Thursday, October 08, 2009

Unexpected Follow-up to Old Post...

I always like it when a principal involved in one of these cases makes an unexpected quest appearance on my blog to fill everyone in on the aftermath of these situations, particularly the so-called 'parental abduction' cases. Here's a good example.

Now I never said the recreational sperm donor in this case was a monster, an asshole maybe, but not a monster and there is a difference. BUT now I see I was completely wrong. In fact, this character is a dangerous man who should NEVER have been allowed any court-ordered contact...

Here's one result of the whole thing...

Fortunately this girl wasn't seriously injured by the flying ashtray.

I wish her good luck with her future...

Friday, December 24, 2004

Inappropriate Outcome for Various Reasons...

The outcome in this case was only partially correct.

Custody going to the girl's mother was correct...

However child support should NOT have been awarded to the mother...

Nor should visitation have been awarded to the sperm donor in this case.

First of all, marriage is the framework that all societies have set up to protect the rights of fathers and the rest of the surrounding community vis-a-vis children. Men who chose to procreate outside marriage take the risk that they will have no legal rights to any children created outside of that framework and that's the way it should be, as a two-second sperm donation in the back seat of a car or in a drunken encounter during a one-night stand should NOT entitle you to rights...

I'm sorry but a accidental sperm donor is NOT a father, nor should he be treated as one.

This mother fled nine years ago because our current public policy enables men, who have not followed through on their responsibilities as fathers to still get a chance to be what I call a 'half-a@@ed dad"...He doesn't marry the mother and/or make any real public or financial commitment to the woman taking all the risk of bearing his children, leaving that for the rest of us to pick up the tab for that, but as soon as the child is born he is suddenly allowed to emerge and accept laurel leaves as a 'father'...

This after doing nothing outside of a two-minute sperm donation...

It's ridiculous...

Men who do NOT marry the mothers of children should NOT be allowed any legal rights to these children. Of course, they should not be forced into paying child support either...I suggest that perhaps we should change the rules of engagement by denying any individual person the right to go to court for either visitation or child support UNLESS they are married...ONLY the STATE should be allowed the option of obtaining support from a never-married father.

This way fathers who insist on continuing to procreate with mothers and creating children neither can support can still be held financially responsible for said children as the STATE can go to court to get reimbursement for public benefits given to the child BUT never-married parents cannot do there will be no financial incentive for the self-supporting single parent to have children out of wedlock unless they can support them alone, as they won't be able to sue a never-married parent for custody, child support, or visitation...

NOR will a never-married father be allowed to emotionally abuse the mothers of their children by holding these ongoing custody battles over their heads.

AT the same time, society (all the rest of us) will not have to pay for children of parents who cannot support them as the STATE, representing taxpayers can STILL go after reimbursement for public benefits.

Whatever private arrangements parents make between themselves is fine but neither will be allowed into court unless a marriage license is produced. As let's face it people. what is the incentive for men to get married if they can get the EXACT SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS A MARRIED MAN TO CHILDREN SIMPLY BY GETTING THEIR NAME ON A PIECE OF PAPER...

Answer: NONE...

This public policy change will cut down on MUCH of this nonsense going on lately, most of which appears to be generated by these never-married couples situations where accidental or recreational sperm donors have been given the same rights as a child's mother.

This woman has stated that she 'abducted' her then 5 year old daughter (not that I recognize the concept even, that a mother could ever abduct her own child) because she was afraid that the she could NOT afford the cost of an expensive legal battle to retain custody of her daughter and this is NOT an idle fear. Most non-custodial mothers come from our most backward regions, the South and West and most of them are very low income clearly her fear was very well justified.

In my opinion, ANY custody fight instigated by a man is a form of extreme emotional abuse...unless the child's mother is abusive or neglectful...

For eons mothers have been considered the obvious, best and most natural guardian for the young of every species, including our own, and I see no reason for a bunch of men trying to avoid paying child support and the social engineers who continue to support them to make any change in that arrangement...


All interested parties should forward a letter to the prosecutor's office that handled this case congratulating them on getting it HALF-RIGHT anyway and stating our opinion on how the rest of the decison should have been handled.

The address is:

Prosecutor's Office
Don Hill Administration Building
20 South Street, 4th Floor
Newark, OH 43055



Mom obtains custody, child support

Former missing girl wants to stay with mother

By LACHELLE SEYMOURAdvocate Reporter

NEWARK -- Sheri Lyn Taylor, a Johnstown woman who allegedly disappeared from her California home nine years ago with her daughter, retained residential custody of the girl Monday after six hours of negotiations.

Taylor will also receive child support from the girl's father, David Brancheau, who will have regular visitation rights.

Authorities allege Taylor left California with her daughter Vanesa Brancheau, in 1995, gave her the assumed name of Ariel Rose Taylor, and lived in Kansas City, Mo., Daytona Beach, Fla., and Pataskala before moving to Johnstown.

She claims she left California because she was afraid David could harm them.

The two were found living in Johnstown in July after a woman recognized Vanesa's picture from the Web site of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Taylor received temporary physical custody of her daughter, now 14, in September after a two-day hearing in front of Licking County Juvenile Judge Robert Hoover.

David Brancheau, of Auburn Hills, Mich., will pay $425 per month in child support, plus processing fees. He can visit with his daughter every fifth weekend of the year, and four to six weeks in the summer.

Brancheau says the final agreement rewards Taylor for keeping his child away from him.

"I feel I had 14 years of parental alienation I didn't cause, and I'm left holding the bag," he said.

He went along with the plan because Vanesa wanted to live with her mother, he said.

Vanesa will be covered under her mother's health insurance plans, but David Brancheau will be temporarily responsible for 67 percent of any uncovered extraordinary expenses for the girl.

Both parents will share travel necessary for extended visitations, like those during holidays or spring and summer break, and will pay attorney and court fees.

Taylor and Brancheau must also avoid making "disparaging" remarks about each other.

Although Taylor's custody issue appears to be over, she faces felony charges of forgery and interference with custody for actions allegedly taken during her nine-year run from her daughter's father.

Taylor allegedly used false documents for school enrollment in the Southwest Licking School District, sparking the forgery charge.

Last month, Taylor chose to be charged by a bill of information, which waived her rights to indictment and review by jury.

Taylor's attorney, John OBora, said he is happy with the outcome of the custody hearing, but declined to comment further citing Taylor's upcoming review for the diversion program.

Acceptance into that program would allow her to avoid jail time for the felony charges and would be similar to serving probation.

OBora believes his client would be a good candidate for diversion, but said she will likely enter a plea if she is not accepted.

Reporter Lachelle Seymour can be reached at (740) 328-8546 or

posted by NYMOM | Friday, December 24, 2004

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I personally know the man and I am very happy that Vanessa is staying with her mom. Sheri did the right thing protecting her child. She did what any mother would do.
9:18 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am happy for Ms. Taylor and her daughter, but would like to point out that not all women in a situation like Ms. Taylor's are that lucky.
I left my husband after he physically and verbally abused me while I was 4 1/2 months pregnant with our child. We separated and he knew where I lived but I lived my life in fear that he may come and hurt me again and that he may cause me to lose the baby I was carrying. After being out of our lives for 3 1/2 years my ex went behind my back to file for custody (EVEN THOUGH HE HAD NEVER MET OUR CHILD OR EVER PARENTED BEFORE) and won!! The judge had ordered him full custody and that I pay him for back child support without him ever having raised our child.
10:53 PM
Blogger NYMOM said...

Believe it or not this is very TYPICAL today...

For instance, a lot of never-married mothers do not realize that if they do NOT establish legal custody through a court order that ANYTIME, ANYTIME even 5 or 10 years after the child's birth, the father can do just what you said...Go to court and get custody...When you find out is when the police are driving up to snatch your baby away, that can be the first you hear of it...

AND this could happen even if they are not on the birth certificate, by the way. Just to let other never-married mothers know if they read this...

This is something I found out recently from a young never-married mother(although I had heard it before from a man who worked in law enforcement, I just didn't beleive it). This young mother whose b/f was in Iraq...he returned two weeks after the birth so was not even named on the birth certificate because he wasn't here to sign any paternity papers...

Well, guess what, that didn't matter in the least, he just took the child for a 'day visit' to his family he claimed and then disappear with a few weeks old infant for two permission, request of mother, telephone call, nothing...She called every agency and number in the state including her local police and guess what, even though she had the legal birth certificate w/o anyone's name on it but hers, no one PAID the slightly attention to her...NO ONE...

Luckily he decided to return the baby, otherwise it could have been a situation similar to yours...

Regarding married women like yourself, well from the time of conception the husband is considered the father in some states. FROM THE TIME OF CONCEPTION...

I assume you just never bothered filing with the courts for custody of your child and your ex-husband just wrote away for the birth certificate (which by rights, he is entitled to) since by law he is the legal father unless and until someone informed the courts differently.

Then he simply filed for custody himself...

My ex-husband did the same thing...he went down and filed for divorce and came to serve me the papers at work...He stipulated custody to ME however (as was very common in the days before high child support, actually I got NO child support and NEVER met any women who did, that's the way it was then)...

Today I would probably have been a non-custodial mother, tricked out of my child, just like you...

So, all your ex had to do was bring the birth certficate to court and file for custody himself...if you filed nothing previously, he would be awarded it...many, many men do this to unsuspecting mothers and get custody of children this way...

I have heard from dozens of mothers in your situation, dozens of them...and even the FBI said about 150,000 fathers a year abduct children, but the time they have the children abducted is shorter then when mothers have them, a few weeks for fathers versus 4 years for mothers...

Initially I thought this was because the fathers returned the children; NOW however I believe it's because they get custody through what someone called a judicially-sanctioned abduction (just what happened to you) and then are scratched off the FBI's it no longer counts as an abduction...

As far as I'm concerned the legal system allowed your child to be abducted...pure and simple...

Well, I have been looking for someone to help me with this blog so if you have some time and are interested, let me know...I've closed most of my comments sections in May and June because of some harrassment from some mens/fathers rights advocates but will open them again in a while...

So let me know...

Good luck in your personal situaton...

Sorry I can't be more help...
2:20 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have followed this case closely. I can say that there is no excuse for a four year old girl to catch a sexually transmitted disease while in her mother's care. This is the sole reason that custody was pursued by the father not some personal vendetta against her mother. In the end it is viewed politically correct for a mother to be married to two men at the same time and still regain custody of the child. This is long ancient history but the court systems must change to work for the rights of both parents and to stop the injustices against fathers who wish to have custody of their children. There has never been any mention of the parental ailenation that took place and is not considered a crime but it is considered emotional abuse. This is just my take on this .
10:27 PM
Blogger NYMOM said...

Oh please.

I've never met the father who either had or tried to get custody who didn't claim some nonsense like this about the mother. This is baloney. Men pursue custody 99% of the time to get out of paying child support and/or in order to get the financial tax benefits/credits, etc., that flow to the custodial parent...this is the usual crap driven by greedy men masquerading as concerned fathers.
9:44 AM
Anonymous Vanesa "Ariel" Taylor said...

Hello, My name is "Ariel" Vanesa Taylor, and i have no way of proving it to you, however i will let you know that David Brancheau, my father, did not treat my mother or i the way a father or "boyfriend" should. When i first met David/my father, he did not really seem interested in me at all. In fact i will let you know a little story about him. On one of my "visits" with him, we went to chicago to meet his sister and her husband for thanksgiving. On the later half of the trip we had stayed in a hilton hotel. One night he got upset at me because i kept talking about my mother(i was only 14 at the age and was confused why she had been thrown in jail). He had taken one of the hotel clocks and thrown it at me and his then wife Danielle( Danielle and David are now divorced and they did have a kid(my stepbrother Daniel) Danielle now resides in Brazil with Daniel. Is this what you think a beginning father should be? Is that how men act? If so then i am happy i never had a father in the first place. I love my mother to death and i wouldn't replace her for the world. She gave up her youth for me. She gave up work for me. She even gave up her freedom to take care of me. I am now in college and i am taken care of by my loving family. I wouldn't trade them either. If anyone has anything else to say, well say it. However none of you really know the situation first hand, and i wish i could tell off some of the media for making David this great man, because he isn't. He is just some pissed off ex-boyfriend who wanted to get back at my mum, and he tried to hurt her by hurting me. I never knew how to hate til i met David Brancheau. I hope he knows that. I hate him, and maybe someday when i am older and no longer want to punch him in his face for not keeping me as his child (he disowned me) then maybe i may sit down over a coffee and talk with him. Until then, well, there really isn't much else to say.
8:25 PM

Post a Comment


virago said...

I don't have any doubts that "Ariel" is exactly who she says she is. Of course, your going to have the usual naysayers commenting on here that this is probably a joke and not really Ariel, or that she was just brainwashed by her mother with false memories of the ashtray incident planted in her head, or some such nonsense. That said, why should a woman, who gives birth out of wedlock, have to file for custody anyway? She's not the one who has to wait for a dna test to tell her that she's a parent, and the recreational sperm donor isn't the one going through hours of pain to give birth. The mother should have AUTOMATIC full physical and legal custody of her child at birth. That's how nature intended it. And men should just realize this unless they develope the capabilities of a male seahorse. LOL

NYMOM said...

Well actually most states do give unmarried mothers automatic custody. But that is being challenged now by individual men and courts are playing along with it...

Precedents are being set one case at a time and I see a day coming when custody will have to be litigated before birth...

I don't think women realize how serious this could get for them if not addressed's actually no joke but a serious issue.

Val said...

Glad I surfed by & caught this update - my thoughts & prayers are with you, Ariel...
I've said it before, & continue to assert that I only retained custody by the slenderest of threads. Our situation is far from ideal, but at least I am still "managing conservator" [I know you love our antiquated TX legal language NYMom!]

NYMOM said...

Actually I do 'love' it points out what I've been saying for years about the roots of custody. It's rooted in managing or conserving the estate of a minor who has property to manage...most kids don't, so custody was never an issue until recently. Since when children are worth no money the only persons historically interested in them was their mothers.

Child support laws and public policies have now changed that equation so every child is now worth something either child support or public benefits and that is the root of all these custody fights flooding our legal system.

Simply put the greed of men.

PolishKnight said...

Hello NYMOM. We've been down this road before, but there's a twist. Your use of the term "sperm donor" to describe unmarried fathers and then proposing state collected child-support is useful because it illustrates a key distinction: actual sperm donors have no legal rights to their offspring, but no liability either whatsoever even if the unwed mother goes on public assistance.

Your proposition that the "state" collect the money to reimburse welfare mothers has already been proposed and in effect for decades. It's laughable for you to then pontificate about how "mothers" raise children and then pretend that unmarried men don't really count except for that mullah they provide to keep the children from starving to death. Yeah, other than that, the men aren't useful whatsoever. And gasoline is also worthless except that without it our society would collapse in a matter of seconds!

Your claim that society created marriage just to give married men rights is misleading since it ignores that women enjoyed support from their husbands, a share of marital property, and alimony. Children that are born outside of marriage are so traditionally recognized as dangerous to society that they are referred to as "illegitimate" and the term "bastard" is synomynous with "jerk". After all, if these children were assets to society then society wouldn't have had to care for them and look for a sperm donor cash influx to begin with!

Regarding all the complaints of the women about winding up bearing children for abusive jerks that come after their children, here's a few suggestions: 1) Don't sleep with jerks even if they buy you stuff and say things you want to hear. 2) Don't bear children for them. (Unless you're pro-life and think abortion should be outlawed, in which case, 1a) Don't sleep around AT ALL!) 3) If you bear children for jerks, don't tell them. Hint: Coming after them for mommy support is a dead giveaway.

Just to show you that I'm not just pontificating out of thin air: I spent 10 years dating and broke up with a dozen women whom I didn't think were reliable and trustworthy enough to live with, much less have children. This meant wearing out shoe leather going to singles events, church socials, internet dating, etc., spending money on dates, hours on the phone "interviewing" and talking to several women, and putting my emotions at risk for rejection when I took stands and insisted upon proper treatment from them, and swallowed my pride and didn't sweat the small stuff. I learned my ancestrial language, ballroom dance, took cooking classes (not just to meet women, but to actually cook!), and went to performing arts and craft shows (I repair clocks as a hobby.)

My cat has more initiative than The Rules girls who complain that only jerks "ask them out" but don't get up off their keister to make their lives better. Welcome to the world of men, dears.

virago said...

Polish Knight, those are great suggestions. I'm sure every one of those "dozens of women" during those ten years was thinking the same thing once they heard what you expected in "proper treatment". Hey, now we know the REAL REASON you don't have children. Btw, you forgot to mention "fucking prostitutes" in between church socials and ballroom dancing. Oh, yeah, Polish Knight, your quite the catch! Bwaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa!

Anonymous said...

PK said: "1) Don't sleep with jerks even if they buy you stuff and say things you want to hear. 2) Don't bear children for them."

I have never understood what is so difficult about this concept! Every generation has understood the importance of choosing a suitable mate except this one. Hell, even animals can do this and they don't even know what they're doing!

I'm reminded of the smart guy who brings his document in for the lawyer to look over before he signs it, followed by the dumbass who comes in with a document and says "Look what I signed. Now how do I get out of it?"

Uh, sometimes, you don't.


PolishKnight said...

Virago, I didn't go to church socials, prostitutes, and ballroom dancing all in the same night. Gosh! I didn't have that much energy even in my teens!

Richard, in our parents' times, there were two kinds of girls: The girls men slept around with and the one's they married. And for women, there were the men they thought about sleeping around with and the ones they married.

Now today we have the concepts of rolling around in the hay and seeing what happens or finding one's "soulmate" (that term makes me wretch) or The Rules (or even worse, a combination of all three!)

Say what you like about Richard and I, Virago (we know you will!), but we're reliable breadwinners with no substance abuse problems who provide for our wives and kids. We are not the sources of problems for this society, we're the Atlas holding the whole thing up. And you know it.

NYMOM said...

Can we get off of you two Richard and Polish Knight pontificating about what great guys you are. What about the thousands of jerks like the guy in this article???? What do we do about them????

PolishKnight said...

A better question to ask, NYMOM, would be what "what do we KNOW about them?" We know the mothers accused them of all kinds of bad stuff, and they are "greedy" and don't want to sign over money in "child" support (to mommy), but besides that, what about their side of the story?

From the article you mention, the "jerk" apparently settled the case and is even paying the mother her precious support. That's what I KNOW from the article. That does not come across as this vindictive, greedy jerk who will stop at nothing to harm the mother or child!

I read Ariel's letter and lessee: She's a deeply disturbed person. Note how she puts the word "i" in single case. That's usually a sign of a low-self esteem. And this is despite her supposedly being raised by such a saint. Oh, wait, her entire life has been about worshipping the saint rather than living her own life. Got it.

She then closes her letter by saying she wants to punch her father in the face not for abusing her or her father, but disowning her. This is a sure sign of cognitive dissonance: She has been taught to view her father as an abuser who won't go away AND someone who abandoned her just as her mother is a victim who ran away from an abuser and "brave" for doing so.

Kookoo for kookoo puffs!

Anonymous said...

"We" don't do anything about these jerks, NY. "You" women can do something about them, if they're really jerks, by not bearing children for them and telling them to get a dog instead.

You yourself already suggested this and I say bravo.

PK, I wondered if someone else besides me was going to notice that! She hates him for "not keeping her as his child" but it would seem that this is exactly what her mother wanted.

A lot goes on in the minds of kids with fragmented family backgrounds that parents simply don't want to look at because they don't want to have to examine the choices they've made.

"...finding one's "soulmate" (that term makes me wretch)"

You and me both, PK! There's no damned such thing and the notion has decimated God knows how many families. I wonder what idiot ever coined that term in the first place?


PolishKnight said...

Richard, I'm chuckling over the girl's story because the women here want to take what she wrote as gospel. As we all know, teenagers always have a perfect grip on reality, especially teenage girls! When they think someone is their enemy and conspiring against them at school, it's because it's always so and the stories they hear and tell from each other are also always true. Note how the story evolved from him throwing a "clock" to throwing an "ashtray!!!" And that's just on this page alone! Imagine how the story twists and turns at the time and on the plane ride home.

The way she drags on about her mother "sacrificing" her freedom sounds like the character from the "Momma" cartoon whose entire life is about getting praise as a martyr from her children. I know parents, male and female, who sacrificed for their children and they didn't want adulation. They just wanted a simple card and a phone call on a holiday and maybe a thank you from time to time. That leads us to:

And listen, if the "father" is paying "child" support to the mother,then he deserves credit for "caring" for her. If she, or the mother, don't want his money then SEND IT BACK. "Man up" as they say. Does paying the bills entitle the father to be an abuser? No. But the mother demanding to be worshipped as Madonna is not only a form of abuse in it's own right, but laughable as well. Listen, if the mother doesn't want kids or sacrifice her "freedom", then don't. It's as simple as that. Planned parenthood's phone number is in the book!

Finally, her fantasy about having a cup of coffee and talking with him is hardly the kind of dream made by someone who believes their father was, and is, an abusive dangerous jerk and not a presence in her life. And him not keeping her as his child is no reason to "punch someone" in the face. This shows that she has developed abusive tendencies of her own and all with the approval of the women on this forum and probably her mother as well. If Ariel doesn't get far away from this control freak, then she'll probably wind up following in her mother's footsteps. But that'll be the poor guy's fault, of course...

virago said...

