|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 14, @01:18PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I've noticed the same thing. A lot of pregnancy centers totally ignore men, and homeless shelters are generally divided into men and "women and children". Helping the homeless and pregnant women is a good thing. But people need to speak up about men's care for children. Even poor, homeless men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think part of the problem is that when men show up, they show up without children, and the homeless shelters for men are used to this. If they showed up with children more often, then the centers would figure out a way to help. Keep in mind here that we are talking about HOMELESS shelters, not DV shelters. There are two other things: 1) I suspect that, when men DO show up with children in tow, the center's management is more suspicious that there is wrong-doing on the man's part; 2) Men have a propensity to believe that the remainder of the family will be better-off without them, that they are more of a burden than anything else, and they rarely take the children with them. With men gaining custody more now, and with DV by women getting reported more often, I suspect that this will change visibly, and services will emerge. That being said, it would be nice if there was a way that the services could be made available BEFORE there's a line at the door.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One could certainly argue that old stereotypes die hard, and that would be relevant. One could also point out the biological role of mother as birth giver & milk supplier, and we can see a strong physical attachment between mother and child for the years from birth into very early childhood.
Given all that, we Homo Sapiens have entered a time in our societal evolution where not just change is happening rapidly, but the rate at which change is changing is accelerating rapidly.
For millennia the role of mother as nurturer has been fixed with the role of father fixed to providing protection and food. Within the role of nurturer men have only relatively recently enjoyed a fuller participation as modern conveniences have provided more free time. Within the role of provider mothers have only relatively recently enjoyed a fuller participation as technology and the workplace have evolved to create viable job opportunities for women.
Rosie the riveter took women into the work force as never before in history as men in their role as protector went off to be slaughtered in WWII. Women never really went back to their old role of housewife and mother like before, but instead moved forward into the workforce where we now see their presence on a par with men (when they choose not to drop out and have children). Men, however have not been welcomed into the role of nurturer with the same magnanimity that women have been welcomed into the workforce. Sure there have been those areas were workforce territory has been yielded reluctantly or grudgingly by male, status quo, job role perceptions, but that territory has in no way been defended as fiercely as the mother’s territorial ownership of her exclusive right to influence and control her child’s life.
The church as an institution has always been ten or twenty years behind changes in society due to it’s strict adherence to Biblical guidelines. Lately, do to the rapid rate of change it has been left even further behind in the gap between social evolution and church members’ lifestyles. This is not to say that the former is always the correct path to follow and the later is not. There is very, very much to be valued from the churches model of mankind’s role on earth (and not just as a social construct), but we must respect each person's individual right to privately determine that for his or her self.
Suffice it to say that they tend still to be back there in their thinking at a time when men went chivalrously off to war or work, and women were nurturing care givers, not only of children, but of men.
You certainly have come a long way lady, and you may not even realize you’ve lost as much or more than you’ve gained. You’ve also come a long way Mr., but it’s pretty clear that in terms of societies role for you, you haven’t made nearly as many beneficial gains as women, and you are still encumbered with all the same old prejudices, stereotypes and responsibilities only now you have a few more, not the least of which is “deadbeat dad.” Old prejudices die hard, and the deeply entrenched ones are clearly in place against men’s right to nurture their children. This injustice exists just as the original article points out, and thereby is keeping fathers from having that fuller role in their children’s lives, that role which the laws of nature and nurture intended for fathers to have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 15, @01:16PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray,
I always enjoy reading your posts.
Your insight and contribution to this site and the men's movement are invaluable.
You really out did yourself with this one.
If you aren't a 'journalist', allready, You ought to be.
Only bad thing is though, There isn't much room for "male-friendly" writers, out there, I guess.
Any way, Thanks and never go away.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud:
Thanks, I honestly didn't have much to say until I found and started writing in to this men's site. As you've probably guessed, I really enjoy this place. There are a lot of good things written here that really need to be said, that are past due needing to be said. Thanks, for your kind words. I certainly always enjoy reading your posts and hearing what you have to say.
After rereading my posting and stopping in that 1st paragraph I was tempted to put in observations about cows/bulls, sows/boars, hens/roosters, etc. from the decades when I lived on a farm back in Missouri, but humans are of a much, much higher intellectual and socially evolved order than animals. Even though there may be many behavioral similarities to the animal world in parental behavior it would not be a valid one for one correlation to compare the evolved intellects and emotions of human parents to the parental instincts and behaviors of the far less mentally evolved animal world. Certainly higher order animals have behaviors that mirror humans, and they probably have some level of feelings about things, but they are a long, long way from being able to read and write cogently, and therefore a long way from reasoning at any level even approaching ours. All that being said Homo Sapiens is very foolish to think that he is at such a highly evolved level that he can treat members of his own species (fathers/men) more cruelly than he treats an animal.
