|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not a father, but I feel like dirt, too. One justice said it in plain English: "Fathers have no rights." Someone in a justice system actually finally came out and said it. I am completely surprised, though, that there was a dissenting opinion. The panel of judges was all female. I wonder when US judges are going to state in plain language that men have no rights, and uphold that as "true and good?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The look on the gentleman's face in the photographs accompanying this story says it all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The other photograph is even better: if you want to know where the Infant Male Circumcision Program (the cornerstone of the American feminist movement, their first great success which set the stage for all the others) came from, look at the face of this "Justice." Print it out and tack it on the wall. This is the face of feminism. This is who decided that we are the "enemy," that we deserve anything they can manage to do to us. Bad boy! If you don't quit playing with it, I'll cut it off!
Also note, however, the careful wording of the decision: "The legislature ... has decreed that fathers have no rights." This is nothing less than the truth. Surely the "Justice" is enjoying Her work, but She has not overstepped Her authority; She didn't have to. She is doing her job correctly: to enforce the "laws" made by the legislature. This is what happens, inevitably, when women begin voting: they will remake society in the image of their own short-sighted, irresponsible whims. Note how the man in the story is fully named, but the woman is referred to only by initials, to "protect her privacy," presumably; this is the usual "equal treatment." The female mind cannot see the contradiction.
And consider how this guy got himself into this situation: he had a vague, undefined "relationship" with this older woman, the classic mother-son setup that is the feminist alternative to traditional marriage. None of those awful "rules," none of that ugly hierarchical, patriarchal stuff; let's just party. She knew what she was doing; she used him. And he bought it. This is the feminist program: cripple your sons, demonize and eject the father from the family and the society, and you will have a permanent supply of oedipal boy-men to manipulate and play with. Welcome to Paradise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Andrew,
I believe you are entitled to your views, but I'd just like to take a moment to make it clear that Mensactivism.org does not advocate that women shouldn't have the right to vote, or that women have certain mental characteristics that make them ineffective leaders. From my own experience, I've seen many men behave just as selfishly and irresponsibly, so I don't see this as a gender issue.
Mensactivism.org also doesn't have any hard-line views on marriage or the "proper" family unit, but I do think it's indisputable that a two-parent family with plenty of father involvement is preferable.
Regards,
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday May 27, @09:26AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Scott, I do think we should be quite pro marriage as according to the book, "The American Sex Revolution," Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin reviewed the history of societies through the ages, and found that none survived after they ceased honoring and upholding the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.
I hope that's not too much to ask.
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see it two ways: marriage is an important social bond when children are invovled, and should be seen as positive.
On the other hand, if children aren't involved, I have a hard time seeing marriage as a positive thing for most men, given the way men are treated in divorce courts!
Overall, I'm pro-marriage, but not dogmatically so.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday May 27, @03:12PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, excellent point I'd forgotten about the divorce courts and what they do to married men.
Well said.
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Scott, Adam,
Well, whether or not I'm "entitled to" my views, I guess I'm gonna have 'em, anyway, just like anyone else. I don't really "advocate" or "have any hard-line views on" anything, really, except I guess I'm "pro" regarding truth, liberty, responsibility (without which liberty is impossible), and the "human dignity" that can only result from making a conscious effort to become an adult, a process that doesn't happen by accident.
Whence it follows, I suppose, that I'm anti-falsehood, slavery (whether political, economic or spiritual), irresponsibility, and the present trend of infinitely-prolonged childhood, which also is not an accident, in my view.
It hadn't occurred to me that Mensactivism.org was advocating or holding positions on anything; I thought it was a place to share information and views, and "let the chips fall as they may." Do you feel required to keep an eye out over your shoulder, and specify some "let's-not-offend-anyone" politically-correct "position"? Is someone going to take your ".org" away if you don't toe some Party line? I didn't know it had gotten that bad. I do believe it probably will, though. Watch what's happening in Europe, so far ahead of us primitive Americans in enlightened progressivism. "Whatever is not compulsory is prohibited," all for our own good, of course! Mother's just looking out for her babies!
I was a standard-issue, long-hair, drugged-out, flower-power, free-love, left-wing hippie in the Sixties; I've been there. I used to be a True Believer in the whole feminist/socialist/Brave New Age line. Somehow, somewhen, almost by accident I woke up and started actually looking at what's going on around me. I realized that I've been consistently and universally lied to by practically everyone in a position of any kind of authority in my life, all my life. I am, it is true, a trifle annoyed, which is perhaps why I don't take the trouble to cushion and sweeten my remarks so as not to "offend" anyone who may be looking to take offense. None of the liars seem to care about my "feelings"; I see no reason to pussyfoot around.
However, I do not have any positions regarding how things "should" be; this is a word I generally avoid. I merely observe.
As an observer, I have noticed that the increasing participation of women in public, political life, here and around the world, in the twentieth century (as never before) has exactly paralleled the growth of totalitarian socialism everywhere. (This is not necessarily worse than previous, historical forms of oppressive State power; but neither is it necessarily better. It has certainly resulted in mass slaughter on a scale seldom approached in the past. At least Jinghiz Khan did not pretend to be doing it "for the children.") As Warren Farrell has noted (in The Myth of Male Power), the government has become the substitute "husband" for modern women, absolving them of the need to create and maintain adult, responsible relationships, and thus of the need to do the work to become an adult at all. I don't think this is a healthy development, but hey, if that's what the people want, well, we live in a democracy, as they never tire of telling us. I won't tell people what they "should" do, but I will say what I see.
