent co-parent.

Maybe she was just joking, but I certainly thought that was funny. Yet, also, imagine if instead of "Big Brother"-type mentors, we had men who genuinely WANTED to be dads - interactive and involved - who would pair up with equally enthusiastic moms as friendly and supportive co-parents. That could be an interesting solution in some cases as it eliminates all the emotion -love/hate/resentment/jealousy/animosity - that often builds up between romantic partners.

Just a (probably bad) idea. :-) But, in a way, you could see it as a natural solution for a society that is moving away - practically speaking - from the whole "till-death-do-us-part" model of marriage.

"Amy has NEVER said or suggested Tarika Wilson's life was expendable."

What she said that was that Tarika Wilson valued the lives of herself and her children less than the cop who shot them. Is this really the distinction that you wish to make?

I knew a girl who made a decisions to go back to a drug dealer. In her situation, not the best place to raise children. She was loaned out to drug customers for sexual favors as well.
I see this as a woman who's poor choices are going to compromise raising her children in a safe environment. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a recent opinion stated, if a parent knowingly remains in a relationship with someone who is abusive (mentally or physically), that parent is deemed by the court to be an unfit parent.

Children don't ask to be here. When choosing to have a child, it's a good idea to being with a safe environment that will promote good health for the child's growth. I have a simple view of how to treat others. "No one has the right to cause harm upon another." Having a child in an environment which can cause harm to the child, violates the right of treatment for the child.

For those who assume men cause most breakups, think again. I speak to hundreds of men and women both of which have equally caused marriages to end.

While on the one hand I would find it unfair to delete blog comments of those who disagree with one's position (which Amy is accused of doing by some commenters above), on the other hand a blog owner must keep a discussion from spinning out of control. The responsibilities of running a blog site are often overlooked by commenters, especially those who become obsessed with spewing forth irrational rhetoric, as some are doing here

I don't think Amy's deleting for disagreement but for disruption. You'll see plenty disagreement here.

hR: "What she said that was that Tarika Wilson valued the lives of herself and her children less than the cop who shot them. Is this really the distinction that you wish to make?"

I don't know if she ever said that - and honestly I can't be bothered to go back through the many many posts on this topic and check.

Anyway, I wasn't making a distinction - I was stating a fact. All I can say in rebuttal is that we'll never know how highly Tarika Wilson valued her own life, or those of her children. All we know is that her life choices, as regards the fathers of her children and the life they led, were, to say the very least, unwise, and they contributed in some way to her death. We'll also never know how highly the cop valued her life or her children's lives. All we can assume is that at that moment in time he valued his own.

hR, here's the problem with your thesis. In a standard distribution of behaviors, the elites (political, economic and social)are generally on the right hand side of a standard distribution for intelligence. Daniel Patrick Monyihan (sic) saw this coming in the 60's and was roundly panned. The left side of the bell curve needs religion, law, social shaming to survive. I know this sounds elitist but the left's desire to destroy the structures that provide safety and security for the least in our society because they don't like the norms that work is simply dumb. We as a society pay for it one way or the other. And yes, I believe the cop cared for them more than their mother. He was serving the community as a whole. I know that's not PC with all the news of bad cops out there but the overwhelming majority are trying to protect us from things that go bump in the night. Of course, I'm biased.....

hR,

My use of the term "PC politics" above is essentially shorthand for "neo-Marxist feminism/PC fascism", an ideology which currently holds sway over politics in most of the Western world.

If I ad my way, both male and female birth control would be added to the food and water supply.

And the only way to qualify for the antidote would be a six month course, paid for by the parents, of psycholigial tests, nutrition classes, basic first aid and child psychology classes.

ANd the only way to qualify to even take the cousre whould be to prove you had been in a relationship for a minimum of three years.

If you cant meet any of the criteia or cant pass the class, you cant have kids - go try and adopt

Norman,

I agree. I was responding to those who are accusing her of doing that.

(there aren't too many of us "Norman's" out there. We have to stick together!)

In 1965, Senator Patrick Moynihan was condemned for his observation of the consequences of family breakdown:
“From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any rational expectations about the future — that community asks for and gets chaos.”

For more on this topic gotto GlennSacks.com

You don't know if she said that and you can't be bothered to look? It was the entire premise of the post that started this whole firestorm:

"Who Places A Lower Value On Black Lives? Would that be a police officer who accidentally shoots and kills a black woman, or that woman herself, a mother of six children by five different drug-dealing fathers, who takes up with yet another drug dealer?"

I'm not sure why you even bothered responding to me if you can't even recall the post that began this whole discussion.

SoldierRenter: "I know that's not PC with all the news of bad cops out there but the overwhelming majority are trying to protect us from things that go bump in the night."

Thanks! Sadly, the only time you hear much about the police is when they're shooting someone or being shot.

Lujip: As has been said before you have to have a license to get a dog but anyone's allowed to have children. I'm thinking we'd be running out of people pretty quick, though : )

"I know this sounds elitist but the left's desire to destroy the structures that provide safety and security for the least in our society because they don't like the norms that work is simply dumb."

Your premise is faulty. The left does not want to destroy the traditional familial structure. Recognizing other valid configurations of "family" does not necessitate the destruction of the traditional family.

"I'm not sure why you even bothered responding to me if you can't even recall the post that began this whole discussion."

What can I say ... my memory ain't what it once was. My read on the topic header is that its a question meant to begin a discussion (and it worked) - not a statement of belief.

I bothered to respond because your post both asked for, and merited, a response. Sorry it didn't meet with your approval.

"The left does not want to destroy the traditional familial structure. Recognizing other valid configurations of "family" does not necessitate the destruction of the traditional family."

Have to agree with you on this, though.

hR, you may not want to destroy the familial structure but I can point to any number of academic department that desire that end. As I said earlier, I'm the full liberal, choice, gay rights, etc. But I am not a leftist. My wife went to the University of Maryland Communist Park and was a Sociology and Family Studies Major. I would like to say 'the overwhelming majority' of textbooks but that would be a lie, every single textbook was postmodern deconstruction with a concentration on tearing down the patriarchy (ie. the US) with social justice as its central goal. I will celebrate any two-person family and even the accidental single parent but never the knowingly single parent.

Norman L - point taken. It's too late, I need sleep. And the other point about Normans!

@catspajamas - So you're claiming that Alkon doesn't actually believe what she wrote? She's just being provocative in order to start a discussion? Even she isn't making that excuse. In fact, everything she's done since posting that first article directly contradicts your reading of the situation.

Did you even read that first article? She takes "black leaders" to task for not directing their outrage "at women in the black community who squeeze out litters of fatherless children, or the men who fuck and run, or fuck, deal drugs, and go directly to jail."

Setting aside the obvious fact that black leaders actually DO express their outrage at such things (and setting aside the issue of the racially charged language she chose to employ), on which side of the title question do you think Amy falls? The article ends with her basically saying that Wilson and her child deserved being shot: "It's awful that this woman was killed, but the fact remains: Lie down with drug dealers, wake up with drug raids."

There are forces that are keeping the American working class in a "perpetual matriarchy".
Public schools have an average 10% male teachers.
Private schools have an average 50% male teachers.
Keep America in a state of perpetual matriarchy, and harvest the males!!

Thanks Norman! Feels like preaching to the choir though, eh? I'm glad that you further elaborated the point about correlations not proving causation - better than me going into academic-speak, which I'm too prone to do. Not very entertaining, which is too bad! Unfortunately, people tend to just agree with what they already think they know, and so very few people will care about this issue (sigh).

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that Amy knows how to interpret research and formulate valid conclusions - but in a case like this when including evidence that is less than great, I feel it weakens her argument (even though in this case I agree with her conclusions). Reading through the original post again, she didn't actually state that having only one parent causes all these horrible things, but that's what most people would conclude she meant (IMHO - or maybe just IMO - horrible, arrogant psychology-person that I am!!)

For talking about many issues like single parenthood, you won't find many actual experiments which can show causation (at least, not while ethics boards have anything to say about it!) and so we have to rely on things like common sense and values. Good thing Amy does those very well, and gives us lots of things to think about in our own lives.

Okay, Hr, you made your point. Now, if you please, answer a question for me -

"Who Places A Lower Value On Black Lives? Would that be a police officer who accidentally shoots and kills a black woman, or that woman herself, a mother of six children by five different drug-dealing fathers, who takes up with yet another drug dealer?"

Because, ya know, I wonder the same thing. Only I would add "or those who defend her as a victim at worst and a practitioner of a different lifestyle choice" at best?

hR: 'The article ends with her basically saying that Wilson and her child deserved being shot: "It's awful that this woman was killed, but the fact remains: Lie down with drug dealers, wake up with drug raids."'

I don't have your interpretation at all. Reading many of her posts over this issue, again and again she is accused of somehow being glad this happened, or believing it was somehow "right". Over and over, she states not that it was "right", but that it could logically be expected, that this woman would die, and her children be hurt, given this woman's choices.

And I for one agree.

The woman was killed and her baby was shot. She may not fit the sparkling clean profile of the ideal "innocent victim," but she and her baby are victims of a police officer who, to put it charitably, made a bad choice. Yes, she also made bad choices in her life, but it's classic blaming-the-victim, eliminationist rhetoric to suggest that she somehow brought her death and her child's injuries upon herself.

Tamsen, I never claimed that Alkon said that she was glad Wilson was killed.

In Tampa/St Pete a young African American (17) was shot and killed by police after firing in the air at a party. The young man's choices led to his death, just as this woman's choices led to these events. I tell my kids that nothing good happens between the hours of 12-4 am. While there may be a party, etc, the statistical probability that something 'bad' will happen increases and they should make choices based upon that observable truth. But that to me is the real debate. Is there observable truth? Do certain behaviors lead to certain outcomes? The left tends to frame everything from a power perspective seen through the prism of racism and sexism. Some of us don't have that perspective.

hR: No, I'm not claiming that Amy doesn't actually believe what she wrote in the header. Trust me, if I was claiming that I'd have written it.

I've read the first article and every related post. And why should she not take "black leaders" to task? Isn't this the type of thing all "leaders" are supposed to do?

And I feel, from the totality of her writings on this topic and others, that Amy falls somewhere in the middle of that question, like a lot of us. I don't believe the "litter" comment was racially charged, and I've said so several times here. She does not "basically saying that Wilson and her child deserved being shot." She has never said that, and I don't see any indication that she believes that. The fact DOES remain: Lie down with drug dealers, wake up with drug raids. As in risky behaviour is, you know, risky.

hR - you didn't say she was "glad", but others have said similar. You did say "deserved", which I interpreted as saying Amy thought it was "right". How then did you mean it? You can restate any way you like. I admit I may have jumped the gun but this has come up before and I think it's a very unfair characterization of Amy's statements. You may not have done this (although I'm not sure) but others sure have. Of course, maybe my memory is failing too!

If you liberal femi-fascists really want to help black people, stop hogging all the victim pork dollars that are coming out of congress, and leave a little for the black man to help pull his familly out of matriarchal chaos.

hR: "The woman was killed and her baby was shot. She may not fit the sparkling clean profile of the ideal "innocent victim," but she and her baby are victims of a police officer who, to put it charitably, made a bad choice. Yes, she also made bad choices in her life, but it's classic blaming-the-victim, eliminationist rhetoric to suggest that she somehow brought her death and her child's injuries upon herself."

And nobody here has absolved the police of blame in this. If you've been reading along you should know that. But the fact that the police are at fault does not negate Ms. Wilson's contribution to her situation. Bad things tend to happen as a result of all kinds of related and unrelated events, decisions and happenstance. Its not as simple as her fault - his fault.

SoldierRenter: "[T]his woman's choices led to these events."

How is this any different than saying she deserved it? Again, she and her baby were shot by a police officer. That isn't the predestined conclusion to every bad mother's life. If, say, CPS came and took her children from an unsafe environment, then you could say that she brought that down on herself. But a cop kicked in her door and shot her and her 14-month old baby.

And let's not forget that the only information about this 26-year-old's life that Alkon chose to pass on was the fact that she had 6 children from 5 drug-dealing fathers. Read any of the news articles about this case, and you'll also find numerous quotes that praise her as a great single mother who never did drugs and didn't allow drugs to be sold from her home. But that doesn't fit the narrative of somebody who brought this on herself.

SoldierRenter - I'm with you. There have been several cases in Western Canada recently where men or young men (one was a 17-year-old) were killed by police. I believe the fact that they pulled knives on armed police officers, and refused to put them down when so ordered, might have contributed to their deaths somehow.

How stupid is that?! What would you think the results would be if you did the same thing?!

One additional fact: both were native. So of course, they weren't killed because they pulled knives on armed police officers and refused to put them down, they were killed because they were native.

Of course.

"How is this any different than saying she deserved it?"

Its not the same thing at all, and I'm having trouble understanding why you can't see that. She didn't "deserve" to be shot by the cops, or anyone else. My uncle didn't "deserve" to die of lung cancer last year, and it was the lung cancer that killed him, but even he admitted that smoking for 60+ years was a contributing factor. If you skateboard on the freeway every day you don't "deserve" to be run over, but the risk of it happening certainly goes up.

So, Tamsen, you're trying to equate pulling a weapon on a cop with holding on to a baby and getting down on your knees?

Uh, I think the Alkonbot is malfunctioning.

Amy, great article and point of view. I agree with you that a family with a mother and father is the ideal and that children need their fathers. Also, as an MRA, let me say that you are brave to take the stand that you have, and judging by the responses from the radical feminists hear, they must view you as a threat. Remember, radical or "gender" feminists and the men that follow them only advocate for free speech when it's in keeping with their agenda.

No hR (sigh) I believe she's equating the fact that whenever a non-white person gets shot by the cops the reason for the shooting is, by default, racism.

> A financially secure single woman who
> decides to have a child via artificial
> insemination is a far different matter.

This comment has no merit. It's odious. It's insane. It typifies the malnourished, addled distractions that feminism has suffered in recent decades, and it doubles down on the cowardly narcissism that American Boomers and their descendants are famous for.

I just really, really hate that comment. You're wrong about Amy and the no-knock thing, too.

> you would apparently be proud of
> holding unreasonable preconceived
> judgements.

There are two reasons I think you're discussing these ideas for the first time out loud with someone. First, there's the transparent naiveté of your beliefs Second, you misspelled “judgments”. Beginners often get their teeth kicked in during these discussions, deservedly so... And then they go out and tell the world “The internet is a cesspool of mean-spirited trolls!”

I hate when that happens.

> intellectually dishonest form
> of discussion.

Enlighten us: What's the difference between "intellectual" dishonest and the usual kind?

> I am a 45 year old woman
> with a master's degree

Much is explained. (Besides the spelling error, I mean)

> but far more difficult to find an
> actual living human being who
> does so.

Given the tremendous numbers reflected in her blog post citation, and the eagerness of an early commenter to defend the practice, I'd say your challenge has been clearly answered.

> Did you hector her about
> her selfishness?

1. Who says Amy wants to hector people?

2. Who doubts that Seipp wasn't perfectly cognizant of the deficit, and working to overwhelm it?

3. While no acquaintance of Seipp's (or Amy's, for that matter) I did express these ideas to Cathy on her own blog a couple of times. When you're dealing with a real grown-up like Seipp, you don't have to worry about delicate feelings.

> Lighten up just a little.

The stakes are too high.

> dad was in the
> picture all along

Without intending comment on any particular family (certainly not that one), "in the picture" is not the same as "in the home as a loving father." That's what's best for kids. They don't need pictures, they need fathers.

> How is it "selfish" to give life to a
> child that you can support?

A loving father for your child is an essential component of "support".

> "Selfish" as opposed to what?
> Not having a child at all?

Yes.

(I love that "at all?"... It exposes the robotic forces at work in the commenter's mind.)

> it is better for the child to simply
> never be born than to grow up
> without a father?

Often it is.

> Are you saying it would be
> better to abort than to give
> birth to a fatherless child?

You are struggling very hard to present your rhetorical adversaries as fanatics, and have backed yourself to the edge of a cliff; by your reasoning, there's no reason to deny child-bearing responsibility to anyone, ever. (PS- I don't like you.)

> Do you really think unidentified "black
> leaders" have that much influence
> over random black people

Suddenly, I like you a little bit. One problem I had with last week's discussion about the killing was that everybody was talking about the "black community"... I don't think this woman had any community working in her life at all. Every man she ever encountered, black or white, seemed to pull the flesh from her bones for their own predatory purposes... Including the (presumably white) policeman who used her and her children as target practice. (But I think that minister can be excused for acknowledging how pathetic the circumstances were.)

