Operation Gender War Chapter 24 – pg6

Lash – Page 6 of 8

<< page 5      page 7 >>

Domestic Violence Again

Memes of rage, memes of hate,
Paint the male into corners, and there is no escape.
The propaganda war has been won, and the guys
put through,
The males tarred and feathered with numbers,
No matter they are untrue….

Published figures of battering and abuse result in an arson on the living minds of readers, as the whole of society seems held hostage by men’s physical torture and scorching cruelty to the female. It’s all about domestic beatings, battery. The number of women beaten varies with these studies, but the studies get prime-time coverage. And thus the message gets out, even if false. It would seem men are pounding women, wives, at an awesome rate. Time, in 1983, said some 6 million women will be abused by their husbands each year in the US. The New York Times, in 1993, said every fifteen seconds an American woman is beaten by her husband or boyfriend.58

And on and on the numbers go, painting the picture
of the woman’s foe.

But responsible research shows that women and men batter each other about equally. Murray Straus and Richard Gelles find women were just as likely to engage in it as men. But what is not promoted or appreciated in their professional studies and results is the fact that 84 percent of families are not violent. Of the 16 percent of families who are violent, approximately half the violence is perpetrated by women, according to Straus and Gelles.59

Martin Fiebert of California State University produced a bibliography that shows that violence is an equal gender issue. The collection covers 117 scholarly investigations, 94 empirical studies, and 23 reviews or analysis which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationship with their spouses or male partners.60

It is more than foolish to skew some of the numbers, as some surveys do — considering an insult or swearing at a spouse as domestic abuse. Or if a spouse was pushed, grabbed, shoved or slapped, it is automatically considered domestic violence, without regard to whether the aggression was natural or whether it was harmful or seriously intimidating. Or induced. Minor and severely violent acts are all blended to give high numbers. If a spouse stomped out of a room or the house or the yard, this has been — yes, indeed — hallucinated as more domestic abuse!

Thirty-four percent of women in the 1993 Commonwealth Fund telephone survey, designed and carried out by Lou Harris and Associates, answered “yes” to the question of whether in the past twelve months your partner has ever: (1) insulted you or sworn at you, or (2) stomped out of the room or house or yard. All 34 percent of women who answered yes are classified as victims of emotional and verbal abuse. The numbers are used like recipe ingredients, thoughtfully added to the stew that the gender cannibals prepare — male stew with baked numbers, the spicier the better.

Although Time reports 6 million wives were abused, Straus and Gelles, in Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family, report 1.8 million women assaulted each year by husbands and boyfriends. But then the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence reports that 50 percent of all women would experience violence from their spouses, and that one-third of all women are battered each year. The “facts” can also be measured in assaults per second. For example, Brother Peace, in 1993, said 6.5 million women are annually assaulted by their partners, one every five seconds. As stated, the New York Times (1993) had a woman beaten by her husband or boyfriend every 15 seconds. The Annals of Emergency Medicine claim that every 7.4 seconds a women is beaten by her husband. But, Straus and Gelles state that fewer than 1 percent of women experience severe violence.61

Entertainment and Sex as Escape

In our cynical age of accepted cruelty, journalists and the media seek the sensational, the sadistic and hyper-realities to attract the piranha-souls seeking reassurances that, yes, everything is more or less a total mess, totally sick, violent, perverted and shocking. Thus everyone’s own personal living mess can be accepted as not so bad, etc. It’s the insurance neurotics need to maintain their addictions to low expectations, escapist solutions and Hollywood distractions. And it keeps lasciviousness and copulation, the sexual, up there and ranked as a premier method to flaunt ones full life of alienated stress. Randy and musty, the carnal as a means to ride the stress. But will it also guarantee the Nuclear Bomb?

Many begin to relate to sex as an escape from all their frustrations, as a focal point to obsess upon and as a detour when life gets strained or uncontrollable. Orgasm could be a violent cleansing of all the “freedom of speech” that’s got the plebs in a titillated but neurotic condition. The worlds been screwed over anyway; it says so on the news!

Unfortunately, many escape from the reality of contemporary society and it’s lunacy through an entertainment world thats obsessed with hyper-cruel and sadomasochistic sexual themes. civilian’s brains are figuratively blown out reveling in Hollywood productions about the violent, brutal, unredeemable world they themselves are increasingly shrinking away from having anything much to do with. The peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians — it too can be fixed by a big explosion.

