|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
she claimed that it was justified to intentionally harm the man and his biological children because it protects the interest of a single child.
I find it curious that the phrase "the interest of the child" is never explained any further. Have you ever heard anyone use the phrase explain precisely where the "interests of the child" lie? Where do they begin and the interests of a falsely named father end? Feminists are fond of "deconstructing" certain notions, such as "gender" into "social constructions"; I suggest that "the interests of the child" is one of those "social constructions", meaning that it has whatever meaning we want it to have, depending on the society we want to live in.
Feminists use "the best interests of the child" to mean they want a society in which women not only control every aspect of reproduction, but they have exclusive access to the knowledge of which mans genetic material was involved in the conception of the child, they want to allow the arbitrary assignment of paternity to any man who may or may not be able to foot the bill, they want the state to enforce the crime of paternity fraud, rather than prosecute the women who commits it and they want to protect the best interests if the state, which is to avoid the expense of raising children if there is a falsely named father available.
If the best interest of the child is that the child must be supported at all costs, and the state is protecting that interest, then the state should bear the cost. In fact, the states sole interest in the welfare of some child is to see to it that the expense of the child to the state is zero; the expense must be paid, and so that means some guilty party has to be identified. The "best interest of the child" really means "the best interest of the state", which is feminist code for the most profound anti-male bigotry.
There is also the notion that women and children should be protected from any kind of hardship whatsoever, even if it is self-inflicted. What kind of justice is it that some third party to her conception is required to support a child that isn't his? This should be a crime. The circumstances of a person's birth should be the circumstances of his or her birth, and the state should not attempt to rewrite history because a woman has had multiple partners or has decided to name someone eligible.
We tell men "if you play, you pay" but the message to women is the opposite; the state sanctioning of paternity fraud on the pretext of the interest of the child tells men, "even if you don't play, you pay."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists use "the best interests of the child" to mean they want a society in which women not only control every aspect of reproduction, but they have exclusive access to the knowledge of which mans genetic material was involved in the conception of the child, they want to allow the arbitrary assignment of paternity to any man who may or may not be able to foot the bill,.....
This is literally correct. We now have it on record that radical feminista, Senator Keuhl and a CA NOW representative, made these implicit statements. When we get the transcripts and post the exact verbage of the arguments, it will be plain that they argue exactly this point that you make.
It was wild. We can use the exact same arguments that Senator Keuhl made to argue for literally any form of institutional discrimination against women. This was made quite plain to the Senate on Tuesday and they realize this fact.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @10:57AM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. I think Keuhl's logic is more pro-natalist than pro-woman, but since we're both against her and want the same results, it doesn't matter.
---The Anti-Natalist---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @01:23AM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
Warb, I frankly, cannot WAIT to see the out come on this matter.
These marx-fems are just flat out AMAZEING in their hate and "rationalizations".
It is indeed heartening to think that these monsters may well be tripped up with their OWN bigotry!
Thanks Warb.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It is indeed heartening to think that these monsters may well be tripped up with their OWN bigotry!
Thanks Warb.
Thundercloud."
Thats exactly how we should keep fighting them, among other tactics. They keep spinning their web eventually they will get caught in it. The thing that we can not do,is give them time to figure out their own mistakes and continue to add causes the devoid them of accountability.
But even still it will all catch up to them sooner or later. Personally I think they should be thanking us for taking the initiative to tell them they are out of their fucking minds.
.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @10:52AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Children are precious and innocent, they are our future and they should be protected from everything bad in the world is the doctrine of pro-natalism. That's the real reason why there are compulsory school attendance laws, anti-child labor laws and laws compelling men to support children.
In all seriousness, I think we should trash them all, but if you're saying that the state should support children, I disagree. 100 years ago, children were not protected from anything. They were expected to work for a living and earn their own keep. A small child can learn to clean toilets or perform simple tasks on an assembly line. Children can also be used in munitions factories and other capacities during wartime, and in past times they were.
Most children didn't graduate from high school, or even junior high. Those who could afford it did, but those who didn't made do. Giving children the right to attend school has been disastrous.
Children do not deserve any more consideration than adults. We do not deserve our rights trampled for them. Adults should have more rights than children, because we contribute to society and they don't. They just live here. They do not have an inalienable right to attend school, not work and be protected during war.
I am an anti-natalist.
---The Anti-Natalist---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Children do not deserve any more consideration than adults. We do not deserve our rights trampled for them. Adults should have more rights than children, because we contribute to society and they don't. They just live here. They do not have an inalienable right to attend school, not work and be protected during war. "
Well , could it be that feminists have socially constructed this one, so they can have special priveledges? I mean its all about ownership isnt it? A woman claims ownership to the child a child who has all the special privledges alotted to him or her, therefore the women can milk that cow for all its worth, until said child is 18 (which is about the exact time in my life when I started noticing discrimination against men).
In the end its the woman who has control of the child has control of the "rights" of the child. As far as the right to go to school, well as far as Im concerned thats code word for 'indoctrination'.
The whole thing reminds me of a 'Simpson's' episode , where SideShow Bob tried to cut the media off such as TV but used the TV to deliver his message. Well its like the fembots who complain about 'social construction' all the while 'socially constructing' the universe as they see it. They say hetrosexuality is a social construct but preach homosexuality as an uncontrolable urge which is right and natural blah blah blah. Im not trying to argue which is right or which is wrong on either one I just want to point out an example of the hypocrasy of their statements. I really hope more anti-feminists become politicians so they can point out the flaws of their biased research etc...
Still, maybe this won't help, but testimonies from kids who were lied to all their lives about who their father was could show to be how destructive it is in nature. DNA testing and the proper father is always in the best interest of the child, even though I am pro choice for the father (more as a balancing scheme) the child certainly shouldn't be lied to. We may as well tell her or him that the stork brought them.
.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @11:44AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if feminists constructed pro-natalism, but they have ridden it for all it's worth. Women are exempt from war because someone has to stay home and take care of the children, and what if the women soldiers got pregnant? I say, so what? If a soldier gets pregnant, than that's her problem. Why should a pregnant woman being killed be any worse than a man being killed? There is not a bit of difference.
There is no need for a woman to stay behind during war and tend to children. They can fend for themselves. Older siblings can tend to younger ones, and there's no reason why a teenager can't be drafted. They're old enough to shoot guns and throw grenades. Other countries use teenage soldiers and it works fine.
