Jumpin Jupiters… that is just crazy… me shall write more about it later.. for now, me is wondering whether to bash the authors face inside-out or to dump a few gallons of napalm… :nice:

And they accuse us men-folk of being sexist.

sigh

Tra-la-la… ;)

see what I mean about male toxicity? :tongue3:

:tongue3: the norman bates thing is a funny!!!!well said

Umm.. my bad.. I should have been a bit more detailed.. It is more against the way the article is written than the author.. I would have said the same thing if the author was a dude.. Scout’s Honor!

Shanti,

In fact, Glenn Sacks reviewed few of our articles a few month back and he is tracking developments related to “save indian family” in India. He is a Radio talk show host.

Gender Feminists like Drexler have infiltrated into the educational system since long. This is happening in India as well. We will expose this hypocrisy via internet and via pamphlet campaigns. We in Save Indian Family will not mind if people call us MCPs and accuse us of “turning back the clock”.

Silly Seattle talks about Drexler’s book

Liberal extremism is much similar in nature and as dangerous as conservative extremism. A decade back, you question a religious bigot and s/he will term you a sinner. Today, when one questions a liberal/feminist, s/he will be branded a MCP and accused of all things evil in this world.

It quite unfortunate that feminism has come to this juncture and it is driving so many people away. I was a male feminist and was horrified by dowry death stories in early 80s. Today, I write against feminism.

But being a techie I can plot it in a graph regarding family system. I have no personal preferences, but

Joint Family—>Nuclear Family—>Single Parent Family—->Gay/Lesbian Families—>What next———>What next——>

Being a techie yourself, you can see that in Industries we use specialisation and reductionism(cutting a problem into pieces, solving them and joining them together).

But this approach fails miserably when we handle a complex system like society or mind or economy. Industrial civilisation impacted the way people think and tackle problems(in machines, in society). So, we tend to use reductionism at situations where it is highly counter productive.

Feminism borrows itself heavily from these industrial paradigms. It only talks about women’s problems and tries to deduce actions which will optimise women’s situation without taking into consideration what happens to other parts of the system. But as everything is interconnected, the consequences ultimately come back to women. Then, feminists like Susan Faludi create some conspiracy theories and sell the next international bestseller.

Sriram, I was just kidding :)

Gees, :)

Sumanth, can you put post the URL for the Silly Seattle link? I think you forgot adding it - it seems like an interesting read.

Do you know indian parents and sister suffer in legal terrorism??

Our mother and sister are not woemn as per Barbaric law 498A/DV act , do you know ??

Swarup, can you explain a little more? I don’t understand.

There is a post on the same topic in silly seattle.
The link in text is:

http://sillyseattle.blogspot.com/2005/09/addressing-listless-american-male.html

I hope, the Permalink of
SillySeattle works this time.

There are two powerful references on these topics:

1) Who Stole Feminism by Christina Hoff Sommers.

2) Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell.

Ms.Sommers herself is a feminist (equity feminist) and the cover page also reads,”How women betrayed women.” Her book is all about how data and statistics are misrepresented by second wave feminists(including Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi) which ultimately ends up harming causes of women.

Most men feel extremely insecure when they read the second book. This book highlights the fact that men simply have no room to make any further concessions. It also highlights high suicide rates of men and discrimination that men always faced in society.

For example, a hoarding in Bangalore says, “Do not drink and drive, your family needs you.” So, married men tend to associate their existence to their family. This meme actually contributes to very high suicide rate for divorced, separated and widowed men(compared to women in similar situations) all over the world. Men in these 3 situations feel more worthless than women.

The suicide statistics and histograms for both men and women in India (for all age groups and marital status) are available in following link:

http://www.saveindianfamily.org/blogs/2005/07/20/suicide-statistics/

Evolution has made it necessary that men and women process cues differently and hence act differently when the need be, and that humans form families and raise kids together.

So its only academic to debate whether any partial schemes of bringing up kids is gonna be good. If we want a new sub-spicies to start evolving, yes we can try single parent kids, but not otherwise.

You do make a good point, Deepcruiser - I wonder if that is part of the liberal experiment…

Shanti,
Did you read the book?

Some of your quotes:
It is just amazing how if you read the parts quoted in the book
I believe you mean the parts from the book quoted by Sacks. How do you know that the quotes were not taken out of context. I am saying this because several articles on World Net Daily engage in quote mining (I have read a number of opinions on the evolution debate… and my views on WND are restricted based on those).

I think my husband who was definitely raised by a heterosexual couple would like disagree
Does the author say that men raised by hetrosexuals lack empathy or consideration for other humans. “A implies B” does not necessarily mean “not-A implies not-B”.

In the same way, my point before (about quotes by Sacks) does not mean that he is wrong… all I say is are you assuming a priori that he is right?

Incidentally, she is not too averse to male role models - she wants the boys to have male role models - she just prefers that these men just not be dads of the boys.
Again, did she explicitly say that? I doubt. Pointing out that statistically, non-dad role models might be better than dad role models is not the same thing as saying that dads are bad role models.

