The strategy of the modern left is simple: They no longer care about economic marxism as their primary vehicle of winning elections and instead have gone for racial, gender and other group entitlements to generate a "majority" via "oppressing" minorities. The question is: Have they pondered the consequences of this strategy? When a party is about simple ethnic scapegoating, then what's the point of winning power to create a modern marxist utopia? I call it the "Creating Detroit to finish making the world into Sweden" model.
It's no significant secret. They regularly blog and even write in op-ed sections in the back of style sections that they plan to win elections via demographics. Once the white males have been marginalized, they giggle, then the Republican will dissolve away, right?
Er, no. Or perhaps. This is assuming that the Republican party will go down with a fight and considering the weak, "reactionary" response the right has put up so far with mostly moderates except for Reagan (and even he wasn't that extreme), they may have a point. But if the right wants to survive, it will still have a lot left in reserve.
For starters, in the states most elections see a fractional turnout. Voter apathy is high since the left is not delivering utopia (see above) and the right is selling out it's primary electorate. As time goes by, however, and the right realizes that they NEED their primary electorate (white males but more on that later), they will pander, or at least, address the concerns of their base. They'll call for ending racist preferences for non-white, non-males and other democrat special interest groups and many non-white, non-males, believe it or not, are just as against racial and gender preferences as whites were against Jim Crow. And from there, it gets interesting.
As more white males show up and Democrat's primary method of buying votes is delegitimized, women will slowly begin defecting to the right. This is because abortion rights and welfare are not as valuable to most women as marrying traditional breadwinning men and the Republican party is where they're at. Already, the left is losing the gender gap and as women become less useful to pander to, they need to focus on their core. In the meantime, as the greek style socialist economy worsens and the left becomes simply about racial entitlements rather than economic marxism, their big tent may seen them turn upon each other. Will they ever run a black president again? And which non-white will be next? Do they hope to win a general election with their now largely racial entitlements party?
Before you may scoff at the notion of the left losing their female voting gap, keep in mind that this was usually matched by a male gender voting gap. So overall, the biggest margins for the left, if they were a business, would have been racial entitlements followed up by government workers and welfare recipients. But even welfare recipients are only marginally useful since many of them either don't know how to vote or are felons and unable to do so. In any case, the right and left both pandering to women has been largely a waste of time. So far. The left got some more women's votes and the right got some more men and that was that. There are slightly more women than men in the country, but this is again as salesmen would say "We'll make if up on volume." The women's vote has been plumbed by both parties yet the men's rights vote has been barely touched. Imagine if the right made divorce courts, or civil rights for men in the workplace, an election issue. Men would show up in droves for the right. And the left would be able to do little about it since they have no credibility at this point. The right would get fantastic margins AND big numbers.
So this all ain't over yet, folks!
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
When mothers and fathers need to be primary caregiver
This article citing statistics from here got me to thinking
"Among working mothers with minor children (ages 17 and under), just one-in-five (21%) say full-time work is the ideal situation for them, down from the 32% who said this back in 1997, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. Fully six-in-ten (up from 48% in 1997) of today’s working mothers say part-time work would be their ideal, and another one-in-five (19%) say she would prefer not working at all outside the home."
It's understandable why many new mothers and their spouses may want the mother to work outside the home less and spend more time at home. Newborns and toddlers require round the clock attention and someone has to stay home and it's ideally the woman both because of breast feeding and emotional bonding. This requires men, of course, to do what they largely do (without much thanks) and go to work full-time and earn money while Obama gripes that women are getting paid less.
But that's not the point. The point is that maybe men should be taking some time off too and it's ok to acknowledge that it's (usually) best for women to spend more time with young children but also that men have their day in the sun. Instead of a "winner take all" scenario for parenting where one should get all the praise and the other cleanup duty, there may be a way to balance this out.
The teenage years are a period of rebellion especially in a society that values individuality and has the state and peers having such a disproportionate influence upon children. Many fathers (and mothers) are working long hours by this point precisely at a time when the children need their guidance most about issues such as drugs, teen sex, financial responsibility, driving, and knuckling down on studying for college. It's a tough time and when I was growing up, I felt a vacuum of guidance.