Darwinism proves that protecting the weak is harmful. It allows them to pass on their weak genes. Women are physically weak because they've been bred that way. If we send all them to war, only the strong will survive, and the next generation will have those good genes. The same thing will happen to the children left behind. Those who are able to fend for themselves will survive, and those who can't do for themselves will be weeded out.
I don't care about the best interests of the child. The rights of adults should always trump those of the child. No exceptions. If DNA testing works in the best interests of the father and the child, that's fine, as long as the adult gets protected.
---The Anti-Natalist---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you eat your young?
Nice Frank. Well said. LOL!
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @01:28PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
With fava beans and a nice Chianti.
I am used to opposition. I realize my views are considered radical, because people today were raised in a pro-natalist environment and told that children are precious and deserve special protection and treatment.
I am tired of it. 100 years ago, children were given no special treatment. They suffered the same hardships as adults, the way it should be. I am not demanding we go where we have not gone before, but that we change things back the way they were. Remember it was the feminists that were behind anti-child labor laws, free education, and mandatory schooling.
---The Anti-Natalist---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @01:54PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"feminists that were behind anti-child labor laws"
Of course, the labor movement had nothing to do with anti child labor laws. It was all done by the feminists.
It seems you are actually being sarcastic and don't really believe in your psuedo darwinian bs That you are saying the mens movement is reactionary and wants to hold women and children down, so that the stronger can take advantage of the weaker. Thus implying that women are weak in the same way that children are weak. Implying that women can't be held responsible for their own reproductive choices. That women are frail helpless beings who should have the same responsibilties and expectations that we would have for a child. Thus a feminist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @02:08PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
The labor movement was full of feminist apologists. When children were working, men worked less. It used to be a man could depend on his children to help him bring home the bacon. Now the entire burden is on the man. Do you think that's the way men wanted it to be?
Feminists don't want women drafted. I do. Feminists don't want women in combat. I do. Feminists think that the child's best interest should trump the best interest of the man involved. I do not. I am anti-child support, anti-paternity fraud, and anti anything else that gives special rights to women or children.
The men's movement is reactionary, but not in the negative way feminists make us out to be. We are reacting to being made third-class citizens, behind women and children. We are revolting against it.
I am anti-natalist, not feminist. A feminist would not support this new bill. I do.
---The Anti-Natalist---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems you are actually being sarcastic and don't really believe in your psuedo darwinian bs That you are saying the mens movement is reactionary and wants to hold women and children down
That's how it struck me. Then again, this person may be serious. It's nonsense that child labor laws were all put through by feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, believe what you like AU, but I'm firmly convinced that for a parent to protect his children (or hers, as the case may be) is instinctual, and has much less to do with the labor movement or feminism than it does to elemental instinct. The labor movement and child labor laws were nothing more than a societal response to the industrial revolution. And feminism only emerged BECAUSE IT COULD in that same environment. In hunter-gatherer societies, child labor laws and feminism don't exist because they can't, but moreover, they are unnecessary. If we as human beings simply dropped our spawn where we delivered them and walked away and expected them to survive on thier own, it's not likely that we'd have survived as a species. While materialistic agrarian and industrialized societies have memorialized some of thise things with laws, the reality is that humans have been caring for their children, sometimes risking and even sacrificing their lives for them, for hundreds of thousands of years.
I agree with your notion that "the best interests of the child" have been replaced by "the best interests of the mother/woman" but I don't agree at all that sacrificing our children for our own benefit is acceptable or natural.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The men's movement is reactionary, but not in the negative way feminists make us out to be. We are reacting to being made third-class citizens
There's an element of this, but there's also the pro-active aspect of the men's movement. For instance, I am a guarded technophile. I think that artificial wombs hold forth some of the greatest promise that humans have ever seen. Not only will artificial wombs free men from dependence on women for reproduction, they will also free women from the necessity of child bearing if they want children (while leaving that option for women who still want to carry their children). This is not reactive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @01:52AM EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
((("I think that artificial wombs hold forth some of the greatest promise that humans have ever seen.")))
While personaly, I'm a bit wary of fiddling with nature, This "artificial womb" thing is tempting.
I have always wanted a child of my own. But I'll be d@#*ed if I will leave myself vulnerable to the "parenting laws" and anti-male divorce laws, or ANY vindictive woman who would take advantage of the "legal" "power" these things bestow upon her.
Also the irony would be kind of sweet.
We all know how the marx-fems and alot of women in general crowed about how artificial insemenation made men COMPLETELY obsolete.
Well... Now the proverbial shoe would be on the other foot.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We all know how the marx-fems and alot of women in general crowed about how artificial insemenation made men COMPLETELY obsolete.
Well... Now the proverbial shoe would be on the other foot. "
Which is exactly why fembots are trying to stop it. Its all about their best interest no one else's. Its a power struggle. You should see the look on feminists faces when I tell them about it. Its so funny that they don't even know about it. Its kind of sad too, because my mother wanted a child very bad but couldnt because of a certain product on the market called 'vaseline' which she used as a lubricant unaware of the damage it was causing.
So I guess fembots arent very concerned about its use for women like her.
.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 18, @02:28AM EST (#72)
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, I wanted to clarify somethig, when it comes to this 'artificial womb' thing.
It seems that I hurt one of the female "Anon"s
feelings when I said;
"we all know how the Marx-fems and alot of women in general crowed about how artificial insemination made Men COMPLETELY obsolete.
Well... now the shoe would be on the other foot."
When I said that I DIDN'T mean to imply that women would REALLY be obsolete.
The irony is that men could now say the same thing about women, and the fembots would be eating their words.
The "artificial womb" wouldn't make Women ANY more obsolete than "artificial insemination" made men obsolete.
I hope that clarifies my position.
I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings.
....I have enough aggrevation...
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not arguing in favor of the situation of Plato's Republic, in which parents were immediately separated from their children, who became wards of the state; my point was that if the state is jealously concerned with the welfare of the child, then that welfare trumps all other considerations, and the state must move heaven and earth to support that child.
It is disingenuous for the state to claim to be concerned with the welfare of the child above all else, but in practice to be concerned only the extent that the burden of support can be assigned to some named father, biological or not.
