Comments on: Honorable men being cheated, Celebrating Fathers: Protecting the Right to Provide

By: Robert Stevens

Robert Stevens — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 01:14:03 +0000

A little history lesson is in order here. I don’t want for men to have to resort to the use of MILITARY FORCE, read that military force, not a few nuts with guns. Corrupt governments have and still do get to the point a peaceful approach will not work,look at Ole Saddam, he waw a monster and even the threat of force did not sway him, he had to be removed. It took force and God forbid, I hope, I pray we are not too late to use peaceful means, but look around, the government is getting progressively more and more out of control. To a whole lot of them, the rule of law means nothing.
Now while the rule of law still hold and as of this moment it still does, men need to learn the law,how it works and how to fight back legally. If we do that we might forstall having to end up using force. If we can stop the corrupt bastards before a civil war is necessary, then that save a lot of innocents and a lot of damage to our country, but like it not or agree with it or not, force may end up having to be used to restore our rights, history is just full of such lessons.

By: lieweary

lieweary — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:42:48 +0000

That’s right. Violence is completely ineffective. Men need to begin blogging, posting comments, contributing money to men’s rights groups on a regular basis, etc. There are some very basic things that we all need to be doing, but very few men are doing them.

By: FathersHaveNaturalRights

FathersHaveNaturalRights — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:59:11 +0000

Any successful future for the rights of fathers must not involve any violence. I realize that almost no one suggests that it should or will, but when even a few seem to be predicting it, the millions of men who disavow such a course get even more fallaciously portrayed by the ideological feminist mainstream media.

There are many other ways to fight. With votes, with meetings, with taking over county level Republican groups, by talking with friends, by writing letters to the editor, and by refusing to be a secondary parent in one’s own life.

By: Robert Stevens

Robert Stevens — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:43:04 +0000

Poiut you are correct, the women and the feminazi’s would not be the menace to fathers and men, without the help of corupt wicked old men who want to run a government sponsored kidnapping and extortion racket off the backs of other men.
A civil rights movement for fathers and men needs to get going. Something in the style of Martin Luther King. A peaceful, hopefully* massive protest to the indignities and injustices suffered by men at the hands of this God awful racket. One we make it clear, we will not stand for it anymore and will put a stop to it. Either by lawful and peaceful methods, or . God forbid, if that fails, regretably by force. Change will come!
* Our government is so corrupt, that they arrogantly believe that the rule of law does not apply to them. It certainly does, they do know this, but they constantly try to shake loose the moral and constitutional limits that were intended to make them act as our servants. Very soon I fear, it will take force, ie men with guns will have to remove the evil bastards and that will be a disaster!

By: poiuyt

poiuyt — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:34:04 +0000

It isnt feminism !

Its the vicious bigotry of leading males of the land and their electoral supporters. Male traitors whom earn decent profits and middle class salaries, creating and servicing structures to basterdise children and isolate them from their fathers.

By: FathersHaveNaturalRights

FathersHaveNaturalRights — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:24:06 +0000

Defining fathers as “providers” is one of the biggest reasons why society is the feminist mess that it is.

Consider the typical divorce situation: men are viewed as the “provider” (paycheck)and as such are ordered to pay their ex-wives (via child support)to raise the sons and daughters that the men now are only visitors to by standard feminist court order.

Women, on the other hand, are viewed as the caregiver (parent) and so get full custody in virtually all cases because of that. Correspondingly, they get to raise their sons and daughters while using the courts as a weapon to marginalize their ex-husband.

This situation is a direct result of men being cast as “providers”, and women being cast as “caregivers”, showing the incredibly profound harm that those polarized roles do to men and to their children.

The real revolution will be of men refusing to have less parenting time of their children, whether they were never married, are currently married, or are now divorced.

Subscribing to men being primarily “providers” and women being primarily “caregivers” feeds the feminist court and societal system. That system could not survive if a majority of fathers became the primary caregivers of their own children. That is what must happen.

By: John Pine

John Pine — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:23:31 +0000

A monumental mistake has been made. Continuity of care is very important in unbroken families, and this fact has led to courts to assume that mothers should have the children to maintain the continuity of the ‘main caretaker’. But with broken families the situation is different. Exclusion of the father creates the most harm, although that harm will probably not register until adolescence. A cross-cultural study by Bacon, Child and Barry shows that societies in which fathers are excluded have much higher rates of crime and violence than those in which fathers are honoured. A study of delinquency in Minnesota by Hathaway and Monachesi shows that single fathers keep the delinquency rate of their children below the average for the whole community, whereas single mothers have children with a 46% occurrence of delinquency (even higher than children who live with neither parent). You can see where our social breakdown is coming from.

By: wheresmy40

wheresmy40 — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:55:51 +0000

The courts know they can’t plunder the non-breadwinner thereby receiving kickbacks from the feds. Perhaps a “Men’s Studies” course that told the truth versus those propaganda-laden womens studies courses, would warn and spare a percentage of our younger generation of men.

Perhaps if women had to drill for their own oil, mine their own coal, haul their own goods, fight on the front lines, fight fires, apprehend dangerous criminals, farm for food, repair their own cars, work iron, build roads, build railroads, work high-amp power lines, mill lumber, do all those jobs done primarily by men and from which women benefit, they would demand true equality. My apologies to the .0001% of women actually working these dangerous and often deadly occupations.

By: amfortas

amfortas — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:22:02 +0000

Sing it LOUD. Sing that song. SHOUT it out in the courts. Every family Court needs to hear these words at EVERY sitting.