Schwarzenegger's propaganda

[Chris]

"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father of a
child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically established in
most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity establishment is not
automatic and the process should be started by both parents as soon as
possible for the benefit of the child."

Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child is
biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was reversed, do you
think "maternity" would be "automatically established" even though the wife
is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace! ONLY in
matriarchal AmeriKa.

Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should start the
paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for the "benefit of
the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such process; and secondly,
what man in his right mind would voluntarily start a process that will
extort his money/freedom?

Ya gotta just LOVE the propaganda .............

http://www.childsup.ca.gov/Resources/EstablishPaternity/tabid/101/Default.aspx

[Bob W]

"Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
news:wTJom.213803$***@newsfe22.iad...
> "Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father of
> a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically established
> in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity establishment is not
> automatic and the process should be started by both parents as soon as
> possible for the benefit of the child."
>
> Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child is
> biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was reversed, do
> you think "maternity" would be "automatically established" even though the
> wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace! ONLY
> in matriarchal AmeriKa.
>
> Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should start
> the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for the "benefit
> of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such process; and
> secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily start a process
> that will extort his money/freedom?

Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until that
point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion or hiding
her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of unwed births the
mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she has no idea who the
father might be.

The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state where
the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is born. Even
then the child can be adopted out for money without the father's knowledge.

[Chris]

"Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:***@earthlink.com...
>
> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:wTJom.213803$***@newsfe22.iad...
>> "Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father of
>> a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically established
>> in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity establishment is not
>> automatic and the process should be started by both parents as soon as
>> possible for the benefit of the child."
>>
>> Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child is
>> biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was reversed, do
>> you think "maternity" would be "automatically established" even though
>> the wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace!
>> ONLY in matriarchal AmeriKa.
>>
>> Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should start
>> the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for the
>> "benefit of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such
>> process; and secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily start
>> a process that will extort his money/freedom?
>
> Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until that
> point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion or hiding
> her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of unwed births the
> mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she has no idea who the
> father might be.
>
> The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state
> where the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is
> born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the
> father's knowledge.

Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since the
mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with the
state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?

>

[Bob W]

"Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>
> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>
>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>> news:wTJom.213803$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>> "Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father
>>> of a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically
>>> established in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity
>>> establishment is not automatic and the process should be started by both
>>> parents as soon as possible for the benefit of the child."
>>>
>>> Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child is
>>> biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was reversed, do
>>> you think "maternity" would be "automatically established" even though
>>> the wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace!
>>> ONLY in matriarchal AmeriKa.
>>>
>>> Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should start
>>> the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for the
>>> "benefit of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such
>>> process; and secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily
>>> start a process that will extort his money/freedom?
>>
>> Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until that
>> point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion or
>> hiding her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of unwed
>> births the mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she has no
>> idea who the father might be.
>>
>> The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state
>> where the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is
>> born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the
>> father's knowledge.
>
> Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
> the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
> the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
> assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
> money/freedom?

The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
chooses to give up the child.

Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.

Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps
the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.

[Dusty]

"Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:***@earthlink.com...
>
> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>

[snip]

>> Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
>> the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
>> the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
>> assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
>> money/freedom?
>
> The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
> exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
> chooses to give up the child.
>
> Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.
>
> Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
> adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps
> the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.

OK, I hip with that, but in what way does this help if mom decides to keep
the child? In a case like that, it would seem to severely disadvantage the
prospective father and place him squarely in the CSE crosshairs.

[Kenneth s.]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:

>"Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>news:***@earthlink.com...
>>
>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>
>
>[snip]
>
>>> Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
>>> the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
>>> the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
>>> assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
>>> money/freedom?
>>
>> The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
>> exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
>> chooses to give up the child.
>>
>> Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.
>>
>> Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
>> adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps
>> the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.
>
>OK, I hip with that, but in what way does this help if mom decides to keep
>the child? In a case like that, it would seem to severely disadvantage the
>prospective father and place him squarely in the CSE crosshairs.

The only advantage to the man in registering as the child's
father is the possibility that he will be able to have some kind of
relationship with the child, even if the mother doesn't want this.
However, I very much doubt whether this is worth much. The system is
notoriously lax about enforcing visitation, by contrast with the huge
amount of resources devoted to enforcing "child support."

I've seen comments from CS officials indicating that the
father registration provision is nothing more than a deliberate trap
for the unwary. The idea is that, immediately after a child is born,
the man who thinks he is the father will be inordinately proud of his
situation, and will want to be identified as the father. But the
bottom line is that he is only making it easier for the mother to get
18+ years of "child support" from him.

[Phil #3]

"Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>
>>"Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>> Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
>>>> the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
>>>> the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
>>>> assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
>>>> money/freedom?
>>>
>>> The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
>>> exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
>>> chooses to give up the child.
>>>
>>> Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.
>>>
>>> Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
>>> adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father
>>> helps
>>> the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.
>>
>>OK, I hip with that, but in what way does this help if mom decides to keep
>>the child? In a case like that, it would seem to severely disadvantage
>>the
>>prospective father and place him squarely in the CSE crosshairs.
>
> The only advantage to the man in registering as the child's
> father is the possibility that he will be able to have some kind of
> relationship with the child, even if the mother doesn't want this.
> However, I very much doubt whether this is worth much. The system is
> notoriously lax about enforcing visitation, by contrast with the huge
> amount of resources devoted to enforcing "child support."
>
> I've seen comments from CS officials indicating that the
> father registration provision is nothing more than a deliberate trap
> for the unwary. The idea is that, immediately after a child is born,
> the man who thinks he is the father will be inordinately proud of his
> situation, and will want to be identified as the father. But the
> bottom line is that he is only making it easier for the mother to get
> 18+ years of "child support" from him.

The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to consider
and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole problem but
that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical and vocal.

Phil #3

[Dusty]

"Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:***@earthlink.com...
>
> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>
>>>
>>>[snip]

[snip]

> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
> problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical and
> vocal.

That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea.. (1)
men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or not
and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally around.

I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those in
front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central, organized
hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning in the right
direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.

Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that, much
like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what feeds
the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads us to
another part of the problem, lack of media support or good, pro-father
stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the feet of the
Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and
utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly
30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising
an eyebrow.

Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely example
of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former Governor
Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head in a pike for
insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be good for her. But
whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a
peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he
slighted as her would-be rapist!

There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting
into the ring with the girls.

[Phil #3]

"Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>
>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>
> [snip]
>
>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
>> problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical
>> and vocal.
>
> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea.. (1)
> men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or not
> and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally
> around.
>
> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those in
> front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
> organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning in
> the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.
>
> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
> much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what
> feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads
> us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good,
> pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the
> feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as
> complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is
> a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and
> sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.
>
> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
> Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head in
> a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be good
> for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to a
> female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to
> the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!
>
> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting
> into the ring with the girls.

That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react. This
whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the 1960's
when women became intensively politically active.
Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support women,
are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities who
are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part of
the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril.
Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age of
30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then
flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of racism...
and no one bats an eye.

Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and mature
mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.),
and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore
it, even buy into it.

Phil #3

[Kenneth S.]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:11:14 -0500, "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>
>"Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
>>> problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical
>>> and vocal.
>>
>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea.. (1)
>> men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or not
>> and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally
>> around.
>>
>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those in
>> front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
>> organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning in
>> the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.
>>
>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
>> much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what
>> feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads
>> us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good,
>> pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the
>> feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as
>> complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is
>> a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and
>> sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>
>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
>> Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head in
>> a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be good
>> for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to a
>> female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to
>> the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>
>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting
>> into the ring with the girls.
>
>That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
>unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react. This
>whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the 1960's
>when women became intensively politically active.
>Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support women,
>are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
>governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities who
>are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part of
>the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril.
>Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age of
>30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then
>flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of racism...
>and no one bats an eye.
>
>Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and mature
>mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.),
>and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore
>it, even buy into it.
>
>Phil #3
>

"In the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up." (Warren
Farrell)

Phil (and Warren Farrell) have hit the nail on the head. In
my more than 20 years of involvement in these issues, I've often asked
myself WHY men are unable to respond to the threats against them by
getting organized to defend their own interests.

One answer, I think, is that heterosexual men -- to put it
bluntly -- want to get laid, and they think (probably correctly) that
their appeal to women will be diminished if they appear to be gender
warriors on behalf of their own sex. Notions of gallantry are another
element.

One thing that needs to be done is for men to overcome their
reluctance to speak out about discrimination against men in such areas
as family law, health, and the media. My attitude is that, if
speaking out turns off some women, then so be it. Women who fail to
see the grotesque bias against men in so many areas are not worth
cultivating anyway.

Interestingly enough, there was an attempt several years ago
to get all the various U.S. groups involved in men's issues to come
together. I wasn't involved, but I heard that a major problem was
that many of the groups would cooperate only on the basis that other
groups would join their organizations, not that an umbrella group
would be formed to take in all the groups. The only thing on which
there was widespread agreement was that men were discriminated against
in health matters. The Men's Health Network was formed, and has done
good work in getting more attention -- and funding -- devoted to such
matters as prostate cancer.

[Chris]

"Kenneth S." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:11:14 -0500, "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[snip]
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
>>>> problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical
>>>> and vocal.
>>>
>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea..
>>> (1)
>>> men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or
>>> not
>>> and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally
>>> around.
>>>
>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those
>>> in
>>> front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
>>> organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning
>>> in
>>> the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.
>>>
>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
>>> much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what
>>> feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which
>>> leads
>>> us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good,
>>> pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the
>>> feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as
>>> complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad
>>> is
>>> a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and
>>> sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>
>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
>>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
>>> Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head
>>> in
>>> a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be
>>> good
>>> for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to
>>> a
>>> female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize
>>> to
>>> the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>
>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting
>>> into the ring with the girls.
>>
>>That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
>>unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react.
>>This
>>whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the 1960's
>>when women became intensively politically active.
>>Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support women,
>>are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
>>governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities
>>who
>>are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part of
>>the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril.
>>Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age of
>>30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama
>>then
>>flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of
>>racism...
>>and no one bats an eye.
>>
>>Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>>incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and mature
>>mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement,
>>etc.),
>>and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore
>>it, even buy into it.
>>
>>Phil #3
>>
>
> "In the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up." (Warren
> Farrell)
>
> Phil (and Warren Farrell) have hit the nail on the head. In
> my more than 20 years of involvement in these issues, I've often asked
> myself WHY men are unable to respond to the threats against them by
> getting organized to defend their own interests.
>
> One answer, I think, is that heterosexual men -- to put it
> bluntly -- want to get laid, and they think (probably correctly) that
> their appeal to women will be diminished if they appear to be gender
> warriors on behalf of their own sex. Notions of gallantry are another
> element.

Additionally, and more likely, the men that assault other men's human rights
do so for the same reason. Typical animal behavior.

>
> One thing that needs to be done is for men to overcome their
> reluctance to speak out about discrimination against men in such areas
> as family law, health, and the media. My attitude is that, if
> speaking out turns off some women, then so be it. Women who fail to
> see the grotesque bias against men in so many areas are not worth
> cultivating anyway.

But let THEM experience sufferage from the same issues and suddenly they
have a different (bittersweet) attitude about it. A recent immigration issue
comes to mind. A local government attempted to make it against the law to
provide housing to illegal immigrants. The ACLU QUICKLY intervened which
ultimately killed the proposal. Thing is, their actions of protecting the
illegals resulted in protecting landlords from prosecution for renting to
such illegals. Needless to say, they ACLU was not too excited about it since
they hate landlords.

Note: This very same government had absolutely NO problem selling utilities
to the illegals! The hypocrite meter goes off the scale.

>
> Interestingly enough, there was an attempt several years ago
> to get all the various U.S. groups involved in men's issues to come
> together. I wasn't involved, but I heard that a major problem was
> that many of the groups would cooperate only on the basis that other
> groups would join their organizations, not that an umbrella group
> would be formed to take in all the groups. The only thing on which
> there was widespread agreement was that men were discriminated against
> in health matters. The Men's Health Network was formed, and has done
> good work in getting more attention -- and funding -- devoted to such
> matters as prostate cancer.

Women's health care by far exceeds men's, as shown by the significant
difference in average lifespan. Yet the government people STILL promote
women's (as opposed to men's) healthcare, somehow proclaiming that not
enough is being done for women. But what do you expect from a
matriarch............

>
>

[Phil #3]

"Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
news:o9Aqm.199713$***@newsfe14.iad...
>
> "Kenneth S." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:11:14 -0500, "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>>>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
>>>>> problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical
>>>>> and vocal.
>>>>
>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea..
>>>> (1)
>>>> men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or
>>>> not
>>>> and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally
>>>> around.
>>>>
>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those
>>>> in
>>>> front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
>>>> organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning
>>>> in
>>>> the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.
>>>>
>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
>>>> much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is
>>>> what
>>>> feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which
>>>> leads
>>>> us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good,
>>>> pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at
>>>> the
>>>> feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as
>>>> complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad
>>>> is
>>>> a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and
>>>> sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>>
>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
>>>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
>>>> Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head
>>>> in
>>>> a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be
>>>> good
>>>> for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to
>>>> a
>>>> female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize
>>>> to
>>>> the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>
>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>> getting
>>>> into the ring with the girls.
>>>
>>>That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
>>>unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react.
>>>This
>>>whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the
>>>1960's
>>>when women became intensively politically active.
>>>Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
>>>women,
>>>are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
>>>governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities
>>>who
>>>are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part
>>>of
>>>the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril.
>>>Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age
>>>of
>>>30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama
>>>then
>>>flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of
>>>racism...
>>>and no one bats an eye.
>>>
>>>Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>>>incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
>>>mature
>>>mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement,
>>>etc.),
>>>and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore
>>>it, even buy into it.
>>>
>>>Phil #3
>>>
>>
>> "In the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up." (Warren
>> Farrell)
>>
>> Phil (and Warren Farrell) have hit the nail on the head. In
>> my more than 20 years of involvement in these issues, I've often asked
>> myself WHY men are unable to respond to the threats against them by
>> getting organized to defend their own interests.
>>
>> One answer, I think, is that heterosexual men -- to put it
>> bluntly -- want to get laid, and they think (probably correctly) that
>> their appeal to women will be diminished if they appear to be gender
>> warriors on behalf of their own sex. Notions of gallantry are another
>> element.
>
> Additionally, and more likely, the men that assault other men's human
> rights do so for the same reason. Typical animal behavior.
>
>>
>> One thing that needs to be done is for men to overcome their
>> reluctance to speak out about discrimination against men in such areas
>> as family law, health, and the media. My attitude is that, if
>> speaking out turns off some women, then so be it. Women who fail to
>> see the grotesque bias against men in so many areas are not worth
>> cultivating anyway.
>
> But let THEM experience sufferage from the same issues and suddenly they
> have a different (bittersweet) attitude about it. A recent immigration
> issue comes to mind. A local government attempted to make it against the
> law to provide housing to illegal immigrants. The ACLU QUICKLY intervened
> which ultimately killed the proposal. Thing is, their actions of
> protecting the illegals resulted in protecting landlords from prosecution
> for renting to such illegals. Needless to say, they ACLU was not too
> excited about it since they hate landlords.
>
> Note: This very same government had absolutely NO problem selling
> utilities to the illegals! The hypocrite meter goes off the scale.
>
>>
>> Interestingly enough, there was an attempt several years ago
>> to get all the various U.S. groups involved in men's issues to come
>> together. I wasn't involved, but I heard that a major problem was
>> that many of the groups would cooperate only on the basis that other
>> groups would join their organizations, not that an umbrella group
>> would be formed to take in all the groups. The only thing on which
>> there was widespread agreement was that men were discriminated against
>> in health matters. The Men's Health Network was formed, and has done
>> good work in getting more attention -- and funding -- devoted to such
>> matters as prostate cancer.
>
> Women's health care by far exceeds men's, as shown by the significant
> difference in average lifespan. Yet the government people STILL promote
> women's (as opposed to men's) healthcare, somehow proclaiming that not
> enough is being done for women. But what do you expect from a
> matriarch............
>

And it's not limited to government. For an example, Coca-Cola is promoting
women's heart health with their diet Coke as if men didn't have heart
disease or die from it. (Like breast and prostate cancer, the numbers are
similar)
Just about everywhere one looks, there are incentives, promotions and events
slated for women, women's health and the like, at best only a very few for
men.
The only way I know to fight sexism from corporations is to boycott their
products and write an occasional letter of disapproval of their actions to
them. I don't have a problem with coke funding research for heart health, I
just think promoting women's health is sexist since it touches men as well
and in nearly equal numbers. (I suppose the fact that more women are obese
has something to do with Coca Cola choosing diet coke as their product to
promote it, it is, after all, just a grab for money).
Nearly every accidental work-place injury and death is to men yet no one
notices. Can you imagine the uproar if 90-some percent of those killed in
workplace accidents were women?

Phil #3

[Dusty]

"Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:***@earthlink.com...
>
[snip]

> And it's not limited to government. For an example, Coca-Cola is promoting
> women's heart health with their diet Coke as if men didn't have heart
> disease or die from it. (Like breast and prostate cancer, the numbers are
> similar)
> Just about everywhere one looks, there are incentives, promotions and
> events slated for women, women's health and the like, at best only a very
> few for men.
> The only way I know to fight sexism from corporations is to boycott their
> products and write an occasional letter of disapproval of their actions to
> them. I don't have a problem with coke funding research for heart health,
> I just think promoting women's health is sexist since it touches men as
> well and in nearly equal numbers. (I suppose the fact that more women are
> obese has something to do with Coca Cola choosing diet coke as their
> product to promote it, it is, after all, just a grab for money).
> Nearly every accidental work-place injury and death is to men yet no one
> notices. Can you imagine the uproar if 90-some percent of those killed in
> workplace accidents were women?
>
> Phil #3


Here's a thought.. sue the bastards.

Class action suits are great for this and can even garner considerable media
coverage. OK, so early on a lot of pinheads may laugh and make jokes, so
what. After men start winning these suits, the laughter will stop and
people will sit up and take notice that men are sick and tired of being the
brunt of all ills of women.

Whenever a company, or the government, moves to promote anything that (real
or imagined) appears to benefit only women and excludes men, in any way,
shape or form - sue them.

After a while they'll get the idea that men are no longer going to take it
in the shorts, nor stand for being told to "Man up" when they have been/are
being disadvantaged.

[Phil #3]

"Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
news:h8gv3c$mt6$02$***@news.t-online.com...
> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>
> [snip]
>
>> And it's not limited to government. For an example, Coca-Cola is
>> promoting women's heart health with their diet Coke as if men didn't have
>> heart disease or die from it. (Like breast and prostate cancer, the
>> numbers are similar)
>> Just about everywhere one looks, there are incentives, promotions and
>> events slated for women, women's health and the like, at best only a very
>> few for men.
>> The only way I know to fight sexism from corporations is to boycott their
>> products and write an occasional letter of disapproval of their actions
>> to them. I don't have a problem with coke funding research for heart
>> health, I just think promoting women's health is sexist since it touches
>> men as well and in nearly equal numbers. (I suppose the fact that more
>> women are obese has something to do with Coca Cola choosing diet coke as
>> their product to promote it, it is, after all, just a grab for money).
>> Nearly every accidental work-place injury and death is to men yet no one
>> notices. Can you imagine the uproar if 90-some percent of those killed in
>> workplace accidents were women?
>>
>> Phil #3
>
>
> Here's a thought.. sue the bastards.
>
> Class action suits are great for this and can even garner considerable
> media coverage. OK, so early on a lot of pinheads may laugh and make
> jokes, so what. After men start winning these suits, the laughter will
> stop and people will sit up and take notice that men are sick and tired of
> being the brunt of all ills of women.
>
> Whenever a company, or the government, moves to promote anything that
> (real or imagined) appears to benefit only women and excludes men, in any
> way, shape or form - sue them.
>
> After a while they'll get the idea that men are no longer going to take it
> in the shorts, nor stand for being told to "Man up" when they have
> been/are being disadvantaged.

Private entities can give whatever they what to whomever they choose. That
is part of free enterprise but I don't have to participate in their bigotry
and can refuse to purchase their product/service. The government, however is
a different case in that we are forced to contribute; but one can hardly
expect fairness from an entity that is part of the system of the entity one
is suing. It would have been like Jews suing Hitler in the late 1930's and
'40's.
Phil #3

[Chris]

"Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:***@earthlink.com...
>
> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
>>> problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical
>>> and vocal.
>>
>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea..
>> (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or
>> not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally
>> around.
>>
>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those in
>> front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
>> organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning in
>> the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.
>>
>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
>> much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what
>> feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads
>> us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good,
>> pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the
>> feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as
>> complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is
>> a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and
>> sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>
>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
>> Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head
>> in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be
>> good for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening
>> to a female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to
>> apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>
>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting
>> into the ring with the girls.
>
> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
> unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react.
> This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the
> 1960's when women became intensively politically active.
> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support women,
> are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
> governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities
> who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active
> part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own
> peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the
> age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for
> Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because
> of racism... and no one bats an eye.
>
> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
> incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and mature
> mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement,
> etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men
> ignore it, even buy into it.
>
> Phil #3

Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who have
applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare. They
figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the U.S. is
becomong the U.K.

[By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better known as
a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that collecting
welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]

>
>

[Phil #3]

"Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>
> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>
>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[snip]
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
>>>> problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical
>>>> and vocal.
>>>
>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea..
>>> (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it
>>> or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to
>>> rally around.
>>>
>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those
>>> in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
>>> organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning
>>> in the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.
>>>
>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
>>> much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what
>>> feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which
>>> leads us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good,
>>> pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the
>>> feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as
>>> complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad
>>> is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line
>>> and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>
>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
>>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
>>> Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head
>>> in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be
>>> good for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this
>>> happening to a female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman
>>> to apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>
>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting
>>> into the ring with the girls.
>>
>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
>> unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react.
>> This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the
>> 1960's when women became intensively politically active.
>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
>> women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
>> governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities
>> who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active
>> part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own
>> peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under
>> the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots
>> for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so
>> because of racism... and no one bats an eye.
>>
>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>> incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
>> mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
>> Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
>> documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.
>>
>> Phil #3
>
> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who have
> applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare. They
> figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the U.S. is
> becomong the U.K.
>
> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better known
> as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that collecting
> welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>

Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both healthy
and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me. Neither hold a
job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to kick in then they stay
unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a low-paying job
that won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my displeasure with their
actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly planted.
Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what they
can, while they are able.
Phil #3

[Chris]

"Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:v_WdnWFPL7-***@earthlink.com...
>
> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>
>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>>>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
>>>>> problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical
>>>>> and vocal.
>>>>
>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea..
>>>> (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it
>>>> or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to
>>>> rally around.
>>>>
>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those
>>>> in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
>>>> organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning
>>>> in the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.
>>>>
>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
>>>> much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is
>>>> what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job.
>>>> Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or
>>>> good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid
>>>> at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men
>>>> as complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of
>>>> "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook,
>>>> line and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>>
>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
>>>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
>>>> Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head
>>>> in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be
>>>> good for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this
>>>> happening to a female, not a peep was heard about a demand for
>>>> Letterman to apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>
>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>
>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
>>> unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react.
>>> This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the
>>> 1960's when women became intensively politically active.
>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
>>> women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
>>> governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities
>>> who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active
>>> part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own
>>> peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under
>>> the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots
>>> for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so
>>> because of racism... and no one bats an eye.
>>>
>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>>> incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
>>> mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
>>> Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
>>> documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.
>>>
>>> Phil #3
>>
>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who
>> have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare.
>> They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the U.S.
>> is becomong the U.K.
>>
>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better known
>> as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that
>> collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>
>
> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me. Neither
> hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to kick in then
> they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a
> low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my
> displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly
> planted.
> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
> voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what they
> can, while they are able.
> Phil #3

Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother raises them
determines their general behavior as adults. Are there exceptions to the
rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's example. Since
many, if not most, children are taught by their mothers that men pay money
and don't raise children, and women get free money and determine what to
teach their children, it doesn't surprise me that the "child support" system
perpetuates.