While my mother was great for breast feeding (I was bottle fed, I think that's why my teeth are soft) and making sure I kept away from dangers as a toddler, she and I (and my siblings) really didn't need that kind of parenting in our teen years. When it was time for my father to shine, he was busy and in many ways, worn out from years of work. We bonded with him later during his retirement when we were in our 20's but this article above got me thinking:
Maybe fathers should work part-time during their children's teen years and let the mother work full time and carry the lion's, er, lioness' share of the bills? (Thank goodness for spell checking, I almost wrote lionesse's!)
Of course, a man is defined by his work as a reminder to children that The World Doesn't Owe Them A Living. It's the difference between children growing up to become useful members of society or living off a welfare parent and joining a gang later in life. But that said, working part-time might be ideal for the father to take an active, more detailed interest in whom his teen children are hanging around with, cracking down on their grades, watching whom they date and advising them to stay straight and narrow, and helping them land and retain teen jobs so they get an understanding of the job market.
Men are forced into the world of adults as a definition of their gender identity so perhaps it's best that they are the best avenue for moving their children forward into the adult world as well.
Of course, this doesn't mean that many mothers can't necessarily manage this role anymore than there are some men who probably are better with small children than some women. But in the name of balance, if not fairness and so-called "equality", it may be useful to consider that some people can't be perfect at Everything. Why not have one parent spend more time with children at different, and critical, stages of their life where their talents are most useful?
This also puts into perspective the importance of the parents staying together but there's another option: If one parent gets custody of a child when they're small, why not balance it out and have the other parent care for them when they're older? This would avoid the horrid trap Obama and others bemoan that women are stuck at home and earning less than men. In addition, nothing motivates women to earn more than having a portion of their salary going to their ex. :-) But ideally, couples should just stay together and work this out themselves. Sadly, our culture encourages people to treat each other in a materialistic manner but that's a whole different kettle of fish.
"Among working mothers with minor children (ages 17 and under), just one-in-five (21%) say full-time work is the ideal situation for them, down from the 32% who said this back in 1997, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. Fully six-in-ten (up from 48% in 1997) of today’s working mothers say part-time work would be their ideal, and another one-in-five (19%) say she would prefer not working at all outside the home."
It's understandable why many new mothers and their spouses may want the mother to work outside the home less and spend more time at home. Newborns and toddlers require round the clock attention and someone has to stay home and it's ideally the woman both because of breast feeding and emotional bonding. This requires men, of course, to do what they largely do (without much thanks) and go to work full-time and earn money while Obama gripes that women are getting paid less.
But that's not the point. The point is that maybe men should be taking some time off too and it's ok to acknowledge that it's (usually) best for women to spend more time with young children but also that men have their day in the sun. Instead of a "winner take all" scenario for parenting where one should get all the praise and the other cleanup duty, there may be a way to balance this out.
The teenage years are a period of rebellion especially in a society that values individuality and has the state and peers having such a disproportionate influence upon children. Many fathers (and mothers) are working long hours by this point precisely at a time when the children need their guidance most about issues such as drugs, teen sex, financial responsibility, driving, and knuckling down on studying for college. It's a tough time and when I was growing up, I felt a vacuum of guidance.
While my mother was great for breast feeding (I was bottle fed, I think that's why my teeth are soft) and making sure I kept away from dangers as a toddler, she and I (and my siblings) really didn't need that kind of parenting in our teen years. When it was time for my father to shine, he was busy and in many ways, worn out from years of work. We bonded with him later during his retirement when we were in our 20's but this article above got me thinking:
Maybe fathers should work part-time during their children's teen years and let the mother work full time and carry the lion's, er, lioness' share of the bills? (Thank goodness for spell checking, I almost wrote lionesse's!)
Of course, a man is defined by his work as a reminder to children that The World Doesn't Owe Them A Living. It's the difference between children growing up to become useful members of society or living off a welfare parent and joining a gang later in life. But that said, working part-time might be ideal for the father to take an active, more detailed interest in whom his teen children are hanging around with, cracking down on their grades, watching whom they date and advising them to stay straight and narrow, and helping them land and retain teen jobs so they get an understanding of the job market.
Men are forced into the world of adults as a definition of their gender identity so perhaps it's best that they are the best avenue for moving their children forward into the adult world as well.
Of course, this doesn't mean that many mothers can't necessarily manage this role anymore than there are some men who probably are better with small children than some women. But in the name of balance, if not fairness and so-called "equality", it may be useful to consider that some people can't be perfect at Everything. Why not have one parent spend more time with children at different, and critical, stages of their life where their talents are most useful?
