Sunday, July 29, 2007

Women Should not be Diverted by a Red Herring

The story last month of pro-wrestler, Chris Benoit, murdering his wife and 7 year old son was framed in so many ways by various commentators that it was hard to know what to believe. Was he a good husband and father who was using steroids and unexpectedly went off into a so-called ‘roid-rage’ with the murder of his family the result, a man under stress with a hectic traveling schedule due to his wrestling career and a handicapped son who just finally snapped or just an ordinary run of the mill abusive jackoff who took the beatings too far one day?

Of course, it’s a given the early coverage spent most of their ink blaming the woman involved here, Benoit’s wife, Nancy Benoit. Frankly I would have been surprised if they hadn’t, since this pattern has been established since the story of Adam and Eve. Some things never change I guess.

Many of the news articles immediately began harping on the fact that Nancy Benoit was married and divorced before (thus, implying she was a slut) while this was a first marriage for Chris Benoit. She was once charged with pulling a knife on an ex, so, of course, the implicit assumption being that she somehow brought this upon herself by her own behavior. AND what would one of these stories be without the requisite picture of the female victim dressed in some wholly inappropriate (considering she was just murdered) provocative outfit? Again, the implication being that she was somehow responsible for what happened to her. She wasn’t a ‘good girl’ was the message being radiated out here. If she had been a better person, dressed more conservatively, never divorced, etc., this probably would not have happened to her.

Thus woman across America were lulled back to sleep confident in the knowledge that if Nancy Benoit had been a better person, acted differently, not been so out-there, she’d be alive today. Everything that happened to her was her own fault was the message women were being fed. Don’t be like her and you and your kids won’t wind up in her situation.

But is this true? Was Nancy Benoit’s situation really entirely the result of her many bad choices? Or was it the result of a family court system that has empowered men to use custody of children as a club against women, forcing us back into marriages we wish to leave otherwise we risk losing our children?

“…Nancy Benoit had filed for a divorce in 2003, saying the couple’s three-year marriage was irrevocably broken and alleging “cruel treatment.” She later dropped the complaint, as well as a request for a restraining order in which she charged that the 5-foot-10, 220-pound Benoit had threatened her and had broken furniture in their home.

In the divorce filing, she said Benoit made more than $ 500,000 a year as a professional wrestler and asked for permanent custody of Daniel and child support. In response, Benoit sought joint custody.”

As we can see in the above quote from an AP release dated June 27, 2007, Nancy Benoit did try to escape her fate. She attempted to take her son with her to escape his as well. Yet Chris Benoit was able to force this woman back into the marriage using the power of his half a million dollar annual income, probably assisted by some slick attorney screaming about fathers’ rights and empowered by a gender-neutral court system that refuses to recognize or honor the unique bond between mothers and their children.

Thus, this is not just the story of one woman who made some unfortunate life choices which ended in her and her son’s death. This is instead the story of how our family court system has enabled men to use custody of children as a club against women. How men have used their access to greater financial resources to assist them in this monstrous endeavor. Additionally it is the story of how gender-neutralized feminists have aided and abetted in these crimes committed against their sisters. How they have used the womens’ movement to advance their own careers, climbing up onto the back of their sisters to establish themselves into cushy jobs and well-paid positions throughout our judiciary, only to stab us in our collective hearts as soon as they are embedded within the system.

That’s the real story behind the story here, not steroid use. Steroid use is a side show, the classic red herring thrown out to divert us.

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Like They Say: The Truth will Set You Free

Following article is located at:

We Are Not Pregnant
The glory of men and women lies in their unbridgeable differences.
Mark Galli | posted 7/12/2007 08:55AM

A male friend, married to a lovely women, comes up to me beaming and says, "We're pregnant!"

"Wow!" I reply, with inappropriate sarcasm. "When I was a young man, only women could get pregnant."

I've heard this phrase—"We're pregnant"—too much recently, but it's time to move beyond sarcasm. The intent is as understandable as the execution is absurd. It arises out of the noble desire of men (and future fathers) to participate fully in the childrearing. And I understand that for many men, it simply means, "My wife and I are expecting a baby."

But the first dictionary meaning of pregnant remains, "Carrying developing offspring within the body." Whenever a word is misused, it means the speaker is unaware of the word's meaning, or that the cultural meaning of a word is shifting, or that some ideology is demanding obeisance. Probably all three are in play, but it's the last reality that we should pay attention to. It is not an accident that this phrase, "We're pregnant," has arisen in a culture that in many quarters is ponderously egalitarian and tries to deny the fundamental differences of men and women.

This phrase is most unfortunate after conception because it is an inadvertent co-opting of women by men—men using language to suggest that they share equally in the burdens and joys of pregnancy. Instead, pregnancy is one time women should flaunt their womanhood, and one time men should acknowledge the superiority of women. Men may be able to run the mile in less than four minutes and open stuck pickle jars with a twist of the wrist, but for all our physical prowess, we cannot carry new life within us and bring it into the world. To suggest that we do is a slap in the face of women.


Exactly, this author has it exactly right.

The really unfortunately thing is that women went along with this kick in our teeth so easily and, as usual, had to wait for a man to bring it to our attention.

The only point of disagreement with the author I have is that he's too easy on other men. As I don't agree for a moment that men did this due to 'noble desires'. In fact, it's just what it would appear to be if anyone else was doing it, an attempt to usurp womens' more significant role in the creation of life and for men to try and claim it as their own.

The male role in this area is minimal and this 'we're pregnant' business is another of their long-running, age-old, jealousy attempts to deny this reality.