The Classic Example of "Feminist Scholarship"

> liz wrote:
> >
> > LIZ ON WADE ON FATHERLESSNESS:  Why This FR Argument Doesn't Work:
> >
> >
> >  liz
> >
> > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> >
> >
> > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> Great reading, Liz!  I learned a lot from this and feel that it explains
> the issue very well.  Thank you for posting it. I believe that all men
> should read it and learn!
> Stacy Alexander

In article <>,
  liz <> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 wrote:
> > Liz often refers to a study "which proves that children of single-father
> > households fare no better than children from SMHs (single-mother
> > households), written by USC sociologist Timothy Biblarz.  But there are
> > some problems with her "evidence".
> >
> > 1)  The report did not separate children from single-father households out
> > from children from "other non-traditional" homes.
> The study most certainly measured single father homes separately from
> other "non-traditional" homes.  The news article made the comment to the
> effect that ALL of them (independently, all the different kinds, measured
> separately) were substandard.

You should take a look at the study:  your error is far more grievous than
even I imagined!

First, it states:

     "Biblarz and Rafferty treat children from a variety of alternative
     family forms as a single, nonintact group".

THAT would be an indictment of your statement above, by itself.  But it gets
worse.  The ONE category which DID provide a quantitative difference between
single BIOLOGICAL father households, separate from step-father and "other
nontraditional families" was a category called "occupational transmission".
The children of SMHs were more likely to follow the "occupation" of the
mother than children of SFHs were to follow the "occupation" of the father.

How could that be GOOD news??  That is BAD news, because it notes that "men
from female-headed households were more than ten times as likely to report
'no occupation' for the head of their childhood household".  So 90% of the
men who followed the "occupations" of their mothers were unemployed
themselves.  At the very best, the one out of ten who report that their
mother DID have an "occupation", the SON having a high probability of
following along in the footsteps of a cleaning lady or a secretary is nothing
to shout about.

The IMPLICATION, but not the outright assertion, and with no data to support
it, is that children of SFHs don't do as well as children of SMHs.  But what
is the relationship between "socioeconomic success" of a son and following
along the same "occupation" as his father??  It might just as well say that
there is no correlation between drinking orange juice in the morning and
drinking beer in the evening.  So what?


"Holding origin occupation and race constant, children from alternative
families who lived with their fathers, as well as children from stepfamilies,
have greater odds of occupying lower socioeconomic locations than children
from alternative female-headed and two-biological-parent family backgrounds".

Why the distinction between "fathers" and "stepfamilies".   Because this
"study" does what all good feminist studies do:  it lumps biological fathers
and stepfathers into the same category, and then on top of that, for good
measure, it throws in "stepfamilies" to reduce the number even further.

"Stepfamilies" is feminist code for "live-in boyfriend" or "mother cohabits".
In order to avoid having to state that it separated SMHs from "live-in
boyfriends" (where children are 73 times more likely to be fatally abused
than children in two-parent families), it calls these situations
"stepfamilies".  If this study is representative of the general population,
then 2% of the children lived with their biological fathers, 14% lived with
step-fathers, and 10% lived with mothers with live-in boyfriends, herein
called "stepfamilies".  The "study" compared that motley group to the 10% of
the children who live in an SMH with no live-in.

We KNOW that children in stepfamilies and living with step-fathers are at
serious risk to numerous of social and economic pathologies (see "The Garbage
Generation", by Dr. Daniel Amneus, garbgen.htm ).   We
know that children who live with mothers who cohabit are at much greater risk
than that.  We also know that the REASON that children in two-parent families
do so well, that they enjoy a 44% lower average mortality rate, that they
have a 73% higher standard of living, is because of the presence of a
biological father, who is the one person in the world who can, will, and does
protect, discipline, educate them, and who can, will, and does establish a
faith in God.

But consider what "holding origin occupation ... constant" means.  It means
to compare what these children said about the occupations of their mothers to
what they said about the occupations of their fathers.  Where SMH children
were 10 times as likely to say that their moms had no occupations, how many
children would you guess say that about their fathers??  Zero?  This means
that there is NO correlation available for the lower 90% of the moms, so only
the top 10% of the moms are "correlated" to 100% of the dads.

And for some unexplained reason, even though children of SMHs whose mothers
were widowed constitute only 1% of the general population, this study
consisted of 40% widows, so the sample size was far from being a
cross-section of SMHs.

AND EVEN THEN--even after throwing out the lower 90% of the mothers, even
after selecting probably 100% of the widowed mothers, even after "corelating"
this to 100% of the "fathers", even after including step-fathers as
"fathers", even after including "stepfamilies" in the same sample as
"fathers", even after revealing that "occupational transmission" was the real
objective of the "study":


This study was contrived, misrepresentive, creative, misrepresented, biased,
discriminatory, selective, subjective, used feminist language and terms, and
produced by the most creative feminist "scholarship" in the country, and