The radical feminists couldn't care less about the welfare of children per se; their primary concern is that the welfare of chidren should supercede the welfare of fathers; it is crucial to understand that the welfare of children does not supercede the welfare of fathers and mothers; only fathers interests and rights are superceded by the right of the child according to the radical feminist doctrine. Evidence for this position is that CA NOW added language to the proposed law that the defrauded father could sue the biological father in cases of paternity fraud. This is a strikingly clear example of how the rights of the child, as they are interpreted by radical feminists, are intended to supercede the rights of a nominal father, but never supercede the rights of the mother.
I haven't seen this point raised explicitly by any other commentator, incidentally...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a strikingly clear example of how the rights of the child, as they are interpreted by radical feminists, are intended to supercede the rights of a nominal father, but never supercede the rights of the mother.
Well said. That is exactly what I saw from the opposition. They never subordinated the interest of the mother to the child, yet they would not hesitate to discriminate against the man.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I applaud all of you for your recognition of this problem. But your method of rectification is as flawed as that of your adversaries.
All of you are, in effect, polishing the railings on your own enigmatic Titanic.
You seek parity with a mindset that despises you to your very core. American culture, and Western to a large degree, has gone far beyond redemption in this respect.
Do you think petty laws or "awareness" can erase 40+ years of superbly crafted brainwashing?
Or, let me put it this way...after you tilt at your little windmill...what do you hope to achive?
An uneasy truce? Firepower equal to that of your foe? The "upper hand" as it were? Men, wake up and smell the coffee!
AMERICAN WOMEN HATE YOU AND ALWAYS WILL!
The fact that this webpage exists is more then ample proof of this fact.
But for those that need it drawn out, allow me to elaborate.
First we use the greatest weapon of all.
The Truth.
Fact: American men in general take the best care of thier families then any other culture, bar none. The problem is not with us, its with American women. If you not convinced, take a trip to South America. First you will see peaceful coexistence between the sexes. In other nations, the men are men and the women are women. Harmony! As opposed to America where the men are men (or so they think) and the women want to BE men. Cant you all see? Your trying to reason with idiots. Your trying talk sense to a collective intellect that has never left the prepubecense phase. Boil it down to its least common denominator, people. If you were given the chance to ask garden variety American woman one question and get a truthful answer (Yes, nearly impossible yet for arguements sake bear with me), what would it be?
"What do you want?"
Her honest answer?
More! More! More! More! ad infinitum...
Whatever the American female has, its never enough. Whatever you give, it wont due. However much you strive, its inadequate.
I pity those who seek to be defined by a mentality that has nothing but loathing for you. In that I mean even the "good" American women are flawed beyond the pale. In thier hearts, they know that with the snap of thier finger...they can obliterate your life.
Power currupts.
Absolute power currupts absolutely.
Who here denies American women have absolute power over relationship matters?
Your fight was lost before you even began. Any "victory" you achive will be vapid, meaningless, and in all likelyhood a token bone tossed you by feminists you seek "guidance" from.
At this point Id like to toss in my personal perspective on all this. For myself, I saw the writing on the wall long ago. My time in the military exposed me to some of the finest, most intelligent, profound women on the face of the Earth. I have seen women who truly live up to the potential God gave woman. Lovely and delicate, soft and delightful. A joy to be around. Unfortunalty my return to the States brought back the horrible reality of the crass, ignorant, greedy, utter self absorbed hideousness of the American woman. Cant say Ive met half a dozen American women that hold a candle to just about any other nations women (The UK not withstanding, I think some of them are worse then ours! haha!)
You live, you learn. Yet I learned that in the "Battle of the Sexes"...I chose to be a non-combatant.
Now that Im out of uniform, my eyes are set on Asia, Eastern Europe, and Russia/Ukraine. What started me on this tangient was a freind of mine, Military Policeman, was on temporary assignemnt to Lithuania. He and his unit were absolutely dumbfounded by the women. He stated it this way..."In America, you walk down the street and one in 20 women is something special, over there its the polar opposite. Walk down the street and 19 out of 20 girls are totally ravishing...the 20th is merely equal to the average American girl".
Needless to say, I did some research on the subject.
Now, to be honest, I am in a situation where I can travel about as I choose. Im lucky (?) to be in my early 30's with a decent disability pension as a carry over from my mis spent youth =)
Yet keep in mind, $45,000 a year is quite a respectable amount of cash in most former Blok nations. Once I have established my consulting firm here in the States, off I go. I should be able to manage it from overseas easily enough.
Yes, I know what some of you are thinking.
"Those women are only in it for your money! They see you as a meal ticket and NOTHING more". That may well be the case. But rest assured, American women see you as that, and less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's a great deal of truth in this--I've heard it before, and I've even felt that way at times, only there are counterexamples. Many Americanized feminist women would say I wasn't man (or Martian) enough for them; the canonical rejoinder is, "who cares?" There is the question of diminishing returns; for some people, enough is enough, and one begins to question whether one ought to automatically find the women of one's own culture desirable.
These considerations are beside the legal point: the people here are concerned with equalizing certain laws that are biased against men; whether or not we earn the respect of dyed-in-the-wool feminists is an entirely different question, much less whether they would make suitable mates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11B20,
You write,
I applaud all of you for your recognition of this problem. But your method of rectification is as flawed as that of your adversaries. All of you are, in effect, polishing the railings on your own enigmatic Titanic. You seek parity with a mindset that despises you to your very core. American culture, and Western to a large degree, has gone far beyond redemption in this respect.
What a bunch of driveling nonsense. What a whiner and a looser. Get a grip. Take your Prozac and call me in the morning. This is the most depressed spiteful view I've read yet.
Your fight was lost before you even began. Any "victory" you achive will be vapid, meaningless, and in all likelyhood a token bone tossed you by feminists you seek "guidance" from.
At this point Id like to toss in my personal perspective on all this.
Gees! This pathetic whining is too much. Like the men's movement is supposed to actually have some sort of radical victory in one fell swoop. What drivel!
The fact of the matter is that the victories will be incremental and won after a hard fight. Nothing worthwhile ever comes easily. Nobody ever gives anybody anything of great worth for nothing.
Good luck in your ventures. Your whining will follow you everywhere. Your victories will be empty because you turned your back on your country and failed to fight the good fight in changing the laws to treat men with dignity.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @04:48PM EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't mind 11B20, Warble, he's just an embittered old man who obviously doesn't have a friend in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You wrote:
"Or, let me put it this way...after you tilt at your little windmill...what do you hope to achive?
An uneasy truce? Firepower equal to that of your foe? The "upper hand" as it were? Men, wake up and smell the coffee!