>
>

[x***@xxx.com]

Chris wrote:

>
> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:v_WdnWFPL7-***@earthlink.com...
>
>>
>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>
>>>
>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>
>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>>>>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the
>>>>>> whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group,
>>>>>> get radical and vocal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
>>>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are
>>>>> vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central
>>>>> figure for men to rally around.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
>>>>> those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a
>>>>> central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep
>>>>> them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM
>>>>> to take flight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
>>>>> that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in
>>>>> turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a
>>>>> nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of
>>>>> media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good
>>>>> deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by
>>>>> their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter
>>>>> fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for
>>>>> nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker
>>>>> without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
>>>>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about
>>>>> former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted
>>>>> Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and
>>>>> insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people
>>>>> went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was
>>>>> heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he
>>>>> slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active
>>>> and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and
>>>> react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come
>>>> about since the 1960's when women became intensively politically
>>>> active.
>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
>>>> women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions
>>>> of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and
>>>> minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs,
>>>> taking and active part of the process while the majority of men
>>>> ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from
>>>> urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100%
>>>> of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone
>>>> who opposed his policies do so because of racism... and no one bats
>>>> an eye.
>>>>
>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>>>> incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
>>>> mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
>>>> Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
>>>> documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.
>>>>
>>>> Phil #3
>>>
>>>
>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who
>>> have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government
>>> welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but
>>> surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>>
>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
>>> known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that
>>> collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>
>>
>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
>> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
>> Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to
>> kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat
>> the cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've
>> voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination
>> is firmly planted.
>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
>> voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what
>> they can, while they are able.
>> Phil #3
>
>
> Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother raises
> them determines their general behavior as adults.

Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that if
I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100% wrong,
boys almost always behave the way they are taught by their male role
models, leaving a child without a male role model means he will have to
find his own role models, in most cases that role model will be a coach,
teacher, older brother etc. But in the worst cases the role model will
be a person who preys on young men without role models. When you read
about a teenage drug dealer or shooter how often is his mother in jail
for dealing drugs or shooting someone? Almost never. The male role model
is almost always the example.

Are there exceptions
> to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's
> example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by their mothers
> that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get free money
> and determine what to teach their children, it doesn't surprise me that
> the "child support" system perpetuates.
>

Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and
ridiculous. If you want to talk about these things forget about your
beefs with child support learn a little about child psychology.

[Chris]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Chris wrote:
>
>>
>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:v_WdnWFPL7-***@earthlink.com...
>>
>>>
>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>>>>>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the
>>>>>>> whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get
>>>>>>> radical and vocal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
>>>>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal
>>>>>> about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure
>>>>>> for men to rally around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
>>>>>> those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a
>>>>>> central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep
>>>>>> them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM
>>>>>> to take flight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
>>>>>> that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in
>>>>>> turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a
>>>>>> nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of media
>>>>>> support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of
>>>>>> that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant
>>>>>> portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed
>>>>>> a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public
>>>>>> buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
>>>>>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about
>>>>>> former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted
>>>>>> Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating
>>>>>> that rape would be good for her. But whereas people went into an
>>>>>> uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was heard about a
>>>>>> demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he slighted as her
>>>>>> would-be rapist!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active
>>>>> and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and
>>>>> react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about
>>>>> since the 1960's when women became intensively politically active.
>>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
>>>>> women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions
>>>>> of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and
>>>>> minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking
>>>>> and active part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at
>>>>> their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and
>>>>> 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters
>>>>> cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his
>>>>> policies do so because of racism... and no one bats an eye.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>>>>> incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
>>>>> mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
>>>>> Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
>>>>> documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who
>>>> have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare.
>>>> They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the
>>>> U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>>>
>>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
>>>> known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that
>>>> collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>>
>>>
>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
>>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
>>> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
>>> Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to
>>> kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the
>>> cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've
>>> voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination
>>> is firmly planted.
>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
>>> voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what
>>> they can, while they are able.
>>> Phil #3
>>
>>
>> Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother raises
>> them determines their general behavior as adults.
>
> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that if I
> am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100% wrong, boys
> almost always behave the way they are taught by their male role models,
> leaving a child without a male role model means he will have to find his
> own role models, in most cases that role model will be a coach, teacher,
> older brother etc. But in the worst cases the role model will be a person
> who preys on young men without role models. When you read about a teenage
> drug dealer or shooter how often is his mother in jail for dealing drugs
> or shooting someone? Almost never. The male role model is almost always
> the example.

I was making reference to principles, NOT role models.

>
> Are there exceptions
>> to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's
>> example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by their mothers
>> that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get free money and
>> determine what to teach their children, it doesn't surprise me that the
>> "child support" system perpetuates.
>>
>
> Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and
> ridiculous.

Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on.

> If you want to talk about these things forget about your beefs with child
> support learn a little about child psychology.

Welcome back!

[x***@xxx.com]

Chris wrote:
>>
>>
>> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that
>> if I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100%
>> wrong, boys almost always behave the way they are taught by their male
>> role models, leaving a child without a male role model means he will
>> have to find his own role models, in most cases that role model will
>> be a coach, teacher, older brother etc. But in the worst cases the
>> role model will be a person who preys on young men without role
>> models. When you read about a teenage drug dealer or shooter how often
>> is his mother in jail for dealing drugs or shooting someone? Almost
>> never. The male role model is almost always the example.
>
>
> I was making reference to principles, NOT role models.

Principles come from role models.

>>
>> Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and
>> ridiculous.
>
>
> Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on.
>

I already did, if you leave your son without a role model he will find
his own male role model and you will have no say in the matter.

[Chris]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8j1pc$s27$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that if
>>> I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100% wrong,
>>> boys almost always behave the way they are taught by their male role
>>> models, leaving a child without a male role model means he will have to
>>> find his own role models, in most cases that role model will be a coach,
>>> teacher, older brother etc. But in the worst cases the role model will
>>> be a person who preys on young men without role models. When you read
>>> about a teenage drug dealer or shooter how often is his mother in jail
>>> for dealing drugs or shooting someone? Almost never. The male role model
>>> is almost always the example.
>>
>>
>> I was making reference to principles, NOT role models.
>
> Principles come from role models.

Such "role model", to use your term, being the mother.
To proclaim that one has to witness someone else committing a crime before
they are willing to do the same is absurd, to say the least.

>
>>>
>>> Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and
>>> ridiculous.
>>
>>
>> Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on.
>>
>
> I already did, if you leave your son without a role model he will find his
> own male role model and you will have no say in the matter.

Not necessarily. Absolutely nothing says that any such "role model" MUST be
male. Again, the primary influence on a child is the mother.

>

[x***@xxx.com]

Chris wrote:

>
> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
> news:h8j1pc$s27$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that
>>>> if I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100%
>>>> wrong, boys almost always behave the way they are taught by their
>>>> male role models, leaving a child without a male role model means he
>>>> will have to find his own role models, in most cases that role model
>>>> will be a coach, teacher, older brother etc. But in the worst cases
>>>> the role model will be a person who preys on young men without role
>>>> models. When you read about a teenage drug dealer or shooter how
>>>> often is his mother in jail for dealing drugs or shooting someone?
>>>> Almost never. The male role model is almost always the example.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was making reference to principles, NOT role models.
>>
>>
>> Principles come from role models.
>
>
> Such "role model", to use your term, being the mother.
> To proclaim that one has to witness someone else committing a crime
> before they are willing to do the same is absurd, to say the least.
>

"Such" role model is rarely if ever the mother, boys seek out and find
male role models close to 100% of the time. If the role model is a
criminal it is possible that the kid will emulate that, kids don't just
walk out of sunday school and start selling coke, they get indoctrinated
first. The same with a shiftless loser role model, the kids have to give
up hundreds of times before they become shiftless losers.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and
>>>> ridiculous.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on.
>>>
>>
>> I already did, if you leave your son without a role model he will find
>> his own male role model and you will have no say in the matter.
>
>
> Not necessarily. Absolutely nothing says that any such "role model" MUST
> be male. Again, the primary influence on a child is the mother.
>

(Such)Male role models are always male, boys don't chose their moms to
be their male role model no matter how much influence she has on them.

[Phil #3]

"Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
news:wg0rm.186009$***@newsfe19.iad...
>
> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:v_WdnWFPL7-***@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>>>>>>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the
>>>>>>>> whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group,
>>>>>>>> get radical and vocal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
>>>>>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal
>>>>>>> about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure
>>>>>>> for men to rally around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
>>>>>>> those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a
>>>>>>> central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep
>>>>>>> them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM
>>>>>>> to take flight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
>>>>>>> that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in
>>>>>>> turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a
>>>>>>> nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of
>>>>>>> media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal
>>>>>>> of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their
>>>>>>> constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools. After
>>>>>>> being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years
>>>>>>> the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising
>>>>>>> an eyebrow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
>>>>>>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about
>>>>>>> former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted
>>>>>>> Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and
>>>>>>> insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people
>>>>>>> went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was
>>>>>>> heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he
>>>>>>> slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active
>>>>>> and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and
>>>>>> react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about
>>>>>> since the 1960's when women became intensively politically active.
>>>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
>>>>>> women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions
>>>>>> of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and
>>>>>> minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs,
>>>>>> taking and active part of the process while the majority of men
>>>>>> ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from
>>>>>> urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100%
>>>>>> of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone
>>>>>> who opposed his policies do so because of racism... and no one bats
>>>>>> an eye.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>>>>>> incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
>>>>>> mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
>>>>>> Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
>>>>>> documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who
>>>>> have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare.
>>>>> They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the
>>>>> U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>>>>
>>>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
>>>>> known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that
>>>>> collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
>>>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
>>>> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
>>>> Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to
>>>> kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the
>>>> cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've
>>>> voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination
>>>> is firmly planted.
>>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
>>>> voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what
>>>> they can, while they are able.
>>>> Phil #3
>>>
>>>
>>> Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother raises
>>> them determines their general behavior as adults.
>>
>> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that if I
>> am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100% wrong, boys
>> almost always behave the way they are taught by their male role models,
>> leaving a child without a male role model means he will have to find his
>> own role models, in most cases that role model will be a coach, teacher,
>> older brother etc. But in the worst cases the role model will be a person
>> who preys on young men without role models. When you read about a teenage
>> drug dealer or shooter how often is his mother in jail for dealing drugs
>> or shooting someone? Almost never. The male role model is almost always
>> the example.
>
> I was making reference to principles, NOT role models.
>
>>
>> Are there exceptions
>>> to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's
>>> example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by their mothers
>>> that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get free money
>>> and determine what to teach their children, it doesn't surprise me that
>>> the "child support" system perpetuates.
>>>
>>
>> Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and
>> ridiculous.
>
> Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on.
>
>> If you want to talk about these things forget about your beefs with child
>> support learn a little about child psychology.
>
> Welcome back!

Chris, I guess you enjoy the repartee with XXX but it scares me to realize
that there are many people who are just as warped as s/he.
For instance, s/he still wants to blame men as in the case of teenage drug
dealers who are most likely to come from a mother-headed home where there is
no male "role model" at all. The case of over 70% of all inmates in jail are
from a 'father-ess' home means nothing to bigots such as XXX, they simply
blame men, even though they are prevented from being part of the
problem/solution.
You can educate the ignorant but stupid is forever . However, you do allow
her/him to stick both feet into her/his ample mouth just by keeping them
stoked.

Phil #3

[Chris]

"Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:***@earthlink.com...
>
> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:wg0rm.186009$***@newsfe19.iad...
>>
>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:v_WdnWFPL7-***@earthlink.com...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>>>>>>>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the
>>>>>>>>> whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group,
>>>>>>>>> get radical and vocal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
>>>>>>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are
>>>>>>>> vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central
>>>>>>>> figure for men to rally around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
>>>>>>>> those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a
>>>>>>>> central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep
>>>>>>>> them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM
>>>>>>>> to take flight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
>>>>>>>> that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in
>>>>>>>> turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a
>>>>>>>> nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of
>>>>>>>> media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good
>>>>>>>> deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by
>>>>>>>> their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools.
>>>>>>>> After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30
>>>>>>>> years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever
>>>>>>>> raising an eyebrow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
>>>>>>>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about
>>>>>>>> former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted
>>>>>>>> Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and
>>>>>>>> insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people
>>>>>>>> went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was
>>>>>>>> heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he
>>>>>>>> slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>>>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active
>>>>>>> and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and
>>>>>>> react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come
>>>>>>> about since the 1960's when women became intensively politically
>>>>>>> active.
>>>>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
>>>>>>> women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions
>>>>>>> of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and
>>>>>>> minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs,
>>>>>>> taking and active part of the process while the majority of men
>>>>>>> ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from
>>>>>>> urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100%
>>>>>>> of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone
>>>>>>> who opposed his policies do so because of racism... and no one bats
>>>>>>> an eye.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>>>>>>> incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
>>>>>>> mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
>>>>>>> Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
>>>>>>> documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who
>>>>>> have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government
>>>>>> welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but
>>>>>> surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
>>>>>> known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that
>>>>>> collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
>>>>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
>>>>> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
>>>>> Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to
>>>>> kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat
>>>>> the cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've
>>>>> voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination
>>>>> is firmly planted.
>>>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
>>>>> voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what
>>>>> they can, while they are able.
>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother raises
>>>> them determines their general behavior as adults.
>>>
>>> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that if
>>> I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100% wrong,
>>> boys almost always behave the way they are taught by their male role
>>> models, leaving a child without a male role model means he will have to
>>> find his own role models, in most cases that role model will be a coach,
>>> teacher, older brother etc. But in the worst cases the role model will
>>> be a person who preys on young men without role models. When you read
>>> about a teenage drug dealer or shooter how often is his mother in jail
>>> for dealing drugs or shooting someone? Almost never. The male role model
>>> is almost always the example.
>>
>> I was making reference to principles, NOT role models.
>>
>>>
>>> Are there exceptions
>>>> to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's
>>>> example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by their mothers
>>>> that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get free money
>>>> and determine what to teach their children, it doesn't surprise me that
>>>> the "child support" system perpetuates.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and
>>> ridiculous.
>>
>> Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on.
>>
>>> If you want to talk about these things forget about your beefs with
>>> child support learn a little about child psychology.
>>
>> Welcome back!
>
> Chris, I guess you enjoy the repartee with XXX but it scares me to realize
> that there are many people who are just as warped as s/he.
> For instance, s/he still wants to blame men as in the case of teenage drug
> dealers who are most likely to come from a mother-headed home where there
> is no male "role model" at all. The case of over 70% of all inmates in
> jail are from a 'father-ess' home means nothing to bigots such as XXX,
> they simply blame men, even though they are prevented from being part of
> the problem/solution.
> You can educate the ignorant but stupid is forever . However, you do allow
> her/him to stick both feet into her/his ample mouth just by keeping them
> stoked.
>
> Phil #3

What I am trying to understand is why such role model MUST be male.
Apparently, everything that I learned from women was just a figment of my
imagination. The teacher was really a man. In drag ya suppose?

>

[x***@xxx.com]

Chris wrote:
>
> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:***@earthlink.com...
>
>>
>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>> news:wg0rm.186009$***@newsfe19.iad...
>>
>>>
>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:v_WdnWFPL7-***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity
>>>>>>>>>> is to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would
>>>>>>>>>> solve the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men,
>>>>>>>>>> as a group, get radical and vocal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
>>>>>>>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are
>>>>>>>>> vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no
>>>>>>>>> central figure for men to rally around.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only
>>>>>>>>> follow those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The
>>>>>>>>> lack of a central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the
>>>>>>>>> wheels and keep them turning in the right direction is what is
>>>>>>>>> required for the MRM to take flight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter
>>>>>>>>> groups that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's
>>>>>>>>> head. This in turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone
>>>>>>>>> in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the
>>>>>>>>> problem, lack of media support or good, pro-father stories in
>>>>>>>>> the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the feet of the
>>>>>>>>> Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as complete
>>>>>>>>> dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is
>>>>>>>>> a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook,
>>>>>>>>> line and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An
>>>>>>>>> unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called
>>>>>>>>> joke about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard
>>>>>>>>> it wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl
>>>>>>>>> and insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas
>>>>>>>>> people went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not
>>>>>>>>> a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to
>>>>>>>>> the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think
>>>>>>>>> of getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically
>>>>>>>> active and unified, which would be a radical change in the way
>>>>>>>> men act and react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you
>>>>>>>> speak has come about since the 1960's when women became
>>>>>>>> intensively politically active.
>>>>>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to
>>>>>>>> support women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>>>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head
>>>>>>>> positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of
>>>>>>>> women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal
>>>>>>>> politcs, taking and active part of the process while the
>>>>>>>> majority of men ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63%
>>>>>>>> of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age of 30
>>>>>>>> voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for
>>>>>>>> Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do
>>>>>>>> so because of racism... and no one bats an eye.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy
>>>>>>>> and/or incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent,
>>>>>>>> hard-working and mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows
>>>>>>>> (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes
>>>>>>>> real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore it, even buy
>>>>>>>> into it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men
>>>>>>> who have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government
>>>>>>> welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but
>>>>>>> surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card,
>>>>>>> better known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people
>>>>>>> saying that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my
>>>>>> involvement) currently get food stamps and have for several years.
>>>>>> They are both healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they
>>>>>> didn't get from me. Neither hold a job longer than it takes for
>>>>>> unemployment benefits to kick in then they stay unemployed until
>>>>>> benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a low-paying job that
>>>>>> won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my displeasure with their
>>>>>> actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly planted.
>>>>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet
>>>>>> enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just
>>>>>> getting what they can, while they are able.
>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother
>>>>> raises them determines their general behavior as adults.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that
>>>> if I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100%
>>>> wrong, boys almost always behave the way they are taught by their
>>>> male role models, leaving a child without a male role model means he
>>>> will have to find his own role models, in most cases that role model
>>>> will be a coach, teacher, older brother etc. But in the worst cases
>>>> the role model will be a person who preys on young men without role
>>>> models. When you read about a teenage drug dealer or shooter how
>>>> often is his mother in jail for dealing drugs or shooting someone?
>>>> Almost never. The male role model is almost always the example.
>>>
>>>
>>> I was making reference to principles, NOT role models.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are there exceptions
>>>>
>>>>> to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's
>>>>> example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by their
>>>>> mothers that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get
>>>>> free money and determine what to teach their children, it doesn't
>>>>> surprise me that the "child support" system perpetuates.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and
>>>> ridiculous.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on.
>>>
>>>> If you want to talk about these things forget about your beefs with
>>>> child support learn a little about child psychology.
>>>
>>>
>>> Welcome back!
>>
>>
>> Chris, I guess you enjoy the repartee with XXX but it scares me to
>> realize that there are many people who are just as warped as s/he.
>> For instance, s/he still wants to blame men as in the case of teenage
>> drug dealers who are most likely to come from a mother-headed home
>> where there is no male "role model" at all. The case of over 70% of
>> all inmates in jail are from a 'father-ess' home means nothing to
>> bigots such as XXX, they simply blame men, even though they are
>> prevented from being part of the problem/solution.
>> You can educate the ignorant but stupid is forever . However, you do
>> allow her/him to stick both feet into her/his ample mouth just by
>> keeping them stoked.
>>
>> Phil #3
>
>
> What I am trying to understand is why such role model MUST be male.
> Apparently, everything that I learned from women was just a figment of
> my imagination. The teacher was really a man. In drag ya suppose?
>
>>
>

"Such" role model has to be a man in order to be a male role model.

[Bob W]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8m9hc$hq8$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Chris wrote:
>>
>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>
>>>
>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>> news:wg0rm.186009$***@newsfe19.iad...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:v_WdnWFPL7-***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is
>>>>>>>>>>> to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve
>>>>>>>>>>> the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a
>>>>>>>>>>> group, get radical and vocal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
>>>>>>>>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are
>>>>>>>>>> vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no
>>>>>>>>>> central figure for men to rally around.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
>>>>>>>>>> those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a
>>>>>>>>>> central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and
>>>>>>>>>> keep them turning in the right direction is what is required for
>>>>>>>>>> the MRM to take flight.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
>>>>>>>>>> that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in
>>>>>>>>>> turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a
>>>>>>>>>> nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of
>>>>>>>>>> media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good
>>>>>>>>>> deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by
>>>>>>>>>> their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter
>>>>>>>>>> fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for
>>>>>>>>>> nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker
>>>>>>>>>> without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An
>>>>>>>>>> unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called
>>>>>>>>>> joke about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it
>>>>>>>>>> wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and
>>>>>>>>>> insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people
>>>>>>>>>> went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep
>>>>>>>>>> was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he
>>>>>>>>>> slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>>>>>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically
>>>>>>>>> active and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men
>>>>>>>>> act and react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has
>>>>>>>>> come about since the 1960's when women became intensively
>>>>>>>>> politically active.
>>>>>>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to
>>>>>>>>> support women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>>>>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head
>>>>>>>>> positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of
>>>>>>>>> women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal
>>>>>>>>> politcs, taking and active part of the process while the majority
>>>>>>>>> of men ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters
>>>>>>>>> were from urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama.
>>>>>>>>> Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly
>>>>>>>>> state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of
>>>>>>>>> racism... and no one bats an eye.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy
>>>>>>>>> and/or incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent,
>>>>>>>>> hard-working and mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows
>>>>>>>>> (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes
>>>>>>>>> real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into
>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men
>>>>>>>> who have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government
>>>>>>>> welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but
>>>>>>>> surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
>>>>>>>> known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying
>>>>>>>> that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
>>>>>>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
>>>>>>> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
>>>>>>> Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to
>>>>>>> kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat
>>>>>>> the cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility.
>>>>>>> I've voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of
>>>>>>> indoctrination is firmly planted.
>>>>>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet
>>>>>>> enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just
>>>>>>> getting what they can, while they are able.
>>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother
>>>>>> raises them determines their general behavior as adults.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that
>>>>> if I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100%
>>>>> wrong, boys almost always behave the way they are taught by their male
>>>>> role models, leaving a child without a male role model means he will
>>>>> have to find his own role models, in most cases that role model will
>>>>> be a coach, teacher, older brother etc. But in the worst cases the
>>>>> role model will be a person who preys on young men without role
>>>>> models. When you read about a teenage drug dealer or shooter how often
>>>>> is his mother in jail for dealing drugs or shooting someone? Almost
>>>>> never. The male role model is almost always the example.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was making reference to principles, NOT role models.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there exceptions
>>>>>
>>>>>> to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's
>>>>>> example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by their
>>>>>> mothers that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get
>>>>>> free money and determine what to teach their children, it doesn't
>>>>>> surprise me that the "child support" system perpetuates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and
>>>>> ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on.
>>>>
>>>>> If you want to talk about these things forget about your beefs with
>>>>> child support learn a little about child psychology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Welcome back!
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris, I guess you enjoy the repartee with XXX but it scares me to
>>> realize that there are many people who are just as warped as s/he.
>>> For instance, s/he still wants to blame men as in the case of teenage
>>> drug dealers who are most likely to come from a mother-headed home where
>>> there is no male "role model" at all. The case of over 70% of all
>>> inmates in jail are from a 'father-ess' home means nothing to bigots
>>> such as XXX, they simply blame men, even though they are prevented from
>>> being part of the problem/solution.
>>> You can educate the ignorant but stupid is forever . However, you do
>>> allow her/him to stick both feet into her/his ample mouth just by
>>> keeping them stoked.
>>>
>>> Phil #3
>>
>>
>> What I am trying to understand is why such role model MUST be male.
>> Apparently, everything that I learned from women was just a figment of my
>> imagination. The teacher was really a man. In drag ya suppose?
>>
>>>
>>
>
> "Such" role model has to be a man in order to be a male role model.

Not necessarily. There are some social science experts who conclude teenage
gang members become the surrogate male role models when fathers are absent.
IOW - The role models are boys who have yet to experience any adult male
situations.

[x***@xxx.com]

Bob W wrote:
>>
>> "Such" role model has to be a man in order to be a male role model.
>
>
> Not necessarily. There are some social science experts who conclude
> teenage gang members become the surrogate male role models when fathers
> are absent. IOW - The role models are boys who have yet to experience
> any adult male situations.

I stand corrected, and those teenagers fall into the category of male
role models who prey on kids without male role models.

[Bob W]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8mo59$vjp$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Bob W wrote:
>>>
>>> "Such" role model has to be a man in order to be a male role model.
>>
>>
>> Not necessarily. There are some social science experts who conclude
>> teenage gang members become the surrogate male role models when fathers
>> are absent. IOW - The role models are boys who have yet to experience any
>> adult male situations.
>
> I stand corrected, and those teenagers fall into the category of male role
> models who prey on kids without male role models.

Good. Now it's time to acknowledge 42% of all women believe one parent can
bring up a child as well as two parents. Nearly half of all women do not
think a biological father or father figure is necessary to effectively raise
children.

