Feminism and real men.

[dasein]

Why is it always assumed a single parent would REQUIRE government help to raise their kid(s)? I never received help as a single mother. Most of the single parents I've known did so without welfare or any other government assistance.

 

The above doesn't change the fact that tens of millions of single parent households do in fact require government aid in the U.S.

[dasein]

Pay no heed. The most vociferous ranters and critics have likely never contributed one iota of anything positive and worthwhile to a child's life or to anybody else's life. Their ability to bring happiness into other people's lives is probably zero...and therefore they comfort themselves with bringing endless misery, rage and criticism. Not to mention a dogged determination to hang on to the belief that they are Atlas who might shrug at any moment...while you (and your child) are parasites feeding off them.

 

Obviously addressed to me. I took my friend's (male divorced) children to the beach just last weekend, was a "second dad" the whole weekend, we had a blast, and had a long talk with the teenaged one about college and study choices as they have been having some trouble. Then two days ago, another friend (female, happily married) of mine whom I haven't seen in a couple months, "the boys miss you, can you come over after the holiday?" Part of my work with ecological charities involves educating school groups about the importance of water conservation. Just because people choose not to have children and are antifeminists says less than nothing about their involvement in the lives of children. Admittedly I'm only one example, but your unfounded rant above was obviously directed at least partially my way. As usual, you revert to "Rand baiting." Of all the thousands of books I've read over the years, "Atlas Shrugged" is one I can't complete due to getting bored with Rand's writing style 100 or so pages in, so have no idea what happens in most of it. And I'm disappointed, no "SodiniBreivik"... yet? "Shrug" indeed.

 

That belief is probably the only thread by which their fragile self esteem is prevented from crashing to earth - and protecting them from the reality that.

 

 

a) If they examined their job's worth under a microscope,

 

Now we are indicting posters' chosen life work? Anonymous people on a forum whom we know nothing about? How exactly does one go about "examining their job's worth under a microscope?" Feeling particularly grumpy today?

[sally4sara]

The above doesn't change the fact that tens of millions of single parent households do in fact require government aid in the U.S.

 

And I'm sure the majority of single parents who do need assistance to be single and a parent did so according to some grand scheme and not because single parent status landed on them by default. They wanted to need welfare and wanted their kid to not be influenced by a particular gender. They intentionally seek to destroy families with a two parent home.

Wtf? Seriously? I'm betting the majority of people who intentionally had a kid as a single parent are the ones who were capable of doing so without government assistance. But that wont help you rant about your favorite subject - feminism. I swear, you bring it up as a topic more often than a female college freshman taking her first women's studies class!

[Woggle]

Why is it always assumed a single parent would REQUIRE government help to raise their kid(s)? I never received help as a single mother. Most of the single parents I've known did so without welfare or any other government assistance.

 

Always trying to find the bad in people who are just doing the best they can? Somehow they all, at least the single mothers anyway, right? , are getting on with their lives by way of some detriment to you. Whatever Archie Bunker.

 

Sometimes being biologically tied to a child isn't enough for a person to give a damn. What then? The parent who does give a damn is responsible for the disintegration of family values? I would think there would be more finger pointing to the parents who instead have this kind of following:

 

"oh, well I didn't think I needed to pay for anything till you had the courts tell me to"

 

Because its the good parents who value family that need a government to tell them to provide for their children right? OH those were the days!

 

It is not about blaming any particular person. It is about the attitude promoted by radical feminists that has become mainstream that a father is just a sperm donor who should send the checks every month. One poster in here actually agreed this would be the ideal situation and she is the one who made fun of involved with fathers.

 

Go on some feminist boards and they are mad about the fact that there is even a father's day. I am sorry that some fathers are poor excuses for human beings but it doesn't take away from the fact that many do their best to be good parents and that a positive father figure does make a difference in a child's life. With everything that I went through I don't discount the importance of mothers so why can't women for once put aside their own experiences and acknowledge that an involved and caring father is a good thing?

[Mme. Chaucer]

Women and / or feminism did not "do something bad" to men.

 

I think that more than one parental type figure is beneficial in the raising of children, and ideally representatives of different genders. This can and is accomplished all the time outside of the model of the traditional "nuclear family" model.

