Sure to give the radical feminists indigestion....

This Father’s Day, Thank Dad for His Hard Work

New study busts 'myth of the lazy father'

SHARE

TWEET

EMAIL

Getty Images

BY: Charles Fain Lehman 
June 16, 2019 5:00 am

Dads are sometimes labeled lazy, but they don't deserve to be, a new research brief from the Institute for Family Studies argues.

In the past several years, both entertainment media and the think-piece-industrial complex have tended to paint a not-so-friendly pictures of dads. Moms are said to be suffering under "second-shift motherhood," while the "working dad" commands less and less respect, thanks to the perception that he does not pull his weight.

But is every dad really a shiftless Homer Simpson? Not quite, according to new work by IFS research fellow Robert VerBruggen. In honor of Father's Day, he looked at data from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS), a time diary study that tracks how Americans spend our days.

"Among married couples living together with kids, if anything, it's dads who do more work in total—adding up paid work, housework, child care, and even shopping," VerBruggen wrote. "Moms do work more in some specific circumstances, but the data acquit fathers as a group of the slacking charges so frequently leveled against them."

To reach this conclusion, VerBruggen looked at the behaviors of respondents to the ATUS who were married, with kids, and living with their spouse. Combining data on how much time parents report spending at work, doing household chores, and caring for kids shows that in the aggregate men outpace women. Specifically, dads do about 59 hours of work per week, while moms do about 55.

Part of this finding is a function of difference between the two groups—if moms are more likely to stay home and work less, and dads go to the office, that could explain the gap. But VerBruggen compared working moms and dads apples-to-apples and found that in all but one configuration, dad put in more time.

continue

Diddy lived with the Amish and milked cows as a child

By Mark SavageBBC Music reporter

• 4 hours ago

• Share this with Messenger
 
• Share this with Twitter
 
• 
  hare this with Email

Image copyrightPA

Image captionDiddy is worth $826m, according to Forbes magazine

These days, Diddy is a multi-hyphenate rap mogul, with a record label, fashion label, television network and alcohol business to his name.

But he's revealed that one of the "greatest" times of his life was a summer spent living in an Amish community in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

During the two-month stay, he picked berries and learned to milk cows.

"It's one of the things that helped to make me who I am," he told US chat show host Jimmy Kimmel. 

The Amish community in the US is renowned for shunning modern technology and preserving traditional ways of life.

They dress simply and live without phones or electricity, using horses for farming and for transport.

"It's a chance to really kind of get away and just - no electronics," explained Diddy. "It really teaches you how to just relate with each other."

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Image captionThere are roughly 250,000 Amish living in the US and Canada

The star, whose real name is Sean Combs, was brought up in New York. He ended up in Pennsylvania after his mother Janice contacted The Fresh Air Fund, a non-profit agency that provides free holidays to children from low-income communities.

Reminiscing about the traditions that he became involved in, the star said: "I had to milk cows, I'd pick berries. It was a lot of chores. They wake up and they do their chores.

"I remember we used to go to church and at the church, they used to just have these lavish meals. And it really kind of taught you family. I rode around in a horse and buggy everywhere".

"And now you've got a Bentley," joked Kimmel.

In fact, Combs is the second wealthiest artist in hip-hop, according to Forbes magazine, which estimates he's worth $825 million (£636 million).

Skip Youtube post by Jimmy Kimmel Live

Warning: Third party content may contain adverts

Report

End of Youtube post by Jimmy Kimmel Live

In addition to his own hits, including I'll Be Missing You and Been Around The World, the star's Bad Boy record label has sold more than 500 million albums worldwide; and he's currently one of the judges on US talent show The Four.

But Combs said his Amish hosts were probably unaware of his success.

"I had no way to stay in touch with them," he said, adding: "I think about them all the time. And I'm just like, man, I wonder if they know, you know, what I grew up to be. But I don't think they did." 

The 48-year-old said he'd still like to make contact with the family, telling Kimmel: "It would be great."

US Heartbreaking video shows toddler attempting to wake her mother who allegedly passed out from drug use

Heartbreaking video shows toddler attempting to wake her mother who allegedly passed out from drug use

A disturbing video shows a little girl attempting to wake her mother after the woman had allegedly passed out from drug use.

