Divorce causes population decline

…. previous page
Part of the series ‘Communism → second-wave feminism → social re-engineering’
Index and preamble for series

Population decline

Women’s liberation triggered population decline, not immediately, but it not only intensified the demand for birth control (that is, the prevention of conception), it also intensified the demand for “birth control” by means of abortion.  The consequences of that are now becoming visible, because actions ave consequences.  We are harvesting what the feminists and other liberals of the ’60s have sown

Any country that has total fertility rates (the number of children born to an average woman of fertile age) that is above replacement level, that is, it suffices to maintain the country’s population and then some, will see increasing prosperity and rising life expectancies. Average life expectancies have been declining in the US since 2013, and TFRs since long before that.  Like it or not, the US has become a dying country.  That is not an accident.  It is planning policy, but consider this:

Population decline is being triggered by declining lifespans in the United States. It will accelerate., driving down lifespans.

Lifespans in the United States

At the bottom of this article is a link to a discussion of that trend.  The United States are not alone (misery like company), as is the case with liberalism and feminism that drive the population decline.  It is not happening by accident.  It is by design.  The shadow power wish to reduce the world population down to between 300 million and one billion people.  It appears that they will succeed, not overnight, but within a couple or three hundred years from now.

I will not insist that feminism is one of their tools.  Let it suffice to say that what the feminists are doing, with respect to working on the planned destruction of the family, they would not be able to do better if they were being paid to do it.

It would not be totally fair to lay all of the blame for that at the feet of advocates of

  • Free love (that is what Marx and Engels and their contemporaries called it, but love is never free, especially not its consequences);
  • Sexual freedom (that is what it is called today, but it is nothing more than a euphemism for free love and still has identical consequences), and of
  • No-fault divorce (that was ostensibly the intent under which it was promoted, but, never fear, where the fault is always laid at the feet of the man) and other liberal divorce laws and even legalized lawlessness with respect to committed sexual relationships that last on average a handful of years and can end after a few days or weeks, but that everyone clamors is his entitlement to have and to have sanctioned by the state.  The variety is large and bewildering.  The best way to describe it is to consider it chaotic, that is, lacking order.

Sexual relations without fear of consequences, without the burden of having to raise children in families (or in taxpayer-funded orphanages) was a lure too hard to resist.  NOW addressed that demand with Reproductive Rights in its 1996 agenda. Means of effective contraception came on the market.  That launched the sexual revolution.  Anyone who failed to use contraception would chance the risk of conception and having to take on the burden of raising a child.

Increasing numbers of mothers have whole passels of children.  Many of those women have many children by different fathers.  They use the children as sources of income derived from the never-ending generosity of Father State and, of course, a multitude of fathers for income diversification.  After all, the more fathers and the more children, the less likely it is that the flow of income will dry up.  Many women are quite practical about that, and – let there be no mistake – they insist that they are entitled to that income.

The demand for reproductive rights resulted in the legalization of abortion.  The land mark case in the US was Roe vs. Wade, Jan. 22, 1973.  Keep that date in mind when contemplating this article and its charts: Thirteen charts that explain how Roe v. Wade changed abortion rights , By Sarah Kliff January 22, 2014

Never mind that all of that catered to instant gratification of current desire and gave little or no thought to what would happen to the people who did not want children now when those people would become old and decrepit, when they would have to rely on other people’s children to pay the taxes and make the contributions to social safety nets that would then have to suffice to keep increasing numbers of elderly comfortable, if not
at least alive, let alone healthy and well.

Birth rates began to fall. The stage was set for population declines due to birth rates that fell below replacement levels.

Nature abhors a vacuüm.  A population dearth, in an area of low population density, could be considered to be a vacuüm of sort.  Areas with low population densities always were targets for migration from areas with high population densities, all the more so when governments in areas with low population densities fear that they cannot maintain their standards of living when lacking sufficiently large population sectors of young, productive people.

The example of Japan provided in the following is not as specific as it is generic.  It applies to many and increasingly more developed nations.

Population decline is reflected in Japan's population trend by age.

Japan, Population Trend by Age

Actions have consequences.  Declining population numbers intensify the demand for immigrants. Not all countries are rich enough to be able to house their elderly poor in their jails and prisons, such as in Japan,

‘This is death to the family’: Japan’s fertility crisis is creating economic and social woes never seen before

CHRIS WELLER
MAY 22, 2017, 1:00 AM
Business Insider Australia

“…compared to other countries Japan’s case is extreme, particularly as it pertains to ageing. Adult diapers have outsold baby diapers in Japan for the last six years, and many jails are turning into de facto nursing homes, as Japanese elders account for 20% of all crime in the country. With no one else to care for them, many re-offend just to come back. Stealing a sandwich can mean two years of jail time, but it also means two years of free housing and meals….”

Japan’s case is extreme?  Not at all!  That is a misperception, perhaps due to insufficient inquiries.  Japanese demographics are not too different from those in other developed nations, say, Russia or Germany (there are more like that).

Things are really bad in countries where there are neither sufficient social safety nets nor sufficient jails, where the only productive and constructive social safety net is a country’s children who may or may not be responsible, by law, to care for their elderly, non-productive parents and grandparents.  In such countries, the only avenue open for vastly most of the elderly who have no children, is to starve and die, with no one to care for them.

No one should be under the illusion that things are necessarily better in wealthy, developed nations.  Those are all deeply in debt.  Their tax revenues are grossly and increasingly insufficient to finance their social safety nets.  Their solutions to the crisis of the growing proportion of the elderly, non-productive population sector is pressing and involves very distasteful and even deadly solutions, such as that elderly people entering hospitals with relatively minor complaints such as an arthritic knee, come back out in a pine box (because the instructions to the hospital staff, for their care, are “Sedate, withhold food and liquids.”).  The comment by the administrator of a large hospital district in London, England, when that was discovered, was, “What do you expect us to do?  We need the beds.”

No, Japan is not an extreme case.  It is the norm and has, perhaps, one of the best sort of outcomes for the elderly in the developed nations, but Japan has very little immigration, compared to other nations.

Population-density equalization through massive population transfers

It remains to be seen whether a nation encouraged to import economic migrants or instant mitigation of its population dearth–after women’s lib helped to create it by deconstructing the traditional nuclear family and turning the womb from the safest to the most dangerous place for for human life in the history of mankind–will truly benefit.  It appears doubtful that anything will be gained through having ready-made producers and consumers who don’t speak or understand the local language, and fail the let themselves be assimilated by a culture that even many of the locals hate.

Somehow it seems that we were better off to have and raise our own, even if it took a couple of decades  for them to become full-fledged producers and consumers, who appreciated the ringing of church bells more than the cries of the muezzins.

More on the subject of immigration and population transfers: Falling birth rates cause painful demographic changes, December 21, 2017 by Walter Schneider

Next Page ….

