95% tattoos boast MOM vs DAD

[RB]

Is it because mom is loved best because mom love you best

I mean dad's receive less cards for fathers day than mothers day. Dads get the privilege of phone calls, but it is a collect call, in fact collect calls are placed on Father's Day than any other day of the year.

Look at this attitude, it didn't change:

In 1900, fathers were never truly appreciated

In 2006, fathers are never truly appreciated

[August1991]

In 1900, fathers were never truly appreciated

In 2006, fathers are never truly appreciated

But sons keep families together.

[RB]

In 1900, fathers were never truly appreciated

In 2006, fathers are never truly appreciated

But sons keep families together.

I never get this preference of boys over girls. Though my mom insists there should be a boy child. But at least her argument was to balance the sexes among other reasons.

It is a silly mentality that simply emotionally tarnishes females that reads the link that girls are still not better than boys.

I mean the stats indicated the female child contribute to the demise of the mother or parent relation.

I simply cannot accept this thinking that females are less desirable than males

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear RB,

I mean dad's receive less cards for fathers day than mothers day. Dads get the privilege of phone calls, but it is a collect call, in fact collect calls are placed on Father's Day than any other day of the year.

Look at this attitude, it didn't change:

In 1900, fathers were never truly appreciated

In 2006, fathers are never truly appreciated

You seem to indicate that mothers are appreciated more, yet...

Sons have been traditionally seen as more desirable for several reasons. I haven't read August's link but..

(keep in mind this is 'old school' thinking)

-Sons carry on the family name when they get married and have kids

-sons can 'work the farm' doing the grunt labour

-sons can go go to war for king and country

Not sure where the tatto bit comes in, but 95% of them don't deal with mom or dad, but rather dramatic life events of the individual.

[August1991]

I simply cannot accept this thinking that females are less desirable than males.

Landsburg certainly portrays the question as one of preference, but I'm not certain it is.

IMV, the intriguing question is to explain why families with a son tend to divorce less often than families with a daughter.

Dahl and Moretti make the extremely helpful observation that all theories fall into one of two categories: Either sons improve the quality of married life (say by being more available for an evening game of catch) or sons exacerbate the pain of divorce (say by falling apart emotionally when the father leaves).

I would reword that:

Either daughters diminish the quality of married life or daughters render a divorce less painful.

Landsurg wrote a follow-up article in which helpfully pointed out:

Other readers accepted the reality of the 5 percent difference but questioned the conclusion that daughters cause divorce. After all, marriages differ in all sorts of ways that might be relevant—financial stresses, infidelity, emotional distance. The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" popped up a lot.

But in this case, correlation does imply causation, and here's why: If you take 3 million people, have them all flip coins, and divide them into two groups according to whether their coins came up heads or tails, then the two groups are going to look statistically identical in every way—same average income, same average intelligence, same average height. That's called the law of large numbers, and it works for two reasons—first, the sample size is huge, and second, coin flips are random. Now do the same thing, dividing your 3 million people according to the gender of their last-born child. The same thing happens—parents of boys are going to be statistically identical in every way to parents of girls, because you've still got a huge sample size and because the sex of a child is as random as a coin flip. Since everything else is equal, the only thing that can be causing the difference in divorce rates is the gender of the children.

I think I can state this idea more simply. When two variables are correlated, and one of the variables is purely random (eg. sex of a child) then the other variable must be the effect, and the random variable must be the cause. (If you think about this, you'll realize that it must be so.)

Landsburg also helpfully summarized the observed facts:

The facts are clear and worth reporting, but there's legitimate controversy about what they mean. There are three key facts: 1) Parents of daughters are more likely to divorce than parents of sons; 2) in multichild families, parents of daughters are more likely to try for another child than parents of sons; 3) divorced mothers of daughters are less likely to remarry than divorced mothers of sons.

That certainly seems to imply that parents prefer a son, certainly point 2) implies that, but it could also be that parents see a son as a way to preserve a marriage.

