|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A friend of mine wrote this sometime ago. He makes some hard statements, some true statements.
I've been saying that men have shirked their responsibility of fatherhood, but I guess I never explained what I meant by "shirked". It appears to me that men in large have given up their responsibility thinking that it was in the best interest for the child to just be with mom.
So I feel men's intentions were for the good, but along with women who were told they don't need a husband or can parent by themselves by feminists. Along with Judge's who seem to favour seperation, and a society that favours single mother mother homes.
After my family mediation course it occured to me that my feminist instructor was inserting feminist ideology into her classes(btw for those men getting divorced be warned right now, that many of those women in family mediation are staunch feminists take a lawyer and find out the mediator's position it may not be as neutral is it appears), she had been trying to destroy the name of mother and father and replacing it with a gender nuetral name, further tactics of anihalating the "father" from existence. I am saying here and now, do not exept this, do not let "father" be transformed into a inannimate namesake, like "doorman" or "busboy". Fatherhood is a "spiritual inquesition" meaning it is a joyeous suffering. If men or society doesnt recognize this attribute, with the trend in the laws we will indeed be reduced to "slave".
I am suggesting that men everywhere refuse to donate to sperm-banks. Always be precautious about birth control. Demand better recognition and justify your presence by loving your family and by being loved back.
The divorce culture has done us no good. And its my opinion that they are selling both marriage and divorce to women. Most guys I know who have gotton married did so at the pestering of the girlfriends, they have also gotton divorced with the wives initiating it.
By: William B. Kaliher
The age old controversy over responsibility for children will continue as
far into the future as it has extended back into the past. Today women
control contradictory legal positions concerning birth and children. An
underlying tenet of the American legal system is the concept all men, women,
all races, all religions, etc., will be treated equally. Given this primary
thesis, laws concerning pregnancy, childbearing, and women having "all
rights," should be interpreted in a manner that absolves the male of any
obligation toward their offspring.
Under current law, a pregnant woman can terminate a pregnancy or deliver and
force
the father to pay child support. These two contradictory rights remove all
control of the fetus from the male, thereby excluding him from the basic
American ideal of equal rights and/or treatment. When a man engages in sex
with a woman, she can determine if she wants to use birth control or not. If
she chooses to become pregnant, she can then saddle the male with the cost
of the child. She wants that right over the male (obligating the male)
claiming he is half-responsible. That right alone would be fair, except she
can also abort the child, denying the male his half of the responsibility
(an obligation a male might want.)
In no other segment of American law is one side afforded all rights, all
control and the other no rights. Women can have sex with whom they choose.
Woman can control who fathers their children. Women can decide the life or
death of a fetus, i.e. arbitrarily deciding to obligate one male over
another. The rational conclusion of such a one-sided arrangement can only be
the male is not responsible in any manner for pregnancy.
To correct this inequality, we should codify that males bear no
responsibility for any woman's children. If that is not done, then in the
name of equal rights, the legal system should demand woman are held as
accountable as men. A woman should have her fetus tested, male parentage
established, and the male's permission obtained before a fetus is aborted.
This would be similar to the process she would take to force a male to
provide for a child she elected to deliver.
The comparison is extreme, but accurate. The reason for the current twisted
societal thought process that led to poor, contradictory and conflicting
legal rights is a press that elevated the most maladjusted malcontents
(extremist women's libbers) and gave them a forum. Despite comprising a
small fraction of all women, our judicial and congressional system actually
responded to the network's public relations campaign.
The reality is as it always has been: pregnancy is completely the woman's
responsibility and problem. The man has no repercussions from pregnancy. He
doesn't swell for nine months. He doesn't breast feed. He doesn't do a damn
thing! There is no cost to a male. Only a strict socialist state enforcing
male responsibility could ensure any certain cost to a male. Even with
today's laws, a male can move from state to state; he can refuse to work; he
can do a thousand things to avoid his legal responsibility for a child.
The current laws and liberal ideology must be forgotten concerning
responsibility for children. The common sense the first cave women
intuitively knew must again be recognized. The woman from girlhood has to
understand any result from sex is 100% her problem. Her only real security
is knowing the quality and character of the male before having sex. No law
can ensure a woman support of her child. Only the morals of a rational
society imparted to its male and female members can do what the law attempts.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We really need more articles like the one Dan posted to get the word around and point out the double standards here, good post Dan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On account of the horror stories I've read here, I've decided not to father children. Most men don't have the strength of will to make this decision: they want families despite the unilateral extension of the right to refuse parenthood to women and the anti-male bias of the family courts and the child support enforcement apparatus.
