|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Next time someone accuses me of being "just as bad as the pheminazis" I'm going to refer them here.
Not every man is better qualified to take care of his children and have custody. Some men are such whack jobs that they get exactly what they deserve in Family Court. They are poor examples of manhood.
Michael Newdow is a no-win scenario. He's the perfect straw man for pheminists to use to discredit men, and we can't defend him without coming across as "Men Uber Alles" types.
I've read countless interviews, and seen him on several TV shows, and he's a fruit loop.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. This guy has his own personal axe to grind and he's using his daughter as a means to do it. In my opinion, he's endangering his relationship with his daughter. That ought to come first, especially given his tenuous, non-custodial situation. I saw his daughter on TV a few months ago and I got the definite impression that this was HIS crusade, not hers; she has no problem with the pledge as written. I might feel differently if she had complained and he had simply chosen to back her up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree too. This pissed me off on several fronts. One, the guy is using his daughter, which enforced the 'control' accusation of the feminists not to mention puttin the poor girl in a tough situation. Secondly, it ties fathers rights groups to athiest/separation of church and state groups, which splits the only two truly pro-family groups out there.
It really makes you wonder if he unzips his skin at night, watches Oprah while waxing her (oops, I mean rees) legs.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday December 04, @11:21PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree too that this guy should put his daughter's welfare ahead of a court case. But it seems to me possible that he strangely thinks that it's really important for his daughter not to say "under God." I think that's stupid. But I think that parents, fathers and mothers, should be assumed to be primarily responsible for raising their children as best as they can. I might try to talk him out of what he's doing, but I wouldn't strip him of his rights as a father because of his strange parenting priorities. My father spent long hours at the office because his top priority was paying for my college. That too was stupid, but I don't think that such stupidity should disqualify a person from being a parent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
His willingness to exploit his daughter, who, as I mentioned, does not agree with his initiative, exposes him as a bit of a whacko, in my opinion. And though I agree that this should not compromise his parental rights, he makes it very difficult for me to support him or encourage others to do so. In the extreme case, it's kind of like nominating Michael Jackson as father of the year. If you knew him as a father, he might well be a good candidate, but he's got so many other flags on him that he's just difficult to support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Nedow HAS confused his issues, and has placed his daughter in the middle of a struggle which has no bearing on his love for her, or hers for him.
He is using his wish that his daughter be raised an agnostic, to carry the fight over his right to be a parent, and has muddied those waters.
He DOES seem self-absorbed, distracted, and even silly..........but he is no less the child's other parent.
I understand his need to fight for the daughter he loves, and I know firsthand, what a hateful woman can do in a court which is predisposed to the belief that women are the helpless, guileless victims of men, who have been portrayed as brutes and thugs.
I agree that his aberrations cast a bad light on the rest of us who are striving for equality and fairness.
If his stance on "the allegiance to God issue" is the main reason he is being labelled "a bad father", then we should refocus media attention on his girlfriend, and we should find ways to SUPPORT HIM in his fight for his rights of fatherhood.
If he has harmed the child deliberately, then he should be held accountable, and if SHE has harmed the little girl, so should the mother of the child!
If she deems his behavior "inappropriate, or unhealthy, or somehow harmful, then SHE who should be closely examined, so that the courts and the public can understand her, and thus KNOW why she is trying to deny access to the child, who does not seem to have been harmed in ANY way.
The famous line from Shakespeare: "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." applies here. The girlfriend has mounted such a campaign against the guy that maybe........MAYBE......she is HIDING some HUGE flaw in her own behavior, and is trying to direct attention away from herself. It looks like she's been able to do that.......until now.
A microscopic examination of his girlfriend seems to be the KEY missing element of the total picture. In fact, there doesn't seem to be ANY discussion of his girlfriend and HER peculiarities and peccadilloes.
Gentlemen.............can WE focus some attention on HER???? We have all been legally hurt in some way by our former "partners" and we all know that the courts did not treat us with the same respect, courtesy, and justice with which they treated our ex-"partners"
We know that the "sweet, caring, suffering, sensitive, loving, giving" image of women is a Victorian stereotype which women hate and have fought against, yet they invoke that image WHENEVER they want to swing a courtroom against a man.
