UK TimesOnline: Of course children don't need fathers

Wow, you didn't put that in quotes and I thought it was a troll. But it's not. She's serious. She defines patriphobia.

--
Silence is the voice of complicity.
Just Another Disenfranchised Father

That is why I posted it. Unbelievable in a sense but not so unbelievable in another. The thing to note is the "just get rid of them" attitude. One can take that kind of attitude toward *any* group of people and 99% of the time, it is feasible to keep living life fairly untouched by the absence of some group of people-- relative to one's own point of view.

What is absent in this woman's mind/value system is what used to be called "respect for humanity". What this is is recognizing that any given person has the right to pursue their interests provided this pursuit is lawful. You need not agree with it, but they have the right to do so because, as was finally established not too long ago, "Men are ends unto themselves." (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#The_second_formulation )

Along with the loss of actually teaching real philosophical material in colleges these days goes the groundwork for valuing others just as such rather than as merely a means to an end.

So the author of this article, Carol Sarler, has no trouble saying that "we can do without fathers" because... we can-- been done before, let's just keep doing it, hey, why not. What she fails to acknowledge is that "we can do without mothers", too. It's easy enough (some say easier) for a man to raise children without "that pesky mother" around (just as Sarler would like to see those "pesky fathers" continue to be marginalized/eliminated from the lives of their own kids).

So you know, she may be right in that society can actually function without the presence of fathers in the lives of children. It may not be the best possible place to live in, but it can be done. We can also all live pretty well if we walk around on all fours most of the time, too, but it is not something we ought to be doing, for our own good if nothing else.

But I do know one thing: I can live without Carol Sarler.

I didn't have a dad growing up. Funny because I wish I did have a dad when I was kid. Nobody is asking the fatherless children if they want a dad. My mom even told me she was sorry because she realizes that my older sister and especialy my younger brothers and I needed a dad growing up. She even admitted to me that she was not able to replace a father and she also said that children need a father in their lives. Those comments from a woman that finaly woke up and realized that.

Children need fathers, I wish I had one growing up. Those that say different can go ot hell.

www.move-off.org

I guess Chuck Norris isn't allowed to be a dad.

Completely agree with the author. Daughter-owners is a species that we must get rid of. Nice to see how feminist morons - fathers of daughters - are bashed by women. Daughter-owners are doomed to extinction from the Earth.

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

You tend to agree with some strange shit anyway.

Moving on, the notion that children don't need fathers is a false one. There is nothing "normal" about it.

Unless of course you consider a consumer-driven(even though the U.S. is in debt they keep spending. This is typical of women and their overspending), unethical, overly sexual, crime-ridden, ideological yet non-factual, Hollywood worshipping, racist/sexist klan-like hysterical society -- which is protected by censoring facts -- that puts more value in reality TV(which is NOT reality) than human beings to be normal?

Ultimately that is the kind of society single-mothers -- and women -- create when the fathers(i.e. men) are absent or oppressed.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

You tend to agree with some strange shit anyway.

Well, with this "strange shit" a great many people tend to agree. Moreover, the whole world today is developing in accordance with this "strange shit". So, I would not be so quick in determining whose views are strange shit.

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

What is a "daughter-owner," anyway?

I'm a big fan of 19th century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (Google his essay "On Women")because he correctly identified the fundamentally predatory nature of women 100 years before institutionalized feminism appeared.

Although Schopenhauer didn't call it "misandry" -- he termed it "dissembling..." i.e. manufacturing a false persona in order to manipulate and obtain power that looks like innocence.

The fundamental nature of women is to always seek protection in a group and to exempt themselves from harm by sending men out to confront dangers. They learned that code of survival when they were huddling in the back of the cave and their babies daddys were preventing the saber-toothed tiger from eating their children.

Very little has changed about women's sense of entitlement in 40,000 years.

American society right now is conducting a truly crazy experiment, which is basically to see what happens when you give women too much power, and men withdraw their chivalrous devotion.

