A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Schwarzenegger's propaganda



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 10th 09, 08:51 PM posted to alt.child-support
Bob W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal father
of a child. When parents are married, paternity is automatically
established in most cases. If parents are unmarried, paternity
establishment is not automatic and the process should be started by
both parents as soon as possible for the benefit of the child."

Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child
is biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was
reversed, do you think "maternity" would be "automatically
established" even though the wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's
chance in a blast furnace! ONLY in matriarchal AmeriKa.

Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should
start the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for
the "benefit of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such
process; and secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily
start a process that will extort his money/freedom?

Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until
that point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion
or hiding her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of
unwed births the mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she
has no idea who the father might be.

The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state
where the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is
born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the
father's knowledge.

Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?


The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
chooses to give up the child.

Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.

Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father helps
the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to keep.


And then you woke up.

1. The only "parental" right is mother's right.
2. That a mother has to take ANY action to avoid paying "child support" is
a ridiculous concept.
3. A CP father is about as common as a three-legged chicken.


I think some of the commenters above have made the mistake of confusing
adoption laws and paternity laws. Adoption laws have nothing to do with
establishing CS orders. In fact, when an adoption occurs no CS is paid by
either parent.

A putative father registering with a state's database never obligates him
for CS. It is the legal process used to establish paternity that drives the
CS obligation. And in the case of voluntary paternity acknowledgement the
declaration can be challenged for up to 12 months depending on state statute
limitations.

BTW - I was a CP father. Several of the other posters here were CP fathers
too. The problem fathers have regarding CP status is the initial court
orders are biased against them. It is not uncommon for a father to be the
CP parent for older children, particularly boys.

  #12  
Old September 11th 09, 05:11 PM posted to alt.child-support
Phil #3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Phil #3" wrote in message
m...

"Kenneth s." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote:

"Bob W" wrote in message
news:GrmdnVy8AvCSCTvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@earthlin k.com...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


[snip]


[snip]

The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical
and vocal.


That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea.. (1)
men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or not
and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally
around.

I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those in
front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning in
the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.

Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what
feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads
us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good,
pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the
feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as
complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is
a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and
sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.

Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head in
a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be good
for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to a
female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to
the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!

There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting
into the ring with the girls.


That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react. This
whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the 1960's
when women became intensively politically active.
Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support women,
are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities who
are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part of
the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril.
Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age of
30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then
flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of racism...
and no one bats an eye.

Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and mature
mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.),
and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore
it, even buy into it.

Phil #3


  #13  
Old September 11th 09, 07:43 PM posted to alt.child-support
Kenneth s.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:11:14 -0500, "Phil #3"
wrote:


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Phil #3" wrote in message
m...

"Kenneth s." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote:

"Bob W" wrote in message
news:GrmdnVy8AvCSCTvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@earthli nk.com...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


[snip]


[snip]

The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical
and vocal.


That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea.. (1)
men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or not
and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally
around.

I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those in
front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning in
the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.

Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what
feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads
us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good,
pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the
feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as
complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is
a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and
sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.

Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head in
a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be good
for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to a
female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to
the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!

There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting
into the ring with the girls.


That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react. This
whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the 1960's
when women became intensively politically active.
Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support women,
are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities who
are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part of
the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril.
Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age of
30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama then
flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of racism...
and no one bats an eye.

Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and mature
mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.),
and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore
it, even buy into it.

Phil #3


"In the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up." (Warren
Farrell)

Phil (and Warren Farrell) have hit the nail on the head. In
my more than 20 years of involvement in these issues, I've often asked
myself WHY men are unable to respond to the threats against them by
getting organized to defend their own interests.

One answer, I think, is that heterosexual men -- to put it
bluntly -- want to get laid, and they think (probably correctly) that
their appeal to women will be diminished if they appear to be gender
warriors on behalf of their own sex. Notions of gallantry are another
element.

One thing that needs to be done is for men to overcome their
reluctance to speak out about discrimination against men in such areas
as family law, health, and the media. My attitude is that, if
speaking out turns off some women, then so be it. Women who fail to
see the grotesque bias against men in so many areas are not worth
cultivating anyway.

