|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday July 28, @10:21PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
the star is just liberal trash rag
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Some of my cop friends refer to it as the "Red Star.""
Like I said, Lansberg is a Commie Puke. I wonder how women would feel if they learned that with all this plotting and dismantling of 'fathers' they are in fact looking to dismantle 'mothers' as well. As the fundemental concept of family in marxism is to eradicate it.
Michele Landsberg hates mothers just as much as she does fathers.
.
Feminism is a covert form of communism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday July 28, @11:04PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
For ten years canadian fathers have been trying to bring some sanity to canadian family law. What did they accomplish? They don't call visitation, visitation, anymore; they call it "parenting time". BWAHAHAHA. What a bunch of losers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday July 28, @11:44PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"...lies designed to elicit public sympathy. The first whopper: "Every child has a right to two parents" and "Kids need fathers.""
- "A loving father, of course, is a boon to any child. But just any old father? A drunk, a batterer, a tyrant, an infantile male supremacist? A man who stalks his ex-wife through the courts? I don't think so."
--------------------------------------------------
TALK ABOUT WHOPPERS, let's not forget the hard fact that the majority of child abuse is committed by mothers. I also wonder what kind of abuse some of these good men surely went through to wind up alcholic?
It is time that the feminist movement in Canada and the U.S.A. stopped battering the real victims in most of these cases, the men. Male battering articles like this one do no one any good, especially the children. Oh dear, I hope they don't put me on that Canadian feminist, man hating list again. If those bigots had their way they'd have so many men on their list that Alaska would be land locked, because not a single U.S.A. man would be allowed to go through Canada.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>A loving father, of course, is a boon to any child. But just any old father? A drunk, a batterer, a tyrant, an infantile male supremacist? A man who stalks his ex-wife through the courts?
I don't think so.
I think that any woman who marries or has children with drunks, batterers, tyrants, or infantile male supremecists should be automatically determined to be an unfit mother and her children taken from her. Further, any future children should likewise be taken from her. "Birds of a feather...".
I think there should be a law that says if the mother says the husband is unfit to see his children at least 50% of the time under a joint custody arrangement, she should be deemed equally unfit as a mother for choosing him and having children with him in the first place.
Don't ya'll think so?
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I think there should be a law that says if the mother says the husband is unfit to see his children at least 50% of the time under a joint custody arrangement, she should be deemed equally unfit as a mother for choosing him and having children with him in the first place.
Don't ya'll think so?"
Don't worry, commie pukes like Michele Landsberg are absolutely intending on taking children away from the mothers. Father's first , mother's second. Divide and conquer.
The only place that the transfer of wealth happens naturally in the world is from parent to child. These socialist slimballs know this and want to capitalize on it. Men are ruthless brutes and women will be giving their children to 'national daycare' without any fight. Soon mommy will be executed from the children as well. Only difference is women will be doing it willingly thinking its in their best interest to do so. For equalities sake and all that garbage.
.
Feminism is a covert form of communism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know - hold onto yer cojones guys - michelle does make a viable point in her overall thesis, namely, just fathering a child doesn't qualify a man to be a father.
This is an undeniable truth. A brain dead vegetable can have sperm harvested and "father" a child.
BUT........
By the same token, merely giving birth doesn't qualify a woman to be a mother, either.
Everything she said in that article could have the genders reversed and be perfectly true as well.
The obvious point is , we only got half the story.
Which makes it a half truth.
Which makes it a LIE.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday July 29, @02:55PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
She claims to have tonnes of statistics. Sure she has. It is said that women have never invented anything. Not true. When it comes to inventing statistics,women are in a league of their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul. 27, 2003. 01:00 AM
MICHELE LANDSBERG
When I look at the very good fathers I know — fathers who are emotionally engaged, responsible and loving — I marvel that fatherhood is represented on the national scene and even in legislation by a tiny, shrill minority who are their polar opposites. Good fathers would no more go to war with their ex-partners, inflicting permanent emotional damage on their children, than they would embezzle from their bosses.
MICHELE LANDSBERG I'm very angry with what you wrote. Just who do think you are that you can judge for your readers what fathers are good or what fathers are bad?
I was a good father, and my lawyer has the court documents to prove it. I did not put up a fight to see my children because it would have not been in the best interests of the children. Yet in spite of criminal/psychiatric complications (and not mine) and in spite of the CSA's best efforts (good bless those poor women) all, including the judges, eventually gave up trying to reconnect me to my kids. One family court judge, we had at least a dozen different judges, showed us the exit door five minutes after we started, because he was flown in from Windsor due to the backlog, it was a Friday and they had a large number of FROs to process; the proceedings were adjourned while I continued to wait to see my kids.
My employer, Canada Post Corporation, was wonderful in their support of me during the nightmare I was going through.
That was mid 1997 to mid 1998 after which I eventually just stopped trying.
The proceedings did not finish until June 1999!!
The bottom line was that no court would force the mother to readmit me into the children's lives.
