|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sputter - spit - what? To suggest that the system might be stacked against - then men aren't worthless - that mothers might contribute to this...wha - why - but ... but ... BUT THAT'S BLASPHEMY!
Why, next they might actually say that a female somewhere isn't the epitome of moral perfection! Why, there oughta be a law!
(/sarcasm)
Sad thing is, some people do advocate silencing them because of their "hate speech." Isn't it amazing that any point of view which runs against the current wisdom of the politically correct intellegentsia is "Hate Speech" and shouldn't be protected by the First Amendment?
And people call the Blackshirts fascists....
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday September 10, @01:16PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
First, My apology to any DECENT women who might be offended.
That said, You got it Gonzo. ANY critisizim of the pheminist point of view or any criticizim of WOMEN in general is for all intent and purpose considered BLASPHEMY.
Some one else once made a similar point, on another thread, here. They pointed out a LITERAL deification of women in modern western societies.
Many, includeing Women, themselves, often referring to women as "DIVAS". meant literaly or not, It's still pretty d@^# tacky.
Woe to ANY MAN who dares say ANYTHING deemed even remotely anti-female. To do so is tantamount to being called a "WITCH", during the Salem witch trials.
There is great danger in makeing one segment of a society COMPETELY imune from ANY critisizim, even (or especialy) when that critisizm is justified.
Christina Hoff Summers once said: "Dictatorship loaths disent." And no where is this more evident than in todays feminists and like-minded women.
...Great danger...,
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Most "deadbeat dads" are actually "dead broke," either because they have low-wage jobs, are unemployed,"
I don't know about "most" but many are, as are many of the moms. Many of these people are at the low end of the socio-economic-education scale overall. This is news?
What should the message be? IMO the message should be consistent to all parents. YOU are responsible for the new human beings you create. Ok, so you're poor, uneducated, have low employability ..... now what? Should we just say "Oh its ok, we don't expect you to take care of your kids" ?
Not in my book, not for either parent. Problems do not illiminate obligation. As long as you're breathing, you're obligated.
Now, I think we need to focus on two things:
1. Make sure everyone knows that society EXPECTS them to support and care for children they create. No exceptions.
2. Help people get to a place where they can meet their obligations in no. 1 above.
In my mind what we should be doing is both legally obligating people to support and care for their kids AND helping them to do that. We need more job training and remedial education, more substance abuse treatement, more social intervention to make sure the word gets out exactly what is expected of people. Then we should tie these help programs to supporting/caring for one's kids. For example, if you have kids and are unemployed, you would be required to go to job training/education classes with the express goal of becoming employed. You would then rack up a "bill" with the goveremnet for said job training/educatin/intervention programs you are compelled to take part in. This debt would be forgiven if you support/care for your kids, otherwise it remains a debt you owe and if not repaid, could become legally actionable. This should apply to both parents equally.
If you won't go to job training/education/intevention programs, won't prove you intend to support/care for your kids, won't do anything pro-active towards moving in the direction of supporting/caring for your kids .... then you should be held accountable legally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, Lorianne, what you say is nice and 'correct' and obvious, even if it deserves re-stating. But it ignores the problem many fathers are facing, and that is that many are poorly treated by the mothers of their children and even more are treated poorly by a court system designed to meet the 'needs of the children' as stated by the feminists. There is no room in the court system for fathers to participate on an even footing with mothers in deciding these issues, and this is unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank, Most of these people have been "poorly treated" all along. At some point there has to be an end to the exusese and getting on with solutions. Yes, we need to overahaul our welfare system so it helps people be able to support themselves and their kids. Yes we need to overhaul our family courts. But the underlying premise still needs to be that society EXPECTS ... and DEMANDS parents to take their obligations to kids seriously.
IMO, in this there can be no compromise. This has to be the rock solid bedrock premise. Otherwise, everyone can come in with a hard-luck sob story about why they shouldn't have to support/care for their kids and meet their obligations to kids. Once you crack the door open, there is literally no end to the sob stories.
IMO what we need to say is ... ok, you've had a tough time... x,y and z happened to you ... now, here is are programs a,b,c to help you get back on your feet and meet your parental obligations. Yay or nay?
In the meantime we need to work to overhaul our social services systems, educations system, tax system, court system .... etc etc. These will always be a work in progress. Meanwhile, parental obligations to kids do not vaporize. All we're doing is perpetuating the cycle of problems if we don't acknowledge up front that parents have non-negotiable obligations to kids. Then these kids are going to grow up with the same sad stories as an excuse to abdicate their obligations to their kids.