AMERICAN WOMEN HATE YOU AND ALWAYS WILL
Your fight was lost before you even began. Any "victory" you achive will be vapid, meaningless, and in all likelyhood a token bone tossed you by feminists you seek "guidance" from"
Dear Lost Cause:
Hide in the bushes and watch, a safe distance from the action, if you're frightened. It'll be o.k. no one will think the lesser of you for it. Truly, I do find your sincere attempts at defeatism a refreshing diversion from the sometimes overly serious talk on this site. In all honesty if I thought for a moment that there was a word of truth in what you were saying I wouldn't hesitate a second to continue doing exactly the same thing that you mock so bitterly. You have to understand that this approach we are taking to bring about change is much more serious than any contest to win an upper hand. This is therapy, and any confrontation prosecuted whether successful or merely annoyance is an immensely satisfying and healing endeavor. Why do I struggle on? Just because it makes me feel so dang good. You really do mispercieve what this is all about at the more fundamental level. If change should occur or a significant victory happen I might find it a greater struggle to accept success then fight on against impossible odds. To struggle, to fight, to survive, is life itself.
On with the game! To the windmills!
Wishing You Every Happiness & All the Best, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @07:56AM EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
You really do mispercieve what this is all about at the more fundamental level. If change should occur or a significant victory happen I might find it a greater struggle to accept success then fight on against impossible odds. To struggle, to fight, to survive, is life itself.
Well said, Ray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You really do mispercieve what this is all about at the more fundamental level. If change should occur or a significant victory happen I might find it a greater struggle to accept success then fight on against impossible odds. To struggle, to fight, to survive, is life itself.
Well said, Ray.
I second the motion. "To be, or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune; (or) to take arms against a sea of foes, and by opposing, end them; or to die, to sleep, no more..."
Allow me to join you in picking door number two.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is therapy, and any confrontation prosecuted whether successful or merely annoyance is an immensely satisfying and healing endeavor.
This is certainly true for me. Though the struggle is difficult and often frustrating, I find that by fighting the monsters, I grow stronger.
Great insight, Ray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @03:11PM EST (#66)
|
|
|
|
|
Righto.
Hey, the odds were WELL against us, but my people still took out Custer and his regiment.(^-^)
REMEMBER:
The up-hill battles make you STRONGER.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't consider myself a quitter, but I think that a lot of what he said is the truth. American culture has tainted our women, perhaps its a result of capitalism and sex-ploytation.
There are a lot of beautiful women in those countries.
It would be nice to live in that kind of harmony among the sexes. But rest assured 11B20 feminists are trying to find ways into those cultures as well and as we speak. You may want to read that thingy called CEDAW, well its signed law in over a hundred countries I think.
So on your next trip to Buddepest, or Warsaw don't forget the constant advance and the long arm of feminism around our little globe.
.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 18, @03:56AM EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
I've met some rather nice women from Japan. I've never met one that WASN'T nice.
I thought about going there, at one time, to find a decent un"tainted" woman. Again, At one time.
But like Dan Lynch said; the long arm of feminism gets around.
I still remember American women telling me...;
"Oh, You just can't handle a "strong woman"."
(As if Japanese women aren't strong.)
Or they'd tell Me; "You just want a submissive woman." (Nice stereotype.)
No, I just wanted a Woman who would respect Me as much as I respected her.
And what's wrong with wanting some one who is "even tempered"? (I'm fairly even tempered, myself.)
Sorry, but here in the States, Women are trained, in no un-certain terms, to HATE MEN.
Japanese women are NOT. (At least not at the time I was considering going to Japan.)
American women act TOO MUCH like Men.
If I wanted THAT I would go GAY! (Just for the record, There's NO danger of that happening.)
American women (IMO) are TOO loud.
EVERYTHING is a "GENDER ISSUE" with too many of them.
American women are spoiled and childish, Generaly speaking.
Japanese women tend to (seem) more "mature", Culturaly speaking.
American women EXPECT and even DEMAND, in many cases, you give them "gifts". I don't mind giveing gifts, In fact I enjoy it. But haveing it DEMANDED of Me...?
Where American women know how to TAKE gifts, In My expirience, Japanese women know how to RECIVE gifts. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!
So, Yeah, what man in his RIGHT MIND would want a decent, loveing woman who enjoyed takeing care of YOU as much as you enjoy takeing care of HER?!? I must have been out of My mind. (I'm being sarcastic, just for the record.)
Yes, Even amoung My people, (American Indians.) The slimey tentacles of Marx-feminism have coiled themselves around our beautiful women, as well.
By now, those tendrils have probably made it accross the ocean, to snarl the women of Japan. To make them, TOO, ashamed of being feminine.
Someday, If I make it to "old age", I'll probably be sitting on the Cherokee resevation, on My front porch, Thinking to Myself; "Ah, Yes. I still remember when MEN were MEN and WOMEN were WOMEN. In the good old days before MEN were NEUTERED and WOMEN were MEN."
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the items that NCFM, LA argued was that there should be a balancing of interest between the children of a biological father and the non-biological father where there is a default paternity judgment. Senator Escutia, who is the chair of the judiciary, picked up on this argument and championed it as reasonable and fair.
She saw how men from Los Angeles County were victimized by default paternity judgments, and she observed how families were devastated and being systematically destroyed because of institutional discrimination against men.
Senator Escutia is to be thanked and applauded for her courage in standing up to the radical feminist that sought the literal destruction of men on the basis of their gender. I encourage everybody be writing a quick note of thanks at the following URL:The Honorable Senator Escutia – click on feedback
She needs to be applauded for setting this brave new standard and for exercising courage in the face of powerful opposition. We need to let her know that the eyes of the Nation were observing her actions.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 17, @02:52PM EST (#70)
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote a note to her expressing my gratitude, but I wonder how much it means seeing as how I live in Maryland, all the way on the other side of the country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @11:36AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the text of the Calif. Paternity Justice Act.
Can someone explain to me why the bill allows the frauded father to sue and receive reparations from the biological father??? WHY? In most cases, the biological father was just as frauded as the non-biological father!!!
The person who COMMITTED the fraud should be the one to pay, NOT the biological father!!!! Where's the punishment for the woman in this act? I've seen none.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me why the bill allows the frauded father to sue and receive reparations from the biological father??? WHY? In most cases, the biological father was just as frauded as the non-biological father!!!
