|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blankenhorn and Horn's blindness to the deeper, more fundamental issues of men's cultural demonization, dehumanization, and disposability is precisely why I view any formation of a single over-arching 'Men's Movement' organization with equally deep suspicion.
The ability to dissent -- LOUDLY -- when well-meaning men's activists get things so badly wrong is utterly vital to our interests. It's the last line of defense against special interest corruption -- just look at how NOW and their illk have hijacked the EQUAL RIGHTS movement, perverting it into the FEMALE PRIVILEGES movement.
Horn and Blankenhorn have specific, individual agendas in terms of traditional beliefs, and in order to meet the goals of those agendas, they must dispute the observations of other men's issues activists who do not share their agendas.
What they fail to recognize is that those traditional beliefs helped to create the very problems that they are trying to correct, and to uphold them as retro-ideals is contradictory and self-defeating.
And unless we have the freedom -- in fact, unless we recognize the responsibility -- to point this out to their audiences, rather than staying quiet and avoiding disagreements in favor of some nebulous 'unity', we are going to end up just like the femelitists -- irresponsible, unreliable, untrustworthy, and corrupt.
Training in the positive acceptance of dissent, debate, and argumentation, and in not taking the process personally, is one of the most beneficial aspects of men's enculturation. Always play to your strengths! We've seen what the attempt to create a totally 'safe space for self-expression' results in -- control of the microphones by a privileged few, those who define 'safe' and 'unsafe' language.
Control the language, and you control the debate. And that's precisely why the femelitists refuse to debate -- when you've got the power, debate is a threat. As Farrell says,
"Why did many (not all) leading feminists (e.g., Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Susan Faludi, and Catherine MacKinnon) refuse to debate? For the same reason any one-party system has not interest in debating. When you have the power you have little to gain and a lot to lose by debating. When we speak of power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely, one example is the unwillingness to debate. It is why no dictator suggests a democracy. The unwillingness to debate is part of the corruption of power." (Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say, p. 227)
And, if we censor ourselves, we become complicit in that corruption.
Because in doing so, we transform 'the power of one' into 'the power of no one'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday October 14, @12:07PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
There are a lot of fathers out there who are absent not because the mothers don't want them to see their kids, but because the guys want to be absent. That's the entire impetus behind the choice for men movement. Those guys have kids that they simply don't want anything to do with, for a variety of reasons.
We as a society are naively mistaken when we assume that parental love and bonding are automatic. Other species routinely reject their young, and humans are no exception. Some statistics indicate that up to 50% or more of all children are unwanted by one or both parents.
Rather than denying that parental rejection exists, we should do something to address it. One important move would be to make it easier for young, unmarried, childless men and women who WANT to be sterilized, to get sterilized. Right now, if you're 18 and you ask for a tubal or a vasectomy...Good luck. You'll be told, "Oh, you'll change your mind when you meet the right man/woman." That's total BS. Someone who is that hellbent on not having kids at age 18 is NOT going to change their mind later. Many unwanted children are products of these people, who were denied sterilization when they wanted it, ended up entangled in an oopsie later on, and did NOT change their mind about not wanting the resultant kid. 99.999999999% of these people end up abandoning the kid outright, or worse yet, sticking around and heaping neglect and abuse upon the kid.
Another idea I've seen thrown around is to require a license to breed. In order to obtain the license, you'd have to prove that you AND your partner want the kid AND can afford to provide for it. If you can't prove those two things, no license. Any woman who becomes pregnant without a license would be required to have an abortion. If she refused, she'd be arrested and made to have the abortion. Then she and the father (if he acted in collusion with her) would be subject to criminal misdemeanor charges, similiar to those faced when driving without a license. Repeated violations would result in permanent surgical sterilization, and possibly jail time. Same as if you kept driving without a license, they eventually take away your driving privileges permanently and throw your sorry ass in jail.
Draconian? Yes, but it would be better than choice for men. Unlike choice for men, breeding licenses would ensure that *every* child is a wanted child, instead of an oopsie that's unwanted by one or both parents. There would be no more absent fathers, because in order to have a kid, the woman would need the license, and to obtain the license, she'd have to have the consent of the father. Otherwise, the oopsie would be aborted and the "mother" would be prosecuted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another idea I've seen thrown around is to require a license to breed. In order to obtain the license, you'd have to prove that you AND your partner want the kid AND can afford to provide for it.
And we'd have government even more involved in human reproduction than they already are. And as you can see from the situation many fathers who WANT their children are in (no or little visitation and impossible child support), government's previous efforts at controlling the problems of human reproduction in a free society have amounted to disaster.
Any solution involving more government is the worst solution. Why? Because it removes free will and choice from the people.
Freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any time you want to provide citations for your claims -- your nebulous and imprecise claims, in fact -- why, you just go right ahead. Until that happens, however, I'm not going to believe anything on just your say-so.
For example, how many are 'a lot' of fathers, and how do you know?