> My gut reaction is that there are
> other contributing factors besides
> being "fatherless" in those statistics.

Your gut is correct: But loving fatherhood greatly defends children from those other factors.

> If a parent has love,

...What we're talking about is the components of love...

> emotional stability, and consistency
> to offer, I think she...or he...or he
> and he...or she and she...will do a
> good job.

You ecumenicism is misplaced... You're "defining deviancy down". We don't want parents to merely "do a good job". We want them to do what's best for children. What's best for children is a loving mother with a loving father.

> You meet these ex-wives by
> the bucketful on dating

Word, Ray... Back in the day I tried not to be too bitter about it, but dating these single moms can be emotionally grotesque.

"Uh, I think the Alkonbot is malfunctioning."

Nah, just trolls. Gutless ones.

Appreciate you actually discussing the issue, though, in a non-troll fashion.

It is the principle of cascading effects. Look, I fully get that 'fate' the choices she didn't get to vote on, like who she was born to, where, the schools she went to and the poverty around her were contributing factors. But if we have even a modicum of freewill than we have to be responsible for our actions. I want our society to mitigate as many of those as possible (health care, quality schools, etc) but the argument still centers around a culture that CELEBRATES births by multiple daddies. And btw, this is a class argument. Many of my poor relatives make the same choices about multiple births from different daddies and I just look at the taxes on my paystub and shake my head knowing they will be going up because we aren't allowed to say people should be responsible for their actions. Look at the mortgage crisis, how many morons say they didn't know they were signing an ARM?

Holy cow, in the time it took to write that comment, two other people mentioned Moynihan.

Love this blog, love it to death.

I am seeing that with "libarbarian's" post. How about A single financially well off woman ADOPTING!

I sure doesn't sound like some people want single women adopting either. Are you saying it only takes two parents to raise genetic offspring but one is just fine for adopted kids?

- No hR (sigh) I believe she's equating the fact that whenever a non-white person gets shot by the cops the reason for the shooting is, by default, racism.

Thanks, catspajamas, that was certainly part of it. The other part was that we were talking about risk-taking behaviour in general, and that it has predictable results.

My analogy would have been as ridiculous as insinuated by hR if she had been kneeling holding her child in circumstances that didn't involve a known criminal, or other risky situation.

If she had been kneeling holding her child in the middle of a busy street at night, they might have gotten hit. Different situation, similar result, and people would still have been wondering why she was where she was, although maybe people would have just thought she was mentally ill rather than some of the things that have been said here.

If people can't accept that she put herself and her children in a risky situation with predictable consequences, and therefore can be accused of making bad decisions and contributing to her problems/death, then they just have a different idea of cause and effect (and probably responsibility) than some of us.

Tawana Brawley.

I dont get your point.

Do you think the black people who believed her story would not have been outraged unless Al Sharpton told them to? Black people were outraged over Tawana Bradley becaused they believed her lies about being raped by white cops and Al Sharpton tried to ride the popular anger. They were not outraged because Al Sharpton told them "Be Outraged! I command it!"

Does anyone really expect that any significant fraction of people are going to stop drinking, doing drugs, gambling, and otherwise indulging in vice simply because their self-appointed "racial spokesmen" tell them to? Like their just waiting for Moses to get off his ass, come down the mountain, and stay "Hey! Cut out the sinning you douchebags"!?.

I don't "approve" of having 6 kids by 5 drug dealers or anything of the kind but how much time am I supposed to spend condemning them before I am no longer "part of the problem" to you? You obviously take a lack of condemnation to be equivalent to tacit support, so what is required before you say "ok, thats good enough"?

I've sure had a lesson in liberals today. Now, I have dear friends who are on the left, and I take people as individuals, and I am really neither on the left nor on the right. But, I have never experienced anything like this from people on the right who think I'm an idiot -- and there are quite a few; a number of whom I see at a monthly dinner at a Japanese restaurant of journalists and TV and film writers.

Never, never, has a right-winger who thinks I'm an idiot, or who disagrees with me, attacked my site with dozens of spam posts filled with multiple nonsense characters. This is happening now, and Gregg is working on dealing with it and deleting them. So, these "progressives" who would tell you they're against fascism, are tiny little fascists themselves. Our forefathers fought for free speech for what? So these turds could foil the speech of people they disagree with?

When I started deleting the miscreant comments, meant to muck up my comments section, and after all my years of blogging, in which I banned maybe four people, started banning their little turd droppers left and right, they decided that I wasn't allowed to control who gets to speak on a site for which I pay the bandwidth, and decided to punish me by spamming me...oh, and did I mention that they left these comments, from proxy servers...in my name?

I am not a racist and I take people as individuals, but let me tell you, there's one group I have an extremely sour feeling for and it's the type of leftist who would do stuff like this and feel it's righteous.

I celebrate your right to start blogs about what an idiot you think I am, and parody me right and left. In fact, I would fight for your right to free speech -- even if it's ugly (but true) speech about me. But, this shit? Its fascistic and the antithesis of what America is supposed to be about, and I deplore it with every molecule in me.

Libarbian -

Huge difference between deliberately creating a new life in a sub-optimal situation (single-motherhood) and taking in one who is already in a worse situation (adoption). Obviously the latter is more praiseworthy. But this assumes the adopter isn't motivated from the same Munchausen's/Martyr's/Rescuer's Syndrome all too often symptomatic of the "proud single mother."

The simple facts of the matter are that Tarika Wilson committed no crime and yet was shot and killed by a police officer in her own home. Bringing in examples of people pulling weapons on police officers does nothing to support your argument that Wilson was complicit in her own death or in the shooting of her baby. This wasn't a "predictable consequence." Again, she committed no crime. The cops were wrong, plain and simple. There's no justification for it.

Yes, troll spammers are disruptive and annoying. They show up eventually at every site that has fairly active comments.

But as for "shutting you up", I fail to see how annoying spam trolling of your comments threads in any way impedes you from saying whatever you want. It's childish, not fascism.

Furthermore, I'm curious as to your evidence that it is a liberal or progressive doing the spamming. It might be...or it might be a rightwinger just seeking to throw gasoline on a fire...or it might just be some juvenile who has no political agenda at all and who just flits around the internet spam trolling blogs to see what kind of a reaction he can get. If the latter is the case, I'd say he's succeeded:

My site is under attack by "progressives" who have suspended the use of language for spam posts filled with reams of garbage characters. This is supposed to shut me up. Fuck free speech. We don't like what you're saying, so we're going to shut you up. What kind of "progressives" are these? I have had a real unpleasant lesson about liberals. I know all liberals aren't like this, but a buttload sure are as fascistic as any Communist dictator.

To sum up: Calm down, Mary.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Amy_alkon

hR - You're right and wrong.

> Again, she committed no crime.

I think it's criminal to make babies that way. You can say there's nothing on the books about it, and you're right. You can say that even if there is something on the books about it, we wouldn't use cowboy cops to enforce the statutes, and you'd be perfectly right, again.

But I can sympathize with the Amys of the world who look at woman who had so much danger in her life, and raised children in that danger, and responds to her impulses: 'A more responsible human being wouldn't have been in that circumstance.' I can see why people would have an argument with Amy in that regard... But people eager to call her "Racist!" over it are burning their own bad energies.

> The cops were wrong, plain and
> simple. There's no justification
> for it.

You are 100% correct.

The only one who comes out looking good in this story is Rodney Balko.

Amy,

GREAT job! Putting the truth out there is what we all need, not just men and fathers but also women and children. the DV/divorce industry and hangers-on are exploiting and abusing those they claim to be the Saviors of when they bash and abuse men and fathers. They can't stand the light of day and you just ripped a hole in these vampires' protective shelter with the truth.

I imagine this should make your smile a lot bigger, knowing you struck the hornet's nest directly with truth.

Tom M
Advocate for the mentally ill and their families, and advocate for ALL abuse victims equally, especially the countless victims of the self-centered, narcissitic, parasitic DV/divorce industry.

> To sum up: Calm down, Mary.

I suspect if your site --used to market your work-- was the one under assault from a moronic child, you would be so casual about it.

Would NOT be. Y'know. Typo.

Tarika Wilson may very well have committed any number of crimes, but no one will ever know. I'd say having kids with drug dealing fathers, and knowingly allowing those drug dealers in her house is rather more serious than just bad judgment or not understanding birth control. The cops were wrong, that's apparent. But, statistically speaking, she and her children could have been killed just as readily by the drug dealers and/or their patrons that were around her.

Amy can delete anyone she wants. It's her site, she pays for it, and if she doesn't want trolls, then why should she put up with them?

"no woman is ... secure enough to raise a child solo"

Oof. Why weren't Brian's mysogynistic musings thrown into the delete-a-thon?

Crid,

In my state, Utah, it is mostly moms who are on the drugs and dealing - meth is the favorite...

But I suppose all these methed up moms are the fault of men and dads too? Everything seems to be?

"Why weren't Brian's mysogynistic musings thrown into the delete-a-thon?"

A) Because Amy deletes for clutter, not content.

B) Because he's right.

Who here agrees with Brian that no woman is secure enough to raise a child alone? Is any man capable of doing so? If not, why single out women for criticism?

Tarika Wilson may very well have committed any number of crimes, but no one will ever know[...]statistically speaking, she and her children could have been killed just as readily by the drug dealers and/or their patrons that were around her.

What do mean, no one will ever know? Her family and friends say that she didn't do drugs and that drugs weren't sold from the house. You're just making wild assumptions based on your own prejudices. The raid yielding nothing. They went in, shot the dogs, shot Wilson and her baby, and came out with nothing. You're just fantasizing about her and her children being surrounded drug dealers and patrons in their home.

libarbarian, you ignorant slut. Al Sharpton fabricated the entire Tawana Brawley episode. He didn't merely ride in to town to capitalize on it. He did so in an effort to turn the local black population against the police for his own political gain.

And they all fell in line.

It's not a whole lot different than when the preacher commands his flock to vote for so-and-so and they go do it, but using religion instead of race.

And from what I've seen, the only racial subgroup that willingly organizes in this fashion is American-born blacks.

I think this is part and parcel of the intentional and malicious activities of the Democratic party post-1964. Create a permanent dependent underclass, and ride that to permanent power. Although they were successful in creating the underclass, they didn't really get all that much power, and when they did, they pooched it bad.

> Why weren't Brian's mysogynistic
> musings thrown into the
> delete-a-thon?

Not everyone who says something about women that you'd disagree with is "mysogynistic".

Brian's just wrong... Often. But he's not an obtructionist, as is the guy who comments are being deleted. The real Brian can be readily overwhelmed in argument. I've done it myself many times.

Besides, I suspect you're the shut-in troll who Amy's having to deal with. There's a certain cadence to the posts, and there's no reason for all these new names to suddenly be appearing at the end of these mundane (but beloved!) comment stacks.

Welcome to adulthood! Good luck out there.

> I suppose all these methed
> up moms are the fault of men
> and dads too?

Who said any such thing?

New names under punchy, impersonal comments are the troll until proven otherwise.

Ignatov - it's very simple.

When's the last time a man carried a baby to term?

Alright then. Why are you even trying to have that debate. I know of no man who goes out and intentionally gets himself pregnant so he can have a baby to raise on his own.

In fact, the only men I know who wind up as single fathers do so because their wives/girlfriends go completely batshit fucking loco and can't be trusted with the kids any more.

And you know what? They have to rely on their families to help take care of the kids so they can work, just like all the single mothers do.

But I'd expect that to be lost on you, since you're SUCH a crusader for gender equity.

Here's a dollar. Go buy yourself a clue. Since I'm not the host here, I don't have to pretend to be polite.

Congratulations Amy,

You are doing something right. Keep doing it. We may not get these people to see the light of reality, but till then it isn't bad to have fun pissing them off.

Crid, I'm not wrong as much as you'd like me to be. I often just give up because it's easier than teaching an old man new tricks.

Look, a few years ago, there was a girl, Rachel Corrie, who got run down by a bulldozer protesting in Palestine. A lot of people felt that she "deserved" it, in essence because she put herself in harm's way, which yes, of course, she did. But man others, besides her, have protested there for years, and in fact, there were other protestors there that day who did not get run over by a bulldozer.

Likewise, Tarika Wilson was engaging in risky behavior, yet I'm sure that she knew many other women, who, like her, were on the edges of that criminal world, who also had babies with drug dealers - because, let's face it, her options for upstanding, eligible partners was limited. Yet, these other women did not get shot dead by the police.

Engaging in risky behavior does not guarantee that one shall be killed, especially by the police. It was a fluke event - same as the bulldozer crushing Rachel Corrie. Sad...tragic...yet entirely unpredictable, certainly by the victims themselves.

Corrie might've expected to be arrested. She might've expected to be asked to leave the country, but to suggest that she should've "known" such a fluke event as being run over by a bulldozer would occur is just as absurd as assuming that Wilson should have presumed she'd be killed by a SWAT team, while holding her child in her lap.

The odds were against both these events happening, yet we try to make sense of it by assigning some fault to the victims. I think that merely makes US feel better looking at such a random event - like it makes some sense out of a senseless death - but it's really not logical. We all take risks, some unnecessary, every day.

I am facing a hurricane threat. I'm weighing the odds, and I think they are in my favor, so I'm staying put. Yet, I know that hurricane Andrew strengthened from a Cat 2 to a Cat 5 within hours, so I could be wrong. Therefore, I'm taking a calculated risk with my life, and my children's lives. I am in a secure (solid concrete) structure, and all my friends are also staying put. The odds are against us being killed tommorrow, but if it happens, it will be a somewhat unlikely and random event. The storm will have to intensify beyond all predictions. Yet, it could be that one fluke storm.

My point is that none of us can reasonably predict our untimely deaths from something like this unless the odds are REALLY obvious, and I think there are so many more Tarika Williams out there that she couldn't have possibly "known" that she'd be that ONE random person killed in a SWAT raid...any more than I might expect to be swept away in a hurricane tomorrow.

"[I]t isn't bad to have fun pissing them off."

But it is bad for them to have fun pissing you off?

(hR's the shut-in troll, too)

And probably Pankaj.

Crid, what exactly are you accusing me of?

Jennifer,

You wouldn't be the uber-feminist who posted all the propaganda last month on the Parade Magazine Poll on "Are Divorce Courts Anti-dad?" Do you do this full time, professionally? Does VAWA (our tax dollars) or duped citizens fund this?

You wouldn't possibly be one of those who then turned on Parade Magazine and and attacked them once the DV/divorce industry defenders were outed into the light of day and miserably exposed?

Their only saving grace was to further attack Parade Magazine until they discontinued and removed all of the postings - well over 1000 comments showing the full story and the real and worst of all abuse, not abuse by moms or dads, but the real abuse, abuse by the DV/divorce industry. Go ahead, get this bit of revealing light removed with your crying and drama.

For those like Jennifer, I know you inside out, along with your industry and all the propaganda and abusive lies. I used to be one of you.

There are more people and professionals than ever bailing out and telling the truth of your manipulative DV/divorce industry which exploits and abuses those they pretend to be saving by bashing and abusing good men and fathers and telling lies that kill, yes these lies kill women too.

I believe we discussed that precisely t Parade and that was one of the many comments that were so offensive that the whole shebang "had to be" censored and shut down. It was a truly great resource for showing both sides of the debate and how the abusive feminists and chivalrous lies actually can be exposed and properly dealt with.

They really care about women and children and it truly shows in their actions which conflict their words - words which also contradict each other. If you really want to protect women and children, bashing and abusing men and fathers just makes it all worse - bail out now and join the real advocates (all volunteer force) against abuse.

Don't beat up on and lie about men and fathers - they are the protectors of women and children. Don't bite the hands that feed you.

Tom M
Advocate for the mentally ill and their families, and advocate for ALL abuse victims equally, especially the countless victims of the DV/divorce industry.

As for all the "progressives" from SadlyNo! who are upset that they've been banned and are making it out to be some black mark on my character -- I have banned maybe four people in all the years I've been blogging -- until the last few days. That's because I haven't banned people for content, and haven't been interested in doing so, and I, in fact, am opposed to doing so. But, I'm not going to let people use my support for free speech to muck up my site with nonsense comments. And then, when I was able to come up with a software solution for that, people started posting comments where only a retarded child would not understand the stuff they were professing not to understand...I believe their intention was to muck up my comments. And then, especially reprehensible, I've been getting these many thousand word spam posts in my own name. Gregg, dear Gregg, is on this.

