Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    JIM,
         I guess I really opened a can of worms.:^) I did a little bit
    of reaserch this morning and will when I complete the reaserch 
    report back the results. 
         
         I also would like to take this time to say that I had no intention
    of hurting ANYone. You that have adopted children i have the grestest
    respect for. I am a natural father of 3 children and I do not want
    to belittle the fathers. I understand the "bonding" between fathers
    and newborns.
    
        My early reaserch has indicated intresting facts. The newborn
    has only one emotional NEED at birth and that is love. (if there
    is a dispute with this I will get the name of the author and name
    of the textbook)
    
    Dave
    

    OOPs in .0 the word "carring" should be carrying.
    Anyone know if its possible to edit a note after it is written ?
    
    Jim
    

    I guess the reason that everyone has gotten so up in arms about
    Dave's assertion is that he said the woman would make a better parent
    than the father.  He justified this by the bonding that supposedly
    occurred at birth.
    
    I, and apparently many others, immediately took this to be just
    one more unfair bias against having men as parents.  As long as
    this false (in my opinion) bias is allowed to continue, men will
    constantly be fighting an uphill battle over custody in the courts,
    as well as their rights as parents in society.  I was reading an
    article about parental leave.  It seems that something like 95%
    of the people that take the leave are women.  It was also mentioned
    by at least one personnel person that if a man were to take the
    unpaid leave that his career would suffer considerably.  Now, I
    feel that this is unfair and the above bias only reinforces these
    outmoded attitudes.  If it perceived acceptable for a woman to take
    paternal leave, then it should be just as ok for the man.  I believe
    that the man should be entitled to the same 6 weeks paid leave that
    the woman gets.  I know - I am being radical here, so I will shut
    up.
    
    Ed..
    

    Ed,
         Ok, you have just brought up a very good topic.(by the way
    I am still researching the "bonding" issue) Take a look at all the
    people in  the "power positions" in all facets of our society. You
    will find that they are mostly MEN. Who are you blaming for this
    supposed bias? I agree with you that fathers ought to have more
    say in the disposition of the child in all cases. But to blame women
    for that problem is unfair. Women only want as much as the men have
    now. Equality does go both ways you know.
    
    Dave
    

    I'm not blaming only women for the bias against men as parents.
     I just feel that if the pendulum started swinging more to the middle,
    then many women would be hurt.  I feel that this would cause the
    women to cry foul (or discrimination), and the women would try to
    stop the pendulum.  Now I know this is just my opinion and may be
    just unjustified paranoia.  I just don't think anyone should be
    going around trying to site "studies" that supposedly "prove" that
    men (or women for that matter) are better or worse at any one thing
    than women.
    
    Ed..
    

    
    
    re: 3
    
    Ed I just read the Digital Benifits Book.  According to it men are
    entitled to take up to 8 weeks unpaid time off to spend with a new
    child.
    
    "For a mother, a paternal leave is available in addition to short-
    term disability.  This means that for a normal delivery, a mother
    could be on short-term disability for two weeks before the delivery
    date and six weeks after the birth and then take and additional
    eight-week unpaid parental leave of absence."
    
    So the time off with unpaid leave is the same for both men and
    women.  The paid time off is short-term disability. 
    To qualify for short-term disabilty one has to have an illness,
    injury or pregnancy that is totally disabling, leaving you
    unable to perform your job.  When a couple go through a pregnancy
    it is the woman who actually experiences the physical trauma not
    the man.  The man has not had any physical trauma, emotional sure
    but not physical.  It is this physical trauma that renders the
    woman unable to perform her job.  The man on the other hand has
    not had a physical trauma that renders him unable to do his job.
    This I believe is the reason that men are not allowed 8 weeks
    paid leave on short-term disability.
    
    
    
    As far as either sex taking time off, this will hurt both parties
    careers, not just the man's.  However, until parents start fighting
    to change managers ideas the situation will not change.  I for one
    hope that my husband will be able to stay home with our children
    when they are newborns.  I think most fathers would love to stay
    home during that special time.  I also think most parents would
    like to devote that time to their children without worrying about
    their jobs.
    
