|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article worked last night, but for some reason I can't resolve the IP from where I am right now, hopefully it will be fixed soon.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Child Custody: Where Men Hit a Glass Ceiling
by Rachel Alexander
August 8, 2002
Child custody has emerged as an area where men run into a glass ceiling.
"It's awful to take a child away from its mother!" Sound
familiar? That is because it is the message that has been repeatedly
hammered at society by feminists, as well as some conservatives. But you
won't hear the equivalent, "It's awful to take a child away from its
father," because the feminists aren't pushing equivalent respect for
fathers. Instead, you are more likely to hear this mantra about fathers,
"there's so many deadbeat dads." The feminists have successfully changed the
law, the courts, and societal attitudes when it comes to the custody and
care of children from split homes. Instead of looking at fathers'
capabilities and indiscretions individually, the law makes sweeping
assumptions and treats all fathers as second class. Women, if you are
successful in no other area of life, read this article closely, because you
can easily succeed here, the system is so weighted in your favor. Free
money, free legal help, and kind court staff. If you don't work, or don't
work much, you'll make out even better, so it is best not to work much. And
all you need to do is get pregnant! Men, all I offer for advice to you is
this: if you have children, you'd better
pray that you remain a couple.
Sad as it sounds, this is where the law is at. When a couple that has mutual
children splits up, the courts examine just a few factors to determine
custody, known as the "best interests of the child." These factors make it
very likely that the woman will get custody of the children and hence child
support money. Two of the most important
factors include who is better able to "take care" of the child and whether
there has been domestic violence by one of the parents.
Well, these factors "sound" good, but in reality, they have been
specifically selected for their heavy bias against fathers. There are
numerous other factors that address equally as serious issues, that could
affect
mothers for the worse, or at least equally affect both parents, such as drug
abuse, but these factors are conveniently not found in the "best interests
of the child" statutes (there must be an actual drug conviction - which is
absurd - one drug-addict mother was able to take away custody away from the
father even though she snorted meth every single day - the courts had no
knowledge of her drug habit!). "Take care" of the child has little to do
with being able to
financially support the child. It should, since almost as many women as men
work outside of the home now, but because a lot of women with children who
split up with the fathers aren't very ambitious and sit around the house
watching soap operas, the law has been crafted to label this as "taking
care" of the children, instead of earning money.
Since most fathers work full-time, they lose here.
"Domestic violence" is another disguised way of guaranteeing that the
fathers lose. Women are now trained by society to call the police
anytime their boyfriend or husband loses his temper, and are using and
abusing this taxpayer funded "helpline" at an increasingly alarming rate.
Murray A. Straus, a sociologist and co-director for the Family Research
Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire reported 30 studies of
domestic violence, including some he had conducted,
found that women were as equally culpable of domestic violence as men. Yet
this information is not widely publicized, and is downplayed by both police
officers and the courts. Women are also abusing restraining orders. A recent
article in Human Events cited a government study that found that fewer than
half of all restraining orders contained even an allegation of physical
violence. Instead of working out their fights, or leaving the man, women are
taking the easy way out and forcing taxpayers to pay for their "tattling"
every time they take up the time of a police officer or court. Of course,
many times it is the woman who caused the fight, but that is not going to
end up in the court's minute entry. Men are laughed at if they are the
victims of domestic violence. One young father attempted to seek free legal
help from a domestic violence law clinic after his ex-wife continued to hit
him, and the clinic turned him away in amusement. Another young father had
the domestic violence of an ex-girlfriend, who had hit him, used against him
in order to justify taking away his child.
It is easy for mothers to obtain free legal aid in pursuing custody of their
children. There are flyers everywhere - in women's restrooms, in doctor's
offices, and in government buildings offering free legal
resources for women to use. The Legal Aid clinics help out so many mothers
with custody disputes and divorces that recently they have
had to limit their representation of custody cases to cases alleging abuse.
Domestic violence legal clinics are at many of the law schools now, and give
women free legal help with divorces, custody disputes, and restraining
orders. If there are low-income requirements, they are rarely verified; any
woman can come in and say she makes very little money, and on her word alone
she will receive free legal help (just like at Planned Parenthood).