But know that I am heavy on the delete button these days, and I have always had a site that has a multiplicity of views, but I will not have the shills from SadlyNo!, a site with a comments section with a level of moronism and me-too-ism that you don't see except perhaps on the celebrity paparazzi shot blogs, messing up my site.

I may have to go to registered comments. I'm not going to let these tiny little turds stop me from speaking freely.

And for anybody who's for free speech, truly for free speech, and against vandalism, I'm with you. P.S. I pay for this site, so you get free speech here under my good graces. Amazing that a bunch of "progressives" who can't debate on the issues have forced me to go heavy on the ban button after all these years.

Go AMy Go! You are obviously hitting a nerve here, and that means you are on the right track. I don't always agree with you-particularly on religion and abortion-but I love the discussion here, and your willingness to call a duck a duck (if it walks like one and quacks like one.....)

Please don't lump all liberals in with these mindless idiots!! Although, I find myself falling more and more on the conservative end of the spectrum, on just about everything but gay rights. Scary :) These people are just stupid. Political affiliation is a side-issue.

Amy, you are insane if you think you can track these people down. Constantly posting WHOIS info on proxy servers like you have some kind of l33t skills (this goes for you too, Brian) is just going to invite more crap.

They will win, you will lose. It's that simple. They win because you overreacted, and you've been in a hissy fit all weekend. They've gotten what they're after. And if you think your technodoofus brian knows what he's talking about, you might want to check his ass and make sure that half of what he says isn't coming from there.

The only way to make it stop is to stop pretending like you are going to win this one, because they will keep going if for no other reason than to prove to you you will not. But we all have seen over this past weekend that you are incapable of backing down, so don't be surprised if they send you around the bend into an insane asylum, and you will have no recourse.

Who will "win"? The cowards posting from anonymous proxy servers? Posting racist remarks under real commenters names? You think that's winning?

And when you speak of "they," do tell me who's "beating" me? Is it the SadlyNo! crowd? Because some from there insist it's not them. Good to know they're not "winning."

And there's no winning. I'll go to registered comments if I have to. Not really a big deal. But, is this what you think of as "progressive" politicking? How vile.

You, yourself, are a tiny little turd who has nothing better to do than sneak around and try to ruin people's free speech. I post openly, under my own name. You're a tiny-dicked loser who has to hide everything. Probably because you'd be ashamed if anyone knew you were doing this.

IP address location & IP address info: IP address [?]: 85.25.135.137 [Whois] IP address country: ip address flag Germany IP address state: n/a IP address city: n/a IP address latitude: 51.000000 IP address longitude: 9.000000 ISP of this IP [?]: intergenia AG Organization: SERVER4YOU Dedicated Server Hosting Host of this IP: [?]: delta513.server4you.de [Whois]

Oh, and sorry, why would it be considered a "win" to block somebody's speech instead of just opening up a blog of your own and criticizing it?

Finally, a friend of mine was commenting on this earlier -- about what kind of grown person resorts to behavior like this? Anonymous spam, posted in my name, meant to ruin my blog because you disagree with something I posted?

The only way to make it stop is to stop pretending like you are going to win this one, because they will keep going if for no other reason than to prove to you you will not.

Wait, this is a playground battle? This is what "progressives" stand for? Bullyish stopping of free speech. Nice.

That's what right wingers I know have been telling me all along, and I always ignored them and thought they were exaggerating. It seems I was wrong.

"That's what right wingers I know have been telling me all along, and I always ignored them and thought they were exaggerating. It seems I was wrong."

Yes! Now its all worth it!

Amy, Thanks!

Great Job telling the truth, and both sides, even including reality - that's brave and dangerous when it isn't PC or popular to tell the truth.

I understand why people don't understand how essential fathers are to a kid's life. It's not just lies and endless brainwashing alone. It's a politically popular agenda and a huge domestic violence/divorce industry. They will say anything and make up good sounding lies about men and fathers to protect the abusive house of cards they've built and must preserve in their own best interest, not in the interest of any woman or child. Hysteria is essential to powering these types of scams.

They will popularly lie about and abuse men and fathers (which hurts women, moms and children too) to accomplish this. When they tell lies about men and fathers, it just abuses women and children too, but they don't care.

Women and children are not their concern either - just their front, like drug dealers and gangsters use - a front to look legit. You expose that and you get attacked badly, before they go down for their atrocities.

The better you expose it, the worst the attacks and insults by them. You should feel proud. They resort to their wild various tactics because there is no debate or argument they can win out in open debate with free speech on these matters.

One of the very few issues they can partially win on, and that I agree with: the fact that a parent who is abusive to their child is more likely to be abusive to their spouse too, and vice versa. But they deny the open and indisputable proof on this one which shows even with already anti-father agency stats (DHHS and DoJ) that this is moms, not dads at all. Additionally, lots more studies also show that it is moms, not dads, who abuse and murder their children most often. And this is most often divorced or single moms doing most of the abuse, women who have often been exploited into this situation by the industry's agenda, not by bad men or "bad dads."

This fact that the parent who is more likely to abuse the child (mom) is more likely to be a spouse abuser (mom too) agrees with all the studies showing that women, not men, are more often the sole perpetrators of both dating violence and domestic violence, and initiators of joint inter-partner violence most often...

But then why do men murder their spouses and girlfriends more often which conflicts with this? Simple, and simple to prevent. The men are ussually fathers who are endlessly abused by this industry and their estranged wives with legal abuse, threats and false abuse allegations. Stop the lies, abuse and the motives, and the murders and murder-suicides stop too. This is nothing new, but also happened with Nazism, slavery and endless other similar issues down through history. Only true equality for men and fathers and stopping the real abuse will stop any amount of domestic violence.

The current program fuels it and capitalizes on it - to "solve" the problems they create for themselves to "solve..." If you gang-rape fathers and their children non-stop, what do you expect? Garbage in - garbage out. Do we want to keep supporting this, or expose it and go after the real predators who have always historically hunted in packs in the name of being our "Saviors?"

Still, it isn't really moms or dads who are most abusive to spouses or to children - it is the industry that is far more abusive to both children and both parents. This industry's supporters attack the truth desperately to perserve what they've built. They've built a child-abusive mess floating on a bed of lies supported by the media, university gender studies departments, police, the legal system and most politicians.

To really stop abuse of women and children, keep speaking the truth about the abuse of fathers and children by women and especially about the profiteering industry which is the real heart of so many interrelated problems here.

Here's a quote for you from a women's web site for really fighting abuse (www.true-equality.org) and the abusive Violence Against Women Act:

"The question to those who support VAWA is: What are the scientific, ethical, and moral bases being used to justify supporting a system that knowingly excludes the majority of abuse victims and their children from receiving any support or services, while ignoring the majority of the perpetrators?" -- Terri Lynn Tersak
President & CEO
True Equality Network

Thanks-

Tom M
Advocate for the mentally ill and their families, and advocate for ALL abuse victims equally, especially the countless victims of the DV/divorce industry.

I just gotta think there's a young FBI agent out there somewhere, just starting out, who needs a scalp in order to move up a pay grade. After all, we're talking about identity theft here. Getting this kid would be easier than Bin Laden.

Unfortunately, Cridster, they haven't committed a crime in the US. Now, if the traffic took a turn through the UK, then the more generous libel laws of that nation could be used, but that would be libel tourism, and I'm not a big fan of that when it's used to squelch speech that the Saudis don't like.

And troll, FYI, if I was so inclined, I could find you. You aren't worth the devotion of my resources or energy. You think too highly of yourself.

brian—

If you think I believe a single letter of that shit, you are just as deluded as Crid. Come find me, kick my ass, you impotent cunt. You couldn't find your own asshole if it was plastered to your face.

You're just another Internet tough guy. As much as you don't realize it, you're a dime a fucking dozen. There's hundreds of sorry losers like you—threatening people over the Internet with no way to make good, hoping that they won't see through you're transparent, pathetic bullshit. News flash—they all do. Everyone knows you're a loser.

IT'S NOT A SECRET.

Why does he keep refering to himself as "they"?

He really needs to kiss a girl. Just sayin'

I say let's just ignore them. They act like they want Amy to apologize or back down, but that's just what bullies always say to their targets. I'm sure that wouldn't solve anything (even if she were willing, which of course, she's not, and I don't blame her).

Their arguments are so ridiculous and childish. We all know who they are whenever they post. Let's just talk about something so dull they'll lose interest. Trying to discuss serious topics is obviously beyond them. Since most of them are male, I think we women should post about our "female problems" (sorry, guys). Maybe menopause? Is anybody having hot flashes? Cramps?

"You're just another Internet tough guy. As much as you don't realize it, you're a dime a fucking dozen. There's hundreds of sorry losers like you—threatening people over the Internet with no way to make good, hoping that they won't see through you're transparent, pathetic bullshit. News flash—they all do. Everyone knows you're a loser".

What an apt description - for him, not you, Brian.

Is Lovelysoul him too? The rhythm of the postings is steady like a disco backbeat... Thumpa thumpa!

All these new commenters! Trust no one! AIIIEEEE

It's me, Crid. Probably a silly idea, but this is getting old. Just trying to think of ways to make them (or him) move on.

You're just another Internet tough guy. As much as you don't realize it, you're a dime a fucking dozen. There's hundreds of sorry losers like you—threatening people over the Internet with no way to make good, hoping that they won't see through you're transparent, pathetic bullshit. News flash—they all do. Everyone knows you're a loser.

Look, fucknozzle, I'm a forensics expert. Among the many things I do, I get people fired for a living.

Nobody's gonna pay me to find you, and unfortunately kicking your ass is still a crime in this country, and I'll be blunt, you aren't worth doing time for.

So you can just go about your bullshit life telling yourself you scared off a internet bullshit artist. Me? I'll go to work on Monday making my customer's lives better. Whereas you'll sit in your mother's basement and play "find the penis".

It's possible a scalp has been taken, but the scalpee doesn't know yet. More when I know. As for how much that put me out, it took me about three minutes out of my busy day on Friday.

You look very much like Carrot Top after "the operation" and your material is sort as sucky. I am scratching my head trying to think of venues for racist diatribes, and well pajamas media is the only place it plays. Your home!

You've obviously never read the Protocols of the Daily Kos.

Brian gets on my nerves too, but I'm going to steal his handsomely-crafted expression "fucknozzle"... It's both sexual and industrial, and that's a twofer.

You are a dipshit and a racist and the more you try to protest the deeper you dig your own hole. Obviously you've got some Internet tough guy frantically lapping away at your artificially constructed vagina and deleting all comments that disagree with your stupid and bigoted opinions so the irony of you claiming "free speech" (which only applies to the government, by the way) is extra-rich and creamy.

Um, news flash—as much as you'd like to suck Little Brian (all 3" of it), Crid, he is far from having invented the term "fucknozzle".

And Brian, I agree not to press charges if you can find me and kick my ass. Mostly because I'll be impressed if you can do anything beyond sputter and get angrier and angrier. Loser.

Oh, and Amy? I think your credibility went out the window with the shit moat story. So no one believes a fucking word you say when you claim to have taken a scalp.

God, what a pathetic bunch of losers.

What is it about common sense and truth that cares the bejesus out of feminists and nut jobs?

Here is Amy showing that water is wet -horrors ! - and half the nutters around crawl out and claim she is not only wrong but discriminatory against blotting paper.

Children need fathers. Yes, they need mothers too. It is the best that a kiddie can start off with. Any other parental combinations are possible but inferior.

Things do get in the way of 'best'. A parent dies; another kiddies' mum runs off with the milkman; a daddy is railroaded into dispossession by lying DAs and lawyers who want his asstes; Mum decides she prefers the woman next door's genital configuration; daddy develops a yen for wearing garter-belts. Isn't nature with its emotional hurricanes and accidents enough?

So many people seem to want to not only have 'second best' for their own and their neighbours' kiddies, but third to tenth best too. And PREFER it !

Bring on garter-belts for men ! Let buggers be buggers; let the single mum have thirty five bed-mates a week at $100 an hour; to them it is all the same.

Hello ! ?

It AIN'T.

Just to keep this in front of everybody, to defuse a few assumptions and outright lies:

Raids are ordered to seize criminals with their property when such property is likely to be evidence. When a raid is ordered, the officers all have a right, and some have the duty, of checking the warrant in the raid briefing. If it is known, the blueprints of the building will be gone over. Expected points of cover and concealment will be discussed and likely occupants' pictures will be passed around.

All of the armament the police use will be department issue, and so will the ammunition. Each officer will have in their service records his/her qualification to carry a weapon in the line of duty.

The nature of the raid may include a "no-knock", break-the-door entry, if the evidence can be disposed of. This is the worst sort of raid, because in many states, it is totally legal to resist any entry of excessive force with deadly force. Also, practically speaking, any person who is prepared against home invasion may assume that this is what is really happening and may shoot to kill regardless of announcements like "Police! Search warrant! Get of the floor!" and so forth. Anyone can shout these things.

Police ordered to go on these raids may have body armor and even "flash-bang" stun grenades, but this is not a guarantee against being shot; head and neck shots are still fatal to police. Consequently, anything that looks like a threat will be shot more often than not.

If you want a more-chilling scenario than Tarika kneeling - which looks, by the way, like a thug ready to shoot - consider that police had to figure out how not to shoot standing children, who will typically just stand there crying, and who are the right height to be a thug ready to shoot.

There are an awful lot of people flapping figurative gums about this and that without knowing one damned thing about how raids happen. It all boils down to this:

You don't want to be shot? Don't make somebody pull a gun on you. Even police. Because no matter who you are, where you are or how good a person you think you are, bullets don't care, and the shooter usually doesn't have time to talk about the weather.

IF you have somebody with armor and and M-16 or MP-5 in the yard or in the house, your only practical chance at survival is to lie on the floor, face down, with your hands in plain sight away from anything whatsoever. If you cannot get into the yard, clear of the house, before police get to your door, do not be next to the door. If you are holding anything - dog, cat, baby, paper, comb, oxygen bottle - you greatly increase the risk you will be shot dead. If you move, you may be shot dead. Ditto if you hide your hands at any time. If anyone else in the room with you moves, that increases the chance you will be shot also, because of the possibility that you are a decoy.

These things are very tough to do because the emotional trauma of having armed troops storn your sanctuary is huge. I'm just telling you how to make the best of it, and what's really going on.

And if you had the job the cop did, you'd do exactly what he does in most cases, because the #1 consideration is for you to stay alive. You are being sent into a building after people who have already shot other people. Most cops, by the way, haven't!

If the raid is improper, you can argue the Constitution in court - but you have to survive to get there.

Be smart about this. You might think it's horrible that drug raids happen, or that all police are thugs (apparently NEAM's hangup), but that doesn't change what happens today in any way whatsoever (sorry, you're totally impotent on this issue, short-term). If it looks like an armed thug, it gets shot, and sometimes it isn't a thug. Raids happen without producing the evidence hoped-for by law enforcement all the time, too, because probable cause doesn't exist for the bulk of any thug's activities and a house or apartment is the only chance. This is part of what I meant by people not understanding what a crime is. No, arresting a dealer on the street does not result in a lasting conviction for possession. Period. Generally, a person will be arrested on the street only for evidence connecting them to a criminal act which is independent of possession.

Tarika's death was an accident, preceded by a long list of minor errors, any one of which would have changed the outcome. Sorry, Tarika. I'm also sorry that no one will apparently learn from this incident. The next raid, by any police force, will have the same limitations this one did in dealing with bystanders. Indignant people will blame police for other people breaking the law, and thus activating enforcement powers.

-----

As the law stands today, you may thank drug users for making drugs so profitable that dealers risk death, passing that risk on to you, so that they can get high. The proper way to treat a law is not to break it, but to change it first. The proof is right here, in this case, like so many thousand others, because while a law exists, it must be enforced.

With all the posturing on here, let us not forget that having an Internet handle doesn't mean that what we say loses the ability to exalt or demean us.

You are what you say. Try to make sense, because when you don't, you simply fail. Yourself, first.

The little vandal is angry... He has strong feelings.

Raddy, I completely agree with your post, which is why I said nobody comes out of this looking better than Balko. It's great to know there's a young, talented journalist who's going to be calling bullshit on these raids as long as necessary.

deleting all comments that disagree with your stupid and bigoted opinions so the irony of you claiming "free speech" (which only applies to the government, by the way) is extra-rich and creamy-apikores

If this were true apikores then why is your comment still up?

Use your fucking brain, idiot.

