|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad that some of us were able to influence her
but you will notice she writes:
"DEAR MA: I commend you and your ex-husband
for putting your daughter's best interests first."
In other words she does not recognize the interests or
rights of the man but only those of the child. I have
commented on this before so will not say more. You
philosophers will of course the violation of Kant's
Supreme Categorical Imperative whereby you never
treat a person as a means but always as an end in itself.
I have considered this woman like so many other feminists
as largely a waste of time - but there are some exceptions.
Late last year one of us detected that a Marilyn Vos Savant
of the Los Angeles Times Parade magazine - despite her
relentless feminism - possessed something that the average
woman didn't (you guys are bad) - I mean evidence of a
real conscience. So this person sent in two scathing letters
in consecutive weeks in response to her commentaries.
It may have been simply coincidence put her feminist ranting
seemed to come shortly to a halt; I have since seen her actually
writing responses criticizing feminist views. I don't follow her
column carefully so I might have missed some backsliding here
and there but still the change seems remarkable. Now a male
rights activist with one of the biggest web sites in the business
did print some excerpts from one of the letters which may
indeed have been a factor, or maybe a lot of guys wrote
similar letters at the same time. Its really hard to say sometimes
what effect someone may be having, but still, if you pick your
targets carefully and keep at it you may become a really good
marksman someday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have a solid opinion either way about Dear Abby. Sometimes I heartily agree with her, sometimes I scream at the newspaper.
But I don't understand why you are angry with her insinuation that a child's needs should *always* come before that of its parents. Either one of its parents. I heartily agree with her on that one. I think that mothers and fathers who care only about what makes them happy, and couldn't care less if their "happiness" conflicts with their children or not, are not fit to be parents, and should never have had kids.
I think--I hope--that most fathers (and mothers) do put their kids first. Unfortunately, some don't, and those are the kids that end up stealing cars, running with gangs and shooting up schools. Kids know when their parents don't care about them or their feelings, even if the parents never say it directly.
We need to be encouraging all parents, especially divorced parents, to think of their kids needs more often. After all, isn't the whole thinking behind primary mother custody (and fathers visiting once a month, if at all) the result of putting the mother's feelings before those of the kid?
I can't imagine why anyone would want to discourage divorced parents from putting their kids feelings and needs absolutely, completely, totally, always above their own, and above those of anyone else in the kid's life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but....
There are two difficulties with "putting the child's needs first."
- What are the child's needs? Since before I was born, and continuing today, the definition of "the child's needs" has been, "Whatever Mommy says they are." When it comes to children, mother knows best. In divorce court, mothers get what they want by aligning "the needs of the child" with their own needs, so that the two coincide. Doing something good for mommy helps the child, and vice versa. Daddy doesn't even figure in the picture. So who decides what the child's needs are[assuming that the child is too young to credibly speak for itself]? Mom? Dad? A judge who doesn't even know the family? A social worker with an agenda? Who? It's not a simple question.
- Even assuming that we know what is in the child's best interests, we still have to look at the interests of the adults involved for two reasons: otherwise the parent-child relationship may be damanged, and children who are made masters of all don't turn out well. For example, one could claim that swimming lessons were very important for this child, so who cares if we schedule them all during daddy's visiting hours? The answer is that daddy has rights, too, and although the child is more important, the child is not all important. In order to promote harmony, one must pay some attention to what the father and mother want.
So, yes, the child's interests must come first, but at the same time we must be very careful how we decide where those interests lie, and how we implement solutions. The whole thing is fraught with complexity. It all works so much better if the adults involved act like adults, but that doesn't always happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To All,
Try to avoid creating what are known as "straw man arguments" whereby
a person's real position is substituted by a false one that is easier to attack.
For example, read the following passage and response to it below:
"she does not recognize the interests or
rights of the man but only those of the child."
"But I don't understand why you are angry with her insinuation that
a child's needs should *always* come before that of its parents."
In the first statement the issue is non-recognition of rights;
in the response, non-recognition is changed to become an issue
of mere priority. This is done because it is easier to defend the
idea that one person's rights are more important than another than
to say that this other person has no rights whatsoever.
In this extreme case, once the idea of priority has been substituted
the issue is allowed to slide down the length of the "slippery slope"
so that "a child's needs should *always* come before that of its parents."