Everybody’s stressed. Most can barely deal with all the bits and pieces of the transmitted signals flying through the air. So for personal escape, entertainment, a modern woman or man can sit and just watch, go blank, and leave their need for peace to those on the screen. But reading newspapers and watching TV doesnt guarantee the truth, and our controlled contemporary compatriots brain is maybe going to rot, struggling to get the reasons about why were all so fagged out.

Insurance is the neurosis that is in part due to the group allowing life to be controlled by the sadistic, negative spins and propaganda. It can be propaganda so false it’s psychotic — denying compassion — this seen in the worship of a brutal impersonal God Market. People endure all the lies, cruelty and the phoney sanctimoniousness of hired actors and the politicians. They endure the trashing of the human soul by the greedy beings in charge. Huge anxiety, shock and guilt force the brain into overdrive.

The tension swells bringing on desperation for release. Welcome in! Sex has become the ride of the century, the neurotic express that stretches over the mundane cemented structures of modern civilization. It’s the muscle used to cope with all the neuroses everyone is coming around to expect and take for granted: man as an evil failure.

Sex has got the serfs obsessed,
Undressed
And starting to itch and pull at their flesh.
Alone, with the TV
Or with some body,
Sex is the simple way to get to free?

This society can be counted on to make everyone sick. The moderns are infected from ingesting society’s psychoses. And they use this sickness as their guiding weight, mesmerized like selfish dogs in heat, affected without concern for the future. Or for others. The moderns will even consume sex toys and orgy videos to help boost this neurotic guiding principle, to break any outside demands while working so diligently, trying for sex that can supposedly take them out of this world.

Punishing Males

Unfortunately, much of today’s wholesale sickness and sadism is directed at males. Punishing them is popular. They are criticized and blamed for virtually all of society’s problems. They are forced onto the altar of modern sacrifice, as cruelly they are hurt, regardless of innocence. The abomination of sacrificing males brings on more belief (insurance) that darkness rules, as the moderns now tilt toward their masochistic side — and take their government’s mistreatment as if deserved!

But the escape into sadism and masochism leaves guys as the scapegoat; the real victim here is the man who is taking it in the ear, painted as the one to fear! America and western civilization has always had a lower esteem for the males. It is males who in war have been slaughtered by the hundreds of millions. Our society is used to depriving boys and men of dignity, but it respects women openly. There are virtually no support agencies for men like there are for women. And so, in divorce today, the money and the children are taken from the men, given to the women. We are used to ignoring the humanity of the men; it’s been that way in our history. So today we let the gender feminists torture the men.

In North American culture there is isn’t as much respect for young men, nor does society promote anything near the caring or catering that is given to the girls. For example, in the movie Fight Club, the guys are left alone, many without the father that his mother may have deemed disposable, and then they resort to the crudest male stereotypes. They escape their boring jobs and their educated public-school dysfunction by beating up each other in the secret surroundings where they meet each week. These guys, while typifying the male jockeying for a dominant role through physical challenge, are not emotionally well. The fights serve a modern inner cruelty, a sadomasochism derived from the male-trashing going on.

Playing smash face at college or school is one thing, in front of audiences and under game rules. There the boys rip and tear, physically confront their “buddies” for glory and girls. Sure the boys are thus being trained to identify other boys as enemies, but they have been trained for many centuries to sacrifice their bodies for society and to protect the females.

If the enemy would become “girls”, then what? In Fight Club, there is no big audience, but it’s the competitive market-economics society in microcosm, and like the corporations themselves the boys have rights, but they might not have dads. Desperate for the bottom line, they are brave enough to seek solutions. Children of the single momhood — they are a big part of the nations future.

Social Consequences of Single Motherhood

Is a woman better off without a man, going it alone, even to the extent of withdrawing a mans biological child from him? That is what the newly minted feminist calls for reproductive freedom could end up being about.

Divorce casino. Divorce is today initiated by women at twice the rate that it is initiated by men. Our society actually gives women incentive to divorce! Women get benefits from divorce. They usually will get the children, child support and the family home if there is one. Research shows that about 50 percent of mothers see no value in a fathers contact with his children and try to sabotage it, or resent the fathers contact.62 Both tax-free child support and dependent exemptions go to the mother in the US. With the help of feminist organizations, many city agencies and even bar associations give free legal aid to women in order to take children away from men.63 Society gives women emotional and financial reward to divorce.

