http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-moms-less-likely-than-dads-to-pay-child-support/
While the URL is a question the answer is clearly yes.
While the URL is a question the answer is clearly yes.
-
Features
Quit bashing deadbeat dads--moms are the real problem
- Thread starter Loren Pechtel
- Start date
laughing dog
Contributor
I think if one read the actual content of the link, one would not say the answer is clearly yes.
So why exactly are we supposed to stop bashing dead beat dads? If I'm not going to bash a dead beat dad, do I praise him, or maybe just ignore him?
If dead beat moms are the real problem, does this mean dead beat dads are a false problem?
If dead beat moms are the real problem, does this mean dead beat dads are a false problem?
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,271
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
One might even reconsider the wisdom of one's thread title after reading:
Unless, of course, one was cherrypicking from the article only those parts that conformed to one's prejudices.
Maybe we should bash deadbeat individuals, not groups.
I think we should bash the children for not being cute or lovable enough for the parents to want to bother with them.
Perhaps if they stepped their shit up and became more interesting and dynamic individuals, their moms and dads feel it was worth their time and effort to hang around.
Perhaps if they stepped their shit up and became more interesting and dynamic individuals, their moms and dads feel it was worth their time and effort to hang around.
Is there a subset of deadbeat dads who are not in the set of deadbeat dads?
It would seem we are not very efficient at enforcing the obligations deadbeat individuals have toward their children.
As a Dad who paid his child support and more, on time, I have no sympathy for deadbeat dads or moms, but don't try to tell me deadbeat moms are "the real problem."
fast
Contributor
What would be the best adjective to use to describe the kind of obligation? Social, moral, parental, financial, legal?
"All of the above" would apply.
Is there some acceptable reason a person might refuse to provide for their child?
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 17,261
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Because the ethical obligation to care for children stopped being genetically based when we started being more than simple Darwinistic apes? Because they are no longer children of the selfish gene, they are future PEOPLE, and it is a responsibility of everyone to see that all our time and energy to produce people of them isn't simply wasted.
If someone is incapable or unwilling to have that much responsibility we should simply find someone who isn't, and not punish them them or ruin their lives. An yes, a poorly placed child ruins two lives. It isn't 'their' child. It's everyone's child.
I've read this several times and your meaning is not clear.
barbos
Contributor
You area not good with math are you?
fast
Contributor
I don't agree with that. Even if we are morally justified to protect children that aren't ours from their parents, it's a play on words to express such a sentiment.
fast
Contributor
I didn't mean to suggest there was. Since you mention it, I suppose there are special cases, but I didn't mean for my question to invoke us to take that path. Yes, all may apply, but the very nature of obligations and how they are 'born' or from where they come has always peaked my interest. You said, "enforcing," and that's an issue unto itself. I was speculating that there might be the possibility that we do not have a right to enforce every kind of obligation--could be wrong...just a thought, and I certainly wasn't trying to voice an opinion contrary to what you may hold as true. It makes sense, for instance, that a governing body would have a legal right to enforce a legal obligation, and even if it's so that there are parental obligations worthy of enforcing, what's the best basis to justify such enforcement? I think maybe (and this is just a maybe) any such, for instance, moral basis to enforce (oh say, child support payments) is taken out the equation when a legal obligation is born into existence. That (at least it appears--could be wrong) legitimatizes the enforcement aspect.
It's hard to word this, but it's abundantly clear there is a legal obligation, and no argument (as a tool to identify the existence of such an obligation) seems necessary to see that a legal obligation exists; after all, it was created. A social obligation, on the other hand, seems to require an argument (as a tool) to show that such an obligation even exists in the first place. I'm not arguing that there isn't good reason for people to help protect children from harshly abusive parents. I'm just trying to navigate the blowing winds of obligations.
And what in that URL makes you say that??
Actually, a lot of deadbeats are because the award is more than they can afford in their current situation.
laughing dog
Contributor
One would think that twice the proportion of custodial mothers have support orders compared to custodial fathers would outweigh the small difference in deadbeat rates. Add in that twice as many custodial mothers live in poverty than custodial fathers, and one would think it is obvious that if there is a gender-based problem with deadbeats, it is not clearly women.
Godless Raven
Member
Well, my sons biological mother was a deadbeat mom...but...that's pretty rare. I think we're too nice to deadbeat parents period. Since that's mostly men by a huge scale it's mainly a male thing.
To clarify, I don't think every biological parent that does not participate in their child's life is a deadbeat. There are really good reasons why some people should never have children. If you're a crackhead or child abuser and you somehow get pregnant or impregnate someone, and too stupid to get a ducking abortion, I don't want your kid to suffer that life. But if you actually could raise a kid and just don't give a duck...you can go duck yourself with a telephone pole held sideways.
To clarify, I don't think every biological parent that does not participate in their child's life is a deadbeat. There are really good reasons why some people should never have children. If you're a crackhead or child abuser and you somehow get pregnant or impregnate someone, and too stupid to get a ducking abortion, I don't want your kid to suffer that life. But if you actually could raise a kid and just don't give a duck...you can go duck yourself with a telephone pole held sideways.
There are more men than women paying child support. However, it's the individuals that matter--and women are more likely to be deadbeat than men.
Does this mean deadbeat Dads should be relieved of their obligations?