In the follow-up, Landsburg makes the argument that divorce is expensive and parents with a son prefer to avoid divorce so that they can leave a larger inheritance to the son. That explanation raises troubling questions of its own.

I'll just note at the end here Richard Dawkins' description of the key difference between maleness and femaleness in all species with two sexes. Females have a larger investment in the reproductive process and hence they are the ones to have made a strategic commitment. I don't know how this would skew (if at all) the viability of the parents' relationship.

[RB]

women are never able to play politics with the boys and even now will choose to be beautiful to fulfill some man's fantasy rather than think independent of men. If women were more independent, speculation of this sort is nil.

the article is one classic explanation in its intentional misrepresentation to demise women to a lower status

I think this sense of wanting a male child has no meaning in a scientific sense but only maintain the play of power and politics - girls don't usually fit into these category of politics and is excluded. Girls are by far smarter than boys.

The daughters are usually the love of the father's live and like their mothers, the father entertains an insidious notion that female needs to be frown upon as deceitful, conniving, promiscuous with Eve like qualities. Another explanation is that perhaps girls can actually survive better than all males put together and fathers are worried.

But, here is what is for sure, the males are heroes to each other, a father is the son's hero, so it is unforgiving to disappoint such a worship. Imagine, even god was modelled as a male.

Men are always portrayed as strength, courage, fighters for their queens and kings, distinguished for nobility, and their sons simply gobble like turkey's around their fathers. Understand, the bond presence between father and son.

A woman's presence in a marriage with a father/son relationship is secondary. How many times boys are reminded "don't be a sissy"

[Shakeyhands]

talking of sissy's... my daughter took me out for a Daddy Daughter pedicure and massage today... it was wonderful!

[Riverwind]

I think I can state this idea more simply. When two variables are correlated, and one of the variables is purely random (eg. sex of a child) then the other variable must be the effect, and the random variable must be the cause. (If you think about this, you'll realize that it must be so.)

Not at all - this kind of thinking is why many people misunderstand scientific studies. There was a study a few years ago that 'proved' red wine was good for your health. This was a kind of correlation study which looked at thousands of people and dicovered that people who drank a little bit of red wine were healthier than those that drank not wine at all. The co-rrelation existed even if all other risk factors were identical. It has since been shown that this study was flawed because it did not take into account that people who don't drink at all in our society usually don't drink for a reason - so what was a random factor turned out to be non-random.

For example, someone who spent way too many years drinking to excess may stop drinking entirely but will still suffer from the damage done in there younger years. This study did not take into account factors like that because it only looked at current drinking behavoir.

Personally, I think this correlation between sons and divorce can be explained by the fact that children usually end up in the custody of the mother after the divorce (even if the father wants custody). This means that a mother of sons may stick it out longer because she see the value of a male role model for sons. This desire for a male role model on the part of mothers is only one factor amoung many but it is enough to explain a 5% difference.

[August1991]

There was a study a few years ago that 'proved' red wine was good for your health. This was a kind of correlation study which looked at thousands of people and dicovered that people who drank a little bit of red wine were healthier than those that drank not wine at all. The co-rrelation existed even if all other risk factors were identical. It has since been shown that this study was flawed because it did not take into account that people who don't drink at all in our society usually don't drink for a reason - so what was a random factor turned out to be non-random.

I'm not certain what you mean here Riverview. Your red wine example is merely one of many instances where people confuse correlation with causalty.

Neither the incidence of lung cancer nor of cigarette smoking are (purely) random variables. Their correlation does not imply causation (anymore than it would be correct to say that cigarette lighters cause lung cancer). To determine causality requires more work than mere correlation.

This example is different. There are few variables as purely random as the sex of a child at conception. Any variables observed correlated to a child's sex must be an effect, and not a cause.

Personally, I think this correlation between sons and divorce can be explained by the fact that children usually end up in the custody of the mother after the divorce (even if the father wants custody). This means that a mother of sons may stick it out longer because she see the value of a male role model for sons. This desire for a male role model on the part of mothers is only one factor amoung many but is enough to explain a 5% difference.