How in the hell did we evolve and develop the technology we have when the vast majority of humans are brain dead wastes of space?

Sadly they aren't all "little" vandals. Some of them are babyboomers if they're to be believed. Little wonder the Stalins of history managed to kill so many millions of people with this lot on their side. What a great foot in the door of the West they'll be for Islamic jihad.

And thanks especially for dropping the responsibility on the people who are actually taking these fucking drugs. That doesn't happen nearly often enough. Middle America will scream at you for carrying home your groceries in a 5-gram plastic bags, but they'll let US policy towards South America get brutally warped by someone's cocaine habit, and say nothing....

He's calling himself "they" again. The guys insane.

Seems I neglected to ban notreallyanmba. I've fixed that.

As for "free speech," this is not a free public restroom. People commenting here are guests in my house. Because the door is open to a home doesn't mean you have a right to steal the silverware and the TV. Maybe you will, because you're a thug, and can't produce anything of your own, so stealing from other people -- their time, because you're probably too ballless to take their physical goods and be the thief that you are -- is the most you can accomplish in this world.

Anyway, I've had a very open comments policy until now, because people behaved like civilized adults -- until this influx of "progressives" -- this mob sent over from SadlyNo!, not to merely disagree with me but to post multiple nonsense comments to mess up my site. A commenter above made it clear that that the goal here is to "win" -- meaning, to show me that I am not allowed to speak my mind when it goes against the collective "progressive" idea of what is correct speech and thought.

And this is what right-wingers I know have been telling me all along. For those from SadlyPathetic who've accused me of being somebody who doesn't admit when they're wrong, here's evidence that that's not true: I've been quite wrong when I pooh-poohed the notion, by right-wingers, that there's no fascist like a liberal. (Now I know better than to think that of all liberals, but there's a mob of yahoos on SadlyNo! coming here, and never a single comment dissenting from the party line of what a racist I supposedly am, blah blah blah.)

Some of them are babyboomers if they're to be believed.

This is what's most amazing. I clicked on a few clickable commenters (most are anono-weenies, not surprisingly). These people, some of them, or many of them, are 52-year-old or 62-year-old men!

You know, if you're 52 years old, and you spend your Sunday indoors posting big blocks of nonsense on some chick's website, and this gives you some measure of joyk, I actually have a good deal of compassion for you because you are a loser in a way that it can't be possible to recover from.

What defines us? Lots of things, of course. Too many to make the question worth considering? I don't think so.

The very general answer to this very general question is... information. Right?

That’s so obvious that you might not even consider it an answer, and it doesn't tell us much, does it? But it a necessary first step.

Let's break it down. What KINDS of information define us? Two types. The information in our genes and the information in our minds.

A little anthropology. Very few mammals form life long pair bonds. Among the few mammalian species that do, the male and female body mass are equal... and there's major parental investment from the male in these species. Among primates like ourselves and our closest cousins, instinctive, DNA driven life long pair bonding is non-existent. Saimangs and certain gibbons, distant primate cousins, are an exception. The ratio of male to female body mass is very highly correlated with the number of females a mating male mates with. Most male gorillas and orangutans (that happen to be much larger than the females of their species) don't mate at all. A few high status males mate with the entire female population. Mating status is typically determined via male on male violence. Following a successful attack against a dominant male, the victor undergoes a radical hormonal transformation that substantially alters it physically and behaviorally. The males of these species often mate with 10, 20 or more females in a given year. This effect is less pronounced among chimpanzees where the male to female body mass ratio is considerably closer. It's much more pronounced in elephant seals where the male is huge compared to the female. The effect doesn't exist at all with beavers. Beavers have equal male and female body mass. Saimangs and pair bonding gibbons also have equal male and female body mass.

If you plot the relationship for primates, you find evidence that, by instinct, the entire human female population should be mating with the most dominant third of the male population.

It's what you actually find in tribes, in slums, in devastated cultures and in high schools. 55% of American girls, for example, graduate from high school with HPV. 15% of boys do.

Hypergamy is the term used to describe the phenomenon by which human females partner with males of higher status. It's universal across human cultures. You find it in remote Amazon tribes, in Bangledesh, in the US census data and at Harvard.

Ok. So that covers the key facts related to one type of information, the type carried in our DNA.

Then there's the kind carried in our minds. Using an analogy to the genes of genetics, the information carried in our minds is sometimes considered to consist of the memes of memetics.

Memes are subject to selection processes. Those transferable ideas, or memes, that are best at propagating themselves are the ones that come to predominate. There are a number of factors that determine how successfully a meme can propagate. The transmission channel is the most important, and the parent to child transmission channel is the most effective one. A second critical factor is, of course, how a population fares when it supports a given meme. If a meme makes a population's principles vulnerable to displacement by the memes of related populations, its system of memes are displaced. If a meme interferes with its own transmission channels, its propagation will be inhibited. If a meme promotes the shrinking of its population, it will be displaced. All of these, or course, are characteristic of most varieties of modern western feminism. These are some of the reasons that the state is the primary vehicle by which feminism advances itself.

Primate brain volume is highly correlated with the size of the social groups formed by a given primate species. Plotting social group size vs. brain volume for primates and extrapolating to the brain volume of human primates indicates that humans will instinctively tend to form social groups of 150. That's a tribe... or a village.

Fortunately, we have evolved to the point where DNA driven instinct, and in fact DNA driven evolution itself, is obsolete. What we know and what we believe now determines our ability to advance culturally and as a species.

It just so happens that every culture that has ever advanced significantly has done so by defining mating and family structure memes that have overridden the behavioral patterns provided in our DNA. We have not evolved genetically in a significant way in the last 30,000 years. We didn’t advance much between 30,000 BC and 10,000 BC, although we were just a smart then. That’s a long time to not get anywhere. But the social structure, based on principles and ideals that emerged around 5,000 BC led to an explosion in human advancement.

If you’re going to have a society where men can teach men how to be HUMAN men, not just creatures of instinct, you need a social order where fathers teach their sons how to be men. This is obvious when you look at human history and the current sociological realities. The statistics on various forms of crime, substance abuse, domestic violence, academic performance, suicide and achievement all support this. If you’re going to have a society where fathers stay in children’s lives, you need a society where fathers stay in mother’s lives. That doesn’t tend to happen when there isn’t a monogamous bond between the mother and the father.

So, what happens to a man when he’s bound to deny his instincts and remain faithful to his partner? Well, this is a pretty good deal for the two thirds of men who wouldn’t be mating at all by the DNA driven instinctive paradigm. So, this loser may want other women too, but instinctively, he wants and values his partner. If you think about it, it’s pretty much the same story for the most dominant men as well.

Now, what happens to a woman when she’s bound to deny her instincts and remain faithful to her partner? If she’s an average woman with a partner who’s an average man, her instincts are telling her that she shouldn’t be with him. She should be mating with a man who’s 70 percentile or above. In fact, the least among women should be mating with 70 percentile men. So when she lies down next to him at night… she’s conflicted, at best. There’s lots of tension and discomfort in that, and it doesn’t go away.

So she fakes it and voila, civilization lasts another day. Or her humanity displaces her instinct and she 1. erases herself or 2. discovers herself. Or she gets rid of him and subjects her descendants to odds that they, on average, will not overcome.

It’s not pretty, is it? But seeing it for what it is makes it easier to make the right decisions and live them out.

So ladies, if you’re going to destroy the enslaving institutions of marriage and the family, aren’t you obliged to invent a better alternative first? Not one, supported by lies, that makes you feel good, but one that will stand the test of time. You think you’re smart enough and honest enough to do that? You’ll have to solve the problem of sons.

Well, Amy, You've spent an otherwise enjoyable Sunday bearing the consequences of running your mouth first and thinking second. It couldn't happpen to a more deserving person.

Amy,

I've spent most of the weekend away from the computer. Returning to your site Sunday evening I'm saddened, but not shocked, to see what has been going on.

These horrendous attacks on you and your postings should be a vivid wake-up call to all intelligent, reasonable liberals of just how incredibly hateful, mean, & ugly so many on their side of the political spectrum are. These thugs are an absolute embarrassment both to themselves and to anyone who ever considered themselves to be a compassionate, caring liberal.

If they were attacking your brick & mortar publishing business in this way, you could have them immediately arrested. But the pseudo anonymity the thugs have gives them power unlike they've ever enjoyed in their lives before.

In real life, where there are consequences for such egregious actions, the thugs are a whole lot more careful about what they do & say. But on the "no rules barred" Internet their true colours come to the fore.

So sorry to see this.

G-Man is the vandal too, Amy.

Listen, any time you see a new name, it's probably the vandal. Hell, anytime you see an OLD one, it's probably the vandal.

The Crid post at 855 is the vandal because crid always adds something else after the handle genius.

Ha ha ha finally my parinoa has practical applications in cyber space

Good thing I stopped taking those pils

On the the recently deceased Usenet, which preceded by 10 years or so the t00bz of the intarweb, there was (on the beloved newsgroup alt.folklore.urban at least, and perhaps elsewhere) a cultural norm called "doesnot".

The regulars would smother threads invaded by trolls by posting riveting cookie recipes, grandchild visit reports, &c &c &c.

Lovelysoul's "let's post boring" comment reminded me of this delightful custom. Not that there's anything wrong with cookies. Or grandkids.

--
phunctor

But there is something wrong with cookies made from grandkids

I read about some on the left trying "re-create '68", meaning the riots and disorder. Did anyone tell them the democrats lost in '68? I know schools aren't big on history, but that should have gotten covered. I read that certain left-wing sites have to close comments when someone on the right dies, so they won't be filled up with vile comments from people celebrating the death, hoping it was long and painful, etc. I wonder if these people are going to become "poison pills", making Obama and other Democratic candidates so unpalatable that people reject them.

A couple of posts back, I said I was conservative. At one point, I was liberal but then gradually became more conservative for various reasons I won't go into now. But what I find myself thinking is that even if my positions change, I would have great difficulty supporting any left-wing candidates. I wouldn't want to be associated with these people.

In what way is this type of behavior helpful to the "progressive" cause? No one with any self-respect or heart is going to be bullied into changing their views because somebody threw a temper tantrum on a website.

On the plus side, these guys are great negative examples. When I'm thinking about an issue, I keep comments like these in mind as what I don't want to do when I argue a position.

Well, Amy, You've spent an otherwise enjoyable Sunday bearing the consequences of running your mouth first and thinking second. It couldn't happpen to a more deserving person.
Edit | Reply Immy Kant Advice Goddess Blog About People With Heads F... 20 minutes ago 128.151.4.147

Here we have a typical commenter -- not surprisingly, from the University of Rochester. Yes, let's have that free exchange of ideas that universities are supposed to be about -- oh, except if you don't have the APPROVED set of ideas, except if you don't think what we think is okay.

As for "bearing the consequences" -- none of you burned down my house or ran over my dog. I sat at the computer eating a gourmet lunch and drinking some lovely wine this afternoon. I have technology for dealing with tiny little thugs, and it's being employed. The worst thing about this for me is learning how naive I've been in pooh-poohing right-wingers when they tell me how the real fascists are on the left. Again, I take people as individuals, but I've learned that there are a whole lot of people who call themselves "progressives" and "liberals" who see speech they disagree with not as a reason to speak out themselves, but as a reason to work very hard to intimidate the person who's spoken from speaking their mind again. I think this is absolutely reprehensible, and if anything, you've made me resolve I won't be bullied by thugs.

Furthermore, let me say most emphatically, I didn't "run my mouth first and think second." I meant every word I said. And I've come to that thinking over years of reading about the value of fathers and problems in the black community.

The sad thing is, my anger at the way teen motherhood in any community, but especially the black community is just "yeah whatever-ed" comes from a sense of what's possible for all people, and frustration that a lack of values is leading to children being born into poverty and raised to continue the cycle, just because the Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's of the world, and ordinary people, too, are too smart to do what I've done: say, "Hey, this is wrong."

I mean, look at the tiny little thugs waiting to "punish" people who say such things, instead of keeping silent on the assumption that it's wonderful for a child to be one of six daddyless children born to a woman by age 26, who keeps company with a drug dealer.

What kind of person doesn't speak out against this sort of thing. Again a quote from Rabbi Hillel:

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am for myself alone, what am I?
If not now, when?

Who's for those children now, the disappeared drug dealers who created them when they failed to use birth control?

And again, how do you think six children born to a single unwed mother get to the dentist?

Did they all fall asleep? Or did youfinally get thru to them?

Hang in there lady, the people at Sadly No are nothing but foul mouthed halfwits with the integrity of Bill Clinton and the intellect of Dan Quayle. Weak little people whose self–esteem depends not, as they and other left wing thugs would no doubt claim, on doing the right thing by other human beings but rather in holding on to archaic and unfounded beliefs. I thought some of the feminists we get at Glenn’s site were immature but these people behave like drunken five year olds. They re-wrote the name “Glenn Sacks” to read "Glenn’s Sac"!! I couldn’t believe it- the last time I heard that kind of thing I was still in high school.

P.s I think you should apologize to lettuce for comparing it to the Quasi-Fascist Neanderthals at Sadly No

Did they all fall asleep? Or did youfinally get thru to them?

I'm a nerd and my boyfriend's a nerd AND a computer nerd. Let's just say the losers are being dealt with.

I have to tell you how much respect I have for Glenn Sacks, who surely knew he would be attacked, but posted about this anyway.

How did I meet Glenn Sacks? I did a blog post about how silly and grandstand'y I though a campaign of his was. Did he send over the troops to try to fuck up my blog? No, he had me on his radio show and we debated each other on the issue.

Plenty of people here disagree with me and kick my ass in the comments all the time. I love that. It makes me a better thinker and debater and makes me consider stuff I wouldn't otherwise. I read Dalrymple, for example, because Crid talked about him for years and because Jeff recommended the book. I can't seem to move Crid off his nitwitty position on gay marriage, and he thinks I'm an idiot for being against the Iraq war. Totally fine and great, if sometimes infuriating. This ideas, held by civilized people, make for civilized debate. Something that seems a very un-"progressive" practice.

"..my boyfriend's a nerd AND a computer nerd"

what do you mean? Just wondering.

Special skills in the computer area that I don't have. I just wanted to give him props for his elevated skills in that department. All I do around here is put up the posts that anger the tiny little fascists.

I see.

Check out Steve Moxon's new book, "The Woman Racket". Great stuff.

> 128.151.4.147
> Here we have a typical commenter --
> not surprisingly, from the
> University of Rochester.

No. This is not a squadron of assholes... That would be fun. Your vandal is one guy.

One very lonely, socially incompetent guy-- who's learned how to put fake IP addresses onto his comments using TOR (and maybe other tools). One minute he's from Europe, then Rochester, than he's from Utah, then he's from southern Florida. Amy, you can't trust your software to depict the source of these comments. Blocking is pointless.

Every few minutes he pretends to be someone else and says something almost normal, and everyone (including Amy, and including me) presumes that he's for real and responds accordingly. We're being conned.

You know I love this blog, and I've been watching the traffic here for years. Literally. New voices don't just appear out of nowhere... Especially on a typically trivial topic, at the end of unreadably dense message stacks, late on weekend nights with beautiful summer weather across the United States.

(Florida excepted.)

How to recognize the vandal:

1. New commenter name.

2. If it's an old commenter name, unfamiliar perspective.

3. Very brief comment, never more than middle intelligence. Often bitter and sarcastic.

4. Never any mention of family, romance, friends, coworkers, travel or any other life experience that nourished his opinions.

5. If it's longer than a sentence or two, there will be no evidence that he's ever given the matter under discussion any thought, or spoken with anyone about it before. He's not a persuasive guy, he's not a sociable guy, and he's not a political thinker. He can't convincingly pretend to believe things he doesn't if you read him skeptically.

6. If it's complete gibberish, it's him. He's that bored with the rest of his life... He'll cut and paste for the hell of it.

(7. He's never kissed a girl. Again, his life is not about other people.)

I hate to say this Amy, because I was happy to see you get all that traffic last week. (I didn't actually read all those messages, but it was fun to think you'd collected a new bunch of readers.)

But I think what you got here is one guy with mild psychosis.

And it really pains me to say this, but the problem isn't liberals or progressives, or even assholes from a blog in Great Britain. The most fun he's had is calling us "a pathetic bunch of losers." This isn't about politics.

(Really, if a bunch of Euroweenies came over and started making comments, it would be wonderful! Tressider, bless her pointed little head, has provided many hours and thousands of words worth of amusement and fish-in-a-barrel sportsmanship. On the day she hangs up her keyboard, I'm going to send flowers, like Magic Johnson did for Larry Bird.)