This also puts into perspective the importance of the parents staying together but there's another option: If one parent gets custody of a child when they're small, why not balance it out and have the other parent care for them when they're older? This would avoid the horrid trap Obama and others bemoan that women are stuck at home and earning less than men. In addition, nothing motivates women to earn more than having a portion of their salary going to their ex. :-) But ideally, couples should just stay together and work this out themselves. Sadly, our culture encourages people to treat each other in a materialistic manner but that's a whole different kettle of fish.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Happy Mother's Day!
OK, before anyone thinks I've gone off my rocker (I'm usually bashing feminism and hyperchivalry), it's important to give credit where it's due as well as criticism in addition to finding new ways to compliment and give credit that may have been ignored in the past.
There is an entire category of good mothering that's ignored by society and most especially ignored by feminists and hyperchivalrists. It's the mother who thinks about her children BEFORE they are born!
Sure, there are good parents out there, of both genders, who kick into gear when the stork delivers the bundle of joy and good for them. Also, there are parents who rise up to a crisis. But what's often ignored are the parents who did all their work before the child is born. As a good scout knows: It's all about preparation.
The best mothers carefully work hard and find and select a good mate and do it quickly (since time is NOT on their side). That's a major challenge both biologically and personally. It's one that men don't face in the same manner. I could afford to be immature in my teens and take my time to grow up in my 20's. I could be stubborn and even a jerk in my early 30's. Then I grew up. Fast. And a good thing too. I hope I'll be a better father for it.
But women have a different challenge. They take a different exam, but they have half the time. It's best, biologically, for them to have a child by their early 20's. Due to the complicated nature of our society and the lack of clear boundaries, it must be rather difficult to know precisely what you want, and more importantly, NEED to be a good PARENT by that time. I know women who are great mothers who had children at that age and I salute them. They're stronger than I was!
In addition, being a good parent, or mother, doesn't exist in a vacuum. Although there are some who laud women for the "sacrifice" of gestating a child for 9 months, that's almost like giving someone a medal at the Olympics for just showing up. It's only the beginning. A good parent doesn't just produce children. They produce ADULTS who move forward to have children of their own who become productive adults and so on.
So a good mother is not only someone who produces healthy children at a healthy age that grow up to become healthy citizens, but also someone who is a good wife and member of society herself to set an example. A good father (I'll address this a month later) helps support her in that role. More on that later, of course.
Finally, another aspect of motherhood that's ignored is someone who puts aside their personal squabbles for the best interests of their children. Nobody should put up with DV, of course, but learning to accept that your mate isn't perfect, or even get divorced and keep it amicable for the interests of the children, deserves a real medal as well. Sometimes things don't work out as planned and perhaps the toughest thing to deal with is a feeling of betrayal of abandonment by one's spouse. The mothers who handle that with grace and dignity deserve recognition.
There is an entire category of good mothering that's ignored by society and most especially ignored by feminists and hyperchivalrists. It's the mother who thinks about her children BEFORE they are born!
Sure, there are good parents out there, of both genders, who kick into gear when the stork delivers the bundle of joy and good for them. Also, there are parents who rise up to a crisis. But what's often ignored are the parents who did all their work before the child is born. As a good scout knows: It's all about preparation.
The best mothers carefully work hard and find and select a good mate and do it quickly (since time is NOT on their side). That's a major challenge both biologically and personally. It's one that men don't face in the same manner. I could afford to be immature in my teens and take my time to grow up in my 20's. I could be stubborn and even a jerk in my early 30's. Then I grew up. Fast. And a good thing too. I hope I'll be a better father for it.
But women have a different challenge. They take a different exam, but they have half the time. It's best, biologically, for them to have a child by their early 20's. Due to the complicated nature of our society and the lack of clear boundaries, it must be rather difficult to know precisely what you want, and more importantly, NEED to be a good PARENT by that time. I know women who are great mothers who had children at that age and I salute them. They're stronger than I was!
In addition, being a good parent, or mother, doesn't exist in a vacuum. Although there are some who laud women for the "sacrifice" of gestating a child for 9 months, that's almost like giving someone a medal at the Olympics for just showing up. It's only the beginning. A good parent doesn't just produce children. They produce ADULTS who move forward to have children of their own who become productive adults and so on.
So a good mother is not only someone who produces healthy children at a healthy age that grow up to become healthy citizens, but also someone who is a good wife and member of society herself to set an example. A good father (I'll address this a month later) helps support her in that role. More on that later, of course.