[joystickd]

All I got to say is whatever. You illogical women can do whatever the hell you want. When you all complain about no real men just remember you are one of the contributions to it. The day will come when your sons will realize that what you told them about woman was BS and the true success will come from getting mentored by a man hell in the extreme case a man that is a pimp. The modern woman not all but the fringes of modern women want to control the dynamic of man woman interaction thinking its power. I got news it ain't sh*t. Men fight for because they don't want to be your sucker because they know deep down if they become your sucker and you have them by the balls they lose. Its that simple. No woman wants a man like that and women are not going to tell sons and other males that because it takes away from their power. I look at this forum and there are women on here that could never in a million years handle a real man its because they dealt with boys too much. Its just like a man messing with sluts he can't handle a real woman because he has got spoiled by having it handed to him and its the same with women.

I learned the game well from my father to become good but I learned from masters to make me great. I leave you with this.

 

^That is my final word on this

[Woggle]

Women and / or feminism did not "do something bad" to men.

 

I think that more than one parental type figure is beneficial in the raising of children, and ideally representatives of different genders. This can and is accomplished all the time outside of the model of the traditional "nuclear family" model.

 

They didn't do it alone but some more extreme feminists love to promote this attitude and it is insulting to the fathers who do do a great job raising their kids and there are more than you think.

 

My friend is raising his daughter alone because the mother is a waste of space who decided running off with a convicted rapist was a better choice than being a mother. He does a great job but talk to some women and men like him don't exist.

[d'Arthez]

I think that more than one parental type figure is beneficial in the raising of children, and ideally representatives of different genders. This can and is accomplished all the time outside of the model of the traditional "nuclear family" model.

Genders or sexes?

[Mme. Chaucer]

Genders or sexes?

 

I suppose I would like people of different genders and different sexes to be experienced by children as they are growing up.

 

In my post, though, I was really thinking "gender," so that the child would have "masculine" and "feminine" traits and behaviors (as understood in the child's culture) modeled for him / her by key adults as the child matures. And, to see the flexibility possible; for example, nurturing by men and providing by a woman.

 

I know kids raised by same sex couples who are doing great. I know kids raised by single parents and traditional families who are too. I also know completely messed up kids raised in traditional families. Me and my siblings, and lots of our peers, for examples.

 

Dysfunction can flourish beautifully in a nuclear family.

[d'Arthez]

In my post, though, I was really thinking "gender," so that the child would have "masculine" and "feminine" traits and behaviors (as understood in the child's culture) modeled for him / her by key adults as the child matures. And, to see the flexibility possible; for example, nurturing by men and providing by a woman.

I thought you were. Sadly a lot of people still struggle to realize that "masculine" and "feminine" traits are called such on the basis of mostly outdated models of identity.

 

Many men have feminine traits these days, and many women have masculine traits. The fact that parental identities are less and less fitting in the cookie-cutter models of 50 years ago is a positive development, and should contribute to a better understanding of the child of the fact that not all men and women are the same, or behaving according to the same gender models. I am sure that this has a positive effect on the children and their identities.

[dasein]

So, no one wants to talk about the literal pile of studies I linked concerning the benefit of having the actual -father-, not a "father figure" of any gender or either sex, in the home?

[joystickd]

So, no one wants to talk about the literal pile of studies I linked concerning the benefit of having the actual -father-, not a "father figure" of any gender or either sex, in the home?

You know they don't. They got pissed cause I mentioned on some level if it wasn't for fathers there would be no feminism. It didn't mean fathers are totally to thank for it but on some level you have to consider there contribution to the movement.

[sally4sara]

It is not about blaming any particular person. It is about the attitude promoted by radical feminists that has become mainstream that a father is just a sperm donor who should send the checks every month. One poster in here actually agreed this would be the ideal situation and she is the one who made fun of involved with fathers.

 

And there are some men who think of women as incubators. Whats your point? The thread is called Feminism and real men. Someone is trying to blame feminism for something in the dating world. We've all told you at different times that you and your particular set of unfortunate experiences have you more sensitive to radical feminism and lend you a sense of it being more common than it actually is, yet here we are again talking about RADICAL feminism's view of fathers in a thread about general feminism and men - not even specifically fathers - just men.