Polish Knight, your not hard to figure out. Basically, your a very self-centered individual who looks for other people, especially women, to fulfill YOUR OWN SELFISH DESIRES. When their unable or unwilling to do that, you try to bully them into compliance. When this fails, you either lose interest so you can find a weaker target, or these women dump you and get out of dodge before becoming more involved with you. Than you want to blame them for everything wrong in your life instead of looking at your own controlling and manipulative behavior. Your whole problem is LACK OF INSIGHT into your own personality. You needed therapy, not ballroom dancing.

"Say what you like about Richard and I, Virago (we know you will!), but we're reliable breadwinners with no substance abuse problems who provide for our wives and kids. We are not the sources of problems for this society, we're the Atlas holding the whole thing up. And you know it"

Polish Knight, I'm so glad that you have 24/7 surveillance on Richard so you can swear under oath that he isn't manufacturing meth out of his house, or snorting coke every morning for breakfast. You must live together. That said, Richard can speak for himself. And I was talking about YOU-not Richard!

virago said...

Hey, Ariel, pay no attention to those two assholes behind the curtain! I know YOU didn't change your story. You said clock all along, and NYMOM and I misread it as ashtray. That's something we can admit to rather than accusing you of "changing your story" like a couple of middle-age jerks who have nothing better to do with their time than to call a young abuse victim a "liar" via the internet. That said, it's perfectly natural to have mixed feelings about your "father". After all, I'm sure when this guy "found" you, he told you how much he missed you, and he was going to be the "father" you missed out on all those years. And what does he do? He throws a clock at you. All he did was prove that what your mothe said about his abuse was true. Look at it this way! This guy DROVE your mother away with his abuse. He claimed to the police that she "wrongfully" abducted you so that he make false allegations of PAS against a mother who was TRYING TO PROTECT HERSELF AND HER DAUGHTER. He forced your mother and you to live as fugitives for 9 years because of HIS ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR. He's responsible for your mother being put in jail on trumped up kidnapping charges, and all the while he claimed to be the victim and lied to the media the whole time. He said:

"I feel I had 14 years of parental alienation I didn't cause, and I'm left holding the bag," Brancheau said.

The only PAS caused was by your father THE DAY HE THREW THE CLOCK AT YOU. Your father ruined your mother's life with his abuse. He ruined her life by forcing her to live as a fugitive to protect you. He ruined her life and yours when she was put in jail due to his false allegations of parental kidnapping and PAS. THIS GUY OWED IT TO YOU TO BE A DECENT FATHER AFTER RUINING YOUR CHILDHOOD. This guy had absolutely no right to disown you. You and your mother didn't do anything wrong. He did. It's perfectly natural to want to be angry enough to want to "punch someone in the face" after everything he did to you and your mother. Unfortunately, there are some assholes upthread who think feeling this way is the same thing as ACTUALLY THROWING A CLOCK AT SOMEONE. After all, they think it's okay for some guy to get mad enough to abuse someone, but they don't think a victim of abuse (especially a woman or a girl) has the right to feel angry enough to want to hit back at THE ABUSER. I noticed you said your father was remarried and abusive to your stepmother from Brazil. Well, what do you know? Another case of an abusive man marrying a foreign woman. Richard is being an idiot, but your post probably struck a nerve with Polish Knight. He looks at your case, and he sees his future when his wife hotfoots it back to the Ukraine with her kids in tow because she's sick of his abuse. Anyway, Ariel you have every right to feel the way you do.

Anonymous said...

"This guy had absolutely no right to disown you."

Au contraire, V. A parent has every right to disown a child once he/she becomes an adult.

Particularly a "recreational sperm donor" who theoretically should not have been deemed a parent at all, right NY?

Funny how it's illegitimate adult children just like this who started the whole business of roping in "recreational sperm donors" as fathers back in the 1960s. Primarily because they wanted to claim a share of biodad's estate and didn't think it was "fair" to be disowned.

Did mothers protest then? No, they were right in line behind them ready to claim support next.

Personally I don't think it's "fair" for a mother to neglect to select a suitable father and prepare a married home for her children, either.

Parents like these ruin their kids' lives jointly and set up another generation to follow suit. No sympathy here for anyone but the kids, sorry.


PolishKnight said...

Virago, it's human to want other people to fulfill our OWN SELFISH DESIRES. That's how the world works. In a free society, we accomplish this by fulfilling other peoples' SELFISH DESIRES. The medium for this is often money, but it also can be telling them what they want to hear (selfish vanity). Ariel is probably a product of such an exchange. When done responsibly, there's nothing wrong with this and it's even noble. We should give the people in our lives what they want sometimes and sometimes they should give us what we want and the rest of the time compromise. Anything less than that is an exploitive relationship.

Where's the bullying from me? Indeed, if a man gets "uppity", you use terms that imply violence which is how a clock falling off the wall becomes a clock flying across the room becomes an ashtray. On the other hand, you think relatinoships should be children being the mother's property, like chattel, and if the man gets uppity then he's out the door and forced to pay "child" support (made out to mommy.) Like pirates. You're just projecting your own hunger for power onto me. Whether your claim that the women left me, or I left them, doesn't change the fact that I don't need a police crew to come by to keep order in my house. And no, I don't watch after Richard 24x7 but it's interesting that you buy into Ariel's loose conjecture that her father abused his ex-wife over the years as fact.

The daughter didn't say she wanted to hit back at him because of (turn up the volume here) ABUSE but rather allegations of him "disowning" her. This is twilight zone thinking. Indeed, the notion of "disown" is rather nebulous to begin with. Legally speaking, it would mean he cut her out of his will and how would she know that? Did he leave it out on the table for her to see at their first meeting in years? Something smells fishy here. She probably came in and all was well for a minute and she asked for money. He said no and then she lost her temper, probably threw a few things, and then declared that it was all him. (Since as a girl, she's innocent, eyelash batting) Then said she didn't want to see him ever again, he didn't call, and that's how "he" abandoned/disowned her. If he calls, he's harassing her. If not, he's disowning her. And it's all because he's such a jerk!

How do I know this? Because I see it all the time with teenage girls and their parents or for that matter, just switch on daytime TV and look for "teenage girls out of control". "I do what I want!" Well, sadly, in our culture this kind of spoiled princess victim thinking is becoming common with grown women as well. That's why we keep our cars alarmed from the products of their homes. Chirp chirp!

Consider her story further, doesn't it seem strange that no charges were filed over this horrific clock/ashtray throwing incident? What about the poor abused ex-stepmother, why can't she back up this story? Oh, wait, it never happened! Does anyone doubt that the motherly saint would not have filed charges over this if given the opportunity to get this evil man out of their lives forever? (Assuming it was true, of course. Oh, wait...)

Richard, regarding feeling sorry for the kids, it's worth considering that the mother exploiting that sentiment is what caused the problem in the first place. After all, Virago snidely tells me to get therapy but doesn't suggest it for Ariel, a supposed "abuse" victim. Oh, wait, the therapist might actually put two and two together and figure out that it's BS and then the daughter will be a "victim" of her too. So many "abusers" and "bullies' around, aren't there?

PolishKnight said...

This is worth addressing on it's own. NYMOM said: "Men pursue custody 99% of the time to get out of paying child support and/or in order to get the financial tax benefits/credits, etc., that flow to the custodial parent..."

Why 99% Why not, say, 98.4%? Obviously, it's a made up statistic. In addition, it's a statistic to claim to know what men are thinking therefore making it totally fictitional.

It undermines the credibility of her argument which is that men are being disingenuous in their reasons for seeking custody.

As you said, Richard, NYMOM pays lip service to the concept that if the mother abuses a child then they should lose custody, but it's largely a "cheap" (pardon the pun) sentiment since she demands they prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and even then, when such women kidnap the children and run, they'll brainwash the kids and then wind up claiming that the father was the abuser anyway. Or that the courts are "anti" woman because a mere 85% of the cases going towards women is "bias" against them.

Such thinking isn't just contradiction, hypocrisy, or even paradox. It's ABSURDITY. Women are oppressed because they have it so good most of the time but not ALL of the time. Such an argument doesn't make any sense.

But then again, clocks turning into ashtrays doesn't make sense either.

Anonymous said...

PK said: "It undermines the credibility of her argument which is that men are being disingenuous in their reasons for seeking custody."

I don't even CARE about what men's "reasons" for seeking custody are. No outsider has any damn business passing judgment on any mother or father's reasons for wanting their own natural legal child.

Women who invite said outsiders in to pass said judgments will have little to complain about when they find themselves on the receiving end of it sometime.

"As you said, Richard, NYMOM pays lip service to the concept that if the mother abuses a child then they should lose custody"

Oh of course we've seen that over and over. Abusive mothers shouldn't have custody but all claims of abuse against them are false. While all claims of abuse against dads are true till proven otherwise, and even then they're still true because men invented courts. Blah!

"Such an argument doesn't make any sense."

Everything makes sense in woman-firster land except justice, reason and logic.


virago said...

"After all, Virago snidely tells me to get therapy but doesn't suggest it for Ariel, a supposed "abuse" victim."

Your are absolutely right Polish Knight! I'm ashamed of myself for not suggesting this to Ariel. Therapy is very helpful for victims of abuse. However, there question is: what kind of therapy?
I think Ariel could benefit from COUNSELING:

Counseling involves the patient and counselor working together to identify a problem and find solutions to it. Sessions are direct and limited to the problems that have brought you to the counselor. Problem solving is the key focus in this type of therapy. You will receive advice and suggestions during your sessions, which you will be able to use outside of the sessions. Counseling is a SHORT TERM THERAPY usually only lasting as long as it takes you to reach your goals and solve your problems.

Polish Knight, the kind of therapy you need is PSYCHOTHERAPY:

The focus of psychotherapy is to examine your personality and how you can change yourself as a person to improve your life overall. This form of personal growth means you will need to re-education yourself on many of the beliefs and actions in your life.
Instead of attacking specific problems, psychotherapy will look at what has causes these problems and focus on them.
Since psychotherapy takes more of an in depth approach, therapy usually lasts FOR YEARS. It takes time to uncover the subconscious and discover what is really preventing you from being truly happy in your life. The therapist will use many techniques to uncover these underlying problems so you can start to rework them in a positive way.

Ariel, counseling is a very positive way to deal with your feelings about your father. You have a lot of INSIGHT into your problems. You mentioned you are going to college. Counseling doesn't necessarily have to be with a psychiatrist. There are many certified counselors such as social workers, or mental health counselors. In fact, most college campuses usually have someone to help students with issues such as yours. Good luck!

Polish Knight, I wasn't kidding when I said you needed therapy instead of ballroom dancing. You have absolutely no INSIGHT into your personality. Long-term psychotherapy with a psychiatrist may or may not benefit depending on the extent of your problems. Unfortunatley, your lack of insight is a real problem. I'm not just throwing this term around loosely. I worked for a psychiatric facility for several years, and the psychiatrists I worked under were always looking at a patient's INSIGHT. Basically, this means, how much SELF-AWARENESS does the patient have. Based on your comments, you never seem to ask yourself-what is wrong with ME? Do, I, Polish Knight have false beliefs, attitudes, and unreasonable expectations about women that makes it difficult for ME to form relationships with women or makes it difficult for women to want to be with ME? Am I blaming women for all my problems? It's quite obvious the answer if YES, but YOU don't seem to see that. Psychotherapy may help someone like you, but you have to be willing to take a good hard look at YOURSELF. I don't see that happening any time soon. I don't live in the D.C. area, but the psychiatrist I worked for knows many good psychiatrists in that area. He might be able to hook you up with a good psychiatrist. Lord, knows, you need it.

virago said...

Boy, Polish Knight sure doesn't like it when I say that American men who marry foreign wives have a tendency to abuse them. In the meantime, Richard Heene, father extradordinaire, and his wife are in a whole lot of deep shit with that stupid balloon stunt they pulled. Hey, let's look at the Heene family up close. Well, woudn't you know it? Richard's wife, Mayumi, is from Japan! Let's see how people who knew Richard and Mayumi Heene had to say about their relationship:

Former friend and business partner of Richard Heene, Scott Stevens said,"He believed that Asian women can be subservient, and that's what he wanted."

"Barbara Slusser, who worked with Richard Heene on his "Psyience Detectives" Web show and said she became good friends with the Fort Collins, Colo., family until his temper finally drove her away last year, said his wife's Japanese background has kept her in a subservient relationship with her husband and three boys. "She so needed a friend," she said. "He kept her isolated and separated from everyone else. She honestly asked me one time, 'Is there something wrong with way we live?' She wasn't sure that American
women lived this way with her husbands."

Slusser said whenever she came over for dinner, Mayumi Heene always cooked -- and remained in the kitchen throughout dinner.

"She wouldn't join us to eat. She'd say, 'No, no, no,' and get very uncomfortable," Slusser said. "The kids would come through and say, 'We want to eat.' They'd grab a whole thing of ice cream and put Mountain Dew on top."

"Slusser was referring to last February's 911 call from the Heene home. When a Larimer County Sheriff's deputy responded, he found Mayumi Heene with "a mark in her cheek and broken blood vessels in her left eye," according to the report obtained by ABC's Denver affiliate KMGH-TV. "

Yeah, it figures! Polish Knight, you can kiss my ass!

virago said...

Of course, Polish Knight is going to whine how he is much more superior than these other guys because he actually learned the language, culture, and lived in the country his wife came from. Yeah, I'm sure Christopher Savoie thought the same thing. This turd spent most of his adult life in Japan, learned the language and culture, went to medical school there, married a japanese woman, and got japanese citizenship! He talks Noriko, his japanese wife, into moving to the U.S., and then he quickly divorces her, marries another woman one month after their divorce, and made it difficult for Noriko to adjust to life in the states because the bastard sent her abusive emails during their divorce that said: "You must not be able to understand Japanese! Idiot! I'm not an idiot because I learned Japanese and went to medical school by the age of 21! I'm so smart blah, blah, blah." The guy accused her of not cooperating with the kids over parenting issues, but he signed an agreement giving her final say over their activities, and of course, he whined about signing the agreement under "duress", and he didn't know the agreement gave her final say (so much for his english language skills whatever he knows of japanese). Wah! Yet, the asshole has numerous excuses about why he didn't take his kid to a scheduled activity including, "well, Noriko didn't either!" even though the parenting agreement specifically said THE FATHER was suppose to take the kid. In the meantime, Noriko sent this guy emails asking him to stop harassing her, and stop trying to make it difficult for her to live here. This guy threatened to have her father jailed in Japan over the sale of a car, yet, it was Noriko's father who co-signed an educational loan for this asshole! Yeah, that's gratitude for you! No wonder Noriko said enough is enough and took the kids and ran back to Japan for good. I know I would. Sayonara Asshole! And of course, Christopher Savoie is whining from a Japanese jail on how unfair it is that he won't be able to see his kids in Japan! WAh! Yeah, Polish Knight, learning the language, culture, and living in your foreign wife's country really makes you superior. Like you, I'm sure Christopher Savoie wanted a "traditional" wife (read submissive doormat), and now he's whining because the subservient Asian wife he called an,"Idiot" one upped him because he wanted his cake and eat it too. Yeah, Polish Knight, tell me again how abusive American men don't deliberately marry foreign women! Again, you can kiss my ass!

PolishKnight said...

Hello Virago. Your obsession with foreign wives is your own, not mine. I didn't even mention it. Perhaps you should go to the therapist to improve your grip on reality?

You put this situation together with the balloon family. Then you drag this other case into the mix and put them all together. A medical student lives in Japan, flies in a balloon, knocks a clock off the wall and throws an ashtray at two women simultaneously. And they won't leave their wives alone while at the same time "disowning" them.

A clock apparently is involved. A cookoo clock!

Seriously. That's how you drama queens create your own reality. Note, for example, that the ONLY person we KNOW who said they wanted to act violently was Ariel herself! And you and NYMOM cheered her on! But it's because men are the violent ones, ok.

If you want to drag outside cases in, consider the mommy dearest who strapped her children into a car and rolled it into a lake and blamed a nameless black man carjacker. Everyone bought the story because they know that mothers, the ideal creatures of the universe, would never do such a thing and as you know, there are lots of men who are jerks, so that settles it. But there were holes in her story and the police saw them. Just as I see a lot of holes in this clock flying at two women simultaneously story.

Regarding you working for a shrink making you qualified to make casual diagnosis. Lessee: I am not blaming any personal problems on women here. On the contrary, I have stated that I'm happily married. I was offering these women suggestions on how to deal with jerks in their lives rather than griping that the state can't hold their hands 24x7. What you're engaging in is projection. Ask your former office mates what that means and while you're at it, fetch me a coffee.

NYMOM said...

I just realized I made the mistake in reading ashtray versus clock (not that you can't get hurt by a throw clock). But anyway, let's not exaggerate Richard and PK, it was a mistake...

NYMOM said...

PK: Comparing my honest error to your wholly made-up fiction about what happened between this girl and her "father" is ridiculou...and lastly, as you well know I started this original article by saying the court decision was wrong and the Judge should NOT have awarded any child support to the mother OR visitation to the recreational sperm donor. Then you devote paragraph after paragraph to arguing with me about how wrong it is for women to expect child support from these unattached men they hook up with...

What the heck: I already said this before you did. Are you getting senile or something or just using this blog for your own personal soap box...

I'm at a disadvantage here as I can't cut and paste on this machine to respond point by point but I think you get the 'point' of what I'm saying...

NYMOM said...

Quit using this blog Richard and PK to argue points we already all agree on (at least I think we all do Virago included)...

AND yes, I do think anyone who is throwing a clock, ashtray or even a book at someone is abusive. That's like a stepping stone, yelling, abusive language, then throwing things, etc.,


PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, I concede your point about CS in this case but you have left the door open for the state to come after the "sperm donors" if the mothers go on welfare. So what this means is that the men still have to live with a sword of Demacles hanging over their heads. How about this? If the children need welfare because the MOTHER can't support them, let the state take the kids away and then make her pay the bill! How do you like dem apples? The mother wouldn't be GREEDY and want to keep the child in that situation, would she?

Regarding the clock and ashtray. I was being a little feceitious and tongue-in-cheek but also making a serious point that people make "honest" mistakes and then that version of the story is picked up and repeated and becomes the truth. It's well known to police that when there's multiple people in a room who see the same thing, they can have wildly differing stories.

Everytime I read her story, I find a new layer to the onion similar to a Monk episode. Consider the hotel "clock". How many hotels do you know have clocks on the wall? Or even free standing? Unless it's a 4 star or up, it's a clock radio that's on a nightstand. It seems strange that this would be a weapon of choice in an alleged outburst. You have to get it unplugged and with the cord hanging out it's rather difficult to aim it.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, the girl clearly said that she was not fantasizing about punching him in the face as retaliation or a response to being attacked by a thrown clock, but for him "disowning" her.

So the ONLY person we KNOW has stated violent intentions is Ariel, or this letter writer, HERSELF!

Regarding the CS issue. I saw your request just after posting the last comment. I'll drop it unless it's brought up again.

NYMOM said...

Well not to fixate too much on that clock but I assume it was one of those traveling alarm clocks. Many people carry these when they are staying in hotels since they charge you on your bill for wake-up calls. It's not unusual...

NYMOM said...

Additionally I don't understand why you don't see the difference between reimbursing other taxpayers versus giving an individual money who didn't practice birth control and so irresponsibly procreated...

Both are irresponsible, but one pays their own bills the other doesn't...

It's the difference between you paying for your own abortion versus asking someone else to pay for it...and states DO make that distinction all the time when they make abortion legal but refuse to let Medicaid tax dollars pay for it...

It's pretty simple but yet still seems to confuse you...Why????

The states does things like this all the you can be religious and put up a nativity scene on private property but not on state property...the concept seems pretty simple to me.

NYMOM said...

To continue:

If women wanted this money they would have to negotiate with the 'father' and come to some kind of agreed upon arrangement as we did in the past...If she choses to not pursue it, she can raise the child on her own with her own funds.

PolishKnight said...

Er, no. This is what she wrote: "He had taken one of the hotel clocks"

Implying that it was provided by the hotel. When she says "hotel clock", it pops in my mind the standard cheapo corded clock radio that's in most of them. They're even movie props such as Billy Murray smashing one in Groundhog Day.

You know... I promised to drop the child-support issue at your request even though you did make a claim that "99% of men" were motivated by that in seeking custody even as it was moot in this case (since he decided to settle the case and pay support.)

In answer to you bringing up the subject, again, (don't blame me), your argument is that the men are "sperm donors" and have no signficant connection and therefore rights to such children. You can't cut that umbilical cord, pardon the pun, and then go running back to daddy and demanding support to pay the taxpayer back. If you want someone to "reimburse the taxpayer", pick on the one parent YOU recognize in this case: Namely, mom!

Indeed, if it's the mother's "abortion" or "child" (ugly analogy, BTW), then it should be HER bill.

Of course, as we both know, that would be rather silly since it's the welfare mother cashing the checks in the first place basically meaning that the taxpayer is being generous with OPM (other people's money) which sets just the opposite precedent you claimed. I love to anger liberals with this observation when they gripe about "their" money being spent on the Iraq war. I reply that I'm happy to see that money wasted instead of MINE going to their social programs and they huff: "But when it happens to you, that's GOOD! But when it happens to me, that's BAD!" Tee hee.

All that said, I don't think most women are even society are interested in your proposition. For the women, the odds of them losing custody are still pretty low and it's basically easy money. You can posture here that women are terrified of even the slightest chance of losing custody but most women would laugh at giving away an almost certain winning lottery ticket to offset a tiny risk. And society wants to force men to pay because, well, EVERYONE knows that unwed mothers are basket cases when it comes to raising children unaided even as they're praised as "heroic."