 

Posted in Abortion, Health, History, Population Control | 3 Comments

Divorce causes escalating suicide rates

…. previous page
Part of the series ‘Communism → second-wave feminism → social re-engineering’
Index and preamble for series

Escalating suicide rates

Divorce causes escalating suicide rates, primarily for men and to a far lesser extent for women.  It stands to reason that, if the suicide rates for the sexes were reversed, that the suicide rates of women would receive far greater attention than the far higher ones of men do now.  Yet, it can be argued that virtually all of society conspires to downplay and preferably ignore that men die through suicide in epidemic proportions, in very large numbers, in each passing year.

There are reasons why men commit suicide at high rates, to a far greater extent than women do.  Many men who are embroiled in the fallout of separation and divorce are little less disfranchised than the tramps George Orwell wrote about in Down and Out in Paris and London (1933), and things are still much the same for men. How much greater is the risk for men going through separation and divorce to hit skid row than it is for anyone who has not yet been removed from his family? For many the difference is only a matter of time. Many of them will wind up on skid row! It is not a matter of choice, it is one of inevitable circumstances. Some of them will be the poorest of the poor even on skid row.

Even though they may have jobs through which they earn good incomes, not enough will remain of their net pay to allow them to buy enough food or meals and pay rent. They’ll not even be eligible to obtain accommodation at a single men’s hostel, on account of having a job and an “income.”  Most men, by far, will try to hang on to their jobs, because they feel that they must, to provide for their children.  The men who default are vilified, deprecated and called deadbeat dads, but,

»In the largest federally funded study ever undertaken on the subject, psychologist Sanford Braver found that the “deadbeat dad” who walks out on his family and evades child support “does not exist in significant numbers.” Braver found at least two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women. Moreover, few of these divorces involve legal grounds, such as desertion, adultery, or violence (Braver 1998). Other studies have found much higher proportions, with one concluding that “who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce” (Brinig and Allen 2000, 126–27, 129, 158).«

—Stephen Baskerville, in The Politics of Fatherhood

Sanford Braver illustrated that vastly most separated or divorced fathers pay the child support they are ordered to pay. Those who don’t comprise roughly six percent. A major portion of the latter default not because they are deadbeat dads but because they are sick, incarcerated, unemployed, disabled, and even quite literally dead.  All of them are categorically called deadbeat dads. Yet, women who are ordered to pay child support are far more likely to default, even on generally much smaller monthly amounts, but there has never been a government-founded campaign to make deadbeat moms pay what they owe.

All of that adds to the depression men on the down and out are likely to experience. Worst of all, those men are not only cut off from any contact with women, they are disenfranchised fathers cut off from access to their children as well. Besides, what kind of a father wants his children to know that he lives on skid row? Can we expect such a man to commit suicide? You bet we can, and very many of them do.  (More: When it doesn’t get any worse — The life of a tramp)

The life of a tramp (a.k.a., euphemistically, “a homeless – politically correct, because vastly most of them are men, and that fact is not to be stressed – person”) is the worst, unless one considers that a man who committed suicide to escape that fate has it better, because he made the right decision.

Fathers love their children as much as and often more than the children’s mothers do.  It is devastating for fathers to be robbed of much or all contact with their children, but losing much or all contact with their children is common for fathers who go through separation or divorce.  The following bar chart shows how that works out.

Separation and divorce create distance between parents and children; even compared to children living in married but unhappy families.

Separation and divorce create distance between parents and children; even
compared to children living in married but unhappy families.

The text pertaining to that bar chart in the report it is shown in states: “…parental divorce tends to affect the relationship of the child and the opposite-sex parent more than the child and their parent of the same sex.” (Excerpt containing the chart.)

The report is not specific about that the parent losing the contact with his children is most often the father. Consider also that fathers going through separation and divorce are much more likely than their estranged spouses are to commit suicide.

»The work by Cantor & Slater (1995) is particularly valuable in that it identified people who were separated from various other categories of suicide….

Cantor & Slater (1995) show the risk of suicide is far higher for men in the period following marital separation––the suicide risk among separated men was 18 times that of separated women––but, after divorce, the rates for men declined to three times those of women. Separated men are also six times more likely to commit suicide than married men, with separated men under 29 being particularly vulnerable.«

— Quoted in “Swedish researchers released a massive study“;  Research Review

Still, even women experienced a substantially increased risk of suicide on account of the deconstruction of the institution of the family. Women’s lib hurts women, too. Women who thought they would have it all, now find that they have to do it all, by themselves.  women’s lib is not all good, not even for women.

Far from bringing general, widespread bliss, the Utopia that the divorce revolution and women’s liberation were to bring about did not quite deliver the promised goods, far from it.  It created much misery and caused for many (and still does) deadly experiences.

More divorce causes escalating suicide rates — Canadian suicide deaths, 1950 to 1992

Canadian suicide deaths, 1950 to 1992

The escalating suicide deaths could have been caused by many things, but it is clear from the trend lines in the following graph that the divorce revolution was a major contributing factor. Moreover, that whatever is being done to mitigate the detrimental impact of the
divorce revolution, it will take a long time before things (if ever) will be back to normal.

More divorce causes escalating suicide rates

Canada — suicide rates vs. divorce rates over time; 1950-2008

The pursuit of an ideology at any price is not a good substitute for common sense and the creation of happiness.  An ideologue may dream of Utopia, but the harsh reality is that divorce causes escalating suicide rates, and declining divorce rates cause declining suicides.

If anyone should wish to check where things are now, convenient sources of health indicators will permit to determine to what extent men and women are being served by the social changes that ostensibly make conditions better for everyone.  A comparison of average lifespans vs. estimated average life expectancies, by sex and for specific years and countries, does that quite well. In the following, it is possible to determine how good the social planners are with estimating what we can expect, and how far reality differs from
expectations.

Lifespans in the United States

Lifespans in the United States

In general, things are not going as well for men as they do for women, but why would one expect otherwise? (If you should have trouble figuring out how to check the data for a desired country, you may wish to visit this page.)

Generally (but exceptions always get the most attention), women always got what they wanted, longer, easier lives, and men always did the dying necessary to bring that about.  Women’s liberation never was about equality by any objective measure.  Women always had the lion’s share of it.  Women’s lib was and is about giving women a bigger lion’s share.

Here is an example from a source that permits one to delve a little more into the history of health statistics for all countries in the world.

In Russia, women outlive men on average by about 12 years. That is the price men pay for having gender politics and policies that enormously favor women

Russia — Life-Expectancies, History

Nevertheless, women’s lib and the divorce revolution brought about other problems worth mentioning, not the least of which is a pandemic of population decline, but some individuals rejoice over that.