Finally, another aspect of motherhood that's ignored is someone who puts aside their personal squabbles for the best interests of their children. Nobody should put up with DV, of course, but learning to accept that your mate isn't perfect, or even get divorced and keep it amicable for the interests of the children, deserves a real medal as well. Sometimes things don't work out as planned and perhaps the toughest thing to deal with is a feeling of betrayal of abandonment by one's spouse. The mothers who handle that with grace and dignity deserve recognition.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Logan's Run: Should the state be the parents?
Several dystopian novels and films such as Brave New World and Logan's Run to name a few portray futures, either strange or apocalyptic, where the state raises children and parents have no connection with their offspring. Consider the book written by Hillary Clinton "It takes a village." What Hillary and feminists really mean is that the village should just write welfare checks to mothers. But taken to it's logical extreme, or even conclusion, won't this ultimately mean that the state will raise the children?
I'm here to propose that maybe it wouldn't be so bad after all. Lots of parents stink. Some of them criminally. Why should the state wait to rescue them? Let's compare parenting to the homeschool debate. Homeschoolers are made fun of because they're taught by amateurs (giggle!) You know, religious losers who don't want their children learning about evolution and haven't graduated college (even if they're teaching 3rd grade math to their kids.) They don't get to socialize as much. Indeed, imagine if the state raised kids less like an orphanage but more like a Harry Potter style boarding school with horsies and fancy eating halls. I have a friend whose mother sent him to one and he loved it. He loved his parents but he didn't have a problem being away from them for a year at a time.
In addition, consider this endearing feminist paradigm taken to it's logical extreme: If men are disposable and you only need their money for taxes or support, why not do the same to a woman? If primary parenting is about feeding and clothing children and cashing checks, why is a daycare worker less of a "primary" parent than a career woman who orders nannies around?
How long would the middle and upper classes put up with paying more to send their kids to the same place as poor children? The promise of the public school system was it existed to guarantee poor children an equal right to the same education as a wealthy child. How has that worked out? In the end, ALL parents of record would have to pay "child" support to Hogwarts so women who got a sperm donor would be footing the bills all on their own and, in addition, the Octomom loophole where welfare mothers get paid to look after their own kids would be shut. Poor women would be in the same boat as poor men where they would face working long hours to pay for children they aren't allowed to see. In addition, this would also close the loophole for illegal aliens who have anchor babies.
So with all that said, was the old system of a father being financially responsible for supporting a woman in a two parent family and sharing authority for raising their children so oppressive?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/quotes
[watching Logan's son, Logan 6, in the nursery]
Francis 7: Do you know who his seed mother was?
Logan: Of course not! I'm curious, not sick!
I'm here to propose that maybe it wouldn't be so bad after all. Lots of parents stink. Some of them criminally. Why should the state wait to rescue them? Let's compare parenting to the homeschool debate. Homeschoolers are made fun of because they're taught by amateurs (giggle!) You know, religious losers who don't want their children learning about evolution and haven't graduated college (even if they're teaching 3rd grade math to their kids.) They don't get to socialize as much. Indeed, imagine if the state raised kids less like an orphanage but more like a Harry Potter style boarding school with horsies and fancy eating halls. I have a friend whose mother sent him to one and he loved it. He loved his parents but he didn't have a problem being away from them for a year at a time.
In addition, consider this endearing feminist paradigm taken to it's logical extreme: If men are disposable and you only need their money for taxes or support, why not do the same to a woman? If primary parenting is about feeding and clothing children and cashing checks, why is a daycare worker less of a "primary" parent than a career woman who orders nannies around?
How long would the middle and upper classes put up with paying more to send their kids to the same place as poor children? The promise of the public school system was it existed to guarantee poor children an equal right to the same education as a wealthy child. How has that worked out? In the end, ALL parents of record would have to pay "child" support to Hogwarts so women who got a sperm donor would be footing the bills all on their own and, in addition, the Octomom loophole where welfare mothers get paid to look after their own kids would be shut. Poor women would be in the same boat as poor men where they would face working long hours to pay for children they aren't allowed to see. In addition, this would also close the loophole for illegal aliens who have anchor babies.
So with all that said, was the old system of a father being financially responsible for supporting a woman in a two parent family and sharing authority for raising their children so oppressive?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/quotes
[watching Logan's son, Logan 6, in the nursery]
Francis 7: Do you know who his seed mother was?
Logan: Of course not! I'm curious, not sick!