The child support laws are crafted not just to provide for the cost of
raising a child, but to bring the parent receiving the support to the level
she would have been at if she were still with the father! The absurdity of
this situation can be seen in this all too common example: A woman cheats on
her husband and then files for no-fault divorce. She gets custody of the
children, AND the benefit of his salary and payraises until their child
turns 18 - all the money benefits as if they
were still married (and she may even get alimony on top of that, but that is
a different issue for another column, and at least with alimony, once the
mother remarries, the alimony goes away)! Why should an ex-wife be
guaranteed, years after having been married, the same living standard of her
husband? Absent unhealthy circumstances, why
shouldn't the parent with the BETTER living standards be considered the one
better prepared to take care of the child? That way, one parent isn't stuck
paying for the ex-spouse too. Currently, though, most child custody laws do
not consider financial responsibility of the parent as one of the "best
interests of the child."
Child support is widely touted by governmental agencies as one of the most
important things government does, and the duty of it is glorified almost
nazilike to the level of a moral authority. Yet what exactly does child
support do? The charts for child support award way too much money to the
custodial parent - does anyone really believe that it costs $800/month to
raise a child? In most situations, the mother has custody and makes
considerably less money than the father. According to fairly standard child
support guidelines, if the mother makes
$20,000/yr and the father makes $40,000/yr, and there is one child, the
father should pay $535/month in child support (the formula adds
both parents' salaries together, then comes up with a random number of how
much they think that child costs - here it was $800 - then has the
non-custodial parent pay the percentage his salary is - here it is 66%).
Does anyone REALLY THINK that many of the mothers who resort to going to
court to collect child support are the types of
mothers who would spend a full $535/month on one child, as well as another
$265/month of their own money (particularly if the child is
older than 5 and in school)? There is no monitoring of that money, and it is
very difficult to get a court to order any type of accounting by the mother.
One such mother of a 6-year old has stated that she is saving the money for
breast implants.
Furthermore, the concept of child support money discourages personal
responsibility and ambition. It penalizes the custodial parent for
working harder and trying to get ahead, because a higher paying job
would reduce the amount of free money they get from the other
parent. It is akin to welfare - if you work hard, you aren't eligible for
it.
And it is a double penalty, because it also penalizes the non-custodial
parent for working harder. The more money the non-custodial parent
makes, the more money is taken out of his paycheck to go to the
residential parent.
Do we really want to heap benefits on mothers who split up with the
fathers, essentially giving "reward" money to women who have sex,
instead of letting them suffer the consequences? Everyone knows that
sex without true commitment leads to broken down homes and
emotional trauma, particularly for any children involved. Everyone also
knows that when you have sex, you may get pregnant. In some ways,
child support is merely a disguised form of prostitution - women are
encouraged to have sex and receive money from any man who
succeeds in impregnating them. After sex, the man then has no other
contact with the woman except to give her money for the child, and
any modicum of visitation he can squeak out. Instead of teaching
women to avoid gratuitous sex, our society encourages sex with its
condom education and giveaways, and easy access to
taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthoods. Women realize they can have
gratuitous sex without suffering any consequences, because the
safety net of a man's pocketbook will always be there for them, thanks
to the long arm of the moral authoritarian government child support
agency that reassures them that they are right.
And what exactly are deadbeat dads? Many "deadbeat dads" are
simply fathers who are going through a hard time economically; they
may have lost a job, or simply are having a difficult time paying
$800/month in child support. Sure there are some fathers who have
completely rejected any responsibility towards their children, but that
doesn't mean all fathers should be treated like criminals and rounded
up by Sheriff's Offices and taken into jail. Why are the fathers held
accountable while the mothers aren't?
Why this bias against fathers has been allowed to develop may be the
result of conservatives' neglect of this area of the law. Conservatives
have avoided domestic relations law, not wanting to get involved in
this area because of their strong dislike of divorce as well as their
old-fashioned view that mothers are better nurturers than fathers.
Consequently, liberal feminists have had free reign here. What is
interesting however, is the flavor of feminism which has prevailed - it is
not the version that encourages men to be more sensitive, but instead
the version that accepts prostitution and rampant sexual
promiscuousness as a component of womens' equality.
The feminists' efforts in this area are no doubt driven by both their
beliefs that mothers are better nurturers of children, and their
resentment towards men who use women for sex and then leave them.
But punishing all men equally fails to take into account certain things.
First of all, those men eventually remarry and move on with their lives.
The courts consider the new spouse's salary when computing child
support! So punishing the father also results in punishing another
completely innocent woman. Secondly, child support creates
resentment and additional fighting between the parents, since the
paying parent resents the other parent and will try to change the
situation. This clogs up the family courts.