Allow me to bore you again with an anecdote (my comments rarely elicit a response; perhaps my characterization of men as too weak to resist fatherhood in the face of a corrupt child support enforcement system will elicit a defensive reaction to the effect that I'm mistaken). I once told someone who worked for the family court my reasons for not wanting to become a father; her reaction: "why don't you think you can meet your obligations?" This is the same "...presumption that not only are all parents under child support orders already quasi-criminals, but that all citizens are potential criminals against whom pre-emptive enformcement measures must be initiated..." that Baskerville attributes to Teresa Myers of the National Conference of State Legistators; Baskerville quotes her chilling remark that the reason for for the governments interest in knowing the whereabouts of potential deadbeat dads that "at one point or another, many people will either be obligated to pay or eligible to receive child support." In that case, every male is potentially a deadbeat dad, and one might as well conclude that fatherhood is virtually unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose that in effect the threat of jail for non-support is in a way part of the mate selection process that hs become legalized: males who chose to father chlidren despite the risks are considered more worthy than those who don't. This follows from logic of Warren Farrell, who makes a similar argument about harassment laws (they raise the stakes).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"... my comments rarely elicit a response..."
Frankly, I think that may in part be due to your ability to articulate your opinions so succinctly and concisely that the rest of us do not think it necessary to elaborate on them.
I will say that I somewhat disagree with your assessment that fatherhood is virtually unconstitutional. I do not believe that the radfems and thier kangaroo courts wish to criminalize fatherhood per se. Conversly, I would assert that they have effectively redefined fatherhood to an entity that legally may exist, though not within the context of the family embodiment; rather, the father is related to the family members only insofar as an obligation to provide sustenance can be considered a relation. The father, under family court dogma, is the means by which women and their children can "have it all". He is an economic resource to be exploited. He is the mechanism whereby the state is, at least partly, absolved of its obligation to provide for the welfare of its citizens, and he is the mechanism whereby individual citizens are absolved from the prior necessity to provide for themselves. He only becomes a criminal when he ceases to serve an exploitable purpose.
Because his fatherhood status grants him only an obligation to provide services, and thus reliquishes all rights he previously held as a citizen of the state, fatherhood is, by radical feminist definition, a state of forced servitude. This is not to say that it is virtually unconstitutional to be a father. Rather, it is to suggest that fatherhood is a condition where one is subject to obligation with no recourse to the law. Hence, the father can no longer be considered a citizen of the state.
Family courts cannot afford to criminalize the existance of "fatherhood". Indeed, they want more "fathers" (read slaves) to perform services for the state and its citizens.
I fear I may be missing an underlying point of your post, though, and if so, please do let me know. Perhaps you meant to suggest that the current assessment of the responsibilities of fatherhood, as percieve by the family courts, is unconstitutional, and not fatherhood in the biological sense. If such is the case, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you.
-hobbes
---
If you're not mad, you're not paying attention
Should the father become inable to provide such sustenance, he is henceforth and consequently useless to both the courts and the family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa!! The signature "should the father become inable..." on my last post was accidentally truncated and is NOT indicative of my opinions on fatherhood (except in the cynical sense of what fatherhood has, quite unfortunately, become).
-hobbes
---
If you're not mad, you're not paying attention
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I fear I may be missing an underlying point of your post, though, and if so, please do let me know. Perhaps you meant to suggest that the current assessment of the responsibilities of fatherhood, as percieve by the family courts, is unconstitutional, and not fatherhood in the biological sense. If such is the case, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you.
-hobbes
What I intended is that fatherhood has become co-extensive with servitude, a condition outlawed by the constitution. To "...suggest that fatherhood is a condition where one is subject to obligation with no recourse to the law. Hence, the father can no longer be considered a citizen of the state..." is to suggest that fathers are slaves. We have debtors prisions for fathers who lose their jobs. Fatherhood, as it has become a form of abysmal enslavement, is no longer protected by the United States Constitution.
Mars
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Fatherhood, as it has become a form of abysmal enslavement, is no longer protected by the United States Constitution."
Yes, I believe this to be a completely accurate statement.
