Study: Today’s dads are engaging more with their kids

news.byu.edu

141–142 of 142 posts

Re: Study: Today’s dads are engaging more with their kids

#141

Post by Karishma1234 » Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 8:00 PM UTC

dsnuh wrote: post #43

Karishma1234 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point has been that even though fathers are spending more time with children on an average all children are receiving lesser fatherly attention on an average. May be fathers who love children are staying in marriage thus giving a bias to the whole study.

> all children are receiving lesser fatherly attention on an average Provide some facts to back up this claim. > May be fathers who love children are staying in marriage It sounds like you are saying that fathers that leave marriages don't love their children? Is that what you are saying?

> It sounds like you are saying that fathers that leave marriages don't love their children? Is that what you are saying?

There is this excellent tool called google that can help you get all the numbers. You should consider using it Sir.

Check this resource: http://www.fathers.com/statistics-and-research/the-extent-of...

Let us just consider African Americans. around 70% of Black children born last year did not have a father. Are you saying these people loved the children and yet for some unknown reason would not be present to take care of the child or provide child support ?

As of today 1 in 3 children in USA are growing up in a household without a father. Are these fathers spending time with their kids ? You tell me.

Re: Study: Today’s dads are engaging more with their kids

#142

Post by cs02rm0 » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 9:06 AM UTC

CalRobert wrote: post #70

cs02rm0 wrote: post #60

One of my earlier memories is my dad going away to GW1. And when it wasn't war it was training or night flying or exchanges or just on standby while we were away. After my dad left the air force he worked in Saudi for 10 years or so, during which I spent much of my time in boarding schools. Conversely I work from home and see my kids all the time, albeit they're still younger than my own memories. Only last week I ha…

Sorry if I'm obtuse but I guess it's because that's too tall for the air force?

Yeah.

At the time at least (this is also UK) you had to be under 6'1 for fast jets and although in theory you could be up to 6'4 for the big slow stuff or rotary wing initially they wouldn't know what aircraft type you'd be streamed for, so everyone had to be meet the lower height limit. I wasn't particularly interested in anything other than the fast jets either.

That said, I was also told the measurement that really mattered was the thigh length (jokes about losing kneecaps against the canopy if you ejected). So you could potentially still be accepted if you were a little over 6'1 but carried more of your height in your torso and a doctor measured your thigh length as being below a limit. I figured I was way over though and my legs don't look particularly short for my height.

Post reply on HN