What were Betty Friedan, The National Organization for Women (NOW) and their cohort thinking?  Did they ever think of the consequences of their solutions to The Problem that has no Name? Were the lives of millions of people not sacred to them? Nevertheless, policy makers bought into the claims, decided what they thought needed to be done and rammed it all down our throats.  No price is too high, when it comes to giving feminists what they want, but that is not the worst of it.

Next Page ….

Posted in Divorce, Health, History, Men's Issues, Second-wave Feminism, Suicides | 3 Comments

Divorce affects children negatively — Youth criminality

…. previous page
Part of the series ‘Communism → second-wave feminism → social re-engineering’
Index and preamble for series

The effects of divorce on children

Divorce affects children negatively. This is an excerpt from a report on The Effects of Divorce on Children.  The excerpt presents information on how different family structures compare with respect to the outcomes in children in relation to youth incarceration rates.  It makes for interesting reading, especially for anyone who still thinks that the problem identified by Betty Friedan and cohort has no name.

Divorce affects children and causes increased youth criminality and incarceration.

The Effects of Divorce on Children

Here is an excerpt from that:

»V. Effects on Government: Increased Crime, Abuse, and Use of Drugs

A. Increased Crime Rates

Robert Sampson (then professor of sociology at the University of Chicago) reported, after studying 171 cities in the United States with populations over 100,000, that the divorce rate predicted the robbery rate of any given area, regardless of its economic and racial composition. In these communities, he found that lower divorce rates indicated higher formal and informal social controls (such as the supervision of children) and lower crime rates.237 In 1994, it was reported in Wisconsin that the incarceration rate of juvenile delinquents was 12 times higher among children of divorced parents than among children of married parents.238 In a British longitudinal study of males aged eight to 32, David P. Farrington, professor of criminology at Cambridge University, found experiencing parental divorce before age 10 to be a major predictor of adolescent delinquency and adult criminality.239 Adolescents from divorced families (particularly those in divorced single-father families) display more antisocial and violent behavior than adolescents in biologically intact families.240 An Australian parliamentary review of the literature found that divorce increases the likelihood that children will feel hostility and rejection.241….« —More p. 34

Divorce affects children: Family Structure — Comparative Youth Incarceration Rates

Family Structure — Comparative Youth Incarceration Rates

______________________

  1. Robert J. Sampson, “Crime in Cities: The Effects of Formal and Informal Social Control,” in Communities and Crime, vol. 8, Crime and Justice, ed. Albert J. Reiss and Michael Tonry (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 271-311. 
  2. Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Youth Services, “Family Status of Delinquents in Juvenile Correctional Facilities in Wisconsin” (1994). The data from the report were merged with Current Population Survey data on family structure
    in Wisconsin for that year to derive rates of incarceration by family structure.
  3. David P. Farrington, “Implications of Criminal Career Research for the Prevention of Offending,” Journal of Adolescence 13 (1990): 93-113.
  4. Kyrre Breivik and Dan Olweus, “Adolescent’s Adjustment in Four Post-Divorce Family Structures: Single Mother, Stepfather, Joint Physical Custody and Single Father Families,”
    Journal of Divorce and Remarriage
    44, no. 3 (2006): 114. 
  5. Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, To Have and To Hold: Strategies to Strengthen Marriage and Relationships (Canberra, Australia, Parliament of Australia: 1998), 36.

It is seems that the possibility that divorce affects children negatively ranked low on the priority list of Betty Friedan and cohort, when they did their best to launch the deconstruction of the family, no matter the cost.  What were they thinking?

Next page ….

Posted in Child Abuse, Divorce, Second-wave Feminism, Social-Destruction Enterprise | 4 Comments

The divorce revolution ends reign of the family

…. previous page
Part of the series ‘Communism → second-wave feminism → social re-engineering’
Index and preamble for series

The divorce revolution ends the reign of the family

The divorce revolution – for all practical ends and purposes – put an end to traditional marriage vows that once meant much and were taken seriously:

The man:
“I, [name of groom], take thee, [name of bride], to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till in death we part, and with this ring I thee wed, and with my body I thee honor, and pledge my faithfulness.”

The woman:
“I, [name of bride], take thee, [name of groom], to be my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till in death we part, and with this ring I thee wed, and with my body I thee honor, and pledge my faithfulness.”

Regardless of which of many creative variations the exchanges of those vows now employ, and even if they are older, traditional ones, for most they have primarily nostalgic but no practical value.  For some, those who marry themselves or their dogs, they have only nostalgic value, while for most onlookers they have become a joke.

Yes, we have come a long way in three generations.  Marriage is no longer legally and morally binding for life, thanks to the divorce revolution pushed by people such as Betty  Friedan, the other members of NOW, and by their collaborators.

Here are examples of the many aspects of the reality of that:

The divorce revolution brought lasting changes, permanence, to the ups and downs during 144 years of marriage and divorce rates

Marriage and Divorce Rates (h/t dadsdivorce.com)

The marriage and divorce trends are not driven by the desires of the grass roots. They are man-made, more correctly made by feminism and driven by the influence of the feminist ideology and feminists in all sectors and institutions of society.

The resulting marriage and divorce trends and their harmful consequences are not peculiar to just the U.S. or any other or just some of the developed nations.  They are endemic in all of civilization, as much as the declining birth rates and total fertility rates are becoming increasingly more pervasive in all nations of the world.

The divorce revolution caused German divorce trend to grow, year after year, with one short interruption, but the numbers resumed their increase without delay.

German Divorce Trends

In Germany, 1977 was the Year of Divorce Reform, celebrated as the marriage law reform of the century.  The divorce reforms made divorce more punitive and somewhat more difficult, more expensive, to obtain.  It could be said that if marriage is the prerequisite for divorce, then it can also be said that the taxing of divorce is the consequence of the latter.  More…

Still, although the German divorce reforms had an immediate impact and caused a substantial decline in divorces in Germany, German divorce trends soon recovered. By 1985, just eight years after the “marriage law reform of the century,” the German divorce trend had resumed, almost as if the marriage law reform had never happened.

Next page ….

Posted in Divorce, History, Marriage, Second-wave Feminism | 4 Comments

Second-wave feminism causes harmful Fallout

….previous page
Part of the series ‘Communism → second-wave feminism → social re-engineering’
Index and preamble for series

Fallout from second-wave feminism

Second-wave feminism is liked by many, but it is definitely not all good, far from it. “May you live in interesting times,” is a popular expression. Well, we now live in interesting times, as we watch ten-thousand years of civilization’s evolution reverse or at the very least go into unexplored, dangerous territory. The traditional nuclear family had for 10,000 years been the basic building block of society.  It had been in a symbiotic relationship with civilization.  It can and should be argued that the traditional nuclear family, in the greater context, is civilization.

The “family” in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after.

It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communities–such as tribes, villages, peoples, and nations–grow.

