Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/23/07 04:26 AM, Musician wrote:

This very much correlates with the fact that women are paid less then men.

Which doesn't disprove what I said.

Also, single mothers and single fathers have a ratio of 5:1 which is what throws your statistic off.

Nope.

also all the links below link to the same page...

But they were all from different studies you idiot.

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

That link you used just validated what I said:

Whereas 6.5% of married couple families (with related children under 18) and 17.6% of single fathers were living in poverty, more than one third (36.2%) of single mothers were poor.

That stat can't be skewed by this "5-1" ratio you're talking about now could it? Because it's relative to population.

Haha you're so pathetic you're just getting absolutely hilarious as you squirm to try and take the argument that has already been disproved, you use links that only help me!

All the more reason for dual income families if you ask me.

Lol... you mean the dual-income families that are more likely to get divorced?

Yes but these problems all occur in motherless homes as well (ratio ratio ratio).

Prove it. Oh that's right... you can't.

THEY'RE ALL THE SAME LINK YOU BLOODY IDIOT

Nope, in fact, all the ones that came from the same link came from different 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.

Lol

You're so incapable of honestly it's almost sad.

Let's go over this again:

You provided this link about marriage in Canada. And it said:

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.

You ignore that this correlates with the increase in divorce 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.

So as the dual-income nature of marriages went up, the rate of divorce increased. This shows a correlation.

What shows causation is the fact that:

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:

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.

And:

Working women are more than three times more likely to be divorced than their stay-at-home counterparts, research published this week reveals.

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

-------

You got proved wrong.

Trying to weasel your way out of it isn't going to work, buddy.

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.

Lol the funny thing is I already showed that women initiate it more than men do!

Women initiate 66% to 75% of divorces.

thats the same link...

They were separated into paragraphs. It does that.

that's also the same link... lmao

Wow is that your way of ignoring something that proves you wrong now? You just say "that's the same link" over and over again?

---

At 12/23/07 04:27 AM, Musician wrote: ah I see we are back to dads4kids... so are motherless children.

Prove it.

- 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.

Nope, in fact here's yet another example of how woefully incapable of being honest you are.

I have proved:

- Marriages where the women works are more likely to fail and lead to divorce.
- Women initiate most divorces
- Divorces lead to separated families and single parents.

This negatively affects children.

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.

And you haven't proved it at all.

In fact, something you ignored:

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

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

Nope.

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

Lol yes I have and you know it!

Ahaahaha what a freak show you are.

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.

Yes, fact:

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.

When in fact, this study suggests it is actually the husbands insecurities.

Funny, because it's women who initiate the divorce, something you keep ignoring...

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

LOL!

Seriously how wacked out of your mind are you?

I showed a clear correlation between divorce rates and the rate of dual-income families. I showed that wives that have careers are more likely to divorce, and you were taking issue because it might have been the husbands insecurity that caused it. But now you're IGNORING the fact that it si women who initiate MOST divorces, thus tying the correlation with causation.

You have absolutely no integrity.

---

I'm going to touch on this again because I missed something:

At 12/23/07 04:26 AM, Musician wrote:

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.

Explain this then:

Forty-three percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household -- 39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers.

That's more than a 5-1 rate now isn't it?

---

At 12/23/07 04:26 AM, Musician wrote:

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

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

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

This should be obvious, since

This very much correlates with the fact that women are paid less then men.

This is due to a variety of things. In my opinion, it comes slightly from work ethic. But it probably has more to do with innate differences. For example, Raven's matrices:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob =ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-4BT7D8N-1&_user=1 0&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&vie w=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVers ion=0&_userid=10&md5=f8cbfc9ad6ec1d94e85 15094d0079fcb

show a mean advantage of 2.6 for men, and a standard deviation that is significantly lower.

Also, in societies like Mensa, men outnumber women 2:1 (both in number who apply and number who get in), which seems to conform with the aforementioned statistics.

This provides a clear scientific basis for the income differences, while all you have is a religious-natured discrimination theory.