So what should the solution be? For starters, how about ending child
support between parents who both want custody of their children? If
someone really wants their children, they will find a way to make ends
meet. It just doesn't cost that much to raise a child, no matter what
people whine. The message we should be sending is, if you can't afford
a child, then abstain from sex! Foster parents receive around
$300/month per child. This isn't very much money. Nobody seems to
complain about those children not receiving $800/month. Why not let
the parent who wants to care for the child, and is more financially
capable, have the custody, or at the very least cut out the child
support? That way, no parent is stuck supporting the other parent.
This would also send a message to parents that they should be
ambitious and set good work ethics for their children, instead of the
current message which encourages parents to be lazy and earn less. If
the mother has to work during the day, and the father works evenings,
let the father take care of the children during the day instead of
putting them in daycare. There are better workable solutions than
giving the children to the mother just because she is lazy and stays at
home, utilizing the father only as a money funnel. One mother sat
around the house getting high on her days off, yet still put her child in
daycare, using the father's money!
Finally, "domestic violence," which has been abused by women, should
be looked at more closely by the courts if it is to be a factor in
determining child custody. There may be more to "domestic violence"
than appears in a brief minute entry or police report. For example, the
mother may have been racked out on drugs at the time she called the
police, as well as every day of her life, yet this is not taken into
consideration as part of the "best interests of the child" unless there is
an actual drug conviction. The courts should also examine whether the
mother is the type to move from abuser to abuser, which ultimately creates
an unstable upbringing for the child. Is it really better that a child stay
with a mother who cycles through violent or volatile relationships, or is it
better that the child live with the father whose only "history of domestic
violence" occurred when the mother obtained dubious restraining orders
against him when she was having affairs on him? Unfortunately, the laws do
not currently take these circumstances into consideration when considering
the "best interests of the child." Unless a father has an excellent attorney
who is able to
get ahold of hard evidence proving these types of circumstances, and has
success persuading a judge to give these factors some weight even though
they are not in the law, a father is simply out of luck. He has reached the
glass ceiling for fathers in child custody.
The author has done work with a domestic violence law clinic and has
studied this area of the law in law school.
.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @02:39PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Dan, Thank you for takeing the time and trouble to post this.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No worries mate. And after all that hard work of copying and pasting I think I've earned myeself an ice cold beer.
+
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @04:21PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not so surprising to me that a woman would say these things. I've been saying things just like that for some time. Women too, are getting pissed off and fed up with radical feminism.
T___
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Trudy. I think many women are pissed off for more than just a few reasons. I has an ex-girlfriend set me straight about some of the issues about 5 years ago. She told me that far to many woman are still trying to hold on to that 19th century 'weak little women act', constantly playing along with the same roles they claimed they are trying to break.
Im thinking I should give her a call someday. Anyways, there are tonnes and tonnes of them, unfortunately they don't have the voice.
The Lace Curtain works against women as well.
.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @03:02PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
((("She told me that far to many women are trying to hold on to that 19th century 'weak little woman act.' constantly playing along with the same rolls they claim they are trying to break."}}}
Ain't it the truth.
In my personal obsvervations I've noticed women are only "strong" when it's convenient for them to be. And "weak" for the same reason of convenience.
And of course it is VASTLY more convienient for them to play "damsel in distress".
and there is NO SHORTAGE of "knights in shining armor" (mostly conservatives) to come to their rescue.
The problem is, When the "knight" arives to slay the "damsel's" dragon, It turns out the "damsel" IS the DRAGON.
I'll say it once more,
for the modern male to SURVIVE, shivalry must DIE.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think historically men are responsible for 'chivalry' just as much. Its medievel and I bet if you go back far enough its really from 'Christian' doctrine. Which I think is fine, but understanding why it actuall came about should help because it will explain why it will actually be so difficult to do away with.
Just look at hollywoods main formula's for money making films.
Feminists have been trying to do away with the male element in its entirety, and they seriously believe that world would be a better place without men. More respectable, or truthful, less violent. Anyone by logging on to Ms. Magazine boards can figure out in about 5 mins thats ludicris.
These people think that 'hetro-sexuality' is a social construct, all the while trying to reconstruct society in the very backdrop of their accusations.
I'd say that about a good 80% of women who claim to be feminists do so because of indoctrination of false information and oppurtunity. Its seductive and luring, its hard to resist when its so easy. Hell there are women out there making false accusations of 'rape' so they can get better lighting in their dorm hallways. Its just an abuse of power.