We should be so lucky. Your vandal is a single, troubled, not-terribly-sharp individual.

For example, MichaelClaymore (11pm) is probably him. Has such a person ever commented here before, even with a "hang in there"?

Crid,

MichaelClaymore is a legit guy..I know him from GlennSacks.com (unless it's someone else using his name).

Are YOU a legit guy? Who won the World Series in 1968? Speak up, comrade!

Jimi Hendrix?

WRONG!!!!

You're HIM!!

Tragically, I can't even play air guitar.

You could if you'd only make time for practice

Was it the Washington Senators, or the Cleveland Indians?

PC fascist conversation:

"What are you thinking right now, comrade?"

"I am thinking the same thing you are, comrade."

"Then it is my duty to arrest you."

I was raised by a single mom, but that doesn't make her points any less valid.

It's statistically based. Just because I made out ok, doesn't mean I didn't have the odds against me. My two brothers didn't fair so well, thats for sure.

"As far as having the best shot in the world, we have a presidential candidate who is a graduate of harvard and a senator who was raised by a single mother. So I'm not sure that your statement of fact is really all that true."

So comments like this don't make much sense to me. So he turned out ok. He beat the odds.

He beat the odds because his mother wasn't consorting with drug dealers.

Oh, and there was that little bit about his grandmother - who raised him.

As I said - nobody can do it alone. Doe, I'd bet real money that your mother had plenty of help from her family when you were growing up.

Thanks Amy,

And note how spell checkers know the words misogyny, but not misandry, misogynous, but not misandrous.

Those who think misogyny is bad, but who are oblivious to misandry are in for an awakening cuz we men (and some women) are tired of the mean spirited psuedo-intellectual crap that comes out of university research centers.

Man-hating (misandry) was fun for a while and quite popular in feminist circles and popular culture.

Patriarchy has its negatives and so does matriarchy (see, I said it, matriarchy has flaws, now you can attack me unmercifully, but expect that I will attack back).

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (Hardcover, 2001)
Author: Katherine K. Young, Paul Nathanson

http://product.half.ebay.com/_W0QQprZ2242088QQtgZinfo

"Misogyny is an attitude that nobody in his or her right mind would seek to defend, and popular culture takes a misogynist stance at its own peril.

Not so, misandry. It is perfectly acceptable -- indeed, common -- to portray men in misandric terms as violent, vulgar, insensitive boors, argue Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young in their provocative new book, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (McGill-Queen's University Press)."

And do not forget to read how the legal system has turned against men in the matriarchal world in which we live......

same authors as above....

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men

http://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Systemic-Discrimination-Against/dp/0773528628

"One sure sign of danger at any time and in any place is a segment of the population that society considers unworthy of attention. No wonder more boys than girls face the future with apathy and drop out of school. Worse, far more young men than young women are committing suicide. Ditto for old men and old women.

Males are not faring well at all in a society that is now focused explicitly on the needs and problems of females and is often hostile to the very possibility that males might have any distinct needs and problems of their own. Rapid social change and depression have been listed as causes of these problems, but the question is why these factors affect men, especially young men, much more than they do women."

Twould be nice if we heard the feminists who claim to be about EQUALITY to be equally concerned about discrimination against men......

Amy,
Nice story and I agree as do most logical people. The problem here with your detractors is not that you wrote an article on the womans choices but that you held her accountable for them. Thats a major taboo in the world of Fascist Feminism.

Too many times women/mothers are NOT held to the same standard. A single mother will be asked her childs name while a single father will almost always have the first question out the gate "what happened to the childs mother?" by way of say he is not good enough to raise the child on his own.

Another piece that your bountiful amount of hecklers will never admit is why the woman is a single mother in the first place. To them of course it is always the mans fault. He obviously did something that caused "Sainted mom" to decide he wasnt the one. Never mind that it could very well have been her that caused the situation. Society just wants a fall guy and the father fits the bill most of the time.

I have never subscribed to the children dont need fathers theory that NOW and other groups push as a way of marginalizing fathers roles. One earlier comment was using the example of Barrack Obama as an example of someone who was raised by a single mother. If anyone has taken the time to listen to the ideas he putting forward its socialism pure and simple. Wealth redistribution was tried before twice, Once in Nazi Germany and again in Soviet Russia, and we all know how that turned out. Im not saying Obama is a nazi or a communist but the lack of a father figure in his life has made him what he is today. A very dangerous liberal who if elected would put this country back in the same condition we found ourselves after Jimmy Carters administration.

You keep preaching it Amy and the rest of us will keep reading and supporting it.

And as a closing note I challenge anyone who thinks you are being prejudical about deleting posts to take a stroll over to violet socks website or some of the other feminazi hate sites. Unless you agreee fully with the author your posts will not be used. They dont want to debate they want to indoctrinate.

I think a lot of of the problem with idealizing the role of single-motherhood comes from the notion that women have the right to have babies no matter what, as if children were some vital step in the pursuit of happiness rather than real human beings with real needs and wants.

In some cases, the best thing you can do for your children is not to have them, or to give them up for adoption. My birth mother tried to pull her shit together for two years while I was in foster care, then realized it was beyond her and put me up for adoption so I'd have a chance at a good life. Then she proceeded to not get herself knocked up again, which is why I could respect her when I met her 26 years later. I had the choice to have a child with my ex-husband, but I had no business bringing a child into that screwed up situation. I am 30 now and in a relationship that has the potential to lead to marriage and kids. If it doesn't, I may experience some regret, but I will never have the regret of bringing a human being that I can't care for into the world.

Certainly, shit happens. Marriages fail because of abuse and drugs, people die, etc. But in Wilson's case, and in too many cases, it's about the choice to put your kids in a difficult position because you're too selfish to look past your own needs.

These "progressives" are the ones who love to worship the evolutionary process only to debunk it without even knowing. The polititians know it, they know why and they know how.

Amy, thank you for being a woman.

Actually, My mom didn't have help when i was really young, but interesting enough life got a pile better when my step father got involved. We moved to the country and her losing control happened much less ( maybe a few times in 10 years in fact) compared to weekly).

So that may be exactly why I didn't go nuts like the older ones who couldn't benefiet from my step father stabalizing her.

sotry about my poor spelling. I am fairly poor at it anyway, and i don't have time to do spell checking at work.

First off, big props to Amy for having the courage to stand up to the thought police. Keep doing it!! We need more women like you!!

Here’s the reality. Real men could care less about what femi-fascists think. You want to have babies on your own? Good, you pay for them. We’re going to be over here in reality land. You can have a nice patch of land somewhere to wave your little red books around in. Good luck with your social engineering experiments. The rest of us will be busy in work.

Gender feminists like to play the “It’s our choice, your responsibility game.” Well, here’s my answer: a single mother should get welfare for ONE kid; after that, she’s cut off. NOT MY KIDS, NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY. Get it?!! Sink or swim. It’s the American way.

Gender feminists do nothing but alienate men, but when the bills arrive, these women come holding their hands out. Tell you what, come April 14th, I’m going to calculate the amount of my tax dollars that go toward women’s programs, deduct that from my checks to the state and the IRS, and let women pay their own way. You wanted equality? You got it. You’ve come a long way baby. Now cough it up.

It’s a shame, really. I grew up with the ideals of equity feminism. I’ve known a lot of strong older women in my life. But the gender feminists (and most women, at that) are losing us. When we walk away, you’re all going to felel it. And it’s going to hurt. This is a warning.

A single mother will be asked her childs name while a single father will almost always have the first question out the gate "what happened to the childs mother?" by way of say he is not good enough to raise the child on his own.

I think you're hearing what you want to hear. As someone who's been a single mother for 8 years, I can tell you I still get asked "where's the dad?" all the time. Just yesterday in fact. The only difference is that I don't take the question as a challenge to my fitness as a parent. I have no doubts whatsoever that my children are much better off with just me than they were when my ex and I were married.

Now, let me back-track a bit and say that I completely agree with the position that a child is much better off with two parents that love and support them. No question at all. I wish my kids' father would try to be there for them. What I disagree with is the idea that all the single mothers out there are driving the dads to be bad parents. No one is forcing you out of your child's life but you. You can place the blame on the moms or the courts, but at the end of the day, you have to start taking responsiblity for your own actions. You're certainly quick to say that women like Ms. Wilson should have taken more responsiblity for their choices and how their kids are raised, but when it's your life and your own children it's suddenly everyone else's fault that you can't be good dad. You don't have to live in the same house as a child to be a parent (I have a good friend who sees his son more now than he did when they lived together), it just takes work.

Most likely, Tarika Wilson had children because she could get public assistance. It's common sense: 26 yr olds don't normally have 6 kids. What happens in these cases, as I've seen with my two black male employees, is that the mom will collect welfare and the fathers will also give her money under the table. It is common system now - not just in black communities, but in white ones as well.

So, if you take that statistically, it will make ALL single mom situations look dangerous, but what is actually dangerous is women choosing to have children purely for monetary survival. Of course, their daughters will become promiscuous! Of course, their sons will become violent or suicidal! This creates ALL sorts of social problems.

Yet, those statistics aren't so applicable to single moms in higher socioeonomic levels. Not that single motherhood is ideal, but it's wrong to suggest that it is dangerous and doomed to failure when it isn't.

Barack Obama didn't "beat the odds." He was born to a loving mother, who raised him until he was in high school, when the decision was made for him to stay with his also loving grandparents to finish school, while she moved overseas. From the moment he was born, he always had a LOVING family, whatever the makeup was, and the odds are good that a loving family background will produce stable and productive kids.

The odds are against those whose mothers have them, not because of some deep, maternal need to love and nurture a child, but as a COMMODITY for financial survival. That is what is going wrong here. That is what is truly putting kids like Tarika Wilson's at risk.

It's like these statistics someone quoted on HPV - 55% of girls graduate from high school with HPV?

I saw a gynecologist on TV who was very against this HPV vaccine being administered to every young girl in America. She said that what was happening was that there was a big problem with HPV among poor, black girls, and this skewed the statistics, which the drug companies capitalize on to instill fear in every parent, when, in fact, the odds of most 13 yr old girls getting HPV are quite low.

Amy,

YOU ROCK! I just came from Glenn's site where he posted a link to this forum. It has been awhile since i posted. Just wanted to say that after reading through the posts, some of these folks have no idea what they are talking about. I am a single dad, via the court system that awarded me custody from my relocating ex. There is no way I can raise this child without help. I don't believe that any single woman, by choice or not, can raise any child on their own. They can talk about being "independent" all they want, but if they say they are doing it all on their own they are lying! And I don't get any child support from my deadbeat ex, but if I was, I could not call myself "independent".

Believe me, if I could have it any other way I would have my child's mom still here, as I believe it takes both parents (mom and dad) to raise a child. But, sadly, she tried to use the mom-friendly court system and it backfired on her, so now my childs mom is 1,500 miles away.

Women who are so irresponsible as to have 6 kids, from so many different (drug-dealing)males should have their rights as parents taken away. The kids should be given to foster families which have both a mom and a dad.

Parenting should not be a right. It should be a privilege.

sotry about my poor spelling. I am fairly poor at it anyway, and i don't have time to do spell checking at work.

lovelysoul, I hear what you're saying about the quality of parenting. I did grow up with both parents living in my household, but we were like roommates in many ways. Ironically, I think if either of them had had the balls to divorce, all three of us would have been a LOT happier. For them, they lost that part of their lives. For me, I lost my childhood. On the positive side, I did learn to rely on myself, because I learned I could not depend on others. I bought my own clothes and personal items from the time I started babysitting at 14. I've never been rich but I've always supported myself and been able to do what was important to me. I don't believe in blaming others or awaiting a handout that never comes; it was clear to me from early childhood that if I wanted anything good in my life, I had to create it myself--no matter how hard that was, no matter if I often failed.

Aargh! I'm trying to be respectful and read everyone's opinion (hopefully I'll be abel to catch up all that reading later) but there's just too many so let me cut to the chase.

While this diaper to dorm is one area in which Amy and I do disagree (I say one does not have a crystal ball to tell what the next 18 years may bring so one cannot know for sure what they will do), I must defend her yet again.

She has never -- not once -- disparaged me for being a single mom. Perhaps, in part, because I have been quite open with my personal history. He was violent, I was naive when I married him, and had no way of knowing he was a pedophile (or pedophile to be, don't know if our daughter was his first victim or not). She has said that it of course does not apply to this kind of extremity, that then protecting your child (as I did) becomes the priority.

That said, would that he and I had only split up because things got boring. I wish. In my wildest dreams. In fact, if that had been the extent of it, I venture to say (no, of course, I can't be 100% sure since that's not what happened) we'd still be together. I can't comprehend marrying and having a child together then breaking up because life has become drudgery (i.e., work, involving a little effort for someone else's sake).

I remember when my daughter was around 10 watching some news magazine where people were very vicious because they're exes were gay and screaming at the TV I wish that was my biggest problem.

So stop acting like Amy condemns every single parent just because she thinks single parenthood is something to be avoided. So do I, for the record. It can't always be but it is not the ideal. A child going blind or being crippled can't always be avoided either but it is not the ideal.

Of course, one reason my daughter's still alive is probably because I protected her from her father. You might have a point if Amy insisted I should have stayed with him regardless but when she heard the history, she -- and many commenters that agreed with her stance -- stated that in extreme cases like that, of course, physical safety takes precedence. In fact, I think that's when they really got me. When I took offense and they said no one's saying stay married under those kind of circumstances. I'd long since grown used to conservatives who did say just that.

I guess this is the case now with the bunch of you who want to spam this board. No matter what opinion Amy states it's always going to be twisted into some extreme.

Oh, and David J, I did get as far your post and I absolutely agree. There is nothing "empowering" about being a single parent. It is, in fact, quite crippling.

(This grandmother dodges as the arrows start coming her way for speaking the truth.)

Metalman, I'm a woman and I (sort of) agree with you. I know a TON of women who fit the "our choice, your responsibility" scenario, but not all of them consider themselves feminist. What I agree with is that too few women are truly financially independent, whether married or not. Someone I know quit her job the minute she got engaged and has been a stay-at-home mom ever since. She rides her husband's ass to make more money, while she buys designer clothes for herself and the kid. She'd never call herself a feminist or get her beautifully manicured fingernails dirty. But the kicker? her hubby idolizes her and puts up with all her mistreatment. He's not the only man I know in this situation. So, Metalman, yeah, some women totally suck, but men put up with it. In the same way some men totally suck and women put up with it.

Lord I hope this is my last comment--I really need to get to work! I think Amy realizes that sometimes people END UP as single parents; I think she's speaking to women who, consciously or un, become single mothers with no father on the horizon. To me, it doesn't matter if the parents are married or not as long as both are positively involved in the child's life. I chose not to have children on purpose because I knew I didn't have it in me to give a child all it needs to be raised the way a child deserves to be raised. So it's true I neither know what this damned biological clock is supposed to be nor understand the real yearning many women feel for a baby. But I do know that many women crave just that--a BAYBEE--which is not the same as craving to raise a happy, productive human being. And in that sense, bringing a child into the world just because you want a BAYBEE isn't the best of choices. (I don't want to imply that no one should have kids, or that raising kids isn't the hardest thing anyone could do. I respect and appreciate parents who actually had kids with the intent of raising them. I admire my bil and sil, both of whom sacrificed for their kids, raised them with values, and were active in and supported their interests.)

Thanks, MonicaP. I'm sorry that your childhood was so tough, but you sound like you have your act together now. There's certainly no guarantee that just because parents stay together they will be good parents.

One of the most important lessons a parent can teach a child is how to have a positive outlook, a sense of joy in living, and that simply can't be taught by a miserable parent, whether it's the mom or dad, or both.

I am adopted. My birth mom gave me up when she was 21. She was poor, unmarried and already had a child. In those days, there was little welfare and still a lot of shame over having children out of wedlock, which I realize is Amy's point.

Yet, I disagree with her that Jackson or Sharpton, or any of those guys can say enough to shift the tide backward. To me, it seems those particular black leaders don't have the power to influence NEW ideas - they simply play to their audience. And their audience has lost a sense of shame over living on the dole or having children out of wedlock - the same as much of our white population has.

I mean, we could send Jerry Falwell into poor white communities, where they are also selling and doing drugs and having illegitimate kids, to tell them how "shameful" their behavior is, but would they really listen? Would it really initiate major change? I'm doubtful.