:Also, single mothers :and single fathers have a ratio of 5:1 which is what throws your statistic off.

It doesn't at all, you haven't learned how to read statistics. Since women make up 20% of all single families, but a much higher percentage of poor families, women are more likely to be poor. Its that simple.

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

Exactly, that's why a two-parent system works so well.

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

The differences in income can be well sustained by measured differences in academic performance. There is a massive difference both on Raven's Standard Matrices and SATs:

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloa ds/highered/ra/sat/SATPercentileRanksCom positeCR_M.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob =ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-4BT7D8N-1&_user=1 0&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&vie w=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVers ion=0&_userid=10&md5=f8cbfc9ad6ec1d94e85 15094d0079fcb

(The second article shows an abstract, which confirms what I said about the difference in SD and the advantage in favor of men).

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

Are you really this dense? Obviously, women aren't lesser, but there is a mean difference in IQ of about 2.5 points, and a difference in SD of about 1 or 2 points (different tests have different results). But the point is, in societies like Mensa (and on all major psychometric tests) men outnumber women 2:1 in the genius or higher ranges. The SATs don't find such a dramatic difference, but men still outnumber women by 70% +

So shut up with the sex discrimination / income garbage. The relatively small difference in income is well explained by differences in academic accomplishment and aptitude.

Women are lesser than men in some ways, and likewise men are lesser than women in a lot of ways. Women have shown better aptitude in certain tasks like rapid addition and multiplication and identifying emotions - while men have shown to be better at other tasks like rotating 3D objects.

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.

It doesn't matter if the site is biased, what matters is the correctness of the facts. Right now all you're doing is attacking science, and making irrelevant claims. Does it affect motherless homes? Yes. No one has disputed that. But the point remains that families are best with both parents, a male and a female.

---

AI600's post didn't hypnotize me like Cellars did.

---

At 12/23/07 05:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Which doesn't disprove what I said.

No but it shows that poverty isn't due to some inadequacy of the mothers. Which you seem to be suggesting.

Also, single mothers and single fathers have a ratio of 5:1 which is what throws your statistic off.

Nope.

Hilarious, this is dodging the facts cellar. shame on you

But they were all from different studies you idiot.

maybe so, but you still posted the same link multiple times unnecessarily, probably to try and make your argument look more supported than it actually is.

That link you used just validated what I said:

Whereas 6.5% of married couple families (with related children under 18) and 17.6% of single fathers were living in poverty, more than one third (36.2%) of single mothers were poor.

That stat can't be skewed by this "5-1" ratio you're talking about now could it? Because it's relative to population.

Yes, because women are paid less, thus more prone to poverty. this is not due to an inadequacy of the mother's (which you have yet to prove)

Haha you're so pathetic you're just getting absolutely hilarious as you squirm to try and take the argument that has already been disproved, you use links that only help me!

^ This is all cellardoor has. insults, in an attempt to alienate the poster he's responding to.

All the more reason for dual income families if you ask me.

Lol... you mean the dual-income families that are more likely to get divorced?

Yeah the ones that make up 53% of america's familys. and the ones that have a positive psychological impact on the child.

Yes but these problems all occur in motherless homes as well (ratio ratio ratio).

Prove it. Oh that's right... you can't.

I feel I have.

Nope, in fact, all the ones that came from the same link came from different studies.

Yeah, but you cheapen your argument when you link to it multiple times. you only had to link to it once.

Let's go over this again:

You provided this link about marriage in Canada. And it said:

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.


You ignore that this correlates with the increase in divorce 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.

So as the dual-income nature of marriages went up, the rate of divorce increased. This shows a correlation.

correlation =/= causation. There have been many studies that show the true reason for the increase in the divorce trend all of which you have ignored:

Carmichael et al. (1997) suggest several of these demographic factors, such as young age at marriage, early pregnancy and low income, are interrelated. According to Kurdek (1993:238), in terms of relationship dynamics, these demographic risk factors represent 'a general lack of preparation for or doubtful competency in performing marital roles or resolving interpersonal conflict constructively' by either or both partners.

