The Importance of Fathers: Don't Forget the Big Picture

The Importance of Fathers: Don't Forget the Big Picture

January 31, 2005


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
by Alan Millard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

The most crucial and important of priorities are our children. Yet, a
terrible social condition now allows them to be taken from fathers and
deprived their fathers' influence. But, let's not forget, this is a symptom
of a much larger problem we had many years in coming, towards which little
resistance was expressed. And we must also realize it is derived from a
prejudice against men, or more precisely, human males, that occurs from when
boys are very young, and is set as a self-governing standard when boys first
learn about their sexuality and discover, what I call, the male dirty/guilty
connotation. They develop, not only a strong desire, but a need, for sex,
which characteristic is laced with a negative identity. The same urge, due
to a need necessary for complete male health, is not present in the female
due to less levels of testosterone. The effect has been known and
experienced for centuries, and is a condition seen in males of other
species. But even this fact of life is now arbitrarily denied. For women to
acknowledge this male need, legitimately, is to lose the power it gives
them. To negatively acknowledge the male need, and use it to demean men,
allows an unrestrained power-an unquestioned ability to manipulate men
without providing any value in trade, nor to experience the consequences of
mutual responsibility. It allows women to not be held accountable for
actions that in the past were considered inappropriate, unladylike and
provocative, when initiating acts they were previously held accountable for
due to men's exclusive needs to women, with acknowledgement accompanying the
social demonstration.

Once allowed to become established, the women's movement/feminist influence,
has had many ramifications. The sacrifice of fatherhood is only one, but a
major one. Fathers are men, and this is where the problem originates that
results in their lack of equal reproductive/parental rights to women.
However, by only attempting to put out this fire-a symptom of a much larger
problem-and have equal parental rights, men/fathers will never achieve a
status that will allow them to put the fire out. Men have put up with far
too much. Only when their children are taken from them by
feminist-influenced means and attitudes within the government/courts, due to
a social separatism of women from men, have men via fathers shown some of
the most resistance-much of which is in vain due to both the traditional
chivalric and feminist power base.

True, our offspring are the most important value of all. But, due to a lack
of preventive measures, our offspring are now controlled and influenced by
feminism. (This includes exclusive female contact, movies, television and
other media sources and school, via feminist, influence.) As rational
strategists, why have men not protected themselves, their children and our
country from this result? Because they are vulnerable to, and greatly
influenced by, women! Many men-well-groomed and conditioned from when
boys-are influenced by chivalry, which established precedent, broke the path
for feminism and its influence. A power outside the people used women as a
means of influence to convert society to create the social conditions of
today. This late reaction by men/fathers is not without merit, of course,
but it is also strongly laced with disgrace, negligence, and a lack of
integrity by both men and women who have allowed social conditions to get
this bad.

Some veteran men's rights advocates are bitter, and believe that men, after
all this time of allowing the injustice to overcome, deserve their fate. And
others, still out of the optimist loop, believe that they may not be worth
fighting for, although their children are. Others fail to acknowledge their
fate, and many lacking adequate self-worth, are ashamed to fight for themsel
ves, and are filled with self-hatred. The epitome of this effect is
demonstrated by the pro-feminist males who actually fight for feminism.

Many men have been violated, with children wronged and turned against
fathers. The effect is creating new generations of hatred against men, and
even more advanced feminist-influence. Another form of holocaust is brewing,
only this time against a sex, with matching techniques already in place
initially used by the Nazis against the Jews and other "inferior" races, now
used against an "inferior" sex, to persuade society against men, and even
heterosexuality.

Those within the men's equality effort from the start-when feminists first
began their prejudiced and discriminatory campaign-are those of seasoned
wisdom. They must be consulted for their insight, with original philosophies
endorsed, definitely not tainted by feminist influence that has had its
reign for the past 30 years.