This statistic comes from the General Social Survey. To break it down
further 38% of white, non-Hispanic women agreed two parents are not
necessary compared to 64% of black women, 61% of Hispanic women, and 58% of
American Indian/Alaskan Native women.

When age is considered 66% of women 18-24 believe they don't need any
bio-fathers or male role models to raise children.

Your comments about men are not consistent with the social science research.
It's women who reject the male role model in raising their children.

[x***@xxx.com]

Bob W wrote:

>
> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
> news:h8mo59$vjp$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Bob W wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> "Such" role model has to be a man in order to be a male role model.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. There are some social science experts who conclude
>>> teenage gang members become the surrogate male role models when
>>> fathers are absent. IOW - The role models are boys who have yet to
>>> experience any adult male situations.
>>
>>
>> I stand corrected, and those teenagers fall into the category of male
>> role models who prey on kids without male role models.
>
>
> Good. Now it's time to acknowledge 42% of all women believe one parent
> can bring up a child as well as two parents. Nearly half of all women
> do not think a biological father or father figure is necessary to
> effectively raise children.
>

I haven't read that stat but I would think it is closer to 100% for men
and women. I am pretty sure I could have raised my kids better alone if
my wife was a welfare mother or a drunk. Since she isn't it was nice
doing it as a team. It is possible that those in the 42% feel that their
exes are a detriment rather than a help. I can certainly see how raising
a kid alone is easier than raising a kid with a shiftless loser.


> This statistic comes from the General Social Survey. To break it down
> further 38% of white, non-Hispanic women agreed two parents are not
> necessary compared to 64% of black women, 61% of Hispanic women, and 58%
> of American Indian/Alaskan Native women.
>

Makes perfect sense when you look at the fathers in welfare
neigborhoods, they are usually more trouble than help.

> When age is considered 66% of women 18-24 believe they don't need any
> bio-fathers or male role models to raise children.
>
> Your comments about men are not consistent with the social science
> research. It's women who reject the male role model in raising their
> children.

What comments about men would those be? In this thread I said that boys
need and find male role models to emulate, and that it is very unlikely
that a boy would choose his mother as his role model. That set off
defensive rants from the worst role models around. It is nearly
impossible to "reject the male role model" when a boy is growing up,
they need them and they will usually find them. It can be a soccer coach
or a drug dealer, but they will find one.

[Bob W]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8mtrs$9n6$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Bob W wrote:
>
>>
>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8mo59$vjp$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> Bob W wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Such" role model has to be a man in order to be a male role model.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. There are some social science experts who conclude
>>>> teenage gang members become the surrogate male role models when fathers
>>>> are absent. IOW - The role models are boys who have yet to experience
>>>> any adult male situations.
>>>
>>>
>>> I stand corrected, and those teenagers fall into the category of male
>>> role models who prey on kids without male role models.
>>
>>
>> Good. Now it's time to acknowledge 42% of all women believe one parent
>> can bring up a child as well as two parents. Nearly half of all women do
>> not think a biological father or father figure is necessary to
>> effectively raise children.
>>
>
> I haven't read that stat but I would think it is closer to 100% for men
> and women. I am pretty sure I could have raised my kids better alone if my
> wife was a welfare mother or a drunk. Since she isn't it was nice doing it
> as a team. It is possible that those in the 42% feel that their exes are a
> detriment rather than a help. I can certainly see how raising a kid alone
> is easier than raising a kid with a shiftless loser.

Another bad assumption on your part. "Thinking" about parenting situations
is not the same as FACTS. The 42% is a percentage of women not men and
women. The statisitc for men is 26% of men believe a man can raise a child
without the help of the other parent. IOW - Mne are less likely to believe
they can parent on their own.

>
>
>> This statistic comes from the General Social Survey. To break it down
>> further 38% of white, non-Hispanic women agreed two parents are not
>> necessary compared to 64% of black women, 61% of Hispanic women, and 58%
>> of American Indian/Alaskan Native women.
>>
>
> Makes perfect sense when you look at the fathers in welfare neigborhoods,
> they are usually more trouble than help.

Nice spin! But the welfare neighborhoods are where the mothers have had
unwed pregnancies in huge numbers and don't believe a father was necessary
to raise their children so they pump out kid after kid with multiple
bio-fathers.

>
>> When age is considered 66% of women 18-24 believe they don't need any
>> bio-fathers or male role models to raise children.
>>
>> Your comments about men are not consistent with the social science
>> research. It's women who reject the male role model in raising their
>> children.
>
> What comments about men would those be? In this thread I said that boys
> need and find male role models to emulate, and that it is very unlikely
> that a boy would choose his mother as his role model. That set off
> defensive rants from the worst role models around. It is nearly impossible
> to "reject the male role model" when a boy is growing up, they need them
> and they will usually find them. It can be a soccer coach or a drug
> dealer, but they will find one.

I agree with your concept. But what you are failing to understand is the
void in these children's lives where there is no established male role model
is created by their mothers rejecting the need for male role models. My
point is the lack of male role models is due to mother attitudes rather than
father neglect. It is mothers' beliefs and behaviors that causes the search
for a substitute role model.

[x***@xxx.com]

Bob W wrote:
>
>
> Another bad assumption on your part. "Thinking" about parenting
> situations is not the same as FACTS.

Okay then, it is a fact that I would have done better raising my kids
alone as opposed to raising them with a drunk mother. Thankfully I was
never forced to make that choice.

> The 42% is a percentage of women
> not men and women. The statisitc for men is 26% of men believe a man
> can raise a child without the help of the other parent. IOW - Mne are
> less likely to believe they can parent on their own.
>

Until they need to do it, they won't know. Age 0 - 3 would be nearly
impossible for a guy with a job, so I would answer no to that question
too. It would be a lot easier after age 5.

>>
>>
>>> This statistic comes from the General Social Survey. To break it
>>> down further 38% of white, non-Hispanic women agreed two parents are
>>> not necessary compared to 64% of black women, 61% of Hispanic women,
>>> and 58% of American Indian/Alaskan Native women.
>>>
>>
>> Makes perfect sense when you look at the fathers in welfare
>> neigborhoods, they are usually more trouble than help.
>
>
> Nice spin! But the welfare neighborhoods are where the mothers have had
> unwed pregnancies in huge numbers and don't believe a father was
> necessary to raise their children so they pump out kid after kid with
> multiple bio-fathers.
>

Depends on the father, if the father is more trouble than help then the
mother is better off alone. Pretty simple really. Doesn't matter if the
woman pumps out 10 kids or 1. In some cases the biological father is a
drug dealer or a gang member so when the kid goes looking for a role
model he gets the whole package.

>>
>>> When age is considered 66% of women 18-24 believe they don't need any
>>> bio-fathers or male role models to raise children.
>>>
>>> Your comments about men are not consistent with the social science
>>> research. It's women who reject the male role model in raising their
>>> children.
>>
>>
>> What comments about men would those be? In this thread I said that
>> boys need and find male role models to emulate, and that it is very
>> unlikely that a boy would choose his mother as his role model. That
>> set off defensive rants from the worst role models around. It is
>> nearly impossible to "reject the male role model" when a boy is
>> growing up, they need them and they will usually find them. It can be
>> a soccer coach or a drug dealer, but they will find one.
>
>
> I agree with your concept. But what you are failing to understand is
> the void in these children's lives where there is no established male
> role model is created by their mothers rejecting the need for male role
> models. My point is the lack of male role models is due to mother
> attitudes rather than father neglect. It is mothers' beliefs and
> behaviors that causes the search for a substitute role model.

It can be both, it can also be that the male role model is a shiftless
loser and that results in the boys becoming shiftless losers. Even in
cases where women reject male role models, the kids want one, look for
one and usually find one. Plenty of boys seek out their fathers when
they need a role model even if it is against the wishes of the mother.
Others will go to a soccer coach or a car thief. I'm not trying to
establish blame, I don't care if people raise fucked up kids. I am
merely pointing out to someone who claimed his kids were fucked up that
boys emulate their male role models and rarely try to emulate their
mothers.

[Ted]

On Sep 15, 3:08 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:

> I don't care if people raise fucked up kids.

Disgraceful. You sound to be a poor role model yourself, with
attitudes like that.

[x***@xxx.com]

Ted wrote:

> On Sep 15, 3:08 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't care if people raise fucked up kids.
>
>
> Disgraceful. You sound to be a poor role model yourself, with
> attitudes like that.

Yeah, I should raise your stupid kids too, since you don't seem to
accept any responsibility.

[Ted]

On Sep 15, 11:48 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
> Ted wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 3:08 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>
> >>I don't care if people raise fucked up kids.
>
> > Disgraceful.  You sound to be a poor role model yourself, with
> > attitudes like that.
>
> Yeah, I should raise your stupid kids too, since you don't seem to
> accept any responsibility.

You can stay away from my kids, XXX.

[x***@xxx.com]

Ted wrote:
> On Sep 15, 11:48 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>
>>Ted wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 15, 3:08 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>I don't care if people raise fucked up kids.
>>
>>>Disgraceful. You sound to be a poor role model yourself, with
>>>attitudes like that.
>>
>>Yeah, I should raise your stupid kids too, since you don't seem to
>>accept any responsibility.
>
>
> You can stay away from my kids, XXX.
>

I'll just continue to pay my taxes and you can make sure they get the
food stamps they need. They can be chips off the old block.

[teachrmama]

On Sep 14, 7:23 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
> Bob W wrote:
>
> > "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
> >news:h8mo59$vjp$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> Bob W wrote:
>
> >>>> "Such" role model has to be a man in order to be a male role model.
>
> >>> Not necessarily.  There are some social science experts who conclude
> >>> teenage gang members become the surrogate male role models when
> >>> fathers are absent. IOW - The role models are boys who have yet to
> >>> experience any adult male situations.
>
> >> I stand corrected, and those teenagers fall into the category of male
> >> role models who prey on kids without male role models.
>
> > Good.  Now it's time to acknowledge 42% of all women believe one parent
> > can bring up a child as well as two parents.  Nearly half of all women
> > do not think a biological father or father figure is necessary to
> > effectively raise children.
>
> I haven't read that stat but I would think it is closer to 100% for men
> and women. I am pretty sure I could have raised my kids better alone if
> my wife was a welfare mother or a drunk. Since she isn't it was nice
> doing it as a team. It is possible that those in the 42% feel that their
> exes are a detriment rather than a help. I can certainly see how raising
> a kid alone is easier than raising a kid with a shiftless loser.


And once again, according to XXX's OPINION, the FACTS should be
interpreted to mean that, although the WOMEN have the opinion that men
are unnecessary, IT MUST BE BECAUSE THE MEN ARE LOSERS! <chuckle>
Surprise, surprise.

>
> > This statistic comes from the General Social Survey.  To break it down
> > further 38% of white, non-Hispanic women agreed two parents are not
> > necessary compared to 64% of black women, 61% of Hispanic women, and 58%
> > of American Indian/Alaskan Native women.
>
> Makes perfect sense when you look at the fathers in welfare
> neigborhoods, they are usually more trouble than help.


CITE? CITE? Where's your cite for this???? (Or is it just you
OPINION?)


>
> > When age is considered 66% of women 18-24 believe they don't need any
> > bio-fathers or male role models to raise children.
>
> > Your comments about men are not consistent with the social science
> > research. It's women who reject the male role model in raising their
> > children.
>
> What comments about men would those be? In this thread I said that boys
> need and find male role models to emulate, and that it is very unlikely
> that a boy would choose his mother as his role model. That set off
> defensive rants from the worst role models around. It is nearly
> impossible to "reject the male role model" when a boy is growing up,
> they need them and they will usually find them. It can be a soccer coach
> or a drug dealer, but they will find one.-


CITE? CITE?

[x***@xxx.com]

teachrmama wrote:
>>
>>I haven't read that stat but I would think it is closer to 100% for men
>>and women. I am pretty sure I could have raised my kids better alone if
>>my wife was a welfare mother or a drunk. Since she isn't it was nice
>>doing it as a team. It is possible that those in the 42% feel that their
>>exes are a detriment rather than a help. I can certainly see how raising
>>a kid alone is easier than raising a kid with a shiftless loser.
>
>
>
> And once again, according to XXX's OPINION, the FACTS should be
> interpreted to mean that, although the WOMEN have the opinion that men
> are unnecessary, IT MUST BE BECAUSE THE MEN ARE LOSERS! <chuckle>
> Surprise, surprise.
>

Again you are telling me what I said and getting it wrong, nice work.
Maybe you can try to be honest for one whole post.

[x***@xxx.com]

Phil #3 wrote:

>
> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:wg0rm.186009$***@newsfe19.iad...
>
>>
>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:v_WdnWFPL7-***@earthlink.com...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is
>>>>>>>>> to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve
>>>>>>>>> the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a
>>>>>>>>> group, get radical and vocal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
>>>>>>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are
>>>>>>>> vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no
>>>>>>>> central figure for men to rally around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
>>>>>>>> those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of
>>>>>>>> a central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and
>>>>>>>> keep them turning in the right direction is what is required for
>>>>>>>> the MRM to take flight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
>>>>>>>> that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This
>>>>>>>> in turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM
>>>>>>>> as a nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem,
>>>>>>>> lack of media support or good, pro-father stories in the media.
>>>>>>>> A good deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood
>>>>>>>> elite by their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and
>>>>>>>> utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a
>>>>>>>> Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line
>>>>>>>> and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An
>>>>>>>> unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called
>>>>>>>> joke about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard
>>>>>>>> it wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl
>>>>>>>> and insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas
>>>>>>>> people went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not
>>>>>>>> a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to
>>>>>>>> the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>>>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically
>>>>>>> active and unified, which would be a radical change in the way
>>>>>>> men act and react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you
>>>>>>> speak has come about since the 1960's when women became
>>>>>>> intensively politically active.
>>>>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to
>>>>>>> support women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head
>>>>>>> positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of
>>>>>>> women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal
>>>>>>> politcs, taking and active part of the process while the majority
>>>>>>> of men ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters
>>>>>>> were from urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for
>>>>>>> Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then
>>>>>>> flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because
>>>>>>> of racism... and no one bats an eye.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy
>>>>>>> and/or incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent,
>>>>>>> hard-working and mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows
>>>>>>> (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes
>>>>>>> real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men
>>>>>> who have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government
>>>>>> welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but
>>>>>> surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
>>>>>> known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying
>>>>>> that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my
>>>>> involvement) currently get food stamps and have for several years.
>>>>> They are both healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't
>>>>> get from me. Neither hold a job longer than it takes for
>>>>> unemployment benefits to kick in then they stay unemployed until
>>>>> benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a low-paying job that
>>>>> won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my displeasure with their
>>>>> actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly planted.
>>>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet
>>>>> enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just
>>>>> getting what they can, while they are able.
>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother
>>>> raises them determines their general behavior as adults.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that
>>> if I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100%
>>> wrong, boys almost always behave the way they are taught by their
>>> male role models, leaving a child without a male role model means he
>>> will have to find his own role models, in most cases that role model
>>> will be a coach, teacher, older brother etc. But in the worst cases
>>> the role model will be a person who preys on young men without role
>>> models. When you read about a teenage drug dealer or shooter how
>>> often is his mother in jail for dealing drugs or shooting someone?
>>> Almost never. The male role model is almost always the example.
>>
>>
>> I was making reference to principles, NOT role models.
>>
>>>
>>> Are there exceptions
>>>
>>>> to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's
>>>> example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by their
>>>> mothers that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get
>>>> free money and determine what to teach their children, it doesn't
>>>> surprise me that the "child support" system perpetuates.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and
>>> ridiculous.
>>
>>
>> Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on.
>>
>>> If you want to talk about these things forget about your beefs with
>>> child support learn a little about child psychology.
>>
>>
>> Welcome back!
>
>
> Chris, I guess you enjoy the repartee with XXX but it scares me to
> realize that there are many people who are just as warped as s/he.
> For instance, s/he still wants to blame men as in the case of teenage
> drug dealers who are most likely to come from a mother-headed home where
> there is no male "role model" at all. The case of over 70% of all
> inmates in jail are from a 'father-ess' home means nothing to bigots
> such as XXX, they simply blame men, even though they are prevented from
> being part of the problem/solution.
> You can educate the ignorant but stupid is forever . However, you do
> allow her/him to stick both feet into her/his ample mouth just by
> keeping them stoked.
>
> Phil #3
>

Wow, you couldn't have read more incorrect crap into what I said if you
weren't stupid. Nothing you said there refutes my statement, in
fatherless households boys will seek out and emulate a male role model,
is many cases these male role models are men who prey on fatherless
boys. The welfare mom who sits around and lets her kid come home with
new sneakers and a pocket full of cash is no help, but she is not the
role model. You are purposely ignorant because admitting the simple
truth puts a lot of responsibility on you, and that just won't do among
you guys, this is a responsibility free zone, everything is someone
else's fault.

[Phil #3]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8m9fj$hq8$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Phil #3 wrote:
>
>>
>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>> news:wg0rm.186009$***@newsfe19.iad...
>>
>>>
>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:v_WdnWFPL7-***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is
>>>>>>>>>> to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve
>>>>>>>>>> the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a
>>>>>>>>>> group, get radical and vocal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
>>>>>>>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are
>>>>>>>>> vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central
>>>>>>>>> figure for men to rally around.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
>>>>>>>>> those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a
>>>>>>>>> central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep
>>>>>>>>> them turning in the right direction is what is required for the
>>>>>>>>> MRM to take flight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
>>>>>>>>> that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in
>>>>>>>>> turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a
>>>>>>>>> nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of
>>>>>>>>> media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good
>>>>>>>>> deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by
>>>>>>>>> their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter
>>>>>>>>> fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for
>>>>>>>>> nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker
>>>>>>>>> without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An
>>>>>>>>> unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke
>>>>>>>>> about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it
>>>>>>>>> wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and
>>>>>>>>> insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people
>>>>>>>>> went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep
>>>>>>>>> was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he
>>>>>>>>> slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>>>>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active
>>>>>>>> and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and
>>>>>>>> react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come
>>>>>>>> about since the 1960's when women became intensively politically
>>>>>>>> active.
>>>>>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
>>>>>>>> women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>>>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head
>>>>>>>> positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of
>>>>>>>> women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal
>>>>>>>> politcs, taking and active part of the process while the majority
>>>>>>>> of men ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters
>>>>>>>> were from urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama.
>>>>>>>> Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly
>>>>>>>> state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of
>>>>>>>> racism... and no one bats an eye.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>>>>>>>> incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
>>>>>>>> mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
>>>>>>>> Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
>>>>>>>> documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men
>>>>>>> who have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government
>>>>>>> welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but
>>>>>>> surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
>>>>>>> known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying
>>>>>>> that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
>>>>>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
>>>>>> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
>>>>>> Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to
>>>>>> kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat
>>>>>> the cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility.
>>>>>> I've voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of
>>>>>> indoctrination is firmly planted.
>>>>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet
>>>>>> enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just
>>>>>> getting what they can, while they are able.
>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother
>>>>> raises them determines their general behavior as adults.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that if
>>>> I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100% wrong,
>>>> boys almost always behave the way they are taught by their male role
>>>> models, leaving a child without a male role model means he will have to
>>>> find his own role models, in most cases that role model will be a
>>>> coach, teacher, older brother etc. But in the worst cases the role
>>>> model will be a person who preys on young men without role models. When
>>>> you read about a teenage drug dealer or shooter how often is his mother
>>>> in jail for dealing drugs or shooting someone? Almost never. The male
>>>> role model is almost always the example.
>>>
>>>
>>> I was making reference to principles, NOT role models.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are there exceptions
>>>>
>>>>> to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's
>>>>> example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by their mothers
>>>>> that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get free money
>>>>> and determine what to teach their children, it doesn't surprise me
>>>>> that the "child support" system perpetuates.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and
>>>> ridiculous.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on.
>>>
>>>> If you want to talk about these things forget about your beefs with
>>>> child support learn a little about child psychology.
>>>
>>>
>>> Welcome back!
>>
>>
>> Chris, I guess you enjoy the repartee with XXX but it scares me to
>> realize that there are many people who are just as warped as s/he.
>> For instance, s/he still wants to blame men as in the case of teenage
>> drug dealers who are most likely to come from a mother-headed home where
>> there is no male "role model" at all. The case of over 70% of all inmates
>> in jail are from a 'father-ess' home means nothing to bigots such as XXX,
>> they simply blame men, even though they are prevented from being part of
>> the problem/solution.
>> You can educate the ignorant but stupid is forever . However, you do
>> allow her/him to stick both feet into her/his ample mouth just by keeping
>> them stoked.
>>
>> Phil #3
>>
>
> Wow, you couldn't have read more incorrect crap into what I said if you
> weren't stupid. Nothing you said there refutes my statement, in fatherless
> households boys will seek out and emulate a male role model, is many cases
> these male role models are men who prey on fatherless boys. The welfare
> mom who sits around and lets her kid come home with new sneakers and a
> pocket full of cash is no help, but she is not the role model. You are
> purposely ignorant because admitting the simple truth puts a lot of
> responsibility on you, and that just won't do among you guys, this is a
> responsibility free zone, everything is someone else's fault.

You're a fuckin' fruitcake, XXX. You said nothing of substance, just more
anti-male lies.
You don't even realize that many children don't have a male role model in
their lives and of those who do, many of the so-called role models are like
you, which explains why so many boys turn into criminals, drug pushers and
addicts and generally worthless individuals.
Phil #3

[x***@xxx.com]

Phil #3 wrote:
>
> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
> news:h8m9fj$hq8$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Phil #3 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>> news:wg0rm.186009$***@newsfe19.iad...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:v_WdnWFPL7-***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity
>>>>>>>>>>> is to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would
>>>>>>>>>>> solve the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until
>>>>>>>>>>> men, as a group, get radical and vocal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in
>>>>>>>>>> that idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither
>>>>>>>>>> they are vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there
>>>>>>>>>> is no central figure for men to rally around.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only
>>>>>>>>>> follow those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The
>>>>>>>>>> lack of a central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the
>>>>>>>>>> wheels and keep them turning in the right direction is what is
>>>>>>>>>> required for the MRM to take flight.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter
>>>>>>>>>> groups that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's
>>>>>>>>>> head. This in turn is what feeds the media to portray
>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads us to another
>>>>>>>>>> part of the problem, lack of media support or good, pro-father
>>>>>>>>>> stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the
>>>>>>>>>> feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of
>>>>>>>>>> men as complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a
>>>>>>>>>> steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the
>>>>>>>>>> public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever
>>>>>>>>>> raising an eyebrow.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An
>>>>>>>>>> unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called
>>>>>>>>>> joke about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard
>>>>>>>>>> it wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young
>>>>>>>>>> girl and insinuating that rape would be good for her. But
>>>>>>>>>> whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to a
>>>>>>>>>> female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to
>>>>>>>>>> apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think
>>>>>>>>>> of getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically
>>>>>>>>> active and unified, which would be a radical change in the way
>>>>>>>>> men act and react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you
>>>>>>>>> speak has come about since the 1960's when women became
>>>>>>>>> intensively politically active.
>>>>>>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to
>>>>>>>>> support women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>>>>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head
>>>>>>>>> positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority
>>>>>>>>> of women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from
>>>>>>>>> liberal politcs, taking and active part of the process while
>>>>>>>>> the majority of men ignored it at their own peril.
>>>>>>>>> Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under
>>>>>>>>> the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast
>>>>>>>>> ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his
>>>>>>>>> policies do so because of racism... and no one bats an eye.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy
>>>>>>>>> and/or incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent,
>>>>>>>>> hard-working and mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows
>>>>>>>>> (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes
>>>>>>>>> real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore it, even buy
>>>>>>>>> into it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white
>>>>>>>> men who have applied for (and received, believe it or not)
>>>>>>>> government welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em.
>>>>>>>> Slowly, but surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card,
>>>>>>>> better known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people
>>>>>>>> saying that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my
>>>>>>> involvement) currently get food stamps and have for several
>>>>>>> years. They are both healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle
>>>>>>> they didn't get from me. Neither hold a job longer than it takes
>>>>>>> for unemployment benefits to kick in then they stay unemployed
>>>>>>> until benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a low-paying job
>>>>>>> that won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my displeasure with
>>>>>>> their actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly planted.
>>>>>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet
>>>>>>> enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just
>>>>>>> getting what they can, while they are able.
>>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother
>>>>>> raises them determines their general behavior as adults.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude
>>>>> that if I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are
>>>>> 100% wrong, boys almost always behave the way they are taught by
>>>>> their male role models, leaving a child without a male role model
>>>>> means he will have to find his own role models, in most cases that
>>>>> role model will be a coach, teacher, older brother etc. But in the
>>>>> worst cases the role model will be a person who preys on young men
>>>>> without role models. When you read about a teenage drug dealer or
>>>>> shooter how often is his mother in jail for dealing drugs or
>>>>> shooting someone? Almost never. The male role model is almost
>>>>> always the example.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was making reference to principles, NOT role models.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there exceptions
>>>>>
>>>>>> to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their
>>>>>> mother's example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by
>>>>>> their mothers that men pay money and don't raise children, and
>>>>>> women get free money and determine what to teach their children,
>>>>>> it doesn't surprise me that the "child support" system perpetuates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and
>>>>> ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on.
>>>>
>>>>> If you want to talk about these things forget about your beefs with
>>>>> child support learn a little about child psychology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Welcome back!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris, I guess you enjoy the repartee with XXX but it scares me to
>>> realize that there are many people who are just as warped as s/he.
>>> For instance, s/he still wants to blame men as in the case of teenage
>>> drug dealers who are most likely to come from a mother-headed home
>>> where there is no male "role model" at all. The case of over 70% of
>>> all inmates in jail are from a 'father-ess' home means nothing to
>>> bigots such as XXX, they simply blame men, even though they are
>>> prevented from being part of the problem/solution.
>>> You can educate the ignorant but stupid is forever . However, you do
>>> allow her/him to stick both feet into her/his ample mouth just by
>>> keeping them stoked.
>>>
>>> Phil #3
>>>
>>
>> Wow, you couldn't have read more incorrect crap into what I said if
>> you weren't stupid. Nothing you said there refutes my statement, in
>> fatherless households boys will seek out and emulate a male role
>> model, is many cases these male role models are men who prey on
>> fatherless boys. The welfare mom who sits around and lets her kid come
>> home with new sneakers and a pocket full of cash is no help, but she
>> is not the role model. You are purposely ignorant because admitting
>> the simple truth puts a lot of responsibility on you, and that just
>> won't do among you guys, this is a responsibility free zone,
>> everything is someone else's fault.
>
>
> You're a fuckin' fruitcake, XXX. You said nothing of substance, just
> more anti-male lies.
> You don't even realize that many children don't have a male role model
> in their lives and of those who do, many of the so-called role models
> are like you, which explains why so many boys turn into criminals, drug
> pushers and addicts and generally worthless individuals.
> Phil #3
>

I've said what the rest of the world understands without having to hear
it from a stranger. I'm sure some of you already know these things but
need to deny them in order to keep the agenda going. You are a guy who
raised 2 lazy uneducated blobs trying to convince a guy who raised 2
highly educated children and one lawyer. It seems you really don't
understand how the world works. Considering the source your lame insults
really are pretty funny. How big a shitbag are you that you couldn't get
even ONE kid to get an education or a decent job?