Women like Trudy can see past it, women like my ex-girlfriend had to explain it to me.
The truth is we don't need either sex to reproduce anymore, but it certainly takes away the random anomaly that the back seat of Daddy's car seem to have made since its invention.
Im not really sure what feminists really want, when it comes to freedom and destruction of their sex roles. They claim us men reactionary but in the end they are the ones that hold us to it just as much. I expect it will get more interesting before it resolves.
.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @04:32PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Before someone flames me for mis-spelling "CHIVALRY" (shivalry) in my last post...
C-H-I-V-A-L-A-R-Y.
There, now leave me alone. (^-^)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @05:52PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I know I know.
I mispelled chivalry, again.
CHIVALRY!!!
There, all ready!!
...I have enough aggrevation...,
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been saying things just like that for some time. Women too, are getting pissed off and fed up with radical feminism.
There's a fable about the "hundredth monkey." Basically it states that when enough members of a group come to realize something, the group as a whole will soon come to realize it. (For the scientifically oriented out there, it's kind of analogous to critical mass precipitating a phase transformation.)
In 1999 I told my wife that I thought the men's movement had reached its hundredth monkey in about 1997. It now seems that the movement found its hundredth monkey among women, probably some time in 2001 or so. There's no turning this back. In fact, it's pretty amazing just how quickly the gender-justice movement is progressing.
Many thanks for the work of women-pioneers like Trudy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I understand what you are saying, Thomas.
I still think that its more than just men suffering from this, but so long as they continue to teach girls that men don't matter that they have less value than mere animals.
I do want to say that , last weekend I was haveing some drinks at my favorite trailer park, and a woman of around 35 -40 was talking about 9/11 (a nurse) sad it was so sad that so many people lost their "fathers" then she kind of corrected to be gender nuetral and said "well mothers too and everyone ". Which is fine with me that she included mothers, but the fact that she said fathers at all let alone first off made me think there is hope for a reconciliation between the sexes. We have to keep fighint for our dignity especially now that that hundredth monkey has had its eyes opened.
.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have to keep fighint for our dignity especially now that that hundredth monkey has had its eyes opened.
Very true. There's a big difference between the hundredth monkey and society as a whole. The hundredth monkey guarantees success (or so the fable goes), but it doesn't end the struggle. At least we now know that, as each day goes by, we have more allies and the Nazis have fewer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got into it a bit today , over at another friend's house they were asking me if I was a men's activist and I told them "only as far as fairness will take it". I told them its about the money and that discrimination is big money. Its an industry.
I have been asked how horrible it would have been to be in germany when the Nazis were in power. I say "but what if we were the Nazis, would we have the courage to fight them, to deny their assertions? Would I just think its alright to do what they did well because they are after all just Jews." In all honesty I can't answer that, in this case I feel Im the underdog. When I was a kid I was racist and treated certain groups poorly, teased them etc.. by 14 I started to grow out of it more and more, by 16 I was getting kicked out of school for protesting (for women's rights believe it or not, but it was a just cause and still is today). I pray everyday that Im strong enough to resist the temptations to abuse power. I think that is the double edged sword of the Hundredth Monkey for all of us.
.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That may be, Trudy, but I still don't think we enough women, or men for that matter, doing much about it yet [not including yourself or Scott, of course].
Just because someone is conservative and anti-feminist, whether they are Rush Limbaugh or Kathleen Parker, we shouldn't make the mistake of automatically assuming they are men's activists or in favor of same.
I think this quote from the article says it better than I am able to:
"Conservatives have avoided domestic relations law, not wanting to get involved in this area because of their strong dislike of divorce as well as their old-fashioned view that mothers are better nurturers than fathers. Consequently, liberal feminists have had free reign here."
fritzc77
Those who claim to be brutally honest, enjoy the brutality more than the honesty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We discussed this article a couple days ago on MensAction-L, an email discussion list I belong to. Here's what I posted there:
Rachel Alexander makes good and important observations in the article that Scott mentioned and Dan posted. Her facts seem to be mostly straight, and she's obviously not a 'droid mindlessly mouthing approved fem-speak.
I don't know how wide-spread the coverage/readership will be for such a staunchly conservative journalist, but I hope it gets read by as many people as possible.
Conservative opinion (like most other opinion, I suppose) tends to get read by folks who already share those views. It's rather like preaching to the faithful... (WE would never do that, of course. [grin])
Anyway, you've read, or can read, the article. It's good; a 98 out of 100, so I'm just going to point out the bit I disagree with.