 

Go on some feminist boards and they are mad about the fact that there is even a father's day. I am sorry that some fathers are poor excuses for human beings but it doesn't take away from the fact that many do their best to be good parents and that a positive father figure does make a difference in a child's life. With everything that I went through I don't discount the importance of mothers so why can't women for once put aside their own experiences and acknowledge that an involved and caring father is a good thing?

 

I know those sites exist. I don't like them so I don't go to them. There are also misogynist websites as the counterpoint. I don't go to them either for the same reason. Where one might think that these two crackpot groups might cancel each other out in your little gender war, you only get in a twist over one of them and use it to take women everywhere to task for anything you even just heard secondhand that any other woman might have done to some guy you don't even know.

Here you are using the logic on me that has failed with you time and time again. I already know Woggle, that the crap people out there that are fathers don't mean all men who are fathers are crap. I know it in spite of websites that promote misogyny. I know it in spite of the Godfather of Soul, James Brown, having a well loved song about how if his wife leaves him for his cheating and drugging ways she will have to feed those kids on her own. If I were you, that song would be enough to ruin my whole week. But I don't have your problem. I'm able to see that bad people are bad and not try to pin it on their gender. You ask why women CAN'T?, FOR ONCE?, put aside their own experiences and acknowledge that an involved and caring father is a good thing? I saw many women in this thread saying that and/or at least not trying to contradict it, and not all of them doing so for the first time. Why not ask yourself why you cannot, FOR ONCE, stop asking all LS women to do something again and again and again since we've all already done it for you many times over. STFUA with that "for once" crap. Its never going to be enough for you.

[Taramere]

Obviously addressed to me. I took my friend's (male divorced) children to the beach just last weekend, was a "second dad" the whole weekend, we had a blast, and had a long talk with the teenaged one about college and study choices as they have been having some trouble. Then two days ago, another friend (female, happily married) of mine whom I haven't seen in a couple months, "the boys miss you, can you come over after the holiday?" Part of my work with ecological charities involves educating school groups about the importance of water conservation. Just because people choose not to have children and are antifeminists says less than nothing about their involvement in the lives of children. Admittedly I'm only one example, but your unfounded rant above was obviously directed at least partially my way. As usual, you revert to "Rand baiting." Of all the thousands of books I've read over the years, "Atlas Shrugged" is one I can't complete due to getting bored with Rand's writing style 100 or so pages in, so have no idea what happens in most of it. And I'm disappointed, no "SodiniBreivik"... yet? "Shrug" indeed.

 

 

Oh all right. I'm sorry to disappoint. Here goes....

 

Dasein stood atop a windy hill, staring down sternly at the gathered crowd.

 

"I have a Kalashnikov" he stated simply "and I'm not afraid to use it upon anybody who doesn't recognise that despite my incessant diatribes about feminism and the women of Loveshack, I'm actually an incredibly laid back guy who loves life and has many and varied interests. Killing women definitely not being among them. Anybody who suggests otherwise is engaged in a vitriolic Marxist plot and is attempting most heinously to censor me."

[sally4sara]

So, no one wants to talk about the literal pile of studies I linked concerning the benefit of having the actual -father-, not a "father figure" of any gender or either sex, in the home?

 

Its an obvious statement. A kid is benefited by having good people in their life DUH. And if the bio father is a good person, of course they will be benefited by having him in their life. But I still say having no mother or father is better than a bad mother or father. I also believe the distinction of a parent being the better option for a kid simply for being the biological parent to the kid negates the benefits of adoptive parents, suggesting that kids who are adopted will never be raised right. And negates the benefit of good step parents or if specifically about men - the benefits of male role models in general, suggesting that any kid who loses their father for any reason can not be sufficiently helped by extended family members and their mother as thought the only thing for a widowed, abandoned, or divorced mother to do is give up lest she be an EEEEEVIL feminist!

[dasein]

Anybody who suggests otherwise is engaged in a vitriolic Marxist plot and is attempting most heinously to censor me."