Once, when on a vacation back to Missouri, I was asked by a relative what the difference was between L.A. and Missouri, I replied that one big difference was that the people treated animals better, but people worse than they do in Missouri. It’s an interesting, but I believe, valid observation that is undoubtedly true for many reasons. Just a guess, but overpopulation of habitat might explain a lot of the people to people behavior, and absence of nature in the big city might explain a lot of the other. We humans are a complex and often befuddled lot, not nearly so bionically adaptable to our technological world as Hollywood and big business would like us to think.
There is an indian word for life out of synch with its environment (Koyanaqatsi???sp?), that I fear will become more and more relevant as we continue to evolve faster technologically than we adapt biologically.
Regards,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 16, @03:20AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray.
You give certain Homo sapiens far to much credit.
I would hardly call the Marx-fems "evolved."(^_^)
And yeah, I agree with what you say about, treating ones fellow human beings worse than animals.
When it comes to Homeless men, It seems many folks precieve them much the same way they would a 'stray dog'.
...homeless WOMEN..., well that's different.
It shouldn't be.
I know alot of us keep bringing up George Orwell, But again his book "1984" springs to mind in this case. Some in his story were refered to as "Non-persons".
Sounds familiar, huh?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud:
You bring up an excellent point when you question the evolutionary status of radical feminists. When you look at the treatment of homeless men mentioned in the original article, it becomes apparent that the radical feminists’ regressive, devolving impurity has permeated even the most humble levels of society. The rad fems efforts toward destruction of family (man, woman, child) and established roles within the family have done far, far more to hurt women and children than to help them. It goes without saying that men being the chief targets of their barbaric, unenlightened movement have suffered even more greatly.
The ludicrous endeavors of radical feminists, advocating for change and policies to support their warped perspective of family are a monument to narrow self-interest that is not shared by the majority of those in their gender. How did these monsters ever accomplish so much damage against the will of the people without ever being held back by the checks and balances of truth and reason? Christina Hoff Summers hit the nail on the head when she ask, Who Stole Feminism? Rephrasing that you could say, “Who Picked My Purse While They Were Mesmerizing Me With Talk About All The Good They Were Doing For Me?”
Women as a group were deceived by these smooth con artists (radical feminists), and thereby acquiesced and allowed this to happen. In our social structure, women’s issues became sacrosanct, where a logical man speaking to the ludicrous and insane tangent of the radical feminist movement was laughed at and ridiculed as the typical example of the oppressor. It is good to now see wise women speaking up in their outrage, and challenging these radical feminist harpies who continue to strive to railroad their own narrow agenda. It will take many, many years to repair all the damage they’ve done, and many ,many more years to wipe their taint off the good things that women were trying to accomplish before the radical feminists stole the feminist movement and completely derailed any semblance of gender equity or fairness.
The radical feminists took an area (the war between the sexes) and exploited it to their own selfish advantage. They have consequently left a legacy of destroyed lives, where the majority of normal men and women now suffer in the wake of their hate filled, family destroying agenda. Normal men, women, and children are left to clean up the waste created by the radical feminist’s ideological bigotry.
Denial of homeless father's access to their children is apparently now so socially accepted and politically correct that it is not even encouraged on the web site of one of the most prominent Christian charity’s in Los Angeles. This speaks voluminously to how deeply the cancer of radical feminism’s influence has invaded even healthy Christian organizations.
It has become a clearly established pattern, that all those out of step with their political thinking must live under the constant fear of the radical feminists’ potential for disruption through powerfully abusive, verbal wrath and political wrath. If this then is the kind of freedom that men, women and children must live under in America today, then truly, freedom has become just another word for “nothing left to lose.” The hopeless faces of homeless men would be the faces of all men if the radical feminists could have their progressively degenerative way.
Regards,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 18, @02:56AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray,
Agreed.
This, (in my best guess) is also why there are MANY more homless MEN than there are homeless WOMEN.
If the number of homeless were proportionate to there gender, then it would be WOMEN more often homeless than MEN.
If I follow you right, This is by design, by the Marx-fems, right?
I have long susspected this to be the case.
The same thing can also be said, for things like crime and education.
The number of men FAR out number that of women in prison. despite the fact women are commiting crimes more often, now, than in any other time in American history. But when time comes for prosecution, women are ALWAYS given lighter senteces than men, even for the exact SAME type of offences.
In education, the number of BOYS dropping out of high school is also MUCH higher than that of GIRLS.
The number of GIRLS entering college is MUCH higher than BOYS.
And I won't even get stared on the rates of suicide between the genders. You already KNOW how that goes.
So, Yeah. I beleive that SOME thing or some ONE is responsible for these disparagies between the sexes. And I'd bet dollars to doghnuts, it is the Marx-fems and their pet fem-boys.
If not, Why then, do MEN end up on the short end of the stick nearly, if not fully, ALL the TIME...?
And Homelessness is just ONE instance of this.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