What shows causation is the fact that:

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.

actually this doesn't prove that that this is the causation. All it does is correlate dual income marriages to divorce, it doesn't show that it's made a notable impact on the increase in divorce. most studies won't even recognize dual income families as a cause of divorce because there are so many other more significant factors that cause it.

Also like I've shown before, that link supports my argument in this line.

": 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."

it specifically says the increase in divorce occurs when the wife makes between 50% to less than 75% which seems to suggest that when the wife makes more than 75% this increase in divorce no longer applies. This seems to suggest that female-headed households with a husband don't have a significantly higher risk of divorcing.

And:

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

Why do you insist on posting that link over and over? I've already shown that it doesn't support your argument (see the other 2 times I've addressed this 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.

and that's the same link... is this going to become a regular thing with you?

And:

Working women are more than three times more likely to be divorced than their stay-at-home counterparts, research published this week reveals.

thats the same link too...

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

and that's also the same link...

'Our findings suggest that there is something about wives' work that increases the divorce risk

and that's once again the same link. I suppose this must be you trying to keep your head above the water.

Lol the funny thing is I already showed that women initiate it more than men do!

Women initiate 66% to 75% of divorces.

funny thing is you never are able to connect the two studies. sure women initiate more divorce, but do women initiate more divorce while in dual income families? you haven't proven the latter.

thats the same link...

They were separated into paragraphs. It does that.

Yeah but you've also started including these completely unnecessary And Also interludes, which basically proves you're trying to make it look like you have more links then you actually do.

that's also the same link... lmao

Wow is that your way of ignoring something that proves you wrong now? You just say "that's the same link" over and over again?

actually no, I just find it funny that you're using a tactic like this, trying to make your argument more valid then it is. and none of these facts have proven me wrong by the way, you still havn't proven women make an inferior house head.

---

At 12/23/07 05:12 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/23/07 04:27 AM, Musician wrote: ah I see we are back to dads4kids... so are motherless children.

Prove it.

Children of single-parent families are more than twice as likely to suffer depression, committ suicide, drink to excess or get hooked on drugs than children of two-parent households, according to a Swedish study found in the Lancet Medical Journal. This study covered almost an entire population and takes into account social factors that could distort the outcome.

Nope, in fact here's yet another example of how woefully incapable of being honest you are.

I have proved:

- Marriages where the women works are more likely to fail and lead to divorce.
- Women initiate most divorces
- Divorces lead to separated families and single parents.

This negatively affects children.

despite the whole "I have proved" thing has nothing to do with the quote, you have no proof that these divorces were not justified.

Men are statistically more likely to cheat:

A 2004 ABC News poll found that men were almost twice as likely to cheat as women, with 21 percent of men admitting to cheating compared to 11 percent of women.

and another link for good measure

Also men are much more likely to be abusive

In light of this I don't think that the fact that most divorces are initiated by women are unjustified.

And you haven't proved it at all.

In fact, something you ignored:

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

I've already addressed this. Women are more prone to be in poverty than men, because they are paid less.

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

Nope.

Haha you're really sad you know that. You still havn't supported your point.

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

Lol yes I have and you know it!

Ahaahaha what a freak show you are.

thanks for all the sources and studies to back up your point there. Oh wait... there are none, it's just typical cellardoor blather.

because the basis of your argument is that women leading relationships leads to divorce.

Yes, fact:

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.

But this study includes single mother households, and we know the detrimental effects in single mother households are really the same in all single parent households. So this doesn't validate your point.

When in fact, this study suggests it is actually the husbands insecurities.

Funny, because it's women who initiate the divorce, something you keep ignoring...

But you havn't proven that it applies in this study.

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

I showed a clear correlation between divorce rates and the rate of dual-income families. I showed that wives that have careers are more likely to divorce, and you were taking issue because it might have been the husbands insecurity that caused it. But now you're IGNORING the fact that it si women who initiate MOST divorces, thus tying the correlation with causation.

Yes but this study shows that the reason for most divorces in families where the woman works, the main reason for the increase in divorce, is due to the man, not the woman.