Interestingly enough, there was an attempt several years ago
to get all the various U.S. groups involved in men's issues to come
together. I wasn't involved, but I heard that a major problem was
that many of the groups would cooperate only on the basis that other
groups would join their organizations, not that an umbrella group
would be formed to take in all the groups. The only thing on which
there was widespread agreement was that men were discriminated against
in health matters. The Men's Health Network was formed, and has done
good work in getting more attention -- and funding -- devoted to such
matters as prostate cancer.


  #14  
Old September 11th 09, 10:11 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
"Establishing paternity is the process of determining the legal
father of a child. When parents are married, paternity is
automatically established in most cases. If parents are unmarried,
paternity establishment is not automatic and the process should be
started by both parents as soon as possible for the benefit of the
child."

Note that "paternity" is automatically established even if the child
is biologically unrelated to the husband. If the situation was
reversed, do you think "maternity" would be "automatically
established" even though the wife is NOT the mother? Not a snowball's
chance in a blast furnace! ONLY in matriarchal AmeriKa.

Also note that Schwarzenegger recommends that BOTH parents should
start the paternity establishment process "as soon as possible" for
the "benefit of the child". First of all, NO child benefits from such
process; and secondly, what man in his right mind would voluntarily
start a process that will extort his money/freedom?

Paternity cannot be established until after a live birth. Up until
that point the mother can control the situation by having an abortion
or hiding her pregnancy from the father. In far too many cases of
unwed births the mother has had sex with multiple sex partners and she
has no idea who the father might be.

The correct advice for putative fathers is to register with the state
where the mother resides to establish their rights before the child is
born. Even then the child can be adopted out for money without the
father's knowledge.

Not sure what "rights" such registration affords men, if any. But since
the mother can STILL sell the child, what purpose does registering with
the state accomplish other than to assist the "child support" people in
assigning him the title of "father" for the purposes of stealing his
money/freedom?

The "right" is to be advised of any adoption effort and to be in line to
exercise parental rights before potential adoptive parents if the mother
chooses to give up the child.

Related to CS - the mother can be ordered to pay CS to the CP father.

Besides hiding the adoption to allow the mother to sell the child to
adoptive parents, keeping the adoption process away from the father
helps the mother avoid having to pay CS for a child she chooses not to
keep.


And then you woke up.

1. The only "parental" right is mother's right.
2. That a mother has to take ANY action to avoid paying "child support"
is a ridiculous concept.
3. A CP father is about as common as a three-legged chicken.


I think some of the commenters above have made the mistake of confusing
adoption laws and paternity laws. Adoption laws have nothing to do with
establishing CS orders. In fact, when an adoption occurs no CS is paid by
either parent.

A putative father registering with a state's database never obligates him
for CS.


Likewise, handing a lighter to a child doesn't start a forest fire; but it
sure does help.

It is the legal process used to establish paternity that drives the CS
obligation. And in the case of voluntary paternity acknowledgement the
declaration can be challenged for up to 12 months depending on state
statute limitations.


This father being ahead of potential adoptive parents is mythical at best.
Any judge, at any time, can rule ANY way they please, thus rendering such
place in line only an illusion!


BTW - I was a CP father. Several of the other posters here were CP
fathers too. The problem fathers have regarding CP status is the initial
court orders are biased against them. It is not uncommon for a father to
be the CP parent for older children, particularly boys.


That all depends on just what your definition of "common" is.



  #15  
Old September 11th 09, 11:03 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


"Phil #3" wrote in message
m...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Phil #3" wrote in message
m...

"Kenneth s." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote:

"Bob W" wrote in message
news:GrmdnVy8AvCSCTvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@earthli nk.com...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


[snip]


[snip]

The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical
and vocal.


That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea..
(1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or
not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally
around.

I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those in
front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning in
the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.

Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what
feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which leads
us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good,
pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the
feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as
complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad is
a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and
sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.

Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head
in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be
good for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening
to a female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to
apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!

