I was recently treated to viewing a video of a complaint fest from a popular mens rights advocate. It appears one of the big problems of modern day living (and this from a man who looked to be at least late 30s/40ish) was how often he dates women who won’t treat him to dinner. I had to laugh looking around at his audience when I observed how many men, his age and older, were sitting there solemnly nodding their heads in agreement.
Again, I have to agree with Robert Bly, author of The Sibling Society, people in western civilization need to grow the hell up already.
Okay…especially men.
The only thing of sense that came out of that video was the acknowledgement that women generally file for divorce first in order to be assured custody of their children. As generally the temporary custody morphs into permanent; unless there is abuse or neglect of some kind going on which is rare as most people do not abuse or neglect their children. So this is the basis of women filing for divorce FIRST. It’s part and parcel of the sacred obligation every women takes on once she becomes a mother to ensure her children remain under her care, custody and control and not have her kids jerked around in all kinds of weird custody and living arrangements, just so their fathers can pay less child support.
That’s men’s problem.
Don’t have any kids if you all are too stingy and cheap to pay for them afterwards. Save us all a lot of aggravation, so your line can die off and not become a burden on the rest of us.
Of course, he had the usual male audacity to claim women file first to STEAL THE CHILDREN.
Well guess what, you can’t steal what is already yours.
Okay.
In fact, it is men who steal children from their mothers, as they would have no rights in nature or under natural law to children whatsoever. Men have taken these cases into courts of their own making and made up all this phony history, statistical lies, and laws to match, all in an attempt to bypass natural law and common sense in order to steal children from their mothers. So it is men who wear the badge of thieves…and let's face it many of these thefts (like theft everywhere) are for financial gain, nothing to do with the best interest of children whatsoever.
So in spite of the many lies and exaggerations that have been going on about why women file for divorce so much, as in: women are unstable, women are after men’s money, etc., the obvious fact is that women file first due to the natural maternal instincts to keep her young under her care, custody and control. Which is right where the young of every species on the planet, as well as our own, should be with their mothers.
AND go pay for your own damn dinners, you stingy cheapskates.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6473306077934533867
8 comments:
“Of course, he had the usual male audacity to claim women file first to STEAL THE CHILDREN. Well guess what, you can’t steal what is already yours. Okay. In fact, it is men who steal children from their mothers, as they would have no rights in nature or under natural law to children whatsoever.”
The ugly but indisputable fact about divorce (I’m not talking about abusive situations here) is that in all except the most equitably managed cases it does indeed, almost by definition, steal from one parent or another what is already theirs—their own lawful, flesh-and-blood offspring in whose upbringing they had every right to expect to share when they made the risky gamble to begin the building of a home and family. What is infinitely more important, however, is that it steals from CHILDREN what is already theirs—one or the other of their own lawful, biological and usually much-loved parents, one of the two people who would generally do more for them than anyone else in the world. Even when divorce is mutually desired and fairly managed, it nevertheless steals from children the sense of security and permanence which their intact family of origin provides. A plague upon our entire society is putting it mildly. Nature has squat to do with it--much of what goes on in nature has no place whatsoever in decent, civilized human society.
One of the ancient Hebrew prophets called the unjustified repudiation of the marriage covenant "treachery." There is still no better word for it.
Anne
"...much of what goes on in nature has no place whatsoever in decent, civilized human society..."
But without those essential instincts driving us (and btw which link us with every other living being on the planet) we would have just faded away eons ago.
As logically speaking if there wasn't some instinct involved here, why in the hell would any women go through everything we do to become a mother? Especially now with all the reproductive technology we have to avoid doing it along with a custody fight looming at every turn? As the whole event is too messy, bloody, painful, just too damn inconvenient for humans to bother with anyway; probably too natural.
Following your logic what women would bother becoming a mother anymore? I mean if we didn't have some natural embedded maternal instinct driving women to want children, I could see our entire society consigning child birth to the very lowest sector of women in our society. The only ones who couldn't afford to say no. Like we used to do with breast feeding of infants, slaves or very poor women used to have to breast feed other womens' children. It was considered too low class for women who could afford NOT to do it to chose to breast feed their own infants...
