10 ways to be a better father

In article ,
toto wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 07:17:23 -0800, Rauni
wrote:

Some men act like shellfish children. So do some women.

giggle

Does that mean they are oysters?


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

I was thinking "crabs" . . .

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Nan ) writes:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:31:36 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
wrote:

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Jayne
Kulikauskas
says...

[]
I'm having a problem with you judging people in a situation that you will
never and can never face.

Jayne

Now Jayne, just how exact has it to be? Can Marie judge the situation
she later
discovers a child to be from rape (which can happen)? Can she judge the
situation where she discovers her husband has a child outside wedlock?
Or even is
supporting another family out of wedlock? Or is that she has a husband
who wouldn't do those things that make her unable to judge?

Betrayal is not limited to either gender.

I cannot think of anything that a woman can possibly experience comparable
to a man discovering the child he thought was his is the product of
adultery. It is not just betrayal; it is the knowledge that a relationship
is based on a lie.

No? How about finding out her husband has been having an affair, and
has children with the other woman.

Bzt. *Wrong*. Thanks for playing, but you totally failed the empathy
test.

Why ? Because, in the situation you posited, the woman was NEVER
led to believe that that child was HERS....

So, toots, its not even close.

Thanks for, once again, *proving* that neither do you have ANY
knowledge or empathy about men*, but also NO desire to acquire
either...

Or would you say that's the
woman's fault, for not taking care of her husbands manly needs??

Straw *woman*. Plsy with her on your own... Or, admit to, once *again*,
falsifying other's views...

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Kathy Cole ) writes:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:57:20 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
wrote:

Fine. You don't have to understand it. You just have to
acknowledge that men have a right to do this if they choose to do
so.

Are you speaking to legal rights or moral and ethical rights? Without
question, legally they are totally free to walk away.

WRONG. Google up " Presumption Of Paternity Laws ", and note that Ex_Gov
Grey Davis, in CA, *vetoed* a bill that the CA Legislature *passed*,
that would have allowed men who had *DNA proof* that they were not
fathers of children for whom they were assessed Child Support to
be relieved of any further payment responisibilities.

I disagree that
it's moral or ethical to do so, however much I would sympathize with the
initial shock, horror and anger that might prompt the walking away.

Indeed. If it's right to let women choose, why do so many *decry*
MEN getting *equal rights to choose* ?

Answer: Those protesters *hate men*...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

x-no-archive:yes "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote:


"Nan" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:11:59 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"

[]
It's not about choosing to be hostile. It's about being deeply hurt.
When
people are hurt the protect themselves. Sometimes they even lash out at
innocent bystanders.

Of course it's about *choosing* to be hostile. Bob isn't lashing out
at an innocent bystander, he's choosing to eradicate a relationship
that previously existed, in an effort to punish a woman.

Bob has been writing about a hypothetical situation. We don't know what Bob
would do if this actually happened to him. Bob is making the point that a
man has no obligations to a child that is a product of his wife's adultery.
A man might choose to maintain a relationship with such a child, but he is
not obliged to.
snip
OK - what would be the take on this situation?

A man and a woman who are married have three boys. All three boys are
genetically the children of both the mom and dad. The mom makes a
surprise visit to a conference that the dad is attending and walks
into his hotel room and finds the dad in bed with another woman
engaging in sex. She is enraged. She says to the man OK you were
unfaithful to me. I am going to get artificial insemination from a
sperm bank. I will get a divorce and you will have to support all
four children.

The woman is not the one who was unfaithful. She did not deceive the
man about the parentage of the fourth child (who was a girl BTW).

They get a divorce and the man gets custody of all the two youngest
children (including the one not biologically his), remarries and has
other children by the 2nd wife. This is an actual case.

At some point in this thread a guy commented that the woman was the
only one who could chose to 'throw away' the child by having it
adopted. I don't think that is correct. IIRC I remember at least one
case where the mom gave the baby up for adoption but the dad didn't
know that the child was his. When he found out about his child he
took the child away from the adoptive parents because he had not given
consent for the child to be adopted.



grandma Rosalie

Rosalie B. wrote:
x-no-archive:yes "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote:


"Nan" wrote in message
. ..

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:11:59 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"

[]

It's not about choosing to be hostile. It's about being deeply hurt.

When

people are hurt the protect themselves. Sometimes they even lash out at
innocent bystanders.