You have absolutely no integrity.

Oh please

---

At 12/23/07 05:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I'm going to touch on this again because I missed something:

Explain this then:

Forty-three percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household -- 39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers.

That's more than a 5-1 rate now isn't it?

Yes but you also have to consider that women make significantly less than men. which puts them in poverty situations, which statistically increases your chances of getting arrested and incarcerated.

---

At 12/23/07 09:24 AM, Al6200 wrote: This is due to a variety of things. In my opinion, it comes slightly from work ethic. But it probably has more to do with innate differences. For example, Raven's matrices:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob =ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-4BT7D8N-1&_user=1 0&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&vie w=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVers ion=0&_userid=10&md5=f8cbfc9ad6ec1d94e85 15094d0079fcb

show a mean advantage of 2.6 for men, and a standard deviation that is significantly lower.

Also, in societies like Mensa, men outnumber women 2:1 (both in number who apply and number who get in), which seems to conform with the aforementioned statistics.

This provides a clear scientific basis for the income differences, while all you have is a religious-natured discrimination theory.

Yes but this doesn't prove that women are inferior house heads (the point that cellardoor has been trying to make). I never stated the reason that women we're paid less, merely that they were.

Also, single mothers :and single fathers have a ratio of 5:1 which is what throws your statistic off.

It doesn't at all, you haven't learned how to read statistics. Since women make up 20% of all single families, but a much higher percentage of poor families, women are more likely to be poor. Its that simple.

It doesn't throw the statistic off, that was a bad choice of words on my part, but it does show that this statistic isn't valid to support his point, since the ratio and the difference in wages are enough to suggest that the reason that more women are poor is not because they lack the ability to be the bread maker of the family.

Exactly, that's why a two-parent system works so well.

Yep

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

The differences in income can be well sustained by measured differences in academic performance. There is a massive difference both on Raven's Standard Matrices and SATs:

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloa ds/highered/ra/sat/SATPercentileRanksCom positeCR_M.pdf

well men have been proven to excel at mathematics just because of the way their brains are made. Women compensate with language facility, but that does not = critical reading.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200 5/01/050121100142.htm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob =ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-4BT7D8N-1&_user=1 0&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&vie w=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVers ion=0&_userid=10&md5=f8cbfc9ad6ec1d94e85 15094d0079fcb

(The second article shows an abstract, which confirms what I said about the difference in SD and the advantage in favor of men).

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

Are you really this dense? Obviously, women aren't lesser, but there is a mean difference in IQ of about 2.5 points, and a difference in SD of about 1 or 2 points (different tests have different results). But the point is, in societies like Mensa (and on all major psychometric tests) men outnumber women 2:1 in the genius or higher ranges. The SATs don't find such a dramatic difference, but men still outnumber women by 70% +

Women are lesser than men in some ways, and likewise men are lesser than women in a lot of ways. Women have shown better aptitude in certain tasks like rapid addition and multiplication and identifying emotions - while men have shown to be better at other tasks like rotating 3D objects.

But that's not why employers aren't paying women the same wages.

It doesn't matter if the site is biased, what matters is the correctness of the facts. Right now all you're doing is attacking science, and making irrelevant claims. Does it affect motherless homes? Yes. No one has disputed that. But the point remains that families are best with both parents, a male and a female.

It does matter that the site is biased, because it's selecting facts that make it look like these problems only occur in single mother homes, when really they occur in single parents homes in general.

---

At 12/23/07 03:35 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 12/19/07 08:57 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote: And he's done some pretty retarded and/or offensive crap on the road to presidency. For example, guess who his running mate is? Jesus Christ.

No seriously, Jesus Christ. No jokes.

That means if the senate needs a tie-breaking vote, they're gonn have an absentee ballot. LOLZ

Lord I apologize for that joke...

But seriously, he already said Stephen Colbert would be his running mate. What, not that he's a serious candidate he's gonna change his tune? umm... kay.

Yeah... back on the subject of Mike Huckabee, I heard he covered up his son brutally torturing and killing a dog.