If this is taken literally that would mean that the slightest whim of the child
is worth more than the life of the parent. Taken to its limits the way one
would do so in a calculus equation it would mean the same as non-recognition
as the parents would theoretically have no rights/needs/interests at all.
"I can't imagine why anyone would want to discourage divorced parents from
putting their kids feelings and needs ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY,
TOTALLY, ALWAYS above their own" [capitals added]
It would be superfluous for me to comment on the EXTREMIST language used
here or to show this is related to the close-minded statement of "I can't imagine."
In an attempt to jolt a person into realizing what they are saying the following
substitutions are used such that an altered passage will read:
"The needs of white people should always be put before the needs of blacks."
It should be asked how is it that in an era of "equal rights" that one's person's
rights - even a child's - can be placed above another's. And further, how is it
that a child, who has contributed nothing to society, but has yet only burdened it,
can have greater rights than an adult who has worked all their adult life, been injured
in war, upheld good government, etc. and burdened society little.
People wonder how it is that the genocide of one class of people can place
at the hands of another - and the reason can be seen above. By preparing
the public mind in advance that the interests on one class are to be ignored leads
to unlimited abuse, oppression, discrimination, and even death. Couching these
ideas in positive terms rather than conspicuous hate makes than ever the more deadly
as the inherent evil is masked in a glow of happy feeling. Of course, if a member
of the non-recognized class objects he may than may be attacked for being "thoughtless",
"insensitive", or "irresponsible".
I think it was Tocqueville that pointed out that physical force needed to be constantly
applied while mind control was ever the more potent because once a person was
affected it took on a life of its own. Like a virus, it spreads throughout the social body
after the initial infection and often by people who do not know they are carrying the virus.
I will not speculate as to the degree of understanding in this case but I will point out that
an over-focus on children is a hall mark of a matriarchal society. The trend for a long
time as been for the state and women to take over the roles of men prior to a physical
extermination taking place. We also see this same trend carried beyond any historical
precedent whereby even the rights of the mother are to be disregarded. The possibility
and outcome of such a state are the work of science fiction writers. With more life-like
animation - and holographic at that, the aid of robots and other advanced technology it
is conceivable that there could be state run nurseries without adult human beings
directly involved.
How much of this is feasible perhaps only time will tell; but I will leave you with
a couple quotes so you can see that these ideas are not as knew as you might
have thought:
" In those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be
regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta;
the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has
carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women,
who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury."
"women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies ..
since under them they have a good time"
Aristotle
"Theodora [was] .. particularly solicitous to assist the unhappy of her own sex...
her enemies alleged that in her readiness to espouse the cause of women she
committed grave acts of injustice and did considerable harm. Wives who were
divorced for adultery used to appeal to the Empress and bring accusations against
their husbands, and she took their part and compelled the men pay double the dowry,
if she did not cause them to be whipped and thrown into prison. The result was
that men put up with the infidelity of their wives rather than run such risks."
Bury, J.B., "History of the Later Roman Empire", Vol.2. p. 32-3.
Theodora was the wife of Justinian who not coincidentally ruled at the beginning
of the Dark Ages. We see the false accusations and unjust imprisonments carried
out by the feminist state (the Empress), allowing women to get away with crimes for
fear of the consequences of accusing them, the counterpart of being cleaned out in
divorce court in the form of paying a "double dowry", etc. An extension of this would
lead to a focus on the child at the expense of both parents. At the moment we at a
intermediate point between the two.
Tom Pollock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A friend of mine has a favorite saying regarding advice columnists: "Dear Abby is the Devil." I have often in the past penned missives to the likes of Dear Abby (and "her sister" Ann Landers), as well as "The Advice Goddess" Amy Alkon (of alternative newsweekly fame) complaining about their lack of attention to the rights of men when answering letters concerning male/female relationships.
Often, in fact, these "advisors" give very conflicting advice based solely on the sex of the individual being advised. I remember Dear Abby telling a woman whose husband had a penchant for visiting strip joints to "dump the jerk" and then, not one month later, suggesting a man "get counseling for his hang-up" when he complained about a wife who was suddenly enthralled with the Chippendales.
Advice columnists know nothing more than the rest of us. They simply like to tell people what to do.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
