Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  > What if..........      Home login  
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 43
view profile
What if..........Page 4 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)

If you're curious as to what social changes might occur as a result of this "role reversal", perhaps look into what single fathers do differently than single mothers do. Are they more/less organized? How does having his children 24/7 affect his career? How much more or less outside support does he utilize or need? Does he participate in hobbies or activities that do/don't include the child(ren) or both? What is his mental state three years later?

Good idea, but I don't think it is that easy. The statistics clearly show that in existing single parent households, the situations are much better when it is a single father household. Here are some of those statistics (financially related stats).

A child should be with the "better" parent regardless of gender, but I fail to see what your stats prove. The situation is better? I tend to think it is the financial situation referred to. This is not to say that there aren't wonderful, involved, loving single fathers who tend to their children in all aspects of their lives, merely to say that those numbers show nothing about effective parenting. Being organized doesn't in & of itself make anyone a good parent, and not having to eat scrambled eggs for dinner twice a week doesn't necessarily mean that a child feels more important or loved.

A bit of interpretation of the statistics you cite show me that just over 20% of men default on CS & approx. 15% of women. See, men & women aren't so different after all, are they? As for the full time work stat, it is fairly meaningless without knowing where the kids are while the parent is at work? Do more single men or women have a parent who cares for the child? Who parents them for the hours in excess of school time? Are more single fathers, with their full time jobs, able to afford child care? Are they able to leave work to attend school functions? Take the day off when their child is sick? It is true that most single fathers, most men, actually, earn more, but the cost to a child whose parent is unavailable is steep, and cannot be repaid with "quality time". I'm not trying to start an argument here, but let's face facts. Statistics alone aren't proof of anything at all; most certainly those above don't convince me that the children who live with those parents are better off, one way or the other.

btw (and on topic), the act of giving birth isn't role reversal as far as parenting goes. The parenting begins after the birth takes place! Hopefully, the result of the ability of men to get pregnant & experience birth would be empathy.
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 44
What if..........
Posted: 3/10/2010 8:06:18 PM
ingle dads are sick and tired of being labeled "deadbeats" when it comes to paying child support. And data suggest they have good reason to be upset.

The percentage of "deadbeat" moms is actually higher than that of dads who won't pay, even though mothers are more consistently awarded custody of children by the courts.

Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media.

That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures.

Men who are due child support are also getting tired of deadbeat moms' excuse that they can't pony up the money, and some courts have responded.

California lawyer Eudene Eunique in February was denied a passport because she was $30,000 behind in child-support. Instead of spending money on visiting her family in Mexico and on business contracts, the appeals court ruled Eunique�s money should go to her kids.

Meanwhile, warrant officers in southwest Florida earlier this summer dubbed an effort to list the area�s top deadbeat moms who owed up to $19,000 in support as "Operation Father�s Day." Included on the list were Trudi Dana, 43, who owes $19,001 and 29-year-old Mary Mahadie Friar, who owes $16,493.

Of course, the problem of deadbeat dads remains a serious one. Many more men than women have to pay child support, making the overall number of deadbeat dads much greater.

The statistics show 4.3 million moms out of 6.3 million who are supposed to receive child support actually get it. That leaves the alarming figure of about 2 million deadbeat dads, putting them more in the media spotlight than deadbeat moms.

But men also still pay much more in child support. The Census Bureau last month also released numbers showing fathers paid an average of $3,000 to custodial moms in 1997. Women paid little over half that. Moms also get about 60 percent of what they are owed, whereas dads only get 48 percent.

Not only are the dads paying up more when they don�t have custody, but when the court does hand the kids over to dads, they work more than moms who have custody.

While 7 percent of custodial moms work more than 44 hours a week, 24.5 percent of single custodial dads work more than 44 hours. And only about half as many custodial dads get government help than moms.

Some dads say it�s not for a lack of laws that moms are getting away with not paying up.

Bill Henry is head of Dads Against Discrimination of West Virginia and a single dad. In 1983, his first ex was ordered by the court to pay $25 a month in child support � which he did not start actually receiving until 1987 � even though the state minimum then should have been $75 a month.