Of course it's about *choosing* to be hostile. Bob isn't lashing out
at an innocent bystander, he's choosing to eradicate a relationship
that previously existed, in an effort to punish a woman.

Bob has been writing about a hypothetical situation. We don't know what Bob
would do if this actually happened to him. Bob is making the point that a
man has no obligations to a child that is a product of his wife's adultery.
A man might choose to maintain a relationship with such a child, but he is
not obliged to.

snip
OK - what would be the take on this situation?

A man and a woman who are married have three boys. All three boys are
genetically the children of both the mom and dad. The mom makes a
surprise visit to a conference that the dad is attending and walks
into his hotel room and finds the dad in bed with another woman
engaging in sex. She is enraged.


That's a typical feminist reaction. French President Miterand's
mistress and family came to the state funeral and sat behind the wife
and her family. Its much less vicious than the "enraged" attitude of
feminists.


She says to the man OK you were
unfaithful to me. I am going to get artificial insemination from a
sperm bank. I will get a divorce and you will have to support all
four children.


Typical feminist -- any excuse to destroy the family and use children
to hurt the man. Feminists hate families. Shame on her.


The woman is not the one who was unfaithful.

Yes she is, in that scenario she betrayed her marriage much worse than
the husband. His conduct did nothing to harm the marriage. Hers
destroyed the family. She is by far the most guilty.


She did not deceive the
man about the parentage of the fourth child (who was a girl BTW).

She betrayed her husband, broke her sacred vows, and destroyed her
family in front of everyone. That is no excuse for that evil.


They get a divorce and the man gets custody of all the two youngest
children (including the one not biologically his), remarries and has
other children by the 2nd wife. This is an actual case.


Whatever stupid mixed up "custody" settlement a fembot court arrives at
is irrelevant. A woman who has so little commitment to her children and
family that she would deliberately destroy the family doesn't morally
deserve to have any.


It is a credit to the other woman that she is willing to take in the
cast off kids of a shrew feminazi. Not all women are bad.


At some point in this thread a guy commented that the woman was the
only one who could chose to 'throw away' the child by having it
adopted. I don't think that is correct.

In most jurisdictions that is how the law is enforced, that only the
mother may throw away children, abort them, dump them off after birth,
or give them for adoption. Men get charged with "kidnapping" and other
"crimes" for taking custody of children.


IIRC I remember at least one
case where the mom gave the baby up for adoption but the dad didn't
know that the child was his. When he found out about his child he
took the child away from the adoptive parents because he had not given
consent for the child to be adopted.
grandma Rosalie

There have been some attempts by fathers to gain control of their
children. It makes news becasue it so rarely gets even a hearing in any
court.

Bob

In article , Bob
wrote:

Rosalie B. wrote:
x-no-archive:yes "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote:


"Nan" wrote in message
. ..

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:11:59 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"

[]

It's not about choosing to be hostile. It's about being deeply hurt.

When

people are hurt the protect themselves. Sometimes they even lash out at
innocent bystanders.

Of course it's about *choosing* to be hostile. Bob isn't lashing out
at an innocent bystander, he's choosing to eradicate a relationship
that previously existed, in an effort to punish a woman.

Bob has been writing about a hypothetical situation. We don't know what Bob
would do if this actually happened to him. Bob is making the point that a
man has no obligations to a child that is a product of his wife's adultery.
A man might choose to maintain a relationship with such a child, but he is
not obliged to.

snip
OK - what would be the take on this situation?

A man and a woman who are married have three boys. All three boys are
genetically the children of both the mom and dad. The mom makes a
surprise visit to a conference that the dad is attending and walks
into his hotel room and finds the dad in bed with another woman
engaging in sex. She is enraged.


That's a typical feminist reaction. French President Miterand's
mistress and family came to the state funeral and sat behind the wife
and her family. Its much less vicious than the "enraged" attitude of
feminists.


She says to the man OK you were
unfaithful to me. I am going to get artificial insemination from a
sperm bank. I will get a divorce and you will have to support all
four children.


Typical feminist -- any excuse to destroy the family and use children
to hurt the man. Feminists hate families. Shame on her.


The woman is not the one who was unfaithful.

Yes she is, in that scenario she betrayed her marriage much worse than
the husband. His conduct did nothing to harm the marriage. Hers
destroyed the family. She is by far the most guilty.