A divorce can mean a mans loss of his job as a father. But he is forced to pay for his “firing” by subsidizing his own removal through money given for child support — a mother subsidy. Today many biological moms think that they can be fathers too, and the government is supporting them to think so. In 1960, there were 5.1 million single moms in the US. By 1996, it was 16 million.64In 1970, about one in ninety homes in the US were mother-only homes. By 2000, it was 22 percent.65

Divorce can leave men in big trouble. They can end up alone: no family, no one needing them, no hero role to give superior meaning to their lives. They are often rebuked as if they are the problem itself. Then money is expected and that helps his ex-wife fulfilling her “psychic” life with his children. It’s a special hell, for men only, and it’s brought to them by that extra-special somebody — the wife he married. In fact, after a divorce, a mans risk of suicide rises to ten times greater than that of a divorced woman’s.66

men’s needs as fathers are ignored. One Alley McBeal TV show had a mother offer to sell “her” baby to it’s unwed biological father for five million dollars! Our society is programmed to disregard, pass over the men. When a woman with children takes the notion to divorce and to dabble in different lifestyle choices available only to her, she receives support from the government and from the ex-husband, and often from her parents. But the man, the father, is virtually ignored — except for his wallet. His children are taken from him in most cases, and the woman gets custody. But the loss of his children is like a death to the man. In Father and Child Reunion, Warren Farrell, Ph.D., elaborates:

“When we demand a dad give child support and wife support, then take away his children and home, we kill his soul, his reason for earning, his reason for living when we drive him into a deadend, he becomes a deadbeat, dead broke, or just dead.67 When a dad’s child is dead to him, but still alive, he can never begin the process of mourning; he can never heal. We feel this unhealed hurt and bitterness when we meet dads who are denied their children”.68

Many women have off-chucked their childrens fathers. Our society rewards them, really — for this. The woman’s network, when working for woman’s needs, encourages psychic relationship, both intimate and emotional. Women need this psychic relationship; it’s something they are simply unable to run away from. It’s available with their children. So if it isn’t working out well in the psychic relationship that she married her husband to get, she eliminates him. He may have become an insensitive boor, an emotionally crippled failure in her eyes. This may become his described identity and it’s promotion may help build the story of her claimed demise. But her psychic relationship continues as she feeds off the kids. With his children she approximates emotional health! He usually pays, may get some visitation privileges, but his needs are simply not a big part of any solution in our society. Today, it is all set up for moms to live somewhat happily, and without husbands. The law forces large numbers of men to pay more money than the mother does for children they cannot see as often as she does. As Farrell states: “In the case of fathers, economic hurt and emotional rejection are joined by a sense of legal injustice”.69

The single, unmarried mom phenomenon. Climbing through the inferno of men’s anguish brought on by their separation from their children, there seems to be never-ending evidence of women further corralling-in their children. In the US, in 1960, only 5 percent of births were outside marriage. By 1990, the national number had increased to 24 percent.70 But it was estimated that this number would increase dramatically in the new millennium to more than one in three births. This trend towards unmarried single-parent homemakers is a major social phenomena.

In 1993: single women accounted for 71 percent of births in Detroit, 65 percent in Washington, D.C. and 45.2 percent in New York.71 The stigma around an unmarried parent has receded. The popular idea of the day implies that the modern woman is a self-sufficient, resourceful type that can, and maybe should, go it alone. Governments back her up with public money, and the courts back her up by taking what they can get from the childrens biological dad. Unwed mothers used to be shamed, their children called bastards and illegitimate. Now the gender feminists rally call is woman’s reproductive freedom. And like the pro-life and right-to-choose debates, neither side in the debate of whether women shall have exclusive control of any pregnancy is really interested in involving many dads in the discussion. It’s the postmodern obsession with separate power.