Henry said dads are often discouraged from pursuing custody battles by attorneys and often don�t like to make waves in the system, as long as they get to regularly see their child or get complete custody.

"A lot of men are afraid to ask for child support simply because they think if they�re asking for child support, they won�t get a chance to get custody," Henry said.

California dad Scott Downing has also experienced child-support snafus and said courts continue to give dads the short end of the custody stick. "The laws are there, but it�s the way the courts interpret those laws," he said.

Single dad David Wood of North Carolina has similar concerns.

"My frustration � is not so much there�s any biases in me getting child support � it�s just the whole system needs a lot of work. If you don�t get aggressive with it � you have to really work to get it if someone doesn�t want to play the game" and pay up.

Wood, whose ex-wife has had trouble in court, said there are four men he knows of just at his workplace who are currently or are going to be single dads, or are grandparents of kids who had deadbeat moms.

"It�s not the exception anymore," Wood said, adding that before he became a single dad two years ago, "I would have almost bought into that stereotype" the dads are usually the deadbeats. But "that philosophy is just 30-40 years out of date."

But more moms that don�t have the kids simply can�t afford to pay child support since they are poorer, said Geraldine Jensen, president of the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support. Studies show the average income for non-custodial moms is only $15,000 a year, whereas non-custodial dads average about $40,000 a year.

And moms who don�t have custody of the kids often remarry and have more kids, and often choose to not work.

But "that�s certainly no excuse," Jensen said. "It doesn�t matter if you�re a mom or dad, you should meet your child support obligations."
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 45
view profile
What if..........
Posted: 3/10/2010 8:28:51 PM
I think we all agree with your last statement, and your statistics, a bit different than the last poster who cited statistics, might be interesting, but....

I can't imagine why men would be affected at all by " labeled", unless they are, of course, guilty of being deadbeats. I have no problem with deeming women who neglect their responsibilities to their children as deadbeats. It is only the men who are deadbeats who are referred to as such; what is the problem with that? It doesn't matter if there is one man for every 10 women, or vice versa, they are still deadbeats!

In any case, what has all this to do with the topic?
Joined: 1/16/2006
Msg: 46
view profile
What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 4:02:12 AM
"The DOD is the most sexist group of people I have ever ran into in my
life. Proof of this is freetime2bme. His mentality is rampant in the
DOD. "
sexist: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

Pointing out real isssues is not sexist! Like the time missed from normal duty over the terms of servise. Or inabilities to perform requiered tasks. This is not sexist, but the people that claim it is might be.

For the most part, women are not as good as soldiers as men are. This is not sexist, it is a fact. Why there are two sets of standards, high one for men, lower one for women one the PT testing. This too is a fact. Just live with it.
Joined: 1/16/2006
Msg: 47
view profile
What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 4:33:57 AM
"You need to live with the fact that women are within our society and they can and do perform equal to men on many levels."

I understand this, but I have had to find replacemnts for deploying units that were close to 20% down before deploying do to over 50% of the females in the unit being pregnant. Lots of them got that way after the orders came down. I have worked to set percentages (male to female) with in logistical units, because the commanders of these units stated that they became ineffective when they had to high a percentage of female troops. The studies backed these claims up. Units were unable to put down petroleum bags or the like in the required timeline if female to male percentages were not kept in check as an example, but not limited to this. This is not to say there were not female troops within these same units that did not perform on level with most of the men, because there were, just they had a higher percentage that could not. I have served in every kind of environment that you could think of all around the world and there are women that did the job as good as their male counter parts in all the place I have been, but as a percentage women as a group did not do as well as men as a group. This has been backed up by study after study. These studies showed again and again female percentages if to high had a negative impact on units ability to perform normal operations. Fact!!! And yes I have put male troops out of the army too so they can have problems also, but they did not make units less effective when there numbers went up the same way females troops can and did. All true!
Joined: 1/16/2006
Msg: 48
view profile
What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 5:22:54 AM
What I posted went right over your head, but you have never commanded a unit so you have not performed at the same levels I have. The Army has limits set on percentages of female troops that can be assigned to certain types of units. These get updated and changed as required to meet recruiting and retention requirements, but they are real. Some units had caps of no more then 20% and some have up to 40% female troops (others have the level set at zero). These percentages are a fact. They are set at PERSCOM, by types of unit and these numbers have an across the board impact to keep the maximum percentages of female to male soldiers by unit in check, because when that percentage gets to high, the units become less effective.