The current system, sadly, is a knee jerk reaction which encourages bad long term results: It assumes that the men will be stupid enough to sleep around but smart and responsible enough to pay their child support. Honestly, think about the craziness of that assumption. This is why there are so many "jerks" and "deadbeats" around. This is why I brought up Richard and I as counter examples. A woman with baby rabies will ALWAYS find someone to knock her up and if society rewards such behavior, it will never stop. That's the biological nature of the problem.

NYMOM said...

Well I don't agree that only 'jerks' and 'deadbeats' father illegitimate children. Many so-called responsible men sleep around and if women didn't use birth control, they would be fathering children all over the place (just look at history)...I mean was Thomas Jefferson a jerk or a deadbeat...

So your assumption that only losers do this is wrong...

Actually it wouldn't surprise me to hear that Bill Clinton had a few illegitimate name a current man who sleeps around all the time...

BUT I still wouldn't hold even Bill Clinton liable for child support UNLESS the woman needed help supporting the child he fathered. Then he'd have to reimburse the taxpayers. It would be up to the child's mother if she wanted to support her child alone, put the child up for adoption or negotiate with the father (thus giving him rights and setting herself up to lose custody down the road)...

But it would be her own decision, not some idiot forcing himself into her and her child's what happens now.

NYMOM said...

To answer your question about why most women aren't interested now is because these changes that are happening are slow-moving, most women aren't aware of them yet.

It's like a glacier,that's why I use the decades analogy using my own family as an example...

But as this happens to more and more women you will begin to see the change...

I see it now amongst people and in the news and even online in people's reactions...

PolishKnight said...

I never said "only" deadbeats and losers father illegitimate children. Just that as responsible men are weeded out, the jerks and losers will be left. FYI, the allegations that TJ fathered an illegitimate black child have never been proven.

This is a great example of how stories can evolve over time to be totally different than what happened. A girl and her father are arguing. He gestures wildly with his arm and brushes the clock radio. She jumps up from the table and shrieks "Don't attack me!" It evolves into "He threw a hotel clock at me!"

Whether it's the father compensating the "taxpayers" for the payouts to the mother or doing so directly, he still is being held responsible as the father. This doesn't not apply to mere sperm donors whose sperm bank children later wind up on welfare. If you're so worried about the taxpayer money, how about letting the father have custody and cash the checks? Oh, wait, THAT would be greedy!

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, your explanation doesn't disprove my hypothesis but rather confirms it: It's not a big deal to women precisely because the risks are small and the payout, literally, is great. Of COURSE they don't care until they're affected. Who looks a gift horse in the mouth?

Saying that you're willing to let men only pay welfare checks which go to the mother is a compromise, granted, but still reveals that unwed motherhood is dependent upon external support. No welfare, no child-support, and that's the end of the "sperm donor" concept. Hell, there are already legal challenges happening on that with actual sperm donors! (Glenn Sacks had a case where a woman tried to sue a sperm bank for the identity of the father and child-support.)

virago said...

"What you're engaging in is projection. Ask your former office mates what that means and while you're at it, fetch me a coffee."

Well, I'll tell you the circumstances under which I would usually bring someone coffee. It wasn't unusual for us to get violent psychotic people who tried to attack hospital staff. In fact, we use to get a lot of violent people who actually weren't psychotic or suicidal at all, but they claimed they were so that they could avoid going to jail. The minute the doctor diagnosed them as not being mentally ill, they ended up in the county jail. My favorite was some asshole who beat up his wife, and than claimed that he was psychotic. Of course, the cops dropped him off at our facility for a psych eval. This guy thought because we were an all female staff, he could pull the same crap he did with his wife. This guy swung at my head, I ducked, kicked his legs our from beneath him, and all 4 of my fellow female staff members jumped on him to help immobilize his arms and legs until we could get him in restraints. This guy is yelling and screaming at us,"You fucking dumb cunts better let me out of here, or I'm going to beat the shit out of you!" Yeah, right! Not so fucking dumb that we were going to do that! Anyway, he stayed like that until he learned to control his behavior, and that was a good 12 hours, and this guy was given a sedative on top of it. However, because this guy was still a "patient", we had to make sure he didn't dehydrate or go hungry. We still had to offer him water, and at times, coffee. Of course, it was usually spit back at us, but there wasn't much else he could do with all his arms and legs locked in restraints, now was there? And of course, we had to document all his behaviors in his medical record so that the doctor could make a diagnosis after talking to the guy. What do you know? He was diagnosed with an Anti-social disorder, and eventually taken to jail to await trial. This guy almost killed his wife, and no, having an anti-social disorder does not make him crazy. He knew exactly what he was doing. That said, we got a lot of those guys in our facility, and I've been slapped, punched, choked, kicked-you name it. But it's not me who ends up in restraints in the end. So, yeah, Polish Knight, I'll bring you coffee, and you'll quickly find out that being in restraints and screaming obscenities at me isn't nearly as much fun as being in restraints and talking dirty with your prostitutes. But I would enjoy it. LOL.

PolishKnight said...

My oh my, Virago. So my asking for coffee for you triggers in your mind crazy psychotics kicking and spitting. Ok.... I better not ask for a beer then!

I'll tell a story of my own: A former girlfriend who was an aging biological clock ticker was upset that I wasn't buying her meals. This was during the days that I believed in women's equality and expected her to pitch in. I told her that if that didn't work for her, we could break up. She then lit up a cigarette (she hadn't ever indicated she smoked before then) and then her behavior changed. I later found out she was bipolar. She got nasty and started making cheap insults (which were so primitive I wasn't even offended) and I walked out.

She then called me up drunk and begged for me to come back. I said to give me 2 weeks to think about it and we'd see. She refused that offer and I said goodbye and hung up. My phone rang and I disconnected the phone and sent all calls to voice mail.

I checked my voice mail the next day and she was saying she thought I should wait 2 weeks and see what I felt (as if it was her idea). Then 2 days later, she called again drunk threatening to kill my cat and vandalize my car.

I called her back and said that I had her threats on tape and if she bothered me in any way again, I'd take it to the police. The next day, a friend of hers called my voice mail and said to not go to the police and that she got the message and would clean up her behavior. (Looking back, I'm glad I was such a "cheapskate", it helped me dodge a bullet!)

As we both know, if I hadn't sent her to voice mail and gotten everything on tape, she could have sobered up and cracked open the phone book and found a dozen "women's" agencies that would have thrown me in the slammer on her word alone that I was the one making the calls.

That's not the first or last psycho woman I outsmarted. Another woman tried to make a bogus sexual harassment claim as an office political ploy (I cut her story apart and the management took my side. Thanks for the help with my promotion, tootsie!)

Indeed, Virago, when you had to confront male jerks you had a team to back you up and could hit them back. When I confronted jerk women, even those taking a swing at me, I couldn't hit them back because they're "girls" and also had to collect evidence lest they try to file a false charge against me. Fortunately, these women were usually so sloppy that was somewhat easy. Or maybe I just make it look easy.

I have plenty of stories about other men who weren't so lucky (or smart). One guy who is no friend of mine by any means (I actually threw him out of my home) I later found out that he had a Mexican girlfriend with a criminal rap sheet a yard long. She had a violent temper and would regularly smash and throw things. They lived at a cheap hotel with his daughter in custody (the mother was a drug user in jail) and the neighbors would complain about the noise and call the police. The polie would then show up, ask the woman if she had hurt HERSELF and then seeing they couldn't charge HIM with anything, threw him out of his hotel room anyway WITH HIS 10 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER and forced them to sleep in his car.

Yeah, you ladies are all such innocent victims oppressed by sexism who never lie or hit men and children. Hahahaha! Oh, my "ashtray" says it's getting near lunchtime. Later.

(NYMOM, that was a joke.)

NYMOM said...

Well I guess I'll never hear the end of that 'ashtray' mistake.

virago said...

OMG, Polish Knight, you sure have bands of roving women out to get and abuse you! How do you stay alive? Get the fuck out of here if you expect me to believe that shit! No one is stupid enough to believe a word you say expect maybe Richard, and even if he doesn't, he'll just agree with you to show a united front against them evil women-firsters. I recall you talking on some other thread about some woman who "falsely imprisoned" you and some other ridiculous stories. Do you honestly expect me to believe that a guy with as much trouble with women as you've described is the blameless victim? Bullshit! If any of your stories are true at all, you most likely twisted the facts around to make yourself look like the victim instead of what you really are-THE ABUSER. Like I said, your not hard to figure out! Your the classic abuser avoiding responsibility for your own abusive behavior in your relationships with these women and trying to put all the blame on them. All together, you have claimed to be threatened, physically abused, verbally abused, held "falsely imprisoned", and falsely accused of sexual harassment and abuse, blah,blah, blah! Again, I say bullshit! Where there's that much smoke, there has to be a fire! And the fire is your own abusive behavior. And spare me the I'm happily married bullshit! Alla Barney was a 26 year old Ukrainian woman with a degree in computer engineering. She was murdered outside her son's daycare in 2003 by her 60 year old American husband. That sure tells me how desperate these women are to escape the poverty and misery of the Ukraine to marry a guy 34 years her senior! Yuck! Unfortunately, these women go right from the frying pan into the fire because it's the abusive losers who are the ones looking to marry them! Polish Knight, your disgusting! Yeah, keep talking and trying to convince me that you don't blame women for everything, that these horrible, abusive women treated you so bad, and that your really happily married to a woman who was probably just as desperate to escape poverty as All Barney was (and who secretly probably can't stand you). All, you do is just convince me more and more what kind of guy you really are.

virago said...

"Well I guess I'll never hear the end of that 'ashtray' mistake"

NYMOM, Polish Knight says he likes to fix clocks. He probably broke them by throwing them at his girlfriends in self defense because we all know how mean and abusive they were to him! Heck, they're probably all sitting in ambush outside his door right now to finish him off! I'm sure they all became a bunch of man-hating lesbians after dating him. Good thing he's got his wife to throw to those she-wolves so he can make his escape out the back door! We all know there won't be anything left of her when he gets back because women are just so violent compared to all those poor male victims out there. BWHAAAAAAAAAA!

PolishKnight said...

Indeed, Virago, you spewed out personal anecdotes about abusive men to elicit sympathy and then when I respond with my own counter anecdotes, you derisively dismiss them. So whose behavior on this forum, in that light, is about playing the victim while acting the cold hearted abuser?

The key difference between me and your damsels in distress, Virago, is that I came out on top. I'm not continuing to cry a river to get help, they are. Big difference there. How about using that "where there's smoke there's fire" logic on them?

Regarding women marrying to escape poverty in Ukraine. What makes you think there's no poverty in this country? Oh, wait, the welfare queens just raise the children for fun and profit and then release the criminals onto society. Got it. Yeah, real moral superiority there...

Finally, if you can't handle the truth, to paraphrase the famous movie line, that's your problem, not mine. Your obsession with my wife is amusing. Perhaps if you had a strong, positive male presence in your household you wouldn't be obsessed with my personal life...

virago said...

1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20006

David Ault Psychiatrist
1800 R St NW, Washington, DC
(202) 986-0371 ‎

Lawrence Ballon, psychiatrist
4501 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 1011
Washington, DC 20008
(Near Van Ness Metro on the Red line)

Kober-Cogan Building–Fifth Floor
Georgetown University Hospital
3800 Reservoir Road, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007

Dr. Richard D. Greenberg, psychiatrist
2112 F St NW, Washington, DC
(202) 785-1836 ‎

Anonymous said...

I leave town for a couple of days and come back to mudwrestling!

And mudwrestling is boring.

"No one is stupid enough to believe a word you say expect maybe Richard, and even if he doesn't, he'll just agree with you to show a united front against them evil women-firsters."

Richard ain't stupid, V. Richard has his shit together quite nicely.

In addition, Richard doesn't care about the truth or falsity of PK's story or about how much "insight" he has into his own character.

And neither should you.

One can not help but come off looking foolish when one is psychoanalyzing strangers on the internet and making pronouncements about what is going on in their private lives.

Especially when one then goes on to display in technicolor their own blind spots and lack of "self-awareness."

Even if you were 100% correct in your personal judgments of PK, it would not diminish his arguments one iota. That can only be done via logical argument.

Can we retire the non-arguments involving prostitutes, studmuffins, and abuse, please?


Anonymous said...

"BUT I still wouldn't hold even Bill Clinton liable for child support UNLESS the woman needed help supporting the child he fathered. Then he'd have to reimburse the taxpayers."

There are two problems with this position.

One is that it's not NATURAL. No other species in nature (to which we are all linked, remember) requires any male to contribute anything to the support of an unattached female or her offspring.

Not that I'm especially enamored of nature, but I know you are.

The other is that it takes no account of proportionate responsibility as assigned by you yourself.

Ever hear of joint and several liability, proportionate responsibility, and tort reform?

Forty-six of the fifty states used to have joint and several liability laws which could effectively stick a minor tortfeasor with the entire bill for an incident of negligence. Which is what you're proposing to allow the state to do here.

Now, however, in the interests of basic fairness, almost every one of those states limits a negligent party's legal and economic responsibility for a wrong to his/her own proportionate share of it.

Now you've stated categorically that men contribute virtually nothing to the process of reproduction and "will never again have control any over it."

Therefore if a man contributes almost nothing to reproduction, then the state should seek reimbursement for only his share of the resulting damage.

Which would be, almost nothing.

The remainder should be billed to the mother.

The orphanage solution is looking better and better. It would be rough at first but it wouldn't be needed for long because it would dry up willy-nilly baby breeding in about two minutes and solve the whole problem.


virago said...

"Especially when one then goes on to display in technicolor their own blind spots and lack of "self-awareness."

Richard, I'm very self-aware. I think there's a lot of individual men who are great people, husbands, and fathers. I have many in my family, male friends, and co-workers.That said,as a group, I don't like men. I think your conceited, self-entitled, over priviledged, and you want to blame women for all your problems. And you have absolutely no basis to blame women for ANYTHING. And yeah, I do blame men for all of women's problems-both directly and indirectly. We haven't had rights for even a 100 years yet. You've had rights for thousands of years. I don't care how irresponsible some individual women are because they have a bunch of illegitimate kids on welfare or whatever. Good or bad-most of the decisions we make for ourselves-either as a group or individuals- are not made in a vacuum. Directly or indirectly, most of our decisions are made in response to circumstances WE DIDN'T CREATE. We might make things worse or better for ourselves depending on how we respond, but THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY for EVERYTHING WRONG in our society belongs to the PATRIARCHY AND INDIVIDUAL SEXIST MEN LIKE YOU AND POLISH KNIGHT. That's it in a nutshell. I won't be back, and your more than free to rip me apart as some kind of man-hating bitch. It doesn't bother me because your both ultimately responsible for it anyway. Tootles.

PolishKnight said...

Richard, isn't the last screed from Virago delightfully naive? "Men", as a group, are awful in her eyes but "individually", they're her protectors and, pardon the pun, knights in shining armor. We've had "rights" for thousands of years. She must think that Cleopatra had cable TV. News flash: Most men throughout history didn't enjoy a right to vote, get jobs as they liked, and especially demand the state pay them to raise their own children.

This claim from her is telling in and of itself: "Good or bad-most of the decisions we make for ourselves-either as a group or individuals- are not made in a vacuum. Directly or indirectly, most of our decisions are made in response to circumstances WE DIDN'T CREATE."

Yikes! That sounds like a sociopath, doesn't it? And she was trying to discredit me with amateur psychology. I don't think she's a sociopath though. That would take guts and an ability to take risks and, well, I don't think she's up to it. I think she's just an spoiled girl engaging in projection. Note how her arguments against men apply perfectly to the excuses she makes for women's behavior!

Virago, you've not only NOT shattered my credibility but your tantrum only revealed your own insecurities. Congratulations.

PolishKnight said...

Richard, I agree with you on most things but I don't think we can retire arguments about abuse since that's the originating topic of this thread.

Virago, in her attempts to dismiss my anecdotes, argued that I somehow had negative treatment from women towards me coming. "Where there's smoke, there's fire!" she said.

Yet on the other hand, she and NYMOM swallowed up this emotionally disturbed teenage girl's rants hook, line, and sinker. Now think about it: For the past _14_ years, this little girl has been in the custody of mommy dearest. Who then, raised such a disturbed child? The mother! She has a low self-esteem (uses lower case i) can't even refer to her own accomplishments without referring to her "loving family" (presumably, just "mom") The only time she has unbridled praise is for the mother. I bet you she got THAT message loud and clear over 14 years!

Like Virago, Ariel craves the attentions of their husband and father, respectively, because both women realize that the men are their benefactors and protectors rather than the boogymen they know they've created in their own minds. I love Virago trying to engage in this mental contortion:

"That said, it's perfectly natural to have mixed feelings about your "father"."

Indeed, when someone makes up a story they know not to be true it's "natural" to have mixed feelings because that's the burden of lying and how lie detectors work. They can sense the massive subconscious triggers generated by someone to balance their artificial, contrived story with the natural truth.

Anonymous said...

I'm perfectly willing to discuss abuse, PK, but not to wade through the usual canned ad homs about how some stranger on the internet is "obviously" an abuser and therefore none of his positions are valid.

That's the kind of lazy, sloppy smearing that passes for argumentation among radfems and I for one am not going to waste any time addressing it.

If we wanted to get psychobabbly then both V and NY could be analyzed up one side and down the other but none of it would have any bearing on any of the interesting issues we're here talking about, so why bother?

But as far as the substance of her argument goes, she has crafted a theory that in effect removes the concept of free will, free choice and individual responsibility from the entire female sex.

Which leads to the proposition that people who can bear no responsibility are in a position to wreak non-recompensable damage on others and therefore should have limited rights.

Are we all good with that? I didn't think so.

I actually like the definition of feminism once sarcastically (of course) offered as the "radical belief that women are human beings."

Which implies both goodness and corruption, and the free will to exercise both and the responsibility for such exercise.


PolishKnight said...

Yes, Richard, we are good with all that.

I love it when someone smugly says that men denied women the "human" right of voting. Yet, my wife as a legal permanent resident is unable to vote. Teenage boys can fight and die in Iraq, but can't have a beer in their own dorm room. The concept of limited rights and responsibilities is perfectly normal especially with children (and especially in their mother's care.) Yep, the kiddies aren't trusted to decide how their "support" money should be spent!

Regarding the nasty ad-hominem attacks typically used by feminists. Remember that chivalrous patronage they rely upon for "equality" is based upon a notion of women as innocent, helpless victims. They know that this is their bread and butter.

NYMOM said...

Okay...fight's over...

Let's return to the point Richard made (which was interesting) of a proportionate amount of liability versus a 50-50 division in the case of children who receive a public benefits.

Men ONLY paying back the taxpayers IS a proportionate share of the liability as it takes a LOT more to raise a child to healthy, productive adulthood then what children receive on public benefits.

So thanks for the backhanded compliment you just gave me of agreeing with my position.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, I'm chuckling because welfare moms are not well known for raising healthy, productive adults even after collecting public assistance for their children.

The simplist solution for saving the taxpayers' dime is to simply take the kids away from the mothers and give them to the fathers provided they don't require public assistance. Problemo solved!

But that would mean the mother would have to earn a living, wouldn't it? Those greedy men!

virago said...

"The key difference between me and your damsels in distress, Virago, is that I came out on top. I'm not continuing to cry a river to get help, they are. Big difference there. How about using that "where there's smoke there's fire" logic on them?"

"Virago, in her attempts to dismiss my anecdotes, argued that I somehow had negative treatment from women towards me coming. "Where there's smoke, there's fire!" she said. "

OOh! That must've really struck a nerve! Now my work here is done!

Anonymous said...

Well, if your work was to strike a nerve, it sure was a waste of time. The issues remain.


PolishKnight said...

Yeah, Virago really got me. I'm scared of fire like Frankenstein. "Fire! Arrrrr! Fire! Bad!"

Seriously, I'm rather flattered by all the personal attention she lavishes upon me. I'm sorry I can't return the favor though.

Anonymous said...

"Men ONLY paying back the taxpayers IS a proportionate share of the liability as it takes a LOT more to raise a child to healthy, productive adulthood then what children receive on public benefits."

But NY, we're not talking about how much it takes to raise a child to adulthood. That's the mother's business, remember? We're talking about the proportionate amount of damage caused to the TAXPAYERS.

Half of the welfare benefits is not proportionate responsibility as per your model.

Maybe a few packs of diapers to offset the "virtually nothing" we contribute to reproduction, and call it square?

But I agree with you, PK, that way too few women are interested in all this for anything to change much. The pendulum is swinging to MORE egalitarianism in parenting roles and responsibilities, not less.

When you see one of these so-called "strong, financially independent" choice moms who's availed herself of anonymous sperm donation ready to bring down the whole industry for the sake of a buck, you know there's little hope of ever getting women's hands out of our wallets.

And government SURE won't pass up an available pocket without massive public outcry that just ain't coming.


PolishKnight said...

Richard, I just noticed NYMOM's wording. When the taxpayers are footing the bill, she argues that it's to pay for "a" child. Did you catch that? Not HER child or the "mom's" child.

I'm reminded of my friend who shacked up with a radical feminist (against my advice). When she got pregnant and had a kid and moved in with him, it was "her" child. She ALLOWED him to hold HER child. But when the bills came or the child acted up, it was HIS child.

Men are so irresponsible and greedy, aren't they?