There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting
into the ring with the girls.


That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react.
This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the
1960's when women became intensively politically active.
Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support women,
are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities
who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active
part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own
peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the
age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for
Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because
of racism... and no one bats an eye.

Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and mature
mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement,
etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men
ignore it, even buy into it.

Phil #3


Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who have
applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare. They
figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the U.S. is
becomong the U.K.

[By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better known as
a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that collecting
welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]




  #16  
Old September 11th 09, 11:27 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:11:14 -0500, "Phil #3"
wrote:


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Phil #3" wrote in message
m...

"Kenneth s." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote:

"Bob W" wrote in message
news:GrmdnVy8AvCSCTvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@earthl ink.com...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


[snip]

[snip]

The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical
and vocal.

That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea..
(1)
men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or
not
and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally
around.

I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those
in
front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning
in
the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.

Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what
feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which
leads
us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good,
pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the
feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as
complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad
is
a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and
sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.

Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head
in
a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be
good
for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to
a
female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize
to
the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!

There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting
into the ring with the girls.


That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react.
This
whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the 1960's
when women became intensively politically active.
Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support women,
are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities
who
are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part of
the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril.
Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age of
30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama
then
flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of
racism...
and no one bats an eye.

Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and mature
mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement,
etc.),
and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore
it, even buy into it.

Phil #3


"In the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up." (Warren
Farrell)

Phil (and Warren Farrell) have hit the nail on the head. In
my more than 20 years of involvement in these issues, I've often asked
myself WHY men are unable to respond to the threats against them by
getting organized to defend their own interests.

One answer, I think, is that heterosexual men -- to put it
bluntly -- want to get laid, and they think (probably correctly) that
their appeal to women will be diminished if they appear to be gender
warriors on behalf of their own sex. Notions of gallantry are another
element.


Additionally, and more likely, the men that assault other men's human rights
do so for the same reason. Typical animal behavior.


One thing that needs to be done is for men to overcome their
reluctance to speak out about discrimination against men in such areas
as family law, health, and the media. My attitude is that, if
speaking out turns off some women, then so be it. Women who fail to
see the grotesque bias against men in so many areas are not worth
cultivating anyway.


But let THEM experience sufferage from the same issues and suddenly they
have a different (bittersweet) attitude about it. A recent immigration issue
comes to mind. A local government attempted to make it against the law to
provide housing to illegal immigrants. The ACLU QUICKLY intervened which
ultimately killed the proposal. Thing is, their actions of protecting the
illegals resulted in protecting landlords from prosecution for renting to
such illegals. Needless to say, they ACLU was not too excited about it since
they hate landlords.

Note: This very same government had absolutely NO problem selling utilities
to the illegals! The hypocrite meter goes off the scale.


Interestingly enough, there was an attempt several years ago
to get all the various U.S. groups involved in men's issues to come
together. I wasn't involved, but I heard that a major problem was
that many of the groups would cooperate only on the basis that other
groups would join their organizations, not that an umbrella group
would be formed to take in all the groups. The only thing on which
there was widespread agreement was that men were discriminated against
in health matters. The Men's Health Network was formed, and has done
good work in getting more attention -- and funding -- devoted to such
matters as prostate cancer.


Women's health care by far exceeds men's, as shown by the significant
difference in average lifespan. Yet the government people STILL promote
women's (as opposed to men's) healthcare, somehow proclaiming that not
enough is being done for women. But what do you expect from a
matriarch............



  #17  
Old September 12th 09, 02:44 PM posted to alt.child-support
Phil #3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


"Chris" wrote in message
news

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:11:14 -0500, "Phil #3"
wrote:


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Phil #3" wrote in message
m...

"Kenneth s." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote:

"Bob W" wrote in message
news:GrmdnVy8AvCSCTvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@earth link.com...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


[snip]

[snip]

The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical
and vocal.

That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea..
(1)
men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or
not
and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally
around.

I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those
in
front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning
in
the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.

Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is
what
feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which
leads
us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good,
pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at
the
feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as
complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad
is
a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and
sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.

Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head
in
a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be
good
for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to
a
female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize
to
the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!

There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
getting
into the ring with the girls.

That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react.
This
whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the
1960's
when women became intensively politically active.
Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
women,
are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities
who
are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part
of
the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril.
Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age
of
30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama
then
flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of
racism...
and no one bats an eye.

Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
mature
mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement,
etc.),
and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore
it, even buy into it.

Phil #3


"In the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up." (Warren
Farrell)

Phil (and Warren Farrell) have hit the nail on the head. In
my more than 20 years of involvement in these issues, I've often asked
myself WHY men are unable to respond to the threats against them by
getting organized to defend their own interests.

One answer, I think, is that heterosexual men -- to put it
bluntly -- want to get laid, and they think (probably correctly) that
their appeal to women will be diminished if they appear to be gender
warriors on behalf of their own sex. Notions of gallantry are another
element.


Additionally, and more likely, the men that assault other men's human
rights do so for the same reason. Typical animal behavior.


One thing that needs to be done is for men to overcome their
reluctance to speak out about discrimination against men in such areas
as family law, health, and the media. My attitude is that, if
speaking out turns off some women, then so be it. Women who fail to
see the grotesque bias against men in so many areas are not worth
cultivating anyway.


But let THEM experience sufferage from the same issues and suddenly they
have a different (bittersweet) attitude about it. A recent immigration
issue comes to mind. A local government attempted to make it against the
law to provide housing to illegal immigrants. The ACLU QUICKLY intervened
which ultimately killed the proposal. Thing is, their actions of
protecting the illegals resulted in protecting landlords from prosecution
for renting to such illegals. Needless to say, they ACLU was not too
excited about it since they hate landlords.

Note: This very same government had absolutely NO problem selling
utilities to the illegals! The hypocrite meter goes off the scale.


Interestingly enough, there was an attempt several years ago
to get all the various U.S. groups involved in men's issues to come
together. I wasn't involved, but I heard that a major problem was
that many of the groups would cooperate only on the basis that other
groups would join their organizations, not that an umbrella group
would be formed to take in all the groups. The only thing on which
there was widespread agreement was that men were discriminated against
in health matters. The Men's Health Network was formed, and has done
good work in getting more attention -- and funding -- devoted to such
matters as prostate cancer.


Women's health care by far exceeds men's, as shown by the significant
difference in average lifespan. Yet the government people STILL promote
women's (as opposed to men's) healthcare, somehow proclaiming that not
enough is being done for women. But what do you expect from a
matriarch............


And it's not limited to government. For an example, Coca-Cola is promoting
women's heart health with their diet Coke as if men didn't have heart
disease or die from it. (Like breast and prostate cancer, the numbers are
similar)
Just about everywhere one looks, there are incentives, promotions and events
slated for women, women's health and the like, at best only a very few for
men.
The only way I know to fight sexism from corporations is to boycott their
products and write an occasional letter of disapproval of their actions to
them. I don't have a problem with coke funding research for heart health, I
just think promoting women's health is sexist since it touches men as well
and in nearly equal numbers. (I suppose the fact that more women are obese
has something to do with Coca Cola choosing diet coke as their product to
promote it, it is, after all, just a grab for money).
Nearly every accidental work-place injury and death is to men yet no one
notices. Can you imagine the uproar if 90-some percent of those killed in
workplace accidents were women?

Phil #3

  #18  
Old September 12th 09, 02:54 PM posted to alt.child-support
Phil #3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
m...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Phil #3" wrote in message
m...

"Kenneth s." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote:

"Bob W" wrote in message
news:GrmdnVy8AvCSCTvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@earthl ink.com...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


[snip]

[snip]

The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical
and vocal.

That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea..
(1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it
or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to
rally around.

I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those
in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning
in the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.

Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is what
feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which
leads us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good,
pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at the
feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as
complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad
is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line
and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.

Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head
in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be
good for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this
happening to a female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman
to apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!

There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of getting
into the ring with the girls.