— Allan Carlson, in
What’s Wrong With the United Nations Definition of ‘Family’?
The Family in America (August 1994), p. 3

NOW’s 1966 National Conference Resolutions became the prescription for how society and civilization ought to be changed to be fit for use by women, and thereby was launched the gradual deconstruction of not only American society but of civilization.

Ten-thousand years of social evolution cannot be undone over night, but we have come a long way in just three generations with the social deconstructing that has been achieved.  There is a reckoning; actions have consequences.

“Contemporary (or second wave) feminism has aptly been described as “Marxism without economics,” since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct. Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed. This is the feminist project: to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family. Certain streams of the Gay Rights movement have taken this analysis one step farther. The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such.”

— F.L. Morton & Rainer Knopff, in
The Charter Revolution & The Court Party (p. 75)
More

Next page ….

Posted in Economy, Family, Feminism, Second-wave Feminism | 2 Comments

Start of a bad ending: The Feminine Mystique

….previous (home page for this essay)
Part of the series ‘Communism → second-wave feminism → social re-engineering’
Index and preamble for series

‘The Feminine Mystique’, the start of a bad ending

Betty Friedan, the author of The Feminine Mystique, had decided that women in the U.S. did have a problem, an undefinable problem that no one could put a finger on.  She nevertheless decided to describe what it was and called it “the problem with no name.”  Betty Friedan was by now means the first to express those sentiments, she merely popularized them in the U.S.A. and in doing so catered to a demand market.  She went to great lengths describing that women with college and university educations were overqualified for what many individuals think of as the mundane jobs of mothers and housewives.  Betty Friedan asserted that women could therefore not possibly be happy, because they were being subjugated and condemned to live out their lives in perpetual boredom.

Betty Friedan’s recommendation was to liberate women from the slavery of having children, having to change diapers and to wipe snotty noses, cook meals, make beds, clean homes, shop, and being all-around domestics for their husbands. Thereby women would be able to escape their bonds and contribute more constructively to society by having rewarding careers, just as men had, which it was women’s right to enjoy and society’s duty to make allowances for.  The result of that would be happiness (and who would not go out of his way to make women happy), as a result of which we would gain Utopia, Paradise on Earth.

Second-wave feminism got an enormous boost through Betty Friedan's 'The Feminine Mystique'.

Betty Friedan put the expressed in ‘The Feminine Mystique’ to work, by participating in the launching of NOW (The National Organization for Women).

The message in The Feminine Mystique is familiar to students of history and of social evolution.  Many social reformers throughout history tried to motivate mankind to strive to attain Utopia, Paradise on Earth — through various means and methods, as explained excellently by Igor Shafarevich in The Socialist Phenomenon (1975, by YMCA Press; 1980 
English translation–online
, by Harper & Row).  No one had ever tried to succeed with that by developing a marketing strategy and message that targeted just the female half of mankind as well as had Betty Friedan (she and the second chapter of her book had been influenced by Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex).  She was a messenger who became a prophet, because the message she brought filled a void, the perception (no matter whether it was right or not, it was desired — it is hard to resist the lure of Paradise on Earth) that women’s role in society need not be boring but should have meaning. Many of Betty Friedan’s collaborators surely saw it for what it could become. Women were entitled to have meaningful lives, and society, all of civilization, owed it to them.

“A society that puts equality—in the sense of  equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.  The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”

—Milton and Rose Friedman
in Free to Choose: A Personal Statement

Why stop at full equality when everything is up for grabs?  In the perfect guise of seeking equality for women, Betty Friedan’s message was used as a Trojan horse that put mankind on the road to feminist supremacy.

The message in The Feminine Mystique proved to be irresistibly attractive to the nation’s women who had everything that women in the rest of the world envied them for.  Women who had everything but their full share of responsibilities could feel that their eyes had been opened.  The problem that had no name finally had received the recognition it deserved.  The boredom and lack of duties and responsibilities that so many felt they were suffering under became duly recognized as insidious oppression by the patriarchy.  The Feminine Mystique opened the  eyes of millions of dissatisfied women who yearned for their place in the sun, because they deserved it.  They were women.  They wanted it, and they wanted it now!

Millions of bored, dissatisfied women suddenly had a mission worth going on (although the membership of NOW apparently never rose above about 250,000). Many of them realized that, of course, they would not have to stop at achieving equality, but that, with enough imagination, they could rule, which they set out to achieve.

The message in The Feminine Mystique got soaked up as a dry sponge soaks up water.  The book became very popular.

»The Feminine Mystique is a book written by Betty Friedan which is widely credited with sparking the beginning of second-wave feminism in the United States.[2]….

During the year of 1964, The Feminine Mystique became the bestselling nonfiction book with over one million copies sold.[5][6] In this book, Friedan challenged the widely shared belief in 1950s that “fulfillment as a woman had only one definition for American women after 1949—the housewife-mother.”[6]….« —Wikipedia

Wikipedia also informs that,

»During the year of 1964, The Feminine Mystique became the bestselling nonfiction book with over one million copies sold.[5][6] In this book, Friedan challenged the widely shared belief in 1950s that “fulfillment as a woman had only one definition for American women after 1949—the housewife-mother.”[6] « —More (and links)

Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique rose to fame, and so did its author. Perhaps that prevented her from delivering the promised sequel to her book.  She became engaged in helping to launch the National Organization for Women (NOW) and, in 1966, was one of its co-founders (or at least on of the  coauthors of its 1966 Statement of purpose.)

1966 Founding of NOW, The National Organization for Women

NOW was at first somewhat gender-inclusive or made some concessions to gender tolerance, but perhaps that was just a pretense, to avoid the creation of a bad impression, as it became soon obvious that NOW would wage war against all things male.  Now had a strong lesbian contingent right from the start. One of the coauthors of its 1966 Statement of Purpose was a lesbian.

The 1998 version of its first agenda, The National Organization for Women’s 1966 Statement of Purpose, states: “This Statement of Purpose was co-authored by Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique, and Dr. Pauli Murray, an African-American, Episcopal minister.”

Analoyce Clapp wrote, “28 women met to set up a temporary organization for this purpose: To take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, assuming all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.” — NOW, in Founding: Setting the Stage

NOW’s 49 founders are…

From the June 1966 meeting — 28 women:

Ada Allness, Mary Evelyn Benbow, Gene Boyer, Analoyce Clapp, Kathryn Clarenbach, Catherine Conroy, Caroline Davis, Mary Eastwood, Edith Finlayson, Betty Friedan, Dorothy Haener, Anna Roosevelt Halstead, Lorene Harrington, Mary Lou Hill, Esther Johnson, Nancy Knaak, Min Matheson, Helen Moreland, Dr. Pauli Murray (later Rev.), Ruth Murray, Inka O’Hanrahan, Pauline A. Parish, Eve Purvis, Edna Schwartz, Mary-jane Ryan Snyder, Gretchen Squires, Betty Talkington and Dr. Caroline Ware.