By your logic, fathers would want to stay married to ensure a role model for their daughters.

[Riverview, I suspect you are a man to believe that only sons need a role model, and to believe further that a mother would see that as more relevant than a father would.]

[Riverwind]

By your logic, fathers would want to stay married to ensure a role model for their daughters.

We have a society where mothers end up with custody of children after a divorce so fathers know that the daughters will have a female role model even if the marriage ends in divorce. The net result: a father's concern for daughter's role models will have no effect on the divorce rate. IOW, if we had a society where a father was equally likely to get custody of children then you would see the correlation between sons and divorce disappear.

I think both parents have a natural insecurity when it comes parenting children of the opposite sex because they know there are issues that they could never understand fully.

[Riverview, I suspect you are a man to believe that only sons need a role model, and to believe further that a mother would see that as more relevant than a father would.]

You would be wrong - see my explaination above.

[August1991]

We have a society where mothers end up with custody of children after a divorce so fathers know that the daughters will have a female role model even if the marriage ends in divorce. The net result: a father's concern for daughter's role models will have no effect on the divorce rate. IOW, if we had a society where a father was equally likely to get custody of children then you would see the correlation between sons and divorce disappear.

I think both parents have a natural insecurity when it comes parenting children of the opposite sex because they know there are issues that they could never understand fully.

You make a good point, Riverview. Landsburg too notes your theory of a "male role model for a son" in his first article as an explanation for the observed data.

As Landsburg also notes, that this "male role model theory" amounts to saying that parents view a son's suffering (following a divorce) as greater than a daughter's suffering.

This was my point (I think...) I wondered why one particular relationship (son to father) was considered more important when contact with a parent of the opposite sex is also an important factor in psychological success. (I believe that statistics concerning the academic success of daughters bear this out.) IOW, I'm still questioning why parents would put a higher value on a son rather than a daughter.

In addition, your theory does not explain why parents with daughters try to have a son. (IOW, there is a preponderance of sons as the final child in families.)

It is parents that divorce, not children. So we are looking to explain the behaviour of parents. I rather liked Landsburg's final theory because it explained the behaviour from the perspective (and interests) of the parents.

[Black Dog]

Speaking to the o.p., if fathers are less valued than mothers, I can think of a big reason for that:

Women are defined by their capacity to have children. Thus a woman who fulfils the social and biological imperitive to reproduce is a "successful" woman and worthy of veneration. Really, it's the only time women are deemed to be worthy of acknowledgement.

[August1991]

Women are defined by their capacity to have children. Thus a woman who fulfils the social and biological imperitive to reproduce is a "successful" woman and worthy of veneration.

It takes the participation of a man to reproduce too.

The biological imperative to reproduce must apply to both males and females.

[Riverwind]

This was my point (I think...) I wondered why one particular relationship (son to father) was considered more important when contact with a parent of the opposite sex is also an important factor in psychological success. (I believe that statistics concerning the academic success of daughters bear this out.) IOW, I'm still questioning why parents would put a higher value on a son rather than a daughter.

I think it is the relationship between the child and the opposite sex parent that is considered lesser - not daughters.

In addition, your theory does not explain why parents with daughters try to have a son. (IOW, there is a preponderance of sons as the final child in families.)

1) Boys are more troublesome as children and more likely to induce feelings of 'never again' in parents.

2) Boys carry on the family name (at least outside Quebec).

I think the natural insecurity regarding opposite sex children explains this as well. Most parents would like to have at least one child of the same sex, however, it is typically the women who has to do most of the work when it comes to raising another child. For this reason a woman is more likely to forgo the opportunity to have a child of the same sex in order to better care for the children she already has. I think this statistical anomaly would disappear in a world were men shared the burden of raising a young child.

[Black Dog]

It takes the participation of a man to reproduce too.

The biological imperative to reproduce must apply to both males and females.

