Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/22/07 10:12 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: You used me and Huckabee in the same sentence to pretty much suggest just that.

You said:
That's entirely it; it doesn't matter if Huckabee or Cellardoor6 is sexist, because the fact of the matter is, it's none of their fucking business.

And then you said about Huckabee:

Why I wouldn't vote for Huckabee, as well as the creationist stuff, is that he thinks marital roles are the government's business. Which they're not.

-----

It seems you're under the impression that this is a policy issue, when it's not at all.

Y'know, even if it's not, I still wouldn't vote for someone who believed that. My mate has spoken with praise of Huckabee, but I've just read his policies and he seems way too regressive and nowhere near conservative enough. So yeah, it might not translate into policy, I don't know how your system works, but I wouldn't vote for someone who believed in a flat earth and racial supremacy either.

Indeed. However, you do seem to be saying, other kinds of relationships are flawed and the natural place of the wife is as a housewife

I believe that a natural family with the husband as the bread bringer and the woman as a mother and home-keeper is proper healthier for raising children. I believe marriage is basically all about kids, to perpetuate the family and to create a good foundation for future adults.

What's just as healthy is the wife working and the husband as home-keeper. Or both parents working and the kids going to preschool, or being looked after by a nanny. It's not like, if both parents are working, they're leaving a 2-year-old kid to cook spaghettios for themselves.

What's better than one parent working, for the kids, and bringing in 30k, is two parents working and bringing in 60k.

If other marriages emphasize the wellbeing of their children, then yes they are flawed if they are highly unconventional in that both parents work while the kids are young, the father isn't the working role model, or the mother is domineering and so forth.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that other than what's in your head. Unless 'father at home' implies to you 'father being subservient to mother', which it shouldn't, because it's the father's choice too.

The reason I say this is because through my observation, marriages that tend to fail are those where the family unit isn't conventionally organized. If the parents are pursuing two different careers, the marriage isn't as cohesive, and things tend to break apart. This bodes ill for the children because the trauma of divorce fucks children up really bad, and I've seen it.

I'm a kid of divorced parents. I know plenty of kids who are also from divorced parents, or single-parent households. And most of them seem completely well-adjusted. I know kids from male-dominated households, and they're scumbags. Indeed, what's more likely to make a kid a criminal is, a screwy houshold with both parents. Statistically.

And, once again, this topic has approximately JACKSHIT to do with government policies. Nobody is making any claim that the government should step in to make sure wives are subservient to their husbands. I don't know where in the hell you got that idea.

Yes. But there is such a thing as family policy, tax breaks for whatever type of relationship you think society should have; it happens all the time, and it shouldn't.

The family tax breaks for married couples aren't discriminatory. There is no possible way the government could discriminate based on whether the husband or the wife were the dominant partner.

Family tax breaks are retarded. Parents don't consider family tax breaks when they split up. If my dad earns 100k, then his house loses considerably more on tax than two parents earning 50k each. Family tax breaks victimise divorced families, who need far more financial assistance.

The purpose of tax breaks for family are the children... it's to encourage and facilitate good households, to support the family by simply relieving them of some of their tax burden. There is not method through which the government could intervene and say "obey your husband or no tax breaks".

I would say, the purpose is to ensure the traditional nuclear family, because backwards-thinking people are scared of any deviant families, and you've got to get their votes, too. "I support the traditional family" is a vote-winner.

I would be quite sure that this would translate to policy, as happens all the time in the UK.

Things are a whole hell of a lot different here than they are in the UK.

But even then, your government couldn't do anything like that either.

They can overwhelmingly support the traditional family, at great expense and financial hardship to any divorced parents. Who do a fine job. And paying lip-service to female submission is still a step in the wrong direction.

Despite that it might be hard to make specific policy decisions (although Germany once managed to), I can't see how this belief would translate as anything less than making partiarchal decisions in office.

And seriously, believing that it's the natural place for a woman to be a subservient housewife and anything less is bad for the kids - that's sexist, man. You can say 'that's how I want my relationship to be', and the whole world might agree, but there is no evidence at all that a reversal in roles is damaging.

Hey look at this:

Huckabee opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, and civil unions.

Yeah, and what he was talking about was gay marriage, which is not something he is trying to do away with, but something he is preventing by trying to maintain the current policies in our country. States have the ordinances of marriage, basically every state defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, as the head of a family unit.

Well, that sure sucks. If gays want to get married, more power to them. I don't see how it smears the word 'marriage,' or even affects you in any way.

---

At 12/22/07 09:24 AM, Earfetish wrote:

And in any case, if you elect a dinosaur as your leader, it just sends the message to everyone in the world at your country wants someone with X idiot views.
NO DICE.

People harking back to times long gone that they never lived during need to realise that the quality of life in the 1950s was just as bad as it is today and the idea of society's permanent decline at the hands of 'liberals' (probably) is a myth peddled by conservatives. Society will do fine without the government getting overly involved.

Yeah nostalgia is pretty strong from generation to generation. People remember not how people lived back then, but how it was when they were kids and how it was so much better because they were young and had the whole future ahead of themselves and how their life was easy and confortable.
Then they attach that to the society of X years ago.

But strangely that stops working after 2-3 generations. No one wants to go back to the industrial revolution, and I'm sure people in the industrial revolution didn't want to go back 100 years either.

Only religious people want to go back 4000 years ago where they lived in their fancy paradise pretend-land where everything was super-swell.