Yea. We know. That pissed off NCFM, LA also. It demonstrates the level of hate that powerful feminist interest have against men. They are responsible (CA NOW) for that language.
This literally demonstrates that women are in an environment in CA where they are virtually immune to any consequences for their criminal acts. Clearly, feminism is not about equal rights. It is about female immunity and special privilege.
Nevertheless, it does create an equal protection problem that can be litigated in court. Never forget case law. Sometimes it is best to make law that is illegal to get a bill passed; it's just good strategy. There is more than one way to get a desired effect in this democracy. We believe that we can either have this clause struck down as unconstitutional or have the act amended later on when there are less radical feminist in the committee.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<We believe that we can either have this clause struck down as unconstitutional or have the act amended later on when there are less radical feminist in the committee. >>
Are you for real?? I hope you're not counting on the latter of the "less radical feminists" option. I forsee we will be going 'toe to toe' with these people for a long time. But at least we are starting to go 'toe to toe' with them somewhat.
.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hope you're not counting on the latter of the "less radical feminists" option. I forsee we will be going 'toe to toe' with these people for a long time. But at least we are starting to go 'toe to toe' with them somewhat.
You're right to point out that it is unlikely that CA will be getting less radical feminists anytime soon. No we are not depending on this to take place. In fact we consider it unlikely. But being the optimist that I am I do hold out hope for more reasonable women to toe the line.
The biggest problem men have is that nobody has challenged the radical feminists and persistently been in their face. Well now we are in their face and we are proud to be men. We are calling the radicals for the bigots that they are, exposing their arguments, and demonstrating their true stripes. So they are pissed.
Nevertheless, the more that we oppose their bigoted suggestions and point out their lies, the more that they send out calls for other radicals to appear. This battle isn't over by a long shot. I expect that it's going to intensify and rage on for years to come.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This battle isn't over by a long shot. I expect that it's going to intensify and rage on for years to come.
At least now the battle has been joined. The Nazis are no longer getting a free ride. We will, eventually, defeat them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there anything in the law that stops the natural father from suing the mother for failing to notify him of the pregnancy? It's a circuitous route, but there might be satisfaction there. If I found myself on the short end of such a suit, I'd be looking for any niche I could find.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @03:43PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Is there anything in the law that stops the natural father from suing the mother for failing to notify him of the pregnancy? It's a circuitous route, but there might be satisfaction there. If I found myself on the short end of such a suit, I'd be looking for any niche I could find.
I agree. If they're going to have a built-in fault for the biological father in this law, they should add to it that the biological father can get reparations from the REAL criminal (the mother who committed fraud).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, it might be better if it was left unsaid and left unprohibited. That way, the feminists can't argue it and we can get a case to test it in court that can be taken to the Supreme court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @04:05PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know how easy it would be to get a test case. The plaintiff would lose every iota of privacy he ever had. The mother might have been some lush the biological father picked up in a bar one night and never even got her name. He could have been someone he messed around with during a period of his life when he was drowning in alcohol or abusing drugs. He might not want this period of his life put on television and in papers across the nation.
That's another thing. Countless men will have their lives ruined before the test case ever gets to court. What if the guy cheated on his wife just this one time, with the fraud mom, and now he's lost his whole family because of this one mistake? Being able to sue the mother won't provide him with much solace, especially if the only thing she owns is some beat-up furniture and a $500 car.
How many men will be sacrificed before the test case gets the law changed? 100? 1,000? 10,000? What number is acceptable?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What if the guy cheated on his wife just this one time, with the fraud mom, and now he's lost his whole family because of this one mistake?
What a load of crap. If a guy cannot keep his penis in his pants he deserves to pay child support for any children that are his (with few exceptions). That is a pretty widely accepted belief in our culture.
I get pretty tired of trolls that are complete ass holes about child support obligations. They want to have free sex with no risks or consequences. They give the rest of us good men a bad name. If you cannot control your penis get a vasectomy for God’s sake!
The fact of the matter is that a biological father needs to be paying for his child. The only problem with the bill is that fraudulent mothers are able to defraud men without criminal and financial consequences. That can be fixed in later bills. Another problem is that the scope needs to be widened to include more than just default paternity judgments.
Nevertheless, those comprimises were necessary to move the bill forward. It's the democratic process. Jesus! If the radical feminist had their way, L.A. County would still be able to randomly assign a father to a child so that they can get matching funds from the federal government. At least they stand a chance of this bill passing and getting relief from state sponsored extortion.
Don’t complain about the bill if you were not at the hearings to see what was taking place and take part in our government. It only illustrates your complete ignorance of politics and the democratic process.
Gees! What a looser! AU probably already has back child support and is on a most wanted list.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @04:43PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
What a load of crap. If a guy cannot keep his penis in his pants he deserves to pay child support for any children that are his (with few exceptions). That is a pretty widely accepted belief in our culture.
Not widely accepted here, my friend. Apply the same principle to women and you'll see why.
I get pretty tired of trolls that are complete ass holes about child support obligations. They want to have free sex with no risks or consequences. They give the rest of us good men a bad name. If you cannot control your penis get a vasectomy for God’s sake!
Many men's activists support the Choice For Men movement. I don't think supporting Choice For Men makes one a troll here, at least not in MY book.
The fact of the matter is that a biological father needs to be paying for his child. The only problem with the bill is that fraudulent mothers are able to defraud men without criminal and financial consequences. That can be fixed in later bills. Another problem is that the scope needs to be widened to include more than just default paternity judgments.
Why can't a biological father just terminate his parental rights and NOT have to pay child support, the same way a woman can terminate her parental rights and obligations by having an abortion, giving the child up for adoption, or abandoning the child at a hospital?
Gees! What a looser! AU probably already has back child support and is on a most wanted list.
I think you should check your audience here before you complain too much about "deadbeat dads."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many men's activists support the Choice For Men movement. I don't think supporting Choice For Men makes one a troll here, at least not in MY book.
If you are not a troll get a handle. For now you sound like some kind of whiner and I'm putting you on ignore until I at least have an idea of who is posting.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @05:21PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
If you are not a troll get a handle. For now you sound like some kind of whiner and I'm putting you on ignore until I at least have an idea of who is posting.
OK, folks, anyone here want to enlighten Warble about the Choice For Men movement and how it is entwined with men's rights? Or shall I just provide him with links to the stories about it here on MANN?