Only bad fathers end up in court? And only bad girls get raped I suppose? That is an irresponsible, stupid, or deceitful thing to say.
You are behaving like a bigot.
I am deeply hurt, offended and stunned that you would take such a myopic view of the situation and pass it off as credible to your readers. Your definition of good fathers would exclude men with, disabilities that cause chronic substance abuse, criminal pasts or poor behaviour control. They are not people to you, they are insects that need to be eliminated.
Did your mother never teach that if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem?
As far as I am concerned you are either a complete liar, stupid, blind, or worse you have your own agenda to push on your unwitting readers and are pleased and unconcerned that fathers who do not fit your emasculated definition of good, are irrelevant.
Shame on you.
Shame on the Toronto Star for supporting your Gender-Feminist/(lesbian?) anti-male anti-family dogma.
You are a hateful woman!
I will pray for your soul MICHELE LANDSBERG, that is my obligation as a Christian.
I may choke on the words, but I will pray for your soul.
___________________________________
Donald Cameron
Amateur At Large
Unit 205 - 89 King Street West
Dundas, Ontario, Canada L9H 1V1
Phone 905-627-2673
http://www.AmateurAtLarge.com
dwc@amateuratlarge.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Donald Cameron
To: mlandsb@thestar.ca
Cc: Keith Olbermann ; Buchanan and Press ; Hardball with Chris Matthews ; Imus in the Morning ; Joe Scarborough ; Nachman ; The Abrams Report with Dan Abrams ; Letter to the Editor(washingtontimes.com) ; Letter to the Editor(washingtonpost.com) ; Letter to the Editor(usatoday.com) ; Letter to the Editor(Tribune.com) ; Letter to the Editor(townhall.com) ; Letter to the Editor(sunpub.com) ; Letter to the Editor(scripps.com) ; Letter to the Editor(prolifeinfo.org) ; Letter to the Editor(nytimes.com) ; Letter to the Editor(NYPOST) ; Letter to the Editor(newsmax.com) ; Letter to the Editor(newsday.com) ; Letter to the Editor(nationalpost.com) ; Letter to the Editor(MSNBC.com) ; Letter to the Editor(Michael Chapman, Editorial Director Cato Institute) ; Letter to the Editor(mensnewsdaily) ; Letter to the Editor(mediaresearch.org) ; Letter to the Editor(lauraingraham) ; Letter to the Editor(Jerusalem Post) ; Letter to the Editor(GlobeAndMail.ca) ; Letter to the Editor(Glennjsacks) ; Letter to the Editor(foxnews.com) ; Letter to the Editor(Druge Reoprt) ; Letter to the Editor(cp.org) ; Letter to the Editor(cnsnews.com) ; Letter to the Editor(cnn.com) ; Letter to the Editor(Citizen, The) ; Letter to the Editor(Christian Science Monitor, The) ; Letter to the Editor(cbc.ca) ; Letter to the Editor(Canada NewsWire) ; Letter to the Editor(ap.org) ; Letter to the Editor(AnnCoulter) ; Letter to the Editor(angryharry) ; Letter to the Editor(American Enterprise Institute)
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Children of divorce need our protection.
----
Donald Cameron
Amateur At Large
Dundas, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Children of divorce need our protection
So, erm, let's start by pointing out obvious problems with fathers' rights advocates like:
"Every child has a right to two parents"
and
"Kids need fathers."
I agree fully. "Children of divorce need our protection" and without question the best way to go about this is to get rid of such abject nonsense like the "whopper" that "Every child has a right to two parents", amongst others.
it was his informed perspective that "when fathers seek custody, they win about 50 per cent of the time."
Maybe fathers are being bamboozled by their own propaganda.
Probably more to do with off-the-cuff remarks masquerading as statistics.
This is fabulous, I could carry on all day with this claptrap:
The bigger problem is the erratic or totally absent father who disappoints his children by not using his access rights. More than 40 per cent of parents with access rights see their children rarely or never (Evaluation of the Divorce Act, Department of Justice 1990)
Interesting - notice how "absent father" in the first sentence turns into "parents" in the second. So how many of "parents" were women?
The fathers' rights version of "essential fatherhood" is all about authority, rules, strict discipline and imposed heterosexuality. Extrapolating from conditions in inner-city U.S. ghettoes, they freely declaim that "fatherlessness" is the cause of everything from delinquency to girls' promiscuity.
("authority, rules, strict discipline" - we can't have that now, can we)
So, after we've insinuated that those who defend and support "fathers' rights" are a group of latent right-wing homophobes:
In fact, sociologists have long documented the fact that a context of poverty and hopelessness leads to more single-parent families, and their ever-deepening poverty is what does the damage. (McLoyd, V.C., Socioeconomic Disadvantages and Child Development, American Psychologist 1998).
Since this runs counter to much established research, I can only assume that the author of the article in question has fallen victim to the correlation -> causation trap (in the politically appropriate direction, of course). Oh, but a study published in a journal wouldn't fall victim to such failures of statistics? Ok then. (Believe me - if you only ever read one more book in your life, make sure this is it.) How do we know that it isn't the opposite case, that is, the supposed 'effect' is really the 'cause' and vice versa?