Regarding getting women's hands out of our wallets. I don't want to be a polyanna, but there is hope. For the most part, there isn't much glamour to being a TRUE "single mother by choice". The taxpayers largely don't foot the bill unless they live in section 8 housing. They have to find the ideal sperm donor: A shmuck who knocks them up and has some cash.

Socialism is the notion of getting some guy behind the tree to foot the bill for your good causes. We should commend the welfare mothers for helping to educate the public that without a named benefactor, "the forgotten man", that benefactor winds up being them. Then it's not fun anymore.

That's a baby step to the realization that eventually, whether they like it or not, they will wind up footing the bill one way or another. There is no free lunch. The supply of rich, but stupid sperm donors is drying up as they either wind up being "deadbeats" or know how to call a lawyer.

This is all part of the learning process. The evolution of the taxpayer's awareness of their cheap emotional sentimentalism clashing with hard realities.

Much like raising a child itself. One who eventually goes out and earns a living, of course, rather than going on welfare or becoming a criminal (where do they ever learn that from?)

Anonymous said...

"She ALLOWED him to hold HER child. But when the bills came or the child acted up, it was HIS child."

Yeah, and exhortation to "Do something about MY child!" just doesn't get a guy movin' and shakin' for some reason. ;-)


NYMOM said...


Instead of having a normal conversation about this, you roll out Octomom...

Clearly she's an aberration for mothers just as men who sexually abuse kids are an aberration for fathers.

You remind me of those radical feminists you hate so much:

Everytime you try to bring up some changes in public policy they start screaming about abuse...

How can anything ever get resolved if you keep doing the same thing you claim they do?

NYMOM said...

Regarding the pendulum swinging to more egalitarianism in parenting roles, I'm in total agreement with that. As I've often said I don't care if mother works and father is home, or father works and mother is home, or both work and hire a trained dog to be with their children while they are away. As long as the child is happy, healthy and safe I'm fine with these arrangements.

The key here is that it's a voluntary arrangement not a court order that a mother is forced into for either reasons of political correctness or to assist men in balancing their check books...

That's the key...

PolishKnight said...

I don't think we rolled out Octomom specifically. Welfare motherhood is not a tabloid rarity but rather a massive social problem and symptomatic of the fact that single motherhood largely doesn't exist without dumping the bill on someone else, either taxpayers or the fathers.

Your second claim, to only care about the childrens' well being, is then undermined by your next statement that the "key" is what the mother wants. You even repeat "that's the key".

As Richard pointed out, this can only work when you define the child as existing to service the mother's desires. If mommy isn't happy, then the child shouldn't be either. That doesn't sound to me like someone who even loves children as human beings. They're a tool.

Your emphasis on the word "key" is useful to illustrate that you view them as a tool to "unlock" power for the mother. To get paid to be a welfare mother instead of getting a job like a responsible adult. Or to punish the father for getting uppity and not washing dishes. Or to just get off on running some other person's life instead of focusing on their own.

For a father and responsible mother, being a parent is just one facet of a role of being a responsible citizen. Heck, even in the animal kingdom, lionesses have to go out and catch their food. The concept of being entitled to breed at someone else's expense is, at best, a form of charity. It's not an honor to have the state pay, or make someone else pay, to keep one's children from starving in "mom's" care. It's a scandal. Only a chivalrous society that has protected and spoiled women would allow such a nonsensical entitlement.

Not only is earning a living on one's own merits the basic responsibility of adulthood, it's also spiritually fulfilling and contributes to one's role as a parent. A child learns by example and if they see a parent earning a living, rather than just cashing checks, they will get the message to maybe not smash into neighbors' cars or sit on the street begging for change.

There's a saying that poker is the hardest way to earn an easy living. I would go one further and say that housewifery, while being an easy life, can be a challenge to live with. It's about accepting that someone else is supporting you without making up false accomplishments, rationalizing the situation as an entitlement, or spitting in the face of one's benefactor. It's amazing that so many women mess up what is one of the sweetest deals on the planet. It's like those celebrities who have fame and fortune and wind up looking like a mess in rehab.

Anonymous said...

"The key here is that it's a voluntary arrangement not a court order that a mother is forced into for either reasons of political correctness or to assist men in balancing their check books..."

Sure, NY, but the fact remains that as parenting becomes an ever more egalitarian process with each generation, then the "political correctness" and "checkbook-balancing" aspects of it disappear and shared parenting will naturally become the default situation in custody in the absence of evidence of its unsuitability. It's already what the large majority of the public believes is fair.

At that point people like V who use the "continuity of care" tack will have no arguments left, and the woman-firsters will have to turn to a pure property rights position, similar to NY's, and discard the "best interests of the children" hype altogether.

But it will be a good thing. It will help get people's focus off what they can get out of a divorce (which will be nothing) and back on what they can get out of staying married.

PolishKnight said...

Richard, while that sounds very rosy and I hope you're right, I think we're in for more rocky times ahead before things get better.

You and I have had disagreements about the merits of "educating" women, and your contention is that they're now more likely to get married and not get divorced than non-"educated" as you defined it. The hidden gorilla with that claim is twofold: Marriage rates stink overall and more women are getting diplomas compared to men meaning fewer will get married. More on how trends continue until they don't, later.

While it's admirable, and sure feels good to see women getting diplomas and fun hobby jobs to feel more fulfilled, it's shocking how you seem to toss working class men and unmarriable working class women and those unable to find the traditional breadwinner they crave off the back of the sled. After a decade or so of going down, illegitimate children are on the rise again.

We've been in the middle of a gender culture war for sometime which we refer to as the women firsters thinking that life is about getting goodies and playtime and men paying the bills and not being "greedy". The seething vitriol from V is common from what I've seen and this includes female lawyers and engineers.

People do not abandon their pet notions of entitlement overnight. Look at the housing market. There are people who still think that buying a house entitled them to earn more a year just living in it than people who work for a living. The only thing that jolts them back to reality is seeing the bank take away their neighbor's home. Oh, wait, that didn't do it. Then their other neighbor's. Then a few more. Ok, they still don't get it.

We need a USSR style collapse in order for these women to get the message of what the Real World is like. It appears we're already well on the way...

(I am SOOOO glad I rent!)

NYMOM said...

Polish Knight, I hate to say this but in some ways you are the male version of Virago.

First of all Octomom, for all her nuttiness, I don't think she had those kids to get on welfare but instead to get attention (a reality show). Frankly I think she was mentally ill.

AND she had her kids using AI which is different from your ordinary run-of-the-mill welfare mom. AND most single mothers who are artifically inseminated are not welfare moms. Most are high income women who never met the right guy but still want children.

PolishKnight said...

The Popular Table

NYMOM, did you REALLY hate saying that? :-)

I don't think I brought up Octomom in this topic. I did a text search and didn't see it. I only talked about welfare moms because you had brought them up above and justified fathers paying them support.

Regarding the high income women who never met the right guy... How are they going to teach social skills to children when they are sleeping beauties whose prince never showed up to kiss them? (I loved how Shreck and Princess Fiona played upon this meeting with Fiona angry at Shrek for not complying with her fantasy.)

Indeed, it's funny that such women wait for the "Right" man when they're not exactly the right woman themselves. After all, many high income people really are not that interesting because they spend a lot of time at work. Such men are called "geeks" and EVERY one I know has a wife or girlfriend if they want one AND are willing to do a minimum amount of work and retrospection to land them. Despite V's claims, it's clear I did just that. FYI, if you're in the DC metro region, stop by and try my cooking.

Part of growing up for kids is learning to not give up if the popular kids at the lunch table don't welcome them and finding other friends who are, gasp, not "right". I'm chuckling because we just had a HS reunion and it's like none of those awkward moments ever happened. Even the class bully gave me a hug (he works with disabled children now.)

NYMOM said...

'NYMOM, did you REALLY hate saying that?'...


I disliked saying it is more accurate.

The problem is that everyone uses the most EXTREME examples whenever we start having a real conversation about anything. Then we never continue the conversation but diverge into all these other topics: Octomom, men who abuse women, children, animals, foreign brides, false accusations, etc.,

The bottom line is that we have this child w/o a voice, so we are forced to select amongst competing interests to decide 'who is the best person to speak in this child's interest'...and historically, biologically and common-sense wise I have to say the biological mother is the best selection as the 'voice' of her child.

She might select another 'voice' as in giving her child to another family for adoption or she might select a child's father, but until she does this we have to assume she is the best representative in this world for her child until is an adult.

Sometimes this isn't the case and the state steps in as the voice of a child's interests, but these situations are rare and should be...

NYMOM said...

I'm sorry Polish Knight if you weren't the one who mentioned Octomom. Someone did, maybe it was Richard. But I think my point about the difference between her and the ordinary run-of-the mill welfare mother was valid.

Most women like Octomom are high income women who need no one's help in raising their children...

She's an oddity in more ways then one; thus, not valid to use to symbolize typical 'welfare mom'...

I think men just like to use Octomom not because she discredits welfare mothers but because she discredits women who have children using artificial insemination. That's the real target group...

I mean I wonder what excuses will be used to attack those women as they are not in need of any assistance to raise their children...and Octomom is an oddity, not representative of them at all...

PolishKnight said...

I appreciate what you're saying NYMOM. Psychology is often criticized for being a field of study that generalizes about human nature by studying deviancy.

That said, it is useful to consider that by the standards of society in our childhoods, our culture is deviant. Unwed motherhood and divorce is the norm rather than the exception. Decent men who support their families and their wife divorces them face losing their children 85% of the time and then paying the mother most of his after tax income to boot. Consequently, responsible men have to think twice about marrying. There is an old economic saying: "Bad money drives out good." Women and men treat each other badly in this culture more often than not because good treatment is not rewarded. It's even viewed as naive and stupid.

So you're wrong: The state IS stepping in more often than not to keep the children from starving in their single mother's care in the form of "child" support or welfare. Your proposal for dropping child-support from working women would only result in millions of these women just going on the dole and the taxpayer going after the men.

Regarding the "voice of the child". My first reaction was... wow. So essentially, you view children as ventriloquist's dummies who are supposed to think and say what the mother puts in their heads and mouths. It makes them being a "key" or chattel superior by comparison.

And no, that isn't what "nature" allowed. Patriarchy IS natural. Even when a single mother is provided for via "child" support or welfare, their children still wind up as lower class citizens in general.

Your next claim is specious. We don't "have to" assume that the mother is the best voice of the child. On the contrary, all these social programs to bail out unwed mothers assume that they're going to mess up. It's absurd: Women are such great parents because they're in distress and victims along with children in their care. Yeah... ok.

PolishKnight said...

Regarding the "high income" women becoming single mothers by choice.

I wish you had addressed the point I made above about such women winding up single not by accident but rather by their own sexism and laziness. I have another angle on that phenominon for you to ponder:

I went to a friend's wedding about 20 years ago. His new sister-in-law was an attractive 35 year old California lawyer. Many of the guys wanted to dance with her. The groom told me that his wife had told him that she was lonely because she only wanted to date lawyers, but they were too busy to deal with the demands of her career along with their own. Plus, she didn't want to date non-lawyers or men who would earn more than her but would be more flexible.

So... what does an overstressed career woman going after the almighty buck think of trying? Having a kid from a sperm bank, of course! Yeah, unlike relationships with men, kids don't require any care whatsoever! Just shove them into a bus locker and have her "speak" for them: "What you want mommy is ok by me! It's all about YOUR happiness!"

Fortunately, last I heard about 10 years ago, she had decided the obvious and that it wasn't worth having kids that she didn't have time to care for in addition to imposing on her materialistic lifestyle.

It's ironic that women who do decide to go through with having children on their own anyway via the sperm bank then probably spend thousands on in-vitro, daycare, nannies, etc. Think about it: They wound up becoming like... men. And in the worst way! They wound up having to foot the bill anyway to raise the kids.

It's useful to remember that feminism was all about giving women the best choices men had and the best jobs and the most carefree bachelor lifestyle. Didn't you ever hear the song: "Girls just wanna have fun?"

NYMOM said...

Obviously Polish Knight I'm talking about very young children, older children around 12ish can (and often do) have a voice in their 'custody'...actually my own grand daughter has lived with me since she was 13 years old, totally voluntary, no court order. Parents pay me child support for her expenses, again, totally voluntary, no court order...

With one respect I almost agree with one issue you highlighted which is that women appear to be taking the worse traits of men to follow, instead of forging a new path for's sad really.

Anonymous said...

I didn't bring up Octomom either. I'm not interested in the nut case du jour.

But I for one care jack about attacking women who use artificial insemination if they're not on the taxpayer dole. I don't consider it a moral choice but someone else's morality by itself is not my business.

It will probably be one of your own that brings down the sperm donation industry, if it happens at all. Someone like this woman who is suing for the release of her donor's identity because her twin girls are sick and she's in a bind and she feels they "have a right to know their father" (i.e. she wants some support).

You girls sure sell each other out cheap.

"And no, that isn't what "nature" allowed. Patriarchy IS natural."

It's natural for human beings. What's natural in the animal world is to simply allow children whose mothers can't adequately feed or protect them to starve or be eaten.

Us greedy men again, interfering with nature!


Anonymous said...

"...women appear to be taking the worse traits of men to follow, instead of forging a new path for's sad really."

Seeing as how people have to eat and bills have to be paid one way or another, I'd certainly be interested to know what other kind of path you women can forge, unless you have Umoja in mind.

As soon as you figure it out, let us know. We'd all like a new path around the dirty work and obligations of life, eh PK?


PolishKnight said...

Richard, my wife and I are fans of "big cat diary" on Animal Planet. Especially in HD.

The lion seems to be unique among cats in that males share family responsibilities but most of the time tend to be to keep bachelor males out. The reason is that without the pride king, the new male kills the offspring, in front of their mothers, and then the mothers happily offer themselves to breed with the new lion king and the cycle begins anew.

It's fascinating because it's like a welfare system... for cats! The lionesses provide "cub support" in the form of kills to the Lion and he allows them "visitation."

Another well known family system is that of birds where male birds court the female birds, often build them nests, and it works like a singles' bar where the good looking birds get nookie first and the males work like, er, dogs to bring home the worms. (It's funny that the female researchers who documented this felt sorry for the ugly birds and wanted to help them trim feathers to be more attractive but were forbidden from doing so by their professor.)

There was a hit film "March of the Penguins" that most closely resembles an egalitarian society: The males and females mate and then stick together to raise their offspring sharing the workload as best they can.

The rest of the time, it's like you said: On Big Cat Diary, the cheetah has the female raise the cubs and about 3/4's of them are eaten (often by other cats such as lions.)

PolishKnight said...

I get a kick when V says that men just oppressed women while having rights for thousands of years. It's a rather simplistic, in addition to inaccurate, description of things.

Men not only "shared" with women, they SUPPORTED them and continue to do so even as the women demand to be treated as "equals" and "independant". There's an old joke that there's nothing more annoying than a woman who follows you around demanding you dominate her.

Being the breadwinner and master of the house isn't all fun and games and for men throughout history, it was on their shoulders alone and this was appropriate. There was simply no way, then and now, for someone to be able to stick the costs and burdens for their children onto someone else and get away with it. Nobody has been able to figure out a way to make "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" work for more than a century or so before too many people wind up in the needs category compared to those with ability.

And yes, it HAS been tried before. Ever hear of Rome? Lots of people liked this thing known as slavery. It worked great. Plus, just conquer other cultures to get them to foot the bills. Until... as Alexander put it, there were no more worlds left to conquer.

In addition to the burden of earning a living and living with the reality that losing one's livelihood is like losing air, there is the challenge of treating those you support: Your spouse and children, with respect and consideration.

NYMOM's claim to "speak" for the children is a position of dominance and cavewoman thinking. Congrats NYMOM. You're at the same level us men were about 10,000 years ago. You have a LOT of evolution ahead of you!

virago said...

"In addition to the burden of earning a living and living with the reality that losing one's livelihood is like losing air, there is the challenge of treating those you support: Your spouse and children, with respect and consideration."

Real men don't find this a challenge. My brother supported his wife and kids because they both decided it was better for her to stay home with the kids than for them to be in daycare. He worked long hours at a very demanding job, and he faced the threat of lay-off all the time. Being home, she did most of the housecleaning and childcare, but he sure didn't act like it was "her job". In his mind, the reason for her being home was FOR THE KIDS. The idea of making a mess and expecting her to pick up after him never even entered his head. He came home to a clean house, well cared for kids, and dinner on the table every night, but he helped with the clean up and dishes every night. If a load of laundry needed to be done, he didn't think twice about doing it. In addition to housework inside, she mowed the lawn and clipped hedges during the day so he didn't always have to do that on the weekends. They took turns doing the bed and bath routine with the kids at night. Whatever didn't get done during the week, they did together on the weekend. Sometimes, he took care of the kids so she could have a girl's night out with friends, and sometimes, he had the guy's night out. Mostly, they just spent the weekends together as a family doing inexpensive stuff because they didn't have a lot of money. When the youngest kid started school, his wife decided to go back to school herself. And my brother supported her all the way. He watched the kids so she could study or attend an occasional evening class. By this time, the kids were old enough to help out around the house and everybody was expected to pitch in and help out with chores, etc. She graduated with honors, got a great job, and she supported him so he could go back to school and be Mr. Mom for a while. Now they both got great jobs with kids who don't get in trouble and are honor roll students. He treated his wife with respect. I don't ever remember them even arguing or fighting. He supported his wife in more ways than one, and she did the same. Not bad for a couple who married out of high school. And my brother is a REAL MAN. Not this sick twisted idea of a breadwinner and master of the house bullshit. They've been married 20 years, and I've never seen a happier married woman than my sister-in-law. And my brother wouldn't trade her for all the gorgeous Ukranian brides in the world. And it is all because MY BROTHER KNOWS HOW TO TREAT A WOMAN. Someone asked what the secret of his marriage was, and he said, "Just learning to get along." But it's more than that. He sees women as PEOPLE first. And he's not all bound up in these rigid sex roles like wanting a "traditional" wife just so he could feel like some macho man breadwinner. Well, I'm sure Polish Knight, you're going to make some crack about my brother being a wimp or something, but every woman who knows him tells his wife, "I wish I had a man like that." And it didn't take him "dozens of women" and 10 years to figure it out.

PolishKnight said...

Where have all the cowboys gone?

Ah yes, the ol' "Real Men" shaming ploy. Richard, don't you just love it when they use it? Do they even understand what it means?

V, the very term "Real Men" is pregnant with the presumption that you ladies aren't up to the task and "Men" have been your benefactors ALL ALONG. She supported him after she got a cushy job, briefly, not to be "Mr. Mom" but rather to go back to school to make more money to keep up with her. Move along Mother Theresa, there's a new saint in town! It's like you jumping in the pool and proclaiming: "Look! I'm Michael Phelps!" Try doing what "real men" do without the training wheels on and get back to us.

The other side of the Real Man shaming ploy is how unmanly it is. Even you know this as you try to pre-emptively defend him from a wimp charge. My reply is: YOU said it, I didn't. Real Men are able to speak for themselves. But then again, it appears you and NYMOM seem to think that women should be the only ones talking speaking for what children and men should want... "Yes Mommy Dearest". "Yes Dear".

It's funny that you praise your brother for "knowing how to treat a woman" yet... plenty of women divorce such Milquetoasts everyday and kick them to the curb just for the fun of it. There's no shortage of them around. Indeed, my future wife was being courted by other men, local and in the states, but didn't want divorced men especially those paying OTHER women to raise children. Tell "every woman that knows him" that there's a lot of such men out there. They usually don't have a lot of money though and their first wife gets the first cut of everything. I'm sure that's a real turn on for you gals!

In other words, you're doing a great job of destroying "Real Men" as quickly as possible.

That brings me to a fun observation that feminism is inherently anti-environment. You don't think twice about the impact of your own selfishness upon society, the environment, or even your children until after the mess is made and then you gripe that men, your oppressors, should clean it all up. Hilarious. "Men are my oppressors! Where are the Real Men to rescue me!?!?"

Anonymous said...

Real men! Where's my Absolut? Time for a round!

We'll have another one as soon as she trots out the "small penis" line.

And another when she tells us we can't get laid or are living in mom's basement or any of the other tired attempts that pass for wit among radfems.

But seriously, V, that's a nice story. Believe it or not it sounds a lot like what went on at our house over the years. But I can't take all the credit for it for knowing how to treat a woman. Half of the credit goes to my wife for also knowing how to treat a man.

It can't work without both.

Now about "real men..."

I'm sure we all have our own private visions about what "real men" and "real women" are like, but like the radfems don't hesitate to tell us, it's not our job to define womanhood for women. And it's not yours to define manhood for us.

Got it? Knew you'd understand. Thanks.


NYMOM said...

Richard, you and Polish Knight appear to be playing an interesting childrens' game of 'the opposites'...Everytime I agree with something you say, you then change course and reverse your previous position...

For instance, one or both of you claimed that women should stop going into courts and letting total strangers decide their family issues...I totally agreed with this so you then threw it back at me saying I thought of children as property of women not individual persons in their own right (like a 3 day old infant can make a reasonable decision about their so-called 'personhood')...

Anyway, I believe you reversed your position because you realized that men get ALL THEIR POWER OVER WOMEN AND CHILDREN THROUGH OUR LEGAL even though you claim the courts favor women, in fact, it's men who need this whole complicated legal aperatus they've set up to declare themselves 'fathers' otherwise you would have no connection whatsoever to have no physical link so you have made up a legal one...

Secondly when I agreed with your comment about women taking on the worse traits of men and mentioned that we need to find new ways of living (since I do NOT agree with Virago that this stay-at-home mother role is valid for most of us anymore) you then mocked that as well...