After your idiotic insults and impotent protests you are now agreeing
with my original statement. Nice work stupid.

[Chris]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8mngs$vjp$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Phil #3 wrote:
>>
>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8m9fj$hq8$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> Phil #3 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:wg0rm.186009$***@newsfe19.iad...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:v_WdnWFPL7-***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is
>>>>>>>>>>>> to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve
>>>>>>>>>>>> the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> group, get radical and vocal.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
>>>>>>>>>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are
>>>>>>>>>>> vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no
>>>>>>>>>>> central figure for men to rally around.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
>>>>>>>>>>> those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of
>>>>>>>>>>> a central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and
>>>>>>>>>>> keep them turning in the right direction is what is required for
>>>>>>>>>>> the MRM to take flight.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
>>>>>>>>>>> that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This
>>>>>>>>>>> in turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM
>>>>>>>>>>> as a nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem,
>>>>>>>>>>> lack of media support or good, pro-father stories in the media.
>>>>>>>>>>> A good deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood
>>>>>>>>>>> elite by their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and
>>>>>>>>>>> utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a
>>>>>>>>>>> Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line
>>>>>>>>>>> and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An
>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called
>>>>>>>>>>> joke about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard
>>>>>>>>>>> it wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl
>>>>>>>>>>> and insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas
>>>>>>>>>>> people went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not
>>>>>>>>>>> a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to
>>>>>>>>>>> the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>>>>>>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically
>>>>>>>>>> active and unified, which would be a radical change in the way
>>>>>>>>>> men act and react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you
>>>>>>>>>> speak has come about since the 1960's when women became
>>>>>>>>>> intensively politically active.
>>>>>>>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to
>>>>>>>>>> support women, are at a disadvantage but it is not
>>>>>>>>>> insurmountable.
>>>>>>>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head
>>>>>>>>>> positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of
>>>>>>>>>> women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal
>>>>>>>>>> politcs, taking and active part of the process while the majority
>>>>>>>>>> of men ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters
>>>>>>>>>> were from urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for
>>>>>>>>>> Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then
>>>>>>>>>> flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because
>>>>>>>>>> of racism... and no one bats an eye.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy
>>>>>>>>>> and/or incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent,
>>>>>>>>>> hard-working and mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows
>>>>>>>>>> (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes
>>>>>>>>>> real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men
>>>>>>>>> who have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government
>>>>>>>>> welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but
>>>>>>>>> surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
>>>>>>>>> known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying
>>>>>>>>> that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my
>>>>>>>> involvement) currently get food stamps and have for several years.
>>>>>>>> They are both healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't
>>>>>>>> get from me. Neither hold a job longer than it takes for
>>>>>>>> unemployment benefits to kick in then they stay unemployed until
>>>>>>>> benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a low-paying job that
>>>>>>>> won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my displeasure with their
>>>>>>>> actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly planted.
>>>>>>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet
>>>>>>>> enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just
>>>>>>>> getting what they can, while they are able.
>>>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother
>>>>>>> raises them determines their general behavior as adults.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that
>>>>>> if I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100%
>>>>>> wrong, boys almost always behave the way they are taught by their
>>>>>> male role models, leaving a child without a male role model means he
>>>>>> will have to find his own role models, in most cases that role model
>>>>>> will be a coach, teacher, older brother etc. But in the worst cases
>>>>>> the role model will be a person who preys on young men without role
>>>>>> models. When you read about a teenage drug dealer or shooter how
>>>>>> often is his mother in jail for dealing drugs or shooting someone?
>>>>>> Almost never. The male role model is almost always the example.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was making reference to principles, NOT role models.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there exceptions
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's
>>>>>>> example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by their
>>>>>>> mothers that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get
>>>>>>> free money and determine what to teach their children, it doesn't
>>>>>>> surprise me that the "child support" system perpetuates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and
>>>>>> ridiculous.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to talk about these things forget about your beefs with
>>>>>> child support learn a little about child psychology.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Welcome back!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris, I guess you enjoy the repartee with XXX but it scares me to
>>>> realize that there are many people who are just as warped as s/he.
>>>> For instance, s/he still wants to blame men as in the case of teenage
>>>> drug dealers who are most likely to come from a mother-headed home
>>>> where there is no male "role model" at all. The case of over 70% of all
>>>> inmates in jail are from a 'father-ess' home means nothing to bigots
>>>> such as XXX, they simply blame men, even though they are prevented from
>>>> being part of the problem/solution.
>>>> You can educate the ignorant but stupid is forever . However, you do
>>>> allow her/him to stick both feet into her/his ample mouth just by
>>>> keeping them stoked.
>>>>
>>>> Phil #3
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wow, you couldn't have read more incorrect crap into what I said if you
>>> weren't stupid. Nothing you said there refutes my statement, in
>>> fatherless households boys will seek out and emulate a male role model,
>>> is many cases these male role models are men who prey on fatherless
>>> boys. The welfare mom who sits around and lets her kid come home with
>>> new sneakers and a pocket full of cash is no help, but she is not the
>>> role model. You are purposely ignorant because admitting the simple
>>> truth puts a lot of responsibility on you, and that just won't do among
>>> you guys, this is a responsibility free zone, everything is someone
>>> else's fault.
>>
>>
>> You're a fuckin' fruitcake, XXX. You said nothing of substance, just more
>> anti-male lies.
>> You don't even realize that many children don't have a male role model in
>> their lives and of those who do, many of the so-called role models are
>> like you, which explains why so many boys turn into criminals, drug
>> pushers and addicts and generally worthless individuals.
>> Phil #3
>>
>
> I've said what the rest of the world understands without having to hear it
> from a stranger. I'm sure some of you already know these things but need
> to deny them in order to keep the agenda going. You are a guy who raised 2
> lazy uneducated blobs trying to convince a guy who raised 2 highly
> educated children and one lawyer.

Uh oh, "lawyer". That says it ALL!

> It seems you really don't understand how the world works. Considering the
> source your lame insults really are pretty funny. How big a shitbag are
> you that you couldn't get even ONE kid to get an education or a decent
> job?
>
> After your idiotic insults and impotent protests you are now agreeing with
> my original statement. Nice work stupid.

[x***@xxx.com]

Chris wrote:
>
>
> Uh oh, "lawyer". That says it ALL!
>

You wonder why people don't take you seriously?

[Phil #3]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8oj9k$l17$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Chris wrote:
>>
>>
>> Uh oh, "lawyer". That says it ALL!
>>
>
> You wonder why people don't take you seriously?
>

Hope you didn't hurt your arm in patting yourself on the back like that.
Phil #3

[Phil #3]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8mngs$vjp$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Phil #3 wrote:
>>
>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8m9fj$hq8$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> Phil #3 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:wg0rm.186009$***@newsfe19.iad...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:v_WdnWFPL7-***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is
>>>>>>>>>>>> to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve
>>>>>>>>>>>> the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> group, get radical and vocal.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
>>>>>>>>>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are
>>>>>>>>>>> vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no
>>>>>>>>>>> central figure for men to rally around.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
>>>>>>>>>>> those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of
>>>>>>>>>>> a central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and
>>>>>>>>>>> keep them turning in the right direction is what is required for
>>>>>>>>>>> the MRM to take flight.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
>>>>>>>>>>> that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This
>>>>>>>>>>> in turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM
>>>>>>>>>>> as a nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem,
>>>>>>>>>>> lack of media support or good, pro-father stories in the media.
>>>>>>>>>>> A good deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood
>>>>>>>>>>> elite by their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and
>>>>>>>>>>> utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a
>>>>>>>>>>> Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line
>>>>>>>>>>> and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An
>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called
>>>>>>>>>>> joke about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard
>>>>>>>>>>> it wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl
>>>>>>>>>>> and insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas
>>>>>>>>>>> people went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not
>>>>>>>>>>> a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to
>>>>>>>>>>> the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>>>>>>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically
>>>>>>>>>> active and unified, which would be a radical change in the way
>>>>>>>>>> men act and react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you
>>>>>>>>>> speak has come about since the 1960's when women became
>>>>>>>>>> intensively politically active.
>>>>>>>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to
>>>>>>>>>> support women, are at a disadvantage but it is not
>>>>>>>>>> insurmountable.
>>>>>>>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head
>>>>>>>>>> positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of
>>>>>>>>>> women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal
>>>>>>>>>> politcs, taking and active part of the process while the majority
>>>>>>>>>> of men ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters
>>>>>>>>>> were from urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for
>>>>>>>>>> Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then
>>>>>>>>>> flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because
>>>>>>>>>> of racism... and no one bats an eye.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy
>>>>>>>>>> and/or incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent,
>>>>>>>>>> hard-working and mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows
>>>>>>>>>> (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes
>>>>>>>>>> real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men
>>>>>>>>> who have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government
>>>>>>>>> welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but
>>>>>>>>> surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
>>>>>>>>> known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying
>>>>>>>>> that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my
>>>>>>>> involvement) currently get food stamps and have for several years.
>>>>>>>> They are both healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't
>>>>>>>> get from me. Neither hold a job longer than it takes for
>>>>>>>> unemployment benefits to kick in then they stay unemployed until
>>>>>>>> benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a low-paying job that
>>>>>>>> won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my displeasure with their
>>>>>>>> actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly planted.
>>>>>>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet
>>>>>>>> enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just
>>>>>>>> getting what they can, while they are able.
>>>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother
>>>>>>> raises them determines their general behavior as adults.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow, you guys are really pro- failure. You adopted the attitude that
>>>>>> if I am unhappy everyone in the world should be too. You are 100%
>>>>>> wrong, boys almost always behave the way they are taught by their
>>>>>> male role models, leaving a child without a male role model means he
>>>>>> will have to find his own role models, in most cases that role model
>>>>>> will be a coach, teacher, older brother etc. But in the worst cases
>>>>>> the role model will be a person who preys on young men without role
>>>>>> models. When you read about a teenage drug dealer or shooter how
>>>>>> often is his mother in jail for dealing drugs or shooting someone?
>>>>>> Almost never. The male role model is almost always the example.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was making reference to principles, NOT role models.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there exceptions
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to the rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's
>>>>>>> example. Since many, if not most, children are taught by their
>>>>>>> mothers that men pay money and don't raise children, and women get
>>>>>>> free money and determine what to teach their children, it doesn't
>>>>>>> surprise me that the "child support" system perpetuates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to be realistic for 10 seconds, this is completely wrong and
>>>>>> ridiculous.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then perhaps YOU can explain why the beat goes on.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to talk about these things forget about your beefs with
>>>>>> child support learn a little about child psychology.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Welcome back!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris, I guess you enjoy the repartee with XXX but it scares me to
>>>> realize that there are many people who are just as warped as s/he.
>>>> For instance, s/he still wants to blame men as in the case of teenage
>>>> drug dealers who are most likely to come from a mother-headed home
>>>> where there is no male "role model" at all. The case of over 70% of all
>>>> inmates in jail are from a 'father-ess' home means nothing to bigots
>>>> such as XXX, they simply blame men, even though they are prevented from
>>>> being part of the problem/solution.
>>>> You can educate the ignorant but stupid is forever . However, you do
>>>> allow her/him to stick both feet into her/his ample mouth just by
>>>> keeping them stoked.
>>>>
>>>> Phil #3
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wow, you couldn't have read more incorrect crap into what I said if you
>>> weren't stupid. Nothing you said there refutes my statement, in
>>> fatherless households boys will seek out and emulate a male role model,
>>> is many cases these male role models are men who prey on fatherless
>>> boys. The welfare mom who sits around and lets her kid come home with
>>> new sneakers and a pocket full of cash is no help, but she is not the
>>> role model. You are purposely ignorant because admitting the simple
>>> truth puts a lot of responsibility on you, and that just won't do among
>>> you guys, this is a responsibility free zone, everything is someone
>>> else's fault.
>>
>>
>> You're a fuckin' fruitcake, XXX. You said nothing of substance, just more
>> anti-male lies.
>> You don't even realize that many children don't have a male role model in
>> their lives and of those who do, many of the so-called role models are
>> like you, which explains why so many boys turn into criminals, drug
>> pushers and addicts and generally worthless individuals.
>> Phil #3
>>
>
> I've said what the rest of the world understands without having to hear it
> from a stranger. I'm sure some of you already know these things but need
> to deny them in order to keep the agenda going. You are a guy who raised 2
> lazy uneducated blobs trying to convince a guy who raised 2 highly
> educated children and one lawyer. It seems you really don't understand how
> the world works. Considering the source your lame insults really are
> pretty funny. How big a shitbag are you that you couldn't get even ONE kid
> to get an education or a decent job?
>
> After your idiotic insults and impotent protests you are now agreeing with
> my original statement. Nice work stupid.

1) The "rest of the world" is more than the voices in your head telling you
that men are evil and women are saints.
2) The only person that "knows" anything you post is you and that is based
on nothing less than anti-male prejudice.
3) You are a liar. I didn't get the opportunity to raise my kids; their
mother did which is why the turned out the way they did, even though you
flatly refuse to accept the fact that some women are as worthless as some
men.
4) Like I said before, you're a fuckin' fruitcake and you prove it with each
post you make.

Phil #3

[Dusty]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...

[snip]

Oh bloody hell. Who let you out of your cage again?

[x***@xxx.com]

Dusty wrote:

> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> [snip]
>
> Oh bloody hell. Who let you out of your cage again?

You keep posting the ridiculous bullshit and I'll stop in from time to
time and make fun of you. I know how much you hate to hear the truth
when it contradicts your whining, but someone has to do it.

[Dusty]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8jt1a$dg0$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Dusty wrote:
>
>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Oh bloody hell. Who let you out of your cage again?
>
> You keep posting the ridiculous bullshit and I'll stop in from time to
> time and make fun of you. I know how much you hate to hear the truth when
> it contradicts your whining, but someone has to do it.

Yup, with astounding regularity, you somehow manage to wedge both feet into
your mouth more often then anyone I've ever had the pleasure of not meeting.
Your ability to post some of the most inane, ridiculous, incomprehensible
crap anyone has ever put forth is truly incredible.

Though, I still can't help but wonder if you'll ever, through whatever fluke
of fate, somehow publish the truth AND back it up with factual, verifiable
data. But I'm not going to hold my breath, it may be a very long wait
before you get round to it.

[x***@xxx.com]

Dusty wrote:

> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
> news:h8jt1a$dg0$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Dusty wrote:
>>
>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Oh bloody hell. Who let you out of your cage again?
>>
>>
>> You keep posting the ridiculous bullshit and I'll stop in from time to
>> time and make fun of you. I know how much you hate to hear the truth
>> when it contradicts your whining, but someone has to do it.
>
>
> Yup, with astounding regularity, you somehow manage to wedge both feet
> into your mouth more often then anyone I've ever had the pleasure of not
> meeting. Your ability to post some of the most inane, ridiculous,
> incomprehensible crap anyone has ever put forth is truly incredible.
>
> Though, I still can't help but wonder if you'll ever, through whatever
> fluke of fate, somehow publish the truth AND back it up with factual,
> verifiable data. But I'm not going to hold my breath, it may be a very
> long wait before you get round to it.

Yet you have yet to show me where I am wrong. You just whine a little
bit more and talk about me rather than the subject of the thread. You
tell me what fact you want backed up and I'll back it up.

[Phil #3]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8maae$ntm$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Dusty wrote:
>
>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8jt1a$dg0$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> Dusty wrote:
>>>
>>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Oh bloody hell. Who let you out of your cage again?
>>>
>>>
>>> You keep posting the ridiculous bullshit and I'll stop in from time to
>>> time and make fun of you. I know how much you hate to hear the truth
>>> when it contradicts your whining, but someone has to do it.
>>
>>
>> Yup, with astounding regularity, you somehow manage to wedge both feet
>> into your mouth more often then anyone I've ever had the pleasure of not
>> meeting. Your ability to post some of the most inane, ridiculous,
>> incomprehensible crap anyone has ever put forth is truly incredible.
>>
>> Though, I still can't help but wonder if you'll ever, through whatever
>> fluke of fate, somehow publish the truth AND back it up with factual,
>> verifiable data. But I'm not going to hold my breath, it may be a very
>> long wait before you get round to it.
>
> Yet you have yet to show me where I am wrong. You just whine a little bit
> more and talk about me rather than the subject of the thread. You tell me
> what fact you want backed up and I'll back it up.

You've been proven wrong on every "fact" you ever posted. You refuse to
learn because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Phil #3

[x***@xxx.com]

Phil #3 wrote:

>
> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
> news:h8maae$ntm$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Dusty wrote:
>>
>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h8jt1a$dg0$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>> Dusty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh bloody hell. Who let you out of your cage again?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You keep posting the ridiculous bullshit and I'll stop in from time
>>>> to time and make fun of you. I know how much you hate to hear the
>>>> truth when it contradicts your whining, but someone has to do it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yup, with astounding regularity, you somehow manage to wedge both
>>> feet into your mouth more often then anyone I've ever had the
>>> pleasure of not meeting. Your ability to post some of the most inane,
>>> ridiculous, incomprehensible crap anyone has ever put forth is truly
>>> incredible.
>>>
>>> Though, I still can't help but wonder if you'll ever, through
>>> whatever fluke of fate, somehow publish the truth AND back it up with
>>> factual, verifiable data. But I'm not going to hold my breath, it
>>> may be a very long wait before you get round to it.
>>
>>
>> Yet you have yet to show me where I am wrong. You just whine a little
>> bit more and talk about me rather than the subject of the thread. You
>> tell me what fact you want backed up and I'll back it up.
>
>
> You've been proven wrong on every "fact" you ever posted. You refuse to
> learn because it doesn't fit your agenda.
>
> Phil #3
>

Yet you are unable to show me a factual error in any of my posts, you
keep claiming that I am incorrect but you never back it up, you just
keep whining and pretending all of your problems are someone else's
fault. You are probably as incapable of learning as everything else.

[teachrmama]

On Sep 14, 5:38 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
> Phil #3 wrote:
>
> > "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
> >news:h8maae$ntm$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> Dusty wrote:
>
> >>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:h8jt1a$dg0$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>> Dusty wrote:
>
> >>>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>>> [snip]
>
> >>>>> Oh bloody hell.  Who let you out of your cage again?
>
> >>>> You keep posting the ridiculous bullshit and I'll stop in from time
> >>>> to time and make fun of you. I know how much you hate to hear the
> >>>> truth when it contradicts your whining, but someone has to do it.
>
> >>> Yup, with astounding regularity, you somehow manage to wedge both
> >>> feet into your mouth more often then anyone I've ever had the
> >>> pleasure of not meeting. Your ability to post some of the most inane,
> >>> ridiculous, incomprehensible crap anyone has ever put forth is truly
> >>> incredible.
>
> >>> Though, I still can't help but wonder if you'll ever, through
> >>> whatever fluke of fate, somehow publish the truth AND back it up with
> >>> factual, verifiable data.  But I'm not going to hold my breath, it
> >>> may be a very long wait before you get round to it.
>
> >> Yet you have yet to show me where I am wrong. You just whine a little
> >> bit more and talk about me rather than the subject of the thread. You
> >> tell me what fact you want backed up and I'll back it up.
>
> > You've been proven wrong on every "fact" you ever posted. You refuse to
> > learn because it doesn't fit your agenda.
>
> > Phil #3
>
> Yet you are unable to show me a factual error in any of my posts, you
> keep claiming that I am incorrect but you never back it up, you just
> keep whining and pretending all of your problems are someone else's
> fault. You are probably as incapable of learning as everything else


You could try proving the "facts" you claim to be true. I haven't
seen any references.

Wait---no--don't tell me. You are going to allow me to "seek out" the
facts on my own, in order that I may participate in my own education--
right? <chuckle>

[Phil #3]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8mnli$vjp$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Phil #3 wrote:
>
>>
>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8maae$ntm$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> Dusty wrote:
>>>
>>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:h8jt1a$dg0$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>>> Dusty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh bloody hell. Who let you out of your cage again?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep posting the ridiculous bullshit and I'll stop in from time to
>>>>> time and make fun of you. I know how much you hate to hear the truth
>>>>> when it contradicts your whining, but someone has to do it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yup, with astounding regularity, you somehow manage to wedge both feet
>>>> into your mouth more often then anyone I've ever had the pleasure of
>>>> not meeting. Your ability to post some of the most inane, ridiculous,
>>>> incomprehensible crap anyone has ever put forth is truly incredible.
>>>>
>>>> Though, I still can't help but wonder if you'll ever, through whatever
>>>> fluke of fate, somehow publish the truth AND back it up with factual,
>>>> verifiable data. But I'm not going to hold my breath, it may be a very
>>>> long wait before you get round to it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yet you have yet to show me where I am wrong. You just whine a little
>>> bit more and talk about me rather than the subject of the thread. You
>>> tell me what fact you want backed up and I'll back it up.
>>
>>
>> You've been proven wrong on every "fact" you ever posted. You refuse to
>> learn because it doesn't fit your agenda.
>>
>> Phil #3
>>
>
> Yet you are unable to show me a factual error in any of my posts, you keep
> claiming that I am incorrect but you never back it up, you just keep
> whining and pretending all of your problems are someone else's fault. You
> are probably as incapable of learning as everything else.

Correction there shitface, you've been shown to be a bigot and a liar with
facts that you simply deny.