We must go back in time, and start from a sound foundation for the men's
equality cause to work, thereby gaining a basic understanding of maleness
that will allow a full standing of integrity to be applied without feminism
contaminating or diluting its efforts. We need to remember that even before
the women's movement, men were considered second-class to women. This is
when women's status of being placed on a pedestal existed and when women
were given an exclusive prerogative, served in the mating scene, protected
and allowed to go first, with doors opened for them when they did. Is this a
second-class status? Only damned fools bought the women's movement idea, and
now we see at what cost.

Why are women and minorities classified the same as Blacks? When were Blacks
ever placed on a pedestal or granted an exclusive prerogative? Men have yet
to achieve an equal status, let alone one placing them upon a pedestal, to
women. Which sex is first to be sacrificed in time of war? Which sex
must-not a choice-still register for the military? It's a
choice-prerogative--for women, not for men. Many seem to also fail in their
equality assessment to include women's exclusive sexual powers/influence
over men, and their motherly influence that, with their custody/parental
privileges, also reigns superior to men who are not granted equal parental
or reproductive rights.

I was perceptive to this 30 years ago, and could then not believe that
masses were following this feminist garbage that had no bearing on truth,
reality or justice. There were those of a responsible nature, if some of us
remember, who believed that for every imbalance on the equality scale, a
counter-balance exists for the opposite sex. But these people and their
efforts were quickly thwarted by the true feminist agenda, and its push
occurring outside of the people. Few now know that issues came up then that
recognized the imbalance concerning men. And these equality
advocates-believe it or not-didn't blame men, but attempted to objectively
address inequities they recognized had evolved in to what both men and women
had to work out together. They did not hold men solely accountable and blame
men, or try to get more at the other sex's expense, which has led to
disrespect, prejudice, male persecution, and lack of good character in today
's women. I actually remember women being as concerned about men in equality
issues as they were for women during the Viet Nam era and shortly
thereafter, with some claiming that men had more to gain than women by
attaining real equality standards. The cause wasn't even sex - secular based
, but actually an effort based upon equal consideration for both sexes,
emerging it seemed from a positive, free-love/hippy era attitude and
philosophy. But the reason women were catered to, is due to a
pre-established higher status (superiority to men) that allowed them to get
more, with feminism using this prior status to its full advantage.

Selfishness and greed have played a major role. When we hear crap like women
are more empathetic than men, we should realize that only due to men's
empathy over women's is the reason women have received more than men. Thus,
the damsel in distress/chivalry syndrome has its application. But denial of
this continual social demonstration is evident by those who use it most to
their advantage, with abuse of such a power base. As I continue to stress,
equality is a man's claim.


--
"The most terrifying words in the English language a
I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
--- Ronald Reagan

I know on a couple of occassions in my life I have actually suggested
to different women that that the sexual drive of men seemed to be
greater then that of women..... They have responded by looking at me
like I'm crazzy to even imagine such a thing....... But lets face it
if you go to the yahoo adult rooms you see a hundred guys begging to
look at one topless BBW as she sits back and picks and chooses who she
will allow to view.

Yeah it's hormones and quite the contrary to what the world thinks men
have em too. Geeze if PMS can justify murder what can that reletless
drive to ejaculate justify?

I was up in Lake Tahoe in one of my travels and there was a ministry
outreach upthere I passed through and in there literature they spelled
it out very clear to the christian women.... Men have seamen that
builds up and needs to be released roughly every 3 days.........I was
shocked having been raised a Catholic and told all my life it was a
sin to touch my penis.

No wonder I was so screwed up..........yes I buy this theory
dirty/guilty negative identity theory........and I do know women are
empowered by this .........whats ye ole clique? no man would put up
with them if they didn't come with a kitty.............

but as far as the manipulation goes I thought they manipulate as a
result of not being free to communicate eye to eye in this patriarchal
society.

Well what the hell all this dirty talk is making me want some lol why
bother analyzing it...............

"Harte" wrote:
... Men have seamen...

"I did not know this!" -- Johnny Carson.

