BF2S Forums Fathers disappear from households across America

Macbeth wrote:

Nicole Hawkins‘ three daughters have matching glittery boots, but none has the same father. Each has uniquely colored ties in her hair, but none has a dad present in her life.

As another single mother on Sumner Road decked her row-house stoop with Christmas lights and a plastic Santa, Ms. Hawkins recalled that her middle child’s father has never spent a holiday or birthday with her. In her neighborhood in Southeast Washington, 1 in 10 children live with both parents, and 84 percent live with only their mother.

In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.

America is awash in poverty, crime, drugs and other problems, but more than perhaps anything else, it all comes down to this, said Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative: Deal with absent fathers, and the rest follows.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … s-america/
People born into a 2 parent household are better off than people who tend not to. Less crime and better educational achievement. So since living in a 2 parent household is better than not living in one, in what ways do you feel comfortable with the government attempting to get men to stay with their baby mothers?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Nicole Hawkins‘ three daughters have matching glittery boots, but none has the same father. Each has uniquely colored ties in her hair, but none has a dad present in her life.

As another single mother on Sumner Road decked her row-house stoop with Christmas lights and a plastic Santa, Ms. Hawkins recalled that her middle child’s father has never spent a holiday or birthday with her. In her neighborhood in Southeast Washington, 1 in 10 children live with both parents, and 84 percent live with only their mother.

In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.

America is awash in poverty, crime, drugs and other problems, but more than perhaps anything else, it all comes down to this, said Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative: Deal with absent fathers, and the rest follows.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … s-america/
People born into a 2 parent household are better off than people who tend not to. Less crime and better educational achievement. So since living in a 2 parent household is better than not living in one, in what ways do you feel comfortable with the government attempting to get men to stay with their baby mothers?

It's a social issue that needs to be taken care of by society, not by government.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Nicole Hawkins‘ three daughters have matching glittery boots, but none has the same father. Each has uniquely colored ties in her hair, but none has a dad present in her life.

As another single mother on Sumner Road decked her row-house stoop with Christmas lights and a plastic Santa, Ms. Hawkins recalled that her middle child’s father has never spent a holiday or birthday with her. In her neighborhood in Southeast Washington, 1 in 10 children live with both parents, and 84 percent live with only their mother.

In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.

America is awash in poverty, crime, drugs and other problems, but more than perhaps anything else, it all comes down to this, said Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative: Deal with absent fathers, and the rest follows.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … s-america/
People born into a 2 parent household are better off than people who tend not to. Less crime and better educational achievement. So since living in a 2 parent household is better than not living in one, in what ways do you feel comfortable with the government attempting to get men to stay with their baby mothers?

It's a social issue that needs to be taken care of by society, not by government.

jay wrote:

Poor people have always had more sex than wealthier people, it's just a fact,

Macbeth wrote:

jay wrote:

Poor people have always had more sex than wealthier people, it's just a fact,

Need a citation for that one.

Several factors causing a reduction in fertility affected high status groups before they
had a similar impact on the rest of the population. Knowledge and practice of traditional
birth control methods is likely to first have been practiced by high status groups who
were more exposed to different ideas and knowledge (Cleland 2001). Contraceptive use
correlates with education and income also in contemporary societies (Jejeebhoy 1995,
Kanazawa 2003). Infanticide may also positively correlate with status, and has been
found to be more common among high-caste communities than among the rest of the
population in northern India in the 1980s (Sudha and Rajan 1999). 
Mortality has in several studies been found to be similar between the social classes
before the demographic transition in Europe (Knodel 1983, Livi Bacci 1991, Surault
1979). Gadeyne (2006) writes: “In general, it is accepted that socio-economic mortality
differences were rather limited in pre-industrial Europe“. However, the decrease in
mortality that followed increased hygiene, better nutrition, less strenuous lifestyles and
better medical treatment is first likely to have affected the higher social classes. As
mortality declined, a general tendency emerged that status relates to life expectancy,
which is still evident (Marmot 2004). 
If uncertainty is high, childbearing may be perceived as a basic social insurance, as
children may support parents when they become frail and dependent on transfers.
Effective social security systems that provide support in old age could therefore reduce
fertility preferences (Cain 1983). Social security schemes are more likely to first have
been utilized by the upper social echelons. For example, evidence from medieval
Germany shows that monasteries receiving gifts from wealthier individuals repaid the
contributors as they grew old through the provision of old age care and support (Lyon
2006). 
The fertility decline occurred as female labour force participation increased, a
cultural transition took place with rising material aspirations, individualisation and
changes in gender roles – which may particularly have affected fertility of high status
groups (Brown and Guinnane 2002, Caldwell 1999, Lesthaeghe and Meekers 1986,
Matysiak and Vignoli 2006, Sathar and Kazi 1990). The effect of religion on fertility
may also play an important role, as secularisation and liberal interpretations of religion
is more common among the more educated (Banu 1992, Sacerdote and Glaeser 2001),
and those with weaker religious beliefs tend to have lower fertility (Schellekens and van
Poppel 2006, Goujon et al. 2007).