Phil #3

[Chris]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8maae$ntm$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Dusty wrote:
>
>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8jt1a$dg0$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> Dusty wrote:
>>>
>>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Oh bloody hell. Who let you out of your cage again?
>>>
>>>
>>> You keep posting the ridiculous bullshit and I'll stop in from time to
>>> time and make fun of you. I know how much you hate to hear the truth
>>> when it contradicts your whining, but someone has to do it.
>>
>>
>> Yup, with astounding regularity, you somehow manage to wedge both feet
>> into your mouth more often then anyone I've ever had the pleasure of not
>> meeting. Your ability to post some of the most inane, ridiculous,
>> incomprehensible crap anyone has ever put forth is truly incredible.
>>
>> Though, I still can't help but wonder if you'll ever, through whatever
>> fluke of fate, somehow publish the truth AND back it up with factual,
>> verifiable data. But I'm not going to hold my breath, it may be a very
>> long wait before you get round to it.
>
> Yet you have yet to show me where I am wrong. You just whine a little bit
> more and talk about me rather than the subject of the thread. You tell me
> what fact you want backed up and I'll back it up.

"......the fathers in welfare neigborhoods, they are usually more trouble
than help."

"closer to 100% for men" do not think a biological father or father figure
is necessary to effectively raise children.

[x***@xxx.com]

Chris wrote:

>
> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
> news:h8maae$ntm$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Dusty wrote:
>>
>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h8jt1a$dg0$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>> Dusty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh bloody hell. Who let you out of your cage again?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You keep posting the ridiculous bullshit and I'll stop in from time
>>>> to time and make fun of you. I know how much you hate to hear the
>>>> truth when it contradicts your whining, but someone has to do it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yup, with astounding regularity, you somehow manage to wedge both
>>> feet into your mouth more often then anyone I've ever had the
>>> pleasure of not meeting. Your ability to post some of the most inane,
>>> ridiculous, incomprehensible crap anyone has ever put forth is truly
>>> incredible.
>>>
>>> Though, I still can't help but wonder if you'll ever, through
>>> whatever fluke of fate, somehow publish the truth AND back it up with
>>> factual, verifiable data. But I'm not going to hold my breath, it
>>> may be a very long wait before you get round to it.
>>
>>
>> Yet you have yet to show me where I am wrong. You just whine a little
>> bit more and talk about me rather than the subject of the thread. You
>> tell me what fact you want backed up and I'll back it up.
>
>
> "......the fathers in welfare neigborhoods, they are usually more
> trouble than help."
>

Being unemployed and raised on welfare themselves means that they will
cause more problems for the welfare moms than if they took
responsibility. That is more of a problem with the welfare system than
parents.

> "closer to 100% for men" do not think a biological father or father
> figure is necessary to effectively raise children.
>

Did I say that? If I did show me where.

[Phil #3]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8ojg4$mhk$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Chris wrote:
>
>>
>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8maae$ntm$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> Dusty wrote:
>>>
>>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:h8jt1a$dg0$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>>> Dusty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:h8hdp8$18k$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh bloody hell. Who let you out of your cage again?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep posting the ridiculous bullshit and I'll stop in from time to
>>>>> time and make fun of you. I know how much you hate to hear the truth
>>>>> when it contradicts your whining, but someone has to do it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yup, with astounding regularity, you somehow manage to wedge both feet
>>>> into your mouth more often then anyone I've ever had the pleasure of
>>>> not meeting. Your ability to post some of the most inane, ridiculous,
>>>> incomprehensible crap anyone has ever put forth is truly incredible.
>>>>
>>>> Though, I still can't help but wonder if you'll ever, through whatever
>>>> fluke of fate, somehow publish the truth AND back it up with factual,
>>>> verifiable data. But I'm not going to hold my breath, it may be a very
>>>> long wait before you get round to it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yet you have yet to show me where I am wrong. You just whine a little
>>> bit more and talk about me rather than the subject of the thread. You
>>> tell me what fact you want backed up and I'll back it up.
>>
>>
>> "......the fathers in welfare neigborhoods, they are usually more trouble
>> than help."
>>
>
> Being unemployed and raised on welfare themselves means that they will
> cause more problems for the welfare moms than if they took responsibility.
> That is more of a problem with the welfare system than parents.

Completely and conveniently overlooking the fact that these men were raised
that way at the sole choice of the mother who also instilled a "gimme"
attitude in them and failed to teach them a damed thing except the world
owes them a living.

>
>> "closer to 100% for men" do not think a biological father or father
>> figure is necessary to effectively raise children.
>>
>
> Did I say that? If I did show me where.

Shit, even showing you won't help because you'll find some way to slither
around it by lying again.
"I haven't read that stat but I would think it is closer to 100% for men and
women. " from news:h8mo59$vjp$***@news.eternal-september.org...
You said that's what you think so now tell us how that isn't what you meant,
that you were once again "misunderstood" you lying dirtbag.

Phil #3

[x***@xxx.com]

Phil #3 wrote:

>
> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>
>>
>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>
>>>
>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>
>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>>>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the
>>>>> whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group,
>>>>> get radical and vocal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
>>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal
>>>> about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure
>>>> for men to rally around.
>>>>
>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
>>>> those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a
>>>> central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep
>>>> them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM
>>>> to take flight.
>>>>
>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
>>>> that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in
>>>> turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a
>>>> nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of
>>>> media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal
>>>> of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their
>>>> constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools. After
>>>> being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years
>>>> the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising
>>>> an eyebrow.
>>>>
>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
>>>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about
>>>> former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted
>>>> Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and
>>>> insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people
>>>> went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was
>>>> heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he
>>>> slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>
>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>
>>>
>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active
>>> and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and
>>> react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about
>>> since the 1960's when women became intensively politically active.
>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
>>> women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions
>>> of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and
>>> minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs,
>>> taking and active part of the process while the majority of men
>>> ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from
>>> urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100%
>>> of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone
>>> who opposed his policies do so because of racism... and no one bats
>>> an eye.
>>>
>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>>> incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
>>> mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
>>> Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
>>> documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.
>>>
>>> Phil #3
>>
>>
>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who
>> have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare.
>> They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the
>> U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>
>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
>> known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that
>> collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>
>
> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
> Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to
> kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the
> cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've
> voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination
> is firmly planted.
> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
> voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what
> they can, while they are able.
> Phil #3
>
>

Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of
layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common
and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why
fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.

[Chris]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8hdbb$ttc$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Phil #3 wrote:
>
>>
>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>
>>>
>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>
>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>>>>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the
>>>>>> whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get
>>>>>> radical and vocal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea..
>>>>> (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it
>>>>> or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to
>>>>> rally around.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those
>>>>> in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
>>>>> organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning
>>>>> in the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
>>>>> much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is
>>>>> what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job.
>>>>> Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of media support
>>>>> or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be
>>>>> laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals
>>>>> of men as complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady
>>>>> diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into
>>>>> it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
>>>>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
>>>>> Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's
>>>>> head in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape
>>>>> would be good for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over
>>>>> this happening to a female, not a peep was heard about a demand for
>>>>> Letterman to apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
>>>> unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react.
>>>> This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since
>>>> the 1960's when women became intensively politically active.
>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
>>>> women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
>>>> governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and
>>>> minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking
>>>> and active part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at
>>>> their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and
>>>> 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters
>>>> cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his
>>>> policies do so because of racism... and no one bats an eye.
>>>>
>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>>>> incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
>>>> mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
>>>> Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
>>>> documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.
>>>>
>>>> Phil #3
>>>
>>>
>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who
>>> have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare.
>>> They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the U.S.
>>> is becomong the U.K.
>>>
>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better known
>>> as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that
>>> collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>
>>
>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
>> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
>> Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to kick
>> in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the cycle
>> with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my
>> displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly
>> planted.
>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
>> voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what they
>> can, while they are able.
>> Phil #3
>>
>>
>
> Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their fathers
> (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
> indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
> from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
> lifestyle.

And you know they had a male role model how?

> The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of layoffs,
> collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common and pretty
> rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why fathers
> (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as long as they
> are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.

With all due respect, whatever are you talking about?

> City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
> things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.

Some perhaps, but not necessarily all.

[x***@xxx.com]

Chris wrote:

>>>
>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
>>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
>>> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
>>> Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to
>>> kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat
>>> the cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility.
>>> I've voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of
>>> indoctrination is firmly planted.
>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet
>>> enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just
>>> getting what they can, while they are able.
>>> Phil #3
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
>> fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>> indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
>> weakness from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into
>> this sort of lifestyle.
>
>
> And you know they had a male role model how?
>

Phil told us, do you purposely miss everything that doesn't support your
rant? And being a cop is not much different than the lifestyle he
describes so you can see the connection.

>> The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of layoffs,
>> collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common and
>> pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why
>> fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
>> long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
>
>
> With all due respect, whatever are you talking about?
>

Exactly the same thing you are, except you are 100% wrong so you might
not get the point here.

>> City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
>> things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.
>
>
> Some perhaps, but not necessarily all.

If they are taught by their dads the odds are pretty good that they will.

[Chris]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8j236$uc1$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Chris wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
>>>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
>>>> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
>>>> Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to
>>>> kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the
>>>> cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've
>>>> voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination
>>>> is firmly planted.
>>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
>>>> voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what
>>>> they can, while they are able.
>>>> Phil #3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
>>> fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>>> indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
>>> from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
>>> lifestyle.
>>
>>
>> And you know they had a male role model how?
>>
>
> Phil told us,

Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children had a
male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that leads you to
believe so.

> do you purposely miss everything that doesn't support your rant? And being
> a cop is not much different than the lifestyle he describes so you can see
> the connection.
>
>>> The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of layoffs,
>>> collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common and pretty
>>> rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why fathers
>>> (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as long as
>>> they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
>>
>>
>> With all due respect, whatever are you talking about?
>>
>
> Exactly the same thing you are,

A CAREFUL review of my statements and yours will reveal that there is
absolutely NO relationship between the two.

> except you are 100% wrong so you might not get the point here.

A claim based upon a false premise.

>
>>> City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
>>> things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.
>>
>>
>> Some perhaps, but not necessarily all.
>
> If they are taught by their dads the odds are pretty good that they will.

[x***@xxx.com]

Chris wrote:
>
>
> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children
> had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that
> leads you to believe so.

He said .. "(raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)" Look
up restricted if you are still confused.

And showed his continued involvement with this "I've voiced my
displeasure with their actions"

If you've read his other posts you can see how he and his kids have a
decent relationship despite the efforts of his ex.

>
> A CAREFUL review of my statements and yours will reveal that there is
> absolutely NO relationship between the two.
>

Thats because you can't follow anything that doesn't agree with your
agenda. You've already made that obvious.

[Chris]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8k9io$8m9$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Chris wrote:
>>
>>
>> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children had
>> a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that leads
>> you to believe so.
>
> He said .. "(raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)" Look up
> restricted if you are still confused.

Since such restriction could be so much as allowing just ONE contact, then
technically you could deduce that they had a male role model. The common
understanding of a "role model", however, is one (especially when it
concerns a father figure) in which the student has continued, uninhibited,
regular contact; not some part time visitor.
By the way, in case you were not aware, overlooking something is NOT the
same as being confused. Look it up.

>
> And showed his continued involvement with this "I've voiced my displeasure
> with their actions"

That says nothing about any continued involvement.

>
> If you've read his other posts you can see how he and his kids have a
> decent relationship despite the efforts of his ex.
>
>>
>> A CAREFUL review of my statements and yours will reveal that there is
>> absolutely NO relationship between the two.
>>
>
> Thats because you can't follow anything that doesn't agree with your
> agenda. You've already made that obvious.

Whether or not I can't follow anything that doesn't agree with my so-called
"agenda" has no bearing on the fact that there is absolutely NO relationship
between the two groups of statements.

[x***@xxx.com]

Chris wrote:

>
> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
> news:h8k9io$8m9$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children
>>> had a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that
>>> leads you to believe so.
>>
>>
>> He said .. "(raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)"
>> Look up restricted if you are still confused.
>
>
> Since such restriction could be so much as allowing just ONE contact,
> then technically you could deduce that they had a male role model. The
> common understanding of a "role model", however, is one (especially when
> it concerns a father figure) in which the student has continued,
> uninhibited, regular contact; not some part time visitor.

It can be either, the boys usually decide who their role model is and
make it their business to be around him.

> By the way, in case you were not aware, overlooking something is NOT the
> same as being confused. Look it up.

Sometimes one leads to the other.

>
>>
>> And showed his continued involvement with this "I've voiced my
>> displeasure with their actions"
>
>
> That says nothing about any continued involvement.
>

No? then when and to whom is he voicing his displeasure?

[Phil #3]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8k9io$8m9$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Chris wrote:
>>
>>
>> Apparently, I must have overlooked where he claimed that his children had
>> a male role model. Perhaps you might quote just what he said that leads
>> you to believe so.
>
> He said .. "(raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)" Look up
> restricted if you are still confused.
>
> And showed his continued involvement with this "I've voiced my displeasure
> with their actions"
>
> If you've read his other posts you can see how he and his kids have a
> decent relationship despite the efforts of his ex.
>
>>
>> A CAREFUL review of my statements and yours will reveal that there is
>> absolutely NO relationship between the two.
>>
>
> Thats because you can't follow anything that doesn't agree with your
> agenda. You've already made that obvious.

Such a shit-for-brains. My children are grown; the oldest being over 40.
During the time they were living with their mother, my contact was
restricted or eliminated by the mother. Since then, she cannot restrict
either them or me or our actions, therefore we see each other more than we
did then, however the damage had been accomplished WHILE LIVING WITH THEIR
MOTHER. You should stop attacking men and defending women you know no
better. You know absolutely none of the principals involved yet pretend you
know all there is to know about the case based on nothing more than
anti-male prejudice. I don't know where you're from but I can say without a
doubt they sure grow 'em stupid there.

Phil #3

[Phil #3]

"Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
news:qD7rm.187627$***@newsfe19.iad...
>
> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
> news:h8hdbb$ttc$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Phil #3 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>>>>>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the
>>>>>>> whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get
>>>>>>> radical and vocal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
>>>>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal
>>>>>> about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure
>>>>>> for men to rally around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
>>>>>> those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a
>>>>>> central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep
>>>>>> them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM
>>>>>> to take flight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
>>>>>> that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in
>>>>>> turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a
>>>>>> nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of media
>>>>>> support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of
>>>>>> that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant
>>>>>> portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed
>>>>>> a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public
>>>>>> buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
>>>>>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about
>>>>>> former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted
>>>>>> Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating
>>>>>> that rape would be good for her. But whereas people went into an
>>>>>> uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was heard about a
>>>>>> demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he slighted as her
>>>>>> would-be rapist!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active
>>>>> and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and
>>>>> react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about
>>>>> since the 1960's when women became intensively politically active.
>>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
>>>>> women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions
>>>>> of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and
>>>>> minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking
>>>>> and active part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at
>>>>> their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and
>>>>> 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters
>>>>> cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his
>>>>> policies do so because of racism... and no one bats an eye.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>>>>> incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
>>>>> mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
>>>>> Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
>>>>> documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who
>>>> have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare.
>>>> They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the
>>>> U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>>>
>>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
>>>> known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that
>>>> collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>>
>>>
>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
>>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
>>> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
>>> Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to
>>> kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the
>>> cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've
>>> voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination
>>> is firmly planted.
>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
>>> voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what
>>> they can, while they are able.
>>> Phil #3
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their fathers
>> (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>> indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
>> from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
>> lifestyle.
>
> And you know they had a male role model how?
>
>> The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of layoffs,
>> collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common and pretty
>> rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why fathers
>> (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as long as they
>> are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
>
> With all due respect, whatever are you talking about?
>
>> City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
>> things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.
>
> Some perhaps, but not necessarily all.

I wonder what it's like to think one knows everything about any subject like
XXX does.
The truly amazing part is even s/he simply cannot be so stupid as to
actually believe any of the sexist garbage s/he spews and still be able to
feed and dress themselves.
I suppose it is a case of making shit up as one goes. (You'll notice s/he
never offers any sort of proof, evidence or anything else except personal
bigotry).
S/he seems to think that her/his imagination is more relivant than our
experience.
Phil #3

[x***@xxx.com]

Phil #3 wrote:

>
> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:qD7rm.187627$***@newsfe19.iad...
>
>>
>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8hdbb$ttc$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> Phil #3 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is
>>>>>>>> to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve
>>>>>>>> the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a
>>>>>>>> group, get radical and vocal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
>>>>>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are
>>>>>>> vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no
>>>>>>> central figure for men to rally around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
>>>>>>> those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a
>>>>>>> central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and
>>>>>>> keep them turning in the right direction is what is required for
>>>>>>> the MRM to take flight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
>>>>>>> that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in
>>>>>>> turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a
>>>>>>> nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of
>>>>>>> media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good
>>>>>>> deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by
>>>>>>> their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter
>>>>>>> fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for
>>>>>>> nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker
>>>>>>> without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An
>>>>>>> unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called
>>>>>>> joke about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it
>>>>>>> wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and
>>>>>>> insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people
>>>>>>> went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep
>>>>>>> was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he
>>>>>>> slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically
>>>>>> active and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men
>>>>>> act and react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has
>>>>>> come about since the 1960's when women became intensively
>>>>>> politically active.
>>>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to
>>>>>> support women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head
>>>>>> positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of
>>>>>> women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal
>>>>>> politcs, taking and active part of the process while the majority
>>>>>> of men ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters
>>>>>> were from urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama.
>>>>>> Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly
>>>>>> state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of
>>>>>> racism... and no one bats an eye.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy
>>>>>> and/or incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent,
>>>>>> hard-working and mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows
>>>>>> (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes
>>>>>> real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men
>>>>> who have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government
>>>>> welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but
>>>>> surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>>>>
>>>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
>>>>> known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying
>>>>> that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
>>>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
>>>> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
>>>> Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to
>>>> kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat
>>>> the cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility.
>>>> I've voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of
>>>> indoctrination is firmly planted.
>>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet
>>>> enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just
>>>> getting what they can, while they are able.
>>>> Phil #3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
>>> fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>>> indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
>>> weakness from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into
>>> this sort of lifestyle.
>>
>>
>> And you know they had a male role model how?
>>
>>> The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of
>>> layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly
>>> common and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition.
>>> That's why fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy
>>> ANYTHING as long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and
>>> instruction.
>>
>>
>> With all due respect, whatever are you talking about?
>>
>>> City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do
>>> those things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to
>>> do that.
>>
>>
>> Some perhaps, but not necessarily all.
>
>
> I wonder what it's like to think one knows everything about any subject
> like XXX does.

Better than knowing nothing and blaming everything on others, much
better in fact. You should try it sometime.

> The truly amazing part is even s/he simply cannot be so stupid as to
> actually believe any of the sexist garbage s/he spews and still be able
> to feed and dress themselves.

Nothing sexist about boys seeking male role models and emulating them,
unless you were raised under a rock and live in a cage you have seen the
same thing I have and know it to be true. Obviously you are denying this
simple, universal fact because it hurts your victimhood agenda and
doesn't blame a problem on the courts, judges or some woman.

> I suppose it is a case of making shit up as one goes. (You'll notice
> s/he never offers any sort of proof, evidence or anything else except
> personal bigotry).

You need proof of this? Crack a psych 101 book and learn something.

> S/he seems to think that her/his imagination is more relivant than our
> experience.
> Phil #3
>

Your experience has been shit, and it is as much your own fault as
anyone else's. I use this info to raise kids who are not lazy losers, so
far I am 3 for 3. Who would you listen to? A broken down whining mess
whose kids are on the dole or the parent of college educated gainfully
employed adults. Your experience is worthless to 99% of the world,
nobody makes raising lazy kids a parenting goal.

I know, I know, it wasn't your fault, their mother was mean to me, the
judge made me pay support, the system is stacked against me whine whine
whine .... Look how all that worked out for you.

[Phil #3]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8ma1u$mol$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Phil #3 wrote:
>
>>
>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>> news:qD7rm.187627$***@newsfe19.iad...
>>
>>>
>>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h8hdbb$ttc$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>> Phil #3 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>>>>>>>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the
>>>>>>>>> whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group,
>>>>>>>>> get radical and vocal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
>>>>>>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are
>>>>>>>> vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central
>>>>>>>> figure for men to rally around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
>>>>>>>> those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a
>>>>>>>> central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep
>>>>>>>> them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM
>>>>>>>> to take flight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
>>>>>>>> that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in
>>>>>>>> turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a
>>>>>>>> nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of
>>>>>>>> media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good
>>>>>>>> deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by
>>>>>>>> their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools.
>>>>>>>> After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30
>>>>>>>> years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever
>>>>>>>> raising an eyebrow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
>>>>>>>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about
>>>>>>>> former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted
>>>>>>>> Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and
>>>>>>>> insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people
>>>>>>>> went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was
>>>>>>>> heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he
>>>>>>>> slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>>>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active
>>>>>>> and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and
>>>>>>> react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come
>>>>>>> about since the 1960's when women became intensively politically
>>>>>>> active.
>>>>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
>>>>>>> women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions
>>>>>>> of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and
>>>>>>> minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs,
>>>>>>> taking and active part of the process while the majority of men
>>>>>>> ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from
>>>>>>> urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100%
>>>>>>> of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone
>>>>>>> who opposed his policies do so because of racism... and no one bats
>>>>>>> an eye.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>>>>>>> incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
>>>>>>> mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
>>>>>>> Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
>>>>>>> documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who
>>>>>> have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government
>>>>>> welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but
>>>>>> surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
>>>>>> known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that
>>>>>> collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
>>>>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
>>>>> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
>>>>> Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to
>>>>> kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat
>>>>> the cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've
>>>>> voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination
>>>>> is firmly planted.
>>>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
>>>>> voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what
>>>>> they can, while they are able.
>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
>>>> fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>>>> indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
>>>> weakness from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into
>>>> this sort of lifestyle.
>>>
>>>
>>> And you know they had a male role model how?
>>>
>>>> The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of layoffs,
>>>> collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common and
>>>> pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why
>>>> fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
>>>> long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
>>>
>>>
>>> With all due respect, whatever are you talking about?
>>>
>>>> City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
>>>> things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do
>>>> that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some perhaps, but not necessarily all.
>>
>>
>> I wonder what it's like to think one knows everything about any subject
>> like XXX does.
>
> Better than knowing nothing and blaming everything on others, much better
> in fact. You should try it sometime.
>
>> The truly amazing part is even s/he simply cannot be so stupid as to
>> actually believe any of the sexist garbage s/he spews and still be able
>> to feed and dress themselves.
>
> Nothing sexist about boys seeking male role models and emulating them,
> unless you were raised under a rock and live in a cage you have seen the
> same thing I have and know it to be true. Obviously you are denying this
> simple, universal fact because it hurts your victimhood agenda and doesn't
> blame a problem on the courts, judges or some woman.
>
>> I suppose it is a case of making shit up as one goes. (You'll notice s/he
>> never offers any sort of proof, evidence or anything else except
>> personal bigotry).
>
> You need proof of this? Crack a psych 101 book and learn something.
>
>> S/he seems to think that her/his imagination is more relivant than our
>> experience.
>> Phil #3
>>
>
> Your experience has been shit, and it is as much your own fault as anyone
> else's. I use this info to raise kids who are not lazy losers, so far I am
> 3 for 3. Who would you listen to? A broken down whining mess whose kids
> are on the dole or the parent of college educated gainfully employed
> adults. Your experience is worthless to 99% of the world, nobody makes
> raising lazy kids a parenting goal.
>
> I know, I know, it wasn't your fault, their mother was mean to me, the
> judge made me pay support, the system is stacked against me whine whine
> whine .... Look how all that worked out for you.

You know nothing of me yet claim to know much.
You are a pathetic excuse for a human and a total waste of air and skin.

Phil #3

[x***@xxx.com]

Phil #3 wrote:
>
> You know nothing of me yet claim to know much.
> You are a pathetic excuse for a human and a total waste of air and skin.
>
> Phil #3
>

At least I raised my kids to be productive members of society, that
makes me 1000 times more worthwhile than you. I claim to know what you
have posted here, nothing more nothing less but you paint the picture of
a lowlife with your posts.