There has to be a line in the sand. For me this line is a set of rock solid expecations of parents toward their kids. After that we can talk about how to get people to the point where they can meet them. But we must start with the expectations first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At this site, in this community, the altrustic values you profess seem to be largely supported. However, at this site, in this community, we are interested in the poor way in which MEN and FATHERS are being treated. We are focusing on that as our raison d'etre. If someone else, somewhere, wants to start an initiative to overhaul the system along the lines of what you say, then I'm sure many of us would support the effort ESPECIALLY if the effort had, as a primary tenent of their mission the EQUAL teatment of parents regardless of gender in all matters, especially monetary support and custody.
But you won't get much support here for solving a "bigger" problem, because access to one's children is among the biggest there is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article overview states: "The Sacks & Thompson duo shed light on the phenomena of "deadbeat dads," and find that unemployment, not apathy, is the primary factor in fathers who aren't paying child support."
If this is true and unemployement is the primary factor, then it seems we should primarily be attacking unemployment. This is not to say other areas don't need work as well.
Maybe the overview of the article is wrong. From the Sacks article about equal time is spent on unemployement and financial issues and in custody issues. However, I just reread the article and notice at the end of the article Sacks shifts his emphasis to "divorced dads" instead of all dads, making it seems (at the end) that he was discussing primarily this subset of dads in the entire article. Very confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday September 10, @08:29PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Not confusing to me at all. He was saying that unemployment is bad, and of course we should be focussing on it.
However, married (never divorced or under CS) fathers who are unemployed garner sympathy, and more importanly don't accrue a "tax" for the income they didn't earn.
Fathers under CS become unemployed and ontop of that misfortune end up accruing arrearages on income they don't earn, the title of "deadbeat dad" and a possible prison sentence (not to mention loss of drivers and prof. licenses making it more difficult to become employed). In many cases the arrearage can accrue to the point that it makes no sense for them to become employed!
This is the issue. It simply is not as uncommon (in fact it IS the majority of "deadbeat" cases) as those who profit from the "deadbeat dad" hysteria that drives draconian changes to our legal system, and causes reasonable people to lose all objectivity and sensitivity in achieving an otherwise admiral goal - the support of our children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted financial problems often compound themselves. Many people over their head in debt know this. But this doesn't mean it can't be turned around. If we help people get jobs, keep jobs or be more employable rather than thow up our hands and just say "This is too hard".
Anyway, if we do this, we'd have to be consistent and take compound problems as an excuse for not meeting one's obligatons to one's kids because things just got too hard and there were too many things stacking up against you.
My argument was for a steadfast principle that despite the obstacles one is presented, one doesn't bail on ones kid's. Its a bedrock expectation that I think we need to encourage. It's not punitive based on individual particulars, only if one is making NO effort to meet one's obligations and just submitting a list of exuses why you can't. My argument is that there are legitimate excuses for not striving to meet one's obligations and instead expending effort to get out of them.
Let's say you get run over by a bus and are in the hospital for a year recovering. Everyone would understand that you cannot meet a lot of your obligations, even to the point that society may have to pick up the tab for your own care. But then let's say you get better and you get out. Meanwhile your house and car may have been repossessed, and your job is gone to someone else, you did manual labor but now you need a desk job but are not trained in anything , but you are able to work and start over. Your credit rating is shot... on and on... you've got heaps of problems all compounded. Meanwhile your kids have been cared for by your Aunt Sally. Now what? Isn't it in society's best interest to help you now get back on your feet so you can support yourself and your children? Or should we just say, oh well, you've had enough catastrophe we're going to support you and your kids for life? We could say that, but I personally don't think its productive. I'd rather say, let's give you a hand finding a job, job training, a low interest loan to buy a car and rent an apartment for a year, maybe some food assistance... but wihth the understanding that at some point you're going to be self sufficient again. The premis that you're not going sail forever by on your hard luck past is the premise I'm talking about. The premis is that as long as you are capable of working and starting over, society expects you to do that, and is prepared to help you toward that end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's say you get run over by a bus and are in the hospital for a year recovering. Everyone would understand that you cannot meet a lot of your obligations, even to the point that society may have to pick up the tab for your own care.
This is a bald faced lie.