WELL HE'S GOT THE FAMILY VALUES VOTE FOR SURE!

---

At 12/21/07 12:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Suggesting that there is anything odd about that is laughable considering in basically every single religion, every single culture, even that of atheists, the role of man is the patriarch of the household as been as the leader.

So how are things back there in the 1950s eh Cellardoor? I trust the Big Bopper is playing on the radio right now...

---

None of your points invalidates my position Musician, which shouldn't be confused with CellarDoor's point. I don't agree that we should have a patriarchy (although I don't oppose it either, I believe individual men and women should have the right to pursue whatever career they want). My point was just that men and women are different, and therefore work best in a cooperative two-parent family unit. There's mounds of evidence supporting that.

Then you said that women aren't as effective in two-parent systems because of widespread income discrimination. I showed that there's a reasonable amount of difference in men and women to explain the income disparity - without having to resort to a conspiracy in the world's employers.

Certainly, the male-female income disparity does explain a large part of the difference in upbringing. But that doesn't invalidate my point at all. It doesn't matter why the disparity exists - so long as it exists.

---

this post hads alot of words!

---

At 12/23/07 06:30 PM, Al6200 wrote: None of your points invalidates my position Musician, which shouldn't be confused with CellarDoor's point. I don't agree that we should have a patriarchy (although I don't oppose it either, I believe individual men and women should have the right to pursue whatever career they want). My point was just that men and women are different, and therefore work best in a cooperative two-parent family unit. There's mounds of evidence supporting that.

I never said that was wrong. In fact I've presented alot of evidence that supports that.

Then you said that women aren't as effective in two-parent systems because of widespread income discrimination. I showed that there's a reasonable amount of difference in men and women to explain the income disparity - without having to resort to a conspiracy in the world's employers.

I said single mothers aren't as effective as single fathers economically because they're paid less, but ultimately single mothers are about as effective at raising a child as single fathers. Of course, neither are as effective as a 2 parent family.

Certainly, the male-female income disparity does explain a large part of the difference in upbringing.

you mean between single father and single mothers? if so I agree, though I don't think that the difference in upbringings is really that large.

But that doesn't invalidate my point at all. It doesn't matter why the disparity exists - so long as it exists.

I agree, men and women are different. All I'm arguing is that women aren't less capable then men in leading a household.

---

How is a woman payed less?

Sorry, a sieve question, but does someone say 'So you're a woman? that's 80% salary for you."

Or are they just taking less paying jobs...

---

Lol Musican... if you're just going to keep ignoring where you got proved wrong, this isn't worth it.

It's pretty repetitive, something you say gets literally proved wrong and you just keep saying it anyway.

---

More proof that Musician keeps dodging facts.

At 12/23/07 02:24 PM, Musician wrote:

Also, single mothers and single fathers have a ratio of 5:1 which is what throws your statistic off.

Nope.

Hilarious, this is dodging the facts cellar. shame on you

Wow once again.

You ignored where I showed that the 5 to 1 ratio doesn't sway the results, because even if you adjust for the different rate, it's still more common among households headed by mothers:

Forty-three percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household -- 39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers.

That's more than a 5 to 1 ratio now isn't it?

---

At 12/24/07 12:21 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: How is a woman payed less?

Sorry, a sieve question, but does someone say 'So you're a woman? that's 80% salary for you."

Or are they just taking less paying jobs...

Women are frequently employed in lesser paid positions (for example, I recall a case a while back where flight attendants claimed that they were being discriminated against because their predominantly female job was paid significantly less than the predominantly male job of the pilot. They were trying to argue that they essentially performed the same job.), and on top of that, they tend to work fewer hours, take more time off, etc. etc.

The truth is, per hour of work of a certain type, which they have a certain level of experience with, women will be paid the same as men.

---

At 12/24/07 12:28 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: More proof that Musician keeps dodging facts.

Wow once again.

You ignored where I showed that the 5 to 1 ratio doesn't sway the results, because even if you adjust for the different rate, it's still more common among households headed by mothers:

Forty-three percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household -- 39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers.