That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react.
This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the
1960's when women became intensively politically active.
Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities
who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active
part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own
peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under
the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots
for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so
because of racism... and no one bats an eye.

Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.

Phil #3


Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who have
applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare. They
figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the U.S. is
becomong the U.K.

[By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better known
as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that collecting
welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]


Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both healthy
and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me. Neither hold a
job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to kick in then they stay
unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a low-paying job
that won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my displeasure with their
actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly planted.
Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what they
can, while they are able.
Phil #3


  #19  
Old September 12th 09, 06:29 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda


"Phil #3" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
m...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Phil #3" wrote in message
m...

"Kenneth s." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote:

"Bob W" wrote in message
news:GrmdnVy8AvCSCTvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@earth link.com...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


[snip]

[snip]

The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical
and vocal.

That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea..
(1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it
or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to
rally around.

I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those
in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning
in the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.

Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is
what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job.
Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or
good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid
at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men
as complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of
"Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook,
line and sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.

Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head
in a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be
good for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this
happening to a female, not a peep was heard about a demand for
Letterman to apologize to the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!

There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
getting into the ring with the girls.

That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react.
This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the
1960's when women became intensively politically active.
Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities
who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active
part of the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own
peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under
the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots
for Obama then flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so
because of racism... and no one bats an eye.

Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.

Phil #3


Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who
have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare.
They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the U.S.
is becomong the U.K.

[By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better known
as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that
collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]


Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me. Neither
hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to kick in then
they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the cycle with a
low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've voiced my
displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination is firmly
planted.
Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what they
can, while they are able.
Phil #3


Simple. Children are a product of their mother. How their mother raises them
determines their general behavior as adults. Are there exceptions to the
rule? Of course! But overall, they respond to their mother's example. Since
many, if not most, children are taught by their mothers that men pay money
and don't raise children, and women get free money and determine what to
teach their children, it doesn't surprise me that the "child support" system
perpetuates.




  #20  
Old September 12th 09, 09:08 PM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default Schwarzenegger's propaganda

"Phil #3" wrote in message
m...

[snip]

And it's not limited to government. For an example, Coca-Cola is promoting
women's heart health with their diet Coke as if men didn't have heart
disease or die from it. (Like breast and prostate cancer, the numbers are
similar)
Just about everywhere one looks, there are incentives, promotions and
events slated for women, women's health and the like, at best only a very
few for men.
The only way I know to fight sexism from corporations is to boycott their
products and write an occasional letter of disapproval of their actions to
them. I don't have a problem with coke funding research for heart health,
I just think promoting women's health is sexist since it touches men as
well and in nearly equal numbers. (I suppose the fact that more women are
obese has something to do with Coca Cola choosing diet coke as their
product to promote it, it is, after all, just a grab for money).
Nearly every accidental work-place injury and death is to men yet no one
notices. Can you imagine the uproar if 90-some percent of those killed in
workplace accidents were women?

Phil #3



Here's a thought.. sue the *******s.

Class action suits are great for this and can even garner considerable media
coverage. OK, so early on a lot of pinheads may laugh and make jokes, so
what. After men start winning these suits, the laughter will stop and
people will sit up and take notice that men are sick and tired of being the
brunt of all ills of women.

Whenever a company, or the government, moves to promote anything that (real
or imagined) appears to benefit only women and excludes men, in any way,
shape or form - sue them.

After a while they'll get the idea that men are no longer going to take it
in the shorts, nor stand for being told to "Man up" when they have been/are
being disadvantaged.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CA - Schwarzenegger's Miscreant Moms (aka - Daddy, git your shovel) Dusty Child Support 0 August 26th 06 08:02 AM
Governor Schwarzenegger's State of the State Address 01/05/2005 [email protected] Solutions 0 January 6th 05 07:10 AM
ABC propaganda on aspartame john Kids Health 17 September 18th 04 08:17 PM
Debate v Propaganda Kane Spanking 2 September 14th 04 07:00 PM
Governor Schwarzenegger's Remarks at the Republican National Convention Big Brother Solutions 0 September 2nd 04 04:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.