---

At 12/22/07 11:49 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 12/22/07 09:24 AM, Earfetish wrote:

And in any case, if you elect a dinosaur as your leader, it just sends the message to everyone in the world at your country wants someone with X idiot views.
NO DICE.

It might make the Islamic world like you guys though.

---

Well I sure learned alot today. I learned that cellardoor6 blames the increasing divorce rate on "un-natural" aka female led or bipolar relationships, instead of the obvious (that society is changing). He also seems to think that female led or bipolar relationships lead to the suicide of their offspring (because it really makes a difference right?)

At 12/21/07 05:37 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: No, no, no, don't elaborate on what you believe. You're saying that you don't favor the traditional family unit, therefore you WANT divorce, you WANT children to do drugs and sell their bodies and commit suicide at age 18 because you want a dysfunctional family unit.

I also learned that cellardoor6 believes relationships where the wife doesn't submit to the husband lead to "horrible family lives" and "die(ing) early deaths due to STDs and drug abuse".

At 12/21/07 05:37 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: You= Like kids to have horrible familiy lives and die early deaths due to STDs and drug abuse.

And I also learned cellardoor6 thinks that in order to have a functional and "proper" family that the male has to dominate the relationship.

At 12/21/07 05:37 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Me= Want kids to have functional, proper family from which to have a foundation for the rest of their lives.

I think cellardoor6 may be sexist

maybe, just maybe

---

At 12/22/07 11:00 AM, Earfetish wrote:

Y'know, even if it's not, I still wouldn't vote for someone who believed that.

Well good thing you're not an American.

My mate has spoken with praise of Huckabee, but I've just read his policies and he seems way too regressive and nowhere near conservative enough.

Interesting concept there, considering people consider him to be the most conservative candidate.

Indeed. However, you do seem to be saying, other kinds of relationships are flawed and the natural place of the wife is as a housewife

What's just as healthy is the wife working and the husband as home-keeper.

I don't think so.

Or both parents working and the kids going to preschool, or being looked after by a nanny.

Wow, you actually think that huh?

You think part-time parents are the route to go, so that a nanny can take care of their children so they can pursue their own careers.

It's not like, if both parents are working, they're leaving a 2-year-old kid to cook spaghettios for themselves.

Kids who don't have a strong family foundation, and are left to their own devices or are looked after by someone other than their parents... they're not going to have a healthy childhood.

The psychology of it is pretty simple. Kids need a balance of feminine and masculine influence, the mother should be the nurturing, loving character, the man should be the rule-maker and the example of someone who can responsibly provide for the family and

What's better than one parent working, for the kids, and bringing in 30k, is two parents working and bringing in 60k.

Money doesn't mean everything. I'm sure it's healthier for children to have a mother that takes care of them, then have a non-family member who takes care of them while both their parents work and juggle their own careers.

Parenting is a full-time job, at least one parent should take care of the children as their first priority.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that other than what's in your head.

I've witnessed differently. I've never, ever seen a successful marriage work out like that, especially if there are children.

And I don't think you've seen it either. I think these new modern ideas you think are more progressive and liberal have no basis in logic, because I think you are even aware that traditional families are more healthy and normal.

I'm a kid of divorced parents. I know plenty of kids who are also from divorced parents, or single-parent households. And most of them seem completely well-adjusted.

Based on the story you wrote about it, it seems like now you're fibbing. Seems like you have a whole lot of issues based on your parents' divorce.

And you wouldn't be unique in that regard at all considering it is a well-known fact that kids whose parent's divorce get emotional issues.

I know kids from male-dominated households, and they're scumbags.

Depends on to what degree it is a male-dominated household.

I think our vision of what a patriarchal family looks like is different. I think you're under the impression that I think the man should be able to dominate the wife in all areas and that there is no mutual respect or mutual decision making at all. That's not what I picture at all.

Indeed, what's more likely to make a kid a criminal is, a screwy houshold with both parents. Statistically.

Apparently not.

And the interesting thing about that problem is that it's a perpetual problem. The first fact there is that children who only have one parent are themselves more likely to engage in premature sexual activity... which I'm sure probably increases the chance that they themselves will have children when they are young, and that those children will in turn probably not have both parents. Thus perpetuating a problem, in addition to the other problems it lists:

- Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.

- Teenagers living in single-parent households are more likely to abuse alcohol and at an earlier age compared to children reared in two-parent households

- A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.

- Researchers in Michigan determined that "49 percent of all child abuse cases are committed by single mothers.

- A family structure index -- a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed -- is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males.

- In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families.

- Children living with a never-married mother are more likely to have been treated for emotional problems.

- Children reared by a divorced or never-married mother are less cooperative and score lower on tests of intelligence than children reared in intact families. Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.

----------

Now, you see why I believe in the traditional family?

---

Family tax breaks are retarded.

Wow.

You see something wrong with giving tax breaks to families who are taking care of children? You don't see anything logical about making sure families... i.e. the foundation of every society, have more financial security?

Parents don't consider family tax breaks when they split up. If my dad earns 100k, then his house loses considerably more on tax than two parents earning 50k each. Family tax breaks victimise divorced families, who need far more financial assistance.

Tax breaks don't victimize divorces families, it simply rewards functioning families. There is no punishment for divorce, it is simply the lack of reward.

And that's quite reasonable, given the statistics... functional, intact families are better for children so it makes a whole hell of a lot of sense to give an incentive for those intact families to remain that way, and to make sure those families are given a bit of financial help so that some financial problems don't end up being the thing that breaks the family up.