Well, here are the stories if you are interested.
I suppose the rest of you who consistently label AUs as trolls will chime in here and accuse me of it, too, even though I fully support men's rights?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @05:32PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I'm a WOMAN who supports C4M. I don't think men should be made to pay for children they didn't choose to have. I don't post very much, and when I do, I post anonymously because I know you have problems with feminist trolls on this site, and sometimes female posters come under suspicion because of that. So no, I don't owe any child support, and I'm not giving men a bad name.
I CARE about innocent men having their lives RUINED because some rotten excuse for a woman never told them they had a kid somewhere, and pinned it on another innocent guy. It sounds like you're the one making excuses for these women, acting like it's up to the guy to keep tabs on every woman he has a quickie with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @05:36PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
This is why I post anonymously. People don't usually think of a woman supporting C4M, and I'm not here to fight with people.
The post I made under "Test cases, plaintiffs" was valid. The kind of response I got, I would expect on the MS. board. I had no idea I was going to get flamed for what I said.
Men should keep it in their pants, men should have vasectomies. How about, women shouldn't lie about who the fathers of their children are? How about, no woman should tell some other man he's the father of her child when she knows he isn't?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @05:50PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds to me like you're labeling anyone who questions this bill a troll, even when they obviously support pro-male policies such as C4M and laws against paternity fraud. It is easier and more convenient to label me and the other AUs here trolls, than to answer my valid questions about how many innocent men you expect to sacrifice before your test case ever reaches trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, there's been a misunderstanding here, let's try to not take this too personally ok?
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"how many innocent men you expect to sacrifice before your test case ever reaches trial."
Ans. Respectfully sir, fewer than were being sacrificed before AB2240.
War is an ugly business, and there's no such thing as acceptable losses, but when fighting against a foe of numerically superior strength one must make those sacrifices that will keep the offensive moving towards victory.
That's much easier said than done, especially when your not one of those who winds up left behind and in the belly of the beast (the enemy).
Let's all keep at it really hard, strategize, propose solutions, debate vigorously, propose more solutions, take sound action, take sound action, etc., etc. so as few innocent men as possible get left behind. Keep up your strength and good health, and don't burn out. We're all only human, and as has been said before this is going to be a long fight so "gird up your loins" and pace yourself for the long haul.
My greatest satisfaction in life, at this point in time, is waking up in the morning and knowing that I'm gonna make another effort to take it to 'em some way today. I guess you could say that their abuse of me has given me a strong burning desire to have "them" recognize my full entitlement to fair and equal treatment. Hang in there, we are a band of brothers too, and I am very happy in the company of the good people I have found here!
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @09:14PM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
In spite of the general suspicion of your sex here, there are those of us in the movement who appreciate your involvement. Believe me. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I get pretty tired of trolls that are complete ass holes about child support obligations. They want to have free sex with no risks or consequences.
Yes, men want the same rights as women.
A woman can have unprotected sex with a different man each night of the week and still guarantee herself that she won't be burdened with the responsibilities of raising a child. On the other hand, a twelve year old boy can be ordered to pay child support to a woman legally convicted of raping him.
If a woman's "mental and emotional health" give her the constitutional right to have a hole drilled in the head of her 8 1/2 month old fetus and have the brains sucked out, then certainly a man's "mental and emotional health" give him the right to terminate his parental rights and responsibilities early in a woman's pregnancy. A man doesn't have to get pregnant to face the consequences of pregnancy.
On a personal note, I agree with you. However, I value fairness and equality above all else. As long as abortion is legal, men should have the same right to have "free sex" with no risks or consequences.
Unfortunately, we live in a society where it's a woman's body, a woman's choice, a man's responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, folks, anyone here want to enlighten Warble about the Choice For Men movement and how it is entwined with men's rights?
I've heard this argument in all of its extremes. It is one that I disagree with on grounds that men do have two primary options for birth control. Does that mean that I don't want more options? No.
I view the current arguments for choice to be little more than an excuse for control freaks to seek to control the body of another person (the woman).
If the arguments that the men's movement has are so great then let them go to their respective legislators and get some bills passed. What? Already tried it? What was that you said? It's unconstitutional? Oh. Well then you guys need to accept reality. What was that? The ideas of the men's movement for choice have been tested in court and failed? Well that is reality. Don’t keep fighting a battle that is lost. It makes you look stupid.
Why continue to choose a battle that cannot be won? I on the other hand choose my battles wisely. I choose ones that are winnable and that can be built upon.
I've heard all of the drivel of male choice. I even heard one man argue that he is justified in slipping a woman crushed up RU486 in her drink to induce an abortion because of his right to choice! What an idiotic idea! Yet he even tried to argue that men have a higher law to answer to, and that it justifies drugging a woman with RU486.
No you guys can have your men's choice arguments. I reject them outright as unworkable and little more than an excuse to be a control freak over a women's body. I don’t have a need to control another person’s body. I have a hard enough time controlling my own.
But that is my personal opinion. I'll support the men's movement in other areas. I'll support their issues and believe they have a winnable cause like in opposing paternity fraud, mandatory arrest laws, and the current DV laws that are designed to criminalize men. These battles are winnable if they are well executed and thought out.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A woman can have unprotected sex with a different man each night of the week and still guarantee herself that she won't be burdened with the responsibilities of raising a child.
So can a man. It's called a vasectomy. Gees. What ever happened to personal responsibility?
On the other hand, a twelve year old boy can be ordered to pay child support to a woman legally convicted of raping him./I.
Damn good point. That should be the next bill that we work on in CA. We need to stop boys from being victimized. That is good law. What should we call it? Hummmm.........
The Male Adolescent Paternity Justice Act.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @02:20AM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
((("I suppose the rest of you who consistently lable AUs as trolls will chime in here and accuse me of it, too, even though I fully support men's rights?")))
It's not that. It's because we have so MANY "anonymous"s posting here, it's dificult to always know who is saying what. Allthough haveing a handle doesn't KEEP one from being called a troll, it helps minimize the probability.
If you have a handle THEN we know who we are or aren't talking to.
So, please at least consider getting a handle.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @02:49AM EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
((("I post anaonymously because I know you have problems with feminist trolls on this site and sometimes female posters come under suspicion because of that.")))
I'm sorry you feel this way.
Most of us here, though don't care if you are a man or a woman as long as you can carry on a civil conversation. (which IMO, you do.)
