Is a Disabled Mother Better than an Able-Bodied Father?

Is a Disabled Mother Better than an Able-Bodied Father

by Jack Donovan on December 26, 2009

ABC News: “Quadriplegic Mother Fights for Custody of Son”

My father is handicapped. He had polio when he was extremely young. But he wasn’t babied, and he followed the Man Law that I believe a Spearhead commenter or writer recently summed up: “If you can do it, do it.” **

As a result, he’s a fully functioning adult with a limp, and most of the time I forget that he has a handicap at all. My dad and I have a great relationship and I obviously have no axe to grind with the disabled or handicapped. In fact, he has my admiration for having achieved more than many who had fewer disadvantages–and with less whining along the way.

But quadriplegic? That should be a no-brainer. If you’ve ever watched a kid under 10 years of age for over 15 minutes you know that this mother will need someone else’s assistance to care for this child on a daily basis. If the father wants custody and he’s not a complete fuck-up, he is hands down better equipped to care for a child than the quadriplegic mother. This should not be an issue. But apparently, it is.

This story–the fact that it’s even a story at all–seems to be a perfect mix of victim politics and mother-preference. It’s also a story designed to invoke empathy and emotion to trump common sense.


**This is so fundamental and concise  that I’m likely to repeat it, so thank you and please feel free to take credit when it is due.

{ 58 comments… read them below or add one }

Rebel December 26, 2009 at 09:23

The reason is simple and straightforward:
A child belongs to the government and to the mother.
The father, being an artificial construct, is no taken into account, save for the sums of money being demanded of him.

If there is no mother, then the gov will find some other female, but maintains ownership of the human child.

Every child thus becomes gov property at birth. Fathers would not allow their children to be exploited in such a horrible fashion, but mothers see nothing wrong with that as long as some of the money stays with them.

One can say that women, as a whole, are surrogate mothers to the government.

This is the way it is from now on in the West.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Una Salus Victus December 26, 2009 at 09:48

If this is the current state of the US legal system, then we have already begun the slide to Idiocracy. I, however, agree with the author; Unless the father is a complete fuck-up, the decision should be quite simple.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam December 26, 2009 at 10:13

A no brainer indeed, Mr. Donovan. This women is seeking to indenture the child. Even if she had adequate care taking from other sources, it is very likely that she wants the child for company and companionship in what is likely a life mainly spent restricted to one to two rooms of a house.

I don’t think the answer would be any different, though, if she could walk. Fathers are better parents than mothers. They always have been.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ElectricAngel December 26, 2009 at 11:54

A child belongs to the government and to the mother…
Every child thus becomes gov property at birth.

This cannot be correct. The government has no way of knowing that the child even exists… unless you register him with the Social Security service by asking for a social security number. There’s great incentive to do so, of course: you get about $2000 in tax a social welfare benefits, about two ounces of gold; under old bimetallic conversion rates of 15:1 silver: gold, that’d be about 30 pieces of silver.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Paul Elam December 26, 2009 at 12:28

The government has no way of knowing that the child even exists… unless you register him with the Social Security service by asking for a social security number.

Or unless you register them in school, get a divorce, become the target of an accusation, dispute paternity, sue for child support, etc.

A child becomes property of the state the moment the mother wants it to, and she has every incentive to do so. No one is getting around that by not getting an SSN for the child.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Omega Man December 26, 2009 at 12:33

To quote Oscar Wilde- “You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.”

This Anita Allen pretty much represents the pinnacle of American culture- “She was able-bodied enough to have sex with him.” I’m laughing too hard to explain why that’s funny.

Which brings up the topic- who goes after quadriplegic chicks? I mean sometimes you want the woman to just lie there, but not all the time.

All these people should have been sterilized- or better yet euthanized- at an early age.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Omega Man December 26, 2009 at 12:35

And when I say “all these people” I mean Anita Allen as well, especially Anita Allen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pernicious December 26, 2009 at 13:06

Technically she may not be a bad parent. She needs complete care for all her biological functions, how can she care for a 5 month old child who needs complete care as well.

The most important thing I can see is that she is going to want extra money from him to pay for extra child-care costs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
OneSTDV December 26, 2009 at 13:09

Children under the age of 10 need a father figure to control them. Women don’t impose physical fear into young boys and thus are unable to properly control their behavior. A handicapped woman would have almost no authority over the child.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
gwallan December 26, 2009 at 13:18

Methinks mum sees a potential, free, long term, live in carer in the offering. A carer who can be emotionally manipulated. Mum is breeding her own future slaves. Keeping custody of the future slave is the trick.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
adan flores December 26, 2009 at 14:01

THIS, friends and neighbors, is not only the same old shit, but a VERY ugly peek at the unmuzzled misandry my birth-defective ass has had to deal with since it was obvious I’d be a viable life form 50 years ago. Even stupider than the Tiffany Callow freakshow in the 1980s. As an aside, Jack; always a delight to hear of your love for your father.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sean_MacCloud December 26, 2009 at 14:59

gwallan December 26, 2009 at 1:18 pm

Methinks mum sees a potential, free, long term, live in carer in the offering. A carer who can be emotionally manipulated. Mum is breeding her own future slaves. Keeping custody of the future slave is the trick.