It is just irritating just how far an obtuse and closed-mind can go to prove a point to its liking while ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
What evidence to the contrary? That your husband is a caring dad is not an evidence to the contrary.

From Amazon editorial reviews:
Single or gay mothers are “real” parents. The families they create are “as real and as legitimate as any other.”
The results of her survey serve as a refreshing antidote to critics who insist that family life today is on the verge of being atomized.

Tail Piece
I am not saying that Dr. Drexler is right. I am just questioning your conclusions. Because from the amazon survey above, the author concludes that non-dad households may be better than conventional households because of [set of reasons].

The part about statistics is tricky, and its quite possible that Dr. Drexler may not have analyzed it well enough (assuming she is making conclusions you accuse her of making). The statistical difference might be because the “maverick moms” may be from more progressive households and may therefore be more likely to take care of the child. If the author concludes (and we DON’T know if she does) that presence of a dad causes bad influence on growing boys, then that is clearly wrong. Remember, correlation is not causation.

Niket, for one thing I clearly mentioned that I found the “quoted” parts of the book offensive. It is assumed that if the book really makes the claims Glenn says iut does, then it is wrong. If the book doesn’t, refute me with those facts and I will take my criticism back. If even you don’t know what the book says, I will atleast take the word of a person who has read it and quotes parts of it.

As for fathers not being good role models (in my world, not being good is the same as bad), that is explicitly the quote I quoted above.

Evidence that two-parent households are better for children? Here - first link on Google. Easy! It is also accepted common sense, so I did not feel like I had to support it with further evidence and my husband’s involvement with our son was not meant to be anecdotal evidence of it.

You say in your quote itself that she finds non-dad role models to be better than dads - I find that in and itself stupid, without her attacks on dads in the quote I quoted above. You also say it was a statistically stated fact - any numbers to prove so?

Interesting that drexler herself admits that her study is far from conclusive and was conducted on a self-selected group of “single-by-choice” and lesbian mothers - “I am well aware that scientifically definitive research on the children of lesbians and of mothers who are single by choice will take many years to complete.”

The single-by-choice part was interesting because for women to choose to be single mothers, they have got to be fairly well-off and definitely wealthy above-average. Is it any wonder that kids from relatively wealthy households are doing good? I would be surprised if they weren’t.

You state in your tailpiece that Dr.Drexler says that non-dad households are better (maybe is just a throwaway word to keep critics happy, I would allege), which is exactly the conculsion I accuse her of making and which is exactly the conclusion I do not agree with.

Here is a the study paper - all of 32 boys that she interviewed from white/middle-class/Democrat families - very representative of the world, don’t you think? In her world, my anecdotal evidence about my husband being a good bad for me to ascertain that a dad is absolutely important for a boy. Her research appears to be as anecdotal as the examples of those who criticize her.

Ultimately, in my now sufficiently informed opinion, she is totally bogus! It is also pretty interesting that in her original document I linked above, her only conclusion is that both types of parenting were equal - I wonder how she came up the idea that one kind is superior to the other.

I will not comment about the book, because I haven’t read it nor do I intend to. I had read her piece in CSM (I think) and read a reference to her work from some liberal site. She merely was saying that there isn’t any evidence that non-dad households (single moms, gay couples) are more damaging to the children than traditional households.

Secondly, I have read a few articles on WND. While I agree with some of their libertarian ideas, I almost never agree with them when they cite scientific research, because I have seen them indulge in selective quoting to prove their point.

Based on these two, I extrapolated. I don’t mean to “defend” Dr Drexler’s work because I have not cared to research the subject deep enough, nor have I read the specific book in question. When you go to Amazon, the editor reviews as well as most of the reader reviews do not seem to endorse the position.

Interestingly, my specific point is that I object to the statement like:
I wonder how she came up the idea that one kind is superior to the other.
I don’t think she came to that conclusion. In fact, from the abstract of the document you linked to:
Moral reasoning levels of boys from lesbian two-parent families did not differ from that of boys in heterosexual two-parent families
is hardly claiming superiority of lesbian two-parent families.

The statement I wrote:
“the author concludes that non-dad households may be better than conventional households because of [set of reasons]. “
was not to indicate that non-dad (my term, not Dr. Drexler’s) are better than traditional families. It was meant to indicate that there are other reasons that better explain the observation than merely the fact that these boys were from non-dad families.

It is interesting also that she deliberately chose stable households and kids - she deliberately left out special-needs children.
Again, this is incorrect. Both the groups were equal, which is what a good study should do. She is not comparing stable lesbian households/kids with general traditional household/kids.

Note the methodology on page 14 and 15 of the document you link to. All 30 families (14 traditional, 16 two-lesbian-parent) were white/Jewish/middle-upper class/educated. We are comparing apples and apples here.

As a scientist, this is exactly my problem. Your use of word “delibrately” may be to indicate that special-needs were left out for a reason. However, for me, while reading it cursorily, without looking at the report you link to, it seems like she “twisted” her study to support her conclusions. She did not do that.

Female Fanatics what to say….:mad:
Just as much any child needs a mother to shower love. They need a father to teach them values and work etic etc. The roles are interchangeable. But thats what nature meant for….