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

jay wrote:

Poor people have always had more sex than wealthier people, it's just a fact,

Need a citation for that one.

Several factors causing a reduction in fertility affected high status groups before they
had a similar impact on the rest of the population. Knowledge and practice of traditional
birth control methods is likely to first have been practiced by high status groups who
were more exposed to different ideas and knowledge (Cleland 2001). Contraceptive use
correlates with education and income also in contemporary societies (Jejeebhoy 1995,
Kanazawa 2003). Infanticide may also positively correlate with status, and has been
found to be more common among high-caste communities than among the rest of the
population in northern India in the 1980s (Sudha and Rajan 1999). 
Mortality has in several studies been found to be similar between the social classes
before the demographic transition in Europe (Knodel 1983, Livi Bacci 1991, Surault
1979). Gadeyne (2006) writes: “In general, it is accepted that socio-economic mortality
differences were rather limited in pre-industrial Europe“. However, the decrease in
mortality that followed increased hygiene, better nutrition, less strenuous lifestyles and
better medical treatment is first likely to have affected the higher social classes. As
mortality declined, a general tendency emerged that status relates to life expectancy,
which is still evident (Marmot 2004). 
If uncertainty is high, childbearing may be perceived as a basic social insurance, as
children may support parents when they become frail and dependent on transfers.
Effective social security systems that provide support in old age could therefore reduce
fertility preferences (Cain 1983). Social security schemes are more likely to first have
been utilized by the upper social echelons. For example, evidence from medieval
Germany shows that monasteries receiving gifts from wealthier individuals repaid the
contributors as they grew old through the provision of old age care and support (Lyon
2006). 
The fertility decline occurred as female labour force participation increased, a
cultural transition took place with rising material aspirations, individualisation and
changes in gender roles – which may particularly have affected fertility of high status
groups (Brown and Guinnane 2002, Caldwell 1999, Lesthaeghe and Meekers 1986,
Matysiak and Vignoli 2006, Sathar and Kazi 1990). The effect of religion on fertility
may also play an important role, as secularisation and liberal interpretations of religion
is more common among the more educated (Banu 1992, Sacerdote and Glaeser 2001),
and those with weaker religious beliefs tend to have lower fertility (Schellekens and van
Poppel 2006, Goujon et al. 2007).

http://www.demographic-research.org/vol … 5/18-5.pdf

In a few small sample sizes, wealthier people tended to have more children than poorer people, but if that were uniform I doubt we'd have a world that looked like this:

Pochsy wrote:

As a society we need to bring ourselves back to our roots in religion. An hour of prayer on Sunday morning helps keep the world in line.

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

As a society we need to bring ourselves back to our roots in religion. An hour of prayer on Sunday morning helps keep the world in line.

Fear of hell, or fear of justice, one or the other is generally necessary to keep people on the track society wants. Either that or create a utopian society where everyone feels included and wanted and loved and that love removes any desire for violence or theft or rape.

Worked for the hippies.

Jay wrote:

Frank Reynolds wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

As a society we need to bring ourselves back to our roots in religion. An hour of prayer on Sunday morning helps keep the world in line.

fucking hell no.  religion is the downfall of society.

Is it? The basic tenets of Christianity are peace, love and goodwill to others. Even if you're completely averse to the idea that there is a creator of some sort out there, the basis for the religion is actually something beautiful, not worthy of scorn. It's misused and misinterpreted on a daily basis, yes, but it did take hold over so many people for a reason. It gives hope to those who have no cause for it. I think our society could use a little hope these days, and not the kind being offered by the man in the Oval Office.

Jay wrote:

The basic tenets of Christianity are peace, love and goodwill to others.