Yes.

She doesn’t know it though. She is non self aware. Like a plant with thorns.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli December 26, 2009 at 16:39

Right up your alley.
_____________
http://www.tmz.com/2009/12/26/charlie-sheen-brooke-mueller-domestic-abuse-alcohol-a-factor-arrest-aspen-colorado-blood-alcohol-test-legally-drunk-two-and-a-half-man/

Law enforcement sources tell TMZ … Brooke Mueller was legally drunk when she called 911 on Charlie Sheen … and, we’ve learned, Brooke has fessed up that her allegation was phony.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Brian December 26, 2009 at 16:45

Law enforcement sources tell TMZ … Brooke Mueller was legally drunk when she called 911 on Charlie Sheen … and, we’ve learned, Brooke has fessed up that her allegation was phony.

Which just goes to show that DV laws should be completely wiped off from the books.

But even if the allegation had been true, they should be wiped off from the books anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sestamibi December 26, 2009 at 18:57

Meh, quads don’t really live all that long (cf. Christopher Reeve), so the father might get the kid back soon enough–unless some other relatives intervene.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli December 26, 2009 at 20:04

Jon Gosselin’s NYC Apartment ‘Ransacked’
http://www.tmz.com/2009/12/26/jon-gosselins-nyc-apartment-ransacked-haley-glassman-police-report/

Sources say a note was left behind with Hailey Glassman’s name signed at the bottom – but we’re told someone else could have easily signed her name on it. The apartment is actually listed under both Gosselin and Glassman’s name.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bob Smith December 26, 2009 at 22:09

Which brings up the topic- who goes after quadriplegic chicks? I mean sometimes you want the woman to just lie there, but not all the time.

She probably can’t feel what you’re doing either. There’s also a good chance she doesn’t have bladder or bowel control. Ick.

It must be said, however, that her quadriplegia may not be total. Partial use of the limbs, skin sensation, and bladder/bowel control are all possible depending on the exact nature of the injury.

Some quads can even walk, after much rehab. Their neural deficits usually remain substantial, however, and they are extremely susceptible to reinjury. We can get you into fighting shape after blowing out a knee or shoulder, but the spine is still a mystery.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tarl December 27, 2009 at 00:01

O’Neill sustained her injuries when she was knocked off a balcony during Hurricane Floyd. The balcony was lower than regulations dictated, but she was found to be partially negligent, possibly owing to alcohol, according to the Virginia court ruling on her lawsuit against the housing company, meaning she could not collect damages from the housing company under Virginia law.

Well gee, of course it was the apartment complex’s fault she was drunk and stupid!

As for claims that O’Neill cannot raise the child, Allen said, “She was able-bodied enough to have sex with him.”

Um, what? Just because she was able to lie there while he grunted his seed into her, doesn’t mean she’s able-bodied enough to raise a kid.

That disability says little about ability to parent, said Tuleja, the disability advocate.

Does this dumbass actually believe this?

“Whose business is it what actually happened?” said Allen. “She doesn’t owe the public an explanation for why she is disabled.”

Yeah, why let a history of drunken stupidity enter into a custody decision?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
incurablesanity December 27, 2009 at 10:27

“The courts, experts say, typically do not believe a disability is reason for a parent to lose custody of a child.”

However being male typically is…

“”Why should the father have custody just because the mother is disabled?”
While a point they are ignoring the question of why shouldn’t the father have custody? What really strikes me about this article is the assumption that the child is hers and he is trying to take it away. He wants to raise his child and there doesn’t seem to be any reference to him wanted full custody and not letting her see their kid. He just seems to think that as single parents he could do a better job. He could pick the child up off the floor when it falls. If she is raising the kid she needs help. Thus she isn’t being a single parent. However he is still the bad guy for discriminating against her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer December 27, 2009 at 10:33

What really strikes me about this article is the assumption that the child is hers and he is trying to take it away.

-incurablesanity

As I pointed out in this article, women – even grandmothers – tend to feel that they own children and fathers have no claim to them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman December 28, 2009 at 13:51

ElectricAngel December 26, 2009 at 11:54 am
“The government has no way of knowing that the child even exists”
Where do you guys get the rubbish you type from? Are all of you smoking dope or something?