If anyone has any doubt about what confused, crude, sophomoric creatures women are, I refer them to the HBO show "Sex and the City"......a glorification of potty-talk, no morals, and gleeful man-bashing. Observe the arrogance and violence against men which is routinely used in advertisements to sell products to women. "Sex and the City" is a phenomenally successful show about women, for women, and has made its creators and writers(many of whom are.....men), HUGE amounts of money. The point here is: "It depicts women as they want to see themselves", and they support that contention by watching it and buying the DVD's in HUGE numbers.
Let's seek facts about the WOMAN in Mr. Nedow's case....the mother of his daughter...and let's try to help him, not mock him!
Diego
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""""The judge ruled that Newdow could not involve his daughter in the case without his ex-girlfriend's consent. Without his ex-girlfriend's consent, such involvement would present a risk to the girls' "health and safety"; with his ex-girlfriend's consent, such risk evidently vanishes."""""""""
What this particular guy has against the Pledge of Alliegence notwithstanding, the ruling that an ex girlfriend must give the okay to make things "safe" for the daughter illustrates the barbaric medieval "magical thinking" that the usual tyrants in blacksheets use to justify their unconstitutional oppression in doing what is in the "best interests of the child." Just why are we in Iraq fighting against someone elses tyrant when this crap happens everyday right here in the USA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the heart of the question. And to make it succint, and avoid one of my long posts, I'll be to the point.
It's the job of a father to be the one who helps a child to grow up and think for themselves. Male parenting is the parenting that urges a child to go forth, spread their wings, and be independent. It is different from mother love, which likes to keep children close, and in the nest.
Is Mr. Newdow - who is trying to make his little girl be a clone of himself, to think like him - doing that?
Generally when the subject of "men do it too" comes up, I'm the first to say, "Fuck off. That's not the subject of this conversation is it? Go to Ms, you twit."
This is the danger in "becoming like THEM," is in adopting a "Man Always Right, Women Always Wrong" mentality. We need to police ourselves, and be willing to say, "Some Men are Twits. And?"
Well, Mr. Newdow is a twit, and this is one windmill I think we need to steer far clear of.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's the job of a father to be the one who helps a child to grow up and think for themselves. Male parenting is the parenting that urges a child to go forth, spread their wings, and be independent. It is different from mother love, which likes to keep children close, and in the nest.
Is Mr. Newdow - who is trying to make his little girl be a clone of himself, to think like him - doing that?
Are you actually arguing that his rights as a father should be denied because you don't agree with the values he's trying to instill in his daughter? Who the fuck do you think you are? Mr. Newdow is not abusing his daughter, he is not endangering her, he is not neglecting her. He is by everything we can tell a loving, caring father. How would you like it if someone kept your daughter from you based on some of your eccentricities?
One of the main problems with split parent homes is the mother often decides that she doesn't like the values the father is instilling in the kids and so denies them access to him thinking that it's in their best interest. Whether it be because he's a conservative and she's liberal, he's Catholic and she's Jewish, he doesn't think it's worth it to pay for private school and she thinks that means he cares more about money than the kids, etc. simply doesn't matter. Kids need their fathers. There's too many kids growing up without them now as it is. How the hell you can even think about supporting a move to deny a child her father based on his opinions about pronouns and 2 words in the pledge of allegiance is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you actually arguing that his rights as a father should be denied because you don't agree with the values he's trying to instill in his daughter?
No, you're telling me that's what I'm saying. False dilemma.
Who the fuck do you think you are? Mr. Newdow is not abusing his daughter,
Oh, really? He's a zealot with an agenda, and using her as a pawn to advance it. That's abuse in my book. We don't need to stand up and defend abusers.
he is not endangering her, he is not neglecting her. He is by everything we can tell a loving, caring father.
I've seen her on TV. Whether he likes it or not, her religious beliefs differ with his. As a father, he should be delighted that she has the courage to make peaceful and lawful choices in her own life that arise from her own consideration.
Trying to force her to believe as he believes is womanish behavior.
She loves her dad, I'll grant, but she is uncomfortable with it, doesn't want it, and he makes her cry becase she's the lightning rod for it. He's USING her for HIS agenda. It's contemptible. He has ample other recourse to hit at this through her mother, and is using a child. It's unspeakable.