Pregnancy yields a solution for a female sensing that the new globalized economy and it’s low-paying service-industry jobs arent really going to solve her needs. Only one-tenth, in percentage, of unwed mothers now put up their children for adoption than they used to just thirty years ago. Getting pregnant is a way out, a way to get money from relatives and welfare benefits. Originally these welfare benefits had been put in place for widows with dependent children, to get them funds. But today they subsidize lives of single and divorced moms, giving them a more cozy lifestyle than that of a “free-market” warrior slugging it out in the unstable, poorly paid service industries. Pregnancy gives status as an adult, gives an object, a child, for women to project their emotions on, helps women get subsidized apartments and gives women a sense of purpose, a reason to live. They can dodge depression, low self-esteem and ugly work. They can find a purpose, a calling in life. They are needed! As Tiger states:

“In one pleasurable act and then in the rewarding process of pregnancy, these young women achieve both productive and reproductive success at once. Whatever other people may think, from their standpoint they have achieved an upgrade. They have aced an unpromising system.”72

In the African-American community 62 percent of births were to unmarried women in 1989. In some areas it’s as high as 80 percent! In Great Britain, among fifteen- to nineteen-year-old white women 87 percent of births are to single moms, and in the US 62 percent of teen births are to single moms. And even with all these births to unmarried women, an expert had testified that the national average would rise to at least 40 percent by the year 2000.73

Reproductive Freedom for Whom? Does the future hold a place for husbands as fathers anymore? Some activist females have been planning for years to eliminate men, as well as woman’s dependence on men for anything. Reproductive freedom means women choose again; the men will be without rights, even to their own children. Women’s claims of our bodies – our business can leave men working and paying for the children produced through his “business” with her body. She can do what she pleases with his child – abort it, or keep it. For her it can mean freedom through reproduction, this the reproduction-freedom anthem. He may never know that she had his child, or he may be told the news years later, told that he is a real daddy all right – just send his money, be a good fellow, it’s his duty, etc. And it seems that males were mistreated by society for ages. The men have been sacrificed, sent to war to protect women and his children.

Today we still ignore men and their humanity; we are used to it. Now we allow their children to be taken away, or for men to just be wallets for biological moms who have got the children under control, sometimes covertly. But this lack of respect for men and their needs really hits home when it’s realized that 15 to 20 percent of dads may be unknowingly raising one or more children that are not even their own!74

Marginalizing Men. The future for men is frightening. They are marginalized and are being pushed off the stage of our communal life. Watch virtually any Hollywood movie and you won’t find any single dad raising kids, unless his wife in the movie is dead. This role, the male as caregiver, is not given much support in our pro-female culture. Even when a man and a woman create an embryo in a petri dish, it’s the woman who will get custody or legal benefits in lawsuits over their embryo.75 women’s rights are much more important than men’s rights today, and the law is designed to protect women more than men.

Single Parenthood. In 1996 in Canada, 826,000 children under age 15 lived with single moms; 117,000 lived with single fathers.76 And with over 80 percent of US single-parent homes being controlled by the childrens mother, it is obvious that the future adults of North America will have to deal with the influence that these single moms will have on the future generations. Male single- parent controlled homes have risen from 10.2 percent in 1980 to 18.9 percent in 1998.77 This is almost a doubling of single-parent fathers in a short time. As Warren Farrell states: Moms moving out of the home has been a headline-creating revolution, dads moving into the home has been the quietest revolution.78

What does all this single parenting reveal today? What types of people are being raised in these homes, and can society feel positive about a future for the children of single parents? The evidence points to a crisis ahead, for parents, children and the whole of society. Objectives and intentions for our children need to be made clear. In a society where employment income is steadily falling, with take-home pay declining, many single parents are under a lot of pressure. Women, traditional at-home parents, now attempt to be both provider and protector as well. The well-being of her children, and that of the nation, will depend on the woman’s ability to cope in society today. But the picture looks bleak, if it is health, well-being and holistic integrity that is being looked for in these single-mother households.

A Case for Single Fatherhood. With regard to domestic violence against children, single-mother households account for 43 percent of all abused children.79 The mother in control of a household is one of the most important single predictors of a battered baby — a more important predictor than poverty, illegitimacy, and almost all of twenty-nine family characteristics.

A 1999 US Department of Health and Human Services report showed that almost two-thirds of parents who kill their children are mothers. And almost two-thirds of those killed between the ages of eight and fifteen are boys. Children are also twice as likely to be victims of neglect by their mothers as by their fathers. Children are 88 percent more likely to be seriously injured from child abuse or neglect by their mothers than by their fathers. People living in a feminized culture may have trouble believing these statements about females. But ignorance about females will only set up ones life for disaster. And single moms are twenty-four times as likely to kill children as are single dads.