It is called ‘the berth certificate’. Most hospitals in the western world shove it under the nose of the father/mother pretty much at ‘berth’ as a formality. Indeed, legally, the ‘berth certificate’ must be signed before the first vaccination is administered.

The ‘berth certificate’ is actually the legal document of transferance of ownership of the child to the state. The child is REGISTered which means ‘handed over to the care of the REGIS’ in case you don’t know. Man…when are you guys going to actually learn about what is happening. This is not rocket science you know.

The guvment sure as hell wants the ‘berth certificate’ signed because they then create a corporation and a bond to the corporation and then sell the bond for a ‘loan’ from the banks backed by the new babies likelyhood of paying income tax all it’s life to repay the loan.

Men who are refusing to sign the ‘berth certificate’ in Australia are subject to all sorts of harrassment from the ‘guvment’. The ‘guvment’ also says things like ‘any child not REGIStered may not attend a public school’. In Germany parents who have registered their children who then try to home school them are having them abducted by the state to ‘educate’ the children ‘properly’. Can they be any more obvious in their efforts to brainwash the kids than to abduct them from their parents?

One reason that children MUST remain with the mother rather than the father is that fathers actually care about their children. Women don’t give a fuck about their children apart from the role the children play in getting the mother paid for. Women use their children for their personal gain and dress it up in nobility and the Illuminati do the same because it is in their best interests too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Lady Raine December 29, 2009 at 16:06

Once again, way to make it about your sperm and your penis’s and NOT the child.

In this case, the kid is screwed either way….but whether or not you care to admit the facts….I child who grows up with “mother” issues tends to be FAR more screwed up than a child who grows up without a father. There is a bond between mother and child that has been scientifically proven to exist from the moment of birth that does NOT exist between father and child.

The baby knows the mother’s voice while still in the womb….he recognizes her scent, her sounds, her voice, and everything else from the moment it is born. It is because the mother is both the giver of life, the incubator for the child, and the sole provider of “food” and nutrients to the child. They are born knowing this. That is scientific fact whether you like it or not.

Furthermore, how often do you hear about a person becoming a serial killer or a rapist or any violent offender….who had NO issues with his mother????

None. How many of those most violent offenders had a “bad relationship with mommy”??? Almost all of them.

That alone is reason enough for you to understand the fact of life that a mother’s influence whether positive or negative is a FAR greater influence on the child then the father ever could be. While some mothers abuse or ignore this immense responsibility is not the issue.

Women are not given custody for “no good reason”. It is the above-mentioned facts of life coupled by the fact that women are typically the ones who are going to end up actually RAISING the child because very few men bother to fight for custody. Men don’t want it. They’ve proven that. Women MAY not want it….but they continue to get it no matter how they feel about the matter.

You can hate on women as a gender all day, but it has been proven time and time again that the bond between mother and child is present before the child is even born…..and cannot be matched by anyone else (including the father).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
wow December 29, 2009 at 16:10

How would you know this LR? How would you know about your son’s bond with his father…at birth? What science are you citing?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 29, 2009 at 16:14

As I pointed out in this article, women – even grandmothers – tend to feel that they own children and fathers have no claim to them.

That’s because it is true.

Once a woman decides to “have a baby” with her own eggs, carry it around for 9 months, nurture it, feed it, listen to it’s heart, feel it moving around inside of her month after month…….it’s still HER baby no matter what random “sperm” help to make the baby she wanted to have….happen.

The baby would grow and be created in the woman’s body in the same way whether it’s from ___ man’s sperm….or ___man’s sperm……etc. The baby doesn’t care who the sperm is from.

The mother has almost an entire year “in the womb” to connect with her new baby before the father does. Again, it’s a scientific bond that is proven to exist solely within mothers & children. Not with fathers.

It’s because even nature recognizes WHO gives the life, takes it away, and makes the decision to allow the man’s sperm to live in the form of a baby. Nature also realizes that humans are not perfect and that even mothers need an “extra bond” to makes sure that the human race continues on.

If women weren’t given a special bond with babies before their birth (that the fathers are not privileged to) what do you think would happen to all these mothers who are given custody and don’t really want it????

Exactly what many fathers now do, that’s what. Abandon them, send a check, pretend they don’t exist, or just plain RUN.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Lady Raine December 29, 2009 at 16:19

How would you know this LR? How would you know about your son’s bond with his father…at birth? What science are you citing?

WHAT? Um, ANY Science. Go “google” it and I’m sure you can find about 1,000 unbiased sources to back up the “mother/baby bond” thing. It’s common knowledge amongst anyone with an education.