From the October 1966 conference — 21 women and men:

Caruthers Berger, Colleen Boland, Inez Casiano, Carl Degler, Elizabeth Drews, Dr. Mary Esther Gaulden (later Jagger), Muriel Fox, Ruth Gober, Richard Graham, Anna Arnold Hedgeman, Lucille Kapplinger (later Hazell), Bessie Margolin, Margorie Palmer, Sonia Pressman (later Fuentes), Sister Mary Joel Read, Amy Robinson, Charlotte Roe, Alice Rossi, Claire R. Salmond, Morag Simchak and Clara Wells.

— NOW, Honoring Our Founders & Pioneers

Wikipedia makes the same claim, that there were 28 founder, and it even provides a link to the source of the preceding quote with the names of NOW’s founders. Wikipedia asserts that thee were 28 original founders, lists their names, but it found a reason for including an additional one, that of Shirley Chisholm, although it does not specify why its list came to contain the names of 29 original founders of NOW, instead of the 28 it declares their number was, or why her name had to be included in the list.

NOW’s list of the 28 original founders does not contain the name of Shirley Chisholm, but it has another name that is not included in its count of names.  Then again Wikipedia can be forgiven for becoming confused, over the names of NOW’s founders, because NOW itself appears to be confused on the subject.  NOW is the source of Wikipedia’s list of names and does neither identify Shirley Chisholm nor the name of another founding member and its very first vice president:

Richard Graham, 1920-2007

…. His dedication to feminism led to his election as NOW Vice President in October of 1966 during NOW’s first organizing conference. He went on to found the District of Columbia Commission on the Status of Women, and to serve as the Executive Director of the Center for Moral Development at Harvard. In 1975, Graham was named President of Goddard College, where he helped found the Goddard-Cambridge Center for Social Change, one of the earliest centers for women’s studies.

— NOW, Honoring Our Founders & Pioneers

There were at least three other men who are listed in that document containing the name of the founding members of now:  Phineas Indritz, Rev. Dean Lewis,  and Herbert Wright. but they were part of the 21 additional founding members of the October 1966 founding conference.  There are not many people who know that men were founding members of now, NOW itself doesn’t seem to know.

That is not the end of the problems with NOW’s forgetfulness. It appears that some time after 1998 and no later than February 22, 2018, NOW had either contracted organizational amnesia  or felt that it had reasons for erasing Dr. Pauli Murray memory from its corporate consciousness or at least to remove all evidence of her from the copy of its 1966 Statement of Purpose that Now had been publishing then at its website.

The 2018 version of that (of The National Organization for Women’s 1966 Statement of Purpose) no longer mentions Dr. Pauli Murray and the fact that she was a coauthor of The National Organization for Women’s 1966 Statement of Purpose.  It concludes with: “This Statement of Purpose was written by Betty Friedan, author of “The Feminine Mystique”.

By 2016, the fact that all memory of Dr. Pauli had vanished came to light in article that NOW could not resist posting to its website, thereby proving that what has been lost can be found.

Finding Pauli Murray

Printable PDF

Finding Pauli Murray:
The Black Queer Feminist Civil Rights Lawyer Priest who co-founded NOW, but that History Nearly Forgot
October 24, 2016

Pauli Murray Project, http://paulimurrayproject.org/

NOW

It seems that ‘herstory’ is as flexible and variable as were Stalin’s infamous photos, which at first showed him in the company of trusted party officials who were later removed from life, from his photos and from history.  A side-by-side comparison of NOW’s 1966 Statement of Purpose to NOW’s 1996 National Conference Resolutions reveals substantial differences.  The advent of second-wave feminism had not just changed all of society with the help and leadership of NOW, it had changed NOW as well.

In 1966, NOW had been somewhat benign, agreeable, and sedate.
By 1996, NOW had become aggressively demanding, confrontational, belligerent, even shrill, and men were by then most definitely considered to be the enemy of women.

1996 National Conference Resolutions [Index]

– Parental Rights of the Disabled
– Anti-Lesbian and Gay Ballot Initiatives After Amendment 2
– Church Burnings
– Monitoring Sexual Harassment Policies and Title IX Compliance
– Fairness in Courts Dealing with Family Matters
– NOW Action Alert on “Fathers’ Rights”
– Elimination of Gender Apartheid in Sports
– Indigenous Hawai’ian Peoples Resolution
– Breast Implant Resolution
– Veteran Feminists
– Elimination of Discriminatory Labor Practices in Maquila Factory Industries
– National Day of Action in Support of Same-Sex Marriage
– Moving the Feminist Agenda in State Legislatures
– Activism on Native American Issues
– Reproductive Rights
– NOW Vision Summit
– Women’s Vote: Use It or Lose It
– Reaffirmation of Support for the Voting Rights Act
– Supporting Young Feminism Within NOW
– Violence and Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

From the National Organization of Women (NOW):
The original may be accessed at: http://www.now.org/organiza/conferen/1996/resoluti.html
(The preceding link is dysfunctional, but the text of NOW’s 1966 National
Conference Resolutions was accessed in 1999 at that link, downloaded and
annotated.  It can be accessed via the links in the preceding index.)

As can be seen, Now’s 1996 Agenda had something for every woman.  It had been vastly expanded, compared to the 1966 Statement of Purpose, and little was left out (except, of course, all pretense that women’s rights as seen by NOW had anything to do with equality for all, and that a functioning society needs respect for and coöperation with men.)

»No doubt, if you have read any of the documentation relating to the VAWA II [the Violence Against Women Act], you’ll recognize that much of what was contained in the 1966 Agenda of NOW is now firmly embedded in VAWA II. NOW is formulating national policy in the US, not only lobbying to formulate but actually controlling national policy.

Anyone may wonder why that should concern a Canadian.  The reason for that concern is that NOW and other “women’s” organizations in the world, such as NACSOW (National Action Committee Status of Women) in Canada are closely collaborating to dominate world politics.  That is done through their extraordinary influence at the UN, in every possible sector of the UN imaginable.«

— WHS, from my footnotes to
NOW’s 1966 National Conference Resolutions

Next page ….

Posted in Books & Films, Civil Rights, History, Marriage, Second-wave Feminism | 3 Comments

Communism → second-wave feminism → social re-engineering

Second-wave feminism prevails in today’s society.  Many think that is good.  The why and how that came about are not so clear, the consequences often not considered. Second-wave feminism was launched in the 1960s.  These pages provide a summary of why and what happened after that.

Index

The Present: Breadwinner moms are hard up

Last year [2014], the Ketchum consulting firm released a study22 showing that “49% of U.S. women … are now the primary breadwinner or on par financially with their significant others – a trend that is progressing more quickly than even recent major studies showed.”

In itself, this is a major shift from past decades.  What this statistic does not capture, however, is that single mothers earn significantly less than do families with two parents. According to the Census Bureau, in 2013, the median income for families headed by single mothers was $26,148.  In contrast, the median income for families with two parents was $84,916. ….