That's more than a 5 to 1 ratio now isn't it?

I actually answered that

"Yes but you also have to consider that women make significantly less than men. which puts them in poverty situations, which statistically increases your chances of getting arrested and incarcerated."

if you notice further up in thread I devote an entire post to answering that.

You got owned pretty damn hard cellar

---

At 12/24/07 12:45 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/24/07 12:21 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: How is a woman payed less?

Sorry, a sieve question, but does someone say 'So you're a woman? that's 80% salary for you."

Or are they just taking less paying jobs...

women are statistically paid less then men.

---

At 12/24/07 01:20 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/24/07 12:28 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: More proof that Musician keeps dodging facts.

Wow once again.

You ignored where I showed that the 5 to 1 ratio doesn't sway the results, because even if you adjust for the different rate, it's still more common among households headed by mothers:

Forty-three percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household -- 39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers.

That's more than a 5 to 1 ratio now isn't it?

I actually answered that

No you didn't.

"Yes but you also have to consider that women make significantly less than men. which puts them in poverty situations, which statistically increases your chances of getting arrested and incarcerated."

Provide the numbers and show that this is what is skewing the results.

Don't just SAY something and expect it to be considered applicable.

if you notice further up in thread I devote an entire post to answering that.

You got owned pretty damn hard cellar

LOL no I didn't, in fact you systematically got proved wrong the whole time and your recent posts consisted of you just weaseling your way out of admitting to all the areas you got proved wrong.

Oh and by the way, you still haven't returned to this thread where you got proved wrong and ran away. But that's understandable, considering you lost from the moment you opened your mouth. I guess that's why you put so much effort into this thread, you need some way of coping. Too bad it didn't work out for you, because you got proved wrong yet again, and just continue to deny the facts over and over again.

---

At 12/24/07 01:21 AM, Musician wrote:

women are statistically paid less then men.

Not by 5 to 1 ratio they're not.

Now, are you going to show that this is the reason that they have a much higher statistical likelihood of raising children that have all those issues we discussed? Because that "5 to 1" ratio doesn't add up once you look at the facts. After adjusting for the 5 to 1 ratio, prison inmates were more likely to be raised by single-mothers than single-fathers, by double.

---

At 12/24/07 01:27 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: No you didn't.

I even quoted it in this post

"Yes but you also have to consider that women make significantly less than men. which puts them in poverty situations, which statistically increases your chances of getting arrested and incarcerated."

Provide the numbers and show that this is what is skewing the results.

Don't just SAY something and expect it to be considered applicable.

Fact: Women are paid less and thus are more prone to poverty
Fact: Children raised in poverty are statistically more likely to be arrested and incarcerated

I don't need to cite my sources on this one cellardoor, this is COMMON KNOWLEDGE

Just give it up cellardoor, if this really is the only piece of evidence you have left then you've already lost.

if you notice further up in thread I devote an entire post to answering that.

You got owned pretty damn hard cellar

LOL no I didn't, in fact you systematically got proved wrong the whole time and your recent posts consisted of you just weaseling your way out of admitting to all the areas you got proved wrong.

Oh and by the way, you still haven't returned to this thread where you got proved wrong and ran away. But that's understandable, considering you lost from the moment you opened your mouth. I guess that's why you put so much effort into this thread, you need some way of coping. Too bad it didn't work out for you, because you got proved wrong yet again, and just continue to deny the facts over and over again.

See this is what you do cellar. You claim that you "systematically proved me wrong" but you never did. I countered you on every point. Hell you were never able to even able to establish a valid argument.

You were able to submit that dual income families are more likely to divorce, but you never proved that was caused solely by the wife.

You were able to submit that working women are more likely to get divorced, but you never proved that this was caused solely by the wife

You were able to submit that women initiate most divorces, but you didn't recognize that most of the divorce causing behavior can be attributed to males.

So yeah, I think it's fair to say that you never had an argument to begin with, and unless you have some new evidence to submit, we're done here.