"P.S How can you recommend someone for discharge and then turn around and claim that they do not take away from the deploy ability of a unit?"
An individual effecting a unit is not the same as a gender effecting a unit. Fact is when petroleum units had over 40% female troops in them they did not perform as well as these same units did when the limit was set at 25%. Some were rated as not combat ready when the numbers were to high. Physical requirements played a part, but because pregnant soldiers can no longer perform or deploy that had an impact also. Why there are caps set, but again this was well above your skill level and MOS.
Joined: 1/16/2006
Msg: 49
view profile
What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 7:28:11 AM
But according to the US Army I am right!
Every thing I posted was a fact! Some one that worked at a lower enlisted level like yourself just would not have been in the loop.
It is a fact women effect readiness. Why they have caps put on how many can be put in each unit. Get over it lol.
A study conducted at Madigan Army Medical Center, Fort Lewis, Washington revealed that 55
percent of Soldiers presenting for prenatal care reported their pregnancies were unintended at the
time of conception. Only 39 percent of the junior enlisted had intended to become pregnant,
compared to the majority of officers (60%) and non-commissioned officers (65%) reporting
planned pregnancies.
read the facts this web link has lots of other issues and problems.
In some units, as many as 18 to 20 percent of females could not go due to disqualifying physical profiles.57 Pregnancy was the major contributor to the disparity
(much higher in other units that had been looked at also)
Is the Army Policy for the Assignment of Female Soldiers

It has the coding used to limit females but, not the studies or reasons why, but some of them (reasons) are in the other two links also provided. Having had more then one command (one was a logistical command) I can tell you first hand more then 30% women troops is not wanted or good in any unit. Again this is a level you never worked at so you might not get it. I did I saw the study data, done by the army and it showed to many women lowered readiness.

Posted by you:"Yes...we can have babies. Get over it. Can a man have a baby? No!"

We do not get or have the pregnancies (i like that), but we can and do have babies. In fact we can be responsible for multiple pregnancies at the same time. Not a thing to get over. You just need to live with these facts men can have babies we just do not have to push them out lol.
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 50
What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 8:11:14 AM

(Nina37) You stopped telling women what to do? Actually the law made men stop telling us what to do.

Absolutely right. And, who passed those laws initially, before women were involved in the political system?

You're welcome.

Tozaar, the politically-active man...
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 51
What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 8:16:30 AM

(Nina37 A "Turd" conforms to the "hole" which it is coming out of. A baby's head does not!

Not all turds are created equal. A turd that is the result of a custard diet will be rather more malleable than, say, a pine-cone turd...


(how did we end up talking about poo?)
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 52
What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 8:39:57 AM
It was in regards to a babies cranium passing through a small opening and whether or not a man could relate to the pain threshold. This could have been a fairly lighthearted thread with many comic possibilities then nina and freetime showed and got all militant.

I don't think we would get all strung out about fashion during a pregnancy either considering most guys are usually proud of their beer bellies and their t-shirts would still be worn long after the birth.
If we could give birth that would mean some extra parts down there.

I'm not really sure I would want to be a transvestite, something not quite right about that.
Joined: 1/16/2006
Msg: 53
view profile
What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 12:15:12 PM
The links clearly provided the data that women are not as deployable as there male counter parts and this is a fact. This effects readiness. But more then that even the ones that do deploy often times can not do the work required the same as their male counter parts. I started as an enlisted medic and I remember taking the expert field medic test with over 500 other soldiers. About 100 of us pasted the test, but not one of the people that pasted the test was a female and there were over 100 of them taking the test. You see even with the lower physical requirements they had on the PT test they still had to complete the obstacle coarse, one being a litter obstacle coarse were you had to carry a simulated wounded troop on a litter and one were you had to do the fireman's carry. Not one of the females had the upper body or endurance required to complete these basic task that every medic should be able to do. A while back a different poster posted on a similar test in the Navy that required ship drills were they had to move simulated wounded sailors to different decks (I hope he will re-post those numbers here). I don't remember the exact number, but over 90% of the males pasted and over 90% of the females failed. Clear readiness implications, because if really needed not being able to move a wounded comrade, means they get locked in a compartment that may flood. I call that a readiness issue.
I sat for years in units doing assignments and I never had a commander say "I am getting to many male soldiers" but I had many say "your killing me with all these females". I heard this often from female commanders too. Your inability to except these facts makes you the sexist one. Why I never date women that have done military service, they are all so bitter about not being able to compete at the same level as the men. They do not except the facts and they wrongly accuse the men that point out the facts as being unfair or sexist. I don't even have to hit some of the other reasons, but lets just say most are unfit in other areas as well.
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 54
What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 1:50:19 PM
(erasersedge) It was in regards to a babies cranium passing through a small opening and whether or not a man could relate to the pain threshold.