So even when I agree with you, you disagree...

Last, but not least, when women start having children by laying eggs outside of their bodies that men have to roost on then and only then, will I agree to mother my children like a penguin...


Penguins are rare creatures that live in harsh environments, like seahorses, far off the edge of the bell-shaped curve that most of the rest of us reside within...

Let's stop bringing up rare creatures like penguins or Octomom since they tell us little about most of the rest of us ordinary mothers.


Anonymous said...

"The reason is that without the pride king, the new male kills the offspring, in front of their mothers, and then the mothers happily offer themselves to breed with the new lion king and the cycle begins anew."

Now if that isn't a mother's offspring being "held hostage" I don't know what is.

The lioness must remain in the harem of the dominant male under...not the threat of the male asking for shared parenting and claiming roughly half of the cubs' time and supporting them during that time as in the case of the monstrously selfish males of our species...but the threat of her offspring becoming food for rival males.

And NY thinks discouraging divorce by means of adopting presumed shared parenting is wrong? On what the hell basis?

I still don't get what it is that NY likes so much about lions that she'd replace the nuclear family that has carried our species to the pinnacle of civilization with... cat behavior?


NYMOM said...

Actually I think you might be wrong Richard about women having children using AI, actually I think the industry is growing, not declining as you think because of a few odd situations that will crop up in any industry. We cannot always make laws to judge the 'rare birds' banning autos because of accidents...

Anyway as more and more women are having careers and looking to have families later (when men begin looking away from their age cohort), AI might need to be one of the options career women might need to investigate. Also adoption of older children could be another...

Sad, but true, older career women are not a big hit with men when they begin looking for wives...but that's no reason these women should deny either themselves or our society the benefit of their children...

Anonymous said...

NY, I didn't reverse anything. My belief is and always has been that people need to form nuclear families like they have for millenia and remain committed to their vows if humanly possible and never be stupid enough to drag their children and all their belongings into a court for strangers to divvy up.

I don't agree with your proposition that we have physical connection to our children, but even aside from that, if our legal system is what gives us power over our children then I don't see the problem with that. It's human nature to live in groups with laws that work to best advance and perpetuate the group.

Would you prefer the way male lions exercise control over their children?

And I'm not mocking your "new ways of living." I'm extremely interested in what you might come up with. I'm just skeptical that you're going to be able to find a way to have your children all to yourselves and still have lives as nice as do mothers and children who live within nuclear families.

That's really the key here. There's no way to equalize the two although we've been doing our damnedest for a generation now.


Anonymous said...

Sorry, that line should read "no physical connection."


PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, one of the options for career women instead of blowing money on AI might be to maybe think a little smarter. I love yoru auto comparison. It's like saying: "Why should we tell drivers to drive safer when we could just install air bags?"

Another option for career women to find a man is to start looking for them rather than playing the "chase me until you catch me" game that never really worked that well anyway. It's like a bunch of old, rusting GM cars sitting on a lot with the salesmen sitting around griping: "Why aren't the customers rushing in here to throw money at us?!?! We need a government bailout! We should also pass a law to protect consumers and foreign workers from those awful Toyota manufacturers with their quality products!"

Yep, aging career women and GM. PERFECT comparison!

And yes, there are plenty of reasons these women should deny themselves children and I already listed them earlier: The career women enjoy a lifestyle the kids would cramp. Aging women having children have a greater chance of birth defects. And finally, as more women do such a thing the chances of them demanding "child" support increase or government to foot the bill for free daycare...

Other than all that, it's just working out peachy for them.

NYMOM said...

Change this profound could take more then a generation to be understood since a generation is only 20 to 25 years. So it could take a while for changes that are happening 'one woman at a time' to become obvious. After all we are undoing thousands of years of social evolution here and it's going to take a lot longer then 25 or so years for our society to see the results of it.

I think men are beginning to see the writing on the wall in all this; however, and it explains the hostility of many male-dominated societies to western society. Islam does not hate the west and oppress their own women for nothing. I believe their hatred of the west is really a hatred of women, who are starting to come into their own finally...

AND, dare I say it, it's the same motivation with all this custody war business which the west has started: men attempting to undermine womens' independence by holding their children hostage for their good behavior...

Both actions have the same source.

That's my opinion anyway.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, I found it amusing the way you phrased the child's needs as the mother "speaking" for them and as a "key". It sounds delightfully self-centered and the children being chattel.

Regarding the courts, they will always be involved as long as the mother needs money from someone else. The courts are the "key" to taking money from one person and giving it to another. Naturally, women are interested in challenging the status quo when they lose their case but that's like a fighter saying he's interesting in not picking a fight after he gets beaten up. Indeed, the only way this will seem to get settled is only after men start winning more cases. As a friend of mine put it: Locks keep honest people honest.

Your observation about men setting up the legal system (like everything else in society, thank you) only illustrates our point that the patriarchy can't seem to be that bad since you gloat that it's favoring your gender after all. It's like the damsel in distress complaining that the white knight is oppressing her because she just wants to be alone with the dragon. The "physical connection" men have is their money. Even you can't cut that cord because you know so many women are on welfare that the father needs to be tracked down when she can't support them. Apparently, mother doesn't always know best when the state has to keep them from starving in her care!

That brings us to the next claim you present that stay at home motherhood isn't valid anymore. Balderdash. You just don't think it's valid when the mother has a decent job. When she doesn't, you carefully keep the backdoor open for welfare motherhood which is marriage to the state. Men who don't get decent jobs or find mates to support them who have children are simply referred to as bums and deadbeats.

And this is important because you know that without that safety net, people would start asking whether women's "equality" is really worth all those children crashing to the ground like lion cubs wandering around on their own. Hell, Richard hasn't even asked it yet. I'm working on him though. I'm sure women's equality will start working and not being a drag on society in a few thousand years or so...

PolishKnight said...

GM versus Toyota

NYMOM, there are immigrants who come to this country with the clothes on their backs. My great grandfather was one of them. Within a single generation or even before then, they are on their feet with their kids in school and becoming pillars of the community.

Compare and contrast to white women who have had all the benefits of living in a nice neighborhood, going to great schools, and even enjoying preferential treatment available only to the wealthiest men (lifeboat seats on the titanic, draft and SS exemption.)

And you're telling us that... they still can't get around to acting like adults and hang onto that sexism they claim oppresses them. We should wait a while and see if they get around to it. OK...

Regarding Islam: They are the biggest new special interest group in the leftist coalition nowadays. You can't even legally criticize them in France or Canada! Yep, you gals jumped into bed with the bad boys. Again! Blame V's brother. It's all his fault!

It's quite simple NYMOM: It's going to become increasingly hard for women to play the "I'm a victim of the Patriarchy game" when the women complain simultaneously that they demand the Patriarchy take care of them.

There are immigrant men who earn 8 bucks an hour working daylabor who are more responsible as parents than career women griping that the state should start making more social programs because they don't want to foot the bill for daycare. Try buying fewer Gucci bags, sweetheart, and you might balance the budget!

Anonymous said...

PK said: "Hell, Richard hasn't even asked it yet. I'm working on him though."

I know, I know, I hate answering that question. But it might not come easy to you either once you have a daughter and don't wish to see her place her entire future in someone else's hands (and the same goes for my son, albeit in a different fashion altogether).

NY said: "I believe their hatred of the west is really a hatred of women, who are starting to come into their own finally..."

Well I see it differently. Women's independence is a luxury that only affluent societies cab afford and I think it's our affluence that the rest of the world hates.

It think James or somebody had it right when he wrote that we lust and have not, and kill and want more, and fight and war because we don't have, or something to that effect.

"AND, dare I say it, it's the same motivation with all this custody war business which the west has started: men attempting to undermine womens' independence by holding their children hostage for their good behavior..."

Our children are presently held hostage for our good behavior (or for our ability to provide, entertain, or whatever else women desire at the moment). No one is concerned about our independence. Why is yours more important?

It's a simple fact that parenting is generally not an activity which is compatible with complete independence.


PolishKnight said...

Richard, your daughter's future is still in someone else's hands except it's the government. The Patriarchy never goes away, it merely just gets a paint job.

Regarding worrying about your daughter's future in some patriarch's hands. That's a buggaboo the feminists created that before feminism, women weren't allowed to work at all. Just the opposite in a way. They earned less, but because taxes were lower for everyone it probably balanced out. Single career women now have to get 50 year mortgages to get 1 bedroom luxury condos.

I'm not promising a rose garden. I'm only observing that women want and crave sexism. You ought to be more worried about your daughter winding up alone but don't worry, her chances of that are somewhat better than a mere HS graduate. That's assuming that the economy doesn't go to hell for everyone.

virago said...

FYI:Male lions live in a coalition of males that can have 1-7 males who are usually, not always, related to each other. A pride of females can be on average 21 females that are all related to each other. A coalition of males usually resides with a pride on average of 2-4 years. The females need at least a minimum of 18 months to raise their cubs to survive on their own. A male coalition of lions is very instrumental in protecting the cubs from infanticidal males. However, lionesses frequently ban together and drive off any nomadic males in defense of their cubs. On average, lionesses in the Serengeti have been seen to drive off nomadic males every 5 days. A group of 3 lactating lionesses was seen successfully fighting off a coalition of lions and preventing a takeover. However, cubs under 6 months of age are more vulnerable to infanticide because they are still lactating and highly dependant on their mothers. In the case of an actual "takeover", the majority of cubs who die are under 6 months of age. Female lions with cubs 6-17 months have been known TO LEAVE the pride WITH THEIR CUBS to AVOID the new males so that they can raise their cubs to an age that they can survive on their own. Females WHO ARE ALREADY PREGNANT at the time of the takeover have been known to go into pseudo-estrus and mate with the new males making them think their cubs belong to the new males. A female with cubs 18 months old will most likely automatically become pregnant by the new males because her cubs were old enough to survive the takeover and survive on their own. However, immediately after a takeover, females lions who have lost their cubs are MORE INFERTILE than females who have lost their cubs at other times. This is the case even though the females come into estrus quicker and have increased sexual activity after a takeover than at other times. The reason for this is that female lions AUTOMATICALLY SHUT DOWN THEIR OVULATION UP TO 3.5 MONTHS immediately following a takeover EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE IN ESTRUS. The heightened sexual activities of the lionesses attracts COMPETITIVE RIVAL MALE COALITIONS. Lionesses have been observed mating with UP TO 5 DIFFERENT COALITIONS OF MALES in the first 100 days of a takeover. These coalitions of males compete for the females, and the strongest coalition will be the one who eventually takes over the pride even though they might not be the coalition who originally intiated the takeover. Once a coalition of males prove themselves as the strongest, the females become pregnant pretty fast. In other words, IT'S THE FEMALES WHO DECIDE WHO FATHERS THEIR CUBS. And even when a coalition of males is established, if an individual female doesn't want to mate with a male at a certain time, SHE DOESN'T. I've seen several of these shows over the years on TLC,Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel, AND Animal Planet. It helps to get all the facts before posting some outdated King of the Beast crap.

virago said...

Hey, Polish Knight, I told my brother about the milquetoast comment. He said,"Thank God! I've been happily married for 20 years, and I didn't have to import her."

PolishKnight said...

Hello V, apparently your work is never done!

Your brother's remark is delightfully prejudiced and thoughtless. After all, aren't he and you probably the product of immigrants who left their own countries because they couldn't make a better life at home? He just bashed his own ancestors!

And how is "importing" something inferior? Are people who enjoy French wine and food unable to afford American wine and McDs? Even if his allegation was true, "having" to import is just a different way to earn a mate than his "how to treat a woman" technique. A different way to skin a cat.

The feeling is mutual: I'm happy I didn't "have to" do what he did for a mate and he isn't terribly proud of it either. After all, if him being a wimp for his wife is so much better than my method, why can't you, he, and his wife just be honest and come out and say that's what he is? I know how to treat a "Real" lady: I say No to them from time to time. That's what distinguishes me from a wimp and is clear for all to see including my wife. And she prefers it that way.

PolishKnight said...

King of the Jungle/Plains/Marsh

V, a group of males who fight for dominance WITH EACH OTHER is not the same thing as the females choosing their mates. After all, if the females really chose their mates then they wouldn't sleep around and even ultimately have children with the lion(s) that killed her cubs. Duh!

You then try to cloud and obfuscate the issue by saying that sometimes the females repel the invaders on their own, or have their own prides (usually briefly since they would conceive and raise bachelor males who would return to dominate them eventually, much like the welfare state) or even sometimes deny an individual lion breeding at a particular moment. But these are the exceptions rather than the rule (pun intended). The Lion is the King and the females know it.

Indeed, consider that even outside of reproductive prides the males dominate in the REST of the area! While the females patrol and hunt a specific area and the dominant male chases out competitors, the Bachelor lions have the run of all the rest and explore and develop new hunting methods. This is why nature created the males after all: We're the inventors and the explorers. Feminism's goal was to give women "equal" access to this big world that men built and developed. Pity they aren't up to the challenge...

NYMOM said...

"The Patriarchy never goes away, it just gets a paint job."

That's what I'm talking about Polish Knight. You continue to expose yourself even as you are arguing with me that these systems don't exist.

I can't see any fathers who really care about their daughters or any men of good will who will allow such nonsense to continue won't the reality is exposed...

Thus the purpose of my blog...

NYMOM said...

Please let's try to stay on topic and not get diverted. Everytime we are following an interesting thread we start fighting again...

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, I hope it's clear that I do not hesitate to "expose myself". You don't want me to go there! Seriously: I have never denied that Patriarchy exists and in the west is a benefactor of women, not an oppressor. Ever. It's one of my favorite shock-points I like to make.

Regarding caring about the daughters. Remember how you said motherhood is about "speaking" for the child? In a way, I'm doing the same thing but with the voice of experience and observation: Most daughters (99.9% I believe...) don't want equality in their marriage. They want to marry up if possible and will only marry an "equal" if that's the best she can get. And they certainly don't want to marry down.

Life is about making difficult choices and children can't both stay up late and watch TV and also get up early for school. At a big picture level, if women are equal to men that means that 50% of women will wind up alone including someone's daughter.

And your emphasis on the daughter's well-being is rather telling. What about the son? Oh, that's right, if they can't compete then they just get tossed out of the back of the sled like trash. Feminists have railroaded more poor black men into jail than Jim Crow. Oh, wait, they get to pay child-support for children they are barely allowed to see even if they can't earn the money. I'm sure they're so grateful for that!

You talk about men of good will but your primary concern is always about what women want even when talking about the children. It's about what "she" wants and the children's needs are wrapped around it. A parent, heck, and adult looks at what is best not in terms of what they WANT but rather about what IS.

Let's look at the very title of your blog: "women as mothers". As I said above, the male role is that of explorer, provider, and innovator with fatherhood second. Much of what men have done is fun and profitable and women love that stuff, but they can't spend all day at the lab earning a nobel prize in physics AND also win SAH mother of the year. I'm the messenger again. Women can't both have it all and grab everything with both hands and still be good mothers who put their child ahead of everything else. That's the world men live in and chivalrous patriarchal patronage has done you a disservice to imply that it's otherwise. The world is not one big candyland for women and mothers.

virago said...

"V, a group of males who fight for dominance WITH EACH OTHER is not the same thing as the females choosing their mates. After all, if the females really chose their mates then they wouldn't sleep around and even ultimately have children with the lion(s) that killed her cubs. Duh!"

Duh to you! I'm not talking about a group of males (a coalition) fighting with each other over breeding rights to females in a pride THEY ALREADY RESIDE IN. I'm talking about a COALITION of males defending their pride against an INVADING coaliton of males. Two totally SEPERATE groups of males. In the case of a TAKEOVER, the RESIDENT COALITION of males is either driven away or killed by a NEW COALITION. The new coalition kills the younger cubs sending their mothers into ESTRUS. Once the mothers are in estrus, they'll go into a FRENZY OF SEXUAL activity with the new coalition. However, they SHUT DOWN OVULATION FOR 3 1/2 MONTHS. In other words, THEY WON'T GET PREGNANT. During this time, the females have sex with the new coalition AND SEVERAL OTHER RIVAL COALITIONS OF MALES INCITING COMPETITION. The coalition WHO ORIGINALLY TOOK OVER THE PRIDE, AND KILLED THE CUBS IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO BE THE COALITION WHO FATHERS NEW CUBS WITH THE MOTHERS OF THE CUBS THEY KILLED. Female lions goals are to keep their cubs alive, but failing that, THE FEMALE LIONS GOALS ARE TO HAVE CUBS WITH THE STRONGEST COALITION. By INCITING COMPETITION WITHOUT GETTING PREGNANT gives them the upper hand in determining WHO fathers their cubs.

virago said...

"have their own pride (briefly since they would conceive and raise bachelor males who would return to dominate them eventually, much like the welfare state)."

That isn't even what I said. The females don't "have their own pride". Most cubs who are killed after a takeover ARE UNDER SIX MONTHS OF AGE. Cubs have to be at a minimum of 18 MONTHS before they can survive one their own. Mothers with cubs 6 MONTHS TO 17 MONTHS OLD have been seen to leave their prides TEMPORARILY after a takeover to avoid the new males and give their cubs a chance to reach an age where they can survive (18 MONTHS). At this age, THE FEMALE CUBS RETURN TO THE PRIDE WITH THEIR MOTHERS TO MATE WITH THE NEW MALES, AND THE MALE CUBS LEAVE TO BECOME NOMADS. That said, the only reason that nomadic males may go back to their NATAL PRIDES to takeover and mate with their mothers, sisters, aunts, etc. is due to HUMAN ENCROACHMENT on pride land and territories. They are confined to wildlife reserves, and they no longer have the wide expanse of land THAT THEIR ANCESTORS DID. Unfortunately, this causes INBREEDING and weakens THE WHOLE PRIDE SYSTEM. Don't you know anything?

"Indeed, consider that even outside of reproductive prides the males dominate in the REST of the area! While the females patrol and hunt a specific area and the dominant male chases out competitors, the Bachelor lions have the run of all the rest and explore and develop new hunting methods."

"Again, Polish Knight, who has no reading comprehension, the average time a coalition of males reside with a pride is ON AVERAGE 2-4 YEARS. Female lions in the serengeti have been observed driving off nomadic males EVERY 5 DAYS. If the males didn't have the females TO WATCH THEIR BACKS, they wouldn't even last the minimum of 2 years. And as for bachelor lions? Are you kidding me? Bachelor males without a pride DON'T LAST VERY LONG. They can't mate. They are larger, have manes, AND ARE FAR MORE CONSPICUOUS. In other words, they stand out more and don't blend in as well in the grasslands. A lone female is smaller and faster than a lone male, and her hunting skills are much better due to this fact. That's actually why females do most of the hunting. And that's why nomadic males usually join with other males to hunt. Besides a male lion's life span is 8 years versus 15 years for a female lion. AND BACHELOR MALE LIONS DIE BEFORE EVERYONE ELSE. As far as male lions controlling more land. Maybe it escaped your notice, but FEMALE LIONS RAISE CUBS. They don't need more land because THEY CAN'T BE TOO FAR AWAY FROM THEIR CUBS. All they need is ENOUGH LAND TO HUNT AND FEED THEIR CUBS. It has nothing to do with male controlling more land and everything to do with RAISING CUBS. God, Polish Knight, you sure don't know anything about big cats? You better stick to house cats. Btw, I have 4 cats-3 males and 1 female- and she whips there ass every time as far as being more dominating. Even our dogs are afraid of her, and they're not small dogs by any means.

virago said...

"This is why nature created the males after all: We're the inventors and the explorers. Feminism's goal was to give women "equal" access to this big world that men built and developed. Pity they aren't up to the challenge."

Polish Knight, your not a lion. Your a PRIMATE. If you want to look to the animal kingdom as a basis for human behavior, you have to look at primates. Of course, everyone looks at chimpanzees to explain male domination, yet we share almost 99% of our dna with BONOBOS. That's roughly the same amount of dna we share with chimpanzees. Yet, bonobos are female centered and female dominated:

Yet, new evidence suggest that we are actually closer to orangatuns than chimps:

The social structure of orangatuns is based on SINGLE MOTHERS RAISING THEIR OFFSPRING.

virago said...