Girl attempts to wake her mother who had passed out (Image source: WBZ-TV)

According to WBZ-TV, an unidentified woman passed out at a Family Dollar in Lawrence, Massachusetts, Sunday morning. Her 2-year-old daughter began to cry and attempted to revive her. 

A store clerk called 911 and paramedics administered Narcan, which is used to treat opiate overdoses.

“It’s very disturbing to see someone like this. It’s obvious addiction has overtaken them, to the point of not being able to care for their child,” Police Chief James Fitzpatrick told WBZ, adding that the woman will be charged with child endangerment.

“She’s lucky to be alive,” he added.

The cheif said that, though it’s troubling that an onlooker recorded the incident rather than calling for help, the video can help teach a lesson about the dangers of drug addiction. 

“People who are thinking about or dealing with addiction issues, think what it’s like to have this type of narcotic in your system and what it does to you,” Fitzpatrick said.

Police have not named the woman in the video but did say she a 36-year-old from Salem, New Hampshire. 

The West Philly shooter was a product of a drug addicted mother and a non existent family structure.

NEWS

Anti-cop note found near scene of deadly Philadelphia shootout

By Eileen AJ Connelly

September 17, 2016 | 2:37am | Updated 

Modal Trigger

Nicholas Glenn Photo: Philadelphia Police Department via AP

A cop-hating gunman on a wild shooting rampage through West Philadelphia killed a woman, injured two officers and three more bystanders before he was shot and killed by police late Friday night.

Cops found a “rambling” note expressing hatred of police and probation officers near body of the 25-year-old shooter, identified as Nicholas Glenn of West Philadelphia.

The shootout was “a completely bizarre situation,” Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross said.

Glenn walked up to Sgt. Sylvia Young’s patrol car not far from the University of Pennsylvania campus shortly after 11 p.m. Friday and opened fire. He pumped out more than a dozen rounds, hitting the 19-year department veteran in the left arm and bullet-proof vest multiple times.

“She didn’t hear him say a word, [he] just walked up on her and started firing,” Ross said.

The madman then took off, running to a bar where he again started shooting, hitting a security guard in the leg. He then grabbed a woman, using her as a human shield before shooting her in the leg.

Moments later, as he was being chased by police, Glenn fired into a car, hitting a man and woman. That woman, who was struck seven times, died just before 2 a.m. Saturday. The man who was with her is in critical condition.

Glenn reportedly next ducked underneath a partially opened garage door at a Toyota dealership and hid among stacks of the tires, staff told Philly.com. The dealership cleaning crew saw him, but he didn’t see them, according to the report.

The shooter fled again before police cornered him in a nearby alley, where two city cops and University of Pennsylvania police officer Ed Miller shot and killed him. Miller was wounded in the exchange.

Young, Miller, the security guard and the woman shot in the leg were in stable condition.

with Post Wire Services

From foster child to killer, Nicholas Glenn's path to West Philadelphia rampage

More leftist destruction of the family unit. Can't get a candy bar at school but an IUD without parental knowledge is just fine.

Schools Implant IUDs in Girls as Young as 6th Grade Without Their Parents Knowing

Earlier this month, LifeNews.com reported on a high school in Seattle, Washington that is now implanting intrauterine devices (IUD), as well as other forms of birth control and doing so without parental knowledge or permission.

The IUD is known as a long acting reversible contraception, and may even act as an abortifacient. So, a young teen in Seattle can’t get a coke at her high school, but she can have a device implanted into her uterus, which can unknowingly kill her unborn child immediately after conception. Or, if she uses another method, she can increase her chances of health risks for herself, especially if using a new method.

The high school, Chief Sealth International, a public school, began offering the devices in 2010, made possible by a Medicaid program known as Take Charge and a non-profit, Neighborcare. Students can receive the device or other method free of cost and without their parent’s insurance. And while it’s lauded that the contraception is confidential, how can it be beneficial for a parent-child relationship when the parents don’t even know the devices or medication their daughter is using?