---

At 12/24/07 01:30 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Not by 5 to 1 ratio they're not.

... wow, it suddenly becomes clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. What is that even supposed to mean?

Now, are you going to show that this is the reason that they have a much higher statistical likelihood of raising children that have all those issues we discussed? Because that "5 to 1" ratio doesn't add up once you look at the facts. After adjusting for the 5 to 1 ratio, prison inmates were more likely to be raised by single-mothers than single-fathers, by double.

it's attributable to the 5:1 ratio AND poverty... christ are you really that dense?

---

Man, this thread delivers!

---

At 12/24/07 01:21 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/24/07 12:45 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/24/07 12:21 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: How is a woman payed less?

Sorry, a sieve question, but does someone say 'So you're a woman? that's 80% salary for you."

Or are they just taking less paying jobs...

women are statistically paid less then men.

And as that link says, they work different jobs than men do, and have different types of education. An engineer is usually going to be paid more than a music teacher. Deal with it.

The example later on in the article with lawyers in some specific area in the US fails to account for difference in hours worked, or billable hours, which matter more to lawyers.

---

At 12/24/07 01:58 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/24/07 01:21 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/24/07 12:45 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/24/07 12:21 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: How is a woman payed less?

Sorry, a sieve question, but does someone say 'So you're a woman? that's 80% salary for you."

Or are they just taking less paying jobs...

women are statistically paid less then men.

And as that link says, they work different jobs than men do, and have different types of education. An engineer is usually going to be paid more than a music teacher. Deal with it.

The example later on in the article with lawyers in some specific area in the US fails to account for difference in hours worked, or billable hours, which matter more to lawyers.

"Studies that do investigate some of the factors that cause the gender wage gap and try to isolate the effects of productivity-related factors, such as education and time spent in and out of the labor market, repeatedly show that one-quarter to one-half of the overall gender pay gap cannot be explained by such legitimate factors."

---

Without examining the "studies" themselves, I can't tell whether or not that's legitimate. However, from the studies I have seen in the past, they seem to lump everyone who has a bachelor's degree into one category, everyone who has a master's into another, and so on.

However, this still doesn't account for the fact that someone who earns a bachelor's degree in say, mechanical engineering would probably be earning more than someone who has a master's in English.

---

At 12/24/07 01:40 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/24/07 01:27 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: No you didn't.

I even quoted it in this post

And refused to address it honestly.

Even if you adjust for the 5 to 1 ratio in society of single mother homes to single father homes, the prison inmates are still more likely to come single-mother homes than single-father homes.

Fact: Women are paid less and thus are more prone to poverty

And thus less likely to take care of children properly. Yep.

Fact: Children raised in poverty are statistically more likely to be arrested and incarcerated

I don't need to cite my sources on this one cellardoor, this is COMMON KNOWLEDGE

And yet you haven't proved that this is the reason that the results are swayed so much.

You can't explain the 10 to 1 difference in the rates of people in prison from single-mother families to single-father families.

Just give it up cellardoor, if this really is the only piece of evidence you have left then you've already lost.

Lol the funny thing is you already lost.

See this is what you do cellar. You claim that you "systematically proved me wrong" but you never did.

Aahaha, I'm starting to think you have a reading comprehension issue.

The links that you yourself used ended up proving you wrong quite a few times.

Do I need to recap again?

You provided this link about marriage in Canada. And it said:

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.

-----------

You ignore that this correlates with the increase in divorce 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.

So as the dual-income nature of marriages went up, the rate of divorce increased. This shows a correlation.

What shows causation is the fact that:

'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.

And:

Working women are more than three times more likely to be divorced than their stay-at-home counterparts, research published this week reveals.

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

-------

Now, you're trying to say this is due to the fact that men are insecure and they cause the divorce, however:

Women initiate 66% to 75% of divorces.

Interesting...

You were able to submit that dual income families are more likely to divorce, but you never proved that was caused solely by the wife.

Lol here's more direct proof of how dishonest you are.