We have female posters here that come under NO suspicion. (or at least very little) Trudy Schuett and LadyRivka spring to my mind.
One isn't called a "Troll" because of gender but, moreover, because of "attitude"
If you are or aren't a "Troll" it is obvious by your posting(s).
"Trolls" tend to curse alot, put people down visiously and are just down right HATEFULL.
You haven't done any of those things, that I've seen.
Simply 'disagreeing' doesn't make you a "Troll" either. Again it's HOW you disagree.
So, again I feel bad that you feel this way.
I hope that will change.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @03:01AM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
(((" a twelve year old boy can be ordered to pay child support to a woman legaly convicted of rapeing him.")))
Are you KIDDING!?! Is that TRUE!?
Jeezus, what kind of country ARE we living in?!?
I had not heared about this.
If this is true it's time to go to WAR!
Geez!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @07:55AM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
(((" a twelve year old boy can be ordered to pay child support to a woman legaly convicted of rapeing him.")))
Are you KIDDING!?! Is that TRUE!?
Jeezus, what kind of country ARE we living in?!?
I had not heared about this.
If this is true it's time to go to WAR!
Geez!
This has been true for a long, long time. Read the older "Choice For Men" stories on MANN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @11:30AM EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am curious as to how my simple assertion that copulation does not presumptively authorize a woman to use my genetic material for reproductive purposes is somehow an example of an excuse for me to seek to control her body.
While I do appreciate your tremendous efforts WRT paternity justice, Warble, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using femelitist character-assassination-by-extremist-citation tactics to make your case RE C4M.
("I've heard this argument in all of its extremes." Case in point.)
Valid C4M is NOT about controlling women's bodies; it is about legislatively recognizing and correcting the presumption that copulation automatically imposes any kind of social contract WRT reproduction upon men OR women, because of the gross inequity which this presumption imposes.
And anyone suggesting that they have some kind of 'higher' right to induce miscarriage in another person through nonconsenting drug use is NOT referring to C4M. They are referring to criminal assault, in my book, and I highly resent YOUR association of that kind of behavior with the valid support for the recognition of a long-standing discriminatory cultural prejudice and its legislative correction.
If you don't want to support C4M, Warble, that's fine.
However, I take great exception to your yellow-journalism behavior in justifying your choice not to do so by citing inappropriate extremist examples of people who are NOT presenting valid cases for C4M. . and your characterization likewise of C4M supporters as gender-biased control freaks.
I find it offensive and I don't doubt in the slightest that others do as well. . .or that like me, they are less likely to support you in other areas because of your intemperate accusations and slanders of them.
If you think C4M has no hope, fine. If you prefer not to support it, fine. If you wish to point this out to its supporters and tell them that IYO they're wasting their time, even. . .fine.
However, if you choose to denigrate them with scurrilous misrepresentations just like the femelitists do yourself. . .
. . .not fine.
Don't shit where you eat, Warble.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @03:02PM EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
Well said, Acksiom. Maybe he will take it more to heart coming from someone without an Anonymous User designation.
You are absolutely correct. I think Warble needs to educate himself a little more about what C4M really is all about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @03:38PM EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
No you guys can have your men's choice arguments. I reject them outright as unworkable and little more than an excuse to be a control freak over a women's body. I don’t have a need to control another person’s body. I have a hard enough time controlling my own.
You obviously don't know a damned thing about C4M if you think it has ANYTHING to do with women's bodies or abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @03:50AM EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
What?
What did I do, now?
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @02:02PM EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
In the beginning, there was the tribe, and the elders.
And the women of the tribe had sex with the men, gave birth to babies, and their labor was increased, and they were sore upset.
And lo, they went unto the elders of the tribe and said unto them, "These men knock us up, and then doeth nothing, and we bear the children, and yet labor. You must make these men support us."
And an elder said, "Thou gettest with child from boinking, stop thou the boinking and thy problems will cease."
And the other elders called him a buffoon, for without children the tribe would cease. And they said unto the women, "What wouldst thou have us do?"
And the women said, "Maketh the men support us when we give birth, that we might care for the children, lest we cease with the nookie, and the tribe shall diminish."
And the elders said unto the women, "We shall seeest what we can do."
And the elders went unto the men, and the same buffoon said, "Thou must cease with the boffing, for thou gettest the women pregnant, and they bitcheth."
And the elders set upon the buffoon, and fed him to the weasels, and there was much rejoicing.
Then said the elders unto the men, "Thou must supporteth the women with thy labor, for they bear children, and bitcheth, and say verily, unless thou givest unto them a portion of the fruit of thy labor, they will cut off the nookie, and beareth no more children, and the tribe shall die."
And the men pondered amongst themselves and said, "How knowest we that the children are of our seed, and of the tribe? Shall we labor for the seed of another?"
And the elders said, "Thou playest, thou payest."
And the men said, "Verily then, we shall play no more, and tarry not with the nookie and the women, if thou slavest us in such wise, and the tribe shall diminish."
Ed. Note: Wow, the more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?
So the elders went away, and pondered. And after they had pondered they gathered the tribe, the females and the males unto them and said, "Behold, we give unto you a new thing, a covenant among you, and we call it `marriage.' And within the marriage the woman and the man shall give themselves only to each other. And the woman shall be supported for her labor in bearing children, and the man shall know that the child is his, and in such wise shall share the joy of the raising of the child, for his burden."
"And the child shall call the woman Mother, and the child shall name the man Father, and they shall be equal, and love and children shall cause the tribe to increase."
"Keep thou in this marriage, for if the man supporteth the woman not, he shall be made a criminal, and outlawed, and all that he has taken from him for such is the womans due, for he has broken the covenant."
"Likewise, shall the woman keep her part, lest she be thrown out with nothing, and her and her children shall be hungry, and they shall be taken from her, for she broke the covenant, and she shall be made an object of scorn and ridicule."
"And if thou subscribe not unto this covenant, thou shalt roll the dice and take thy chances, for this is fair, and equitable."
And the men and women of the tribe embraced the covenant, and all was well.
But later there came the demoness Feminazius, and she whispered words of woe to the women. She said unto them, "What is this that thou should abidest in the covenant, for it is an enslavement of yourself. The support of man is thy due, for thou art his better. Thou needest not the covenant, it is but a yoke for thy neck."
And the women muttered among themselves, and then declared, "We shall place out throne above the man's, and he shall serve us, for it has been said that we are his better, and this pleases us."