    

    RE: .6
        ahh, the voice of reason! Thank you
    
    RE: .5
           Ed,
              I think I see "our" problem. You believe that the pendulum
    is now on the side of women. Am I right?
              Until your note I thought that it was on the side of men.
    
          Looking at the "whole" I don't believe that the problem is
    as simple as "the" pendulum on any side. Let me see if I can explain
    that statement. I have taken great issue with the feminists argument
    against the veterans 10 point preference on civil service jobs.
    I had to, at 18, sign up for the draft and guess what...I got called!
    Now this was not my choice, If I wanted to stay american I had to
    go. I do believe that men and women,on the whole, have different
    advantages in this "our" society. I believe,you and rightly so,
    are calling for total equality on all sides. Am I correct in this?
    If so I AGREE!
    
    Dave

    I agree with everyone that the fathers role is as important as the
    mothers role in the upbringing of a child from birth to the time
    they are adults.  A child who has grown up without a father or a
    mother has not had it as easy as a child with both parents. (Let
    me say now that this is the average family without any sexual abuse,
    physical abuse, or any other variables which could be thrown in)
    I may make them a stronger person in a long run, but they have lost
    something also. 
    
    When a man has a child, his first thoughts are providing for, and
    protecting his family.  It is not something which he consciously
    thinks about, it is something which kind of creeps out of the back
    of the mind and becomes a reason for doing everything.  History
    has shown that men go to war and women stay home and take care of
    their families.  From as far back as history documents it has been
    like that.  Maybe society has made things this way but if it has
    their must have been a good reason for it.
    
    Mike

    	RE:  .5
    
    	> I just feel that if the pendulum started swinging more to
    	> the middle, then many women would be hurt.  I feel that this
    	> would cause the women to cry foul (or discrimination), and
    	> the women would try to stop the pendulum.  Now I know this
    	> is just my opinion and may be just unjustified paranoia.
    
    	What do you mean by "many women would be hurt"?  Are you
    	talking about things like child-care payments going down,
    	or some such?  (In answer to that, one would hope that women's
    	pay would have improved enough that child-care would not be
    	a big issue for all women.)  Or do you mean that less women
    	would get full custody of their children?  (One would hope
    	that more parents would get joint custody by then, so that
    	neither the Moms nor the Dads would be left out.)
    
    	The groups (FAIR, etc) seem to be doing well enough by crying
    	foul (and discrimination) on behalf of fathers now, that I doubt
    	if the pendalum could be slowed down much when it starts to
    	hit middle.  My guess is that fathers will find much more
    	fair court settlements as the pendulum gets closer to the
    	middle.  
    
    	However, I don't blame you for becoming antsy at the idea
    	that women might bond while men don't.  My Mom and Dad both
    	bonded as close Grandparents to my son at 4 and a half months
    	old (and it was an amazing thing to watch.)  I guess we just
    	bond in different ways somehow.

    Re The last few
    
    Yes, I do advocate equality for both sexes.  As for the leave policy,
    I agree that both men and women could probably take unpaid leave.
     But I disagree that it is necessary for a mother to have 8 weeks
    paid leave as disability leave.  Many doctors have been getting
    the woman out of the hospital in a matter of days.  It seems that
    the woman should be given a fair time off - say 1 week before and
    1 week after - with pay.  Anything else should be either vacation
    or unpaid.  This would be a reasonable leave, unless some sort of
    surgery were involved, at which point normal surgery rules would
    take effect.
    
    When I referred to the pendulum swinging to the middle hurting many
    women, I was referring to more women not getting custody of the
    child(ren) in favor of the father.  I also was referring to women
    having to pay child support and alimony.  I was referring to women
    having to find a new place to live when a marriage splits up, instead
    of the men.
    