I would say, the purpose is to ensure the traditional nuclear family, because backwards-thinking people are scared of any deviant families

Nope, rational-thinking people are afraid of dysfunctional families because it bodes ill for all of society given the fact that children who aren't raised in a traditional family are more likely to have major problems in their life, drug addiction, suicide, mental illness and so forth. And these problems are more likely to be inherited by THEIR children and so forth.

They can overwhelmingly support the traditional family, at great expense and financial hardship to any divorced parents.

No, and you have no real proof for that. Basically you're suggesting that divorced parents are given financial hardships due to intanct families being given financial support. That doesn't make sense because it's not taking anything away from divorced families, it's simply not giving them the support that intact families are given with tax breaks.

So either you're confused simply because divorced people naturally have problems, or you secretly think that divorced people should be the ones getting tax incentives and no intact families. Which would be absolutely absurd because it would give an incentive for people to get divorced, basically reward dysfunction.

And seriously, believing that it's the natural place for a woman to be a subservient housewife and anything less is bad for the kids - that's sexist, man.

It's really not, because you're thinking of some sort of slave when I'm simply referring to the traditional, historical role of the wife... which is the mother. A mother can't raise children and work at the same time without this negatively affecting the child. Women are good at raising children because they provide the nurturing, feminine influence on a child that is important for their development. The man isn't really capable of that. You may thinj that I think women are inferior but I don't, I just realize they are vastly superior when it comes to raising children and that this should be their priority in the event that there are children. However, this needs to go hand-in-hand with the role of the father at the same time so that the children have a normal, balanced family. The man is supposed to be the sturdy source of security and rules, and regulations, and so forth... so that the child is getting both a feminine and masculine influence.

It's natural that way. And as is pretty obvious based on the facts, these kinds of families are better for the development of children.

Well, that sure sucks. If gays want to get married, more power to them. I don't see how it smears the word 'marriage,' or even affects you in any way.

In order to make gay marriage legal at the national level, the federal government would have to violate states' rights and thus undermine the constitution. You'd have to force individual states who have sovereignty over marriage currently, to change their definition of marriage and allow for something that their own voters would have no power over. Most states specifically refer to marriage in their laws as a union between a man and a woman and therefore a gay union is not only against the sentiments of their people, but it is literally incorrect as far as the nomenclature goes.

Therefore, to them, referring to a gay couple as a married couple would be incorrect. It would be giving a title to something that doesn't meet the criteria of what it is enshrined in their laws as being the criteria for marriage. It would be like putting a glove on your head and calling it a hat... at the behest of the government.

---

At 12/22/07 12:47 PM, Musician wrote:

And I also learned cellardoor6 thinks that in order to have a functional and "proper" family that the male has to dominate the relationship.

I've learned that after Musician faces humiliating defeats in unrelated threads, he devotes his entire participation around the individual, rather than the topic, in order to cope.

---

At 12/22/07 12:47 PM, Musician wrote: I also learned that cellardoor6 believes relationships where the wife doesn't submit to the husband lead to "horrible family lives" and "die(ing) early deaths due to STDs and drug abuse".

I don't see why you beleive a functional family has to be defined as patriarchal. Since you are saying upfront to cellardoors face "You beleive that the wife has to be subordinate for it to be a functioning family"

If he says "no, i don't" Why would that not end the argument.

Both my parents work, my dad a little bit more than my mother. Both of my parents cook [my mom a little bit more than my mother] Prior to having a house-keeper, both of my parents cleaned. Both of my parents drive me and my sister to various places. They seldom argue; maybe once every 1.5 months, and an argument involving yelling occurs almost never.

They do call them selfs a traditional family...

I don't quite see the 'patriarchal' dominance in the family, yet you are insinuating that a traditional Family has to be one. [By accusing Cellardoor of beleiving this, when he denies it, i have the right to do the same to you, this is, infact, satire.]

Do you notice all of the dis functional families on the doctor phil show involve a Female who is extremely gullible, has no self confidence, and is completely unassertive, and the male is a sociopath?

There is 'lacking of tradition' in that.

http://www.askmen.com/money/successful/4 1_success.html;

This link shows you how Patriarchal the traditional gentlemen really is.

---

At 12/22/07 10:47 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 12/22/07 12:47 PM, Musician wrote: I also learned that cellardoor6 believes relationships where the wife doesn't submit to the husband lead to "horrible family lives" and "die(ing) early deaths due to STDs and drug abuse".

I don't see why you beleive a functional family has to be defined as patriarchal.

me neither, why don't you ask cellardoor

Since you are saying upfront to cellardoors face "You beleive that the wife has to be subordinate for it to be a functioning family"

If he says "no, i don't" Why would that not end the argument.

because he says "no i don't" and then turns around and blames the divorce rate on female led relationships. which basically means "yes i do".

it's like one man saying to another "You're racist", to which the other man replies "No I'm not, I just think blacks are inferior to whites",

---

Smiles, I've already stated I consider the traditional family to be patriarchal.

The issue is whether or not a traditional, patriarchal family is one where the woman is subjugated or considered inferior. Which I don't believe, but Musician is suggesting I do.