Polish KNight,we can go on all day about male domination or lack of male domination in this animal species or whatever. What strikes me is the hypocrisy that you and Richard seem to engage in. NYMOM was right when she agrees with you guys on something, you both turn around and try to spin it in another direction just to disagree with her. The same thing goes with this nature arguement. We bring up nature to show that the natural family bond is an infant and it's mother. You guys pull any kind of arguement out of your asses to pooh-pooh that idea, but than freely use nature to justify your man as king arguements. In fact, earlier up thread, Richard accused me of leaving out "free will" to justify the irresponsibility of women. That's funny coming from you guys. First of all, it's FREE WILL that differentiates us from lower primates or other animals. That has nothing to do with nature at all. In fact, free will is what makes us go AGAINST NATURE to fulfill our own selfish human desires. We can use our free will for the benefit of the human race and EVERYONE in it so we can live harmoniously with ourselves AND nature. Or we can use our free will to dominate other human beings AND TAKE AWAY THEIR FREE WILL so that EVERYONE is miserable causing confusion and chaos as to what is suppose to be "natural vrs. unnatural". That's exactly what happened. For thousands of years, YOU MEN have DEPRIVED WOMEN of the right to use our FREE WILL and instead, IMPOSED YOUR FREE WILL ON TO US. Now, for the first time in thousands of years, we are given rights where we can actually start to EXERCISE OUR FREE WILL WITH "ALMOST" NO PENALTIES FROM THE MALE SEX. Yet, women-AS INDIVIDUALS AND AS A GROUP-are stilL expected to take FULL RESPONSIBILITY for bad decisions that we make and how those decisions affect society. Yet, MEN DON'T TAKE FULL RESPONSIBLITY FOR THEIR OWN IRRESPONSIBILITY, NOR ARE THEY EXPECTED TO. In fact, they want to blame it on us, feminism, or what ever crap they want to pull out of thin air. OTOH, women have the right to exercise their free will-thanks to feminism-but they don't have unlimited freedom to do so while having a lower expectation put on them to take responsibility for their actions. That's something ONLY MEN HAVE. So, Polish Knight, can go on tooting his horn and all the males who ever lived and/or died as the "inventors and explorers", but that's only because MEN TOOK THE FREE WILL AWAY FROM THE OTHER HALF OF THE HUMAN RACE AND IMPOSED THEIR OWN WILL INSTEAD. That's no accomplishment as far as I'm concerned. The world is changing from the old patriarchal order causing a lot of confusion and choas over what's "natural" or what "free will" really is. Strong, secure men-like my brother-learn to cope and adapt to a changing environment. Weak, insecure men-like Polish Knight-see the changing environment as a threat because they don't know how to cope or adapt, and they know it. Their entire reaction is due to FEAR because THEY DON'T HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO IMPOSE THEIR FREE WILL ON TO WOMEN ANYMORE. Sooner or later, they are the losers. It's "survival of the fittest" where only those who can adapt to a changing environment survive ULTIMATELY SURVIVE. It's the way of nature. Good-bye Polish Knight! LOL

Anonymous said...

"Weak, insecure men-like Polish Knight..."

Hey PK, we get another round! I'll pour.

And just so that V can enjoy a drink too, let's ask her to stop the "hysterical" shouting and calm down.

Now that we're all even in the lame sexist shaming game...

"We bring up nature to show that the natural family bond is an infant and it's mother. You guys pull any kind of arguement out of your asses to pooh-pooh that idea, but than freely use nature to justify your man as king arguements."

It seems V has reading comprehension problems too.

I can't speak for PK but I am not using nature to argue for man as king or anything else.

I am pointing out the rank shittiness of nature and the utter absurdity of what you and NY are clamoring for.

I talk about lions because they appear to be NY's favorite fixation. I remember NY from a long time ago at Gonz's, where she informed us that human mothers in their natural state (free of the influence of civilization, that is) are like lionesses.

Although she neglected to tell us exactly where she had observed these lioness-like human females.

She also didn't explain why lioness-like human females are a desirable thing, since it's a simple fact that lionesses are unable to raise the majority of their young to maturity. And although some may occasionally attempt to go it on their own, as you point out, they rarely ever raise their young to maturity outside of the male protection of the pride system, which actually resembles nothing as much as a FLDS community when you look at the whole picture.

Now you bring primates into the picture, which opens up a different can of worms as primate young are even more vulnerable than cubs for a variety of reasons and primates have developed greater tendencies to form longer-term male-female bonds for that very reason.

Culminating in our own species, of course.

But you've wasted a great deal of bandwidth and neglected the question which we are ultimately posing.

Which is, is this really how you girls want to live?

Do you really want to keep your offspring all to yourselves and ask for no protection or resources at all from males OR the "patriarchal system" we've created?

If so, then rather than killing your offspring and drafting you into the procreation of mine, like a male in nature would, I will instead exercise my free will to say be my damn guest. Umoja awaits, as do the Mosuo.

The overwhelming majority of women want no part of such a plan. Nor do their children. They like civilization and security and "stuff." Remember that it was adult children of single mothers that reached into the pockets of biological fathers before anyone else.

"In fact, free will is what makes us go AGAINST NATURE to fulfill our own selfish human desires. We can use our free will for the benefit of the human race and EVERYONE in it so we can live harmoniously with ourselves AND nature."

Pure hogwash. There is nothing in nature BUT selfish desires. There is no such thing in nature as working "for the benefit of everyone." What we see in nature's systems is simply selfish desire happening to coincide with behaviors that best propagate the species.

It's only because of our free will that we do not live in all this peachy harmony with nature that tolerates infanticide and starvation and all the rest.

"The world is changing from the old patriarchal order..."

Well possibly, but let's wait until western civilization dwindles away before making any pronouncements about that, shall we?


PolishKnight said...

Where do I begin?

For starters, V's argument doesn't deserve any response since she, like a lone female lion, isn't willing to defend her own positions. She makes long run-off sentences with ALL CAPS shrill declarations and then writes "LOL goodbye!" That speaks for itself.

There's lots of stuff I could say but you got much of it, Richard, and most of the rest she followed up with was the usual women-are-victims-hear-us-roar nonsense.

Let's see how long she really stays gone. Have you gone through these childish temper tantrums with your daughter yet?

virago said...

Do you really want to keep your offspring all to yourselves and ask for no protection or resources at all from males OR the "patriarchal system" we've created?

I have no problem with women receiving protection or resources from males OR the "patriarchal system". However, there's a difference in what I'm thinking compared to what your probably thinking. There's a metaphor that I read about that I think explains what I mean. In China, women were forced to bound their feet for centuries in order to be ready for the marriage market. Of course, this basically crippled them and made them dependant on men. In the early part of the 20th century, the practice of footbinding was disappearing under the influences of christian missionaries/women's equality movement etc. Chinese women were refusing to bind their daughters feet and they were removing the bindings from their own feet. But the problem of having free feet is one thing to the daughter, whose feet have never been bound, and quite another to the mother, whose feet have been bound for years. The reason is, that the very bandages which have so weakened and crippled the feet, have, in the course of time, become an essential support to the weakened members; so that, when the medical missionary unbinds the feet of the Chinese mother, he must remove the old bandages, and then put on fresh bandages,this time, binding each individual toe to its individual splint,only until it can go free of all support.
Now this latter is a process of binding, but it is done with an opposite view to the original foot binding. It looks to the restoration of lost freedom, while the old process aggressively deprived of freedom. That Richard is how I look at protection and resources from men or the patriarchal system. Originally, the need for protection and resources from men were bindings to deprive us of any free will or human rights. Now, whatever resources women get from men and the patriarchy are being used as a support so we can eventually be free to live with our children AND with men without fear of male violence and deprivation of our free will and human rights. In the meantime, we aren't there yet, and we need all the protection and resources we can get from males and the patriarchal system who started this all. I don't care if it's in the form of child support, AFDC, public funds for domestic violence shelters, or from an individual man like my brother who supported his wife without holding her back. I don't care if it means women living in single mother homes with their children to escape an abusive marriage or even because she was sick of being used as a housemaid/nanny at the expense of her own career. I don't care if it's in the form of laws that make it easier for women to combine career and childcare without penalties. It doesn't matter to me. Whatever it takes to make a more egalitarian society that's fair to both men and women. And that's only going to happen if men give up some of their male privilege and entitlements. Of course, men like Polish Knight are going to gripe about it, but their part of the ORIGINAL PROBLEM-not the solution. The patriarchy CREATED this mess to begin with. It's time for men like Polish Knight to put on his big boy pullups and deal with it because WOMEN AREN'T WILLING TO PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE PATRIARCHY ANYMORE.

virago said...

Polish Knight:

Anonymous said...

"It looks to the restoration of lost freedom, while the old process aggressively deprived of freedom."

I'm afraid you can't restore a "lost freedom" that nature shows us was never there in the first place, V.

"Whatever it takes to make a more egalitarian society that's fair to both men and women. And that's only going to happen if men give up some of their male privilege and entitlements."

You're forgetting that you're a "natural girl," V. You want to live in harmony with nature. Where in nature do you see a precedent for males giving up whatever privileges they come by naturally in order to create a system that's "fair?" Where in nature is there any concept of fairness at all?

"Originally, the need for protection and resources from men were bindings to deprive us of any free will or human rights."

Oh baloney. The need for protection and resources from men were and are simply that, a need for something that someone else has. A need common to females of a host of species who are all prepared to make appropriate trade-offs to get it met with the exception of human females of the woman-firster persuasion.

"The patriarchy CREATED this mess to begin with."

As we've already seen in detail, nature created this "mess" long before anyone ever had the cognitive capacity to conceptualize a "patriarchy" that would buffer the repulsive realities of nature and eventually be bashed for so doing.


V, you're funny. If that were true, you wouldn't have woman-firsters like poor bewildered Mearl on that thread you linked us to, wailing to Twisty and the other fem-nuts that she can't get any of her sisters to join her in "forging a new path," as NY puts it, because there's too much benefit to be gained from the bad ol' patriarchy.

Like PK has already pointed out numerous times already, even you and NY are playing by the rules of patriarchy and you don't even see it. You're trying to lay claim to the things you want and/or need from men in the aggregate rather than from the individual man, thinking this will bring more "freedom," and then whining when you find there are still trade-offs either way.

It's a big cop-out, V, and you girls will never "forge a new path" that way. If everyone and every group who had ever been "oppressed" throughout human history had sat around bleating for someone to make it all up to them and support them until they felt ready to stand on their own, we'd probably be still living in caves.

Come on, V, show us what you think of the terrible patriarchy we've created and carve out a new civilization like the heroic women of Umoja! I know you can do it!

"It's time for men like Polish Knight to put on his big boy pullups"

And just in time for bed, another round! Bottoms up! ZZZZZ...

PK said: "Let's see how long she really stays gone. Have you gone through these childish temper tantrums with your daughter yet?"

We've gone through them with both our kids. They're quite common in kids under the age of eight or so, then they start to get ashamed of themselves for acting like babies. As long as you make sure you don't reinforce it, of course.


virago said...

Richard, you have absolutely no idea what your talking about when it comes to women's early freedom. I got my info. from people with advanced degrees who actually teach history and archaeology at the local university. And they don't teach women's studies course either. You have absolutely no idea what your talking about when you refer to "living in harmony with nature". I have the feeling that you think I'm talking about living in some pre-technological hunting and gathering society. What I was actually referring to is that we use our free will to destroy nature to the point that many species are on the brink of extinction (or are already) due to destruction of habitat and poaching. Because of our greed and corruption, we've caused man-made ecological disasters like mudslides, forest fires, tidal waves, landslides, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes,etc. We have lakes and seas disappearing all over the world due to mismanagement of water resources linked to irrigation projects. We have air/water pollution, toxic fumes being released because the gas companies are drilling in the wrong places, underground coal fires that poisoning the environment making whole towns uninhabitable. The Oklahoma dustbowl of the 30s? That wasn't caused by nature. That was caused by our abuse of nature. Basically, we could've used our technology to benefit nature AND live in harmony with it. In fact, we have always had that potential, but people are too lazy or too greedy to apply it, or find a better way. They don't want to spend money or whatever, or try to conserve energy. On top of this we have wars and famine that is caused by these wars and/or by greed. People die in these wars, famines, or ecological disasters far more than they ever would in nature. We waste our resources. For the first time in the history of the world, we have the ability to destroy our entire species and more from all the nuclear weapons we've made. And you say using our free will to live in harmony with ourselves and nature is a bad thing? And what really seems to escape your notice is that the majority of this is really caused by HUMAN MALES. You've had the majority of the control, and this what you've brought the world to. You guys can accuse me of throwing tantrums, throw terms like "hysterical" and "illogical" at me, pick on my grammar, deliberately misunderstand me, throw red herrings at me, take what I say out of context, accuse me of "screeching", call me childish, insult me, accuse me of lying,and all the other stuff you accuse me of all day long. But at the end of the day, you know that the majority of what I say it RIGHT. You know it. I know it. And neither one of you can get around that fact no matter how hard you try. I've ran rings around you both on many a thread especially Polish Knight. I haven't always come out on top, but I certainly gave you a run for your money even then. Yeah, I've engaged in childish behavior and mudslinging, but I'm not always the instigator either. Neither Polish Knight OR you are guiltless when it comes to that. However, I have to admit that I really enjoyed insulting Polish Knight and poking holes into his stupid stories. And I know that I was and am right. Well, Richard, I'm REALLY sick and tired of this whole thing. And that's the honest to God truth. I think we've all really pushed NYMOM'S buttons too far on this one. It's really not fair to her because it is her blog. Oh, well, feel free to rip me apart from here on out. I'm done mudslinging. Good-bye, Richard. It's been fun.

PolishKnight said...

Hahaha! Richard, when a teenage girls says "I don't care what you think! Good-BYE!" and slams the door, it's for sure that NONE of what she just said is true. She must have had a "timeout" then came back and breathlessly typed in these long, rambling paragraphs...

Have you ever seen the film "The Big Lebowsky?" I love the end where the German Nihilists are playing technopop in the parking lot and have set Lebowsky's car on fire and cry: "Lebowsky! It's not fair! My girlfriend cut off her big toe!" and Lebowski, the clueless but insightful slacker replies: "Dude! You're a nihilist! How can you care about fairness!"

I was reminded of that when you told Lola Granola that she can't have fairness and all the comforts of Patriarchal patronage and at the same time be back to nature and take her young out into the woods for the ages of 5 to 15 and hope a hyena or lioness gobbles them up.

The sad fact of the matter is that angry, confused women such as V are more common than not in our modern culture and this is even among the more educated classes. They believe that they are entitled to all the best goodies men collectively, but rarely individually have, but without those icky "Real Men" responsibilities. Then they get angry when men don't rush up to deliver on this selfish, impractical viewpoint.

What YOU fail to realize and accept is that this problem is not going away. If anything, it's only being resolved by undermining western patriarchal chivalry which made artificial women's equality possible in the first place.

Hmmm, perhaps that's a solution to the problem at least on a small scale: Parents with spoiled teenage daughters should just send them to school in Saudi Arabia, Africa, or, hell, anyplace without a big socialist sugar daddy. Amount of time it takes them to get the message? A month or so at most.

Actually, this is already done in such countries by the affluent who live in the cities and send their unruly teenagers off to the country to work on the farm. Then they discover that the universe doesn't resolve around pleasing them.

Anonymous said...

V, you're right that we could do a much better job of managing the earth. But progress and development is a process that has been driven by natural self-interest. We share that drive with the animal world but of course our unique intelligence allows us to take it to dangerous limits.

Although we can try to contain it to some extent with laws and our uniquely human concepts of fairness and the common good, we're not likely to ever root out human self-interest. If the USSR and red China could have done it, they would have.

But to lay it all at the feet of human males is a bit simplistic. How often have you women turned your backs on income, salaries, child support, government benefits, investment returns or any other resources that civilization has sent your way because it was generated by the "abuse of nature?"

On the contrary, you usually call for more, not less.

Consider NY and her fixation on women as "bearers of life." Just as we could make more responsible use of the earth, you women could make better-considered use of your reproductive capacities too.

You could select suitable, reliable men to procreate with, form families for your children to be born into and maintain those families once they're made. This would benefit not only your children but our entire society.

But no, all we hear is how you have to be happy and fulfilled and self-actualized and free of any and all sexual "control" and the children must adjust, of course. Self-interest with a capital S. Ultimately the same thing as "greed."

It's easy to throw out the words "greed" and "corruption" in an abstract sense, but we haven't yet heard exactly what benefits of civilization YOU'D like to give up in the the interests of nature. I'm guessing there really aren't any significant ones.

But yes, it's been fun, V. Come back anytime, at NY's sufferance of course. I agree we've imposed upon her a lot but I think she enjoys a good scrap.


Anonymous said...

NYMOM said...

Just an FYI: I said on Gonzo's blog that I wanted young girls to be raised to behave like young 'lionesses'...not spending all of their time chasing after boys fearful that they'll be living their lives alone if they don't play by mens' rules.

That's what all these attacks are against single mothers attempting to force women into compliance with the rules or they can't make their own families...

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, society is all about forcing EVERYONE into "compliance with the rules". Even in lion prides, there are rules. Nature herself makes most of them: You can't get stuff from people for free without them putting up a fight over it. This isn't "greed" on their part. Nobody owes you their stuff. If you want to prove this theory, try opening your doors and putting up a sign that says: "Free stuff! Take whatever you like for your children!" and see how long you can stand it.

I'll add to what Richard said about women accepting Patriarchal Trojan horses. They not only take all the stuff the patriarchy provides that have environmental destructive impact: The nice cars, trivial jewelry to impress each other, disposable diapers, etc. but also add to the "problem" directly by breeding and raising future patriarchs. No woman in America is legally forced to breed with and raise patriarchs.

All that so-called women's equality has achieved it to just repackage chivalrous patronage in an inferior form. Women still work long hours to pay for all the stuff despite technological advances in the last half century that theoretically could have reduced work hours by half and given us flying cars (whenever people gripe "Where's the flying cars I was promised by Popular Mechanics?" I reply: They went to hobby jobs for women to spend on daycare and divorce court and the welfare state for the rest.

Breeding, while necessary for our society to exist, is certainly not the reason for our advancement. EVERY other species on the planet has females that produce young but we dominate this planet and produce stuff women crave. And that's because of the Patriarchy. One more thing:

You're welcome.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM says: "Just an FYI: I said on Gonzo's blog that I wanted young girls to be raised to behave like young 'lionesses'...not spending all of their time chasing after boys fearful that they'll be living their lives alone if they don't play by mens' rules."

PK responds: NYMOM, just an FYI from my side as well: I never suggested women spend "all of their time" chasing after boys either. And the reverse as well: I knew young men who did spent all their free time chasing after girls and they wound up becoming an empty suit. A "player".

That said, the book, The Rules was targeted towards women to use emotional and sexual extortion to control men. When you say women can't "find" the right man or "chase" after them, what you really mean is that some over demanding woman waited for the right guy to fall into her lap like a fish jumping into a bucket.

If a woman wants to have the attitude that men are put on this Earth to rush up to give her goodies with both hands while apologizing for oppressing her, she certainly can sit around waiting for that to happen but the social trend is that those white buffalos are drying up. Great analogy actually. Feminism has done it's best to attack hard working, selfless providers as "oppressors" for decades like settlers blasting away at those pesky buffalo. And then, those buffalo "abandoned" them!

NYMOM said...

Two things Richard, Virago is right when she paraphrased me in that the family bond in nature is a MOTHER AND CHILD...

Fatherhood is a social construct that men have created for whatever reasons good, bad or indifferent.

YET it is not a NATURAL state of affairs...

Now I have no problem with women who wish to remain inside that construct. I recognize that like the Matrix some people when they are shown the reality of their situation wish to remain attached and operated as another light bulb in the Chrustmas string...and I say fine.

YET women who do NOT wish to do that should have that option as well...

Secondly, you keep claiming women are reaching their hand into YOUR pocket...Well guess what you don't control (or should not) all the resources on the planet. This is the attitude I'm talking about that always gets paraded out there in discussions like this: like women aren't entitled to any resources UNLESS men wish to give them some...women are as entitled to the resources of this world as men are...and shouldn't have to feel they have to come hat in hand begging if they want something...

If women wish (as more then 50% of this planet) to dedicate more resources to womens' concerns then the purchase of another 'war toy for boys' then we are entitled to have that happen...

Get over yourselves already.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, the word "natural" can be rather tricky at times. Is a bird's nest built by a society of birds "natural"? A lion pride headed by a lion, is that "natural?" On the flip side of the coin, aren't the social constructs of even the most primitive human societies "natural?"

There are 31 definitions of "natural" in and they probably are insufficient to explore the full, er, nature of the word. One of the most important for the purposes of our discussion is this:

"12. arising easily or spontaneously: a natural courtesy to strangers."

By that definition, human fatherhood is "natural" for humans. By going into lion prides or orangatan families, etc. communal parenting can be "natural" but humans are not lions or orangatans. It is not "natural" for humans to build nests out of straw in trees either. For HUMANS, fatherhood IS natural!

On the other hand: the modern welfare state, "child" support, and women's equality is the most artificial thing made since the Titanic barreled through the ocean to set a record. Western society is barely heaving along with billions in spending and decaying cities to keep the whole illusion sputtering. It's an illusion funded by taxes mostly from... fathers! That's about as "unnatural" as you can get!

But like witches flying on brooms or the world being flat, when enough people believe in something (Hi Richard!) it appears to be reality at least in the short term.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Anonymous said...

PK said: "For HUMANS, fatherhood IS natural!"

Interesting research being done on biparental species such as our own shows that fatherhood does indeed have a natural basis in bonding hormones produced in the male body during the female's pregnancy.

But the hormonal responses occur only when the male is present during the female's pregnancy.

Just another reason why I'm not a big supporter of the rights of unmarried fathers, while I'll support to the death the rights fo a dad whose actually signed on the line and been there on task.

But even if none of this were true, like we've repeatedly shown and everyone can plainly see if they're honest and reasonable, "nature" is not a model any of us want to return to.

Even among woman-firsters, the ones who scream the loudest about nature, the ONLY thing they want out of nature is exclusive control of children. For all the rest, they'd just as soon stick with all the social constructs of civilization, particularly support obligations.

"Well guess what you don't control (or should not) all the resources on the planet."

Don't we? I thought that's just what you and V were saying a minute ago. And FYI, there are no "shoulds" in nature, NY. "Shoulds" are a social construct.

"This is the attitude I'm talking about that always gets paraded out there in discussions like this: like women aren't entitled to any resources UNLESS men wish to give them some...women are as entitled to the resources of this world as men are..."

Women aren't entitled by nature to any of MEN'S resources unless we wish to give them some or unless they present us with something of value to us in return. That's how nature works.