What would initiate change is to eliminate the welfare incentives. And that wouldn't be making it racial because both blacks and whites are abusing the system the same way.

Hi lovelysoul, it was me, MonicaM, not MonicaP who fessed up to her sad two-parent upbringing. (Gosh, I hope MonicaP had a better experience!). You are 100% dead on when you say "One of the most important lessons a parent can teach a child is how to have a positive outlook, a sense of joy in living, and that simply can't be taught by a miserable parent, whether it's the mom or dad, or both."

I hope you got that from your parents, and that you had a positive childhood.

I've struggled my whole life to see the positive side of things. My independent nature is a positive result of my upbringing, but I still struggle to trust people, believe in people, feel part of a group (to feel as an insider, not an outsider), and believe things will turn out right.

My dad died before we could ever have any real conversations (mind you I was in my 30s) and my mom thinks she did a great job as a mom, which I don't have the heart to dissuade her from.

I certainly don't blame either of my parents--if they COULD have done better based on their own life experience, I have to believe they WOULD have, but at the same time, I still live with the results years later. On the positive side, I'm really beginning to see where some of my traits stem from and I've always tried hard to get on with things and be more positive, because, no, those things do not come naturally to me.

MetalMan

" you have to start taking responsiblity for your own actions. You're certainly quick to say that women like Ms. Wilson should have taken more responsiblity for their choices and how their kids are raised, but when it's your life and your own children it's suddenly everyone else's fault that you can't be good dad."

I think this is a bit harsh. Many of us have to litterally fight to stay in our childrens lives due to very hostile x spouces. It is incredibly easy to push someone out of a childs life if many cases.

"If I ad my way, both male and female birth control would be added to the food and water supply.

And the only way to qualify for the antidote would be a six month course, paid for by the parents, of psycholigial tests, nutrition classes, basic first aid and child psychology classes.

ANd the only way to qualify to even take the cousre whould be to prove you had been in a relationship for a minimum of three year."

Best suggestion here to date, lujlp!

Ooops, Sorry MonicaP. Didn't mean to disparage your childhood. lol

MonicaM, it's good that you realize how your views were shaped. Actually, I think passing along a positive outlook is probably THE most important duty a parent has (beyond safety and sustenance, of course).

My adoptive parents are great people, but I really credit my mom for imparting that positive outlook. She was a teacher, who believed every child had unique gifts and possessed a remarkable ability to bring them out, even in kids that others had given up on. Her love of children was obvious, and she was (still is) a happy person with a great sense of humor.

My dad, on the other hand, has a very pessimistic, cynical, distrustful outlook. He's an extremely smart man, who I think never felt he lived up to his true potential, so it was kind of a "downer" being around him. Naturally, I love him, and I know he loved me. He's a good man, but I'm not sure his influence on me was entirely positive.

So, it's not that I think children are necessarily better off in single parent homes. My view is that whenever you have an unhappy parent, whether it is a mother or father, the children can suffer ill effects, and it might, in fact, be emotionally better for them not to be around that parent as often.

Of course, that isn't so easy in this climate of joint-custody. I can't often recommend that a child not go to the parent that "seems depressed" or has a "poor attitude". It's not usually a legitimate reason, unless it's clinical.

But I would urge any parent out there to remember to model that positive, happy behavior. It's the most critical thing you can teach because, without it, what is the point of everything else? You can teach values, discipline, work ethic, and so forth, but if you don't show them how to experience joy in living, you haven't given them the tools they need to live a fulfilling life.

So, try to be happy and positive, especially around your kids. It's really a concern when I read some of these bitter posts and think that many of these people probably have kids. If they think they hide their cyncial, spiteful attitude from their kids, they are wrong. Kids are automatic bullshit detectors. They know your truth.

So, if who you are isn't who you'd like your kids to be someday, then you need to change your attitude. Otherwise, you may end up raising one of these miserable trolls that are harrassing Amy. :)

"Read any of the news articles about this case, and you'll also find numerous quotes that praise her as a great single mother who never did drugs and didn't allow drugs to be sold from her home."

See, HR, that's what I'm not buying. That she was a great single mom. Great single moms do look out for their kids. They put the child before the man (or men, in her case). Most single moms have to worry about keeping the aspirin out of their children's reach (and use a childproof container and set it up high to do so), not the crack!

Also, I don't for one freaking second believe she didn't do drugs. Everyone seems to believe this just because her mommy didn't know she did. Her mommy's a raging idjit, frankly. Darling daughters who dislike drugs also dislike dope dealers. Plain and simple.

Bullshit. And I call bullshit on bullshit.

No, she didn't deserve to die. But she definitely didn't do anything to preserve life and limb. Worse, she didn't do anything to safeguard her children's lives. That -- in my book -- is not even a good mom, let alone a great mom.

Amy, woman-to-woman, I totally agree with you. Having been raised by a single mother myself, I would never wish that upon any child. To me, a woman raising a kid without a without an involved man around is as "liberating" as an office smuck doing the the work of 2+ people on one paycheck. Like it or not, women are the sexual gatekeepers as far as setting the standards for men in relationships. Women who have low standards for men let the bad ones off the hook, while the good men get no action - and must suffer with the "bad man/woman victim" culture we live in. I'm so glad you talk about personal responsibility for both sexes in your column. Keep up the good work!

Well, it's great if he's an "involved" father, but just to have a man there so you're not a single mom is silly.

My sister is weighing this right now. She is 32, married, and desperately wants a child. Her husband is 40 and has a teenage child from a previous marriage. He is a nice guy, but pretty lazy - likes to lay on the couch and watch Nascar. Never wants to do anything new or different. When the son comes over, it is my sister who interacts with him - doing projects and fun stuff. He doesn't throw a ball or do any activities with his son.

They've had fertility problems and are looking at going through a lot of expense and inconvenience to have a child. So, when she was visiting me recently, I asked, "Who is really going to do all the work? You will. I know you badly want a child, but do you really want to have one with this guy?"

Maybe I shouldn't have advised this, but I told her she was young enough to dump him and find a truly acceptable co-parent. To me, it's the fairest thing to do for her future children.

Yet, if she hadn't seen how he is with his first child, she wouldn't know what kind of dad he'd be. Lots of times we don't find out until afterwards that one parent isn't going to be an active participant. In those cases, I don't see much benefit for the child - it's almost like the parent is "neutral."

Thanks Amy Alkon for supporting the importance of fathers - not as piggy banks for meal-ticket moms - but as parents to their children. Certainly there are some bad dads, but there are also some bad moms out there who only keep the kids from their dads to get a pay check for themselves.

That's OK, lovelysoul. My childhood was crazy in its own way, but for reasons that have nothing to do with this. :)

Despite my adoptive family's issues, I was much better off in a two-parent family that was ready, emotionally and financially, to raise me than I would have been raised by a single mom with a drug problem. My B-mom had wanted to keep me but knew she didn't have the means, and adoption was the most selfless choice she could have made. She never raised me, but that's what I call a good mother.

In my opinion I think it is awful what fathers are put through when it comes to exercising their rights as a parent. However, I think there has been a greater oversight when it comes to the children.

Children of course do not want their parents to separate, but as with many things in a child's life, it is in their parent's hands. But all too often in divorce/separation, the children are lost site of completely as the two so-called adults fight their battles, which at some point always ends up being a fight over "control" of the children. At that point it is simply children stuck fighting between two bigger children!

Personally I think parents need to ignore their own selfish wants and needs, forget their personal vendettas, and learn to get along for the child's sake because they didn't make just a commitment to one another, they made a commitment to that child.

In the end, it takes two to bring them into this world, and it takes two to get them through it, period!

T's Grammy:

Thanks. A point I should have made before is that it is not only gender feminists (as opposed to equity feminists) who play the "Our rights, your responsibilities" game. In fact, the majority of women in America DO NOT consider themselves card-carrying feminists at all, but fall somewhere between traditional and progressive. But feminist ideas and mores (at least the less arcane ones) do filter down into the general population, where everyone picks them up. One does not have to be a feminist to play the “My rights, your responsibilities” game. Even a right-wing Christian homemaker can play it.

I also have to say that, 'Everyone sucks sometimes" is not really an argument. Yeah, I suck sometimes too, but that doesn't mean I should have to pay for nurseries in high schools. My neighbor might suck, but he shouldn't have to write me a check if my business fails. No insult intended, but half-baked moral relativism is not a way to reason. Again, I do not mean to insult, as I think your post was relatively good natured. Indeed, it was worlds better than what I’ve gotten even on sites like USA Today. All the best.

MonicaP:

I don't know who you're quoting, but it isn't me. Nice try.

Re this:

"It is incredibly easy to push someone out of a childs life if many cases."

It sure is, especially if you're a woman. Ask the attorneys, the family courts, women who practice parental alienation, and women who file false DV claims as a strategy during divorce. They'll tell you all about it.

Exactly, Jeanne! It was not exactly liberating to do the work of both parents on half the money!

jhnjmetal: I'm not sure who you think is trying to quote you, but it isn't me. Nice try.

I never said I created the term fucknozzle.

No, I stole it shamelessly from Pud. I'm sure he doesn't mind.

But our punk IS awfully cock-sure for someone who thinks he's anonymous on the internet.

Good on you for talking about the problems of fathers in our society today. Too often nowadays I see too many men villified, alienated, and marginalized. Too often nowadays I see men portrayed as violent abusers, angry maniacs, or as foolish, irresponsible buffoons. When I look at what's left of the American family, I see a family court system that is too often anti-male and anti-father.

Surely feminism has brought our society many benefits, but in the process of establishing this often hateful and dogmatic zero-sum game ideology we've cut a lot of men out of the loop. Looking around at our society today, I can't help but feel that feminism was never really about equality. It was more about more rights for women, and often at men's expense. That's not equality, folks, and that's not how nature intended us to be. Men and women are different. We fulfill different functions and roles. And we are equal!

Instead of cutting men out of the picture and considering us as irrelevant and useless, feminists should have included men in the dialogue. Feminists should have asked us men what we thought about what they were trying to achieve. Sadly, that did not happen. And look at the mess we have today as a result. And to think that many of the folks supporting all the anti-male, anti-father poison in our society call themselves "progressives"!!! What a sad joke!

Feminists out there should be linking up with men's activists and father's rights activists like Glenn Sacks (www.glennsacks.com) and others who are interested in EQUALISM, not feminism/masculinism. Feminists out there should be standing up for men rather than trying to put us down. Men and women are here to complement each other. That's the way it's gotta be, folks. To do otherwise is to upset the natural balance of things.

Just something for all you folks to think about.

THE EQUALIST HAS SPOKEN.

Hi Amy,

Havn't read the comments yet but this is unbelievable! Getting all enraged and flaming your site while the piece about the girl being burned to death by her father only gets 2 comments. I'm more pissed at peoples willful blindness and irrational blind faith (Sadly No wants us to come here so we must) than anything. Thanks for banning those asshats.

It's obvious from this dialog that modern day feminism has nothing to do with equality or woman's rights, and sadly is most adverse to the rights of children, even though that is often their battle cry. No, instead it's about building a power base for a political agenda that works to the detriment of men, women, and worst of all children, and serves to help only the select few that orchestrate this travesty, not even benefiting the ranks of mindless automatons who refuse to think for themselves and regurgitate the same party response regardless of the circumstances.

Their agenda is to feel that theyre building themselves up by tearing others down (men, fathers, family, even flaming and spamming this blog) which just goes to show the level of their self-esteem. What they refuse to acknowledge is that most woman (the truly smart, independant, self-assured woman) don't want this radical fringe representing them. In fact many of those that were part of this movement early on, and once proud to be called feminists, are now ashamed to be associated with that label.

As such, I beleive their is a backlash growing as the majority of reasonable women are tired of having their men, children, and family values stepped on, all in their name. Additionally, many of the women who are being deprived of a family because men won't commit due to the unfair laws levied agaist them (just look at the recent decline of marriage and how it's due to a new generation of men, who saw these laws destroy their fathers and families and are vowing not to let it happen to them) will also rise up and show themselves to be the true majority, crushing the so called feminists and allowing the true seeds of feminism to flourish once again.

The tide is turning ladies, and all the dirty tricks in the world won't silence it.

I'm curious as to the preoccupation by Amy with the 6 young orphan children going to the dentist? I will be the first to let you in on a little secret; no one in the ghetto gets to go to the dentist until the tooth falls out or hurts so bad that you might miss work.

"Do you think those children got to go to the dentist?"

"Had they done so, this woman might've developed herself and a career and met a nice man and married him and had one or two children, and taken them to the dentist,"

"And again, how do you think six children born to a single unwed mother get to the dentist?"

I know several white women with "litters" of children who date white drug dealers, funny how SWAT or the DEA never bust up into their houses shooting anything that moves. Why is that? Sure, it's the drugs, not the color of the skin that matters, sure it is.

I love how right-wingers who claim to not be right-wing always call out progressives and the left as "fascist". Jonah "Cheetos" Goldberg would be so proud of you. As a left-wing member of the political spectrum, which in the rest of the world is considered to be "central right" I want to take power away from the state, not give more power to a police state which in essence is "fascist". The idiots who spammed you may be thugs, may be progressive thugs or liberal thugs, but they can't be liberal fascist thugs just like a white woman who never lived in the ghetto can't have a fucking clue about what she is writing about when she attempt to pass judgement on those who live there.

Wilson I grew up in northern Utah in a quiet mormon suberub which had (I kid you not) a fucking milk man delivering milk door to door until the90's

That being said I reserve the right to pass judgment on anyone who makes such a suerb mess of their live be they man woman or child of any fucking color of the rainbow - if her options were really so limited she could joined the army, gotten a college degree for free and been out of the army for over 4yrs today

Lindsey;

“In fact many of those that were part of this movement early on, and once proud to be called feminists, are now ashamed to be associated with that label.”

Betty Friedan, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Wendy McElroy among them.

Nice comments, and well spoken.

Oh, and this isn't a left/right thing. People in Washington really laugh when they hear that stuff. In fact, both Democrats and Republicans laugh all the way from the same golf courses to the same clubs that they belong to.

There are intellectual fascists on both sides of the fence. The interesting thing is to find out who's signing their paychecks. I WILL tell you that there is nothing that enrages an intellectual fascist more than a person who does their homework and dares to have an INFORMED opinion. Keep at it.

Thankyou for talking about the truth.

Protecting our children from sexual abuse.
==========================================
But now cunning and evil pedophiles have found a safe and easy way to get into the bedrooms of innocent children. Simply romance a single mum and get her kids as a bonus!

We all know that smoking causes cancer, right? Well, smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by only 125%... But there is a cause-and-effect there.

Well, children living in vulnerable single-parent homes have an increased risk of being abused by 23,000% !

Living with mum and 'mummies-new-boyfriend' is the most dangerous type of household for vulnerable kids.

Protect children's human right to be cared for by both their NATURAL PARENTES and you will protect them from sexual abuse. And emotional abuse. And neglect. And child homicide - look into all the stories of kids horribly abused and murdered - almost always the child is living with mum and "mummies-new-boyfriend".

www.Fathers4Families.org.au based on lov

Amy,

As for the minions from the domestic violence industry messing with you and your web site, that is what they do every day. When they leave you they will just be leaving to go harass, bully and abuse someone else in hopes that they can shut them up on speaking the truth like you did. Anti-male lies and hysteria must prevail or their industry and agenda dry up, and they know it's comming.

They just jump from fire to fire to make sure the truth does not leak out, but it is leaking out thanks to journalists like you who have more integrity and ethics that they could ever dream of hoping for - Truth about their abuse activities, abusing men and the women and children they pretend to help.

Truth, that's what hurts them, their agenda and nasty abusive industry the very most. They have intimidated a lot of journalists into not speaking out. And this industry is not just feminists - the men supproting them are even more nasty. Think of the drama queens in high school who tell lies and put on drama to get men to rescue them and beat up the foes they falsely accused. This is just a a much larger scale and involve sacrificing lots of women and children to fuel their anti-father hysteria and lies.

James,

Even with single moms being magnets for bad guys, it is still moms who abuse their kids and murder them significantly more than those boyfriends and step-dads put together, who likewise do abuse and murder those kids significantly more than the kids' natural fathers do.

Meditate on that one, and then ask why we hear the opposite of all this in the media - Men and dads are dangerous, don't trust them...!