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Is hell freezing over? I'm wondering if socialism isn't all that bad!
For people who know me, to say socialism may not be all that bad is shocking. One of the things I pride myself upon is that my views have changed or evolved over the years because I truly try to serve truth or, more accurately, a truthful understanding of my motivations and the best way to service them. I won't want to be a fool spending his life rationalizing and being driven by beliefs rather than the beliefs serving as a template for my goals.
Here's my reason for taking a skiing trip to hell: based upon demographics, the corruption of crony capitalism and socialism hopping into bed with large corporations and wall street, it's clear that the left is going to win the political battle for supremacy. Kruschev told Kennedy that his children would live under communism and Kennedy, being a conservative Democrat elected 20 years after FDR, shouldn't have been surprised.
Policies in democratic nations meant the left embraced feminism and man bashing in order to drive more female voters to them and build up a minority coalition to an unbeatable majority. That's strange even as I say it, but the whole leftist agenda is one of corrupt politicians claiming that absolute power will make them create a future Sweden even as they run things like Detroit and Chicago. I don't want to criticize the left to distract from my main point though: like it or not, they will eventually win.
And winning, there will be a one party system which shant last long because there is a "third", for now, "green" party that has a platform that is little different than mainstream Democrat party. A third party with a similar agenda, even with no "second" party, would find it hopeless to win elections when the well entrenched and funded incumbents could easily discredit their candidates and attract away any corporate or union slush funds.
So, in the post Capitalist USA, a dead Republican party (it will still be around) and a third party upstart would have to consider getting a new demographic and maybe slaughtering some sacred cows.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
While there aren't so many heterosexual white males left in the states anymore as FDR's time, there are still enough to be a force to be reckoned with. There are certainly more of them than women who vote feminist. (Most women voters in the Democrat party, and most Democrat voters in fact, vote Democrat for racist entitlements, welfare, or government union benefits.) It's all a numbers game. The Democrat party would NEVER try to win over white male votes (it would jeopardize their primary electorate) but a so-called third party of broke Trotskites hanging out with Nerdy Ralph Nader might just propose the unthinkable: Men, and (heterosexual) white men, might not be so bad after all!
If we can see the future, perhaps it's a good time to consider to make the most of the opportunities it will afford us. How long before the Republican party collapses combined with the collapse of the crony capitalist economy? A lot of changes will occur in that time.
I'm going to read Mark Steyn's book "After America" and see if he sees this coming (I doubt he does but if I'm wrong about him, I'll see it in his book!)
Here's my reason for taking a skiing trip to hell: based upon demographics, the corruption of crony capitalism and socialism hopping into bed with large corporations and wall street, it's clear that the left is going to win the political battle for supremacy. Kruschev told Kennedy that his children would live under communism and Kennedy, being a conservative Democrat elected 20 years after FDR, shouldn't have been surprised.
Policies in democratic nations meant the left embraced feminism and man bashing in order to drive more female voters to them and build up a minority coalition to an unbeatable majority. That's strange even as I say it, but the whole leftist agenda is one of corrupt politicians claiming that absolute power will make them create a future Sweden even as they run things like Detroit and Chicago. I don't want to criticize the left to distract from my main point though: like it or not, they will eventually win.
And winning, there will be a one party system which shant last long because there is a "third", for now, "green" party that has a platform that is little different than mainstream Democrat party. A third party with a similar agenda, even with no "second" party, would find it hopeless to win elections when the well entrenched and funded incumbents could easily discredit their candidates and attract away any corporate or union slush funds.
So, in the post Capitalist USA, a dead Republican party (it will still be around) and a third party upstart would have to consider getting a new demographic and maybe slaughtering some sacred cows.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
While there aren't so many heterosexual white males left in the states anymore as FDR's time, there are still enough to be a force to be reckoned with. There are certainly more of them than women who vote feminist. (Most women voters in the Democrat party, and most Democrat voters in fact, vote Democrat for racist entitlements, welfare, or government union benefits.) It's all a numbers game. The Democrat party would NEVER try to win over white male votes (it would jeopardize their primary electorate) but a so-called third party of broke Trotskites hanging out with Nerdy Ralph Nader might just propose the unthinkable: Men, and (heterosexual) white men, might not be so bad after all!
If we can see the future, perhaps it's a good time to consider to make the most of the opportunities it will afford us. How long before the Republican party collapses combined with the collapse of the crony capitalist economy? A lot of changes will occur in that time.