It's also an example of the feminist's, Lorianne's, refusal to acknowledge any discrimination against males. The fact is if the person, who was run over by the bus, was a man, all mainstream feminists and much of the judicial system would view him as a deadbeat and demand his imprisonment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone would understand
There is NO way that Lorianne is this delusional about the good intentions and altruism of all humans. Again, this is a bald faced lie.
Thanks for being here, Lorianne. You keep us in touch with the slick, corrupt nature of feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok not everyone. But around 99% of people would understand. I'm an optimist about people. Your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's say you get run over by a bus and are in the hospital for a year recovering. Everyone would understand that you cannot meet a lot of your obligations, even to the point that society may have to pick up the tab for your own care.
From the Gonzo Files - May 1999 - Man hospitalized for 5 months placed into detention ward for contempt citation - because he was unable to pay any child support for 90 days.
Pity the link is way archived, I just checked it. As I recall he missed court, for another contempt charge, and was recovering from 2nd degree burns.
I suppose it's too much to expect ol' Lorianne to come out and declare, without any qualification, that "This is a travesty."
Of course, that would kind of undermine her "No Excuses/Zero Tolerance" load of crap she felt free to dump here.
I'll be accused now of reading her mind as an excuse to avoid addressing this directly, of course. *sigh* *yawn* She's getting way too predictable here....
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But around 99% of people would understand.
Just like around 99% of German gentiles understood the plight of Jews under Nazi Germany.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You've nailed it there.
Our Resident Pheminist has drawn her line in the sand, and sorrowfully, but typically, it's the usual pheminist line, based on female greed, and designed to punish men. After all, Uberganger, if you're busy working that second job to pay support, you'll less be able to interfere with what she wants to do with her propert ...er, children. And to paraphrase the Beatles, be thankful she doesn't take her cut out of that, too.
That is how too many women see children, though, as property. You're an intruder. So long as you get the old drawings to hang on your refridgerator, a set of photos from the Birthday Party, and get to babysit when she needs a "break," what are you complaining about? Whiner. I mean she *let* you send them a card and a present, and she wasted a negative on taking a picture of "her" child opening it, and gave it to you - I mean, jeez. Pesky men.
Lines in the sand? Here's lines in the sand: Any man not allowed to be a father owes nothing monetarily. Period. A child's first right to support is the active prescence AND participation of both - both - parents in his or her life. All rights to "support" are derived from this. And it's the height of immorality to suggest that it's moral for a woman to abuse a child in this way, and to still demand their so-called fair share.
Are there mothers and fathers who do not want to be a part of their children's lives? Sure are. Neither a mother or a father should be forced to be a parent; a grudging parent is worse than no parent at all, and the emotional damage they can wreak leaves scars far deeper than most physical abuse. Once that choice is made, however, it should be irrevocable. Choose carefully, no take-backs, no second chance, no changing minds. Let the parent who wants to be a parent find someone willing to fill the shoes; the child will be much better off with someone who wants them.
Active presence and participation is something many women don't want, though. Write the check, shut the fuck up, and get out of our goddamn life until it's convenient for me is their rallying cry. Oh, they dress it up in PC catchphrases and weaselspeak, but bottom line, that's what it is.
Support isn't looked at as support, either, it's looked at as a get rich scheme for mommy. Support is the difference in money it takes to buy a larger package of meat, the few extra bucks it costs to heat a larger house, the extra fifty, seventy-five, hundred bucks it takes to pay rent for that larger house so junior can have a room. Support is keeping you child on your insurance. Support is half the cost of sending the child to school. Support is a clothing allowance. Support is a flat rate thing; something anathema to the pheminazis, who have twisted it into back-door alimony, it's tax free, and there is no accountability.
"If daddy is well off, why should the child do without?" they scream. Why indeed? Well, for one, you chose not to be with daddy; you also gave up that right to share daddy's success, and that's just for starters. Unfortunately, they also ignore the begged question that if daddy can provide such a better life, why isn't junior living with daddy? I mean, it is about the good of THE CHILD, isn't it?
That question also answers itself. If it were about "THE CHILD" then mommy would be making Solomon's choice. And bet ya dollars to donuts, Uber, that if the CS racket stopped being a meal ticket for lazy and greedy franchisees of Mommy, Inc., you see a flurry of change of primary custody such as would make your head spin.
Yeah, good of the child my arse. Every time I hear some pheminista use those words or variations, the scene from "The Dead Zone," where the politician grabs a baby and holds it up to shield himself from the bullets just replays in my brain. That's what all these protestations of "The CHILD" from Lorianne and her ilk are code for.