Here are some facts about schooling a child.80 Elementary- school children living without their dads did worse on twenty-one of twenty-seven social competence measures and eight out of nine academic measures. They were more likely to repeat grades, had higher absentee records and were less popular than their peers. Another study shows boys living at least six years with their single mothers scored low on ten social and ten academic measures. First-grade black and white children without fathers in the home recorded lower IQ scores than those with fathers present. Fathers improve their childrens mathematics and science ability. By the third grade, boys scored higher on every achievement test and received higher grades — if they had fathers present in the home. A child living with both biological parents has a one in nine chance of repeating a grade; living with a single mother the chance increases to one in four. And the more years a child spends with a single mother, the fewer years of school are completed. As well, living without a dad doubles a childs chances of dropping out of high school. In a study, students from father-absent homes scored much lower on college entrance exams.

A psychoanalytic study by Pruett and Litzenberger published in 1977 found positive benefits from males raising their own children. The study, over an eight-year period, showed that children nurtured by their fathers were normal, actually smarter than average and secure in their gender.81

But the popular consensus is the opposite. Why?
The media is awash with misinformation. Those who gather statistics can be biased or irresponsible or both. Why does the US census bureau ask only women about support payments, how much was paid, or why it wasn’t paid? The census bureau doesn’t ask only men why the mothers of their children deny or block access to their children.

The bias towards protecting and elevating the female takes place behind what Farrell calls the “lace curtain”. Farrell describes the lace curtain as “the tendency of government, the media, academia, and the helping professions not to print anything that makes a woman look like less of a victim than the public consciousness holds her to be.”82 Socializing our citizens with female values has helped bring this protective but artificial bias. The lace curtain keeps public understanding away from the truth, while it promotes female-only agendas that will result in increased social and emotional illness. How can healthy solutions result for a society if people are left wallowing in the denial, lies and dysfunction found behind the “lace curtain”?

In 1995, in Denmark, a study was made of one-quarter of all three- to five-year-old children who lived only with their single biological fathers. They were compared to an equal number of children who were living only with their single biological mothers. The information from the study presented to the Social Research Institute in Stockholm, found that children living with their dads were much less likely to experience problems of feeling like victims. They were half as likely to have frequent nightmares, feelings of low self-esteem, and lonesomeness; they were one-third as likely to feel victimized by other children and one-quarter as likely to experience frequent seizures of fear. Can living with the gender who has been educated to see herself as a victim rub off on the children? Obviously, yes.

The children living with their fathers were only half as likely to experience problems with concentration.83 This resonates loudly for many fatherless boys put on medication for Attention Deficit Disorder in North America. Males are increasingly being raised in a society that exclusively applauds female values. Young boys are receiving a female socialization, and those boys from single-mom homes are over 300 percent more likely to see themselves as victims of other children. Farrell: “when female values are so dominant in raising boys, I believe it leads to boys not feeling lovable for their core energy, thus tempting feelings that they must perform to be loved rather than love to be loved”.84

Undermining Males. Sexual Abuse and Propaganda. President Bill Clinton was a useful male for the gender feminists to debase, ridicule and squeeze money out of. His political life counted heavily on female and feminist support. Even though, in general, he stood for an attitude toward women that they hated, the gender feminists found his sexual scandals opportune. His numerous disgraces painted the male as a sexual pervert, and this was useful to those determined to destroy the “patriarchy”.

Clinton was just another mentally challenged sex addict to them, perhaps just how they see most American men. He used women as sexual objects, mere receptacles. He was rude, gruff and perhaps violent with them. The focus the gender feminists promote is men as molesters rather than men as caregivers for their children. As long as males can be hung out to dry, seen as sexually dangerous predators, then women can control and keep the children to themselves. An irresponsible sex-crazy male is useful. He allows feminazi propaganda to grow. He is evidence of the warts covering the patriarchy. So Clinton was the gender feminists meal ticket. He sold the nation on a much lower standard for the man at the top. And during his term of office the feminists have taken control of much of the working apparatus of the government itself.

A psycho sex maniac as the highest male in the land, this image produced a gift-wrapped white-hot meme, used to assault male integrity and accountability. Male sexuality became more debased than was usual when Clinton incarnated as the feminazis patsy. They made the President into their talisman, leading the nation toward the visioned feminine oasis: reproductive rights, selling their eggs among themselves, government subsidies for moms only, housing for women only — for women and children only. It helps for the radicals to have men presumed to be perverts. The presumption of perversion keeps the female elevated above the male, enables women to get privileges and protections denied the men. And it gets children separated from men, and may keep men in a self-doubting and confused state of mind.