-hobbes
---
If you're not mad, you're not paying attention
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no doubt in my mind that the "state" is very responsible for the torment of men in our modern day lives. I wonder if Lorraine Montgomery will put her money where her mouth is, and fight for equality. signed your friend Dan Lynch.
Feminism Betrayed
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Editor-
I read your page almost every day to keep up on the gains men are making in regard to being recognized as more than a paycheck. I am disappointed to see so much of this abuse blamed on feminism.
I would like to remind you that whatever feminism has become, it is NOT intended to be a vehicle to promote womens' rights over mens'. Feminism by definition seeks to allow men and women to equally access the workplace, school, and family life. Part of feminism was the demand that men NOT isolate themselves from their families by being at work 16 hours per day.
I am very ashamed that many women who have demanded and achieved so much in the way of career and education, still unabashedly demand total control over their children and expect their mates to tow the line or else. These women, and there are many, have been allowed by the courts to maintain a 1950's attitude toward motherhood while demanding a 90's attitude toward their careers.
In the same way that the government FORCED men to allow women in, so should the government FORCE women to respect a man's ability to nurture and care for his children. Until the courts stop making child custody a financial and power windfall, you will never see women treat men equally.
I urge you to examine the states' interest in avoiding high child poverty statistics and high welfare costs, access to federal monies, and the continuation of a very lucrative divorce machine as more probable motivators of abuse of men. In the end, it is the STATE that profits most from these terrible gender-biased laws.
Lorraine Montgomery
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is from the Editorial Slant project, I have added to the article some of my perceptions.
Unraveling the old myths that foster sexual violence
6/17/2002
<<The following column was written by Wendy J. Murphy and Judith Greenberg, professors at New England School of Law; Laurence H. Tribe, professor at Harvard Law School; Nan D. Stein and Linda M. Williams, co-directors of National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center, Wellesley Centers for Women; Rebecca Bolen, professor at Boston University; Diane Rosenfeld, lecturer on Women's Studies at Harvard University; Bessell A. van der Kolk, professor at Boston University School of Medicine; Ann Burgess, professor at Boston College; and Ross Cheit, professor at Brown University. >>
No one up there seems to give a crap about men, but.....
<<IN APRIL, Acting Governor Jane Swift created a Sexual Assault Task Force to take a critical look at law enforcement, public health, human services, and criminal justice responses to sexual violence with the goal of proposing recommendations for reform. Reform is desperately needed.>>
Apparently reform is always needed.
<<The Commonwealth is dealing with an unprecedented number of cases of sexual abuse of children by priests; there is an apparent epidemic of rape of high school girls by boys whom they call friends; judges handling sex crimes have infuriated the community by doling out meager sentences; and Massachusetts is one of only a few states where a university is under review by the US Office for Civil Rights because its policies and procedures on sexual assault appear inconsistent with longstanding federal civil rights laws.>>
Are they talking about Harvard?? Where Harvard said something like, "Prove it"??
<<Part of the work of the task force must be to address these problems by debunking pervasive age-old myths about sexual violence that make intervention, treatment, and deterrence difficult.>>
Here comes an avalanche of bullshit. Below is the same myths that were started years ago(not all) that have been debunked by people like Warren Ferrell and a few others, lets see shall we.
<<Myth 1: The media exaggerate the problem of sexual assault.
Facts: According to a survey of the Department of Public Health, 23 percent of women in Massachusetts and 6 percent of men have been sexually assaulted; 16 percent of female high school students and 6 percent of male high school students have been sexually assaulted before they finish school. DPH-funded rape crisis centers received more than 10,000 hotline calls last fiscal year and served more than 1,738 clients.>>
Yes now that holding hands is "sexual assault" Im not surprised. But its nice to see they are including men nowadays.
<<Myth 2: Rape only occurs if there is intercourse.
Facts: Under Massachusetts law, rape occurs if there is any forcible nonconsensual oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, however slight. Other types of sexual crimes do not require proof of penetration or force. Children under the age of 16 cannot legally consent to sexual conduct involving penetration. Children under age 14 cannot consent to any sexual touching.>>
They went from 'rape' to 'sexual assault' again 'holding hands'.
<<Myth 3: Most sexual assault is caused by homosexuals.