Is that the kind of world we want to live in? Where only the women who cannot afford to say no do these things, as it's too dirty/natural for the rest of us.
Those natural instincts were embedded in all females of every species, as well as our own, for a reason. Whatever it was I think we chose to disregard it at our peril.
Also as I said before, don't talk to me about lawful in these instances of men getting custody of children from fit mothers. I don't consider it lawful for a mother and her child to be separated because a man decides to do so, for no other reason but that he can.
I don't recognize that law.
"Those natural instincts were embedded in all females of every species, as well as our own, for a reason. Whatever it was I think we chose to disregard it at our peril."
Well, the beasts do not reproduce out of any kind of maternal instinct or desire for offspring--reproduction is the result of the embedded sex drive which has evolved in such a way as to maximize the chances of reproduction. As for human beings, while I'll grant that a lot of reproduction flows mindlessly from the sex drive just as it does with the beasts, I think the main reason that people reproduce today is the desire for a legacy, for family ties, to see the best of themselves and their loved ones replicated in a new generation, to have progeny around them in old age, and so on. For most women that goal is well worth the inconvenience of pregnancy and birth which is not nearly as "messy, bloody and painful" now as it once was. I know I've referred to my sister-in-law before and perhaps it's becoming tedious but, for heaven's sake, she recently had her second child and spent most of the day of the birth comfortably watching football games in bed with her epidural in, then delivered the baby without incident in three pushes. Her first birth was much the same as well. She hardly dreaded the "ordeal" of birth--the main thing she worried about was affording the extra day care. As for me, the obstetrics ward was full when I delivered and I don't remember hearing any screaming. It's just not the same as it used to be--fortunately, I suppose, as safe pain control in childbirth seems to have increased proportionately to the effectiveness and availability of birth control.
"I don't consider it lawful for a mother and her child to be separated because a man decides to do so, for no other reason but that he can."
That's the very essence of what goes on in the "nature" that you're so fond of, NYMOM--self-centered creatures doing what they can do to further their own interests BECAUSE THEY CAN, limited only by the unconscious drive to replicate their genes effectively. The laws of our civilization are the only restraining force on us, and it's unfortunate that law has not been able to prevent either mothers or fathers from pulling the rug out from under their poor children thru divorce. I don't consider it "lawful" in a moral sense for EITHER parent to rob their children of the other. But men fractured their families when they had the power to do so, and women have done the same since they've had the power. Because they can. Because Number One comes first. That's the unfortunate human condition.
Thanks,
Anne
"...Well the beast do not reproduce out of any kind of maternal instinct...reproduction is the result of the embedded sex drive"
I disagree completely.
Maybe the male of the species reproduces as a result of the embedded sex drive and the female might initally as well. But if no maternal instinct exists why wouldn't a mother in nature just either abandon or eat her infant upon birth? After all it is food and they certainly eat other animals' young, so why not their own????
In fact, the maternal instinct probably starts acting almost as soon as the mother conceives since bonding is thought to take place in utero...males have no bonding processes they go through (which is probably the source of human male jealousy of mothers). Actually in nature males will kill and eat their young and it's why they are usually driven away before the female gives birth.
For instance, the high mortality rate of black bear cubs in the wild is due to them being eaten by male bears, probably their fathers. So that movie The Bear was nothing but a piece of male propaganda as a male bear in the wild would have killed and eaten that cub, not taken him and raised him.
Thus, the movie was a complete lie.
Anyway, being human does not change what is essential to all living beings on this planet.
You never mentioned your sister in law to me btw. In reference to that same issue of child birth being so simple and easy you could watch a football game during delivery, I just read about Angela Jolie giving birth and she stated that she is only adopting going forward, as it is too painful giving birth. I of course gave birth twice over 22 years ago, but witnessed my daughter giving birth ten years ago and guess what, it was still painful. I hated being there and seeing her in so much pain, but remained for her sake.
However, it's sad to see another woman go to the extent of downgrading her sister-in-law's suffering to make a point. Hopefully this is not just another rhetorical device (or lie as some would call it), like what you did when you mentioned the marriage strike in another comment, although you claimed not to believe it anyway right after bringing it up yourself.
Also, this is typical mens/fathers' rights bullcrap trying to make light of what mothers go through.