As it turns out, Chief Sealth isn’t the only school in Seattle doing this. As CNS News reports, more schools are fitting young girls — as young as 6th grade — with the devices and doing so without their parents knowing.

Middle and high school students can’t get a Coca-Cola or a candy bar at 13 Seattle public schools, but they can get a taxpayer-funded intrauterine device (IUD) implanted without their parents’ consent.

School-based health clinics in at least 13 Seattle-area public high schools and middle schools offer long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), including IUDs and hormonal implants, to students in sixth-grade and above at no cost, according to Washington State officials.

LARCs are associated with serious side effects, such as uterine perforation and infection. IUDs, specifically, can also act as abortifacients by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.

The state and federally funded contraceptive services are made possible by Take Charge, a Washington State Medicaid program which provides free birth control to adults who are uninsured, lack contraceptive coverage, have an income at or below 260 percent of the Federal Poverty Level — or, in this case, to teens who don’t want their parents to know they’re on birth control.

In an email exchange with the Washington State Health Care Authority and CNSNews.com, a Take Charge spokesperson acknowledged that underage students are eligible for a “full array of covered family planning services” at school-based clinics if their parents meet the program’s requirements.

Take Charge added that “a student who does not want their parents to know they are seeking reproductive health services is allowed to apply for Take Charge using their own income, and if they are insured under their parents’ plan, the insurance would not be billed.”

When asked if a sixth grader could get an IUD implanted without parental consent, Take Charge told CNSNews.com: “We encourage all Take Charge providers to offer long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in their clinics. A young person does not need parental consent to obtain a LARC or any other contraceptive method…If the young person is not choosing abstinence, she would be able to select a LARC and have it inserted without parental consent.”

Parents, if you have children in these schools, you need to investigate and complain immediately. And all parents ought to take a look at the health policies of their young daughters’ schools to find out if a similar program is in place where you live.

If only there were more like her...

‘It was just unacceptable': Baltimore mom says she’s no hero

The vile Alan Grayson (D-FL) shows how the Democrats live the war on women

Grayson’s Wife, Kids Now On Government Assistance

Posted By Ben Smith 

The estranged wife and children of Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson have turned to government food stamps to support themselves, despite lawyers representing Grayson asserting that he provides them about $120,000 of assistance, WFTV 9 Orlando reports.

Grayson was named the 17th richest member of Congress this month by CQ Roll Call.

Grayson’s marriage of 29 years dissolved earlier this year when his wife, Lolita Grayson, filed for divorce. A week later, Rep. Grayson asked a court to annul the marriage on the basis of bigamy.

Mr. Grayson is refusing to pay spousal support because he is claiming that she was never divorced from her first husband and therefore their marriage was never legitimate.

Mrs. Grayson told WFTV 9 Orlando she never thought she would be on food stamps or have her kids on the school lunch, because her husband was “the sole provider,” she said. “I don’t have any money at all. He’s been holding all our money for years and years.”

The congressman’s lawyers dismiss the claim saying that she is abusing public funds, saying that he is still paying the mortgage, utilities and phone bills. They are calling it an Election Day ploy to hurt him in the polls.

Mark Nejame, one of his lawyers, claimed that Lolita is “abusing the public.”

“She’s going out and asking for support because she can’t support herself on $120,000? That’s outrageous,” Nejame said.

Despite these claims, Lolita Grayson maintains that the house is in disrepair with mold. “I’m doing this for me and our children, not for him, because I would like to have a good life again,” she concluded.

A reporter from WFTV confirmed the septic tank was leaking in the front of the house and the house was covered in mold.

How Progressives killed the two-parent family

Contraception Won’t FixFatherlessness

The institution of marriage among America’s poor has been totally destroyed, and this has had devastating effects on our ability to fight poverty. For 40 years after the family’s breakdown in the 1960s and ’70s, leftists have claimed that, as far as child-development and child-poverty are concerned, marriage matters little. Further, according to the Left, if having a second parent in a child’s life did make a difference, this was merely due to a second paycheck—a role government could easily fill.