As free from feminist orthodoxy as she is, Ms. Alexander gets a bit caught up in her own faith and/or dogma here, too, and allows it to cloud her reasoning and arguments. We need to watch for that in ourselves.
In talking about irresposible pregnancies, she writes:
... Instead of teaching women to avoid gratuitous sex, our society encourages sex with its condom education and giveaways, and easy access to taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthoods. ...
... proposing the astonishing notion that, somehow, education about birth control actually _increases_ the number of pregnancies! Her problem, however, is obviously more with people having SEX. She could as easily have said, "...teaching women to avoid gratuitous pregnancies..."
In more than a few places she advocates abstinence rather than safe, responsible sex, and 'abstinence,' as a social policy, is doomed to failure. People are sexual beings -- just ask Dan ;-) -- as much as Ms Alexander finds that, er, distasteful, and that's not likely to change. Good education about safe practices and mutual respect and resposibility is the only way to go.
Ragtime
The opinions expressed in this posting are my own, but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You wrote:
"As free from feminist orthodoxy as she is, Ms. Alexander gets a bit caught up in her own faith and/or dogma here, too, and allows it to cloud her reasoning and arguments. We need to watch for that in ourselves."
Ans. I think Rachael is sincere in her beliefs, and follows conservative Christian dogma on this. Good luck Rachael, and God Bless You.
You also wrote:
"In more than a few places she advocates abstinence rather than safe, responsible sex, and 'abstinence,' as a social policy, is doomed to failure. People are sexual beings"
To which I would add a quote from an old Bob Seeger song: "There's only one thing in common, they got the fire down below." Being a Christian I'll probably be going beyond the bounds of acceptable limits to say this, but I'd rather be honest than lie.
I can say it is less than desireable to truthfully have to admit that divorce today in the church is the same percentage or slightly higher than in the nonchurched. I believe that there is also a hidden porn problem to some degree too (guys love to watch). The church refers to this as sin, but I have to admit that I find it curious that we do not inhibit other natural bodily functions, but yet we attach severe sanctions to: 1. the bodily function of sex, and 2. the natural strong desire to engage in it.
Those powers of nature in us are all natural, and if you will, God given. Monks in the earliest church, in the middle ages, and beyond practiced mortification of the flesh through self-flagellation and other self inflicted tortures. In recent events we see the priest scandels as another example of the human flesh's weakness to subdue the drive of sex or channel it into socially and morally acceptable channels.
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul writes to the Corinthians, who could have put California porn to shame in some areas, he says if you "burn in lust," you should get married, but considering the legal ramifications of marriage today that is a dangerous thing to do. There are even some women who work the churches looking for suckers they can marry and fleece in the courts. Likewise, there are some guys in the church looking for a good girl and a good time. This is really no longer a place to go to and think you are going to automatically find someone who is superior, morally, to the unchurched. You better have both eyes open as much there as anywhere else.
I would say a little more grace and understanding would be in order in regards to the reality of sexual dynamics in our society today. We are all fairly well fed, healthy and subsequently horny for eligible members of the opposite sex. That's the way the human physiology works.
I respect former President Carter, a Christian, for honestly confessing in a Playboy Magazine interview, during his Presidency, that he had, "committed lust in his heart MANY TIMES."
Any red blooded American who denies this is lying or has a lot more will power than Jimmy and I ever had. Those things below our belts really do have a mind of their own. A little more recognition of that and a lot more respect and kind heartedness to those powerful drives would be a whole lot more honest than trying to deny the obvious. Charity really does begin, in my case and most other guys cases, below the belt.
It isn't that we're bad, it's just the trick of nature that God used to keep the population up.
Now that we live in a state of overpopulation and still have those drives we are probably being individually assailed by powerful subconscious forces of nature to destroy each other (through socially acceptable channels) in order to keep the population of our species in check. Being sophisticated homo sapiens, we no longer do population control as lower animals do. We no longer promte the open use human populaion control methods like fists, clubs, or even guns. Now the only acceptable method of population control or abatement is through law.
It's a real jungle out there, even for the holy Joes like me in the church.
Grace and Peace to You All, and in Abundance,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tying in the subject of this article with the general discussion of gender attitudes in this thread, I would have to say, conclusively, that a good, loving relationship with one's father might be the key defense against anti-male brainwashing. I think that, for each of us, our fathers serve as our male archetypes (just as our mothers serve as our female archetypes) - and how we each perceive our father is how we will continue to perceive men in general.