Amy's main point (I think) was simple and true - no matter who does what, it's the man's fault - women are getting a free pass to their own detriment, and of course that hurts their children most of all. And who cares the very least about this - those claiming to be protecting and saving women and children from "hoards of bad men..."
The anti-male lies and hysteria are rolling women and children. It can only stop by being address head on, as often as necessary.

Think of it, when a man has an affair, "he is a bastard!" When a woman has an affair, it's still because "he is a bastard!!!" When a man abuses a woman "it is newsworthy and the community rallies against him." When a woman abuses a man "it is not newsworthy and the community rallies against him." No matter who does what, it is always HIS fault. when women abuse men, it is aways "the man's fault."

Multiply this by thousands of double standards.

Hang in there Amy! This devastating social experiment is harming millions of children. We are the first society ever to think that men and dads are expendable. It can not last, the facts on your blog speak for themselves.

Amy, I think you may have a new group of spammers here. These "father-rights" guys keep posting the same types of messages about the supposed "anti-male agenda" over and over, even though it's directly unrelated to anything we've been discussing.

I'm in court a lot, as a guardian-ad-litem, representing children in custody cases, and I just don't see this anti-male bias. To the contrary, judges bend over backwards trying to give shared custody. Where possible, they want both parents to be actively involved in the child's life.

If a father loses contact with his children there's usually a very good reason. I thought it was amusing when one poster said his ex tried to use "the pro-female courts against me and it backfired! I got custody!" Doesn't that disprove the bias?

I wonder how many of these guys have directly been involved in a child-custody case, or are they just using isolated incidents they've read about to claim the courts are "pro-female"?

Well, here's a comment from a non-Conservative, Non-Republican, Single Father of three.

Amy, you are right! That woman was not a "good" mother, nor were the alleged "Fathers" good Fathers. As much as I hate our current Child Protection System, these children should have been in Foster Care years ago.

I have no idea what the tag "Progressives" means and from the comments I've seen, DO NOT WANT TO.

Keep on doing, and saying, what is right, Amy, and know that many others agree.

lovelysoul, I have been involved in a Child Custody case, although my "wife" wasn't the antagonists. I spent over three years defending myself against false accusations, just to be able to be a Father and raise my Children.

Yes, there is anti-male bias out there. Is it in every Court? No. But it is very prevalent in many areas, especially in Child Protection cases. Thank God, it's not in all.

>>I'm in court a lot, as a guardian-ad-litem, representing children in custody cases, and I just don't see this anti-male bias. (lovely soul)

Well, that explains a lot. You might try looking in a mirror.

>>From the moment he was born, he always had a LOVING family, whatever the makeup was, and the odds are good that a loving family background will produce stable and productive kids. (lovely soul)

Clearly, you have no clue as to why fathers make such a big difference, but you get to make important decisions on custody. (And, don't waste your breathe with the usual hogwash that ad-litem guardians have little effect. If that is true, you are committing fraud in your profession, because you are supposed to be there to do just that. In fact, those men who are being tossed to the wolves are forced to pay you exorbitant amounts of money so you can tell the judge, mommy's love will conquer all.)

You keep pratting on about love, and if Mommy has enough love, and if Mommy is a loving parent, she can raise those kids fine.

And, you get to make decisions on most fit parent? Omigod!!!!!!

Well, anyone who can be ad-litem guardian for any length of time and still not have a clue, there is no point in explaining it to you. But, I am going to explain it for others who are capable of learning.

It is Mommy's 'love' that sends the little buggers to the death chamber. How often do we see some vicious criminal on death row, and his mommy is standing outside the prison, talking to the press, stating we just don't understand her son? Sure, we do, that's why we're frying the S@B.

Women give unconditional love. (At least when they are not committing a majority of child abuse.) Little kids need that. They need to know someone loves them, even when they are bad. (Frankly, little kids are seldom that bad; they just haven't learned yet the rules of society.)

But, as kids grow up, they need to learn the rules and mores of society. They need to learn to control their emotions, and that when they do bad things, bad things happen to them.

Moms with their unconditional love can't teach that. We all, except for lovely soul, have seen the mommy with totally undisciplined brats who terrorize the entire neighborhood while she smiles benevolently from her comfortable chair -- if she even bothers to watch them.

Dads, assuming they were raised by a father, give CONDITIONAL LOVE. When the kid does good, he doesn't get punished. When the kid screws up, dad lowers the boom.

That's the way life is for adults. Do a good job; you keep getting paid. Don't break the laws; stay out of jail.

Mommy's love does not teach them that. And, that is why so many kids raised by their loving mommies do all the bad things they do.

Just in case some argumentative soul, ahem, does not get it, let me shout it.

SOCIALIZATION IS NOT CAUSED BY 'LOVE'. IT TAKES A FATHER'S CONDITIONAL LOVE TO SOCIALIZE A YOUNG PERSON.

irlandes, I haven't heard(read) such a bigger load of Bull in over thirty years.

For those that don't want to wade through his rant, here's a short summary: "I hate women".

First of all, I do not get paid to be a guardian ad litem. In FL, it is an all volunteer program. Men can volunteer too, but there seems to be very few who do.

Anyone who is trained as a GAL is expected to be objective - not advance a pro-female or pro-male agenda. I have recommended that fathers get custody of their kids over unfit mothers, just as I have done the reverse.

The fact is there are unfit parents in both genders. These are human beings, who have complex backgrounds, strengths and weaknesses that effect their abilities as a parent. That's how I look at them - as human beings.

It is my task to recommend whatever is in the best interest of the child, and I take that very seriously. It would be wrong for me to attach any gender bias to that - just as it would be for you.

Fortunately, I don't have a gender bias. I really don't. I love seeing the special relationship that a father provides for a child, and I am sorry that some of you have had bad experiences, but if you are truly good fathers, you would be glad to have me assigned to your case.

Keep up the good work Amy.

Free speech is one of the cornerstones of a democracy. You are saying what the majority of society is thinking and saying anyway. What is really interesting is the behaviour of the Oligarchs. They're acting just like good ole wanna be comrades. Crush dissent ... perhaps they should be crushed - were society to find out what they are all about.

Peace and love Sister.

Paddycakes

Thank you for posting this information, we need more people standing up for fathers in this country, and partners that put children first. It's amazing to me, a woman, that this country is so focused on the fact that fathers "are abandoning their children" while turning a blind eye to the very system that kicks the fathers out of their children's lives! Children need BOTH parents, whether they are married or not.

No bull, big shot. Fact. You don't even know what your job is, and you get your kids? Get your head out of your arse, and learn what kids need.

Hey, big shot. Go back and re-read all the comments on this shooting case. NOTE CAREFULLY WITH ALL THE HEAT AND DISCUSSION NO ONE EVER MENTIONED ANY EXPLANATION WHY KIDS DO BETTER WITH THE SECOND PARENT AROUND.

Amy also stated no reason, so it is obvious she also does not know why it is so.

I do know why. And, I took the time to type it in.

A lot of people did back in the 80's. They were all shouted down, just as they are trying to shout Amy down. Even to suggest men serve any unique purpose is enough to generate all this heat 25 years later. So, it is obvious why none of you heard of all the research on what that unique purpose is.

But, just because you are ignorant of the work which was done to identify that unique purpose does not negate the truth.

irlandes, I know exactly what my job is. And my children are grown, now and I am a Grandfather.

My love for my Children IS unconditional, it is not conditional upon their behavior. But, that doesn't mean they get away with anything. I disciplined them WITH love and accepted NO excuses. Still do.

And, I know many Single Mothers that do the same.

I personally have not seen any good father "kicked out of his children's lives". I have seen, as Singledad experienced, false abuse allegations made against fathers, and it is a very grueling and unfair situation for the accused.

Unfortunately, abuse is a hard thing to prove or disprove, as it usually occurs behind closed doors, with only the child and the abuser present. Courts and child advocates have to take those charges seriously, even when we have our own personal suspicions they are unfounded. Lately, in my state, there seems to be quite a backlash against mothers who try to falsely claim abuse in divorce case, as judges have caught on.

But what you all are glossing over is that there ARE many irresponsible fathers effectively abandoning their children. Time and again, I see fathers who do not interact with their children consistently, and do not even bother to show up for visitations or court hearings.

That is not to minimize the importance of good fathers. I am merely reporting what is so often witnessed by those of us involved in child custody cases.

You shouldn't direct your anger at me for reporting what is factual - or having to place children in single-mother homes by default. Get mad at those terrible fathers who are making the rest of you look bad.

With the exception of what I experienced (it was not a divorce) you are correct, lovelysoul. And, I'm in Florida, too, so I know about the GAL program and fully support it.

I also learned why it is inherently un-natural for men to pay child support. And, when I started to explain it to second wives, in some cases, they would interrupt and finish the explanation for me. It's actually very simple once one stops and thinks about it. Most pogroms are that way.

And, Margaret Mead's studies agreed with it. (MALE AND FEMALE.)

But, if you can't even handle the obvious unique purpose fathers serve, there is no point explaining why men inherently and logically hate paying child support, is there?

Lovely soul, it is a shame you are allowed to be ad-litem guardian. They are supposed to be unbiased and fair. You are not. You don't even know what purpose fathers serve, yet you are making recommendations on custody.

The only good part is you get paid what you are worth.

That is a surprise to me. Ad-litem guardians drag down hundreds of millions of dollars a year nation wide from men who want custody. In all my work with divorced men, I never encountered a single case where an ad-litem guardian was appointed, without the man getting a judgment against him for the full charge. I am never too old to learn something new, as surprising as it is.

Note no one, neither Amy or I said it was not at times necessary for kids to be in single parent households. (Even though their chances of prison go up when it happens, no matter how Dorothy closes her eyes and wishes she were in Kansas.) You are making stuff up here. When it becomes national policy to reward women for single parent families, our society goes down.

Also, just what percentage of cases you work with is there no father involved? I suspect you are playing loose with the truth. Ad-litem guardians should not be especially involved with women who get automatic custody because they are the only parent present and they have not been found unfit. So, you are kind of bouncing back and forth between ad-litem guardian helping investigate suitability of two persons as parents, then talking about single moms when there is no custody fight at all. Anyone else notice that?

>>Get mad at those terrible fathers who are making the rest of you look bad.

Actually, no one is making the rest of us look bad. It is people like you who accept the feminist dogma that most men are bad.

Women commit more than 50% of all serious child abuse. Yet, feminists work hard to convince everyone that it is men who are violent, child abusing brutes. And, your comments show you are buying into it. That is, you plainly said we, the rest of us, look bad.

There is no excuse for an ad-litem guardian who believes most men look bad. Your words, not mine. ("Get mad at those terrible fathers who are making the rest of you look bad.")

Amy can tell you I am not in the US. I am in rural Mexico, to get away from man-haters like you who think we men all look bad, while trying to present themselves as being really fair and informed on the issues.

I learned something really important here in Mexico. Not only aren't most men as bad as people like you think they are. But, measured collectively, American women don't even deserve American men. And, millions of foreign women well know it.

Something else I learned over the years. This one will really drive you guys wild. It is the truth.

[My wife is the envy of her whole family for being married to me. There, big shot single dad, did that rip your stitches?]

My wife lived in the US for over 40 years. She learned the usual "never good enough for me" attitude that most American women have. Like most men, I assumed I was just a miserable sinner or she would be happier with me.

Then, one year, she took her usual 2 week vacation to visit her family in Mexico, while I took care of the kids.

When she came back, she was still a bit upset. One day, she was sitting in the kitchen with her sister, drinking coffee. And, as she was used to doing in the US with other women, she started whining about some "horrible" thing I did.

Her sister threw a tantrum so bad they didn't talk for a week of a two-week vacation.

Her sister told her, paraphrased, "You have a lot of nerve complaining about something trivial like that! All your husband does for you, including taking care of the kids while you come visit your family, the nice house you have, the way you live, he gets up on week-ends and cooks for the kids so you can sleep in, he doesn't drink and he's always home nights, and you complain about nonsense like that, with all we women here in Mexico have to live with."

I noted my wife did not tell me what she had said that pissed her sister off.

Three cheers for Amy for telling the truth. Boo hiss to those who with no real knowledge at all tried to trash me out in the same manner.

Hey, Amy, do you sell pin-ups? Just joking, but I saw that photo Gregg took. I thought of Audrey Hepburn when I saw it. It's too small for a desktop, rats! Yeah, the doctor did a great job, hee, hee.

Ya know irlandes if your going to isult a social workers job preformance you should atleast wait until you see more of their posts and do a bit of reading, and not just tear in on your first or second swing.

Another tale to rip your stitches.

When I first started living here, I was well aware the women were doing what I call "deep breathing exercises" over me. I assumed it was the usual gold-digger mentality, trying to get a rich gringo.

I was talking to my best friend. Due to the culture, I say her husband is my best friend, but she is. A brilliant, self-educated 50 year old woman who was pulled out of school before secondary because her dad didn't think women needed education.

She said, "You think these women are interested in you because they think you are rich?"

I said, "Well, of course. Look at me. I'm almost sixty years old, and no one ever called me handsome."

She said, "No, that's not it at all. The women walk by your house in the morning, and they see you washing the clothes by hand for your wife. All the women in the village have been talking about it."

Because of construction, we had moved the lavadero (aka as Mexican Maytag) under the trees and since she had too much work to do anyway, I washed the clothes out there. This is unheard of here in Mexico.

Since then, I had a 14 year old girl fall in love with me, when I was 64. Fortunately, my friend advised me that was not uncommon here, and it would go away if I just ignored it. It did.

And, three months ago, I was asked by a mutual friend if I wanted a 19 or 20 year old women as a mistress. I pretended I did not understand her Spanish as the best way out of it without offending.

In the US, all I hear is insults, of the sort on this thread. ("Get mad at those terrible fathers who are making the rest of you look bad.")

I am the same person here, but suddenly I don't look so bad. The problem isn't the men.

I am only responding to Lovely souls anti-male remarks. They speak for themselves, and need no explanation or expansion. Can't you read? She said: ("Get mad at those terrible fathers who are making the rest of you look bad.") She thinks we look bad.

I'm gone for now. Enough insults for one day from man-haters who want to present themselves as fair and unbiased, and the big shots who defend their anti-male comments.

You guys had a chance to learn why it is inherently doomed to force men to pay child support. I don't see you as much better than those who have attacked Amy for her views that kids do better with two parents.

You also had a chance to learn the unique purpose men serve as fathers. Your loss, not mine.

Thanks, lujlp. He has a lot of misperceptions about me. I am not anti-male.

I just wanted to clarify a point - I work abuse cases, not just custody ones. So, that explains what you think was a descrepancy. In fact, most of my cases are assigned when a child has already been removed from the home.

The GAL program, at least here, is a wonderful, all volunteer program, and as I said, men are welcome and encouraged to participate. The only requirements are a clean criminal record, common sense, and objectivity. I know you cannot fathom that a woman could be fair and objective, but it's true.

I don't accept "feminist dogma" in evaluating whether a child is at risk from either parent, but your abuse statistics don't add up given the cases I see. More women are raising children alone because so many fathers have indeed left the picture, so that would explain those statistics, but they doesn't support what you are implying - that women are more likely to abuse a child than men.

I'm sorry that you are so bitter towards American women. But your obvious bias would be something that would make me view you as a threat to a child's healthy development, just as I would if a mom was expressing such anti-male sentiments. It's hard to be a good parent if you have such anger and resentment towards the child's other parent.

“For example, MichaelClaymore (11pm) is probably him. Has such a person ever commented here before, even with a "hang in there"?”
I find it ironic that someone using an alias is questioning my identity. Hypocrisy amongst the left? Nah, never. Not enough guts to use their real name online? C’mon, could we expect that from a bunch of guys whose dads ran away to Canada during Nam?

As for the logic behind such an accusation, if someone who hasn’t posted before is a likely vandal, then all the foul mouthed fleas leaping over from this guy’s site to Glenn’s must be vandals. The Left Wing- The Political Faction that Logic Forgot

SingleDad:

I'm equally mad at the mothers who force good fathers out of their children's lives as I am at fathers who fly the coop. But why do you have to come down solely on fathers in the end? All people will remember about your post is that last sentence - and that's what kills us. Use your head, dude.

SingleDad:

I realize I directed my last post at the wrong person. I meant to direct that at lovelysoul. Sorry about that. I enjoyed your posts.

lovelysoul:

I've never seen so much argument by assertion as I have in your posts. It's truly amazing.

I didn't "come down" solely on single fathers. I was pointing out that he's attacking the wrong person. I was the one being criticized for no reason. He shows up here and starts accusing me of the worst sorts of bias, even though he doesn't know me or apparently read my posts.