Sorry, ladies, but Active Presence means that daddy has access to his children, even when inconvenient for you. It means the birthday party gets to be at his house every other year. It means that you might have to cut your date short to be home when he returns, or delay your trip because daddy has to work and can't pick up his daughter until after 7:00. It means you have to look at him at school plays and recitals, and make nice with daddy. It means daddy isn't a tool and a servant to make your life easier. It means the child complicated your life, and you have to adapt for the sake of the child, if that's where your interests truly lie. It might impact your social life. It might mean that your career suffers, or you have to put off dating, leyt alone finding "that special someone." Why should you have to sacrifice these things? For the good of the child. You knew that job was dangerous when you took it. Welcome to the club, ladies; we men have been making the career/family sacrifice and trade off for centuries.
The difference is, we haven't been whining about it.
Active participation means daddy gets a veto on decisions, and a meaningful one at that. Or that little Bobby gets to play that barbaric game of football even though you would rather him play soccer. Yes, indeedy-do, it means that once the car goes around the corner that jacket you zipped up is probably going to get chucked into the back seat because it's seventy-five freaking degrees and a beautiful spring day. It means that on daddy's time there might very well be late night monster movies, and feet on the coffee table, and pajamas till almost noon. Dad knows that part of being a kid is having dad come in at night to chase the monsters out from under the bed, and Dads understand that nobody who is human ever sighs in relief that the kids are grown and you don't have to nag them into getting dressed, and nobody is going to scuff up your coffee table. Don't think so? Ask grandma and grandpa sometime if they ever wish they'd scolded you more for having your elbows on the table. Again, dollars to donuts that they'll sigh wistfully, and wish that they could go back in time, and have just one day of pajamas, feet on the coffee table, and elbows on the table.
Having Dad in a child's life is a vital counterpoint to Mom. Mom scoots you away from the grumpy cat, and dumps Mister Whiskers outside. Dad tells you to get away from the cat, and after you get scratched, arches the eyebrow and asks if you learned something. Mom tries to make sure you don't fall down. Dad tries to make sure you get back up. It's also worth noting that Dad will tell you that Mom does what she does because she loves you when the styles clash. Mom will try to convince you that Dad doesn't care, which is an abominable lie.
You can bet your last nickel, UberG, and it'll be as safe as in Fort Knox, that Lorianne or her anonymous alter-ego is going to try to make it about irresponsibility, or all about money. Hah. Start clicking the links on the left, and you'll find thousands upon thousands - maybe even millions of men who'd write a bigger check, for just real time with their children; to be a real dad, and not a dad in name alone.
She and her kind won't do it. Their minds are made up. Why confuse things with facts? Their little pat pieces of bombast sound really "good and caring" without having to put any substance behind their empty pontificating symbolism. Empty words from them. They will claim visitation as constructed is fair, and right; but watch them recoil in horror if you suggest that one of them live under those rules for a year or so. The proof is in the pudding, as the proverb goes. Suck it up? No ma'am. Step up. Walk the mile in the moccasins - IF YOU DARE.
You'll pardon me if I don't stand aside to avoid be trampled in the rush to prove me wrong, to show that custody issues are fair, and their motherhood can be just as meaningful without primary custody (And the free money). Hark, I hear the sound of thundering .... silence.
I didn't think so.
Artfully, Lorianne has avoided, even twisted, the main thesis of the article, namely, that the system is set up to insure failure, to manufacture the soi disant deadbeat dads; and to feed the CS industrial complex. Glenn and Diane have outlined the causes and effects far more eloquently that I could rehash them, so I won't. Their solutions are simple - don't require a higher standard for divorced or unmarried dads than for married ones, build in accountability, and treat parental alienation for what it is - a hideous and inexcusable form of child abuse.
These pheminists are good at talking the talk, but the hemming and hawing, the excuses, the equivocation, the amphiboly come out like ants to a picnic when you ask them to walk the walk. They preach a good sermon about putting a child's need above Dad's wants. Mention making this rule apply across the board, of saying "..,.putting a child's need above BOTH MOM and Dad's wants..." and you see for yourself what happens.
Like I said. I didn't think so.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday September 10, @05:18PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Jane, you ig....
Your answer is nothing but a "yeahbut" and "Zero-tolerance" attempting to mask itself as sweet reason.