    Some things are beginning to change, such as life insurance.  In
    the past the women paid less, and received lower benefits than men.
     The argument for this was that women statistically live longer
    than men.  This is true, as far as I understand from the mortality
    tables.  This has supposedly been changed so that women pay the
    same as men and get the same benefits.  I am not saying this is
    either good or bad, just different.
    
    Ed..
    

    Re: .10
    
    One week?  Sorry, but this is just too outrageous for me.
    
    The "two weeks before" is a necessary buffer so that the mother can
    get some rest before going into what is most likely the most
    physically exhausting ordeal of her life.  Also, some women have their
    babies early (in fact, I was supposed to be attending a lunch today
    for a woman in our group whose last day at work was Friday, in
    anticipation of her baby due two weeks from now.  She had a boy
    yesterday morning!)
    
    Six weeks afterwards is often insufficient for many women to physically
    recover from delivery to the point where they are ready for work.
    Even eight weeks may not be enough.  I don't begrudge women any of
    their disability time.
    
    I think the unpaid parental leave is a good idea.  (Would be even
    better if it was paid, but... )
    
    			Steve

    I fully agree with the regulations around maternity leave.  It is
    a tough experience for the woman and they need that time to recover
    and to spend with their new born baby.
    
    RE: .9  Instead of women earning enough so as child support is not
    a big deal, perhaps we could concentrate more on keeping the families
    together and getting some stability back into the family.  Maybe,
    if we are really lucky, men will be able to earn enough to support
    their families again so as our kids can be given the attention and
    nurturing they need while they are infants.  In daycare where there
    are 6 children to 1 adult on the average each child would recieve
    1 1/3 hours of individual attention if the adult did nothing but
    attend to the child.  
    
    All this progress we are seeing these days reminds me of a verse
    from a song, "one step up and two steps back."  I know I'll get
    jumped on for living in the past and all that other crud, but if
    you take a good look around you, society as a whole seems to bet
    worse off.  No, things weren't perfect back then, but help thy neighbor
    was not a luxury rather a given.
    
    Excuse me whilst I climb down off this soapbox..... oops... crash....
    ouch...............
    
    
    Mike

    	RE:  .12
    
    	What do you think can be done to put "some stability back into
    	the family" (as you suggested in your note)?
    

    I think the only way we can do this is by changing our priorities.
    So much emphasis is put on having the best of everything and not
    wanting for anything.  We all want our kids to have more than we
    did.  I was riding by a college the other day and there were new
    Camaros, Datsuns, Toyotas, etc in the parking lot.  We have to start
    putting our priorities back on family and God.  It's the only sure
    way I know of.  
    
    Mike

    I agree with Mike, and I would also add that we need to stop taking
    each other for granted. When we get married it's not a 50/50
    proposition, its 100/100. Whats mine is yours and whats yours is
    mine. Your happiness is mine, and my happiness is yours. We can
    not live as married singles, which is what many couples try to do.
    
    Jim

    Sorry, but most mothers have more than one kid, and are doing
    errands, housework, etc. all day so those kids are lucky if
    they get 1 1/2 hour of undivided attention too.  Perhaps the
    reason that the family was more "stable" back then was because
    the woman had no options.  Together <> happy, necessarily.  
    I agree that marriage is a 100/100 commitment and people should 
    put more time and effort into their families than into material 
    acquisitions.  But whatever makes you happy.  I know some teens 
    that are much worse off for being given everything, without having
    to work for it.
    
    What does all this have to do with father-child bonding, boy are
    these replies going all over the map.
    
    Linda

    Sorry, I don't go for the "whatever makes you happy" way of thinking.
    It's too much of a selfish, the world revolves around me way of
    thinking.  
    
    Yes, people are getting used to getting things and not having to
    work for them.  No, not all people, but many.  We are so busy giving 
    our children everything they could want in the materialistic sense
    that we are leaving out the more important part of life which is
    morals and values.  Again, not all, but some, enough that it is
    evident in society.
                       
    In discussions topics wander usually returning to the topic at hand.
    I feel as though this has alot to do with bonding.  We are talking
    about the needs of our children.  Among these needs are bonding
    and attention.  
    