 

The difference is that you don't "suggest" anything, rather make the most direct, outrageous, personal statements and character assessments of posters and their lives -outside the forum-, their supposed interactions with children or lack thereof for example, which you don't have a clue about. It's old hat from you once you get riled, which predictably, accompanies a certain level of disagreement with what you post.

 

Ironically, that's the kind of unhinged reaction the Sodinis and Breiviks of the world engage in. But no, I'm not too worried about your "Kalashnikov," that kind of worry would brand me as a moron because I don't -know- you as a person, despite disagreeing with your posts.

[pink_sugar]

My husband was raised by a single father an doesn't know how to change a tire. *shruggs* And my stepdad's father was hardly in his life yet he knows how to be quite the handyman.

[Taramere]

The difference is that you don't "suggest" anything, rather make the most direct, outrageous, personal statements and character assessments of posters and their lives -outside the forum-, their supposed interactions with children or lack thereof for example, which you don't have a clue about. It's old hat from you once you get riled, which predictably, accompanies a certain level of disagreement with what you post.

 

Ironically, that's the kind of unhinged reaction the Sodinis and Breiviks of the world engage in. But no, I'm not too worried about your "Kalashnikov," that kind of worry would brand me as a moron because I don't -know- you as a person, despite disagreeing with your posts.

 

Of course I don't know you and whatever you get up to in real life. Basically, I take the essence of your posts and spin a bit of a comedy character around them for my own amusement. There's not much you can do about that.

 

I can't believe how seriously you take yourself....but I'm glad you do, because it increases the comedy value immensely. Sometimes I wonder if you're an invention of Ricky Gervais's and if the joke's on all of us.

[dasein]

The most vociferous ranters and critics have likely never contributed one iota of anything positive and worthwhile to a child's life or to anybody else's life.

 

 

Their ability to bring happiness into other people's lives is probably zero...and therefore they comfort themselves with bringing endless misery, rage and criticism.

 

 

That belief is probably the only thread by which their fragile self esteem is prevented from crashing to earth - and protecting them from the reality that.

 

 

Basically, I take the essence of your posts and spin a bit of a comedy character around them for my own amusement.

 

Oh, so the above is just "gags" now, all in good fun? Keep your day job, no one will pay for those types of "gags."

 

There's not much you can do about that.

 

I disagree.

 

I can't believe how seriously you take yourself....but I'm glad you do, because it increases the comedy value immensely. Sometimes I wonder if you're an invention of Ricky Gervais's and if the joke's on all of us.

 

Maybe so, and admittedly, I am laughing right now.

[Taramere]

Maybe so, and admittedly, I am laughing right now.

 

Good stuff. A couple more gusts and perhaps the poker will finally be dislodged.

[zengirl]

I just don't get what absentee fathers have to do with feminism. I've known many people with absentee fathers, and in almost every case, the person's mother actively attempted to get the father involved in the child's life, a la TW's experience with his mother.

 

I've known many people who had a father "there" who they didn't relate to or have any relationship, and in almost every case, the father fulfilled the stereotypical 50s male role of 'bringing home the bacon' and doing little parenting except perhaps some discipline.

 

The men I've known (my age) with good relationships to their fathers grew up in egalitarian HHs for the most part, where fathers WERE co-parents and both parents worked, etc.

 

Even though they may have other male figures there will always be that void of not having a father

 

My point was also that your father doesn't have to be your (bio-)father. Mine, for instance, was not. My bio-dad is hardly a father figure, but my step-father is and fulfills that role, despite not being blood-related to me. If my mom and stepdad ever got divorced or my mom passed away first, I'd still send him cards on Father's Day, visit him at Christmas sometimes, call him weekly, etc. He's my Dad, but he's not my actual Dad (legally or biologically).

 

I look and am beginning to notice this need for some women to desire this blurring of roles. Its wrong and creates confusion. Would any points be scored if everyone was a quarterback on a football team?