How would you like it if someone kept your daughter from you based on some of your eccentricities?
Tell me, if his ex-wife was an atheist, and he was a christian trying to get her to go to church, would this even make your radar? You've already demonstrated amply on here your thinly concealed contempt and bigotry for things religious.
He's not ecentric - I repeat, he's a zealot, and a weirdo, and I oppose any parents - male or female - who try to instill any "so-called "values" in their children through demonstrably cultic methodology. And "Agnostic" and "Cultist" are far, far, from being mutually exclusive.
One of the main problems with split parent homes is the mother often decides that she doesn't like the values the father is instilling in the kids and so denies them access to him thinking that it's in their best interest.
And so because it happens in a great many cases, we must treat ALL cases as if that is where it is coming from? No. Doesn't fly. We have ample targets of real bias, real anti-male discrimination, without inventing one and taking the defense of this neurotic loser who should never have been allowed to reproduce.
Whether it be because he's a conservative and she's liberal, he's Catholic and she's Jewish, he doesn't think it's worth it to pay for private school and she thinks that means he cares more about money than the kids, etc. simply doesn't matter. Kids need their fathers.
And kids need their mothers too. Unfortunately, mental defects don't go hand in hand with reproductive defects. And there is plenty of women walking around who their kids would be better off never seeing them.
Plenty of men too. You need to read the background on this whack-job before you go defending him.
There's too many kids growing up without them now as it is. How the hell you can even think about supporting a move to deny a child her father based on his opinions about pronouns and 2 words in the pledge of allegiance is beyond me.
Those are your words. When even liberals sympathetic to removing "under God" and who champion liberal "Newspeak" are curling their lips and telling each other that they do not want this nutcase to be their poster child for those causes, we need to run like hell as well.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you actually arguing that his rights as a father should be denied because you don't agree with the values he's trying to instill in his daughter?
No, you're telling me that's what I'm saying. False dilemma.
A false dillema is a fallacy where one tries to suggest only two possibilities exist when in reality there are many more. It's quite irrelevant to this part of the conversation.
And I wasn't telling you what you were arguing, I was asking you if what it seemed like you were arguing was indeed what you meant. Since then you've written "I oppose any parents - male or female - who try to instill any "so-called "values" in their children through demonstrably cultic methodology. And "Agnostic" and "Cultist" are far, far, from being mutually exclusive." which shows that while you claim to only oppose his rights as a father because of the allegedly "cultist" methods by which he tries to persuade his daughter, your definition of "cultist" depends on the values being taught.
He's a zealot with an agenda, and using her as a pawn to advance it. That's abuse in my book. We don't need to stand up and defend abusers.
And I thought the liberals were way out there when they argue an occasional spanking is abuse and would deny a parent custody for it. If the worst thing that happens in this girl's childhood is that she's on TV a couple times with her daddy telling people he doesn't want her forced to say "under god" in the pledge of allegiance than she's pretty damned lucky. You'd call that abuse? You'd deny a girl access to her father for that? Are you sure you shouldn't reconsider your position, seeing how similar it seems to tyrannical feminism?
Trying to force her to believe as he believes is womanish behavior.
I don't want to argue this point, but I would like to state for the record I disagree here. I don't think that's any more womanish than mannish behavior or vice versa.
Tell me, if his ex-wife was an atheist, and he was a christian trying to get her to go to church, would this even make your radar?
As I'm sure you read the last time I mentioned it I am a Christian, so obviously that wasn't the best analogy you could have made. Better would be to ask me if I'd still support his rights to his daughter, even if he was trying to get her to join a "feminists who idolize George W Bush" club. The answer would still be yes.
Denying a child their father is a very severe act! This kind of thing is reserved only for times when the father is genuinely abusive, (as in beating or molesting the child, not as in making them go on a TV show), or endangers the child, period.
But let me ask you the question you asked me, since it seems to be more fitting to you. If his ex-wife was an atheist, and he was a christian trying to get her to go to church, would this even make your radar? Would you insult his abilities as a father for not respecting his daughter's ability to think for herself and being proud that she'd chosen to be an atheist? Would you deny a girl the daddy she loves because he makes her go to church with him even though she doesn't want to, and going to church made her cry?