Women are superior at raising children, that is a fact. Because that is why females give birth and males provide and protect in basically every single species, that is how the sexes are designed. A male would not be able to provide the essential nurturing of the child that a woman is designed to do, both biologically and mentally. Women are not only physically designed to be the care-giver of the child (hello, boobs), but they are naturally more patient and better at understanding what their child wants and needs and so forth before the child is able to take care of him or herself. Males are better at being the structure of the child's life, to be the provider and the example. A male would not be able to play the role of the mother, and the mother cannot play the role of the father, as the example of a masculine person.

In fact, as I've shown, families where the mother is the head of the household lead to problems for children.

"Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income."

-------

There is a balance that is needed for a healthy child. If the roles are reversed or one of the positions are completely removed, the child is not going to develop naturally and that leads to all sorts of problems, that I listed earlier. They may not be complete fuck ups, but they would be better off if they had a functioning, traditional family.

---

Oh snap, sorry.

Ponder upon this...

What if it was evolutionarilly intended for a patriarchal family unit?

Shit the atheists [like me] would be in trouble...

Eh! we'll just ignore it.

---

At 12/22/07 11:23 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Oh snap, sorry.

Ponder upon this...

What if it was evolutionarilly intended for a patriarchal family unit?

It probably is.

Humans still have self-determination but it's pretty certain that biologically, the sexes were designed for different purposes.

In basically every species on earth, the male is the protector and main provider, and the female is the one that takes care of the offspring. The female is usually not as good of a protector compared to the male because their anatomy is not designed for that, males are usually bigger and stronger. But the male is not physically designed to bear or feed children in their nursing stage (obviously), and males are less patient with young and tend to eat them if they don't like them (lol), whereas females have more of an instinct to protect their young, and are more patient and understanding.

Humans are this way too. It's a fact that males are stronger than females, it's a fact that females are superior care givers.

We're not cavemen, things change, but we can't escape our genetics.

---

At 12/22/07 11:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: "Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income."

maybe because most of these female-headed households, are actually single mother households. Theres much more that can cause detrimental effects on a kid in that situation than a female house-head.

---

At 12/22/07 11:37 PM, Musician wrote:

At 12/22/07 11:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: "Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income."

maybe because most of these female-headed households, are actually single mother households.

Which is even worse.

Theres much more that can cause detrimental effects on a kid in that situation than a female house-head.

Um... kids with female-headed households are more likely to have problems in those areas than kids who are raised in normal families.

Quit trying to dodge facts like you always do.

---

At 12/22/07 11:51 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/22/07 11:37 PM, Musician wrote:

At 12/22/07 11:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: "Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income."

maybe because most of these female-headed households, are actually single mother households.

Which is even worse.

Theres much more that can cause detrimental effects on a kid in that situation than a female house-head.

Um... kids with female-headed households are more likely to have problems in those areas than kids who are raised in normal families.

Quit trying to dodge facts like you always do.

I don't think I am dodging the facts. have you researched single father households? No, you haven't, because you're not interested in the truth, you're just interested in "winning" an argument. If you had researched more you would have realized that most of these "deficiencies" are more likely cause by having a single parent, than having a female led household.

Lets take a look at households where both parents hold down jobs:

"A child who observes the competent coping abilities of a working parent learns in turn, how to cope with life's problems. At first this may translate into an improved sense of self-reliance and independence for the child as well as an improvement in the ability to be socially compatible. As the child grows, it can further render a child more emotionally mature and hence more competent in dealing with responsibility and task completion such as is needed for school work and extra curricu! lar activities. A study by Hoffman in 1974 corroborates these observations and therefore one can conclude that, in general, the working parent provides a very positive role model for the child in a family where both parents are employed."

interestingly enough, having both parents sharing leadership has positive effects on the child. I guess that pretty much disproves your theory.

---

At 12/23/07 12:31 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/22/07 11:51 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/22/07 11:37 PM, Musician wrote:

At 12/22/07 11:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: "Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income."

maybe because most of these female-headed households, are actually single mother households.

Which is even worse.

Theres much more that can cause detrimental effects on a kid in that situation than a female house-head.

Um... kids with female-headed households are more likely to have problems in those areas than kids who are raised in normal families.

Quit trying to dodge facts like you always do.

I don't think I am dodging the facts.

Lol that's ALL you do. You prove it all the time.

have you researched single father households?

Funny, because the ONLY thing that article states is the increase in father-only house holds. The only negative result of the father-only household is that children will be more likely to be poor compared to if they cohabited with a partner.

Nice try though.

No, you haven't, because you're not interested in the truth, you're just interested in "winning" an argument.

Lol Musician, the funny thing is that you're such a blatantly dishonest hypocrite that I don't even take you seriously any more. You get proved wrong and you just keep arguing and using links that don't even validate what you claim, or what you allude to.

If you had researched more you would have realized that most of these "deficiencies" are more likely cause by having a single parent, than having a female led household.

Apparently not, and you haven't lended any credibility to such an idea.

Lets take a look at households where both parents hold down jobs:

interestingly enough, having both parents sharing leadership has positive effects on the child. I guess that pretty much disproves your theory.

Lol no it doesn't.

That study is based on Canada just to make sure you knew that. So let's take a look what the word document you linked to says:

In 1961, 30% of married women were working; in 1978, 38% were employed; by 1981 50% were working and in 1985, 55% held paying positions outside the home. (Jarman and Howlett 95) In 1961, only 20% of all two parent families were! dual wage families, but by 1986, more than half (53%) of all families were dual earning families.

Now compare that to the increase in divorce rate in Canada:

Between 1965 and 1988, Canada's divorce rate went from being one of the lowest among industrialized nations to being one of the highest, surpassing even the divorce rates in progressive countries such as France and Sweden.