...Most of these people have been "poorly treated" all along.
Yeah, but...
... At some point there has to be an end to the exusese and getting on with solutions.
So, is it your contention that any reason whatsoever why a CS obligation cannot me met is an excuse? If so, it's Zero Tolerance, and it's the first refuge of people incapable of creative thinking. If not, then what relevance does anything else you say have?
Yes, we need to overahaul our welfare system so it helps people be able to support themselves and their kids.
Yeahbut...
Yes we need to overhaul our family courts. But the underlying premise still needs to be that society EXPECTS ... and DEMANDS parents to take their obligations to kids seriously.
Yes ... But...
IMO, in this there can be no compromise. This has to be the rock solid bedrock premise. Otherwise, everyone can come in with a hard-luck sob story about why they shouldn't have to support/care for their kids and meet their obligations to kids. Once you crack the door open, there is literally no end to the sob stories.
Zero Tolerance, again. And the slippery slope fallacy. And "Sob Stories" - so, is the injured person who can no longer fulfil imputed income due to disability a "Sob Story?"
I could go on. It's intellectual laziness on your part to imply that people have no right to be treated as individuals, and typical of fascists who look for the cookie-cutter, one size fits all solutions to real human problems. If "The State" has not the time or resources - then "The State" should get out of the business.
IMO what we need to say is ... ok, you've had a tough time... x,y and z happened to you ... now, here is are programs a,b,c to help you get back on your feet and meet your parental obligations. Yay or nay?
Will we impose those same obligations on married folk? Or is it just unmarried and divorced people that these extra obligations will be imposed on?
And in your vision, are custodial parents (read: women) also going to be held to such standards and accountability, or just non-custodial (read: Men) parents?
In the meantime we need to work to overhaul our social services systems, educations system, tax system, court system .... etc etc. These will always be a work in progress. Meanwhile, parental obligations to kids do not vaporize. All we're doing is perpetuating the cycle of problems if we don't acknowledge up front that parents have non-negotiable obligations to kids. Then these kids are going to grow up with the same sad stories as an excuse to abdicate their obligations to their kids.
And do those rights include the presence of two parents in their lives? Will there be sanctions on parents who act to alienate another parent? Accountability and mandatory mediation?
Or just using un accounted for cash payments by men to women as the sole measure of love, with all other types of support not counted?
More zero tolerance.
There has to be a line in the sand. For me this line is a set of rock solid expecations of parents toward their kids. After that we can talk about how to get people to the point where they can meet them. But we must start with the expectations first.
In your opinion. And another display of zero tolerance.
Tell me, how come you only seem to be for zero tolerance when it primarily impacts men, and waffle and equivocate when it primarily affects women?
Rhetorical question. We all know why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me, how come you only seem to be for zero tolerance when it primarily impacts men, and waffle and equivocate when it primarily affects women?
Why don't you read what I wrote? Show me where I said that. Your whole post is a classic strawman argument. Therefore it is irrelevant since in a discussion one doesn't have to defend an opinion one doesn't hold, and didn't put forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll testify that you do indeed say it.
You did nothing but hem and haw and equivocate and try to shift the blame, and plead for understanding and call people anti-child when they spoke of zero tolerance for women who commit paternity fraud - though you are quick to condemn men who don't "fess up" even though it may require clairvoyance to tell if a partner is pregnant.
You've been against the idea of holding women accountable for child support - though you are all for suspending due process by making hearings omn CS "administrative" and not subject to constitutional protections.
You want to make special law so that men victimized by women through the commission of a crime (fraud) have to seek redress solely through civil means. A clear double standard.
You don't think that women should be asked to identify fathers - even though you vow and declare everywhere else that the "real concerned party" or the "CHILD" never consented to give up a second parent.
You profess to be "pro-life" but don't think it right to force a woman to be a mother against her will - but it's perfectly fine to force a man to be a father against his will.
You have been against the idea that people should have to prove a crime (rape) has been committed before a defendant (a man) can be brought to trial.
Gee golly whillikers, Lorianne, I wonder where everyone gets the idea you are some kind of feminist wanting to keep us darkie men down on the plantation? I wonder why someone might say that you "seem to be for zero tolerance when it primarily impacts men, and waffle and equivocate when it primarily affects women?"
Okay, on que, get into snit, throw fit, and refuse to address the question - anything but face up when you get nailed red-handed.
3... 2... 1... ACTION!
