Immigration Rights Envy
Why can’t the father’s rights movement have similar turnouts?
By Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq.
Monday, May 07, 2007
“Men at some time are masters of their fates: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
Cassius to Brutus in “Julius Caesar,” by William Shakespeare, regarding how they have allowed Julius Caesar to become dictator for life.
If you go the websites of any of ABC news, CBS news, or NBC news, you can hardly even find the term “fathers’ rights” apropos any televised story. Click this link for a CBS News Search of “father’s rights” to see what I mean. Here is a searchof ABC news. Here are the search results for NBC.
Fox News generates some hits, but they are usually stories by Wendy McElroy, and are on their website, but were not part of their televised coverage.
Immigration is another story—there are lots of stories about immigration in the press and on television, and regardless of your viewpoint of the subject, there are lessons to be learned. It is almost impossible to not have jealousy when you read stories like this New York Times story.
To read more, click here
.
Rate this post:



Stumble It!











Robert Stevens said,
Well immigration has been around a lot longer, people have been sneaking across the border for over a hundred years. The fathers rights thing only started in the last 20-25 years. so there is your reason. Rest asured, the fathers rights movement will grow, it has already gotten off the ” leaper list”, it is now a subject the liberal, femi- phobic media will now report on, even if it is just to bad mouth us.
I also know something else, the fathers rights movement is going to suceed!! Oh it will take awhile, the movement gets stronger, while its enemies are getting weaker. More and more people realize that it is time for a change and the liberals and the feminist are just hatemongers.
I forsee the day, when the feminist and liberals are just pages in a history book.
May 7, 2007 at 12:11 pm
PolishKnight said,
The obvious reason is that the illegal immigrants have the support of mainstream political structures already. This isn’t a “grassroots” movement fighting against “the man”. “The man” in the form of corporations looking for cheap labor and leftists looking for votes are already trying to push through legislation to give them amnesty.
In general, most leftist claims for being more ‘caring’ are generally about issues that already have mainstream support (anti-racism, equal rights for women, the environment, etc.) One of the big leftist scams is the notion that they’re ‘fighting’ such attitudes and then run around saying that they’re fighting all the much harder because of “hidden” racism and sexism. Look at the witch hunts and all those hidden witches 400 years ago…
Men’s issues are a harder nut to crack because many men even in it still struggle with the reality of women’s equality in the workplace and voting rights having caused women’s resentment of men failing to live up to the traditional breadwinner and protector role. They think it’s somehow possible to “reform” feminism and get all the goodies without tossing the baby out with the bathwater (bad pun).
Feminism and the notion of anti-male rights began with chivalrous notions that are still held by many men including men’s rights activists themselves.
The good news is that just because the parades for such issues as fiscal responsibility, men’s rights, and securing America’s borders don’t get many marchers doesn’t mean that the public doesn’t support or at least understand those issues. Media propoganda along with legacy beliefs I mention above still hamper the common man and woman, but the battle isn’t over yet.
After all, if the left really had won they wouldn’t be out marching to begin with. Is it just me or are their riots (that they blame on the police) just hurting their credibility? Before the marches after GW tried to propose amnesty (which he said wasn’t), this largely wasn’t an issue. Now, if congress tries to pass amnesty, they may find it becoming a red-hot political issue.
May 7, 2007 at 3:39 pm
wls1 said,
It frustrates and baffles me: men simply won’t engage the enemy, on the political ground where it really counts.
For many, the only way they will even consider is the paranoid style: not even trying to win. Too many take their cues from the Tax Protesters: the people who tell you you can’t be punished for refusing to pay income tax.
It’s an introverted community: talking only to itself with little distinction being made between fact and fiction; its conversation is not much more than a role-playing game or charades.
Look for example, at these clowns who call themselves CRISPE: they went to Sacramento on Good Friday, during a week-long legislative recess. Is that just stupid, or is it some kind of dissociation?
May 7, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Artfldgr said,
Why can’t the father’s rights movement have similar turnouts?
Because those that dont have kids, dont think that they will suffer, the usual folly of youth. they no longer have any kind of education in the conceptual of valuation and preservation of real rights (vs other penumbric conceptuals and its progeny).
And most of all, those with children have something to lose. those that have good relations and a family want to blithly go on thinking that they dont need the insurance of investment in something they never will need, as they have this happy contingent. they fear that their wives may pre-empt them and take the kids becaause his working for fathers may be in preparation of such a move… enter the lawyers
as far as those already separated. they already are titular only in image, and are vacated as humans in this context. their children can choose not to want them, the mother can choose not to provide the time for them, and tons of other things constanly discuessed here and elsewhere.
when one is balanced on a razor blades edge on a bed of ice, one doesnt stir up too much.
contrast this with the immigration rights… its a win win for the socialists… they get labor that has very little context with political theory and has blind support for them, and the immigrants think that they have a champion for their ’cause’ which is primarily to be able to make money and send it back, and that permanence means never having to worry bout the gravy train ending. yes there are those that want to come here for a better life, but we make no distinction between the two.
they are not checked or rounded up at the protests… (though recent rubber bullet incidents may make many think twice next time - which i dont particularly condone), they are not punished later and told they cant see their child. future dates at court or at homeland security will not care that they marched or not…
to even ask the question which reletevated these two things together shows a remarkable ignorance of the issues surrounding fathers, children, and the red queen called the state (who the women have married and havent realized it).
May 8, 2007 at 7:09 am