----

It seems like the increase in dual-income homes in Canada has been paralleled with the increase in divorce (which we know is bad for kids).

But nice try there Musician. You only helped to validate my point.

---

At 12/23/07 01:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Now compare that to the increase in divorce rate in Canada:

It seems like the increase in dual-income homes in Canada has been paralleled with the increase in divorce (which we know is bad for kids).

It's also inversely proportional to the number of pirates. So obviously if we increase the number of pirates, the divorce rate will drop!

in other words: correlation =/= causation.

Give a CAUSAL link and we might think about taking you seriously. Until then, you're just another misogynist fundie.

---

At 12/23/07 01:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

have you researched single father households?

Funny, because the ONLY thing that article states is the increase in father-only house holds. The only negative result of the father-only household is that children will be more likely to be poor compared to if they cohabited with a partner.

Nice try though.

BOOM HEADSHOT

Lets take a look at households where both parents hold down jobs:

interestingly enough, having both parents sharing leadership has positive effects on the child. I guess that pretty much disproves your theory.

Lol no it doesn't.

That study is based on Canada just to make sure you knew that. So let's take a look what the word document you linked to says:

In 1961, 30% of married women were working; in 1978, 38% were employed; by 1981 50% were working and in 1985, 55% held paying positions outside the home. (Jarman and Howlett 95) In 1961, only 20% of all two parent families were! dual wage families, but by 1986, more than half (53%) of all families were dual earning families.

Now compare that to the increase in divorce rate in Canada:

Between 1965 and 1988, Canada's divorce rate went from being one of the lowest among industrialized nations to being one of the highest, surpassing even the divorce rates in progressive countries such as France and Sweden.

Interesting... they don't compare at all. and in fact the link itself explains, that most likely the cause for this increase in divorce was the Divorce Act which allowed for divorces on the grounds of "marriage breakdown". This doesn't back up your claim at all.

But hey, here's yet another link validating that dual income families have a positive effect on the child.

---

At 12/23/07 01:23 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/23/07 01:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

have you researched single father households?

Funny, because the ONLY thing that article states is the increase in father-only house holds. The only negative result of the father-only household is that children will be more likely to be poor compared to if they cohabited with a partner.

Nice try though.

BOOM HEADSHOT

BOOM FACTS

Lets take a look at households where both parents hold down jobs:

interestingly enough, having both parents sharing leadership has positive effects on the child. I guess that pretty much disproves your theory.

Lol no it doesn't.

That study is based on Canada just to make sure you knew that. So let's take a look what the word document you linked to says:

In 1961, 30% of married women were working; in 1978, 38% were employed; by 1981 50% were working and in 1985, 55% held paying positions outside the home. (Jarman and Howlett 95) In 1961, only 20% of all two parent families were! dual wage families, but by 1986, more than half (53%) of all families were dual earning families.

Now compare that to the increase in divorce rate in Canada:

Between 1965 and 1988, Canada's divorce rate went from being one of the lowest among industrialized nations to being one of the highest, surpassing even the divorce rates in progressive countries such as France and Sweden.

Interesting... they don't compare at all.

Lol yeah they do you pathetic liar.

Since the increase in dual-income families, the divorce rate has also increased.

and in fact the link itself explains, that most likely the cause for this increase in divorce was the Divorce Act which allowed for divorces on the grounds of "marriage breakdown".

Then explain why the amount of marriages has also decreased along with divorce?

Seems like since the increase of dual-income families and the nature of relationships being different than they used to be, there has been a decrease in marriage and an increase in divorce.

Keep trying to dodge the facts.

But hey, here's yet another link validating that dual income families have a positive effect on the child.

And here's a link that shows dual-income families are more likely to break up.

Nock (2001) argues that when the wife's and the husband's contributions to the household are about the same, their mutual obligations are at the lowest point. The underlying idea of this inverted U-shaped pattern is that economic dependency contributes to marital instability. A logical implication that can be drawn from this model (Nock) is that when each spouse contributes between 40% and 59% of the total household income, the commitment and dependency of spouses to each other become marginal.

Heckert, Nowak, and Snyder (1998) found that couples where wives earn between 50% to less than 75% of the household income are significantly more likely to separate than other couples.

---

Now, if this causes an increase in separation, then this could be worse for kids because:

- Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.

- Teenagers living in single-parent households are more likely to abuse alcohol and at an earlier age compared to children reared in two-parent households

- A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.

- Researchers in Michigan determined that "49 percent of all child abuse cases are committed by single mothers.

- A family structure index -- a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed -- is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males.

- In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families.

- Children living with a never-married mother are more likely to have been treated for emotional problems.

- Children reared by a divorced or never-married mother are less cooperative and score lower on tests of intelligence than children reared in intact families. Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.

- Forty-three percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household -- 39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers -- and an additional 14 percent lived in households without either biological parent. Another 14 percent had spent at last part of their childhood in a foster home, agency or other juvenile institution.

----

Oh, and this one is especially interesting:

- Children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes. Almost twice as many high achievers come from two-parent homes as one-parent homes.

----

---

Divorce stats all you want, but having one person in charge of the other ain't no way to have a healthy relationship :(

I'm not saying that two married people need to have equal incomes to get along, but they should have equal say and power in decision-making that affects the couple/family.

---

Oh, and working women are more likely to seek divorce than those who don't work.

Furthermore, the longer hours women work, the more likely they are to be divorced.