Men may feel unworthy of becoming caregivers, that is if they believe the lies told today as truth, that paint men as perverted sexual beings. At present, the Boy Scouts of America’s national policy bans any scout leader from being alone with a boy! But in Canada, a public school district employs full-time a self-outed lesbian to teach a woman’s studies course to grade eleven girls. Go figure.

Sexual abuse of children has been headline news for decades. But it seems that it is always men’s fault. With biased judges and increasing credibility for accusations from females, men are being sketched as sexual criminals. There is a 2,000 percent increase in sex-abuse allegations in the past ten years.85 Scores of men are being falsely accused of child sex-abuse, and many men lose their jobs even if they are eventually found innocent. During a divorce it has been found that up to 94 percent of those who make false accusations of child sexual abuse are women, and 96 percent of those falsely accused are men.86 Mothers making these false accusations are characterized by their anger. Interestingly, 80 percent of all child sex-abuse allegations are found to be without foundation.87 Lying, fabrication and character assassination surround much that some women claim as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Men don’t defend their sexuality. They’ve been made guilty; they just take abuse. Ridiculing men and their sexuality as dangerous to society gives the females unopposed grounds upon which to build their version of the female alternative to their spun perversion of males. In New York City, unfounded child sexual-abuse allegations against men increased from more than a half to more than three-quarters from 1989 to 1993.88 The evidence shows false claims of sexual abuse and assault are so high that these claims are unprincipled attacks on men, used to gain rewards — money, child custody — and to punish men. Whether they did anything or not! Our society is letting men take the rap, even if they are innocent.

A study of male sexual offenders found that 30 percent had themselves been sexually abused as children. Of these, 78 percent had been abused by a woman.89 Shocking. But can our society cope with this and other information that doesnt bolster the consensus image of women as caring, innocent victims? Nearly 60 percent of convicted rapists were sexually abused as children by women. 90

Child Custody. When mothers have custody, their childrens relationship with their father deteriorates. When children live with only their mothers, their parents are nine times as likely to have conflict as they do when children live with their fathers.91 In the US, it has been found that 42 percent of all children living with their single moms reported that their moms tried to stop them from seeing their fathers.92 Results from interviews with children on average of eight years after their parents divorced showed the following: 54 percent of the children said that only their mothers spoke badly of their fathers in front of them; 12 percent said that only their fathers spoke badly of their mothers.93 In the Danish study it was found that when mothers had custody the children were more than twice as likely to have no contact with the other parent; and that in part must be due to moms being almost five times as likely to bad-mouth dads as dads are to bad-mouth moms.94

Child Support. Even though 75 percent of custodial mothers will likely move at least once in four years, 54 percent of separated dads see their kids weekly.95 And 85 percent of fathers with shared parent time (joint custody) pay child support on time. When mothers have custody but are open to fathers seeing their children, 79 percent of these fathers pay in full and on time. 96

The Reality for Children with Single Mothers. For children living in a single-mom home their future is warily confronted by the facts:97

65 percent of juveniles and young adults in state-operated institutions come from father-absent homes.

80 percent of pre-school children admitted as psychiatric patients in two New Orleans hospitals came from homes without fathers. Similar percentages are found in Canada
90 percent of homeless or runaway children are from fatherless homes.
A close relationship with dad is the most important factor in preventing
drug use.
73 percent of adolescent murderers come from mother-only homes.
80 percent of rapists who rape out of anger and rage came from father-absent homes.
90 percent of young repeat arsonists lived with only their mothers.
Daughters of single moms are 92 percent more likely to divorce than daughters of two-parent families.
In Baltimore, a study found one-third of daughters of teenage single moms also became teenage moms. No daughter with a good relationship with her father had a baby before age nineteen.
Students without fathers at home are 1.5 times more likely to be unemployed
in their teens through their mid-twenties.

Being with their fathers has proved to help children manage their emotions, develop intelligence and attain better grades in school. These children are socially better adapted and have better relationships with the parent they aren’t living with than the children who live only with their biological mothers.

<< page 5      page 7 >>