[teachrmama]

On Sep 12, 5:11 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
> Phil #3 wrote:
>
> > "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
> >news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>
> >> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >>news:***@earthlink.com...
>
> >>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
> >>>news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>
> >>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:***@earthlink.com...
>
> >>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:***@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:***@earthlink.com...
>
> >>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>
> >>>>>>> [snip]
>
> >>>> [snip]
>
> >>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
> >>>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the
> >>>>> whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group,
> >>>>> get radical and vocal.
>
> >>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
> >>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal
> >>>> about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure
> >>>> for men to rally around.
>
> >>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
> >>>> those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff.  The lack of a
> >>>> central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep
> >>>> them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM
> >>>> to take flight.
>
> >>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
> >>>> that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head.  This in
> >>>> turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a
> >>>> nut-job.  Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of
> >>>> media support or good, pro-father stories in the media.  A good deal
> >>>> of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their
> >>>> constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools.  After
> >>>> being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years
> >>>> the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising
> >>>> an eyebrow.
>
> >>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters.  An unlikely
> >>>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about
> >>>> former Governor Palin's daughter.  People who heard it wanted
> >>>> Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and
> >>>> insinuating that rape would be good for her.  But whereas people
> >>>> went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was
> >>>> heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he
> >>>> slighted as her would-be rapist!
>
> >>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
> >>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>
> >>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active
> >>> and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and
> >>> react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about
> >>> since the 1960's when women became intensively politically active.
> >>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
> >>> women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
> >>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions
> >>> of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and
> >>> minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs,
> >>> taking and active part of the process while the majority of men
> >>> ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from
> >>> urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100%
> >>> of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone
> >>> who opposed his policies do so because of racism... and no one bats
> >>> an eye.
>
> >>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
> >>> incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
> >>> mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
> >>> Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
> >>> documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.
>
> >>> Phil #3
>
> >> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who
> >> have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare.
> >> They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the
> >> U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>
> >> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
> >> known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that
> >> collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>
> > Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
> > currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
> > healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
> > Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to
> > kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the
> > cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've
> > voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination
> > is firmly planted.
> > Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
> > voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what
> > they can, while they are able.
> > Phil #3
>
> Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
> fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
> indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
> from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
> lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of
> layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common
> and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why
> fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
> long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
> City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
> things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hmmm.....so you are saying that boys that are raised soley by their
mothers, with no contact with their fathers, will emulated their
fathers? If the only contact they have with their fathers is the
money that flows into the household via child support, they will
emulate their fathers and work hard to make sure their children are
financially supported, even if the mothers of their children prevent
them from having any contact with their children?

How do you recommend that fathers give their sons positive
reinforcement if they are prevented from any contact with their
children?

[x***@xxx.com]

>>
>>Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
>>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>>indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
>>from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
>>lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of
>>layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common
>>and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why
>>fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
>>long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
>>City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
>>things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.
>>
>
>
> Hmmm.....so you are saying that boys that are raised soley by their
> mothers, with no contact with their fathers, will emulated their
> fathers?

Hmmmm .... if you read what I wrote you would already KNOW I didn't say
that. Is it possible that you will purposely misrepresent what I said in
order to push an agenda? I hope you didn't base the rest of your post on
this lie.

> If the only contact they have with their fathers is the
> money that flows into the household via child support, they will
> emulate their fathers and work hard to make sure their children are
> financially supported, even if the mothers of their children prevent
> them from having any contact with their children?
>

When your premise is a lie, the rest of your argument is worthless.
Reread what I wrote and give it another shot.


> How do you recommend that fathers give their sons positive
> reinforcement if they are prevented from any contact with their
> children?

How do you expect to get away with this sort of dishonesty when you left
the text that proves you to be mistaken right above your post?

[teachrmama]

On Sep 13, 3:58 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
> >>Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
> >>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
> >>indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
> >>from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
> >>lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of
> >>layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common
> >>and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why
> >>fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
> >>long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
> >>City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
> >>things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.
>
> > Hmmm.....so you are saying that boys that are raised soley by their
> > mothers, with no contact with their fathers, will emulated their
> > fathers?
>
> Hmmmm .... if you read what I wrote you would already KNOW I didn't say
> that. Is it possible that you will purposely misrepresent what I said in
> order to push an agenda? I hope you didn't base the rest of your post on
> this lie.
>
> >  If the only contact they have with their fathers is the
> > money that flows into the household via child support, they will
> > emulate their fathers and work hard to make sure their children are
> > financially supported, even if the mothers of their children prevent
> > them from having any contact with their children?
>
> When your premise is a lie, the rest of your argument is worthless.
> Reread what I wrote and give it another shot.
>
> > How do you recommend that fathers give their sons positive
> > reinforcement if they are prevented from any contact with their
> > children?
>
> How do you expect to get away with this sort of dishonesty when you left
> the text that proves you to be mistaken right above your post?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

<chuckle> Yep. Same old you. I did read your post.

"Boys emulate their
fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
weakness
from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort
of
lifestyle"

So are you saying that it is NOT the father's responsibility if his
children turn out that way, if he was prevented from contact with his
childrfen?

And if it is NOT the father's responsibility, then is it the
responsibility of the person who prevented contact with the father,
thereby putting the child in the position of choosing a weak male role
model?

[x***@xxx.com]

teachrmama wrote:

> On Sep 13, 3:58 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
>>>>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>>>>indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
>>>
>>>>from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
>>>
>>>>lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of
>>>>layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common
>>>>and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why
>>>>fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
>>>>long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
>>>>City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
>>>>things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.
>>
>>>Hmmm.....so you are saying that boys that are raised soley by their
>>>mothers, with no contact with their fathers, will emulated their
>>>fathers?
>>
>>Hmmmm .... if you read what I wrote you would already KNOW I didn't say
>>that. Is it possible that you will purposely misrepresent what I said in
>>order to push an agenda? I hope you didn't base the rest of your post on
>>this lie.
>>
>>
>>> If the only contact they have with their fathers is the
>>>money that flows into the household via child support, they will
>>>emulate their fathers and work hard to make sure their children are
>>>financially supported, even if the mothers of their children prevent
>>>them from having any contact with their children?
>>
>>When your premise is a lie, the rest of your argument is worthless.
>>Reread what I wrote and give it another shot.
>>
>>
>>>How do you recommend that fathers give their sons positive
>>>reinforcement if they are prevented from any contact with their
>>>children?
>>
>>How do you expect to get away with this sort of dishonesty when you left
>>the text that proves you to be mistaken right above your post?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> <chuckle> Yep. Same old you. I did read your post.
>

Same old subject changing and strawman arguments from you. You either
didn't read my post or didn't understand it.

> "Boys emulate their
> fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
> indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
> weakness
> from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort
> of
> lifestyle"
>

So there you go, read that until you can understand what I said.

> So are you saying that it is NOT the father's responsibility if his
> children turn out that way, if he was prevented from contact with his
> childrfen?

I didn't say that or anything like that, you just made that up for some
reason. What is your reason for making that up or trying to misrepresent
what I said to be that?

What I am saying, what I said in plain english as a matter of fact, is
that boys emulate their male role models a very high percentage of the
time, if the boys turn out a certain way it is more likely because the
male role model, father figure or actual father was that way. It is not
likely that growing boys tried to emulate their mother. If you read the
thread you can see that I responded to someone who claimed the lazy kids
were the fault of the mother's indoctrination or some such nonsense.

> And if it is NOT the father's responsibility, then is it the
> responsibility of the person who prevented contact with the father,
> thereby putting the child in the position of choosing a weak male role
> model?
>

What in god's name are you on about? Is this a chick thing where you
can't have a conversation without making things up and reading your own
ideas into the things other people say? I said exactly what you read,
thats it, none of your nonsense is included in what I said.

[Chris]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8ka8s$c9h$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> teachrmama wrote:
>
>> On Sep 13, 3:58 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
>>>>>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>>>>>indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
>>>>>weakness
>>>>
>>>>>from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
>>>>
>>>>>lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round
>>>>>of
>>>>>layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common
>>>>>and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why
>>>>>fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
>>>>>long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
>>>>>City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
>>>>>things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do
>>>>>that.
>>>
>>>>Hmmm.....so you are saying that boys that are raised soley by their
>>>>mothers, with no contact with their fathers, will emulated their
>>>>fathers?
>>>
>>>Hmmmm .... if you read what I wrote you would already KNOW I didn't say
>>>that. Is it possible that you will purposely misrepresent what I said in
>>>order to push an agenda? I hope you didn't base the rest of your post on
>>>this lie.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If the only contact they have with their fathers is the
>>>>money that flows into the household via child support, they will
>>>>emulate their fathers and work hard to make sure their children are
>>>>financially supported, even if the mothers of their children prevent
>>>>them from having any contact with their children?
>>>
>>>When your premise is a lie, the rest of your argument is worthless.
>>>Reread what I wrote and give it another shot.
>>>
>>>
>>>>How do you recommend that fathers give their sons positive
>>>>reinforcement if they are prevented from any contact with their
>>>>children?
>>>
>>>How do you expect to get away with this sort of dishonesty when you left
>>>the text that proves you to be mistaken right above your post?- Hide
>>>quoted text -
>>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>> <chuckle> Yep. Same old you. I did read your post.
>>
>
> Same old subject changing and strawman arguments from you. You either
> didn't read my post or didn't understand it.
>
>> "Boys emulate their
>> fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>> indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
>> weakness
>> from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort
>> of
>> lifestyle"
>>
>
> So there you go, read that until you can understand what I said.
>
>> So are you saying that it is NOT the father's responsibility if his
>> children turn out that way, if he was prevented from contact with his
>> childrfen?
>
> I didn't say that or anything like that, you just made that up for some
> reason. What is your reason for making that up or trying to misrepresent
> what I said to be that?

Nothing was made up. Apparently, you lack a fundamental understanding of the
difference between a question and a statement.

>
> What I am saying, what I said in plain english as a matter of fact, is
> that boys emulate their male role models a very high percentage of the
> time, if the boys turn out a certain way it is more likely because the
> male role model, father figure or actual father was that way. It is not
> likely that growing boys tried to emulate their mother. If you read the
> thread you can see that I responded to someone who claimed the lazy kids
> were the fault of the mother's indoctrination or some such nonsense.
>
>> And if it is NOT the father's responsibility, then is it the
>> responsibility of the person who prevented contact with the father,
>> thereby putting the child in the position of choosing a weak male role
>> model?
>>
>
> What in god's name are you on about?

Do you always answer a question with a question? The previous poster is "on
about" a yes/no answer to a simple question.

> Is this a chick thing where you can't have a conversation without making
> things up and reading your own ideas into the things other people say? I
> said exactly what you read, thats it, none of your nonsense is included in
> what I said.

[x***@xxx.com]

Chris wrote:
>
>
> Nothing was made up. Apparently, you lack a fundamental understanding of
> the difference between a question and a statement.
>

Yes, her "questions" have no ulterior motive and never change the
subject when she can't refute the topic of a post.

>
>
> Do you always answer a question with a question? The previous poster is
> "on about" a yes/no answer to a simple question.
>

I'd share a laugh with you about irony but I doubt you'd get it. You can
both answer your own questions, you don't need me to make up new whines
for the group.

>> Is this a chick thing where you can't have a conversation without
>> making things up and reading your own ideas into the things other
>> people say? I said exactly what you read, thats it, none of your
>> nonsense is included in what I said.
>
>
>

[Phil #3]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8ma7f$ntm$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Chris wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nothing was made up. Apparently, you lack a fundamental understanding of
>> the difference between a question and a statement.
>>
>
> Yes, her "questions" have no ulterior motive and never change the subject
> when she can't refute the topic of a post.
>
>>
>>
>> Do you always answer a question with a question? The previous poster is
>> "on about" a yes/no answer to a simple question.
>>
>
> I'd share a laugh with you about irony but I doubt you'd get it. You can
> both answer your own questions, you don't need me to make up new whines
> for the group.
>

TM asked you a question that an answer from you would either prove you to be
a liar or a fool, depending on which way your answer tilted. Little wonder
you never explain yourself.
Phil #3


>>> Is this a chick thing where you can't have a conversation without making
>>> things up and reading your own ideas into the things other people say? I
>>> said exactly what you read, thats it, none of your nonsense is included
>>> in what I said.
>>
>>

[x***@xxx.com]

Phil #3 wrote:
>>
>> I'd share a laugh with you about irony but I doubt you'd get it. You
>> can both answer your own questions, you don't need me to make up new
>> whines for the group.
>>
>
> TM asked you a question that an answer from you would either prove you
> to be a liar or a fool, depending on which way your answer tilted.
> Little wonder you never explain yourself.
> Phil #3
>

No, she asked a bullshit question designed to change the topic of the
conversation, like she always does when she can't refute what I have
said. Since nothing in her response adressed anything in my post it was
pretty obvious (even to a lying shitbag like yourself) what she was up to.

[teachrmama]

On Sep 14, 5:43 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
> Phil #3 wrote:
>
> >> I'd share a laugh with you about irony but I doubt you'd get it. You
> >> can both answer your own questions, you don't need me to make up new
> >> whines for the group.
>
> > TM asked you a question that an answer from you would either prove you
> > to be a liar or a fool, depending on which way your answer tilted.
> > Little wonder you never explain yourself.
> > Phil #3
>
> No, she asked a bullshit question designed to change the topic of the
> conversation, like she always does when she can't refute what I have
> said. Since nothing in her response adressed anything in my post it was
> pretty obvious (even to a lying shitbag like yourself) what she was up to.

<snicker> Refute your "facts"? You mean the ones you haven't posted
any cites for, but expect everyone to buy into just because you claim
they are true? LOL

[x***@xxx.com]

teachrmama wrote:
> On Sep 14, 5:43 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>
>>Phil #3 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I'd share a laugh with you about irony but I doubt you'd get it. You
>>>>can both answer your own questions, you don't need me to make up new
>>>>whines for the group.
>>
>>>TM asked you a question that an answer from you would either prove you
>>>to be a liar or a fool, depending on which way your answer tilted.
>>>Little wonder you never explain yourself.
>>>Phil #3
>>
>>No, she asked a bullshit question designed to change the topic of the
>>conversation, like she always does when she can't refute what I have
>>said. Since nothing in her response adressed anything in my post it was
>>pretty obvious (even to a lying shitbag like yourself) what she was up to.
>
>
> <snicker> Refute your "facts"? You mean the ones you haven't posted
> any cites for, but expect everyone to buy into just because you claim
> they are true? LOL
>

If they aren't true you should have no trouble refuting them without
resorting to lies and subject changes right? Have a go.

[Phil #3]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8hdbb$ttc$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Phil #3 wrote:
>
>>
>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>
>>>
>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>
>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>>>>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the
>>>>>> whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get
>>>>>> radical and vocal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea..
>>>>> (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it
>>>>> or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to
>>>>> rally around.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those
>>>>> in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
>>>>> organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning
>>>>> in the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
>>>>> much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is
>>>>> what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job.
>>>>> Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of media support
>>>>> or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be
>>>>> laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals
>>>>> of men as complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady
>>>>> diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into
>>>>> it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
>>>>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
>>>>> Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's
>>>>> head in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape
>>>>> would be good for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over
>>>>> this happening to a female, not a peep was heard about a demand for
>>>>> Letterman to apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
>>>> unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react.
>>>> This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since
>>>> the 1960's when women became intensively politically active.
>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
>>>> women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
>>>> governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and
>>>> minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking
>>>> and active part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at
>>>> their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and
>>>> 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters
>>>> cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his
>>>> policies do so because of racism... and no one bats an eye.
>>>>
>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>>>> incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
>>>> mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
>>>> Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
>>>> documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.
>>>>
>>>> Phil #3
>>>
>>>
>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who
>>> have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare.
>>> They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the U.S.
>>> is becomong the U.K.
>>>
>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better known
>>> as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that
>>> collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>
>>
>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
>> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
>> Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to kick
>> in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the cycle
>> with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my
>> displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly
>> planted.
>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
>> voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what they
>> can, while they are able.
>> Phil #3
>>
>>
>
> Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their fathers
> (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
> indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
> from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
> lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of
> layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common and
> pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why
> fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as long
> as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction. City kids
> will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those things,
> redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.

You're a liar or stupid. Only you know which. but whichever, you are
definitely a sexual bigot.
Phil #3

[x***@xxx.com]

Phil #3 wrote:

>
> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
> news:h8hdbb$ttc$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Phil #3 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is
>>>>>>> to consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve
>>>>>>> the whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a
>>>>>>> group, get radical and vocal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
>>>>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are
>>>>>> vocal about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central
>>>>>> figure for men to rally around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
>>>>>> those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a
>>>>>> central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep
>>>>>> them turning in the right direction is what is required for the
>>>>>> MRM to take flight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
>>>>>> that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in
>>>>>> turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a
>>>>>> nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of
>>>>>> media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good
>>>>>> deal of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by
>>>>>> their constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter
>>>>>> fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for
>>>>>> nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker
>>>>>> without ever raising an eyebrow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An
>>>>>> unlikely example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke
>>>>>> about former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it
>>>>>> wanted Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and
>>>>>> insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people
>>>>>> went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep
>>>>>> was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he
>>>>>> slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active
>>>>> and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and
>>>>> react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come
>>>>> about since the 1960's when women became intensively politically
>>>>> active.
>>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
>>>>> women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head
>>>>> positions of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of
>>>>> women and minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal
>>>>> politcs, taking and active part of the process while the majority
>>>>> of men ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters
>>>>> were from urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama.
>>>>> Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly
>>>>> state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of
>>>>> racism... and no one bats an eye.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>>>>> incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
>>>>> mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
>>>>> Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
>>>>> documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men
>>>> who have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government
>>>> welfare. They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but
>>>> surely, the U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>>>
>>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
>>>> known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying
>>>> that collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>>
>>>
>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
>>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
>>> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
>>> Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to
>>> kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat
>>> the cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility.
>>> I've voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of
>>> indoctrination is firmly planted.
>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet
>>> enlist voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just
>>> getting what they can, while they are able.
>>> Phil #3
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
>> fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>> indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
>> weakness from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into
>> this sort of lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the
>> first round of layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle
>> is fairly common and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no
>> ambition. That's why fathers (father figures) are the key to this,
>> boys enjoy ANYTHING as long as they are getting some positive
>> reinforcement and instruction. City kids will love fishing and hunting
>> if they are taught to do those things, redneck kids will love tennis
>> if they are encouraged to do that.
>
>
> You're a liar or stupid. Only you know which. but whichever, you are
> definitely a sexual bigot.
> Phil #3
>
>

and you are just a whiny loser, doesn't change the facts though.

[Phil #3]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8m9jl$hq8$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Phil #3 wrote:
>
>>
>> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8hdbb$ttc$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> Phil #3 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1Pzqm.34861$***@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:h88n7v$1e8$02$***@news.t-online.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Phil #3" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
>>>>>>>> consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the
>>>>>>>> whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group,
>>>>>>>> get radical and vocal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
>>>>>>> idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal
>>>>>>> about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure
>>>>>>> for men to rally around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
>>>>>>> those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a
>>>>>>> central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep
>>>>>>> them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM
>>>>>>> to take flight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
>>>>>>> that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in
>>>>>>> turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a
>>>>>>> nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of
>>>>>>> media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal
>>>>>>> of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their
>>>>>>> constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools. After
>>>>>>> being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years
>>>>>>> the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising
>>>>>>> an eyebrow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
>>>>>>> example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about
>>>>>>> former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted
>>>>>>> Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and
>>>>>>> insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people
>>>>>>> went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was
>>>>>>> heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he
>>>>>>> slighted as her would-be rapist!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
>>>>>>> getting into the ring with the girls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active
>>>>>> and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and
>>>>>> react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about
>>>>>> since the 1960's when women became intensively politically active.
>>>>>> Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
>>>>>> women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
>>>>>> How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions
>>>>>> of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and
>>>>>> minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs,
>>>>>> taking and active part of the process while the majority of men
>>>>>> ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from
>>>>>> urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100%
>>>>>> of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone
>>>>>> who opposed his policies do so because of racism... and no one bats
>>>>>> an eye.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
>>>>>> incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
>>>>>> mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
>>>>>> Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
>>>>>> documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil #3
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who
>>>>> have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare.
>>>>> They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the
>>>>> U.S. is becomong the U.K.
>>>>>
>>>>> [By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
>>>>> known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that
>>>>> collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
>>>> currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
>>>> healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
>>>> Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to
>>>> kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the
>>>> cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've
>>>> voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination
>>>> is firmly planted.
>>>> Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
>>>> voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what
>>>> they can, while they are able.
>>>> Phil #3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
>>> fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>>> indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
>>> from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
>>> lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of
>>> layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common
>>> and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why
>>> fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
>>> long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
>>> City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
>>> things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.
>>
>>
>> You're a liar or stupid. Only you know which. but whichever, you are
>> definitely a sexual bigot.
>> Phil #3
>>
>>
>
> and you are just a whiny loser, doesn't change the facts though.

True that whatever I say doesn't change the fact that you are a lying sexual
bigot.
Phil #3

[x***@xxx.com]

Phil #3 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> and you are just a whiny loser, doesn't change the facts though.
>
>
> True that whatever I say doesn't change the fact that you are a lying
> sexual bigot.
> Phil #3
>

Or the fact that you are a lying shitbag whose advice should be avoided
at all costs. Of course the facts in my first 2 posts (before you all
changed the subject to make this thread about me) are still unchallenged
except for a few weak attempts to put words in my mouth.

[teachrmama]

On Sep 14, 5:44 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
> Phil #3 wrote:
>
> >> and you are just a whiny loser, doesn't change the facts though.
>
> > True that whatever I say doesn't change the fact that you are a lying
> > sexual bigot.
> > Phil #3
>
> Or the fact that you are a lying shitbag whose advice should be avoided
> at all costs. Of course the facts in my first 2 posts (before you all
> changed the subject to make this thread about me) are still unchallenged
>   except for a few weak attempts to put words in my mouth.

Which "facts" weere those? Maybe you could post some cites. I don't
recall seeing those........

[x***@xxx.com]

teachrmama wrote:

> On Sep 14, 5:44 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>
>>Phil #3 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>and you are just a whiny loser, doesn't change the facts though.
>>
>>>True that whatever I say doesn't change the fact that you are a lying
>>>sexual bigot.
>>>Phil #3
>>
>>Or the fact that you are a lying shitbag whose advice should be avoided
>>at all costs. Of course the facts in my first 2 posts (before you all
>>changed the subject to make this thread about me) are still unchallenged
>> except for a few weak attempts to put words in my mouth.
>
>
> Which "facts" weere those? Maybe you could post some cites. I don't
> recall seeing those........
>

Read the first 2 posts and get back to me. Feel free to show where I am
incorrect.

[Chris]

"Kenneth s." <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" <***@home.org> wrote:
>
>>"Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>> Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
>>>> the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
>>>> the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
>>>> assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
>>>> money/freedom?
>>>
>>> The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
>>> exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
>>> chooses to give up the child.
>>>
>>> Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.
>>>
>>> Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
>>> adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father
>>> helps
>>> the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.
>>
>>OK, I hip with that, but in what way does this help if mom decides to keep
>>the child? In a case like that, it would seem to severely disadvantage
>>the
>>prospective father and place him squarely in the CSE crosshairs.
>
> The only advantage to the man in registering as the child's
> father is the possibility that he will be able to have some kind of
> relationship with the child, even if the mother doesn't want this.
> However, I very much doubt whether this is worth much. The system is
> notoriously lax about enforcing visitation, by contrast with the huge
> amount of resources devoted to enforcing "child support."
>
> I've seen comments from CS officials indicating that the
> father registration provision is nothing more than a deliberate trap
> for the unwary. The idea is that, immediately after a child is born,
> the man who thinks he is the father will be inordinately proud of his
> situation, and will want to be identified as the father. But the
> bottom line is that he is only making it easier for the mother to get
> 18+ years of "child support" from him.

Precisely! Just the fact that the man would need to register in order to
excercise this so-called "right" in the first place is a clear indication
that the mother already opposes any such rights that he may have. Which begs
the question: why register?

[Chris]

"Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:***@earthlink.com...
>
> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>
>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>> news:wTJom.213803$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>> "Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father
>>>> of a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically
>>>> established in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity
>>>> establishment is not automatic and the process should be started by
>>>> both parents as soon as possible for the benefit of the child."
>>>>
>>>> Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child is
>>>> biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was reversed,
>>>> do you think "maternity" would be "automatically established" even
>>>> though the wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's chance in a blast
>>>> furnace! ONLY in matriarchal AmeriKa.
>>>>
>>>> Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should start
>>>> the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for the
>>>> "benefit of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such
>>>> process; and secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily
>>>> start a process that will extort his money/freedom?
>>>
>>> Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until that
>>> point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion or
>>> hiding her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of unwed
>>> births the mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she has no
>>> idea who the father might be.
>>>
>>> The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state
>>> where the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is
>>> born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the
>>> father's knowledge.
>>
>> Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
>> the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
>> the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
>> assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
>> money/freedom?
>
> The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
> exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
> chooses to give up the child.
>
> Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.
>
> Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
> adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps
> the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.

And then you woke up.