I get so tired of these anti-female rants - accusing us of bias. Then, when we say, "Why don't you take a good look at your own gender before attacking us?" We're labeled even more "anti-male".

The only thing I could possibly write that woud be acceptable is, "Men are perfect. Men are victims of the system. Men are never bad fathers or bad husbands. I wish I was a man."

Apparently, that's the only sort of "argument" you guys want to hear. Otherwise, you malign my character just because I'm a woman.

The thing that's most offensive to me is this: When I'm assigned a case, it is usually pretty obvious who has abused the child. That person is often in jail. And, you know, odds being what they are, it's 50/50 the abuser will be either a man or a woman.

What he is suggesting is that I say to myself, "I don't care if SHE abused her child. She's a woman and I'm going to take her side and give her back her child no matter what."

Can you imagine what sort of monster I would have to be to do that? To put a child at risk? Think about it.

Even though I consider you guys pretty anti-female, I trust that if you were trained as a GAL, you wouldn't give a child back to a male abuser just because he's a man.

You wouldn't be like, "Whooohoo, score one for men!" At least I hope not.

Yet, that is what I am being accussed of, and it is extremely unfair.

Nice job accusing people of anti-female bias and then playing the victim card. That's not an old one. YAWN. It's pretty obvious what your position is. If a person disagrees with you, they're anti-female.

Like Amy says, disagree with me on issues, but don't automatically assume I have a bias just because I'm female. I didn't do that to either of you. In fact, I just said I would assume you have a conscience and would do the right thing and be fair. That's a lot more magnanimous than I've been treated. You seem unable to accept that there are ANY women who have a conscience. Just the fact that we are female makes us biased and evil.

My record here shows that I do not treat men that way. If I had, you could claim I was "anti-male", but I haven't.

lovelysoul: Chew on this.

"Mom Who Starved Daughter Gets Lifetime Probation"

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/17188351/detail.html

Do all mother starve their kids? Of course not. What men are getting sick of is sentencing discounts for women. Any man who intentionally starved his kid would be thrown in jail forever. But if you're a poor, little, helpless woman, you get PROBATION!! Unbelievable!!

It's a constant in this country. Women get considerably lesser sentences for committing the same crimes as men. And many of these women have records that are similar to the males who commit these crimes. Why do women get sentencing discounts? Because they're women.

Mary Winkler, a con artist who murdered her husband in cold blood, got her kids back. What are the odds that a man in her situation would have gotten his kids back? What are the odds that a man would have been let out of jail in the first place? ZERO.

Where are the complaints from feminists? What happened to equality? Oh, wait, that's right. Feminists want the credit column of equality, but not the debit column. No, make that most women, not just feminists.

Woman good, man bad. Got it. Thanks.

You know, the irony is that for most of my life, I've preferred men to women. I am more of a "guy's girl" than a "girl's girl", so in school I was picked on by other girls, and as a young adult - and an attractive blond - I was seen as a threat by other women, so they were catty and mean to me. Most of my close friends have been male throughout my life.

It was only after I became a mom that other women started accepting me. Still, I tend to gravitate towards women who are more "guy's girls" and outsiders like me, rather than the typical collectively-thinking female.

So, if anything, I'm more inclined to be biased against WOMEN since they have usually been my detractors, not men. Yet, there are certain areas where personal bias - and gender wars - have no place, and my role as a GAL is one of them.

The Mary Winkler case is absolutely shocking. I blogged about it. I believe metalman is right. What man would get away with what she did? On deadline, but search Winkler and you'll see. She now has custody of the kids. If anyone should not have custody of children, it is the murderer who left those kids fatherless...apparently, stood over him and watched him bleed to death.

What I want is a standard we apply across the board, not a standard that has lesser sentences for some, black or white, man or woman.

We've already debated the Winkler case on that thread, and I don't want to go back through it. We have a jury system, and they (a mixture of males and females) found reasonable doubt and decided to show mercy in her case. I think it is fair to give juries that flexibility. As long as we have a jury system, there will not be verdicts that apply the same across the board.

She did not "win" custody. The inlaws GAVE her back the children, which says to me that even they don't think she is such a bad mother. Otherwise, they would've fought until the end.

The problem with having a bias is that anyone can find individual cases that seem to support their cause. I'm sure there have been males found innocent or had charges lessened or dropped. And it completely discounts the many women who ARE found guilty of murder, such as the women who tied her husband up for sex play and stabbed him multiple times. Or the woman who was just convicted of murdering her boyfriend for insurance money.

None of these guys mention those cases. They don't address anything that conflicts with their argument.

LS - We're not going to rehash this again, are we?

If Winkler had been on trial for killing her husband to hide her check-kiting and gambling from him, she'd be in lockup right now, and for the remainder of her natural life.

She sold (justly or no) a story of chronic abuse to the jury who applied the lesser standard of "self defense" to the case.

She told a story that no jury would ever accept coming from the mouth of a man.

And that is where the trouble with that case starts and ends. And it's also why none of the other cases you mention show up - because they aren't on point.

The OJ case is probably closer to relevant, although I remain unconvinced that he acted alone, if he did it at all. I'll also note that I've not undertaken an exhaustive study of the evidence, so don't chew my head off.

But the OJ case represented the collision of incredibly obfuscatory defense lawyering, and mind-bending prosecutorial and investigatory incompetence.

The cops and the DA wanted it so bad that they pooched the case. OJ won on points when a competent DA would have won by knockout.

Brian, I don't want to go through it again. I respect your right to disagree. Fact is, there are certain things that juries will accept from a woman that they won't accept from a man. "I was raped" is probably one of them (unless we're talking male on male).

I honestly don't know if the verdict was right or wrong. My issue is that I see how hard people work in our legal system to do the right thing. They sit there and listen to all the facts, and they don't always get it right, but I believe that they do most of the time. One would have to assume that everyone on that jury was asleep at the switch or terribly biased. Maybe they were. Maybe the OJ jury was too.

But, if so, I tend to view that more the exception than the rule. I don't feel that it makes a broad case for bias. You win some, you lose some. It's not a perfect system, but it's pretty darn good.

I mean, I feel that the last few days have been a trial here. Like Amy, I wouldn't have presumed that leftist "progressives" would try to squash free speech in this ugly manner. If you'd ask me days ago, I would've said "no". It's been enlightening.

But what did Winkler give the grand paernts? A promise to drop her motion to become the director of her kids trust funds perhaps?

I mean, I feel that the last few days have been a trial here. Like Amy, I wouldn't have presumed that leftist "progressives" would try to squash free speech in this ugly manner. If you'd ask me days ago, I would've said "no". It's been enlightening.

See, I could have told you over a decade ago that the majority of speech-squashing comes from the left.

The big censorship bill? James Exon (D-NE). Videogame regulation? Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Fairness Doctrine (latest attempt)? Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

It's what the intellectually bankrupt do. They know that their ideas won't improve life for anyone but themselves. They know that their ideas won't improve anything - except their power and control over the lives of the plebes. So they lie, obfuscate, and when all else fails, silence the opposition by any means necessary.

Lovelysoul,

I have been through the system several times with GAL's. I did not really understand their function. The GAL assigned to the modification previous to the one I won had no children of her own, is a known lesbian, and brought her "partner" to do my home visit. I was appalled to say the least. Funny how the GAL said my ex was "nuts" in her words, yet she recommended no change in custody. The judge ordered no change in custody.

To wrap the story up, I think one reason I won this latest modification (relocation case) because there was no GAL. Neither side requested one. Thank God!

I don't see where anyone who is a lawyer has any business representing a child in a custody case. Understand that I don't believe that a GAL is worthless just because of gender...I think it goes across the board.

Razor, some states only allow attorneys to be guardian ad litems. Many are paid, not volunteer. I tend to think that is a worse system than what we have in FL - both because attorneys are often less ethical and paying someone defeats the whole purpose. Yet, unlike here, they are usually not struggling for enough GALs.

That said, I don't think just because she was a lesbian means she couldn't be objective. In my opinion, she should've never said anything to you about your ex being "nuts". That's not appropriate or professional, either way. It sounds like maybe she was feeling guilty that she was going to recommend against you, but that is a very bad GAL, in my opinion.

In short, if you deserved custody, as it appears that you did, you should've had a GAL who recommended that. It seems you had a bad GAL, and that is regrettable, but I think, in the vast majority of cases, they act ethically and without bias.

Just one footnote - the whole premise of the GAL program is because everyone has representation in a child abuse or custody case EXCEPT the child. The parents almost always have their attorneys, but somewhere along the way it was noticed that the child had no representation, so a child having an "attorney" or at least a volunteer GAL is only fair.

Brian, you know, I saw how narrowminded and prejudicial the left could be growing up, even while they prided themselves on being so "progressive", empathetic, and righteous fighting for the underdogs. A lot of that was great, but still...

Both my parents are leftists. My mom is practically socialist. I love her dearly, but I also saw how brutal she and all her friends were towards those who didn't agree with their positions. They attacked and ridiculed them personally (and still do). Much in the way they've done with Amy. If someone says something they disagree with, they feel completely justified in attacking and dismissing them personally.

I was so turned off to it growing up. Then, I married a conservative and experienced the opposite side of things. And although I don't embrace all conservative views, it does seem to me that they have more tolerance towards those who disagree with them. They tend to argue the issues, not dismiss someone entirely as a person for having a different perspective.

My mom and her friends are so isolated - they only relate with each other, sending the same e-mails, articles, and reading the same liberal sources. There is also an element of the "educated elite." They definitely feel they are "smarter" and therefore they know best what is good for everyone else.

I can't really describe it better than that. I suppose both sides have that problem, yet what we've seen here in the last few days really demonstrates how off track the left can get.

I often make the statement, "gender-feminists hate children."
This is just another example why.
These gender-feminists are willing to put a child through whatever it takes, to prove they're better than men.
The child does not matter. Any negative affects on the child do not matter.
What matters to them is proving to us "god damn men" that they can do whatever they want, it's their "right", and because it's their "right", it doesn't matter who is negatively affected in pursuing that "right".
Gender-feminists love themselves. Gender-feminists hate children.

First, Amy. Amy, this data on relationship between two parent families and single mom families was known in the 80's. Professor Daniel Amneus, in the late 80's, produced a book called THE GARBAGE GENERATION which was filled with information on the topic. It is available for free download somewhere online.

I was shocked, and asked a brother-in-law who worked as a prison guard if it were true that kids from female headed families were much more likely to go to prison. He said it was so true that he was surprised anyone would even question it.

The man-haters absolutely have to know this. They are too smart not to know it. Yet, they have done their darndest to keep it a secret, and to keep pushing to the public that a single mom can do as well, nay, better, than the two parent family.

While helping my son evaluate various locations for (we hope) surgical residency, I came up with the following data. There is not a perfect correlation between family structure and crime, but there is a high correlation.

www.city-data.com (First, find state, then city, then for household structure click on houses and apartment link. Crime data is on main page.)
###
Grand Blanc, MI

1,556 married couples with children.
392 single-parent households (92 men, 300 women).

Crime rate: 199.3 (average is in 200-300 range.)

###
Flint, MI

12,154 married couples with children.
19,788 single-parent households (2,300 men, 17,488 women).

Crime rate: 1130.6

###
Clinton, MI

441 married couples with children.
146 single-parent households (32 men, 114 women).

Crime rate: 113.7

###
Westlake, Ohio

6,295 married couples with children.
746 single-parent households (177 men, 569 women).

Crime Rate: less then 100; latest numbers given are so low I suspect an error, or someone is cooking books, so I took long-term trend.

###
Farmington Hills, Mi (part of Detroit metro area)

15,906 married couples with children.
2,131 single-parent households (495 men, 1,636 women).

Crime rate: 146.2

###
Detroit, Mi

88,014 married couples with children.
141,851 single-parent households (15,985 men, 125,866 women).

Crime rate: 1138.0

Lovey Soul, please stop whining and do some serious thinking about why you said what you said.

I will give two examples of things people of quality do not say.

1. People of quality do not ever use the "N" word referring to people of color. That one you probably well know.

2. People of quality do not ever say that what a few irresponsible people or outright criminals do, make all people of their class look bad, whether gender; race; nationality; or creed.

What Andrea Yates did, or what Mary Winkler did, does not reflect on you or any other woman in our society, except of course those who defended these fiends. But that is still their own action they are being judged for.

Your comment that what some men do makes all of us men look bad was outrageous. Amy has said she does not like the 'S' word to be used, so I won't, not because it is not appropriate here.

I have learned that leopards do not change their spots, so I doubt this is the first time you have expressed condemnation of the entire male gender for the conduct of a small number of men, who were mostly raised by single moms.

That comment does bring serious doubt on your performance as ad-litem guardian.

Single dad, this may surprise you but in the 80's, there was a rather strong father's rights activity in the US. The large numbers, alas, were not there. But, there were some real firecrackers working for father's rights. You probably don't know it, but as late as 1980, you probably would not be a single dad. If Mommy wasn't fit, courts tended to look first at grandma, not daddy.

We didn't really know much about what was involved in marriage and divorce. We heard so much about how terrible men were, and we believed much of it, so we had to do some real digging to find out the truth. It turned out men weren't nearly as bad as our society had been told. Most of the claims about men being bad, and women being good were pure fiction, fostered by gender feminists, and accepted by wishful thinking American women. And, men.

I did a lot of studying myself. Sometimes it took me years to understand something. such as why manginas defend women, even when they know women are wrong.

Things like why men hate paying child support.

Things like why men are necessary to raise successful kids at a high rate.

When I did figure out something important, I tended to share it with other men, whom in most cases, had really never thought about it. (Most men were totally surprised when they got served with divorce papers. They imagined no one would ever divorce the "great and wonderful me.")

When I would share it, they would almost instantly tell me I was wrong. I started timing them. The average delay for a man who had never so much as thought about the topic to realize I was wrong after weeks or years of study was about three seconds. Some were quicker,and one wizard waited ten thoughtful seconds. My smart-aleck brother was fast; I couldn't even measure the time involved, it was too short. My brother is a real smart men; ask him, he will tell you.

That is when I began to realize N.O.W. was correct when they said most men are stupid.

So, tell us, when you read the reason men are needed to raise kids is they teach socialization because of their conditional love, just how long did you wait and think about it before you started typing in that my posting was the biggest pile of bull etc? I'd like to know, for scientific reasons, of course.

Irlandes, I just saw this post asking why I said what I said. My answer is that maybe it was overreactive, but another poster was accusing me of being unable to be objective as a GAL, hating all men, etc, which is simply false, and it was apparently based on nothing I had written, just because I'm a woman. He was also making broad anti-female statements.

So I pointed out that all too often fathers simply don't show up in court or for visitations. Some men DO abandon their children, and in court settings, that is generally observed a lot more than the reverse.

People form biases based on their typical experiences. I don't really see such an anti-male bias in courts, but if one exists, it isn't because of me, or anything I do as a GAL. Ultimately judges (primarily male, at least in my county) make the final decisions, and if they observe - time and again - males failing to take proper responsibility for their children, then perhaps that makes them unconsciously lean towards assummimg *all* fathers are less reliable.

I don't really think so, based on what I've witnessed, but that's what I was trying to say, perhaps poorly.

If you don't like the way something is, work to change it. If you think there's a female bias, and there are too many female guardians and social workers working in the system, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! Don't come here and attack me. Guys are free to be social workers and guardian-ad-litems too. Guys can mentor young fathers and teach them greater parental responsibility. But just to complain that women are "destroying the legal system" with their horrible biases while not lifting a finger to get involved is wrong.

Amy, I just wanted to let you know how much your honesty and decency are appreciated by divorced fathers all across the country. The vast majority of us are decent hardworking dads who love our kids and we would do anything to help them and support them and see them succeed in life. I feel that we have been debased and made out to be less than human. I can only repeat the words of the poet and writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn "The line that separates good and evil runs through every human heart" and many dads who are made out to be "evil" are wrongly and falselyacused.

Want to know why men & fathers are being persecuted, please read the book entitled, "TAKEN INTO CUSTODY: The War against Fathers, Marriage, and Family" by Stephen Baskerville, available in Amazon.com or at www.stephenbaskerville.net ....Want to know the cost of breaking-up families and for being complacent in supporting corrupt systems?, please read the book entitled, "NATIONAL DEBT: The Sinking of America" by Charles Peters, also available in Amazon.com....THANK YOU, Amy and all fatherhood supporters for ultimately reducing our nations' National Debt.