Quoted from:
The State of Your Family’s Economy, 2015
By Rob Schwarzwalder
Family Research Council

The income difference is substantial. It appears that many women have an aversion to being well off, or else they would not so eagerly opt for the life style of a single mother. That does not appear to make much sense. Consider:

  • All things being equal, the gender income gap vanishes. Yet the feminists keep on fighting to make women ever “more equal” than men.
  • When it comes to families with children, the average household income for single-mother families is about one-third that of households with two parents.

Husbands (fathers, protectors and providers in families) should obviously be in great demand. Women should be falling over themselves trying to get them and to try even harder to keep them. Still, it appears that most women and the vast majority of society, and virtually all social institutions are out to derogate, vilify and abrogate the intact, two-parent family.

Men and especially fathers in families are being vilified, obviously because they are the weakest links in the two-parent family and the easiest to break. That puts a steadily growing number of women on the road of hard, miserable lives, full of constant struggle. That produces deplorable outcomes in children of single-mother families. It does not do anything good for society and the welfare of nations. We know that. Nevertheless, those deplorable outcomes are being actively sought.

Beginning in the 1960s, there has been an all-out war against fathers in families.  Who is at fault?  If you believe the feminists, men are.

Second-wave feminism inspires creativity: you can blame men for *everything* !

… and give them credit for nothing.

The caption for the cartoon should be amended to read: “It’s so cool! If you use your imagination, you can blame men for everything, and give them credit for nothing!”

So, what is this? What happened?  Did something cause mass insanity?

I had posted the preceding thoughts to Facebook.  A fathers rights activist
from California, Robert L. Cheney Jr., stated,

“It’s a religion, started by The Feminine Mystique. This was during a time, that America led every social indicator across the world, when woman were the happiest, when they and the nation lived in the highest living standard in the world, when both men and woman did well—it was destroyed for a “problem with no name” (happiness). Now feminist say we don’t want to go back to the ’50s and ’60s—but rather they want to push the world back into the social condition that existed on the plains of Africa 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.”

Next page ….

Posted in Family, Feminism, History, Second-wave Feminism, Single-Parent | 8 Comments

Actual lifespans versus estimated life expectancies

This gallery contains 15 photos.

(Revision 2018 02 19: to identify a serious error in a report published by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, a report on aspects of suicides in India.) Actual average lifespans in the United States began to decline in … Continue reading

More Galleries | 3 Comments

Mass killer, spree killer, rampage killer, serial killer…?

Mass killer, spree killer, rampage killer, serial killer… What is the difference?

A Nation of Killers?‘ argues that nationality is not a factor in serial killing and implies that neither is the sex of the perpetrator. It uses the term ‘spree killer’ to identify the phenomenon of mass killers but implies that the borders between the categories serial killer and mass killer are blurred.

Breaking the Silence of the Lambs: Female Serial Killers and Collective Amnesia‘ identifies that men do not have a monopoly on being serial killers and that our collective amnesia with respect to female serial killers is quite recent (a consequence of the effectiveness of public relations efforts by modern feminism).

There most definitely were and are female mass killers. After all, women are just as human as men (or are they?).  The ‘Columbine High School Massacre Discussion Forum‘ identifies a compendium of female mass killers.

Shall I kill you ‘deader’ yet?

Mass killer, spree killer, rampage killer, serial killer…, who can tell the difference? Wikipedia does?

Mass murder is “the act of murdering a number of people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time and in close geographic proximity.”

Spree killer, someone who kills two or more victims in a short time in multiple locations.

Rampage killer, “A rampage involves the (attempted) killing of multiple persons at least partly in public space by a single physically present perpetrator using (potentially) deadly weapons in a single event without any cooling-off period.” Don’t ask why a weapon that was used to kill a good number of people is deemed ‘potentially’ deadly.

Serial killer, “typically a person who murders three or more people, usually in service of abnormal psychological gratification, with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant period of time between them.” Correct me if I am wrong, but is there anything that is normal about murdering anyone, let alone three or more people?

Did anyone ever look at all of the various attributes of somewhat arbitrary and capricious murder categories and apportioned them appropriately and rationally to individual categories of murders?  Yes, that appears to have been done. It appears to have been decided that none of the attributes matter much, other than almost equally, except for one, whether it was done by a woman. Although it was once, not all that long ago, common practice to acknowledge that woman are as human and as deadly as are men, that is no longer the case.

In their infinite wisdom, the feminist social engineers decided that the common sense expressed by Rudyard Kipling in ‘The Female of the Species‘ is wrong and launched a campaign to promote the denial of female culpability.

Mass killer? You can blame men for *everything*!

… and give them credit for nothing.

Of course, that is exceedingly difficult, when human lives are being willfully and even unjustifiably terminated, due to the prevalence of the inconvenient evidence — the bodies that litter the scenes. Therefore, when the evidence is undeniable, we now legalize it when women take lives and call it ‘abortion’, ‘infanticide’ or simply condone it in whatever desirable fashion.

That has a fine effect, as it makes the prevailing collective amnesia with respect to female culpability a reality.  For example, let’s not mention female suicide bombers or that women commit the vast majority of fatal child abuse and neglect.  Close to a million fatalities a year, in the US alone, but never mind.

How does a male mass killer fit in?

The Florida shooter, Nikolas Cruz, is without a doubt a mass killer who ended the lives of 17 people, mostly children.  Are those 17 lives more important than the remaining million that were violently terminated during the past 12 months?  Never mind.  We need to concern ourselves about what made Nikolas Cruz do what he did.

Few details are available as of now, but some emerged, such as that he was a full orphan who had been adopted, that his adoptive mother had died last November, that he had an obsession with owning weapons.   Perhaps we will eventually find out more but never be able to figure out what made him into a mass killer.

We know already that his killing spree broke the law and that, in absolute terms, the killing of close to a million other human beings during the past twelve months mostly did not (while the rest don’t matter that much, because they took place individually, although some did not), because most of them were legal, even government-funded.

We don’t know yet when Nicolas Cruz’ parents had died, whether he made the journey from one foster home to the next (on average 16 for orphaned or apprehended boys by the time they are eighteen).  All we can determine as of now is that he appears to fit the outcomes that are vastly more likely to be seen in children suffering from their parents’ divorce and father absence than they are with children from intact families.  Take a look at the damages that causes on average:

The Effects of Divorce on Children
Patrick F. Fagan and Aaron Churchill
January 11, 2012
https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF12A22.pdf

Let us hope that we will find our way out of the mess we managed to create for ourselves.


Addendum (2018 02 15, 6:12 PM)

Nikolas Cruz suffers from FAS?