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Get a grip on reality. You're making up what I believe and don't believe is not reality.
Quote me directly that I've said any of the stuff you just said I believe.
All this is total concoction. I think you're channeling your inner demons. Maybe you should get a spot on Psychic Hotline
So much for rational discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, on que, get into snit, throw fit, and refuse to address the question - anything but face up when you get nailed red-handed.
3... 2... 1... ACTION!
As predicted. What I say? Who da man? WHO DA MAN?!
You keep forgetting, Lorianne, that anyone who wants can click
by Lorianne on Tuesday September 10, @09:42PM EDT (#13)
(User #349 Info) ----- Right here and see exactly where you stand on a great many issues. But hey, any schmuck can quote and edit - but all one has to do is click
by Lorianne on Tuesday September 10, @09:42PM EDT (#13)
(User #349 Info) ----- Right here and see for themselves. Not to mention us oldtimers like Thomas, and Warb who can sure as God recall you and your pheminist ravings.
by Lorianne on Tuesday September 10, @09:42PM EDT (#13)
(User #349 Info) ----- Right here.
Hehehe. Mayhap that reality check that needs to be written is to pay your own exorcist. Or you can always go back to the "Anonymous User" postings so nobody can track what you say and you can change your premises to suit your ends.
But, that really puts the end to any rational discussion. Other than, of course, that pesky double-X chromosome thing, but that's congenital.
Toodles!
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>>
There are a awful lot of YOU'S in your post!
Can I safely assume that you hold the MOTHER of these offspring equally responsible for the financial support with the father?
As far as I am concerned, the iron heeled state is only interested in suppressing and criminalizing men in the child support collection racket for political purposes. Mainly, to assuage the feminist political lobby which is totally misandric as we all should know by now.
Ergo, the 'children' are really just a tool to suppress and demonize ol' dad and destroy the traditional family unit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I sometimes use rhetorical you instead of the cumbersome third person tense of: one's children, one's obligations, etc
Yes of course that is what I said. BOTH parents are equally responsible for the children they co-create. I don't care if they split the obligations 50/50 down the line on financial support and hands-on care ... or do some creative trading to cover all the bases. The main point is that I believe BOTH parents have exactly equal obligations to their children.
Both parents working in unison for the support and care of their offspring. Sounds like a pro-family stance to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday September 11, @01:10AM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne.
Like you, I also believe that both parents should be held equaly responsible for the children.
My guess is, that MOST of us can agree with you on this.
But the trouble is that the "FAMILY" COURTS disagree with ALL of us, on the whole 50-50 responsibility for both parents, thing.
The "family" courts are indeed very anti-male.
I think that's the only point we're trying to get accross.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "family" courts are indeed very anti-male.
I think that's the only point we're trying to get accross.
You're wasting your time, Thundercloud. Watch Lorianne for a while. She's a feminist. Anti-male hate is her raison d'etre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She could have and should have acknowledged your point long ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday September 11, @04:25PM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas.
Lorianne has always posted her comments with out curseing us and the like the way that "trolls" do.
I may not always agree with her, but at least she tries to keep it civil enough.
Sometimes I feel a bit of empathy for her when we all "Dog-pile" on her. (I'm guilty of it too.)
You're probably right, as usual, though. I tend to be a bit gulable at times, and want to believe in people. I just hope, and want to see if Lorianne can be reasoned with.
Maybe I should adopt The Gonzo kid's attitude.
It's not very "Cherokee-like" but he gets the job done. (^-^)
At any rate, I hear you, and am heeding your words. I SHALL proceed with caution
Thanks.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud, I understand your desire to be civil with feminists. I tried that tact myself for more than three decades, and it never did a bit of good. The feminists see it as presenting an opportunity to spread more hate. However you decide to treat her and other feminists, I respect your decision, but I've decided to show them the amount of respect that they've earned -- none.
Chamberlain tried appeasement with Hitler, and we all know how much good that did him, the English people, the German people, the Czech people and all the rest of the world. Feminists who despise men and boys, no matter how slick they are, do not deserve civility. They deserve defeat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday September 11, @04:46PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
It kills me that you are probably right Thomas.
I REALLY do want to believe that not all feminists are the same. that there are at least some who support true equality.
But, un-fortunately, I have gone back and read some more of Lorianne's posts.
And like you have been telling me all along..., I AM seeing a "pattern".
This does sadden me. Lorianne seems like a good person, perhaps playing "Devil's advocate".
