|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know that in some U.S. states a mother -- at least in theory -- who wants to put up a kid for adoption has to notify the father first. Assuming that the father decides he wants custody of the child (and gets it), is he entitled to get child support from the mother?
If I've got the issue totally wrong, then just let me know.
I program my home computer; beam myself into the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is he entitled to get child support from the mother?
In how the law is worded (as far as I know) yes, but when it comes to enforcement, that's a different story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it we will spend billions of dollars and risk the lives of millions to overthrow petty tyrants like Saddam Hussein on the other side of the globe but we will tolerate and sometimes idolize the sorry misandric bastards in blackrobes who infest the family courts in our on country?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While giving women the right to vote seems equitable at first glance, it's long term affect will probably be the destruction of the US Military and the US itself. Why? By giving women electoral representation without equal electoral responsibility, women became ,in affect, the electoral privileged rulers of the USA who would use these political powers to meet their needs which needs are adverse to and destructive of an effective national defense. Why? Women want to dominate and rule men such that those individual personal and group characteristics of men and those political institutions that don't support women's goals, including those necessary individual masculine and group political characteristics and institutions that are necessary to an effective national defense,will be attacked by them. The result of the same will and has been the subordination of men individually and collectively and the weakening of their character along with the subordination and weakening of the body politic in general such that an effective military defense is no longer feasible as neither males nor the body politic no longer have the character, desire, nor motivation to defend the USA. Our borders are disintegrating, our society is disintegrating, and we haven't won a major war since W.W.II concomittant with the advent of women gaining political power.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 31, @06:29PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the points you have raised, and your argument are all sound. It is indeed worrying seen in that light.
"Survival of the fittest", theory could then extend this argument to demonstrate that the USA would diminish as a world super power being surpassed by one which didn't have an inward (feminine)predisposition but a more outward (masculine) vision.
However, such an extrapolation requires that all things remain equal and the status quo continues.
Personally, I see a lot of change taking place within the USA since the appointment of George W. Bush, which is turning the tide on feminist socialism. This change, I believe has come about through the efforts of men like yourselves, this site, the Internet as a male networking tool and not the least of which, American womanhood itself, which is beginning to see its own lifestyle and community morals deteriorate.
Not every divorced single mother is on easy street. The sisterhood lied. And not every self achieving career woman is happy being husbandless and childless.
Things don't go on the same. Change, for the better is happening - I believe - but slowly at first.
John
Australia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In cases of separated or single parents the state usually designates the “more fit” of those parents as the custodial parent, based on the best interest of the child.
If there are fit persons (related or not) who would like to raise a child, why doesn't the state award custody to adoptive parents over either natural parent if they are more fit than the natural parents? (i.e. without declaring either natural parent as unfit)
It seems that it would make sense based on the precedent of revoking the parental rights of so many who have done nothing wrong - in divorce and single parenthood. Both natural parents could have visitation rights and pay support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know of one case in LA last year where a man took out a restraining order against his wife, locked her out of the bank accounts and petitioned for custody of the children, successfully. He acted because he discovered that she was intending to "Pearl Harbor" him - he beat her to the punch, so to speak. Last time I heard, he has the children, house, car, bank accounts, etc and she is upset because she thought that he shouldn't be able to do such things to her. (The things she was intending to do to him.)
my question - is this sort of thing on the rise - successful action by men using what have previously been women's weapons? Does anyone know of similar successful action elsewhere?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surely we have all heard the statement: 'Behind every great man there is a great woman" My question is: Doing what?
Masc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my grandparents' kitchen there always hung a little plaque that said "Behind every great man stands a woman... telling him that he's wrong."
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On more than one occasion, we've heard the feminist criticism that men have yet to "re-invent themselves". Women have been re-inventing themselves over the past thirty years, these critics insist. As usual, according to feminists, the problem lies solely and exclusively with men.
Men are said to be confused about their roles, because feminism has redefined women's place in society, but hasn't addressed the question of what men's role is; moreover, it's up to men to catch up. Attempts to obtain clarification on which areas or what re-inventing one's self actually means are generally responded to with, "men just don't get it." One would hope for a more sophisticated and informative response, but it isn't forthcoming.
Since the answer to this admittedly ill-posed question isn't going to appear out of nowhere, I propose my own answer, my own presumptuous attempt to redefine men and masculinity.
It's all about work
A central tenet of feminism is that women's oppression transcends time, geography, history and culture. Whatever the transcendent notion of oppression is, it is clear that the subjugation of intelligent labor is involved, and not the labor of beasts. This connection with the subjugation of labor is perhaps one reason for the common affiliation of feminism and Marxism.