'Our findings suggest that there is something about wives' work that increases the divorce risk,' say the researchers who will report their findings in the Oxford-based European Sociological Review.

-----

That's for the UK this time.

This is true in the US as well

Therefore whatever advantage you think there is to a dual-income household is moot because divorce is a whole hell of a lot worse for kids.

-----

Oh and here's something else that's interesting:

... although female-headed families constitute only 20 percent of all families, they represent 55 percent of all poor families.

---

At 12/23/07 01:42 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/23/07 01:23 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/23/07 01:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

have you researched single father households?

Funny, because the ONLY thing that article states is the increase in father-only house holds. The only negative result of the father-only household is that children will be more likely to be poor compared to if they cohabited with a partner.

Nice try though.

BOOM HEADSHOT

BOOM FACTS

BOOM YOU DIDN'T READ MY LINK

BOOM COUNTER'D

Maybe you should read it this time, you know, save yourself the embarrassment of posting a link like that again.

and in fact the link itself explains, that most likely the cause for this increase in divorce was the Divorce Act which allowed for divorces on the grounds of "marriage breakdown".

Then explain why the amount of marriages has also decreased along with divorce?

Society is changing my friend, while you've been making blatant assumptions, some people have been performing actual studies. There are quite a few studies there by the way, none of them correlate dual income families to the increase in divorce.

Seems like since the increase of dual-income families and the nature of relationships being different than they used to be, there has been a decrease in marriage and an increase in divorce.

Keep trying to dodge the facts.

Actually you're the one dodging the facts. You've yet to prove the correlation between dual income families and divorce.

But hey, here's yet another link validating that dual income families have a positive effect on the child.

And here's a link that shows dual-income families are more likely to break up.

Nock (2001) argues that when the wife's and the husband's contributions to the household are about the same, their mutual obligations are at the lowest point. The underlying idea of this inverted U-shaped pattern is that economic dependency contributes to marital instability. A logical implication that can be drawn from this model (Nock) is that when each spouse contributes between 40% and 59% of the total household income, the commitment and dependency of spouses to each other become marginal.

Heckert, Nowak, and Snyder (1998) found that couples where wives earn between 50% to less than 75% of the household income are significantly more likely to separate than other couples.

yes yes so he says. he says significantly, but that does not necessarily mean largely. In an excerpt from this study we can see some of the factors that effect divorce.

Less Likely to Divorce:
-presence of children

More Likely to Divorce:
-lower income
-educated parents
-presence of step children
-age gap between parents
-if parents were separated before
-young at time of marriage
-child out of wedlock then marry
-second marriage

believe it or not, most studies that are actually on the increase in divorce will not recognize dual income families as a common cause of divorce. This is most likely because in the wide scheme of things, dual income marriages have a relatively little impact compared to the real issues.

basically your argument fails at all points, since you try to suggest that the increase in divorce is either solely or largely cause by dual income families. However, the real causes are completely different, and the impact of dual income families on the increase in divorce is likely negligible.

---

At 12/23/07 02:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Oh, and working women are more likely to seek divorce than those who don't work.

Furthermore, the longer hours women work, the more likely they are to be divorced.

'Our findings suggest that there is something about wives' work that increases the divorce risk,' say the researchers who will report their findings in the Oxford-based European Sociological Review.

that articles title is actually highly misleading. It's not that working women are more likely to seek divorce, it's that working women are more likely to get divorced in general.

'The wife's work could therefore lead to conflicts and competition, or threaten the husband's role as main provider,' says the report. Another possibility is that men feel more able to divorce a financially-independent wife.

you see, the study shows that working women are more likely to get divorced because husbands feel threatened by an independent woman, and that husbands are more able to divorce an independent wife. This has nothing to do with a woman's ability to lead a household (which was the basis of this whole argument)

---

At 12/23/07 02:16 AM, Musician wrote:

BOOM COUNTER'D

Already disproved. But I'll oblige.

... although female-headed families constitute only 20 percent of all families, they represent 55 percent of all poor families.

- Children living with a never-married mother are more likely to have been treated for emotional problems.

- Children reared by a divorced or never-married mother are less cooperative and score lower on tests of intelligence than children reared in intact families. Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.

- Forty-three percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household -- 39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers -- and an additional 14 percent lived in households without either biological parent. Another 14 percent had spent at last part of their childhood in a foster home, agency or other juvenile institution.

Father's historical role in the family has been breadwinner. When he goes, so does the financial stability of the family in most cases. Immediately, the children of solo mothers (or children whose fathers are absent from the home where the mother is responsible for raising them) are plunged into poverty.

Research conducted in 1990 throughout all industrialized nations proved that children in solo-mother families are at greater risk of poverty.

Then:

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children.)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

Maybe you should read it this time, you know, save yourself the embarrassment of posting a link like that again.

You mean a link, in addition to myriad other links that disprove the singular study you linked to?

and in fact the link itself explains, that most likely the cause for this increase in divorce was the Divorce Act which allowed for divorces on the grounds of "marriage breakdown".

Then explain why the amount of marriages has also decreased along with divorce?

Society is changing my friend, while you've been making blatant assumptions, some people have been performing actual studies.

Interesting, because the links I show show a direct correlation between the increase in dual-income homes and the increase in divorce as a trend.

In addition to the FACT that women who work are more likely to divorce, that not only shows correlation due to the rates in Canada, but it shows causation because it is a fact women who work are more likely to divorce:

A logical implication that can be drawn from this model (Nock) is that when each spouse contributes between 40% and 59% of the total household income, the commitment and dependency of spouses to each other become marginal.