I'm going to read Mark Steyn's book "After America" and see if he sees this coming (I doubt he does but if I'm wrong about him, I'll see it in his book!)
The Future is Now! (At least the dystopian one!)
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Response to: Still Unsettled Issues Around Divorcing while Pregnant from NYMOM
This is my response to NYMOM's blog post that can be found here: http://womenasmothers.blogspot.com/2011/10/still-unsettled-issues-around-divorcing.html
In it, she reveals the selfish, illogical, and enraged viewpoint of any woman who adopts "feminist" issues. (Noting that feminism isn't about "equality" so much as about the world existing to please women at everyone else's expense.) She doesn't welcome me in her blog (which is her right) but simultaneously she isn't getting much traffic. I welcome her and her readers to comment and post on my blog and respond.
For starters, she gripes that "men, always looking for an excuse to dodge their responsibilities anyway, to take advantage of this loophole to divorce pregnant women" even as her blog spends a great deal of time griping that women can't get rid of men who try to take away "her" children. In other words, the children are "hers" as property or chattel while the man should stick around and pay for them. For some reason, she can't find a world where men do everything while simultaneously wanting nothing in return. This may explain why the few women who find her blog have so many problems in relationships with men. Seriously.
Indeed, she is correct that women are vulnerable while pregnant which is why it's perhaps a good idea for women to treat their 1950's breadwinning men with respect and consideration they deserve. The fundamental problem with "feminism" (which she rejects as a label) is that the women like buddying up with a dragon and then cry for the white knight to come to her rescue when it gets a bit rough and that isn't working out for them.
She is correct that many attorney's will recommend men protect and even hide their assets upon divorce, but the same certainly can be said for women who do so. On the other hand, women are often advised to make false claims of Domestic Violence or child-abuse or worse as a ploy to get custody and the upper hand in a divorce. Many women who are victims of rape and DV have had cases against their accusers dismissed because juries have heard and seen women do this enough times that they have to raise the benefit of a doubt and free the accused. Good going ladies! Enjoy the blood money!
Of course, there is no reason for a woman to feel "taken advantage of" in a divorce where the man earns more money and leaves her. She is perfectly free to marry down and then share her wealth with him in a divorce. Hehehe. Like THAT will happen! So again, NYMOM's selfish view of the world reveals itself: Get everything you can and then gripe when there's nothing left. Which leads to the observation that so many of her comments and articles are filled with women unable to find those evil traditional 1950's breadwinners that they took for granted. Either there's fewer of them or they are don't feel a need to blow their (very hard earned) dollars supporting ungrateful, griping women.
So if going through a divorce where the evil guy has the nerve to take his money and move elsewhere, imagine being a single mother from the start. Sure, some of them are well-to-do as NYMOM points out but she also observed that most are not doing well. Men: Can't live with them, can't live very long without 'em! As time marches forward, the failure of the matriarchy both in making women happier than the 1950's and the horrors society experiences at the hands of young men produced by unwed mother households is making NYMOM and other feminist ideals obsolete. Sure, a woman can get a nose and cheek piercing and post a comment to her blog after watching Sex and the City saying "I don't need men!", but the rest want to have REAL lives and families and enjoy lives where they aren't worrying every month about paying the rent. So much for Having It All!
Let's pause and reflect upon her gripe that men might divorce their pregnant wives and, gasp, not pay her "child" support for _her_ child! What if it isn't his child? A secret hospital paternity study showed that a significant percentage of children born to married couples are not the fathers' while a child born inside a marriage is his by default. So him divorcing might be the only way to protect himself from paying for her infidelity. I can only imagine the ruckus if NYMOM read about a WOMAN or a MOTHER being force to, gasp, pay for SOME OTHER WOMAN'S child because a judge ordered her to pay for a man's child from a mistress.
In addition, the argument that men need to "pay" because the government "has to assume" responsibility for her child demonstrates that single motherhood doesn't work. SOMEONE has to take care of her, like a child, lest a child suffer in her care. So even as she jabbers on about how society isn't appreciating mothers as much as they used to while they fix smashed car windshields due to some unwed mother's brood partying that night on the welfare dollar, she doesn't have much confidence in their mothering talents either. I know several working class men who got custody of their children because the courts simply couldn't ignore the horrible behaviors of the mothers and these men, without "child" support from the mother, did a great job of raising their children to be responsible, taxpaying citizens. The reason? It's obvious: BY EXAMPLE!