In response to the recurrent theme of the subjugation of labor, and in accordance with the popular pejorative notion that men are extremely simple, my proposed re-invention of masculinity is also simple: it centers on the notion of work.
Buddy, can you par-a-digm?
As in the "older" definition of masculine identity, work is still essential to the identity of men. As the great Zen master said, "men shut up and shovel the gravel." There is a crucial difference, however. In the older definition, a man is someone who works to provide for others. I propose a radical shift: in the new masculine paradigm, a man is defined by his work, which must be pursued as an end in itself. Providing for others is absolutely not expected--this immediately follows from the principle that a man's work is to be pursued for its own sake. It must not be taken advantage of or used for anyone else's gain or benefit, in any way.
An even more radical ideal position would be to insist that providing for others is absolutely not permitted; however, I would consider this the ethos of the man's man, according to the new paradigm.
Your independence is no one else's business
So much has been made about the new independence of women, that men must re-invent themselves in the way I have suggested for this independence to reach its ultimate conclusion, and for men to at last catch up to women, after thirty years of wallowing in outmoded notions of masculinity.
For contrast, here's what Australian men's rights advocate Richard Millicer wrote in 1997:
"That's also why I believe that it is now Women's turn to change, to develop insight into their sexism, to revise their supremacist self-image. We, Men have been doing that for 30 years as we slowly and reluctantly recognised our contribution to traditional cultural inequalities for Women. Contrary to popular rhetoric and repeated even within the Men's Movement, it is actually Women who are 30 years behind Men. That is because Women do not even recognise, let alone acknowledge their crucial part in the cultural inequalities for both men and women, but increasingly men. Women still do not recognise or acknowledge the profound impact that their traditional feminine self-absorption and self-righteousness is having on interpersonal, social, economic and political events."
Millicer's view is less revolutionary than mine. I don't bother to criticize women for being self-absorbed or self-righteous--they can be whatever they are. Indeed, I take the position that women's independence is no one else's business--virtually by definition. I simply advocate a position which, in its extreme form, would prohibit men from providing for others altogether; its moderate forms would make this a decision which is optional and which may be revoked at any time. In any case, providing for others has been removed entirely from the definition of masculinity.
This does have the consequence that no man could claim to be better than any other man on account of his ability to provide for others. This is because work must be pursued for its own sake. A demand that work should be pursued for the sake of others is a form of servitude. It may even be un-American to think otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting view Olaf
I liked a lot of it especially the link with masculine identity & work, Intelligent Labour and Marxism etc.
Where I find myself disagree-ing is that the current 'Gender-War' is a war for the MALE gender role. Historians more or less agree that the Industrial Revolution annihilated the female gender role and as a result women have been too lazy/scared/stupid to re-invent themselves (as they claim) and are attempting to hijack the male role. They claimed to want 'equality'; yet we find female behaviours more and more mimicking what was unacceptable (to them) in the male role !
The female gender-role was dead and buried long before Simone de Beauvoire and Betty Friedan appeared.
The notion that it is OK for women to be self-absorbed and self-righteous is a dangerous one. We are in the current situation mainly because of these feminine traits going unchallenged for so long. The price we pay for living in a civillised society is "Personal Accountability" - women should not be exempt from that because they choose to be. Therein lies the path to anarchy.
All in all enjoyed your piece - but would disagree with those points.
Respect
Thunderchild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thunderchild,
Thanks for your remarks. I might modify the piece to take your points into account, as follows:
Millicer does have a point: men have changed their expectations of women over the past thirty years. The majority don't expect women to be barefoot and pregnant. Millicer is critical of women for not acknowledging this ongoing attempt to be accomodating; he feels unappreciated. However, it is useless to feel unappreciated and to demand in general terms that others raise their consciousness--the terrain is too unfamiliar without a road map.
If Millicer's critique is correct, further attempts to be accomodating are likely be met with ever escalating levels of self-righteous entitlement. I suggest another direction: abandon the role of provider altogether. Work remains central to the masculine identity, but the question of whose work it is settled in favor of the producer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 02, @07:08AM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, very valid.
Liked the part about changed expectations being unappreciated - how right you are !
Thunderchild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to get rid of the phrase "accomodating". That might leave room for the interpretation that men are somehow deferring power to women--power they could take back at any time, at will.
It's more as if men have long since internalized their changed expectations of women, but after all these years the internalization is not appreciated. At least this is my experience.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