Today I saw a photo of Nikolas Cruz, the Florida shooter, and instantly thought of looking whether someone else had drawn the conclusion the photo made me draw, that Nikolas Cruz is suffering from FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome). Judging by the way Nikolas Cruz looks on the photo in the article identified below, yes, FAS is a possibility.

The headline for the article states, “Florida shooter, 19, may have had fetal alcohol syndrome“. FAS is not something that one “may have had”. FAS sufferers are born with the brain condition. I cannot be cured. It will never go away. It lasts for life.

From the indicated article:

»…Children with FASD [Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder *] can fall on many ends of the spectrum and vary in symptoms. Experts generally break the spectrum up into three stages. [* FASD — a continuum of permanent birth defects caused by maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy]

ARBD (alcohol-related birth defects) is the mildest stage, occurring in babies of women who drank lightly or moderately during pregnancy.

The physical defects of ARBD include heart, skeletal, kidney, ear, and eye malformations in the absence of apparent neurobehavioral or brain disorders.

ARND [alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder] occurs in infants whose mothers drank lightly to moderately during pregnancy.

Specifically, children with ARND do not have the FAS facial abnormalities, but may have developmental disabilities including structural and/or functional central nervous system dysfunction (brain damage) with behavioral and learning problems.

FAS is recognized as the most severe form of the condition and occurs in women who drink heavily during pregnancy.

Kids with FAS have a distinct pattern of facial abnormalities, growth deficiency and evidence of central nervous system dysfunction…«

More about FAS in a comprehensive Canadian article from 16 years ago:

The fetal alcohol crisis

Report Newsmagazine (The Report Newsmagazine ceased publishing)

September 25, 2000 Issue, Full Text

»In addition to the tragedy caused, the cost of women binge-drinking while pregnant now exceeds that of the national debt«

by Candis McLean

Posted in Child Abuse, Divorce, Family, Feminism, History, Media Bias | Comments Off on Mass killer, spree killer, rampage killer, serial killer…?

Divorce hurts Children, a million more in the U.S. a year

Divorce hurts children: “Each year, over a million American children suffer the divorce of their parents. Divorce causes irreparable harm to all involved, but most especially to the children. Though it might be shown to benefit some individuals in some individual cases, over all it causes a temporary decrease in an individual’s quality of life and puts some “on a downward trajectory from which they might never fully recover.”1

Divorce damages society. It consumes social and human capital. It substantially increases cost to the taxpayer, while diminishing the taxpaying portion of society. It diminishes children’s future competence in all five of society’s major tasks or institutions: family, school, religion, marketplace and government. The reversal of the cultural and social status of divorce would be nothing less than a cultural revolution. Only a few generations ago, American culture rejected divorce as scandalous. Today, law, behavior, and culture embrace and even celebrate it….”

The Effects of Divorce on Children
Patrick F. Fagan and Aaron Churchill
January 11, 2012
Original text and bibliographic references at https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF12A22.pdf

Excerpt from the report:

C. Weakened Father-Child Relationships
Contact. Divorce leads to a decline in the frequency and quality of parent-child contact and relationships,25 and it becomes difficult for non-residential parents, 90 percent of whom are fathers, to maintain close ties with their children.26 For example, children spend significantly more nights with their mother than their father.27 Nearly 50 percent of the children in one study reported not seeing their nonresident father in the past year, and the small number that had recently stayed overnight at the father’s residence did so for a special visit, not as part of a regular routine.28 An analysis of the National Survey of Families and Households29 found that about one in five divorced fathers had not seen his
children in the past year, and fewer than half the fathers saw their children more
than a few times a year.30 By adolescence (between the ages of 12 and 16), fewer
than half of children living with separated, divorced, or remarried mothers had
seen their fathers at all in more than a year, and only one in six saw their fathers
once a week.31

Contact with the father declines over time after a divorce, though this pattern is
less pronounced the older the child is at the time of the divorce.32 Daughters of
divorced parents were eight percent less likely than their peers in intact families to
have frequent contact with their fathers, and sons of divorced parents were 20
percent less likely.33

Emotional Closeness and Well-being. Children’s relationships with their parents worsen after a divorce.34 Marital disruption creates distance between parents and children,35 even compared to children living in married but unhappy families.36 Divorced parents also report significantly diminished satisfaction with their former spouse’s relationships with their children,37 though parental divorce tends to affect the relationship of the child and the opposite-sex parent more than the child and their parent of the same sex.38

divorce hurts children, by creating distance between parents and children; even compared to children living in married but unhappy families.

Separation and divorce create distance between parents and children; even compared to children living in married but unhappy families.

Divorced fathers, especially non-custodial fathers, do not fare well with their children. Children report more distant relationships with their fathers,39 and fathers report “a more negative change in their relationships with their children than [do] custodial mothers.”40 The pattern of worsening relationships after the breakup holds for both sons41 and daughters,42 and more conflict during the divorce process increases the likelihood of distance between the father and his children.43 However, as time passes after the breakup, conflict between father and child decreases. Additionally, older children typically experience less conflict with their nonresident fathers than do younger children.44

Divorce leads to a decline in children’s ability to trust their fathers,45 which does
not bode well for the lifetime happiness of divorced children. Young adults who
feel emotionally close to their fathers tend to be happier and more satisfied in
life, regardless of their feelings towards their mothers.46 However, children and
adolescents who do feel close to the father following a divorce experience better
outcomes.47

Children from divorced families receive less emotional support from their fathers
than children from intact families.48 Divorced fathers are less nurturing,49 and
more likely to drift away from younger children if denied legal custody at the
time of the divorce.50 Nonresident fathers also “have considerably less opportunity
to influence their children’s attitudes and behavior,”51 a reality of which the
implications this paper will attempt to explore. Ultimately, the proportion of
children who enjoy a consistently close relationship with their father is much
higher among adolescents whose parents remain married (48 percent) than among
those whose parents divorce (25 percent).52

Persisting Effects. Boys, especially if they live with their mother, respond with
more hostility to parental divorce than girls do, both immediately following the
divorce and for a period of years thereafter.53 Girls often fare worse than boys
when living with their father or stepfather after a parental divorce.54 By the time children, particularly daughters, attend college, their affection for their divorced
father wanes significantly.55

D. Weakened Grandparent-Grandchild Relationships
Divorce negatively affects grandparent/grandchild relationships…. (Continued… read PDF file)
____________
More at dads & things and at Fathers for Life about children of divorce

 


References (excerpted references; only those that are pertinent to the excerpt quoted in this blog posting)