Chicken and egg problem too - is the poverty/hopelessness the 'seed' of this positive feedback cycle, or is it the 'single parent families'? Whichever it is, what factors, in turn, cause that? Wouldn't be fatherlessness as one of them by any chance?
Apologies for starting in the middle of the article and snaking about seemingly at random. I could carry on like this for the entire article, but it annoys me to type in this annoyingly small textbox.
Parting thought: isn't it unusual how the title of the article tugs on one's heartstrings, but the article itself devotes itself to either denigrating fathers and their activists, or using the topic of the title as, rather than an ideal of its own standing, merely a pawn to achieve the former?
Cheers,
-aym
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe Ms. Landsberg is so bamboozled by her propaganda that she inadvertantly slipped and attacked fathers in that statement instead of father's activists."
After reading this then rereading my letter, my heart lept into my throat.
however...
M.L.
"by a tiny, shrill minority"
Then I reread what angered me and she clearly indicates that it is organisations like this site and others that she is responding to.
----
Donald Cameron
Amateur At Large
Dundas, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it is organisations like this site and others that she is responding to.
Good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand that the Canadian province of Quebec will utelize the "Proportional Representation" method of electoral representation in it's next general election rather than the "winner take all" form of electoral representation used in the USA and the UK. I believe that this change will be of significant benefit for males and the men's movement in Canada, especially if all of Canada adopts proportional representation. Why?The traditional political parties can not longer rely on the female gender and their supporters for "total" political control as males can form and support political parties which will have a voice and political power and which support their political goals. I certainly hope that all of Canada,the USA, and the UK adopt proportional representation.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday July 31, @11:53AM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"I certainly hope that all of Canada,the USA, and the UK adopt proportional representation>"
I am 100% in agreement with this and suggest they start doing this 1st in feminazi-california. We have been under the boothell of these jackass feminist fascists without any voice for far too long.
Men in california are taxed, but not represented by a bunch of hooligan thugs who have given this state some of the most sexist draconian laws towards men in the world.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly hope that all of Canada,the USA, and the UK adopt proportional representation
Frankly, I prefer to be able to vote for whomever I choose. Even if proportional representation is a means to empower men, we should remember that many of the finest and most influential advocates for men's rights are women. I'd hate to find out that a member of the Independent Women's Forum was barred from running for office because she was a woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday July 31, @02:23PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
My understanding is that the proportionality is along ideological lines. Therefore, if a woman such as Wendy McElroy ran for office she would get a lot of male votes, but nary a vote from the radical, gender feminist camp. Likewise a lot of ifems, equality fems, IWF fems would be voting for her too. CWA would be there too if they could vote in her jurisdiction. Whoever supported her might still make up only 49% of the entire vote, but she would not lose. Her platform would get a 49% proportion (influence) "representation" in government when voting on issues.
My understanding of proportionality is that you would be getting representation for a platform based on the percentage of votes that you get and a certain person would represent that view in government even if they only got 5 or 10% of the vote.
This would be different from our present majority rules. No more of someone getting 51% of the vote, then having the sole voice as representative of the people. This is a new concept for me so please do correct me where I am in error.
I would love to see this in california. Imagine citizens in barbara boxer's district actually having a voice, other than her draconian man hating rhetoric and legislation.
If this went nation wide I suspect the electoral college would be history too.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My understanding is that the proportionality is along ideological lines.
This is worthy of clarification.
The type of proportional representation that you describe has been adopted by the majority of freely elected governments. The feminists, however, have put a new spin on it. The new, feminist idea is to require that a minimum percentage (typically about 40%) of a party's nominees are women, especially in districts that the party considers safe (a nearly certain electoral victory). This is similar to the enactment in Norway of a requirement that 40% of corporate officers be women, irrespective of the relative abilities and amount of work performed by candidates for positions.
While I have no serious objections to proportional representation based on ideology, I stongly object to proportional representation based on gender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 01, @12:28PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you may misunderstand what is meant by proportional representation. I don't know about the proposal that you're refering to but proportional representation is a debate that's been going on in canada for a while.
Canada has 301 ridings (I'm not sure about quebec). In each riding people vote for their member of parliment (similar to the US's house of representatives I think.) For example if in each riding, the liberal party got 40% of the vote, Alliance got 30%, NDP got 20%, and Conservatives got 10% then in each riding (under our current system) the liberal party would have recieved the most votes and so the liberal party would make up 100% of parliment.
Under a proportional representation system there would be some adjustments (perhaps extra seats in parliament to make the difference) so that each party got a percentage of seats that reflected the popular vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under a proportional representation system there would be some adjustments (perhaps extra seats in parliament to make the difference) so that each party got a percentage of seats that reflected the popular vote.
That, with its various manifestations, is what we are referring to here as proportional representation based on ideology.
For some insight into proportional representation based on gender (often called a quota system) see this.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