NY, you and V both seem to think that the "resources of the world" are like daisies lying around waiting to be gathered and the bad old men are just snatching them up so fast that the poor little girls can't catch up.

Most of the resources of the civilized world are CREATED, m'dears, by the sweat and blood of men. Be honest, NY, what you and the other woman-firsters (or "ordinary women" if you want to call them that) want is not a heap of coal or a hunk of lead or an expanse of cultivable dirt but rather the resources that flow from men's (mostly) use and development of those things.

And guess what? We're happy to share them with you. If, and to the extent that, you're willing to make homes and share children with us.

Ain't nature beautiful? ;-)


PolishKnight said...

With Hormones AND MSG!

Richard says: "But the hormonal responses occur only when the male is present during the female's pregnancy.
Just another reason why I'm not a big supporter of the rights of unmarried fathers, while I'll support to the death the rights fo a dad whose actually signed on the line and been there on task."

While hormones play a key role in many of our decisions, it's worth noting that this applies to NEITHER parents in the case of adoption, for instance. In addition, the best argument against that claim is that if hormones were so great at human decisions, wouldn't unwed mothers be making better ones?

One of the most amazing traits of our humanity is the notion of empathy itself. Despite V's claim to the contrary, humans are actually responsible caretakers of the planet. Other species would simply wipe out any competing, but non-useful organisms without a second thought.

virago said...

"One of the most amazing traits of our humanity is the notion of empathy itself"

Polish Knight, your right about men having empathy for their fellow man. Here's a great example:

virago said...

"And guess what? We're happy to share them with you. If, and to the extent that, you're willing to make homes and share children with us."

NYMOM, isn't this an absolute hoot! Richard is one of those guys who has AN EDUCATED FULL-TIME WORKING WIFE. Good thing she's willing to make a home, share children, AND PROVIDE RESOURCES. After all, it wasn't that long ago that Richard was posting comments whining that both he and his wife have to work because they can't afford for her not to. Oh, well, it's the men who benefit the most from feminism who complain the loudest! I rest my case. BWHAAAAA!

PolishKnight said...

Actually, V, it's WOMEN and MOTHERS who get the "female sentencing" discount including crimes against children, men, and other women. Remember the diaper wearing astronaut? Can you imagine a MAN getting bond and off of electronic tracking after trying to kidnap a rival lover or woman with duct tape and a bat in their trunk?

Here are some links about the female sentencing discount:

Here's one of the best:
"This is one (The Winnipeg Sun, 6/18/09). A Canadian woman, Magan Marie Muir, was babysitting her boyfriend's two year old son, when, for unreported reasons, she forced both his hands into boiling water causing second, third and fourth-degree burns. Then she lied about the incident to the police, claiming the toddler had gotten into the water by himself.
The judge thought 18 months of house arrest was about right, reasoning that Muir wasn't a threat to the public."

Really. Your claim that men are just playing "good ol' boy" politics and looking the other way while women are beaten is amazing considering all the laws passed recently stating to protect ONLY women. The violence against WOMEN act among them.

All the protection, handouts, and entitlements you've received have not made your more noble than men but rather just a spoiled whiner projecting your own desires onto us. Your appeal to my chivalrous impulses are hilarious. Don't you get it yet? I don't have any! But you don't know anything else to try. Keep doing so though. Maybe Richard will get the message and give up his chivalrous patronage to protect your faux equality.

Us men didn't share "rights" with you right away because WE earned them and continue to earn them. And no, the phrase "natural rights" doesn't mean that they exist on their own magically. The lionesses seem to have figured that out.

PolishKnight said...

I don't recall Richard saying he couldn't afford for his wife not to work. Your claim that Richard "benefits" from feminism even as she _has_ to work seems rather strange. Wouldn't Richard be benefitting from feminism only if HE didn't have to work?

This is your thinking, again, that men "benefit" when women do as they please and are happy but, if a man dares to be happy with his life, even a tough one doing jobs women don't want then, eek!, he must be oppressing a woman somehow. He has some "right" he's not sharing with her but when she's got something? Finder's keepers!

Not only have men not benefitted from feminism but neither have women. Now they HAVE to work more often than not! Hahahahaha!

One of my favorite episodes of Family Guy is "Love Thy Trophy"

"Meg gets a job at a pancake house so she can buy herself a Prada bag. She lets the restaurateur, Flappy, believe that Stewie is her baby so she'll get the job. She soon realizes that allowing customers to think Stewie is a crack-addicted baby and that she is his single mother makes people give her higher tips. Stewie plays along because he loves the restaurant's pancakes."

In the end, Meg loses the Prada bag when Lois takes it to exchange with social services to get the baby back.

That massively watched social satire says it all about a number of insane social trends: People rewarding bad motherhood with money. Women working just to buy themselves more stuff to impress other women. Women winding up working and not getting anything for their efforts than if they had just stayed at home.

Anonymous said...

I have never whined, V. I simply stated a fact.

No one questions a female's entitlement to whatever resources she can gather on their own. But it's been you and NY who have whined about men having all the resources, and in a nature model there is simply no justification for a female to lay claim to any of a male's resources unless she provides him with offspring and shares those offspring with him.

For that you must turn to the "social constructs" that NY has no use for.

But about the benefits of feminism...feminism has benefitted my daughter in that she will have choices about what to do in life. Well and good. Feminism did not particularly benefit ME at all. A generation ago my father, doing the same work as I do, supported us all comfortably and sent us to college on one income, and my parents retired comfortably on the same.

Feminism, then, flooded the labor markets with more workers which drove wages down and housing and education prices up. Now we both work and lead a more hurried and less fulfilling lifestyle for the same result.

This on top of having my children (and my assets) "held hostage" for my "good behavior" by a family court system which has been thoroughly poisoned by the no-fault divorce which was feminism's baby. Not that I worry about this for own part, because my wife is even more of a marriage nut than I am, but many men just like me do.

Exactly how do I benefit?


Anonymous said...

Well, we cross-posted, PK, and you took the words I just posted right out of my mouth. ;-)


PolishKnight said...

If you to see your words again, you'll have to agree to a visitation schedule and a support agreement with my attorney!

I'm going to quibble with your claim that your daughter has more "choices" what to do in life because of feminism.


Yeah yeah, I know: Before feminism all women were forced into the home to cook and clean while men could choose to be CEO's or Nobel Prize winners or both.

The reality is just the opposite: Working for a living wasn't something most men "chose" to do. It was, and is, something they HAVE TO DO. After all, if men could just "choose" to be a CEO or nobel prize winner, then why don't more of them choose just that?

This explains V's anger and confusion: Why is it that she couldn't get her "choice" of a man who both earns a ton of cash and cooks and cleans while getting an easy job with high pay and little work? It must be due to those evil, "greedy" men.

Actually, middle and upper class women had just as many (although different) choices in the past. Many women did choose professional careers. Karl Marx lived in his sister's factory while penning diatribes against capitalist oppression! Women could rise up through the ranks but, like men, they had to make personal choices. Men couldn't "balance work and career" by doing a half assed job at both and expecting their kids and employers to pick up the slack either.

And in addition, the women who made this hard choice, like the men, had more of their money after taxes to keep! A study in the 1960's found that single professional women outearned single men (since single men were the first ones on the chopping blocks in layoffs after married men and single women!)

You daughter may have more choices, but there's a fun story on national review about the tyranny of choice. If people love choice so much, why do they prefer bundled plans from their mobile phone providers?

Sure, your daughter now has the "choice" to work long hours at a job that may not pan out and marry a low income earning man to cook and clean and do the housechores. Do even YOU want that?

The notion of feminism is simply that women should get more choices but without responsibilities making them really no choice at all. It's like the joke: would you rather be rich or stupid? (If you want to see poor and stupid, watch a VH-1 reality TV show!) Naturally, women want the "choice" to have a fun, hobby job and marry a rich guy who will do at least half of the cooking and cleaning (Oh, wait, she's a "victim" so he should do all of it!) But there are only so many of those gigs to go around meaning that many just wind up with the worst by default. (But enough about single career women and the housing market!)

Indeed, your wife may be a marriage nut like you but since so many American profe$$ional women have these entitlement attitudes I didn't want to take that chance. It was also a matter of pride (pun intended!) Such women I broke up with turned REAL nasty when I did indicating I had dodged a bullet. (Note V, that's not a "whine" but an observation. I preferred they reveal themselves.)

If you want to see the kind of men that feminism is providing your daughter with, check out the films Clerks and sequel Clerks 2 sometime. This goes even for many professional men that such women crave. They now just want to watch porn and play nintendo. In the old days, it was society that pressured these bachelors to settle down on the women's schedule. Now, society punishes them!

Finally, regarding men benefitting from feminism. NYMOM tolerates me, somewhat, because she knows I dish out ALL the dirt! Men DID benefit from feminism in one key way: It made women more slutty. And a lot of men I know view that as worth putting up with all the other shit. They find the notion of being a virgin going into marriage not only quaint, but even disgusting and a shame. Men should sow their wild oats. As Thomas Aquinas argued 750 years ago: When a society prohibits legalized prostitution, it pushes all women to become whores.

NYMOM said...

PK: regarding your adoption comment I am a 1000% supporter of adoption...

What I'm talking about on this blog is the difference between a legal adoption (where a mother willingly consents to give up her child so they can have a better life) and some selfish recreational sperm donor snatching a kid from a mother to get out of paying child support...

Big difference there...

NYMOM said...

BTW, Richard, I don't believe in that 'harmonal response' baloney that men have been shown to exhibit when their wives, g/f, etc., are's very self-serving for men to come up with this baloney but then to poo- poo the notion that physical bonding goes on between a mother and child who are actually physically linked one to another...Male so-called harmonal response sounds like something from the Borg on Star Trek.

Anyway, this post is becoming entirely too crowded with comments so I'm going to bring back another old post addressing this harmonal response baloney.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, I love the double standard in addition to the logical conundrum you've created.

You've implied the men are greedy while the mother is selfless for her decisions but that's not necessarily the case. Many men spend far more on court fees then they would just paying child-support. And many mothers give up their babies for adoption for their own personal selfish reasons: Because they want to finish school or, and I can respect this, don't want to become single mothers!

And hmmm... that leads to the next observation. The conundrum. If the mothers are giving their babies a better life by giving them up, even willingly, what does that have to say about women who don't and become unwed mothers under THE EXACT SAME CIRCUMSTANCES? Hmmmm? As I pointed out, for you the "best interests of the child" are simply what the mother wants which comes across as far more selfish than you accuse men of being.

That alone should be thought provoking, but I would add that nearly all the fathers I know view their role as one of obligations, not about defining children as property. If they do order their children around, it's usually due to some misguided notion on their parts about a need to be strict or repeating the mistakes of their parents than an attempt to retain a cherished societal image. Men are the main providers of most children in this society whether in their custody or not! When you gals can even MATCH us, then you'll be in a position to lecture us about greed!

PolishKnight said...

Nobel Peace Prizes for Everyone!

NYMOM claims: "to poo- poo the notion that physical bonding goes on between a mother and child who are actually physically linked one to another..."

Question, NYMOM: is this bond also going on when the expectant mother smokes, drinks, and/or gets an abortion?

A simple yes or no, please.

Anonymous said...

Nobody poo-pooed the mother-child bond, NY. The only poo-pooing going on here is yours against our bonds with our kids, at every opportunity.

In nature, BTW, the physical link between mother and young is of no significance WITHOUT the hormonal response.

They've studied this in-depth at Cambridge, using mostly domestic animals. If oxytocin, which is produced in large quantities during birth, is blocked, the mother will reject her young.

However, if you introduce a virgin female to another female's young and administer oxytocin at the same time, the female will exhibit mothering behavior toward that young. No physical link required.

Perhaps that helps explain why women are so blase about aborting their young in utero, PK.

Nature just messes you up at every turn, doesn't it?

But like I said before, nature is a shit-hole anyway. Let's just stick with the civilized nuclear family. That way we get our kids and you get your stuff and nobody has to go to Umoja.


virago said...

Richard, I don't buy your story. You and your wife are both well educated people with good jobs. More than likely, each of you makes more than enough money to support your entire family quite comfortably without the other having to work IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO. That said, you and your wife probably decided a long time ago to live a certain lifestyle that requires two incomes to maintain it. I have a feeling that's the real reason neither one of you can afford to stay home with the kids. It's all about that bigger better house in the suburbs that two incomes can afford rather than a modest house in a less expensive, but nice neighborhood on one income. Now all of a sudden, your bemoaning the fact that your lives are so harried because your wife has to work, and it's all feminism's fault. Bullshit! You both made choices, and your both stuck working because of them. OTOH, your wife is well-educated with a good job. That's due to feminism. Your own poor choices put you both in positions where you have to work, but's it's the benefits of feminism that keeps you from going down a big financial rabbit hole AND your daughter has a better future. Ah the benefits of feminism!

PolishKnight said...

It doesn't happen often, but I agree with V (at least initially). The notion that both parents 'have' to work is based upon a higher lifestyle BUT most of that higher cost lifestyle is due to feminism itself.

Absolutely, V, if Richard say decided to... not send his daughter to college then I'm sure that would lower the bills, don't you agree? I know janitors who support two parent families (no, not me!) who just spend their money more wisely than the families with Material Girls in them. Most of that... stuff is what women want. Most men are happy with a big screen TV. Come now, that doesn't really cost a lot of money! Costco has them on sale for $600!!!

As usual, V, when a woman is involved in a bad decision you drag the man in but whenever possible it's the man's fault (the evil patriarchy keeping women down.) I wonder... if men are the irresponsible ones how come you don't ever rush up to take blame for anything?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, V, one of us could stay home full-time. My wife actually did for a while. We're not working for the here and now but for our kids' future.

We don't have a big expensive house. We have a one-story ranch in a subdivision in a good school district. It's the demand for good crime-free schools controlled by good responsible parents that drives up the cost of housing.

We don't indulge in luxuries. We have two cars that are both about 8 years old. We don't have cell phones. My wife consignment-shops. We go out to eat two or three times a month at kid-friendly places and have our drinks and dessert at home. For vacations we visit relatives on a farm every summer.

When we went to college it cost about 4K for one year. Now, our financial adviser tells us that each child will probably need about 100K for college unless we want them to pay off student debt for most of their adult lives.

We have to plan for this while we try to max out the 401Ks and contribute the max to our Roths every year so that we will not have to show up on our kids' doorstep one day with our hats in our hands when they're trying to build careers and families of their own.

Good luck with all that with your sperm-donor baby.

My dad did all this by himself and also came home to hot meals on the table and the domesticities taken care of so everyone could relax in the evenings.

I repeat, what changed?


PolishKnight said...

Richard, I'm chuckling at your claim you're paying more for housing (and presumably taxes) for the "schools" and then you're going to get hit again for college for your daughter.

Indeed, not only do the "sperm bank" babies and their unwed mothers need a lot of "luck" but so will even your daughter.

And for what? The hope she can double dip and marry a guy who earns at least as much as she does? You didn't answer my question on that. Do you really think women are happier overall with this sophies' choice of getting a lottery ticket to win nobel prizes and CEO positions versus the higher cost of living and lack of eligible Wally Cleavers?

My wife and I have mobile phones, but no landline. After the AlGore hidden internet tax, the total cost is $50 a month. If we send our daughters to community colleges or tradeschools, she gets a useful field (perhaps one that's even more practical than an English Lit, Women's Studies, or even law degree at a second tier college) and at a fraction of the price.

Sending sons to most major universities today is like feeding the lions. Look at the Duke LaCrosse players! Consider sending them overseas and even your daughter for that matter (if you send her to a state school, she'll probably come back a man hating leftist.)

Regarding the cost of housing. We rent even in the school district area. When everyone else was saying "Housing ALWAYS goes up!" we were staying AWAY as far as possible. We'll pick up a McMansion at about $200K.

Anonymous said...

I guess I didn't answer. OK...

"Sure, your daughter now has the "choice" to work long hours at a job that may not pan out and marry a low income earning man to cook and clean and do the housechores. Do even YOU want that?"

But if she doesn't prepare herself for something, she could have a marriage that may not pan out either and then what?

Women initiate most of the divorces but men still initiate some, particularly when there are no children at home (i.e. early and late). The no-fault divorce poison has affected everyone's sense of responsibility.

One of my sisters, against everyone's advice, married her high-school sweetheart at 18, with no plans for college.

Less than a year later he wanted out.

Luckily she was young and there was plenty of time for her to regroup and get back on the college-track and start a good career. But what if it had happened later, maybe after a few kids?

We had our kids relatively old. My wife has no intention of raising grandchildren in her 60s. She insists that our kids be able to take care of themselves and whatever kids they have. That's why she takes their college funds so seriously.

But I hear you about sending our son off to college. That must be the scariest damn thing in the world, next to seeing your kids learn to drive. Hence my wife's "Make a baby, give away all your stuff" sermon.

We'll have to come up with one for drinking and strippers too.


PolishKnight said...

Richard, you still didn't answer my question: Do YOU want a daughter who gets a great college degree and above average income job and comes home with some guy she met who works as a waitor and says he's a great cook and loves kids?

I'm not pulling this example out of my butt either. I have a friend who had this happen. She thought she would be happy but when he didn't become successful and basically change to suit her, she eventually dumped him.

In response to your counter question: I have already answered it. It's a feminist bugaboo claim that in the old days divorced women were living on the street in cardboard boxes. There were options for women to get decent paying jobs that would pay the bills. It's not easy, but was doable.

But even so, that was the exception rather than the norm while unwed motherhood and conflict between the sexes is now the norm rather than the exception.

Let's try looking at it this way: Life isn't a sure thing. Men, or women, can do everything right and still have something go wrong. That's "equality." Why should your daughter be guaranteed a safe, fun life as compared to your son whose still subject to the same, and greater, breadwinner requirements than 50 years ago? Isn't this notion of protecting your daughter from risk, but not considering what your son will go through, favoring one child over the other?

It's like the Chinese mothers drowning their daughters in stream beds, but in reverse.

And it's not even accomplishing much anyway since you just pointed out that the cost of living went up and as breadwinning men become scarce your daughter may have problems anyway.

"Those who give up freedom to gain a little security deserve neither freedom or security" -- Benjamen Franklin

Regarding your wife's retirement plan: Did you even think that through? If you spend a hundred grand per kid out of your 401K to educate them, then basically you are taking care of the grandkids in your 60's anyway albeit via an indirect route. And that's no guarantee, FYI. With divorce rates having jumped thanks to the "benefits" of feminism, your daughter (and/or son) may need your help if, knock wood, such a thing happens.

Anonymous said...

The 401K is for us, PK. College savings are separate with their own rules and tax provisions.

"Do YOU want a daughter who gets a great college degree and above average income job and comes home with some guy she met who works as a waitor and says he's a great cook and loves kids?"

OF COURSE I'd like for her to marry an equal or better and chances are she will but that'll be all up to her. My younger sister got a good education and married way down. I wouldn't call her life "safe" or "fun." I'd say it's considerably less safe and fun than mine. But, hey, she seems happy enough with it and they have three kids so who the hell am I to say she did wrong?

Taking society as it now exists, I fail to see how I would be doing my son any good by not educating my daughter.

Again, no condescension intended at all, but I think you'll feel differently when you have your kids and theory becomes less important than immediacies.


PolishKnight said...

Er, Richard, you had argued that feminism made your daughter's life "safer" and "fun" by giving an option in case she gets a divorce or her husband dies and giving her more choices, respectively.

For women like your younger sister, feminism really hasn't made their life safer or even more fun by your own admission.

So your claim that "chances" are your daughter will marry up and that'll be up to her is untrue even now and it's only getting worse. More women than men attend and graduate college already. In order for feminism to work, there have to be a majority of women, in ALL major classes, who wind up marrying DOWN whether they "choose" to or not.


And that's assuming they even get to marry down or settle, like your wife did, for marrying you (not to say that you're chopped liver, of course.) After all, why couldn't you wife have married a super CEO and gotten a job as CEO and then she would at least have a mobile phone? Didn't you just say that feminism gave women that "choice?"

I don't think you're being condescending but I also think you're being unrealistic in thinking that your daughter is somehow "special" from everyone else's and can ignore the realities of life. People who know me say that I don't react like other people do (I'm not chivalrous, for example.) I prefer not to be one of the herd because I know where the cowboys are leading them to.

PolishKnight said...

Oops, I forget to address your other primary/common concern: What good does it do your son by not educating your daughter?

I wasn't just thinking about your son. Silly me, I was thinking about ALL of you: You and your wife included. You poor schmuck! You're working yourself to death to please your kids, your wife, and then you wind up being trapped. Then you tell me that _I'll_ be that way too? NO FRIGGIN WAY! I saw what that did to my old man.

For starters, not educating your daughter (at a university level) would free up resources for you and your wife to spend more time with your kids and not beign a slave in the rat race. Squeak squeak! Your son would have more resources to pursue a much higher degree which most women crave in men. You may look at these as unacceptable tradeoffs, but they are still "good" options.

virago said...

Richard, The point is-you said neither one of you COULD afford it, and your wife only BRIEFLY stayed home because she was in between jobs due to a move. Now you admit that you can, but...excuses, excuses, excuses. Now it's the demand for good crime-free schools patrolled by responsible schools that drives up the price of houseing blah, blah, blah. Gee, the other day it was feminism that was doing this. You can't have it both ways. The point is-you and your wife both work because you want certain things for your kids, and it's feminism that is allowing you to do this in the form of an educated wife with a good job. That's it. Case closed.

PolishKnight said...

Er, no V. Richard is saying his wife "has to work" to maintain a standard of living that his father, in the good 'ol sexist days, was able to provide.