"That's the very essence of what goes on in nature"
Sorry that's NOT what goes on in nature.
Males of the species do not just rush in and steal the young from a mother. Generally they keep a safe distance, knowing they'll have a fight on their hands if they venture to close to a mother and her young.
It's the genesis of our 'maternal gatekeeping'.
"However, it's sad to see another woman go to the extent of downgrading her sister-in-law's suffering to make a point."
Um, I am not downgrading or lying about anything, NYMOM. I WAS THERE with her, for your information, as was her husband, mother-in-law and other sister. I saw it all, get it? And while I had more pain myself, it wasn't Dr. Terror's House of Horrors. Let's quit exaggerating this as if it makes mother goddesses out of us or something.
"But if no maternal instinct exists why wouldn't a mother in nature just either abandon or eat her infant upon birth?"
I was replying to your implication that the maternal instinct is what drives living creatures, including human beings, to reproduce in the first place, which it is not. The maternal instinct, if it exists, has to do with the care of offspring AFTER birth.
"...males have no bonding processes they go through (which is probably the source of human male jealousy of mothers)."
If men are not very interested in children, then it makes little sense for them to be jealous of mothers.
"In fact, the maternal instinct probably starts acting almost as soon as the mother conceives since bonding is thought to take place in utero..."
Possibly in a sense, although once again we are very different from the beasts in that our actions are not simply ruled by our instincts and thus our instincts are much less finely honed. Human mothers bond not so much with the baby itself in utero as with the expectation of that baby--true individual bonding begins after birth. Same with fathers, if they're around. I know, I know, you disagree. That's fine.
"Actually in nature males will kill and eat their young and it's why they are usually driven away before the female gives birth."
Exactly my point. The fact that something goes on in nature does NOT make it lawful or moral in civilization. Which is why it is NOT morally legitimate for a mother to steal children from their legal, biological father, or the father from the children, just because a female beast in the wild can drive away a male one.
Thanks,
Anne
"...as if it makes mother goddesses out of us or something..."
Yes you would hate that.
I guess all men and women have to be clones reacting to every single situation exactly alike. Then you are happy.
We're all watching football and cheering for the home team while giving birth.
How totally predictably you are...
"...true individual bonding begins after birth..."
According to you and your gender neutralized companions. Well I hate to tell you this but many others say differently and I don't believe that any mother, incluidng an animal in the wild, just starts bonding after birth. There simply wouldn't be enough time before she'd either abandon or eat her offsprint...
AND although you hate to admit our links with other beings on this planet they exist. Whether we are launching a spaceship to the moon or birthing our children in an antiseptic hospital room, the essential things that make us human and link us with every other living being on the planet still exist.
Whether you like it or not.
A mother doesn't STEAL her own offspring. She's doesn't need to. That's her child, which every women has a right to as her birthright as soon as she chooses to become a mother. Just because you and a bunch of self-righteous gender-neutralized misfits wish to conduct all kinds of social engineering experiments with other women's children doesn't mean we have agreed to abandon our natural maternal rights or our children.
A mother was always recognized in the past (here and everywhere else) as being the person most invested in her infant and always had rights, until people like you came along and decreed differently. Even this crap about men taking custody of infants from their mothers has no historic basis, it rarely happened in the past ANYWHERE and shouldn't be happening here either. AND wouldn't be, but for morons like you.
As I mentioned before even under Islamic sharia law mothers are automatically considered the best guardian for children up to about the age 7 or so.
Unfortunately morons like you have now invaded western courts with your bs and caused Judges here not to have the same respect for mothers as an ordinary Islamic terrorist would appear to have.
Anyway the bottom line Anne is that I think we have come to the parting of the ways here.
I'm getting sick of this constant arguing with you. I think you must have some kind of an odd obsession with this blog; always returning here to try and get me to agree with you.
As you can see in the beginning of this blog, I created it to discuss with like-minded people ways to address the current situation. AS it stands now millions of mothers are losing their children through what I would say is nothing but judicially-sanctioned abductions.
So IF you have something to say regarding ways to ASSIST women in this area, feel free to post it.
Otherwise don't bother coming back here.
Goodbye Anne.
Have a nice life.
Post a Comment