1. The only "parental" right is mother's right.
2. That a mother has to take ANY action to avoid paying "child support" is a
ridiculous concept.
3. A CP father is about as common as a three-legged chicken.
>

[Bob W]

"Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
news:6I_pm.139$***@newsfe04.iad...
>
> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>
>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>
>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:wTJom.213803$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>> "Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father
>>>>> of a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically
>>>>> established in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity
>>>>> establishment is not automatic and the process should be started by
>>>>> both parents as soon as possible for the benefit of the child."
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child
>>>>> is biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was
>>>>> reversed, do you think "maternity" would be "automatically
>>>>> established" even though the wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's
>>>>> chance in a blast furnace! ONLY in matriarchal AmeriKa.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should
>>>>> start the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for
>>>>> the "benefit of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such
>>>>> process; and secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily
>>>>> start a process that will extort his money/freedom?
>>>>
>>>> Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until
>>>> that point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion
>>>> or hiding her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of
>>>> unwed births the mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she
>>>> has no idea who the father might be.
>>>>
>>>> The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state
>>>> where the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is
>>>> born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the
>>>> father's knowledge.
>>>
>>> Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
>>> the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
>>> the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
>>> assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
>>> money/freedom?
>>
>> The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
>> exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
>> chooses to give up the child.
>>
>> Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.
>>
>> Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
>> adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps
>> the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.
>
> And then you woke up.
>
> 1. The only "parental" right is mother's right.
> 2. That a mother has to take ANY action to avoid paying "child support" is
> a ridiculous concept.
> 3. A CP father is about as common as a three-legged chicken.

I think some of the commenters above have made the mistake of confusing
adoption laws and paternity laws. Adoption laws have nothing to do with
establishing CS orders. In fact, when an adoption occurs no CS is paid by
either parent.

A putative father registering with a state's database never obligates him
for CS. It is the legal process used to establish paternity that drives the
CS obligation. And in the case of voluntary paternity acknowledgement the
declaration can be challenged for up to 12 months depending on state statute
limitations.

BTW - I was a CP father. Several of the other posters here were CP fathers
too. The problem fathers have regarding CP status is the initial court
orders are biased against them. It is not uncommon for a father to be the
CP parent for older children, particularly boys.

[Chris]

"Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:***@earthlink.com...
>
> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:6I_pm.139$***@newsfe04.iad...
>>
>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>> news:E9vpm.219364$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>
>>>> "Bob W" <***@teleport.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@earthlink.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:wTJom.213803$***@newsfe22.iad...
>>>>>> "Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal
>>>>>> father of a child. When parents are married, paternity is
>>>>>> automatically established in most cases. If parents are unmarried,
>>>>>> paternity establishment is not automatic and the process should be
>>>>>> started by both parents as soon as possible for the benefit of the
>>>>>> child."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child
>>>>>> is biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was
>>>>>> reversed, do you think "maternity" would be "automatically
>>>>>> established" even though the wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's
>>>>>> chance in a blast furnace! ONLY in matriarchal AmeriKa.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should
>>>>>> start the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for
>>>>>> the "benefit of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such
>>>>>> process; and secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily
>>>>>> start a process that will extort his money/freedom?
>>>>>
>>>>> Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until
>>>>> that point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion
>>>>> or hiding her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of
>>>>> unwed births the mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she
>>>>> has no idea who the father might be.
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state
>>>>> where the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is
>>>>> born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the
>>>>> father's knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
>>>> the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
>>>> the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
>>>> assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
>>>> money/freedom?
>>>
>>> The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
>>> exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
>>> chooses to give up the child.
>>>
>>> Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.
>>>
>>> Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
>>> adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father
>>> helps the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to
>>> keep.
>>
>> And then you woke up.
>>
>> 1. The only "parental" right is mother's right.
>> 2. That a mother has to take ANY action to avoid paying "child support"
>> is a ridiculous concept.
>> 3. A CP father is about as common as a three-legged chicken.
>
> I think some of the commenters above have made the mistake of confusing
> adoption laws and paternity laws. Adoption laws have nothing to do with
> establishing CS orders. In fact, when an adoption occurs no CS is paid by
> either parent.
>
> A putative father registering with a state's database never obligates him
> for CS.

Likewise, handing a lighter to a child doesn't start a forest fire; but it
sure does help.

> It is the legal process used to establish paternity that drives the CS
> obligation. And in the case of voluntary paternity acknowledgement the
> declaration can be challenged for up to 12 months depending on state
> statute limitations.

This father being ahead of potential adoptive parents is mythical at best.
Any judge, at any time, can rule ANY way they please, thus rendering such
place in line only an illusion!

>
> BTW - I was a CP father. Several of the other posters here were CP
> fathers too. The problem fathers have regarding CP status is the initial
> court orders are biased against them. It is not uncommon for a father to
> be the CP parent for older children, particularly boys.

That all depends on just what your definition of "common" is.

>

[RogerN]

"Chris" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
news:wTJom.213803$***@newsfe22.iad...
> "Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father of
> a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically established
> in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity establishment is not
> automatic and the process should be started by both parents as soon as
> possible for the benefit of the child."
>
<snip>

Something I noticed is that when someone makes a Will they state something
like "I ___ Being of sound mind...". I would think the purpose of being of
sound mind is that you knew what you were doing when you made the will. On
the opposite side, when a man signs a paper establishing paternity, they
don't make sure he is informed that if DNA tests prove the child isn't his
that he will still have to pay support for the child that isn't his. So, by
that definition, most of the time the man didn't sign the paper "being of
sound mind" or at least he maybe didn't realize a signature was more
important than scientific facts. It seems like, in my non-legal opinion,
someone not knowing what they were doing by signing, by not realizing how
crooked the law is, should be grounds to nullify their signature, for the
purpose, they weren't of "sound mind".

RogerN

[teachrmama]

On Sep 13, 7:37 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
> teachrmama wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 3:58 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
> >>>>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
> >>>>indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
>
> >>>>from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
>
> >>>>lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of
> >>>>layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common
> >>>>and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why
> >>>>fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
> >>>>long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
> >>>>City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
> >>>>things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.
>
> >>>Hmmm.....so you are saying that boys that are raised soley by their
> >>>mothers, with no contact with their fathers, will emulated their
> >>>fathers?
>
> >>Hmmmm .... if you read what I wrote you would already KNOW I didn't say
> >>that. Is it possible that you will purposely misrepresent what I said in
> >>order to push an agenda? I hope you didn't base the rest of your post on
> >>this lie.
>
> >>> If the only contact they have with their fathers is the
> >>>money that flows into the household via child support, they will
> >>>emulate their fathers and work hard to make sure their children are
> >>>financially supported, even if the mothers of their children prevent
> >>>them from having any contact with their children?
>
> >>When your premise is a lie, the rest of your argument is worthless.
> >>Reread what I wrote and give it another shot.
>
> >>>How do you recommend that fathers give their sons positive
> >>>reinforcement if they are prevented from any contact with their
> >>>children?
>
> >>How do you expect to get away with this sort of dishonesty when you left
> >>the text that proves you to be mistaken right above your post?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > <chuckle>  Yep.  Same old you.  I did read your post.
>
> Same old subject changing and strawman arguments from you. You either
> didn't read my post or didn't understand it.
>
> > "Boys emulate their
> > fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
> > indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
> > weakness
> > from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort
> > of
> > lifestyle"
>
> So there you go, read that until you can understand what I said.

<chuckle> There you go again. Same old tap dance. <tap, tap,
tappity, tap>

You state that "Boys emulate their
fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time." If they
have no contact with their father, can they emulate their father? If
they, then, select another male role model to emulate, whose
responsibility is that?

>
> > So are you saying that it is NOT the father's responsibility if his
> > children turn out that way, if he was prevented from contact with his
> > childrfen?
>
> I didn't say that or anything like that, you just made that up for some
> reason. What is your reason for making that up or trying to misrepresent
> what I said to be that?
>
> What I am saying, what I said in plain english as a matter of fact, is
> that boys emulate their male role models a very high percentage of the
> time, if the boys turn out a certain way it is more likely because the
> male role model, father figure or actual father was that way. It is not
> likely that growing boys tried to emulate their mother. If you read the
> thread you can see that I responded to someone who claimed the lazy kids
> were the fault of the mother's indoctrination or some such nonsense.

Well, if the mother spent her time on public assistance and the boys
now spend their time on public assistance, you can see how that
assumption could be made. But if, indeed, the boys are copying
another male role model because they did not have access to their
father to model themselves after due to mom's machinations, whose
responsibility is that? Mom must then have provided males on public
assistance for her boys to model themselves after. So, like it or
not, she is still responsible for their indoctrination into the
lifestyle they have chosen.

>
> > And if it is NOT the father's responsibility, then is it the
> > responsibility of the person who prevented contact with the father,
> > thereby putting the child in the position of choosing a weak male role
> > model?
>
> What in god's name are you on about? Is this a chick thing where you
> can't have a conversation without making things up and reading your own
> ideas into the things other people say? I said exactly what you read,
> thats it, none of your nonsense is included in what I said.- Hide quoted text -

<chuckle> You don't like having your statements followed to their
logical conclusions?

[Dusty]

"teachrmama" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bafd9f90-5756-4366-93f6-***@k33g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 13, 7:37 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
> teachrmama wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 3:58 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
> >>>>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
> >>>>indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
> >>>>weakness
>
> >>>>from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort
> >>>>of
>
> >>>>lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round
> >>>>of
> >>>>layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common
> >>>>and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's
> >>>>why
> >>>>fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
> >>>>long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
> >>>>City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
> >>>>things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do
> >>>>that.
>
> >>>Hmmm.....so you are saying that boys that are raised soley by their
> >>>mothers, with no contact with their fathers, will emulated their
> >>>fathers?
>
> >>Hmmmm .... if you read what I wrote you would already KNOW I didn't say
> >>that. Is it possible that you will purposely misrepresent what I said in
> >>order to push an agenda? I hope you didn't base the rest of your post on
> >>this lie.
>
> >>> If the only contact they have with their fathers is the
> >>>money that flows into the household via child support, they will
> >>>emulate their fathers and work hard to make sure their children are
> >>>financially supported, even if the mothers of their children prevent
> >>>them from having any contact with their children?
>
> >>When your premise is a lie, the rest of your argument is worthless.
> >>Reread what I wrote and give it another shot.
>
> >>>How do you recommend that fathers give their sons positive
> >>>reinforcement if they are prevented from any contact with their
> >>>children?
>
> >>How do you expect to get away with this sort of dishonesty when you left
> >>the text that proves you to be mistaken right above your post?- Hide
> >>quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > <chuckle> Yep. Same old you. I did read your post.
>
> Same old subject changing and strawman arguments from you. You either
> didn't read my post or didn't understand it.
>
> > "Boys emulate their
> > fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
> > indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
> > weakness
> > from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort
> > of
> > lifestyle"
>
> So there you go, read that until you can understand what I said.

<chuckle> There you go again. Same old tap dance. <tap, tap,
tappity, tap>

You state that "Boys emulate their
fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time." If they
have no contact with their father, can they emulate their father? If
they, then, select another male role model to emulate, whose
responsibility is that?

>
> > So are you saying that it is NOT the father's responsibility if his
> > children turn out that way, if he was prevented from contact with his
> > childrfen?
>
> I didn't say that or anything like that, you just made that up for some
> reason. What is your reason for making that up or trying to misrepresent
> what I said to be that?
>
> What I am saying, what I said in plain english as a matter of fact, is
> that boys emulate their male role models a very high percentage of the
> time, if the boys turn out a certain way it is more likely because the
> male role model, father figure or actual father was that way. It is not
> likely that growing boys tried to emulate their mother. If you read the
> thread you can see that I responded to someone who claimed the lazy kids
> were the fault of the mother's indoctrination or some such nonsense.

Well, if the mother spent her time on public assistance and the boys
now spend their time on public assistance, you can see how that
assumption could be made. But if, indeed, the boys are copying
another male role model because they did not have access to their
father to model themselves after due to mom's machinations, whose
responsibility is that? Mom must then have provided males on public
assistance for her boys to model themselves after. So, like it or
not, she is still responsible for their indoctrination into the
lifestyle they have chosen.

>
> > And if it is NOT the father's responsibility, then is it the
> > responsibility of the person who prevented contact with the father,
> > thereby putting the child in the position of choosing a weak male role
> > model?
>
> What in god's name are you on about? Is this a chick thing where you
> can't have a conversation without making things up and reading your own
> ideas into the things other people say? I said exactly what you read,
> thats it, none of your nonsense is included in what I said.- Hide quoted
> text -

<chuckle> You don't like having your statements followed to their
logical conclusions?
---------------------------
Heh, Trip-X can't stand the cold, hard slap of reality.

[x***@xxx.com]

Dusty wrote:

> "teachrmama" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bafd9f90-5756-4366-93f6-***@k33g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 13, 7:37 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>
>> teachrmama wrote:
>> > On Sep 13, 3:58 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
>> >>>>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>> >>>>indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
>> >>>>weakness
>>
>> >>>>from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this
>> sort >>>>of
>>
>> >>>>lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first
>> round >>>>of
>> >>>>layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly
>> common
>> >>>>and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition.
>> That's >>>>why
>> >>>>fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
>> >>>>long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
>> >>>>City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do
>> those
>> >>>>things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do
>> >>>>that.
>>
>> >>>Hmmm.....so you are saying that boys that are raised soley by their
>> >>>mothers, with no contact with their fathers, will emulated their
>> >>>fathers?
>>
>> >>Hmmmm .... if you read what I wrote you would already KNOW I didn't say
>> >>that. Is it possible that you will purposely misrepresent what I
>> said in
>> >>order to push an agenda? I hope you didn't base the rest of your
>> post on
>> >>this lie.
>>
>> >>> If the only contact they have with their fathers is the
>> >>>money that flows into the household via child support, they will
>> >>>emulate their fathers and work hard to make sure their children are
>> >>>financially supported, even if the mothers of their children prevent
>> >>>them from having any contact with their children?
>>
>> >>When your premise is a lie, the rest of your argument is worthless.
>> >>Reread what I wrote and give it another shot.
>>
>> >>>How do you recommend that fathers give their sons positive
>> >>>reinforcement if they are prevented from any contact with their
>> >>>children?
>>
>> >>How do you expect to get away with this sort of dishonesty when you
>> left
>> >>the text that proves you to be mistaken right above your post?- Hide
>> >>quoted text -
>>
>> >>- Show quoted text -
>>
>> > <chuckle> Yep. Same old you. I did read your post.
>>
>> Same old subject changing and strawman arguments from you. You either
>> didn't read my post or didn't understand it.
>>
>> > "Boys emulate their
>> > fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>> > indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
>> > weakness
>> > from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort
>> > of
>> > lifestyle"
>>
>> So there you go, read that until you can understand what I said.
>
>
> <chuckle> There you go again. Same old tap dance. <tap, tap,
> tappity, tap>
>
> You state that "Boys emulate their
> fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time." If they
> have no contact with their father, can they emulate their father? If
> they, then, select another male role model to emulate, whose
> responsibility is that?
>
>>
>> > So are you saying that it is NOT the father's responsibility if his
>> > children turn out that way, if he was prevented from contact with his
>> > childrfen?
>>
>> I didn't say that or anything like that, you just made that up for some
>> reason. What is your reason for making that up or trying to misrepresent
>> what I said to be that?
>>
>> What I am saying, what I said in plain english as a matter of fact, is
>> that boys emulate their male role models a very high percentage of the
>> time, if the boys turn out a certain way it is more likely because the
>> male role model, father figure or actual father was that way. It is not
>> likely that growing boys tried to emulate their mother. If you read the
>> thread you can see that I responded to someone who claimed the lazy kids
>> were the fault of the mother's indoctrination or some such nonsense.
>
>
> Well, if the mother spent her time on public assistance and the boys
> now spend their time on public assistance, you can see how that
> assumption could be made. But if, indeed, the boys are copying
> another male role model because they did not have access to their
> father to model themselves after due to mom's machinations, whose
> responsibility is that? Mom must then have provided males on public
> assistance for her boys to model themselves after. So, like it or
> not, she is still responsible for their indoctrination into the
> lifestyle they have chosen.
>
>>
>> > And if it is NOT the father's responsibility, then is it the
>> > responsibility of the person who prevented contact with the father,
>> > thereby putting the child in the position of choosing a weak male role
>> > model?
>>
>> What in god's name are you on about? Is this a chick thing where you
>> can't have a conversation without making things up and reading your own
>> ideas into the things other people say? I said exactly what you read,
>> thats it, none of your nonsense is included in what I said.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>
>
> <chuckle> You don't like having your statements followed to their
> logical conclusions?
> ---------------------------
> Heh, Trip-X can't stand the cold, hard slap of reality.

You've heard the saying its better to keep quiet and seem stupid than
open your mouth and remove all doubt? I guess not, you keep putting your
stupidity on display, you must be proud of it

[Phil #3]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8mafc$ntm$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> Dusty wrote:
>
>> "teachrmama" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:bafd9f90-5756-4366-93f6-***@k33g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 13, 7:37 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> teachrmama wrote:
>>> > On Sep 13, 3:58 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>>Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
>>> >>>>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>>> >>>>indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
>>> >>>>weakness
>>>
>>> >>>>from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this
>>> sort >>>>of
>>>
>>> >>>>lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first
>>> round >>>>of
>>> >>>>layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly
>>> common
>>> >>>>and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition.
>>> That's >>>>why
>>> >>>>fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
>>> >>>>long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and
>>> >>>>instruction.
>>> >>>>City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do
>>> those
>>> >>>>things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do
>>> >>>>that.
>>>
>>> >>>Hmmm.....so you are saying that boys that are raised soley by their
>>> >>>mothers, with no contact with their fathers, will emulated their
>>> >>>fathers?
>>>
>>> >>Hmmmm .... if you read what I wrote you would already KNOW I didn't
>>> >>say
>>> >>that. Is it possible that you will purposely misrepresent what I
>>> said in
>>> >>order to push an agenda? I hope you didn't base the rest of your
>>> post on
>>> >>this lie.
>>>
>>> >>> If the only contact they have with their fathers is the
>>> >>>money that flows into the household via child support, they will
>>> >>>emulate their fathers and work hard to make sure their children are
>>> >>>financially supported, even if the mothers of their children prevent
>>> >>>them from having any contact with their children?
>>>
>>> >>When your premise is a lie, the rest of your argument is worthless.
>>> >>Reread what I wrote and give it another shot.
>>>
>>> >>>How do you recommend that fathers give their sons positive
>>> >>>reinforcement if they are prevented from any contact with their
>>> >>>children?
>>>
>>> >>How do you expect to get away with this sort of dishonesty when you
>>> left
>>> >>the text that proves you to be mistaken right above your post?- Hide
>>> >>quoted text -
>>>
>>> >>- Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> > <chuckle> Yep. Same old you. I did read your post.
>>>
>>> Same old subject changing and strawman arguments from you. You either
>>> didn't read my post or didn't understand it.
>>>
>>> > "Boys emulate their
>>> > fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>>> > indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
>>> > weakness
>>> > from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort
>>> > of
>>> > lifestyle"
>>>
>>> So there you go, read that until you can understand what I said.
>>
>>
>> <chuckle> There you go again. Same old tap dance. <tap, tap,
>> tappity, tap>
>>
>> You state that "Boys emulate their
>> fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time." If they
>> have no contact with their father, can they emulate their father? If
>> they, then, select another male role model to emulate, whose
>> responsibility is that?
>>
>>>
>>> > So are you saying that it is NOT the father's responsibility if his
>>> > children turn out that way, if he was prevented from contact with his
>>> > childrfen?
>>>
>>> I didn't say that or anything like that, you just made that up for some
>>> reason. What is your reason for making that up or trying to misrepresent
>>> what I said to be that?
>>>
>>> What I am saying, what I said in plain english as a matter of fact, is
>>> that boys emulate their male role models a very high percentage of the
>>> time, if the boys turn out a certain way it is more likely because the
>>> male role model, father figure or actual father was that way. It is not
>>> likely that growing boys tried to emulate their mother. If you read the
>>> thread you can see that I responded to someone who claimed the lazy kids
>>> were the fault of the mother's indoctrination or some such nonsense.
>>
>>
>> Well, if the mother spent her time on public assistance and the boys
>> now spend their time on public assistance, you can see how that
>> assumption could be made. But if, indeed, the boys are copying
>> another male role model because they did not have access to their
>> father to model themselves after due to mom's machinations, whose
>> responsibility is that? Mom must then have provided males on public
>> assistance for her boys to model themselves after. So, like it or
>> not, she is still responsible for their indoctrination into the
>> lifestyle they have chosen.
>>
>>>
>>> > And if it is NOT the father's responsibility, then is it the
>>> > responsibility of the person who prevented contact with the father,
>>> > thereby putting the child in the position of choosing a weak male role
>>> > model?
>>>
>>> What in god's name are you on about? Is this a chick thing where you
>>> can't have a conversation without making things up and reading your own
>>> ideas into the things other people say? I said exactly what you read,
>>> thats it, none of your nonsense is included in what I said.- Hide quoted
>>> text -
>>
>>
>> <chuckle> You don't like having your statements followed to their
>> logical conclusions?
>> ---------------------------
>> Heh, Trip-X can't stand the cold, hard slap of reality.
>
> You've heard the saying its better to keep quiet and seem stupid than open
> your mouth and remove all doubt? I guess not, you keep putting your
> stupidity on display, you must be proud of it

So THAT explains why you keep saying such provably stupid shit.

Phil #3

[x***@xxx.com]

Phil #3 wrote:

>
> "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
> news:h8mafc$ntm$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Dusty wrote:
>>
>>> "teachrmama" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:bafd9f90-5756-4366-93f6-***@k33g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> On Sep 13, 7:37 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> teachrmama wrote:
>>>> > On Sep 13, 3:58 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>>Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
>>>> >>>>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they
>>>> were
>>>> >>>>indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
>>>> >>>>weakness
>>>>
>>>> >>>>from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this
>>>> sort >>>>of
>>>>
>>>> >>>>lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first
>>>> round >>>>of
>>>> >>>>layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly
>>>> common
>>>> >>>>and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition.
>>>> That's >>>>why
>>>> >>>>fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy
>>>> ANYTHING as
>>>> >>>>long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and
>>>> >>>>instruction.
>>>> >>>>City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do
>>>> those
>>>> >>>>things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to
>>>> do >>>>that.
>>>>
>>>> >>>Hmmm.....so you are saying that boys that are raised soley by their
>>>> >>>mothers, with no contact with their fathers, will emulated their
>>>> >>>fathers?
>>>>
>>>> >>Hmmmm .... if you read what I wrote you would already KNOW I
>>>> didn't >>say
>>>> >>that. Is it possible that you will purposely misrepresent what I
>>>> said in
>>>> >>order to push an agenda? I hope you didn't base the rest of your
>>>> post on
>>>> >>this lie.
>>>>
>>>> >>> If the only contact they have with their fathers is the
>>>> >>>money that flows into the household via child support, they will
>>>> >>>emulate their fathers and work hard to make sure their children are
>>>> >>>financially supported, even if the mothers of their children prevent
>>>> >>>them from having any contact with their children?
>>>>
>>>> >>When your premise is a lie, the rest of your argument is worthless.
>>>> >>Reread what I wrote and give it another shot.
>>>>
>>>> >>>How do you recommend that fathers give their sons positive
>>>> >>>reinforcement if they are prevented from any contact with their
>>>> >>>children?
>>>>
>>>> >>How do you expect to get away with this sort of dishonesty when you
>>>> left
>>>> >>the text that proves you to be mistaken right above your post?-
>>>> Hide >>quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> >>- Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> > <chuckle> Yep. Same old you. I did read your post.
>>>>
>>>> Same old subject changing and strawman arguments from you. You either
>>>> didn't read my post or didn't understand it.
>>>>
>>>> > "Boys emulate their
>>>> > fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>>>> > indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
>>>> > weakness
>>>> > from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort
>>>> > of
>>>> > lifestyle"
>>>>
>>>> So there you go, read that until you can understand what I said.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <chuckle> There you go again. Same old tap dance. <tap, tap,
>>> tappity, tap>
>>>
>>> You state that "Boys emulate their
>>> fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time." If they
>>> have no contact with their father, can they emulate their father? If
>>> they, then, select another male role model to emulate, whose
>>> responsibility is that?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > So are you saying that it is NOT the father's responsibility if his
>>>> > children turn out that way, if he was prevented from contact with his
>>>> > childrfen?
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say that or anything like that, you just made that up for some
>>>> reason. What is your reason for making that up or trying to
>>>> misrepresent
>>>> what I said to be that?
>>>>
>>>> What I am saying, what I said in plain english as a matter of fact, is
>>>> that boys emulate their male role models a very high percentage of the
>>>> time, if the boys turn out a certain way it is more likely because the
>>>> male role model, father figure or actual father was that way. It is not
>>>> likely that growing boys tried to emulate their mother. If you read the
>>>> thread you can see that I responded to someone who claimed the lazy
>>>> kids
>>>> were the fault of the mother's indoctrination or some such nonsense.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, if the mother spent her time on public assistance and the boys
>>> now spend their time on public assistance, you can see how that
>>> assumption could be made. But if, indeed, the boys are copying
>>> another male role model because they did not have access to their
>>> father to model themselves after due to mom's machinations, whose
>>> responsibility is that? Mom must then have provided males on public
>>> assistance for her boys to model themselves after. So, like it or
>>> not, she is still responsible for their indoctrination into the
>>> lifestyle they have chosen.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > And if it is NOT the father's responsibility, then is it the
>>>> > responsibility of the person who prevented contact with the father,
>>>> > thereby putting the child in the position of choosing a weak male
>>>> role
>>>> > model?
>>>>
>>>> What in god's name are you on about? Is this a chick thing where you
>>>> can't have a conversation without making things up and reading your own
>>>> ideas into the things other people say? I said exactly what you read,
>>>> thats it, none of your nonsense is included in what I said.- Hide
>>>> quoted text -
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <chuckle> You don't like having your statements followed to their
>>> logical conclusions?
>>> ---------------------------
>>> Heh, Trip-X can't stand the cold, hard slap of reality.
>>
>>
>> You've heard the saying its better to keep quiet and seem stupid than
>> open your mouth and remove all doubt? I guess not, you keep putting
>> your stupidity on display, you must be proud of it
>
>
> So THAT explains why you keep saying such provably stupid shit.
>
> Phil #3
>

Here's the thing about your lame insults; since I can see you are a
pitiful loser I am thrilled that I fall outside your social circle and
hope I stay here, your attempts to insult me only boost my self esteem.