Mine was a rhetorical question; I wasn't really looking for an answer...

I don't think we would get all strung out about fashion during a pregnancy either considering most guys are usually proud of their beer bellies and their t-shirts would still be worn long after the birth.

For the longest time, I've wanted to get my grubby paws on a T-shirt with "BABY UNDER CONSTRUCTION!!!", with an arrow pointing down to my gut. Preferably one with glittery lettering. And, pink. It's gotta be pink.


(although I could be talked into wearing lavender...)

(I'm not a "girly man" -- I'm just secure in my masculinity...)
Joined: 5/17/2009
Msg: 55
What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 3:05:24 PM
I would not have any stretch marks!
Joined: 2/15/2010
Msg: 56
What if..........
Posted: 3/11/2010 3:06:32 PM
For those women who believe that carrying a baby for 9 months makes you closer to the child ........... maybe ......... BUT it doesn't make the child closer to YOU!!

First of all let's assume you took care of your self and the baby during the pregnancy. Thank you for that!

Now with that out of the way ........... those 9 months are of very little if any importance in the child's long life! I have teenage children and for those that may not be aware of it -- Raising the child starts at birth and that is where it makes no difference who carried or gave birth. Ask any child who is adopted.

Parenting is the real skill and we are all equal - women do not have any special talents in that department!

So to answer your question - Men would be just the same as women - some good some not so good.

Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 57
What if..........
Posted: 3/12/2010 7:29:19 AM

(Nina37) I will say in defense of men with raising sons. No matter how good of a parent a mother is, she cannot teach boys to be a men (sic).

Joined: 5/4/2012
Msg: 58
What if..........
Posted: 7/17/2012 9:10:28 AM
What if it was men that carried the children to term and gave birth?

What would be different?

They might not want to have sex ever again after giving birth.
They might just drink a few beers and forget the whole experience like they forget everything else.

They could play with boobies anytime they want.

The maternity leaves would probably be double.

They probably still would not understand what women go through.

Maybe they would really think about where they put it.
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 59
view profile
What if..........
Posted: 7/17/2012 10:28:44 AM
The human race would have become extinct long ago.
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 60
What if..........
Posted: 7/17/2012 6:10:10 PM
My 1- Too funny :D
btw-Love your profile photo :)
Joined: 6/9/2005
Msg: 61
What if..........
Posted: 7/17/2012 7:38:48 PM
LMAO Men couldn't handle the pain! But I bet if it was reversed, men would have more estrogen then they do now and would stick around more.. I'd tend to think that more women would stick around then the men that do now. But we won't know will we?
Joined: 7/2/2012
Msg: 62
What if..........
Posted: 7/19/2012 2:16:46 PM
guess i'm the odd one out, i think if men were to have babies they would cope as well as women do as like women currently are, their bodies/hormones/emotional systems would be designed to do so.

Mind you i still don't see why there's such a big issue about men having their children, they are just as capable as loving, nurturing and raising their offspring. In fact out of most of the people i think should never have children 90% of them are women, i know one particular step mother who is so not cut out to be a mother, she's selfish, she would rather see her step children go without life's basic necessities, than her go without her beauty appointments and designer clothes, she will ensure she has a meal before she makes sure there's enough for her step children. Any woman cut out to be a mother wouldn't want to see ANY child go without, her own or others. same goes for fathers.
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  > What if..........