I disagree entirely with your characterization of that mindset as being the impetus behind the C4M movement. I'm a C4M supporter, and not because I don't want kids -- it's because I am unfairly discriminated against as a man by the justice system. Claiming that the impetus behind C4M is the mere rejection of fatherhood in general is an objectifying, insulting negative characterization without basis.
Show me the research documenting that the vast majority of young people seeking sterilization in their teens never change their minds later. And furthermore, show me the research indicating that this subsection of the population would have a significant effect on your proposed 'parent rejection' problem. How 'many' are we talking about here? Do you have any kind of estimate whatsoever? Frankly, I doubt it.
Yes, your second suggestion is draconic. It's also fascist, totalitarian, and idiotic -- and even if it weren't, you still haven't made any case for it being 'better' than C4M. Nightmist has already summed up the basis of why this is a wholly stupid idea, so I won't reiterate it.
What I will point otu is that C4M would be FAR better than what you've proposed. C4M is about establishing rights, NOT restricting them. The right of men to self-determination over their own lives, in specific, freedom from being FORCED into fatherhood -- but WITHOUT losing their basic right TO fatherhood in the process.
I don't mean to snap your head off, and I'm glad to see anyone contributing to the forum. My point is, you need to improve the quality of your presentation and arguments if you want to be taken seriously. Because what you've given us here is a bunch of objectively groundless opinions, presumptions, and assumptions -- hardly 'the sad truth'.
The real 'sad truth' is that your views are unsupported by your words.
This is a male-positive forum. If you want to bring male-negative comments to it -- such as your characterization of the C4M movement -- you can and should expect them to be challenged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 15, @01:58PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I have to say something here.
C4M may not be the rejection of fatherhood in general, but it is the rejection of a particular child or children. You are saying that while you want to parent Tommy, you don't want anything to do with Danny. You have chosen to walk out on Danny, and you don't care what happens to Danny afterwards, how he feels, etcetera. You don't care that he's your flesh and blood, you don't care that he has feelings, you don't want him, period.
It is no different than if Danny's mother dumped him on a bus station bench, without caring what happened to him afterwards. It is pure parental rejection. It is deciding that a particular child is not worthy of you, is not worth your time or effort.
This is about a lot more than just money. It is beyond me how anyone with a moral compass can just dump a kid and go on with their life as if nothing ever happened, not caring about whether the kid is happy or doing well, not ever thinking about the kid again.
I have never, not even once, met a C4M supporter whose own father "chose" to walk out on him or her. All of you were raised in loving homes by two parents who wanted you. You never grew up wondering why you weren't good enough for your father to love you, wondering if you were worthy of love from anyone, wondering if it would have been better if you'd never been born.
It is impossible for someone like you to understand how this feels to a child, even when that child grows into an adult. A co-worker asks innocently, "Did you talk to your father on Father's Day?" Your shoulders slump, the spring leaves your step, and you answer through a lump in your throat, "No. My father doesn't want anything to do with me."
Meanwhile, you see criminals on TV, you see Timothy McVeigh sitting in a courtoom, accused of brutally murdering 167 people. HIS FATHER IS STANDING BY HIM. HIS FATHER STILL LOVES HIM. You wonder why Timothy McVeigh's father stood by him, while your own father rejected you. You wonder why he's worthy of love while you're so obviously not. You wonder if you are worse than Timothy McVeigh because of this.
I'm an adult now, so I no longer miss any of the support money my father didn't send. What I DO miss is NOT having a dad. I wish I had someone to send a father's day card to. I wish I had a dad to introduce my fiance to. I wish I had a dad to talk with on the phone, and through email. I wish so much I had a dad to say I love you to. I was denied all of this by a father who just doesn't like me, who just didn't find me worthy of him or worth five seconds of his precious time, period.
Yes, this is my mother's fault too. Yes, she 'should' have had an abortion. I was born before it was legal, but she worked in a hospital and she could have gotten one. However, since she didn't take the high road, I wish SOMEBODY had. If my father had given me a chance, I would have loved him more than anything in the world. I would have been the most devoted child in the world, if only I'd had the chance. I had so much love to give, but he didn't want it.
I don't think the other poster was too far off when he said that a lot of "absent fathers" are wannabe C4Mers. They are not around because they don't want to be. As a C4Mer, that is what you are fighting for, for their right to abandon their kids.
I agree that there is nothing in the Constitution that entitles children to support from their parents. Parents, mothers too, have a Constitutional right to dump their kids in the street for whatever reason they want, or none at all, at whatever time they want. I agree this should be legal. You can't force people to love, or even like, their kids.
However, just because something should be legal doesn't make it morally right. People who walk out on their own kids will never be morally upstanding in my eyes.
You people just have no conception of the kind of damage you wreak on your offspring. You forget the kid was ever born and go on with your life, but the kid never stops wishing you would let them love you. EVER.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