Heckert, Nowak, and Snyder (1998) found that couples where wives earn between 50% to less than 75% of the household income are significantly more likely to separate than other couples.

And then:

Working women more likely to seek divorce.

Furthermore, the longer hours women work, the more likely they are to be divorced.

'Our findings suggest that there is something about wives' work that increases the divorce risk,' say the researchers who will report their findings in the Oxford-based European Sociological Review.

There are quite a few studies there by the way, none of them correlate dual income families to the increase in divorce.

Um... actually it completely does, because it makes no mention of working fathers being more likely to seek divorce now does it?

It's a fact that when women pursue their own careers, divorce rates increase thus seperating the family. And what do we know about the negative impact of separation on children?

A whole lot:

- Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.

- Teenagers living in single-parent households are more likely to abuse alcohol and at an earlier age compared to children reared in two-parent households

- A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.

- Researchers in Michigan determined that "49 percent of all child abuse cases are committed by single mothers.

- A family structure index -- a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed -- is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males.

- In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families.

- Children living with a never-married mother are more likely to have been treated for emotional problems.

Seems like since the increase of dual-income families and the nature of relationships being different than they used to be, there has been a decrease in marriage and an increase in divorce.

Keep trying to dodge the facts.

Actually you're the one dodging the facts.

Lol, I've been actually providing relevant facts here, you've done nothing of the sort. You're incapable of thinking objectively and you've proved yet again, just like you have in prior threads, that the facts are something that are too difficult for you to accept because you care more about looking good in an argument than you do about honestly addressing reality.

You've yet to prove the correlation between dual income families and divorce.

AHAHAHAHA

Actually I've conclusively proved it.

---

At 12/23/07 02:29 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/23/07 02:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Oh, and working women are more likely to seek divorce than those who don't work.

Furthermore, the longer hours women work, the more likely they are to be divorced.

'Our findings suggest that there is something about wives' work that increases the divorce risk,' say the researchers who will report their findings in the Oxford-based European Sociological Review.

that articles title is actually highly misleading. It's not that working women are more likely to seek divorce, it's that working women are more likely to get divorced in general.

Lol and that detracts from the facts how?

you see, the study shows that working women are more likely to get divorced because husbands feel threatened by an independent woman, and that husbands are more able to divorce an independent wife. This has nothing to do with a woman's ability to lead a household (which was the basis of this whole argument)

Interesting.

Is that why women initiate 66%-75% of all divorces?

---

Face it Musician, you've been completely and utterly disproved yet again.

All you're doing now, just like you did in the argument about anti-missile technology, is trying to safe-face by weaseling your way out of addressing the facts. You lost the argument, but you're trying to perpetuate it purely for your own personal reasons. You know you're wrong, you know the facts have been stacked up against you, but you keep saying the same things over and over again after they've already been discredited because you're more concerned with how you appear than whether or not what you're arguing is true.

---

At 12/23/07 02:41 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/23/07 02:16 AM, Musician wrote:

BOOM COUNTER'D

Already disproved. But I'll oblige.

... although female-headed families constitute only 20 percent of all families, they represent 55 percent of all poor families.

This very much correlates with the fact that women are paid less then men. Also, single mothers and single fathers have a ratio of 5:1 which is what throws your statistic off.

also all the links below link to the same page... did you do that intentionally to make it look like had multiple links when you only had one?

- Children living with a never-married mother are more likely to have been treated for emotional problems.

single fathers are less likely to take their kids to the doctor I really don't see your point. where does it say that single fathers are more likely?

- Children reared by a divorced or never-married mother are less cooperative and score lower on tests of intelligence than children reared in intact families. Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.

"Children from single-father and single-mother families perform roughly the same in school, but both are outperformed by children from two-parent families."

- Forty-three percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household -- 39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers -- and an additional 14 percent lived in households without either biological parent. Another 14 percent had spent at last part of their childhood in a foster home, agency or other juvenile institution.

If you take in to account the ratio of single fathers to single mothers then that's not too surprising. Also you have to remember that women make less money then men do

Father's historical role in the family has been breadwinner. When he goes, so does the financial stability of the family in most cases. Immediately, the children of solo mothers (or children whose fathers are absent from the home where the mother is responsible for raising them) are plunged into poverty.

All the more reason for dual income families if you ask me. Also like I've shown before dual income families have a strong positive emotional impact on the child

Research conducted in 1990 throughout all industrialized nations proved that children in solo-mother families are at greater risk of poverty.

then maybe we should start paying them more. you know, since they're not lesser then men in any way

Then:

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children.)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

Yes but these problems all occur in motherless homes as well (ratio ratio ratio). Not to mention the link that you have used for 99.9% of your sources in this thread comes from a biased website that gathers facts specifically picked out to help a father gain custody of a child during divorce.

Maybe you should read it this time, you know, save yourself the embarrassment of posting a link like that again.

You mean a link, in addition to myriad other links that disprove the singular study you linked to?

THEY'RE ALL THE SAME LINK YOU BLOODY IDIOT

and in fact the link itself explains, that most likely the cause for this increase in divorce was the Divorce Act which allowed for divorces on the grounds of "marriage breakdown".

Then explain why the amount of marriages has also decreased along with divorce?

Society is changing my friend, while you've been making blatant assumptions, some people have been performing actual studies.