"Roger (B)" wrote in message
.. .
"Harte" wrote:
... Men have seamen...

"I did not know this!" -- Johnny Carson.



"I am from a naval background and my choice of President Clinton as a lover
is not surprising given my preference for seamen." .... Monica Lewinsky

"Roger (B)" wrote in message
.. .
"Harte" wrote:
... Men have seamen...

"I did not know this!" -- Johnny Carson.

Surely you've heard about homosexuality among mariners, haven't you?

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...

"Roger (B)" wrote in message
.. .
"Harte" wrote:
... Men have seamen...

"I did not know this!" -- Johnny Carson.

Surely you've heard about homosexuality among mariners, haven't you?



"...a *manly* ship,...with *manly* men"

Harte wrote:
I know on a couple of occassions in my life I have actually suggested
to different women that that the sexual drive of men seemed to be
greater then that of women..... They have responded by looking at me
like I'm crazzy to even imagine such a thing....... But lets face it
if you go to the yahoo adult rooms you see a hundred guys begging to
look at one topless BBW as she sits back and picks and chooses who
she
will allow to view.

That just indicates that men are turned on visually, and has little to
do woth sex drive.
Visuall attraction is slightly less important to most women than it is
to most men. Women are more turned on emotionally, that's why soap
operas and romance novels tend to be more popular with women.

DaKitty wrote:
Harte wrote:
I know on a couple of occassions in my life I have actually suggested
to different women that that the sexual drive of men seemed to be
greater then that of women..... They have responded by looking at me
like I'm crazzy to even imagine such a thing....... But lets face it
if you go to the yahoo adult rooms you see a hundred guys begging to
look at one topless BBW as she sits back and picks and chooses who she
will allow to view.

That just indicates that men are turned on visually, and has little to
do woth sex drive.
Visuall attraction is slightly less important to most women than it is
to most men. Women are more turned on emotionally, that's why soap
operas and romance novels tend to be more popular with women.

Is that why it takes women longer to come?

*Calinda* wrote:
On Wed 02 Feb 2005 11:40:55a, DaKitty wrote:


Harte wrote:
I know on a couple of occassions in my life I have actually
suggested
to different women that that the sexual drive of men seemed to be
greater then that of women..... They have responded by looking at
me
like I'm crazzy to even imagine such a thing....... But lets face
it
if you go to the yahoo adult rooms you see a hundred guys begging
to
look at one topless BBW as she sits back and picks and chooses
who
she will allow to view.

That just indicates that men are turned on visually, and has little
to
do woth sex drive.
Visuall attraction is slightly less important to most women than it
is
to most men. Women are more turned on emotionally, that's why soap
operas and romance novels tend to be more popular with women.

Agreed.

And I think that as the stigma against women enjoying sex is removed,
more
women will grow up less constricted and more open, so that they are
more
able to enjoy their sexuality.

The doublestandards on this are slowly changing.

Yea, they are.
Having grown up in Europe, I never got exposed to the stigma that
exists here in the states, in some communities. When I came here I was
somewhat surprised with the two extremes... some communities taking al
kinds of liberties, and others being very prejudicial, or maybe a
better word would be prudish.
I suspect my attitude towards it would be somewhat different had I
grown up here. Then again, who knows.

That just indicates that men are turned on visually, and has=AD
little to
do woth sex drive.

As the original article stated

..=2E...start paste..... But even this fact of life is now arbitrarily
denie=ADd. For women to
acknowledge this male need, legitimately, is to lose the pow=ADer it
gives
them. To negatively acknowledge the male need, and use it to=AD demean
men,
allows an unrestrained power-an unquestioned ability to mani=ADpulate
men
without providing any value in trade, nor to experience the
=ADconsequences of ,,,,,
mutual responsibility. It allows women to not be held accoun=ADtable for

actions that in the past were considered inappropriate, unla=ADdylike
and
provocative, when initiating acts they were previously held
=ADaccountable for
due to men's exclusive needs to women.....end paste.....