To a point, the Left still makes the arguments outlined above. Yet modern social science is heavily stacked against this decrepit statist worldview, especially when it comes to the importance of a father. In response, the Left has taken a different tack: admitting that fathers are important and offering greater contraceptive funding and government aid for single parents as the solution. The thinking goes that since we can’t possibly reverse the slide in marriage among the poor, more contraception will keep the poor from having too many children outside of marriage, and greater government aid will make the children that do result from relationships outside of marriage better off.

Such a response is insidious, and should be a learning exercise for conservatives, libertarians, Independents, and moderate Democrats as to the true nature of the American Left.

Where This Contraception Argument Comes From

From 1890 to 1940, the black marriage rate was slightly higher than that of whites. In 1950, only 9 percent of black families with children were headed by a single parent. This changed in the 1960s, as the black family disintegrated. Today, around two-thirds of black children are raised in single-parent homes. The demise of the poor white family soon followed.

As the social sciences started to stack against those who claimed fatherhood is meaningless, the Left had a problem on their hands.

These events were ignored for years, until social science made it clear we had a problem. For example, a major indicator of a child’s ability to get out of poverty as an adult, not go to prison, or graduate high school is that child growing up with both a mother and a father.

As the social sciences started to stack against those who claimed fatherhood is meaningless, the Left had a problem on their hands. Conservatives (and much of the actual data trends) placed blame on the welfare state Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society created, a sacred cow for the Left. Other attempted explanations, such as the demise of the blue-collar workforce, failed to explain the massive drop-off in marriage that had occurred among the poor (and failed to explain the racial nature of the initial drop).

Along came George Akerlof (and his wife, Janet Yellen) to the Left’s rescue, in what I’ll refer to as the “Akerlof argument.” In 1996, Akerlof published a paper that claimed the “technology-shock” of birth control and abortion access had changed social norms regarding “shotgun marriage.” The decline in shotgun marriages thus led to the increase in out-of-wedlock births among the poor because the poor lacked access to birth control and abortion. To fix the problem, greater birth control access was the appropriate measure.

Why the Akerlof Argument Is Wrong

Here is the Akerlof argument.

1) Birth control and abortion changed attitudes towards sex, children, and marriage, to the degree that sex was now expected outside of marriage, and having children outside of marriage was less frowned upon by society.

If fatherlessness among the poor is a problem caused by lack of access to birth control, why is the white working-class just now beginning to see trends similar to those that the black family experienced 50 years ago?

2) Because of the preceding point, the number of shotgun marriages declined. This decline in shotgun marriages disproportionately affected the poor, because the poor didn’t have proper access to birth control (i.e., the rich don’t get stuck with unwanted children because they have birth control, yet the poor have abandoned shotgun marriages without similar birth-control access).

3) The solution is to provide increased birth control and abortion access to poor Americans.

4) Finally, the rise in out-of-wedlock births couldn’t have been caused by welfare expansion, since the rampant inflation of the ’70s eroded the value of welfare, even as fatherlessness continued to rise.

Here is why the Akerlof argument is wrong.

1) The Akerlof argument assumes most pregnancies that lead to single motherhood are unwanted, and this is simply not true. Harvard University’s Kathryn Edin, the nation’s leading researcher on single mothers, has shown that a vast majority of out-of-wedlock births are desired, and a vast majority of the mothers involved had access to birth control and chose not to use it.

2) If fatherlessness among the poor is a problem caused by knowledge of birth control without access to birth control, why were poor blacks affected much faster than poor whites, and why is the white working-class just now beginning to see trends similar to those that the black family experienced 50 years ago? Have poor whites somehow lost access to birth control in the last 20 years?

Polls show a vast majority of the poor still idealize marriage and want to be married—and marriage, especially among the poor, leads to large gains in income.

3) If poor Americans had no access to birth control in the first place, it hardly makes sense that they were, simply by the knowledge of birth control’s existence, caused to abandon the social mores society had followed for thousands of years. The Akerlof argument falls especially flat when polls show a vast majority of the poor still idealize marriage and want to be married—and marriage, especially among the poor, leads to large gains in income (when not factoring in government benefits).