Interesting, because the links I show show a direct correlation between the increase in dual-income homes and the increase in divorce as a trend.

not a very large one.

In addition to the FACT that women who work are more likely to divorce, that not only shows correlation due to the rates in Canada, but it shows causation because it is a fact women who work are more likely to divorce:

A logical implication that can be drawn from this model (Nock) is that when each spouse contributes between 40% and 59% of the total household income, the commitment and dependency of spouses to each other become marginal.

Heckert, Nowak, and Snyder (1998) found that couples where wives earn between 50% to less than 75% of the household income are significantly more likely to separate than other couples.

Yes he says they are more likely but he never really states how many of these are initiated by the woman or by the man. Yes yes I know that the majority of initiate divorce, but we don't know that the majority of working women initiate divorce. If it's the men initiating the divorce, then I don't believe it's stonger more independant woman that are raising the divorce rate (however small this raise is), it's idiotic insecure men like yourself.

And then:

Working women more likely to seek divorce.

I've actually already responded to this but hey why not, I'll do it again.

'The wife's work could therefore lead to conflicts and competition, or threaten the husband's role as main provider,' says the report. Another possibility is that men feel more able to divorce a financially-independent wife.

This study actually shows that husbands tend to initiate divorce against working women, due to insecurities and the increased comfort of dumping a financially independant woman. This has nothing to do with a woman's ability to lead a household (which was the basis of this whole argument)

Furthermore, the longer hours women work, the more likely they are to be divorced.

thats the same link...

'Our findings suggest that there is something about wives' work that increases the divorce risk,' say the researchers who will report their findings in the Oxford-based European Sociological Review.

that's also the same link... lmao

---

It's a fact that when women pursue their own careers, divorce rates increase thus seperating the family. And what do we know about the negative impact of separation on children?

A whole lot:

- Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.

ah I see we are back to dads4kids... so are motherless children.

- Teenagers living in single-parent households are more likely to abuse alcohol and at an earlier age compared to children reared in two-parent households

why even bother posting this? it clearly says single-parent. which supports my argument.

- A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.

and this also supports my argument...in fact the whole "27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend." ESPECIALLY supports my argument.

- Researchers in Michigan determined that "49 percent of all child abuse cases are committed by single mothers.

interesting fact, fathers are three times more likely to be abusive to children then their mothers. Since we're so interested in talking about a womans supposed inability to lead a relationship, I thought I'd throw that out there.

- A family structure index -- a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed -- is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males.

ratio, cut in pay. This site tends to leave out these key facts to collect these statistics.

- In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families.

single-parent family parent statistic. once again I have no idea why you present these statistics that back my argument that single mothers and single fathers ultimately have the same flaws.

- Children living with a never-married mother are more likely to have been treated for emotional problems.

*slap forehead* yes this is true with single parents in general

Lol, I've been actually providing relevant facts here, you've done nothing of the sort.

actually yes I have. I've provided multiple studies to support my case

You're incapable of thinking objectively and you've proved yet again, just like you have in prior threads, that the facts are something that are too difficult for you to accept because you care more aboutlooking good in an argument than you do about honestly addressing reality.

oh the irony.

You've yet to prove the correlation between dual income families and divorce.

AHAHAHAHA

Actually I've conclusively proved it

not a large one by any means. and you still havn't shown the correlation between divorce and poor women leadership.

At 12/23/07 02:48 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Lol and that detracts from the facts how?

because the basis of your argument is that women leading relationships leads to divorce. When in fact, this study suggests it is actually the husbands insecurities.

you see, the study shows that working women are more likely to get divorced because husbands feel threatened by an independent woman, and that husbands are more able to divorce an independent wife. This has nothing to do with a woman's ability to lead a household (which was the basis of this whole argument)

Interesting.

Is that why women initiate 66%-75% of all divorces?

can you prove that correlates to this study? no? then why even present it? you're making an idiot out of yourself.

---

At 12/23/07 02:53 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Face it Musician, you've been completely and utterly disproved yet again.

All you're doing now, just like you did in the argument about anti-missile technology, is trying to safe-face by weaseling your way out of addressing the facts. You lost the argument, but you're trying to perpetuate it purely for your own personal reasons. You know you're wrong, you know the facts have been stacked up against you, but you keep saying the same things over and over again after they've already been discredited because you're more concerned with how you appear than whether or not what you're arguing is true.

actually I'd be interested to here what other people think about this argument. So far your "proof" has been a bunch of links with information on single mothers that applies to single parents in general, a study that makes a connection (small but still) of divorce to dual income families, but never elaborates whether these "more likely divorces" are initiated by the woman or not (which basically renders it useless for your argument.). and a bunch of specifically selected intentionally misleading facts from a website generally built to support single dads and help them secure custody of their child.

funny, I think anyone actually following this conversation would conclude that you have yet to prove that women are inferior breadmakers.

Also the study you link to seems to indicate that in fact they are not

Heckert, Nowak, and Snyder (1998) found that couples where wives earn between 50% to less than 75% of the household income are significantly more likely to separate than other couples.

note how it does not say 50% or more, but rather "50% to less than 75%" this seems to assert that when the female is making over 75% of the families wages, that the couple is no longer more likely to separate. This might indicate by extension, that in fact the increase in divorce in dual income families, is caused by problems from both the male and female sides of the family, which also lowers the credibility your argument.

Anyways yeah, just another way that your sources have helped me establish and support my case

Toodles!