But perhaps that is not the case at all.
I guess I feel the more women we can reason with, the further we can advance true equality.
Maybe I'm simplifying things too much.
No battle against hate is ever won easily. As an Indian, I of all people should know this.
I just want to believe.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are many wonderful women, with whom we can reason and work, Thundercloud. Lorianne just isn't one of them. She is one of the slickest feminists I've come across, though, so it's fun to knock her around with what feminists consider a tool of the evil males -- logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday September 11, @05:28PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
If "logic" is the tool of evil males, Then here's to being the most "evil" bunch of consruction workers ever to walk the earth. Our tool boxes are FULL of the tool logic.
(^-^)
Let's ROCK!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday September 11, @06:26PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
(^-^)
Let's ROCK!
No Sir.
Let's instead use the time honored way of dealing with all breeds of terrorism.
Let's Roll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas why do you insist on dealing with me as if I represent all "feminists" instead of my individual views and opinions on matters. Your collective demonizing me as a person by group identifiers belies what you claim is your true agenda for men. From your many posts I know that you do not appreciate collective demonizing of men.
I'm just an person with an opinion on various issues. I don't represent a national group of anything. I have one vote, just like you do.
Yeah the world is not perfect but I don't think I personally take the blame for that. I really wish you would knock off all your silly 3rd person rants against me and just present your own opinion on matters instead of spending so much time telling everyone what to believe about me. Why not let them read my posts and judge for themselves?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's important to point out your feminist attitudes, tricks, and distortions so people can better recognize and combat them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I sure wish I could figure out just how hateful you are of males, Lorianne. In any case, though I think it can be a useful tactic in fighting misandry, I'll knock off the third person stuff for a while and see how it goes. I won't stop pointing out, however, when your statements and tactics are typical of feminism.
Actually, I'm gonna be out of here for a few weeks, so you won't be seeing anything of me for a while. If I forget and use the third person in referring to you after I return, just remind me and I'll stop -- like I say, for a while.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 12, @12:25AM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, Let's ROLL.
Whatever gets the job done.
(Hey, I'm easy.)
(^-^)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not hateful of males Thomas. Actually, if you and I sat down face to face we would probably agree more than disagree on most issues. Even so, disagreements we may have doesn't constitute my hating males.
I'd rather discuss issues than fling insults and name call. I think I have a pretty successful track record in that regard, but I'm not perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not hateful of males Thomas.
You have proven otherwise on countless occasions, Lorianne, though your head may be so twisted with feminist nonsense that you aren't able to see it in yourself.
I'd rather discuss issues than fling insults and name call.
So would I, but when I encounter a feminist, who, in typical fashion, distorts the facts and throws out straw men and refuses to listen to what others are saying, I will point out that the person is acting like a feminist. All good people need to learn the tactics of this dominant hate group so that we can better fight it.
A few years back, when I was involved in the civil rights movement, I would occasionally encounter white racists, who had smooth ways of stating that the status quo was fine, and claims by blacks that they were oppressed were untrue. These people were racists, and as I debunked their claims, I would point out that those claims were standard racist ploys, and that the people using them were racists. The racists didn't like being called racists, of course, because it showed people the pattern and gave insight into how to fight the evil.
When I encounter the distortions and lies of hate groups, I will continue to point out that they are the distortions and lies of hate groups and I will continue to identify the specific hate groups.
As I say, it helps good people to fight the evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday September 11, @03:19PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Remember Feminism is not about equality.. it is a special interest group for females. They support laws and issues that help females.. they are lobyists.. if their goal also happens to help men than that is just an unfortunate side effect for them. If there is an issue that would be more fair and equalizing (gender-neutral), but it happened to help men and hurt a special position women are in (ie paternity fraud), then equality is not an option. Feminism hasn't been about equality for many many years.
For that reason I used to think that the ERA could be the best thing that ever happened to the men's movement.. I used to think it would make everyone equal and make it harder for feminsts to gain special privledges for women. Feminists know this so if an ERA bill ever passes it will be so bogged down with exceptions and loopholes(like CA Pat Fraud bill) that it is basically useless for defending men's rights on an equal basis.
Trust me you will never win arguing with a feminist... Whenever I'm asked if I'm a feminist my first answer is "NO way! I believe in EQUAL rights (and equal responsibilities)!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is enough DNA floating around out there already. Get your tubes tied. You'll thank me later. :)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