NYMOM, there are two sides to every story and you'll get more comments if you have both sides. If you want an empty blog, enjoy. I WELCOME comments here (provided they don't do anything obviously out of bounds.)
Cheers,
PK
In it, she reveals the selfish, illogical, and enraged viewpoint of any woman who adopts "feminist" issues. (Noting that feminism isn't about "equality" so much as about the world existing to please women at everyone else's expense.) She doesn't welcome me in her blog (which is her right) but simultaneously she isn't getting much traffic. I welcome her and her readers to comment and post on my blog and respond.
For starters, she gripes that "men, always looking for an excuse to dodge their responsibilities anyway, to take advantage of this loophole to divorce pregnant women" even as her blog spends a great deal of time griping that women can't get rid of men who try to take away "her" children. In other words, the children are "hers" as property or chattel while the man should stick around and pay for them. For some reason, she can't find a world where men do everything while simultaneously wanting nothing in return. This may explain why the few women who find her blog have so many problems in relationships with men. Seriously.
Indeed, she is correct that women are vulnerable while pregnant which is why it's perhaps a good idea for women to treat their 1950's breadwinning men with respect and consideration they deserve. The fundamental problem with "feminism" (which she rejects as a label) is that the women like buddying up with a dragon and then cry for the white knight to come to her rescue when it gets a bit rough and that isn't working out for them.
She is correct that many attorney's will recommend men protect and even hide their assets upon divorce, but the same certainly can be said for women who do so. On the other hand, women are often advised to make false claims of Domestic Violence or child-abuse or worse as a ploy to get custody and the upper hand in a divorce. Many women who are victims of rape and DV have had cases against their accusers dismissed because juries have heard and seen women do this enough times that they have to raise the benefit of a doubt and free the accused. Good going ladies! Enjoy the blood money!
Of course, there is no reason for a woman to feel "taken advantage of" in a divorce where the man earns more money and leaves her. She is perfectly free to marry down and then share her wealth with him in a divorce. Hehehe. Like THAT will happen! So again, NYMOM's selfish view of the world reveals itself: Get everything you can and then gripe when there's nothing left. Which leads to the observation that so many of her comments and articles are filled with women unable to find those evil traditional 1950's breadwinners that they took for granted. Either there's fewer of them or they are don't feel a need to blow their (very hard earned) dollars supporting ungrateful, griping women.
So if going through a divorce where the evil guy has the nerve to take his money and move elsewhere, imagine being a single mother from the start. Sure, some of them are well-to-do as NYMOM points out but she also observed that most are not doing well. Men: Can't live with them, can't live very long without 'em! As time marches forward, the failure of the matriarchy both in making women happier than the 1950's and the horrors society experiences at the hands of young men produced by unwed mother households is making NYMOM and other feminist ideals obsolete. Sure, a woman can get a nose and cheek piercing and post a comment to her blog after watching Sex and the City saying "I don't need men!", but the rest want to have REAL lives and families and enjoy lives where they aren't worrying every month about paying the rent. So much for Having It All!
Let's pause and reflect upon her gripe that men might divorce their pregnant wives and, gasp, not pay her "child" support for _her_ child! What if it isn't his child? A secret hospital paternity study showed that a significant percentage of children born to married couples are not the fathers' while a child born inside a marriage is his by default. So him divorcing might be the only way to protect himself from paying for her infidelity. I can only imagine the ruckus if NYMOM read about a WOMAN or a MOTHER being force to, gasp, pay for SOME OTHER WOMAN'S child because a judge ordered her to pay for a man's child from a mistress.
In addition, the argument that men need to "pay" because the government "has to assume" responsibility for her child demonstrates that single motherhood doesn't work. SOMEONE has to take care of her, like a child, lest a child suffer in her care. So even as she jabbers on about how society isn't appreciating mothers as much as they used to while they fix smashed car windshields due to some unwed mother's brood partying that night on the welfare dollar, she doesn't have much confidence in their mothering talents either. I know several working class men who got custody of their children because the courts simply couldn't ignore the horrible behaviors of the mothers and these men, without "child" support from the mother, did a great job of raising their children to be responsible, taxpaying citizens. The reason? It's obvious: BY EXAMPLE!
NYMOM, there are two sides to every story and you'll get more comments if you have both sides. If you want an empty blog, enjoy. I WELCOME comments here (provided they don't do anything obviously out of bounds.)
Cheers,
PK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)