In any case, regardless of what "should" be, or how we may want things to be, or wish things could be, what has actually happened is what we have. I simply observe. I note that two stories have appeared recently on Mensactivism.org wherein all-women "judicial" panels have rendered judgments that clearly regard men as subhuman chattel, to be used and disposed of at female whim. Nor are these isolated, atypical instances, as we all know. Nor, I believe, is such a development accidental, for in fact this trend logically follows the instinctive attitude of females toward males in all the non-human, natural world. Scientifically speaking, sentiment aside, it is clear that on the purely biological level females create and maintain males for their own use and convenience. What I find interesting is that, given the opportunity (i.e. the power, unrestrained by any higher authority), human females apparently will revert to this level of attitude and behavior, wherein little remains (outside of verbal rationalization) of what distinguishes human beings from other animals. I wish it were otherwise, but it isn't. I merely observe.
I used to believe what I've been told all my life--that "if women ran the world" everything would be so much better (in fact, probably perfect) than the awful job men have done. Well, okay, the Great Experiment is well underway, and the results are becoming clear. You have women "judges," you have judgments like these. I merely observe. Show me something different, I'll observe that.
Certainly many men throughout history have behaved, and still do behave "selfishly and irresponsibly." One place I can agree with the feminists is regarding the generally poor quality of men. But where do men come from, anyway? The creature is an expression of his Creator's power. If the Creator is unhappy with her creature, I suggest She look in a mirror to find the cause of his imperfection. The problem is not the tool, but how the tool is used. Whether or not men are in positions of "leadership," our present course toward disaster will not change until those who actually make the policies, which male "leaders" are charged with implementing, change their priorities.
As for marriage, again, I merely observe. Any biologist knows that in all sexual species, the female controls sexual behavior. Any disciplined, scientific anthropologist knows that the human institution of marriage was created and maintained by females for their own benefit. Nevertheless, somehow human females have managed to convince everyone (including, first of all, themselves) that human sexual behavior is controlled by males, that they (females) are merely the helpless, innocent "victims" of male domination. Thus, now that they have the power (and resources) of the State directly at their disposal, they've decided to junk the ancient arrangement, and, powerless though they are, have managed to do so in what amounts to a split second on the scale of history. Is this wise? Is this healthy? Is this worthy of the best we can be? We shall see. I merely observe.
Meanwhile, in recent years, objective, scientific studies based on DNA evidence have shown that even in a society based on "traditional" marriage, a significant number of children were not fathered by their mothers' husbands. The first such "study," I understand, was an unsought byproduct of a survey undertaken for other reasons, and was suppressed for some two decades because of fears regarding possible public reactions. Women have no power? Give me a break.
The mere fact that "the way men are treated in divorce courts" could be a factor in considering the value of marriage clearly demonstrates that real marriage no longer exists to any significant degree in our culture. If there is divorce, there is not marriage, ipso facto. Adults keep their agreements, first because they do not enter into agreements they will be unable to keep. (Again, I've been there; I was "married" for several years, and easily divorced, in my twenties. I also fathered a child in my teens, a result of my first sexual encounter. I'm not proud of this history, but I was certainly a product of my native culture.) According to scientists, on the level of DNA human beings and chimpanzees are 98+% identical. Marriage is one of the few behaviors which clearly distinguishes us from our nearest (biological) relative. "This is your assignment, should you choose to take it on." Or not.
The bottom line is, if you're playing with sex, there is a good chance that children will be "involved," so best not begin unless you're prepared to responsibly finish. We "enlightened," "liberated" moderns like to think we're beyond all that. We're not. This is life. Face it. There is, ultimately, no avoiding responsibility for our every act.
Personally, I'd really like to see men, all over the world, just go fishing, and let 'em "have it all," seeing as they want it so much. Female president, vice president, legislature, judiciary, corporate CEOs, priests, Pope (Mope?), soldiers, workers, garbagewomen, the whole ball of wax. "If women ran the world..."? Okay, let's really do it, once for all, and see what happens. It's their world to begin with, let them eat it until they choke. As a man, I'm really tired of constantly being blamed for things over which I have no real control, excoriated for everything I do, everything I am. If I'm not going to get any respect at all, why bother? I say, let's bring it all out into the open, and take a really good look at it: Who really runs the world, human life and sexual behavior, anyway?
At your service,
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, I must point out that I am a man, but I am not "created by woman." I am one-half my mother's DNA and one-half my father's. Andrew's argument that men are "created by" women and women are products of the earth merely gives ammunition to feminists in their struggle to dominate men, not to mention the courts and their refusal to acknowledge fathers' rights.
I am not a pet of woman and I will not be dominated.
I can be led, but I will not be ruled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 29, @07:45AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Andy,
Adam H here, I don't mind your opinions at all (in fact I love em) but I think Scott is worried about getting censored and so is playing it safe.
Anyway,if you're intrested I have a few articles about women and socialism, so if you want their links drop me an E-mail at adamhartney@usa.net
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