And the men grumbled, saying, "And thee do we name thee slut, and cast thee out, for thou sinnest, and keepeth not the covenant which has been the law from the ancient days."
But the spirit of Feminazius entered into some of the men, and spoke with their voice saying, "Suckest thou it up, thou less than men, for it is not meet that we not keep to the ancient ways, and deny the women the freedom to break their side of the deal."
And thus it came to pass that the demon Feminazius came to dwell in the tribe, and she and the women ground the men beneath their heel, and she and the women rejoiced, for they were magnified, and made mighty, and exalted above the men. And they took the fruits of the labor from the men, and kept not the covenant, and the tribe groaned under the lash of the evil that had come to dwell among them...
(To be continued - by us)
--------------
And there we are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @05:28PM EST (#67)
|
|
|
|
|
COOL parable!
I muchth enjoyedth readingth itth.
^
And yeah, it was as hard to write this as it is to SAY it!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<The biggest problem men have is that nobody has challenged the radical feminists and persistently been in their face. Well now we are in their face and we are proud to be men. We are calling the radicals for the bigots that they are, exposing their arguments, and demonstrating their true stripes. So they are pissed. >>
Don't worry, I know you are one of the guys that are going toe to toe with them. Personally , I think they are a lost cause, but they do have the money and the power to make their lies the truth in the media. But if we continue to peel that onion we know there false studies are completely inaccurate and more and more people will be coming to the fairer solution. As soon as they stop thinking like feminists. Unfortuanately they are teaching our kids feminist indoctrination daily so they are constantly against us.
Its about time we started being proud to be men again.
<<Nevertheless, the more that we oppose their bigoted suggestions and point out their lies, the more that they send out calls for other radicals to appear. This battle isn't over by a long shot. I expect that it's going to intensify and rage on for years to come.>>
Thats why we have to force them to spend theirselves out of existance by continuing to show up their faulty research and fighting the good fight for freedom freely.
<<Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation. >>
Disclaimer: I hope one of you cunts do try to sue me Im seriously looking forward to it, because you are going to have one pissed off jury at all the lies you've been spreading for years and years.
.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*sigh* Try this again.
Small gains, small gains. I long for the big victory, but I'll take it in chunks, so long as we keep pressing.
By way of test cases, maybe an enterprising bunch could go on long term planning to engineer a slam dunk, establish precedents? Surely it wouldn't be unheard of? Surely we could find a sympathetic woman to "misidentify" a father, and then feign malice - and admit it in court - so the court would have no choice but to either5 pony up or state outright "Men Are Second Class Citizens" (Which would then set off the tar and feathers.... ah, sorry, I'm getting aroused. I drool at the thought of a good old fashioned rebellion.)
By-the-by, with all the trolling, AU's, and the discontent, maybe scott could 1) Ban anonymous postings, or delay them; 2) Randomize some unflattering handles, or 3) Display IP addresses somewhere, or force their association with a random handle (Anne, Beth, Christine, Donna, etc...). I mean, seriously, if someone wants to look me up they might get some general nature of me and/or mine, but few specifics (Mainly because on my public ID's I lie a lot for just such reasons) but I am anonymous. I can think of no reason for the generic "AU" handle other than to enable trolling.
I'm all for direct action, and recently I had to lay low for a while while I helped some poor sod out of the reach of some gubbmint dickweeds and set his ex up for a fall, but heck, since I went to the trouble to do it, it's just plain orneriness that keeps others from doing.
And before you say it, if that means you won't post no more - good riddance, friend or foe. Don't let the door hit ya in the ass on the way out. Or do. I could use a laugh.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...so the court would have no choice but to either5 pony up or state outright "Men Are Second Class Citizens"...
We in effect have that admission on tape from Senator Keuhl. I cannot wait to get the transcripts and post quotes from her bigoted statements. In my humble opinion, she will become the poster girl of institutionalized male discrimination.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @07:58AM EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
I mean, seriously, if someone wants to look me up they might get some general nature of me and/or mine, but few specifics (Mainly because on my public ID's I lie a lot for just such reasons) but I am anonymous. I can think of no reason for the generic "AU" handle other than to enable trolling.
I use AU because I choose not to provide information to this Web site. Same reason I don't enable cookies. Where have you seen a troll in this thread? Seriously. I'd like to know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @09:00AM EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
Hee hee.
By-the-by, with all the trolling, AU's, and the discontent, maybe scott could 1) Ban anonymous postings, or delay them;
This could work, but Scott's position on this site has been not to censor posts unless there are good legal reasons.
2) Randomize some unflattering handles,
Heh. Big deal. Lots of people still use Anonymous Coward over at /. (slashdot for the uninitiated).
or 3) Display IP addresses somewhere,
Hee hee. There is no legitimate reason for ever displaying someone's IP address. That is only ever done so 31337 people can 0wn a few more personal computers on the Net somewhere for fun. If you are showing off your IP, chances are you've already been LARTed. The best way to handle it is the way Scott is already doing it: log the IP for a little while and then trash it.
or force their association with a random handle (Anne, Beth, Christine, Donna, etc...).
So what? How would this hurt or divert anyone who truly wants to troll? Considering the trolls here are probably feminist nuts anyway?
I mean, seriously, if someone wants to look me up they might get some general nature of me and/or mine, but few specifics (Mainly because on my public ID's I lie a lot for just such reasons) but I am anonymous.
If your IP is revealed, you are not necessarily anonymous. Even places like Anonymizer, idzap, and The Cloak can be successfully tracked if one knows what one is doing. Multiple proxies help, but they aren't the end-all be-all of anonymity.
Why not just let the AUs be and disagree with them if you want to disagree with them. Why do you want to know who they are anyway? Do you want to try to LART them yourself?
By the by, MANN's privacy policy is here.
I can think of no reason for the generic "AU" handle other than to enable trolling.
I can think of lots of good reasons: someone may want to comment about their own personal situation without getting themselves into some kind of legal trouble while a court case is in session; someone may be in a position of authority for which they would be ousted if they spoke up publicly about what they really feel; some people might lose their jobs if their co-workers happened to see their name splashed across a Web site.
Really, I mean what's so different about posting as "Gonzo Kid" vs. "Anonyous User?" If it's separation of identity of posts you want, I could easily register some variation of "Gonzo Kid" and make it look like you posting when it isn't you. There are ALL kinds of neat tricks like that.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