You've already demonstrated amply on here your thinly concealed contempt and bigotry for things religious.
Quit pretending that even after explanation you still can't figure out that the Christian comments were an analogy.
Plenty of men too. You need to read the background on this whack-job before you go defending him.
Why don't you just say what he's done that makes his daughter better off without him in her life that with him? And no, being a "whack job liberal weido who shouldn't be allowed to breed" doesn't cut it.
When even liberals sympathetic to removing "under God" and who champion liberal "Newspeak" are curling their lips and telling each other that they do not want this nutcase to be their poster child for those causes, we need to run like hell as well.
Why, who's paying any attention to us anyway? Nobody is suggesting making this guy an official spokesman for men's rights. I'm talking about allowing a child to have a father in her life even if he is a weirdo, even if he is passionate about unpopular causes which he doesn't argue well thus causing him to appear the buffoon, and even if his values don't exactly match mine. Why? Because fathers are just that damn important to their children's lives, that's why.
Since you keep bringing up religion let me remind you of what Jesus said in Matthew 25:40 "Even as you do unto the least of these, my brethren, you do it unto me." Keep that in mind next time you think about denying a child either of their parents because you think the parent is a fruit loop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's something that only bears repeating once:
Nowhere has it been said that this guy needs to be driven out of his daughter's life.
At the same time, in certain rare instances, there is legitimate reason to assign sole custofy to a parent. We often talk here about a "rebuttable presumption of joint custody." Mr. Newdow has, unfortunately, demonstrated amply that he is a sad and sorry example of masculinity, and has given his ex-girlfriend more than ample ammunition to have her assigned sole custody.
He dated this woman, and fathered a child with her. Then when they split, he wanted custody. He lost. After this, my sympathy ends with him. He's changed his story umpteen million times. HE moved away from her. He claimed the child wasn't his, then he had been forced to have sex, then he had been brainwashed into sex.
He had to form his own "Men's Organization" because not a one would touch him because of his bizzare - not eccentric, but bizzare - behavior. So far he seems to be the leader of a membership of a half dozen, and all kooks themselves.
Despite an irregular record on Child support, his ex has never come after him for it. Despite claiming to love his daughter, he chooses to rarely see her. Despite claiming to be an atheist, he later admitted to being an agnostic, and then later it came out he actually practiced religion. All evidences show he's a professional crusader that consistantly takes on bizzare and outrageous causes to get a headline, and switches them when the momentum runs out, or his followers abandon him.
He's been through treatment for mental conditions, has switched careers multiple times, has exhibited paranoid delusions. Through this, he has had free and open access for visitation, but has CHOSEN to remove himself. He shopped his pledge case through two seperate courts before deciding to USE his daughter for his agenda.
In short, he's not even arguably eccentric. He's a total fruit loop, and were I to find he's wearing a colander with tin foil antennae to keep the alien mind control rays from taking over his body, I wouldn't even do a spit-take with my morning coffee.
Now, the upshot of this, and listen carefully, is thus: THIS IS A LOSER CAUSE. It's carrying the flag for whack-jobs like Michael Newdow which is going to have people say "See? Those Men's Rights Folks aren't about correcting injustice at all, it's all about the gender! They['re not feminists - they're meninists!"
I don't say this lightly. I talk about Amerika all the time. I would welcome open revolt against the government. I've no love for the fascist mockery this country has turned into. Even without the pledge issue, Michael Newdow is still a loon. Run away.
We need to do one thing the feminists don't do, and that is police our own. If Michael Newdow was Michelle Newdow, we'd be calling for her head. To do a hundred and eighty degree turn around on him is logically and philosophically inconsistant. To compare this freakazoid to men who have been through the system, played by the rules, and gotten screwed for their pains makes a mockery of those good men. To champion him, make him our poster-boy and cause celebre will do nothing but remove all credibility we have. This one is a slam dunk.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 08, @09:42AM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I've got to go with the Gonz-man on this one here. We have to pick and choose the battles we can or should win, and Mike Newdow is not one of them we should be touching with a ten foot pole.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