I, unfortunately, had a negative emotional relationship with my father growing up - and a wonderful emotional relationship with my mother growing up. Not coincidentally, I've spent most of my life gravitating toward women to satisfy my emotional needs, with the expectation that they are generally warm and accepting individuals. Meanwhile, I've been stand-offish or "strictly business" around men with the expectation that men are mostly either aloof or hostile. Subconsciously, I've been projecting onto all men the negative characteristics I projected onto my father. This made me receptive to anti-male attitudes for many, many years of my life. It wasn't until I somehow realized how badly I needed to love and cherish my own gender as a fundamental aspect of loving and cherishing myself that I began seeking out alternative points of view. And that's what ultimately brought me here.
I think that, at the outset of our lives, human beings are most easily and automatically inclined to respect men and to love women. Both are equally good and profound sentiments, but of course they are also both limited. Feminism has already educated us on how being loved but not respected is disadvantageous for women. Now, the men's movement has to address how being respected but not loved is disadvantageous for men.
The real problem is that we, as a society, just don't love (or even like) men enough to care about men's problems. Feminism did a fine job of convincing society that men, as a group, are monumental assholes, perhaps to a pathological degree - having taken the other half of humanity and stigmatized and oppressed them since apparently time out of mind. What monsters could do such a thing - especially to women, who are such nice people!
So now we hate men and think that men deserve what we get.
And, not coincidentally, the downgrading of fatherhood has played into this wonderfully. Because when you don't foster a secure, loving (as well as respectful) relationship with your father, you are inclined to downgrade men's emotional value from then on. I couldn't imagine anyone who loves and likes their father buying into feminist misandry for a second. And I think that there are tragically few people in this society today who love and like their fathers (or even know them).
And so, I guess, reversing that trend would be a big key to ending this whole insanity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
His hands where hard and callused. I was a couch potato even then, and would stretch out on the sofa and watch TV after supper. It's the little things I remember now that I never thought were important then. About once a might he would stop as he passed by the couch and lightly rub the back of his hand on the side of my smooth boyish face. The back of his hand was like sandpaper and irritated my tender skin so that I would say Dad, stop it, and he would chuckle and stop.
My dads hands were a marvel to me in contrast to my own untested and unworked appendages. How could his hands be so different from mine? I was a kid and I just took a lot of things for granted, accepted them on face value. Later of course I discovered the effects that long hard work has, not only on the hands, but the whole body. The remembrance of that man behind those rough, kind hands has been a beacon in the storms of my life and a comfort in peaceful dreams when I recall the time we spent together. No one will ever tear down my memory of that power house of a man, or belie the truth of who he was as long as God gives me the grace to praise all that he gave me, all that he gave me that I could never repay him for in the smallest fraction.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 20, @04:39PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray.
I am not a Man who tears-up easily...
...But after reading your previous post... It's the closest I've come in a LONG time.
My Father is still liveing. And for a long time, I too took who and what he was\is at face value, even in my early adult years.
I took for granted all the sacrifices he has made in his life so that MY life would be better.
Luckily, I "woke up" one day to that realization.
My Dad and I are very close, yet distant.
My Mother is Cherokee Indian, My Father a White man. Funny, I LOOK more like my Father than My Mother.
I have looked in the mirror and seen Not MY own face but HIS.
And though he has a "Half-breed" son, I know that when My Father looks at me, He sees not ONLY My face but HIS own as well.
I am My father my Father is me.
And when the time comes, when My Father must leave this world, I know I can see him again even before the time comes for me to join him.
All I need do is look in the mirror...
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. "Better a friend who is near than a brother who is far away." Several times I have noticed a kindred spirit to our thoughts. It is good not to be alone. I likewise, have on more that one occassion, taken encouragement in your words, and the words of others on this site.
Best Wishes, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...and raving we do on this site, it's good to know that, in spirit at least, we are a community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 23, @02:36AM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
And THAT is what will allways make us stronger than ANY millitant feminist orginization.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 19, @02:14AM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, did you hear about the feminist that didn't get her way and threw herself on the floor?
...She MISSED...!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 19, @05:28PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't that be,
…She Ms'd…!
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 23, @02:44AM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
(((" shouldn't that be,
...She Ms'd...!")))
Man, I didn't even THINK of that!
Good one, BusterB.
Thanks, BTW, for pointing out my "Political incorrectness." How could I be so chauvanistic!? (grin).
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