It will take another couple hundred years to play out, unless President Hillary has a bad PMS moment and pushes the red Defcon IV nuke button...

On this Thanksgiving Day, I'm thankful that fellow MRA's are starting to sound the alarm that America needs to wake up and question whether the feminists' vision of the future is where we need to go.

But wherever you are today, don't ruin the family festivities by arguing about misandry... it makes the cooks really mad!

Do you have a daughter?

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck

Well, with this "strange shit" a great many people tend to agree. Moreover, the whole world today is developing in accordance with this "strange shit". So, I would not be so quick in determining whose views are strange shit.

1. I see no proof of the "whole world" hating men who have daughters. That's just you yapping away again. Position debunked. I love when psuedo-intellectuals attempt to make some personal statement and then claim the "whole world" agrees with them. Quite pathetic to say the least..

2. Agreement with an idea does not equate to the idea in question being correct, nor does it mean that said idea cannot be classified as "strange" or "out of the ordinary." For instance, many agree with feminism although the ideology within does not conform with facts and reality(Example: Feminists think men and women have no biological differences and are just "socialized" differently. Science disagrees with this and shows it to be wrong. Thus belief in such nonsense is quite strange.)

Many also believe in ghosts and aliens which have also been classified as "strange" beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary.

3. Popular does not equal correct or normal. Next time you face me come equipped with facts...

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

Do you have a daughter?

What I assume you're saying is that men with daughters are our enemies?

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

I'm not saying "our" because you obviously have your own enemies and I'm not going to distract you from them.

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

What's a daughter-owner? Is it a sarcastic father who "owns" his daughter with his snarky come-backs?

I'm not saying "our" because you obviously have your own enemies and I'm not going to distract you from them.

Pathetic. You can't even clarify your own position. You're such a fucking joke it's not even funny anymore...

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

Read this link and look for the term "bitch-owner":

http://www.gocco.co.za/stud_service_contract.htm

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

...please guys?

That there are crass, man-hating, low-intelligence insects like Carol Sarler crawling around, should not surprise or particularly concern us. It takes all sorts to make up this crazy world, after all. There are probably people out there who genuinely believe the moon really does consist of green cheese.

But the real question is how on earth the Times Online thinks that such a creature should be given the right to air her poisonous views on its web pages. Is she the best journalist they can come up with? And no, she is not a student fresh out of her womyn's studies course at the Dworkin College of Misandry, who has just won the NOW prize for the biggest turd dropped on the male sex, thus entitling her to an all-expenses paid guest comment slot on a well-known paper. She is an established journo who has been around in the UK for a good many years; so they should be well aware of how low her standards are. Yet they give her an outlet, much like allowing raw sewage to be pumped into a river that decent people might want to swim in. Yugh.

Civilisation: man's greatest, and most unappreciated, gift to women

Her Choice
Her Responsibility
Her Problem

oregon dad

...gender feminism is a type of nazi-esq social control...that keeps men toiling to an early death and giving the fruits of his labor for her to dispose of...

All the while bombarding the media with women-as-victim to keep men divided and conquered!!

..We need to let the rest of the world know whats going on here!!

Congratulations to Julian Droms on getting his post through on the Times Online site. Here is my offering that didn't get past the censors:

"We are only allowed 1000 characters in which to comment, which is nowhere near enough to refute and debunk this low-grade, infantile, insulting tosh of which Carol Sarler should be thoroughly ashamed. She clearly has not got the foggiest knowledge of men, of fathers, of children or of history.
Do I really have to point out that men have not spent their entire history avoiding their families; that they are not the universally boorish, belligerent, uncaring animals that Sarler would have us believe; and that they have always valued their children? Well apparently I do, because there are some pockets of incredibly stupid people who believe otherwise. And one of them gets to air her ignorance and prejudice at Times Online. Well, at least we know what standards they keep round here."

I now think it was the last sentence that got it rejected. Still, Sarler has taken a right pasting from the comments - well over 100, and about 95% against her.

Civilisation: man's greatest, and most unappreciated, gift to women