Facts: There is no evidence that homosexuals abuse children, teens, or adults at a higher rate than heterosexuals. Studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association indicate that 90 percent of abusers of young children are male and 95 percent of those are heterosexual. Sexual assault is not an issue of uncontrolled sexual desire, but rather is rooted in issues of power and control. Focusing on homosexuality rather than on abuse serves only to perpetuate homophobia and the silencing of many victims.>>
This is the major proof that this article is bullshit. It's called beat up on the man or "male bashing" , since they don't look for other kinds of "sex assaults" etc... and don't consider underage boys screwwed by their female teachers a crime, whatever I guess
<<Myth 4: Sexual violence is most often committed by strangers.
Facts: In about 85 percent of cases, sexual assaults occur between people who know each other. For children under the age of 13, most sexual assaults are committed by male relatives, including fathers, and ''friends'' of the family.>>
This is the real Myth of violence, how many times does it have to be proven that the "father" is the safest place for kids. They also lump "stepfather" into this catogory, but no lable for him other than "father". Its more and more looking like some kind of anti-family announcement. Perfect timing I can see too.
<<Myth 5: Sexual contact by a person in authority (e.g., a parent, teacher, doctor, religious leader) is mainly an issue of sexual attraction, especially when the victim is a teenager or adult.
Facts: Sexual contact by a person in authority represents a severe abuse of power and manipulation of trust, regardless of age or sexual orientation.
Such violations, which often occur in the absence of threats or force, can have severe and long-term physical and emotional consequences for the victim.>>
Ya, agreed, but how many people use their "sexiness and charm" to get better jobs or grades or raises or a ride to the store?? To many. Next please
<<Myth 6: ''Date rape'' is not a crime if either the victim or the rapist was drunk.
Facts: It is a crime for another person to engage in sexual conduct with an individual who is too drunk to consent. Furthermore, intoxication on the part of the offender does not excuse or mitigate the rapist's criminal liability.>>
Really?? So whose fault is it, when they are both drunk?? Since sexual assault does'nt need pentetration, it certainly means a man can be violated doesnt it.
<<Myth 7: False allegations of rape are common.
Facts: Studies show that false allegations of rape are rare and are no more common than false allegations of other types of crime.>>
Bullshit, there are far more reasons to lie about sex than there are anything else, E.g. love triangles would be the main one, secondly embarrassement, money, blackmail, the list goes on. Much like the one where they got drunk, screwed some guy at the party that her boyfriend found out about 9 months later. Suddenly its a crime.
<<Myth 8: Victims of sexual assault will be protected if they just say ''no.''
Facts: While it is important to recognize that the right to say ''no'' reflects society's commitment to principles of bodily integrity and autonomy, it is also important not to make victims feel they are responsible for their own abuse if they are unable to stop someone from exploiting them.>>
Does it mean 'No' if she says "No" while undoing your pants??
<<Abusers use trust, manipulation, threats, and fear to accomplish their abuse. Failure to see sexual assault in this light can have severe long-term consequences for victims of all ages. This may be made worse if the survivor's community disbelieves, minimizes, or excuses the abuse or attempts to ''rank'' victims' ''worthiness.'' A coordinated community response, including offender and institutional accountability, is necessary to prevent sexual assault. The offending individual, and not the victim, should always take primary responsibility for the crime.
Unfortunately, the composition of the governor's Sexual Assault Task Force makes it unlikely that these myths and related ineffective state policies and programs will receive the critical attention they deserve. The acting governor held a press conference announcing the formation of her task force, but panel members thus far identified comprise a group top heavy with government employees. There are few nongovernmental independent experts on the panel who will be in a position to offer meaningful criticism and ideas for reform.
The acting governor has identified no academic experts, private attorneys who specialize in representing victims of sexual violence in civil and other noncriminal proceedings, adult survivors of sexual violence, or therapists who regularly treat victims of sexual trauma. The panel does not even include a legal expert from the attorney general's office. Without independent members like these, we are skeptical that the task force will be able to achieve the laudable goals the acting governor has set for it.>>
They pretty much said it, no independant researchers with unbiased and no interest in the outcome are at all involved in these studies. What a bunch of shittt!!
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 19, @02:03AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know what any state law specifically states about those situations where both individuals are intoxicated during intercourse?
I have yet to find a solid answer to this question. I know first-hand that in the marine corps the female cannot, by legal definition, be a perpetrator of rape in the case that both parties are intoxicated. However, I do not know if any current state laws are similarly biased. If anyone has a info on the matter, please enlighten me! Also, if anyone has a citation regarding said info, please list it for me... Thanks.
-hobbes
---
If you're not mad, you're not paying attention
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