  1. Paul R. Amato, “The Consequences of Divorce for Adults and Children,” Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (2000): 1269.
  2. William S. Aquilino, “Later-Life Parental Divorce and Widowhood: Impact on Young Adults’ Assessment of Parent-Child Relations,” Journal of Marriage and Family 56 (1994): 908-922.
    Alan Booth and Paul R. Amato, “Parental Pre-Divorce Relations and Offspring Postdivorce Well-Being,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 63 (2001): 210.
  3. Brad Peters and Marion F. Ehrenberg, “The Influence of Parental Separations and Divorce on Father-Child Relationships,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 49 (2008): 96-97.
    Alan Booth and Paul R. Amato, “Parental Marital Quality, Parental Divorce, and Relations with Parents,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 56, no. 1 (1994): 27.
  4. I-Fen Lin, Nora Cate Schaeffer, Judith A. Seltzer, and Kay L. Tuschen, “Divorced Parents’ Qualitative and Quantitative Reports of Children’s Living Arrangements,” Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (2004): 389-390.
  5. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr. and Christine W. Nord, “Parenting Apart: Patterns of Childrearing after Marital Disruption,” Journal of Marriage and Family 47 (1985): 893-904. Note: Eight percent of the children whose fathers were nonresident had never-married (as opposed to married and then divorced or separated) fathers.
  6. This is a federally funded survey of 13,000 respondents conducted by the University of Wisconsin in 1987-1988, 1992-1994, and 2001-2003.
  7. Judith A. Seltzer, “Relationships between Fathers and Children Who Live Apart: The Father’s Role After Separation,” Journal of Marriage and Family 53 (1991): 79-101.
  8. David Popenoe, Life without Father (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1996), 31. Popenoe reports on the findings of The National Survey of Children.
  9. Judith Seltzer, “Relationships between Fathers and Children Who Live Apart: The Father’s Role after Separation,” Journal of Marriage and Family 53 (1991): 79-101.
  10. Teresa M. Cooney, “Young Adults’ Relations With Parents: The Influence of Recent Parental Divorce,” Journal of Marriage and Family 56 (1994): 45-56.
  11. Paul R. Amato, “Children of Divorce in the 1990s: An Update of the Amato and Keith (1991) Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Family Psychology 15 (2001): 355-375.
    Yongmin Sun, “Family Environment and Adolescents’ Well-being Before and After Parents’ Marital Disruption: A Longitudinal Analysis,” Journal of Marriage and Family 63 (2001): 697-713.
    Paul R. Amato and Bruce Keith “Parental Divorce and the Well-being of Children: A Meta-Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin 110 (1991): 26-46.
  12. Alice Rossi and Peter Rossi, Of Human Bonding: Parent-Child Relations Across the Life Course (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990). As cited in Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at Risk, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 69.
    Juliana M. Soboleswki, “Parents’ Discord and Divorce, Parent-Child Relationships and Subjective Well-being in Early Adulthood: Is Feeling Close to Two Parents Always Better than Feeling Close to One?” Social Forces 85 (2007): 1105-1124.
    Alan Booth and Paul R. Amato, “Parental Predivorce Relations and Offspring Postdivorce Well-being,” Journal of Marriage and Family 63 (2001): 197-212.
  13. Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, “Consequences of Parental Divorce and Marital Unhappiness for Adult Well-being,” Social Forces 69 (1991): 895-914.
  14. Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, “A Prospective Study of Divorce and Parent-Child
    Relationships,” Journal of Marriage and Family 58 (1996): 361.
  15. Alan Booth and Paul R. Amato, “Parental Marital Quality, Parental Divorce, and Relations with Parents,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 56, no. 1 (1994): 28.
  16. Rosemary Dunlop, Ailsa Burns, and Suzanne Bermingham, “Parent-Child Relations and Adolescent Self-Image Following Divorce: A Ten Year Study,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 30 (2001): 117-134.
  17. Marsha Kline Pruett, Tamra Y. Williams, Glendessa Insabella, and Todd D. Little, “Family and Legal Indicators of Child Adjustment to Divorce Among Families With Young Children,” Journal of Family Psychology 17, no. 2 (2003): 174.
  18. Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro, “Long Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-child Relationships, Adjustment, and Achievement in Young Adulthood,” Journal of Family Psychology 7 (1993): 91-103.
  19. Constance R. Ahrons and Jennifer L. Tanner, “Adult Children and Their Fathers: Relationship Changes Twenty Years after Parental Divorce,” Family Relations 52 (2003): 340-351.
  20. Janet Johnston, “High Conflict Divorce,” The Future of Children (1994): 165-182.
  21. Judy Dunn, Helen Cheng, Thomas G. O’Connor, and Laura Bridges, “Children’s Perspectives on Their Relationships with Their Nonresident Fathers: Influences, Outcomes and Implications,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45, no. 3 (2004): 559.
  22. Valarie King, “Parental Divorce and Interpersonal Trust in Adult Offspring,” Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (2002): 642-656.
  23. Paul Amato, “Father-Child Relations, Mother-Child Relations and Offspring Psychological Well-being in Early Adulthood,” Journal of Marriage and Family 56 (1994): 1031-1042.
  24. Paul Amato and Joan G. Gilbreth, “Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being: A metaanalysis,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (1999): 557-574; Valarie King and Juliana M. Sobolewski, “Nonresident fathers’ contributions to adolescent well-being,” Journal of Marriage and Family 68 (2006): 537-557. Both as cited in Mindy E. Scott, Alan Booth, Valarie King, and David R. Johnson, “Postdivorce Father-Adolescent Closeness,” Journal of Marriage and Family 69 (2007): 1194.
  25. Heidi R. Riggio, “Parental Marital Conflict and Divorce, Parent-Child Relationships, Social Support, and Relationship Anxiety in Young Adulthood,” Personal Relationships 11 (2004): 106.
  26. Seth J. Schwartz and Gordon E. Finley, “Fathering in Intact and Divorced Families: Ethnic Differences in Retrospective Reports,” Journal of Marriage and Family, 67 (2005): 207.
  27. Yoram Weiss and Robert J. Willis, “Children as Collective Goods and Divorce Settlements,” Journal of Labor Economics 3 (1985): 268-292.
  28. Judith A. Seltzer, “Legal Custody Arrangements and Children’s Economic Welfare,” American Journal of Sociology 96 (1991): 898.
  29. Mindy E. Scott, Alan Booth, Valarie King, and David R. Johnson, “Postdivorce Father-Adolescent Closeness,” Journal of Marriage and Family 69 (2007): 1201.
  30. Martha J. Zaslow, “Sex Differences in Children’s Response to Parental Divorce: Two Samples, Variables, Ages, and Sources,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 59 (1989): 118-141.
  31. Martha J. Zaslow, “Sex Differences in Children’s Response to Parental Divorce: Two Samples, Variables, Ages, and Sources,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 59 (1989): 118-141.
  32. Teresa M. Cooney, Michael A. Smyer, Gunhild O. Hagstad, and Robin Klock, “Parental Divorce in Young Adulthood: Some Preliminary Findings,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 56 (1986): 470-477.
Posted in Child Abuse, Civil Rights, Divorce, Economy, Education, Family, Health, Men's Issues, Paternal Rights, Single-Parent | 1 Comment