Now, shitbag, rather than waste time posting stupid impotent insults why
don't you prove something that I said is wrong? You could be a deadbeat
internet hero around here. Try doing it without strawman arguments,
pointless questions and lies for bonus points

[x***@xxx.com]

teachrmama wrote:
> On Sep 13, 7:37 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>
>>teachrmama wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 13, 3:58 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
>>>>>>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>>>>>>indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
>>
>>>>>>from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
>>
>>>>>>lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of
>>>>>>layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common
>>>>>>and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why
>>>>>>fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
>>>>>>long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
>>>>>>City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
>>>>>>things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.
>>
>>>>>Hmmm.....so you are saying that boys that are raised soley by their
>>>>>mothers, with no contact with their fathers, will emulated their
>>>>>fathers?
>>
>>>>Hmmmm .... if you read what I wrote you would already KNOW I didn't say
>>>>that. Is it possible that you will purposely misrepresent what I said in
>>>>order to push an agenda? I hope you didn't base the rest of your post on
>>>>this lie.
>>
>>>>>If the only contact they have with their fathers is the
>>>>>money that flows into the household via child support, they will
>>>>>emulate their fathers and work hard to make sure their children are
>>>>>financially supported, even if the mothers of their children prevent
>>>>>them from having any contact with their children?
>>
>>>>When your premise is a lie, the rest of your argument is worthless.
>>>>Reread what I wrote and give it another shot.
>>
>>>>>How do you recommend that fathers give their sons positive
>>>>>reinforcement if they are prevented from any contact with their
>>>>>children?
>>
>>>>How do you expect to get away with this sort of dishonesty when you left
>>>>the text that proves you to be mistaken right above your post?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>><chuckle> Yep. Same old you. I did read your post.
>>
>>Same old subject changing and strawman arguments from you. You either
>>didn't read my post or didn't understand it.
>>
>>
>>>"Boys emulate their
>>>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>>>indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
>>>weakness
>>>from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort
>>>of
>>>lifestyle"
>>
>>So there you go, read that until you can understand what I said.
>
>
> <chuckle> There you go again. Same old tap dance. <tap, tap,
> tappity, tap>
>
> You state that "Boys emulate their
> fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time."

I did state that, and I was correct about it.

> If they
> have no contact with their father, can they emulate their father?

Do you really not know the answer to that?

> If
> they, then, select another male role model to emulate, whose
> responsibility is that?
>

What do you think? Do you need me to make up your mind for you? State
some opinion and I will either agree or disagree with it. Since your
question has nothing to do with the opinion I stated in this thread I
can see you are just trying to change the subject, you can just do that,
state your opinion on responsibility and I'll tell you what I think.



>
>>>So are you saying that it is NOT the father's responsibility if his
>>>children turn out that way, if he was prevented from contact with his
>>>childrfen?
>>
>>I didn't say that or anything like that, you just made that up for some
>>reason. What is your reason for making that up or trying to misrepresent
>>what I said to be that?
>>
>>What I am saying, what I said in plain english as a matter of fact, is
>>that boys emulate their male role models a very high percentage of the
>>time, if the boys turn out a certain way it is more likely because the
>>male role model, father figure or actual father was that way. It is not
>>likely that growing boys tried to emulate their mother. If you read the
>>thread you can see that I responded to someone who claimed the lazy kids
>>were the fault of the mother's indoctrination or some such nonsense.
>
>
> Well, if the mother spent her time on public assistance and the boys
> now spend their time on public assistance, you can see how that
> assumption could be made. But if, indeed, the boys are copying
> another male role model because they did not have access to their
> father to model themselves after due to mom's machinations, whose
> responsibility is that? Mom must then have provided males on public
> assistance for her boys to model themselves after. So, like it or
> not, she is still responsible for their indoctrination into the
> lifestyle they have chosen.
>

Even though the father had some access to them and a few years of
raising them he had no impact on them and provided no example for them.
Why? because the guy in question agrees with your deadbeat agenda. What
a surprise.

As for the role models, very few (almost none) try to emulate their
mothers. Almost all boys emulate a male role model. So the previous
poster who made the connection about the kids being on foodstamps
because of the mother's example is way off base.

>
>>>And if it is NOT the father's responsibility, then is it the
>>>responsibility of the person who prevented contact with the father,
>>>thereby putting the child in the position of choosing a weak male role
>>>model?
>>
>>What in god's name are you on about? Is this a chick thing where you
>>can't have a conversation without making things up and reading your own
>>ideas into the things other people say? I said exactly what you read,
>>thats it, none of your nonsense is included in what I said.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> <chuckle> You don't like having your statements followed to their
> logical conclusions?
>

That wasn't a logical conclusion it was just more bullshit that did
nothing to support or refute what was said.

[Phil #3]

"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:h8m95j$f7l$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> teachrmama wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 7:37 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>teachrmama wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sep 13, 3:58 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
>>>>>>>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>>>>>>>indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
>>>>>>>weakness
>>>
>>>>>>>from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort
>>>>>>>of
>>>
>>>>>>>lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly
>>>>>>>common
>>>>>>>and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's
>>>>>>>why
>>>>>>>fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
>>>>>>>long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
>>>>>>>City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do
>>>>>>>those
>>>>>>>things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do
>>>>>>>that.
>>>
>>>>>>Hmmm.....so you are saying that boys that are raised soley by their
>>>>>>mothers, with no contact with their fathers, will emulated their
>>>>>>fathers?
>>>
>>>>>Hmmmm .... if you read what I wrote you would already KNOW I didn't say
>>>>>that. Is it possible that you will purposely misrepresent what I said
>>>>>in
>>>>>order to push an agenda? I hope you didn't base the rest of your post
>>>>>on
>>>>>this lie.
>>>
>>>>>>If the only contact they have with their fathers is the
>>>>>>money that flows into the household via child support, they will
>>>>>>emulate their fathers and work hard to make sure their children are
>>>>>>financially supported, even if the mothers of their children prevent
>>>>>>them from having any contact with their children?
>>>
>>>>>When your premise is a lie, the rest of your argument is worthless.
>>>>>Reread what I wrote and give it another shot.
>>>
>>>>>>How do you recommend that fathers give their sons positive
>>>>>>reinforcement if they are prevented from any contact with their
>>>>>>children?
>>>
>>>>>How do you expect to get away with this sort of dishonesty when you
>>>>>left
>>>>>the text that proves you to be mistaken right above your post?- Hide
>>>>>quoted text -
>>>
>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>><chuckle> Yep. Same old you. I did read your post.
>>>
>>>Same old subject changing and strawman arguments from you. You either
>>>didn't read my post or didn't understand it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Boys emulate their
>>>>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
>>>>indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
>>>>weakness
>>>>from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort
>>>>of
>>>>lifestyle"
>>>
>>>So there you go, read that until you can understand what I said.
>>
>>
>> <chuckle> There you go again. Same old tap dance. <tap, tap,
>> tappity, tap>
>>
>> You state that "Boys emulate their
>> fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time."
>
> I did state that, and I was correct about it.
>
>> If they
>> have no contact with their father, can they emulate their father?
>
> Do you really not know the answer to that?

Obviously you don't.

>
>> If
>> they, then, select another male role model to emulate, whose
>> responsibility is that?
>>
>
> What do you think? Do you need me to make up your mind for you? State some
> opinion and I will either agree or disagree with it. Since your question
> has nothing to do with the opinion I stated in this thread I can see you
> are just trying to change the subject, you can just do that, state your
> opinion on responsibility and I'll tell you what I think.

You are being asked a question about a previous lie you uttered; small
wonder you refuse to answer.

>
>
>
>>
>>>>So are you saying that it is NOT the father's responsibility if his
>>>>children turn out that way, if he was prevented from contact with his
>>>>childrfen?
>>>
>>>I didn't say that or anything like that, you just made that up for some
>>>reason. What is your reason for making that up or trying to misrepresent
>>>what I said to be that?
>>>
>>>What I am saying, what I said in plain english as a matter of fact, is
>>>that boys emulate their male role models a very high percentage of the
>>>time, if the boys turn out a certain way it is more likely because the
>>>male role model, father figure or actual father was that way. It is not
>>>likely that growing boys tried to emulate their mother. If you read the
>>>thread you can see that I responded to someone who claimed the lazy kids
>>>were the fault of the mother's indoctrination or some such nonsense.
>>
>>
>> Well, if the mother spent her time on public assistance and the boys
>> now spend their time on public assistance, you can see how that
>> assumption could be made. But if, indeed, the boys are copying
>> another male role model because they did not have access to their
>> father to model themselves after due to mom's machinations, whose
>> responsibility is that? Mom must then have provided males on public
>> assistance for her boys to model themselves after. So, like it or
>> not, she is still responsible for their indoctrination into the
>> lifestyle they have chosen.
>>
>
> Even though the father had some access to them and a few years of raising
> them he had no impact on them and provided no example for them. Why?
> because the guy in question agrees with your deadbeat agenda. What a
> surprise.
>

So you're saying that boys learn their father's bad behavior when with them
4-8 days a month but none of the mother's when with her over 25 days?
Can you be that stupid and live?



> As for the role models, very few (almost none) try to emulate their
> mothers. Almost all boys emulate a male role model. So the previous poster
> who made the connection about the kids being on foodstamps because of the
> mother's example is way off base.

Children, both boys and girls, learn what they live. That is the answer to
why children are turning into problems like never before. This all started
at the same time as the "women's movement" and many think because of it
since the fathers have been driven out of their children's lives in very
rapidly growing numbers. The result is asswipes like you pretending
everything is the father's fault, even though he was forced to be where and
what he became.

>
>>
>>>>And if it is NOT the father's responsibility, then is it the
>>>>responsibility of the person who prevented contact with the father,
>>>>thereby putting the child in the position of choosing a weak male role
>>>>model?
>>>
>>>What in god's name are you on about? Is this a chick thing where you
>>>can't have a conversation without making things up and reading your own
>>>ideas into the things other people say? I said exactly what you read,
>>>thats it, none of your nonsense is included in what I said.- Hide quoted
>>>text -
>>
>>
>> <chuckle> You don't like having your statements followed to their
>> logical conclusions?
>>
>
> That wasn't a logical conclusion it was just more bullshit that did
> nothing to support or refute what was said.

No one has to refute you. Even children can see through your psychotic
hatred of men.
Phil #3

[x***@xxx.com]

Phil #3 wrote:
>>>
>>> You state that "Boys emulate their
>>> fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time."
>>
>>
>> I did state that, and I was correct about it.
>>
>>> If they
>>> have no contact with their father, can they emulate their father?
>>
>>
>> Do you really not know the answer to that?
>
>
> Obviously you don't.
>

You are just a dishonest shitbag or far too stupid to go around spouting
opinions. If it is stupidity then look at what I said and look at the
missing piece from the question, maybe you are dumb enough to fall for
those stupid rhetorical tricks and lies, but I'm not. Not to mention the
fact that this questioning is nothing more than an attempt to derail the
conversation and steer it in towards an unrelated topic.

>>
>>> If
>>> they, then, select another male role model to emulate, whose
>>> responsibility is that?
>>>
>>
>> What do you think? Do you need me to make up your mind for you? State
>> some opinion and I will either agree or disagree with it. Since your
>> question has nothing to do with the opinion I stated in this thread I
>> can see you are just trying to change the subject, you can just do
>> that, state your opinion on responsibility and I'll tell you what I
>> think.
>
>
> You are being asked a question about a previous lie you uttered; small
> wonder you refuse to answer.
>

You are full of shit, just like the topic altering questions that have
nothing to do with the subject. Nice try stupid, but it is obvious you
will try anything to convince yourselves that you are lowlife deadbeats
and all rally around behind the lies rather than accept any facts.

>>
>> Even though the father had some access to them and a few years of
>> raising them he had no impact on them and provided no example for
>> them. Why? because the guy in question agrees with your deadbeat
>> agenda. What a surprise.
>>
>
> So you're saying that boys learn their father's bad behavior when with
> them 4-8 days a month but none of the mother's when with her over 25 days?
> Can you be that stupid and live?
>

Why do you fucking morons always try to tell me what I am saying? You
are always wrong, why don't you just learn to read and respond to what I
said? Your "so you're saying .... " arguments are just bullshit strawmen.

Just so you know, you are completely wrong again, I am not saying that
and I was not saying anything like that in my original post. Read it
again this time don't try and spin what I say to suit your misguided agenda.

I can see how you managed to raise 2 lazy boobs though, with a father as
stupid as you, what chance did they have?

>> As for the role models, very few (almost none) try to emulate their
>> mothers. Almost all boys emulate a male role model. So the previous
>> poster who made the connection about the kids being on foodstamps
>> because of the mother's example is way off base.
>
>
> Children, both boys and girls, learn what they live.

But boys do not emulate their mothers, they need and usually find male
role models.

> That is the answer
> to why children are turning into problems like never before.

Kids today are far better than kids of the 60s and 70s, they are
smarter, work harder, seem to set better goals for themselves and seem
to have far fewer bad habits. Of course the kids I know are my kids and
their friends, most of whom played sports and went to college. My kids
would be horrified to learn some of the things I used to do, most of
their friends wouldn't think of smoking, drinking and doing drugs the
way I used to. The best employees I've found recently are under 25 and
they put the older guys to shame with their ability and education. So I
guess it is just a cultural divide, kids who were raised by people like
me do well, the kids you know will mow their lawns and clean their toilets.

This all
> started at the same time as the "women's movement" and many think
> because of it since the fathers have been driven out of their children's
> lives in very rapidly growing numbers. The result is asswipes like you
> pretending everything is the father's fault, even though he was forced
> to be where and what he became.

Bullshit, you are just defensive about it because you are a shitty
parent, the fact is that I don't blame everything on fathers, the other
fact is that you don't want ANYTHING to be the father's responsibility
because you are just a lowlife shitbag who isn't happy with the way his
life turned out.

>>
>> That wasn't a logical conclusion it was just more bullshit that did
>> nothing to support or refute what was said.
>
>
> No one has to refute you. Even children can see through your psychotic
> hatred of men.
> Phil #3
>
>

You sure seem to try and fail miserably at it. I guess it is just your
hatred of responsibility and of yourself. Your self hatred is well
deserved by the way.

[teachrmama]

On Sep 14, 1:30 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
> teachrmama wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 7:37 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>
> >>teachrmama wrote:
>
> >>>On Sep 13, 3:58 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
> >>>>>>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
> >>>>>>indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
>
> >>>>>>from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
>
> >>>>>>lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of
> >>>>>>layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common
> >>>>>>and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why
> >>>>>>fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
> >>>>>>long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
> >>>>>>City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
> >>>>>>things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.
>
> >>>>>Hmmm.....so you are saying that boys that are raised soley by their
> >>>>>mothers, with no contact with their fathers, will emulated their
> >>>>>fathers?
>
> >>>>Hmmmm .... if you read what I wrote you would already KNOW I didn't say
> >>>>that. Is it possible that you will purposely misrepresent what I said in
> >>>>order to push an agenda? I hope you didn't base the rest of your post on
> >>>>this lie.
>
> >>>>>If the only contact they have with their fathers is the
> >>>>>money that flows into the household via child support, they will
> >>>>>emulate their fathers and work hard to make sure their children are
> >>>>>financially supported, even if the mothers of their children prevent
> >>>>>them from having any contact with their children?
>
> >>>>When your premise is a lie, the rest of your argument is worthless.
> >>>>Reread what I wrote and give it another shot.
>
> >>>>>How do you recommend that fathers give their sons positive
> >>>>>reinforcement if they are prevented from any contact with their
> >>>>>children?
>
> >>>>How do you expect to get away with this sort of dishonesty when you left
> >>>>the text that proves you to be mistaken right above your post?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>- Show quoted text -
>
> >>><chuckle>  Yep.  Same old you.  I did read your post.
>
> >>Same old subject changing and strawman arguments from you. You either
> >>didn't read my post or didn't understand it.
>
> >>>"Boys emulate their
> >>>fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
> >>>indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and
> >>>weakness
> >>>from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort
> >>>of
> >>>lifestyle"
>
> >>So there you go, read that until you can understand what I said.
>
> > <chuckle>  There you go again.  Same old tap dance. <tap, tap,
> > tappity, tap>
>
> > You state that "Boys emulate their
> >  fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time."  
>
> I did state that, and I was correct about it.
>
> > If they
> > have no contact with their father, can they emulate their father?
>
> Do you really not know the answer to that?
>
> > If
> > they, then, select another male role model to emulate, whose
> > responsibility is that?
>
> What do you think? Do you need me to make up your mind for you? State
> some opinion and I will either agree or disagree with it. Since your
> question has nothing to do with the opinion I stated in this thread I
> can see you are just trying to change the subject, you can just do that,
> state your opinion on responsibility and I'll tell you what I think.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>So are you saying that it is NOT the father's responsibility if his
> >>>children turn out that way, if he was prevented from contact with his
> >>>childrfen?
>
> >>I didn't say that or anything like that, you just made that up for some
> >>reason. What is your reason for making that up or trying to misrepresent
> >>what I said to be that?
>
> >>What I am saying, what I said in plain english as a matter of fact, is
> >>that boys emulate their male role models a very high percentage of the
> >>time, if the boys turn out a certain way it is more likely because the
> >>male role model, father figure or actual father was that way. It is not
> >>likely that growing boys tried to emulate their mother. If you read the
> >>thread you can see that I responded to someone who claimed the lazy kids
> >>were the fault of the mother's indoctrination or some such nonsense.
>
> > Well, if the mother spent her time on public assistance and the boys
> > now spend their time on public assistance, you can see how that
> > assumption could be made.  But if, indeed, the boys are copying
> > another male role model because they did not have access to their
> > father to model themselves after due to mom's machinations, whose
> > responsibility is that?  Mom must then have provided males on public
> > assistance for her boys to model themselves after.  So, like it or
> > not, she is still responsible for their indoctrination into the
> > lifestyle they have chosen.
>
> Even though the father had some access to them and a few years of
> raising them he had no impact on them and provided no example for them.
> Why? because the guy in question agrees with your deadbeat agenda. What
> a surprise.

<snicker> Getting defensive? "Well, the man had a few of the
children's youngest years to influence them for the rest of their
lives--so it COULDN'T be dear, sweet mommy's influence." It's always
the man's fault, right?


>
> As for the role models, very few (almost none) try to emulate their
> mothers. Almost all boys emulate a male role model. So the previous
> poster who made the connection about the kids being on foodstamps
> because of the mother's example is way off base.


Hmmm...let's see. Dad is not on food stamps, and never has been. Mom
IS in food stamps, and has been for years. BUT the children are
emulating DAD. Yeah...right......


>
>
>
> >>>And if it is NOT the father's responsibility, then is it the
> >>>responsibility of the person who prevented contact with the father,
> >>>thereby putting the child in the position of choosing a weak male role
> >>>model?
>
> >>What in god's name are you on about? Is this a chick thing where you
> >>can't have a conversation without making things up and reading your own
> >>ideas into the things other people say? I said exactly what you read,
> >>thats it, none of your nonsense is included in what I said.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > <chuckle>  You don't like having your statements followed to their
> > logical conclusions?
>
> That wasn't a logical conclusion it was just more bullshit that did
> nothing to support or refute what was said


<snicker> Listen to the tapping...tap, tap, tappity, tap.....

[x***@xxx.com]

teachrmama wrote:
>
>
> <snicker> Getting defensive? "Well, the man had a few of the
> children's youngest years to influence them for the rest of their
> lives--so it COULDN'T be dear, sweet mommy's influence." It's always
> the man's fault, right?
>

Not defensive at all, <snicker> getting stupid? You missed the point of
my original post yet again, nice work. Do you agree with what I said in
the original post? Is this why you are so desperately trying to change
the subject?

>
>>As for the role models, very few (almost none) try to emulate their
>>mothers. Almost all boys emulate a male role model. So the previous
>>poster who made the connection about the kids being on foodstamps
>>because of the mother's example is way off base.
>
>
>
> Hmmm...let's see. Dad is not on food stamps, and never has been. Mom
> IS in food stamps, and has been for years. BUT the children are
> emulating DAD. Yeah...right......
>

I never said that either, can you be honest for one whole post? I said
that boys emulate their male role models, not their mothers. Which is
correct, and it explains why you keep trying to tap dance around the
facts by putting words into my mouth and changing the subject.

[teachrmama]

On Sep 14, 6:21 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
> teachrmama wrote:
>
> > <snicker>  Getting defensive?  "Well, the man had a few of the
> > children's youngest years to influence them for the rest of their
> > lives--so it COULDN'T be dear, sweet mommy's influence."  It's always
> > the man's fault, right?
>
> Not defensive at all, <snicker> getting stupid? You missed the point of
> my original post yet again, nice work. Do you agree with what I said in
> the original post? Is this why you are so desperately trying to change
> the subject?

I've seen absolutely NO CITES for what you claim to be facts. Perhaps
you could provide some. Otherwise it is just you opinion. Which you
may think is "fact," but others have every right to dispute.

>
>
>
> >>As for the role models, very few (almost none) try to emulate their
> >>mothers. Almost all boys emulate a male role model. So the previous
> >>poster who made the connection about the kids being on foodstamps
> >>because of the mother's example is way off base.
>
> > Hmmm...let's see.  Dad is not on food stamps, and never has been. Mom
> > IS in food stamps, and has been for years.  BUT the children are
> > emulating DAD.  Yeah...right......
>
> I never said that either, can you be honest for one whole post? I said
> that boys emulate their male role models, not their mothers. Which is
> correct,


Cite? Where is the cite?


and it explains why you keep trying to tap dance around the
> facts


Facts? Facts are backed up by CITES!


by putting words into my mouth and changing the subject.


Just waiting for those cites.............

[x***@xxx.com]

teachrmama wrote:

> On Sep 14, 6:21 pm, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:
>
>>teachrmama wrote:
>>
>>
>>><snicker> Getting defensive? "Well, the man had a few of the
>>>children's youngest years to influence them for the rest of their
>>>lives--so it COULDN'T be dear, sweet mommy's influence." It's always
>>>the man's fault, right?
>>
>>Not defensive at all, <snicker> getting stupid? You missed the point of
>>my original post yet again, nice work. Do you agree with what I said in
>>the original post? Is this why you are so desperately trying to change
>>the subject?
>
>
> I've seen absolutely NO CITES for what you claim to be facts. Perhaps
> you could provide some. Otherwise it is just you opinion. Which you
> may think is "fact," but others have every right to dispute.
>

Okay then, it is my opinion, care to refute it without rewording what I
say or strawmen?