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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 06:10 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 |