But the degree to which each gender's contribution is valued is quite different. Women are valued mor efor being mothers than for being women. On the other hand, men are men first, fathers second.

[Charles Anthony]

Personally, I think this correlation between sons and divorce can be explained by the fact that children usually end up in the custody of the mother after the divorce (even if the father wants custody). This means that a mother of sons may stick it out longer because she see the value of a male role model for sons. This desire for a male role model on the part of mothers is only one factor amoung many but it is enough to explain a 5% difference.

I think it is the complete opposite at play: mothers with only daughters will tend to find the outcome of a divorce much more attractive.

Why? - because the mother (knowingly or unknowingly) of a daughter can usurp (yes, usurp is a strong word but I think it is appropriate) the parenting relationship to become a mother-girlfriend relationship -- a relationship nobody can escape and one in which the mother is in control.

This view depends on a generalization/assumption and I will stand by it: women-friends behave much more like pack animals than do men-friends.

[RB]

Why shouldn't a mother be in control of a mother-daughter relationship? Mothers are wiser than their offspring I hope and should be able guide their daughters. I admit in the mother - girlfriend relation, the child loses respect for the mother figure.

Tattoos have made it into mainstream. Many folks are having tattoos and not frown upon. Even the TV carry tattoo shows. I mean it is now tolerated.

The difference: men tattoos are always visible and huge while the women are smaller and hidden.

Strangely also, women seem to stick to the nature pattern: flowers, earthy images, fishes and they are placed into erotic zones on the body.

I was thinking about this, and admit that subtly perhaps these etchings indicate a hidden vulnerable self, where tattoos were once considered forbidden analogous to forbidden sex of long ago. That if I combined a small pretty rose on the lower back of the woman and secretly show it to a man might indicate a rebellious person that need to be tamed. Also daring about sex.

Tattoos have become wickedly tantalising.

[Charles Anthony]

I admit in the mother - girlfriend relation, the child loses respect for the mother figure.

The outcome can even be worse than that. A mother may confide in manners which undermine the daughter's healthy maturation. The daughter may grow to hate her father or distrust men in general.

There are no limits to how an inappropriate parent-child relationship can damage a child. A child may feel guilty for the family's demise.

The difference: men tattoos are always visible and huge while the women are smaller and hidden.

Strangely also, women seem to stick to the nature pattern: flowers, earthy images, fishes and they are placed into erotic zones on the body.

I see that gradually changing. More women seem to be dressing scantily to allow sneaking peaks at these strategically placed tattoos.

Words of advice to anybody planning on getting a tattoo: DRAW YOUR OWN DESIGN!!!!

Never pick a sample tattoo from a catalogue. You will likely regret it when you see somebody else with that same skin-picture. I repeat NEVER PICK A DESIGN FROM THE ARTIST"S BOOK!!!!!!!! Even if you can not draw: MAKE YOUR OWN!!!!

Tattoos have become wickedly tantalising.

I disagree. They are starting to become too common. Anybody can get a tattoo. Just wait until brandings become popular.

[RB]

I admit in the mother - girlfriend relation, the child loses respect for the mother figure.

The outcome can even be worse than that. A mother may confide in manners which undermine the daughter's healthy maturation. The daughter may grow to hate her father or distrust men in general.

There are no limits to how an inappropriate parent-child relationship can damage a child. A child may feel guilty for the family's demise.

I never get it, mothers always know what is best for their children, but when left to raise a daughter alone, somehow I agree there is a breakdown when the father is absent.

I don't have a statistic but I can vouch that most of the girls did not do very well. They perhaps are too rebellious, highschool dropouts, take a minial job, follow the wrong crowd etc. tattoos lots of those show some defiance

Tattoos have become wickedly tantalising.

I disagree. They are starting to become too common. Anybody can get a tattoo. Just wait until brandings become popular.

You are correct that you can have your tattoo anytime. My tantalising was making reference to women hiding their tattoes only for certain eyes.