 

Of course, two people in a relationship need to manage their responsibilities as a team. However, quarterbacks aren't born quarterbacks. They are put there because they have trained and developed an ability and interest in the position. I'm not against roles that are chosen or developed based on skills and interest; I'm against GENDER roles that are defined by the sex we are born with, as well as RACE roles, etc.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that two people on a HH are best served by doing the exact same thing. I think we're saying society is not served by saying "All girls do this" and "All boys do this" but rather by defining individual roles and even HHs themselves flexibly and individually, as there are many things that work in the world. All HHs are inherently created of people who do better working together and roles, within that HH, may form, but they're much better when they're more nuanced and based on the individuals rather than simply their gender.

 

After all, two men can raise a child, or two women, and I think that the child could turn out just fine. Most gay couples who raise children DO endeavor to get an opposite gender model for the kids (i.e. 2 gay men involve an aunt) to some degree, and that's important, but pretending that gender is more important than it is seems silly to me.

 

There are so many definitions of femininity or masculinity, and that's a GOOD thing. Many people couldn't fit into one narrow definition if they tried, and it's better to expand roles to suit unique individuals than to try to force square pegs into round holes, societally, as we did for so long.

[joystickd]

I just don't get what absentee fathers have to do with feminism. I've known many people with absentee fathers, and in almost every case, the person's mother actively attempted to get the father involved in the child's life, a la TW's experience with his mother.

 

I've known many people who had a father "there" who they didn't relate to or have any relationship, and in almost every case, the father fulfilled the stereotypical 50s male role of 'bringing home the bacon' and doing little parenting except perhaps some discipline.

 

The men I've known (my age) with good relationships to their fathers grew up in egalitarian HHs for the most part, where fathers WERE co-parents and both parents worked, etc.

 

 

 

My point was also that your father doesn't have to be your (bio-)father. Mine, for instance, was not. My bio-dad is hardly a father figure, but my step-father is and fulfills that role, despite not being blood-related to me. If my mom and stepdad ever got divorced or my mom passed away first, I'd still send him cards on Father's Day, visit him at Christmas sometimes, call him weekly, etc. He's my Dad, but he's not my actual Dad (legally or biologically).

 

 

 

Of course, two people in a relationship need to manage their responsibilities as a team. However, quarterbacks aren't born quarterbacks. They are put there because they have trained and developed an ability and interest in the position. I'm not against roles that are chosen or developed based on skills and interest; I'm against GENDER roles that are defined by the sex we are born with, as well as RACE roles, etc.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that two people on a HH are best served by doing the exact same thing. I think we're saying society is not served by saying "All girls do this" and "All boys do this" but rather by defining individual roles and even HHs themselves flexibly and individually, as there are many things that work in the world. All HHs are inherently created of people who do better working together and roles, within that HH, may form, but they're much better when they're more nuanced and based on the individuals rather than simply their gender.

 

After all, two men can raise a child, or two women, and I think that the child could turn out just fine. Most gay couples who raise children DO endeavor to get an opposite gender model for the kids (i.e. 2 gay men involve an aunt) to some degree, and that's important, but pretending that gender is more important than it is seems silly to me.

 

There are so many definitions of femininity or masculinity, and that's a GOOD thing. Many people couldn't fit into one narrow definition if they tried, and it's better to expand roles to suit unique individuals than to try to force square pegs into round holes, societally, as we did for so long.

My point was for well defined relationship parenting roles. It doesn't mean gender roles but there are certain expectations in a parent child relationship that each gender has.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I just don't get what absentee fathers have to do with feminism.

 

You obviously have no grasp on the facts of history, and have clearly been brainwashed. Feminism is the root of ALL problems, especially those regarding the behavior of men. Get it? I hope so, it's been repeated plenty of times here on our hallowed boards.

[zengirl]

My point was for well defined relationship parenting roles. It doesn't mean gender roles but there are certain expectations in a parent child relationship that each gender has.

 

Yes, but I think families can successfully defy those expectations as well and raise great, whole children. If Mom works and Dad stays home, is the child really impacted? What if he has 2 gay Dads that both work? Why is that bad? I do think that feeling abandoned by ANY parent can strongly impact a child, but that's really not about not having it so much as feeling you were unwanted in many cases.

[Woggle]

Feminism has something to do with absentee fathers when there are women these days who think it is some big statement of independence against men to have a kid with no father involved.