You were able to submit that women initiate most divorces, but you didn't recognize that most of the divorce causing behavior can be attributed to males.

Nope, in fact you NEVER proved this. IN fact, you keep ignoring the fact that the majority of all divorces are initiated by the wives.

Your premise gets disproved, yet you just keep saying it over and over again.

So yeah, I think it's fair to say that you never had an argument to begin with, and unless you have some new evidence to submit, we're done here.

Lol my former evidence has already made by case completely solid. Women who work are not only more likely to seek divorce, but they are responsible for initiating divorce at a rate of 65%-70% of all divorces.

---

Now, let's review the facts again:

Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

"...the absence of the father in the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in the greater use of alcohol and marijuana."
Source: Deane Scott Berman, "Risk Factors Leading to Adolescent Substance Abuse," Adolescence 30 (1995)

Researchers in Michigan determined that "49 percent of all child abuse cases are committed by single mothers." Source: Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay, "A Study of Child Abuse in Lansing, Michigan," Child Abuse and Neglect, 8 (1984).

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.
Source: Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, "Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult and Elderly Suicide: Are There Common Underlying Structural Factors?" Social Science Research 23, 1994.

Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity.
Source: P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf, Fatherless Children, New York, Wiley Press, 1984.

In 1988, a study of preschool children admitted to New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients over a 34-month period found that nearly 80 percent came from fatherless homes.
Source: Jack Block, et al. "Parental Functioning and the Home Environment in Families of Divorce," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (1988)

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.
Source: Greg L. Duncan, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Kato Klebanov, "Economic Deprivation and Early Childhood Development," Child Development 65 (1994).

Children with fathers at home tend to do better in school, are less prone to depression and are more successful in relationships. Children from one-parent families achieve less and get into trouble more than children from two parent families.
Source: One Parent Families and Their Children: The School's Most Significant Minority, conducted by The Consortium for the Study of School Needs of Children from One Parent Families, co sponsored by the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the Institute for Development of Educational Activities, a division of the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, Arlington, VA., 1980

Act now, pay later: "Children from mother-only families have less of an ability to delay gratification and poorer impulse control (that is, control over anger and sexual gratification.) These children also have a weaker sense of conscience or sense of right and wrong."
Source: E.M. Hetherington and B. Martin, "Family Interaction" in H.C. Quay and J.S. Werry (eds.), Psychopathological Disorders of Childhood. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979)

Double-risk: Fatherless children -- kids living in homes without a stepfather or without contact with their biological father -- are twice as likely to drop out of school.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Survey on Child Health. (1993)

Con garden: Forty-three percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household -- 39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers
Source: US Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Prison Inmates. 1991

(We've already gone over this, but that's a 10 to 1 ratio, not a 5 to 1 ratio, thus showing the national average isn't skewing the results by much)

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)

At 12/24/07 01:42 AM, Musician wrote: ... wow, it suddenly becomes clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. What is that even supposed to mean?

Lol you're really that stupid?

The rate of the incarcerated was about 10 to 1 leaning towards single-mother families. Even after you adjust for the 5 to 1 rate, there's still a DOUBLE chance that inmates come from single-mother families compared to single-father families.

That's double still, and yet... you haven't proved that the women as a whole are double as likely to be in poverty, or make half as less money if the problem is relative to the amount of money they make considering your own link said that women (as of 1999) make on average 74% of what men make.

Your haven't provided an argument to explain the enormous difference, even after adjusting for the different ratio in society outside of prison.

Now, are you going to show that this is the reason that they have a much higher statistical likelihood of raising children that have all those issues we discussed? Because that "5 to 1" ratio doesn't add up once you look at the facts. After adjusting for the 5 to 1 ratio, prison inmates were more likely to be raised by single-mothers than single-fathers, by double.

it's attributable to the 5:1 ratio AND poverty... christ are you really that dense?

First of all, the fact that women are more likely to be impoverished only fortifies my point, YOU are so dense that you can't even see that it wouldn't matter whether or not this is due to some societal bias against women, because the women are still more likely to have a dysfunctional children.