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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
"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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
10 ways to be a better father | Renee | General | 1 | November 16th 03 02:29 PM |
Father Upset With Foster Service Over Near-Drowning Of Son | [email protected] | General | 0 | June 30th 03 10:43 PM |