    Mike

    My "whatever makes you happy" is referring to people who do not
    have kids.  I agree that if parents have children and want to
    work 60 hours a week so that they can take skiing vacations
    in Austria while leaving the kids with the grandparents, then
    perhaps there is some selfishness involved.  But seriously,
    how many people do you know like that?  If they are working 
    60 hours a week so that they can live in a "nice" neighborhood 
    with the best schools, then they may have misplaced priorities, 
    but that is not really selfishness.
    
    Getting back to fathers and children, this is what fathers
    traditionally did, work long hours to provide for the family, but 
    miss out on a close relationship with the kids.  I know there were 
    many exceptions.  Don't you think that if both parents work some 
    of the pressure is taken off of the father, and as a result he can 
    spend more time with his children, perhaps take paternity leave if 
    available, not be so stressed out that he takes it out on the
    family, etc.?
    
    	Linda

    
    >Don't you think that if both parents work some of the pressure is taken
    >off of the father, and as a result he can spend more time with his
    >children, perhaps take paternity leave if available, not be so stressed
    >out that he takes it out on the family, etc.? 
    
    IF both parents work, it may mean that they each are spending less
    time with the children, if they both work 40 hours.  Maybe both
    parents working is part of what is destroying families.  You can't
    take paternity leave forever...
    
    Maybe both parents are "taking things" out on the family...
    
    Dwight

    
    Through the years, there have been a lot of families where both parents
    worked, especially lower middle class families during WWII and on into
    the '50s.  I've never been convinced of any correlation between "family
    decay" (if it exists) and two-career families.  In some cases, I've
    seen this sort of family produce children that are more self-reliant
    and more likely to choose non-traditional roles and career paths.
    
    Ron

    I have an article on this topic which I will enter when I can find
    the time.  The basic jist of it is that the "experts" who said having
    a child in daycare was benificial to the child are changing their
    tune in a big way.  Prior to the 70's, less than 20% of women with
    children under the age of 6 worked outside the home.  Today it is
    in (if my memory serves me correctly) the 80-90 percentile.  No,
    I don't think this is the sole reason for everything wrong in the
    world, however, I do believe that it is a contribution.
    
    Mike

    Perhaps it has something to do too, with the divorce rate exceeding
    50% as well.  During the 70's and the 80's, more women have gone
    to work and established careers, and likewise, more families have
    broken up and as a result of that, children have more pressures
    to cope with.  I don't think we can fairly compare both spouses
    working in the 40's to the career worlds of the 80's.
    
    Dwight

 The interesting I have found out lately, is that though my wife stayed
    home for my daughter and now my son. My daughters friend, who comes
    from a broken home, where her mother has left her at home as a young
    kid in order to work, is so much more mature and adjusted than my
    daughter is. My daughter gets upset with her sometimes when she
    ask her friend for advice, becasue her advice often sounds like it
    was comming from my wife or myself. The only thing is that her friend
    has expressed that she never knew what it was like to be a child,
    becasue she had to grow up so fast. I feel though that she has gained
    in some areas that my daughter has not. It really doesn't bother
    me to see a mother go out to work after the kids are in school.
    In fact I'm starting to believe its good for them, as long as the
    parents don't spoil them materially.
    
    Jim

    RE: Jim,
        The big problem that I see with growing up early is that the
    kids think they are adults at 12 & 13 and can do adult things. 
    Hence teen pregnancy etc.  My problem is not with children of school
    age, but with newborn through 5 or 6.  I think that this time frame
    is so very critical to their development that it is necessary  to
    make the effort to be home.  There is a note in parenting that
    addresses this issue and it is brought up and reinforced by mothers
    of very young children.  I also agree that we have to let our kids
    be kids.  Everyone is so intent (with all good intentions) on making
    their kids learn as much as they can as fast as they can.  Whereas
    it is important to teach your children (hey there's a song in there
    somewhere:')) things, I think that many of them are overloaded. 
      
     
    Mike