Just to make sure I'm clear on your point, Bob, you say "his conduct did
nothing to harm the marriage." Are you saying that adultry doesn't harm
a marriage? Would this also be true for a woman committing adultry
without creating another child in the process? IOW, are you saying that
adultry only harms a marriage when a child is conceived in the adultry?

meh


--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...

[]
OK - what would be the take on this situation?

A man and a woman who are married have three boys. All three boys are
genetically the children of both the mom and dad. The mom makes a
surprise visit to a conference that the dad is attending and walks
into his hotel room and finds the dad in bed with another woman
engaging in sex. She is enraged. She says to the man OK you were
unfaithful to me. I am going to get artificial insemination from a
sperm bank. I will get a divorce and you will have to support all
four children.

The woman is not the one who was unfaithful. She did not deceive the
man about the parentage of the fourth child (who was a girl BTW).

They get a divorce and the man gets custody of all the two youngest
children (including the one not biologically his), remarries and has
other children by the 2nd wife. This is an actual case.

That woman behaved horribly. To have a child for the purpose of hurting
someone is terrible.

Jayne

dragonlady wrote:
In article , Bob
wrote:


Rosalie B. wrote:

x-no-archive:yes "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote:



"Nan" wrote in message
m...


On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:11:59 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"

[]


It's not about choosing to be hostile. It's about being deeply hurt.

When


people are hurt the protect themselves. Sometimes they even lash out at
innocent bystanders.

Of course it's about *choosing* to be hostile. Bob isn't lashing out
at an innocent bystander, he's choosing to eradicate a relationship
that previously existed, in an effort to punish a woman.

Bob has been writing about a hypothetical situation. We don't know what Bob
would do if this actually happened to him. Bob is making the point that a
man has no obligations to a child that is a product of his wife's adultery.
A man might choose to maintain a relationship with such a child, but he is
not obliged to.

snip
OK - what would be the take on this situation?

A man and a woman who are married have three boys. All three boys are
genetically the children of both the mom and dad. The mom makes a
surprise visit to a conference that the dad is attending and walks
into his hotel room and finds the dad in bed with another woman
engaging in sex. She is enraged.


That's a typical feminist reaction. French President Miterand's
mistress and family came to the state funeral and sat behind the wife
and her family. Its much less vicious than the "enraged" attitude of
feminists.



She says to the man OK you were
unfaithful to me. I am going to get artificial insemination from a
sperm bank. I will get a divorce and you will have to support all
four children.


Typical feminist -- any excuse to destroy the family and use children
to hurt the man. Feminists hate families. Shame on her.



The woman is not the one who was unfaithful.

Yes she is, in that scenario she betrayed her marriage much worse than
the husband. His conduct did nothing to harm the marriage. Hers
destroyed the family. She is by far the most guilty.



Just to make sure I'm clear on your point, Bob, you say "his conduct did
nothing to harm the marriage." Are you saying that adultry doesn't harm
a marriage? Would this also be true for a woman committing adultry
without creating another child in the process? IOW, are you saying that
adultry only harms a marriage when a child is conceived in the adultry?
meh


If she had stayed home and not gone to the convention to snoop and
scream, how, specifically, would the marriage, or the children, have
suffered?

Other than her ranting and hurt feelings, how, specifically, had the
family been destroyed the year before?

Bob

Nan wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:18:51 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:


In article , Bob
wrote:


Yes she is, in that scenario she betrayed her marriage much worse than
the husband. His conduct did nothing to harm the marriage. Hers
destroyed the family. She is by far the most guilty.



Just to make sure I'm clear on your point, Bob, you say "his conduct did
nothing to harm the marriage." Are you saying that adultry doesn't harm
a marriage? Would this also be true for a woman committing adultry
without creating another child in the process? IOW, are you saying that
adultry only harms a marriage when a child is conceived in the adultry?


Bob's bias is very clear. The man can stray, but the woman isn't
allowed to.

Nan


Nan's bias is very clear, as usual. The woman in dragonlady scenario
deliberately destroyed her family and marriage, and used children as
pawns in a hate game. SHE hurt the children deliberately and permanently.

But Nan and dragonlady blame the nearest available man.

Bob

Nan wrote:
And the man behaved horribly by having an affair, thus tossing his
family to the dogs.

Nan


Lying feminist "blame the man" crap. Nobody alleged that he tossed the
family to the dogs or did anything negative to the family at all. In
the end he even supported the innocent child that the evil feminist had
whelped out of anger and spite.

Bob