How you twist this into a benefit that "feminism" provided for him is amusing. His wife "having to work" isn't a benefit for him OR his wife! And Richard is one of the "lucky" ones (I'm not lucky, I'm just smart! :-)

Anonymous said...

PK, I didn't say that feminism and an equal opportunity for an education would benefit my daughter by giving her a safer or more fun life. It benefits her by giving her the freedom to decide what direction her life should take.

I don't feel it's my place to decide that for her, in effect, by limiting her education. Hell, she may not even want to marry or have children (she doesn't like babies or dolls even now) and if she doesn't, far better for everyone that she not be pressured into it by lack of alternatives.

My sister who was abandoned by her teenaged husband has never found another man she wanted to marry. But she has a nice career in nursing now and takes care of herself and enjoys life. Should she still be living with our parents and maybe styling hair for spending money?

None of us would have been pleased with that, particularly not my parents.

I'm not worried about my son racking up enough degrees to impress some woman. If the money runs out before he's done then by that time he can earn some of it himself. One of the benefits of a good school system like ours is that he can start earning college credit ahead of time via AP's and CLEPs and shave some costs that way. My wife knocked out an entire year of college that way.

I'm not complaining about my life. I like my life. We have less leisure than my parents did but I'm still not working myself to death. We still have a good deal of flexibility, and we've both turned down opportunities for more money to conserve our family time. If I'm trapped, I like the trap just fine.

"Then you tell me that _I'll_ be that way too?"

Not saying you will, just saying that you don't yet know. In spite of NY's snide dismissals of us dads and our love for our kids, comparing us to nannies and camp counselors and the like, I can tell you right now you don't really anticipate the love of your kids until you have them, or know the lengths to which you might go to ease their way.

V said: "Now it's the demand for good crime-free schools patrolled by responsible schools that drives up the price of houseing blah, blah, blah. Gee, the other day it was feminism that was doing this."

Feminism flooded the job market with more workers, which has driven individual wages down but has put two earners in most families which in turn increases the amount that families can put towards homes in good districts. Thus the bidding war. This did not occur during my parents' single-earner generation.

Feminism did not benefit me, personally, AT ALL. You can retire that notion right now, V.


virago said...

Richard, whatever you want to believe. I really don't care. But I'll tell you what I don't believe. It's this shit your handing me about why your wife can't stay home. I'm pretty sure you make good money. I'm pretty sure that you could've bought a nice house in a decent neighborhood on one income IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO. Not satisfied with the school district? Well, than HOMESHOOL. People do this stuff all the time, and their kids turn out better educated anyway. They often win scholarships because of it. You and your wife could've done a lot of things in order to stay home with your kids. You just chose not to. That said, your wife didn't get all those degrees just because she wanted to stay home. She got them so that she could have a CAREER. She planned to work all along, and you know it.

PolishKnight said...

Richard, one doesn't need feminism to decide what direction one's life should take! Sheesh! Now we're getting into philosophy! Go to a Buddhist temple sometime.

Your notion of not being able to limit your daughter sounds a bit indulgent. If your daughter decides to she wants to become a champion ice skater, and she's lousy on ice, do you still throw a half million at her so she can pursue her dream? The show American Idol is about people laughing at children who think they're "great" singers because nobody had the guts to tell them otherwise so they get a harsh dose of reality on the show.

Your question about your sister is loaded and in an interesting way. You absolve her of responsibility for winding up single by saying that she was "abandoned" by her husband and never "found" a man she wanted to marry. I won't dispute your claim she was abandoned, but in other cultures the rest are excuses. Consider myself: I'm accused of not being able to "find" a woman that wants me in the states and "had" to go overseas. I didn't "have" to go overseas. I could just be a helpless dating loser like your sister!

Also, plenty of men support a family without a college degree. Get out some more.

And that brings us to the main point about women's equality: Even with all the same "opportunities" as men, you still are going to have to cut them slack at your expense, and the expense of your son. It's the same ol' chivalrous patronage!

The difference between helpless women and children is that the male children are expected to GROW UP!

It's truly amazing that you're not "worried" about your son racking up degrees to impress women while his ability to be a provider is more critical than EVER while, at the same time, your daughter's education is just a backup.

Richard, there's a joke that when someone says they "can't complain" the person asks "are you fine then?" and they respond: "No, I just can't complain." Here you are saying your daughter should have fun and safety but when you wind up in a trap, you are supposed to "like it".

When you try to make claims about how I'm going to treat my kids, you have to consider that I already am little like most married men out there. I do not want a "typical" child anymore than a "typical" life. My friends laugh that I'm going to raise my children like a Ferengi.

An additional observation about the cost of living and wages due to feminism. If feminism didn't benefit YOU personally than it didn't benefit your wife either, really, since as I love to point out: men have been "sharing" their wealth all along. As you made less and she "had" to work, that's one "choice" that feminism DENIED them and it's a biggie. It also denied women such as your sister a supply of breadwinner mates they crave.

Indeed, to close, "choices" are in and of themselves decisions to close one door while opening another, to reverse a saying. They are not consequence free.

PolishKnight said...

V says: "Richard, whatever you want to believe. I really don't care."

Translation from girlese: "I am obseessed with what Richard believes."

Anonymous said...

V, I don't know how to make it any clearer to you, so for the last time: my parents generation, in general, did not have to homeschool or scrounge around and sacrifice for ways for moms to stay home. Our generation does.

That is thanks to feminism and the resulting flooded labor market, and it benefitted ME not at all.

My wife got her degrees because she wanted to have a career since there was nobody then to take care of her but herself. The same reason I got mine. Good thing she did, too, since she didn't marry me till her mid 30s and that would have been an awfully long time to have to live with her parents.

Hell, we've both got degrees but we'd both love to stay home!

My baby sister on the other hand never wanted to stay home. She wanted a career. Actually I think she has a "need to be needed" thing going on but whatever floats her boat is none of my business. So OK, she benefitted.

Me, no. Forget it.

And good bye to you and this issue.


PolishKnight said...

Richard, that all sounds like what is known as a "self-fulfilling prophesy". Women need to be safe from getting divorced or winding up alone if they can't find the breadwinner men they crave, so they jump on the feminist bandwagon which mows down the supply of such men and their salaries which justifies them getting on the bus in the first place.

Or as the saying goes: If you're in a hole, there's no other way to go but dig deeper!

In the meantime, you and your wife are they _lucky_ ones. Millions of lower class men and women (and their children) wind up being tossed off the back of the sled to the goddess of feminine fun and safety.

I love what Ann Coulter said about the liberal attack on Gov. elect McDonnell's thesis:

""In [McDonnell's master's thesis], he described women having jobs as detrimental to the family"

Where did he ever get that idea? Oh, wait, REALITY!

virago said...

Well, Richard, maybe we can bring back the original GI BILL and all those great welfare benefits that allowed most of your father's generation to support their families. Good-bye to you and this issue, Richard!

PolishKnight said...

The USA casualties from WWII was 418,000 and this was in service to their country, not personal reproductive choices.

Indeed, that's an interesting comparison. Soldiers had to obey orders. Using this logic, society should outlaw abortion and unwed motherhood...

All in the name of what's best for the children and society, of course.

virago said...

The GI BILL was COMPENSATION to veterans for what they gave up going to war. It didn't matter if they spent the war on the frontlines, or stateside-typing up paperwork to order rations for those on the front line. The point is that a VETERAN made less in over all life-time earnings than a guy who never went to war. Women make less in over all life-time earnings because they are usually the PRIMARY CAREGIVERS of children. Caregiving is necessary to turn infants into productive adult workers to fuel this entire economy. It's called HUMAN CAPITAL. It doesn't matter if a woman works full-time, part-time, or not at all. It doesn't matter if she's married or single. If she has a child, she's going to be the primary caregiver regardless. Women, mothers in particular, ARE THE BACKBONE OF THE ENTIRE ECONOMY. We're productive workers in our own right AND we raise the next generation of workers with little or no compensation. Yes, we deserve compensation for this. All those male breadwinners wouldn't have that nice retirement if they had to take care of children at the same time. Instead, their wives did it and got shit for retirement. Two-income families aren't perfect, but that's one reason why women SHOULD work-for the retirement benefits. OTOH, women are still screwed because they usually are stuck in flexible, low-paying jobs with no benefits in order to meet childcare obligations. They are usually the ones who take off of work for a sick kid or whatever. Plus, the male breadwinner tax system we have in place penalizes the lower earner in a two-income family. That's usually the wife. This all cuts into a working mother's life-time earning potential. Oh, I can hear the chorus now- but men do more childcare now than they use to! Wah! Big deal. THEY STILL DON'T DO ENOUGH CHILDCARE. What it boils down to is this-men get a SECOND INCOME, and women get the SECOND SHIFT. Now this has been argued to death on other posts. You still don't get it, and it's not worth going over and over again. NYMOM was right. It's like the Matrix. It's like someone offered us the choice of the red or blue pill. The red pill tells us the truth of the Matrix, and the blue pill returns us to the illusionary world of the Matrix. Well Polish Knight, I took the red pill, and you took the blue pill. Buy hey, Polish Knight, I don't blame you. Like I said. Survival of the fittest. You can't cope nor adapt. The strong survive, and the weak perish. Your just too weak.

PolishKnight said...

Virago, when you make a point they are usually totally counter to reality. The vets didn't get money as some kind of financial compensation scheme for loss of wartime civilian earnings. The idea was to compensate them for their service to the country.

You have failed to address my main observation: Women do not serve the country in their personal reproductive choices and, in the case of impovershed single mothers, society would be better off if they didn't breed and stick the taxpayer with the bill and future criminals. Comparing them to military men is like comparing a bank robber who uses a gun to get money for himself to a soldier taking risks under military orders to protect the nation.

It's hilarious that you trot out the silly claim that mothers raise children with little compensation. Yet... how do they afford to feed and house themselves much less their children if they are doing it all alone? Oh, wait, that's right: Men support them in that role while career women would rather dump their kids into daycare than support a SAH father. Got it. You've just devalued career women. Congratulations.

As usual, you project your own selfish demands onto men. You gripe they don't do enough childcare (all caps) but you fail to see the women demanding the men work longer hours and earn more money.

Regarding human capital. You treat children as chattel and demand to be paid to raise them. How about this concept: Why not raise children because you, gasp, love them? If you don't want to give up your precious time to raise kids, then don't have them! This is called adult responsibility. Men are held to this standard and it's a good one. Perhaps if we didn't have 6 billion people fighting for limited resources, maybe the world would be a different place.

I love your crazy close about the Matrix and then trying to make a lionesse roar "the strong survive, the weak perish". Er, hello, if it wasn't for the welfare state and patriarchal patonrage, you'd be in a burka in a matter of seconds and the unwed mother's children starving on the streets and that would be the end of your tirade.

virago said...

YYYYYaaawwwwwnnnnn!!!!......*falls asleep due to boredome*zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

PolishKnight said...

Virago, there's treatments for your condition:

virago said...

And here's good advice for yours:

PolishKnight said...

V, as I pointed out to you, the "real man" shaming ploy is meant to play upon machismo insecurities, not inspire men to reach beyond them. In addition, the ploy reveals the sexist thinking of the speaker that only real "men" can be "assured and self-confident" (as termed in the article). V, you foolishly reveal that you have a low opinion of yourself and of the men in your life.

Indeed, the whole notion if contradictory as the article itself shows: "if you’re thirty years old and you still think that calling people names is cool because it makes you feel better, then that is a problem and you have to deal with it" If someone is reading the article to "be a real man" or to namecall someone else as not a real man, then they're not "real men".

But you already know that.


virago said...

"V, you foolishly reveal that you have a low opinion of yourself and of the men in your life."

Whatever you say Polish Knight *rolls eyes*. I guess you would know. After all, you dated (supposedly) dozens of women in 10 years, and they were all nasty. More than likely, those women had enough self-esteem to get rid of a conceited asshole like you. However, I guess it worked out for you because your happily married to the woman of your dreams. That's great. I guess the thought that someone might mate with you because it can't be as bad as starving in the Ukraine would appeal to you. Ah, the perfect marriage-economic imperialism meets low-self esteem. I've got to see what I'm missing! Let me check out the bottom link:

Let's see-Anastasia King, a beautiful 20 year old classical pianist from Russia. Wow, Polish Knight, your absolutely right! These eastern european girls are absolutely gorgeous and well-educated. I can see why you would want one. God bless all the starving people in the Ukraine, or you wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell with any of these women! Now I have to scroll down down and look at the American husband. OMG! *runs screaming from the room* "I'm blind! I'm blind! OMG, he's just so ugly!" *vomits* Indie King, Jr. *shudders* fat, bald, 40 year old American loser with glasses. Wow! Now I know what I'm missing! Thank God for that! And it sure doesn't help that Anastasia King was murdered by this weirdo. Thank God, I'm an American, and winners like this don't want me!

PolishKnight said...

V, if you keep doing that there's a chance they'll roll out of your head! :-)

Let's assume for a moment that you're right and these women had enough self-esteem to get rid of a conceited asshole such as myself. As Richard points out, that doesn't seem to stop American women from sleeping with and bearing children for millions of OTHER conceited assholes out there! That hurts my feelings! :-)

Going back to 2001, eh? It's likely that the per capita rate of spousal murder is LOWER with Russian brides than the general population.

Regarding your generalization about King as a "loser". That's not entirely true. He was a professor in international business. And come now, bashing him for wearing glasses?!?! How 7th grade! Bad marriages that end in murder are nothing new. Check out an Agatha Christie novel sometime.

You do have a point, though, that King was no looker but like you said, neither are many aging American career women either. After all, if they were such winners they wouldn't have been desperate enough to date the likes of me! :-)

Finally, FYI, Kyrgyzstan is not "Russia" anymore than Canada is "America". The USSR is broken up.

virago said...

"You do have a point, though, that King was no looker but like you said, neither are many aging American career women either. After all, if they were such winners they wouldn't have been desperate enough to date the likes of me! :-)"

I don't care if King was a professor in international business or the President of the United States. It has nothing to do with what he does for a living, or how much he makes. He was a 40 year old man who had negative views of American women. Why? Most likely because he couldn't keep a woman interested in him. Sure he was ugly, but there are ugly guys out there who have something else to recommend them-GOOD CHARACTER. What kind of character flaws did King have? Well, let's see-the guy beat and murdered his wife. A wife who wouldn't have looked twice at him if weren't for desperate economic circumstances in her own country. Being ugly was the least of his problems, but because he lacked GOOD CHARACTER, he looked even more desperate as an ugly loser. And unfortunately, these are the kind of guys who like foreign women. Yeah, I'm sure there are guys who marry foreign women because they actually love them and treat them well. Exceptions noted. But more than likely, these guys don't go out of their way to marry foreign women because they have a problem with American women due to their own shortcomings. And they certainly don't have to take advantage of poor economic standards to entice some foreign woman to marry them. King was a guy who couldn't keep a woman due to his own mysoganist behavior. He blamed the American women for his own shortcomings rather than look at himself. Out of desperation, he buys into the stereotype of the "submissive" (traditional) foreign woman because he thinks they'll be easier to push around than an American woman would be. He also takes advantage of poor economic standards in other countries because he knows certain foreign women are desperate to escape that. He also wants to make them financially dependent on him so that THEY HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME LEAVING HIM. Unfortunately, in King's case, he found out that his wife wasn't as submissive that he thought, and he killed her. I don't care what you look like, or how much money you make. I don't care how well you claim to treat your wife. The parallels between you, King, and the other men of your ilk are just too much of a coincidence. You might think that your "happily" married now, but chances are good, your wife isn't going to want to remain your little Ukrainian housepet for the rest of her life. When that happens (and it will), I think she's going to see your true colors-a mysogynist asshole (and maybe she's already seeing it). It makes me shudder to think about it. I know her transition from your little ukranian housepet to "that ukranian bitch who fucked me over" is only a matter of time. Your an insecure, mysogynist asshole who blames women for all your problems. You have no character. That makes you a loser. That's it. End of story.

PolishKnight said...

V, it's charming how little effort you put into considering the logical ramifications of the arguments you make and how they can be turned against you.

You and King have a lot in common: You have negative views of men in general. You sound like a match made in heaven! Quick, V, you can still write love letters to him!

Nobody, besides his attorney, is denying he had bad character. I'm not. He's a murderer. YOU were the one who brought up his unattractiveness and called him a "loser". If he was a good looking rap star who beat up his ho's, he would have his own VH-1 reality show and dozens of American women pawing all over him. Donald Trump is married to a foreign women as are many attractive professionals who go the foreign bride route.

Your attempt to portray most men who marry foreign brides as murderous losers claiming that those who are not are "the exception" is dishonest and even laughable. After all, if this was really the case, why the need to go back to 2001?

Your argument is pregnant with the presumption that you regard Anastasia as a whore. Plenty of people are economically desperate but that's no excuse for them to engage in prostitution anymore than men are excused for committing crimes to earn a living instead of working at low wages. But then again, such behavior is common even in the states. Your attempts to pretend that his income and social status is irrelevent is like denying the nose on your face.

That leads us to your claim that King is a control freak exploiting economic conditions to his advantage. Yeah, that's like a woman deliberately gestating a child when she can't fully support it and using that child's economic conditions to get paid for her lifestyle. Or using the ownership of a child and demands for support to browbeat a spouse into doing the dishes...

I love how you project King projecting his own shortcomings onto others. Yeah, you're the expert!

Finally, regarding your accusations that if my wife dragged me through the mud that I might get nasty. I agree with you that there is something there: Your brother certainly isn't capable of such a thing. Neither is your husband. They have "good character" in that they either cave in or run away. But you don't seem terribly proud of that fact. YOU slipped out the wimp word to describe them, I didn't! If women find such men attractive, then why don't you and your brother embrace his "Real Man" submissiveness? Heck, why are you having this conversation with me at all? Oh, wait, that's right: Because I am a man who stands up to you. You hate it and cannot get enough of it, baby.

Sorry, I'm taken. Stop being jealous of my wife.

virago said...

"Heck, why are you having this conversation with me at all? Oh, wait, that's right: Because I am a man who stands up to you. You hate it and cannot get enough of it, baby."

Well, you sure told me off ! I can't get enough of big strong men who stand up to me from behind the internet! Sing it, Polish Knight!

PolishKnight said...

You had just said: "It makes me shudder to think about it." You compared me to a murderer. Now you're claiming I'm a blowhard!

My cat has better memory than you do.

virago said...

Stop being such a crybaby, Polish Knight! You brag about standing up to me, but your however many miles away hiding behind the anonymity on the internet for fuck's sake. That's the equivalent of some kid hiding behind his big brother and daring another kid to a fight. And your whining because you claim I'm calling you a blowhard (the term does fit). As for comparing you to a murderer? There are people who act and feel superior, and there are people who feel inferior while striving for superiority by lording it over others. In mysogynist men, both types can abuse and/or murder women. King was the second type, and you are too.

PolishKnight said...

V, now you're just being immature. I'm curious: Do you behave like this on a regular basis? Do you think this is normal?

virago said...

"V, now you're just being immature. I'm curious: Do you behave like this on a regular basis? Do you think this is normal?"


"V, your so immature!" *Polish Knight sticks out tongue*

PolishKnight said...

V, I was asking you seriously. Is this how you normally behave when you strongly disagree with someone?

virago said...

"V, I was asking you seriously. Is this how you normally behave when you strongly disagree with someone?"

You didn't like the comment I made about you feeling inferior while striving for superiority by lording yourself over others. That struck too close to home for your comfort level. You couldn't come up with anything clever to say, and your trying to put the focus on me to avoid discussing your own feelings of inadequacy. Let me reiterate one of my original points:

"Your an insecure, mysogynist asshole who blames women for all your problems. You have no character. That makes you a loser."

That's it in a nutshell. Well, my Polish Knight induced narcolepsy is starting to kick in again. Feel free to continue ranting and raving about me. I know that's why you keep coming back to me. I understand. I give you what your not getting at home. I'm your fantasy, but you'd never be able to handle the reality. In your mind, I represent all those failed relationships your inferiority complex ruined for you. That's why you need some kind of Stepford wife to feel like a man. It's easier to sleep with a Stepford wife and lie to yourself about what you really want while blaming all those women for your failure as a man and as a human being. I remember some song lyrics that describe our "cyber relationship" in your eyes:

I'm your hell I'm your dream
I'm nothing in between
You know, you wouldn't want it any other way

PolishKnight said...

V, does this mean you're "bored"/"sleepy" (running away) again?

If that's the case, I'm ok with that. I'm sure everyone else is too. C'ya!

virago said...


virago said...

"V, does this mean you're "bored"/"sleepy" (running away) again?"

Ah, no, Polish Knight, running away is what you did on the new post when I mentioned I made enough money to buy a house without having to resort to a mortgage. Now, I'm done commenting.

Anonymous said...

Not to interrupt here, V, but I don't think any of us knew that that was a comment that required an answer?

I for one thought everyone was done talking about the hormones behind parenting.


PolishKnight said...

V, if you are truly bored then you don't make several responses to me gabbing about how bored you are. Sheesh, another example of how crass and unsophisticated American women are...

In a way, you do have a point that sometimes I don't have something clever to say but unlike you and pretending to be bored or declaring victory or running off, I just let the other person have the last word. In the case of your decision to buy a home, I felt that it was getting off topic and going in the direction of gossiping around real estate so I thought it best to it go. I was practicing quality control.

But since you're so interested. I posted a response. I truly hope you enjoy it.