4) The claim that one cannot blame the welfare state for the rise in out-of-wedlock births, because welfare’s real payout declined in the inflationary era of the ’70s, forgets that welfare’s benefits can’t be examined in a bubble. They must be examined alongside the payout for employment. Just because welfare’s real benefits declined doesn’t mean welfare’s payout to a single parent stopped exceeding the benefits of marriage for a low-income couple. Also, inflationary eras are not good for blue-collar workers, especially for those that live paycheck to paycheck, as many times price rises outpace wage rises, eroding the real benefits of labor.

Repeating the Akerlof Argument

In today’s America, the Akerlof argument, made back in 1996, echoes across the nation’s newspapers and blogosphere. Last month, in the illustrious New York Times opinion page, the Brookings Institution’s Isabel Sawhill echoed the Akerlof argument in an article titled “Beyond Marriage.” Here, Sawhill talks about how restoring marriage is a lost cause, and how a “new norm” is needed:

The old social norm was, ‘Don’t have a child outside of marriage.’ The new norm needs to be, ‘Don’t have a child until you and your partner are ready to be parents.’ Whether or not it was a realistic norm in the past, it is now — precisely because newer forms of contraception make planning a family so much easier… If we combine an updated social norm with greater reliance on the most effective forms of birth control, we can transform drifters into planners and improve children’s life prospects.

She goes on to make a claim, also made in an article by Nicholas Kristof, that “[c]onservatives, however, have never explained how to restore marriage. Everything they have tried — from marriage-education programs to changes in the way marriage is treated in tax and benefit programs — has had little or no effect.”

This is simply not true. When Sawhill and Kristof claim conservatives have marriage promotion strategies with no result, they mostly speak of tax-code reforms and a predominately faith-based marriage counseling program created under the Bush administration. These programs either dealt with the financial disincentives for marriage within the income-tax code (but poor Americans don’t pay income taxes), or they didn’t deal with the financial disincentives at all. No program has reversed the disincentive for marriage among the poor caused by America’s current state and federal welfare programs.

Deconstructing Civil Society

The real problem is not that the Akerlof argument is wrong, but that it is insidious. Here is where a lesson on the true nature of the Left can be learned. Radical leftists the world over, from Marx to Mao to Chavez, have always made an enemy of civil society. The American Left is no different. Despite the compelling social science, at the end of the day the American Left is committed to obfuscating on the issue of marriage among the poor because the Left hates the institution of marriage—children living in poverty be damned.

The American Left is committed to obfuscating on the issue of marriage among the poor because the Left hates the institution of marriage—children living in poverty be damned.

Due to tax liability if income is earned, and welfare checks if no income exists, poor moms in America are better able to feed and clothe their children when human fathers are traded for the Government Father. If we want children to be successful in life, however, they need a human father. In this light, increasing aid to single mothers will only make matters worse.

Further, although making effective contraception cheaper for consumers is laudable, what organization will be lucky enough to get the Akerlof plan’s extra federal cash? If you guessed Planned Parenthood, the Left’s favored special-interest, you’d be right. Worse, treating poor women as if their lives purely revolve around sex, and failing to acknowledge their sincere want of a husband and children, denies an intrinsic element of a poor woman’s humanity. Either way, dumping more birth control on poor women won’t solve the lack of marriage among the poor.

Par for the course, the Left’s proposed solutions to rectify declining marriage among the poor are nothing more than an attack on civil society, an attempt to rabidly individualize the citizenry and grow the state until no barrier exists between the state’s direct and exclusive intercourse with the individual. This is, essentially, the Progressive’s idea of utopia. For many Americans, and for our country’s founders, this would be the definition of hell.

The real solution to America’s marriage crisis is to counteract the ill effects of government handouts. This could be done through raising benefits for poor married couples. A first step could be drastically increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit benefit for poor married couples, and making sure that the benefit appears paycheck to paycheck, not as an end-of-year tax credit. Both Republicans and moderate Democrats should support such a plan—it wouldn’t cut benefits for anyone, and would raise benefits for many Americans with children. Would the far Left (the majority of the Democratic Party today) support this strategy? Given the real motives at play, probably not.