I wasn’t referring to MY son at all. I left my son’s father and moved out of our home when my son was less than one month old. I never spoke to his father again after that. He doesn’t KNOW his “father” and never will. He doesn’t even know he ever HAD a father (because he didn’t….he had a sperm donor and a mother).

My son only asked once “mommy why don’t I have a daddy?” and I told him that some kids don’t have a mom, a dad, a grammy, a pop-pop, or even an aunt or uncle. I told him that he just happens to be a kid who has all of those EXCEPT a father.

He shrugged and happily trotted away. That’s the only mention I’ve ever made of his “father” and the only time he’s ever asked.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
wow December 29, 2009 at 16:25

Maybe the only time he’s asked, but not the only time he’s thought about it…and will continue to think about it all the days of his life. Because there is a bond, and you can try to rationalize it all you want.

My son recognized my voice the moment he was born, turned to me with his still blue eyes in a crowded room. I have it on film.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark December 29, 2009 at 16:36

As I pointed out in this article, women – even grandmothers – tend to feel that they own children and fathers have no claim to them.

That’s because it is true.

It’s because women are control freaks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 29, 2009 at 16:42

Maybe the only time he’s asked, but not the only time he’s thought about it…and will continue to think about it all the days of his life. Because there is a bond, and you can try to rationalize it all you want.

I didn’t say there was no bond. I said it “doesn’t compare” with the natural and SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to exist bond that a child has with his mother LONG before he is “born” into this world.

Okay, fine. You want to try to “speak on” what my son does or not feel or what his piece of shit “father” did or didn’t do? Let’s do it, then.

My son does not think about his “father”. I know that because he is a delightful, happy child who excels in school and is extremely popular amongst the other children. He is dauntless and courageous and full of life. He is happier and more well-adjusted than most children I’ve ever seen.

Know why? Because he never HAD a bond with his “father”. You can sit there and talk about your own “bond” with your children all you want, but you have no idea what kind of man my son’s father was.

You know what he was doing after both my son and I almost died from “mysterious complication” during labor???? Right after his son was born???

Drinking at the bar.

Know where he was the NEXT day after I gave birth and was waiting and waiting for him to come and see his new son and I (the son that he supposedly WANTED so badly)????

He was passed out at home sleeping like a drunken baby STILL.

Guess when he finally came back to see his long-term girlfriend and new son? The day I needed a ride home from the hospital, that’s when.

My son’s father never HAD a bond with my son. He never had a bond with ME. His only bond was to his bottle of alcohol and himself. You think my son will MISS the man who beat me while I was pregnant with him? Who said he wanted a child and a family and then turned into a bonafide MONSTER after the first few months of pregnancy? The man who locked me in our home and made sure I didn’t even have a phone to call for help from while he was at work 15 hours per day? Or do you mean the man that said “I wish the kid were dead so that I didn’t have to deal with YOU and YOUR pregnancy.”????

Could you please point out in there WHEN you think my son’s “father” worked to create a bond with him? At what point my son will say “omg my mom is SO evil in taking me away from that man”. Never. That’s when.

My son’s “father” isn’t even listed on the birth certificate. I made sure of that. He doesn’t share his name. I made sure of that too. I don’t even know if he is alive or dead and have no need to know……we don’t speak his name or even think of him. In all honesty…..I cannot even remember what he looked like.

I realize some women really abuse their role as mother….but I did what any good mother would do. I removed him (and myself) from the hands of a drunken monster and told him that if he EVER so much as spoke my name, my son’s name, or sought to find us…..I’d kill him without hesitation. He knew I meant it.

So, say what you want…..but you have no idea what OTHER “fathers” do or do not have.

(And more importantly the mother/child bond is proven to exist. This is further compounded by a belief that the reason it seems like newborns often look JUST like the dads and then later look like their moms is because it’s supposedly nature’s way of trying to “quick find a way” to get dad to have a good bond with the new baby because he didn’t have 9 months with him like Mom did. That part isn’t “fact” though….just theory. You are mistaking what I call a “natural bond” with a normal “father’s bond” with his child. I am not saying that men have “no bond” with their children…..I am saying they are not given the SAME sort of bond as the mother. Why so defensive about that? I don’t make the rules, you know.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Welmer December 29, 2009 at 16:47

The baby knows the mother’s voice while still in the womb….he recognizes her scent, her sounds, her voice, and everything else from the moment it is born. It is because the mother is both the giver of life, the incubator for the child, and the sole provider of “food” and nutrients to the child. They are born knowing this. That is scientific fact whether you like it or not.

-LR

You’re kind of missing the overarching point behind the post. It is true that nature favors the mother child bond. It is also true that the mother has more power over the life of the child for years.

But this is the law of the jungle. We live (or used to live) in a civilized society. It was constructed by men. To maintain a civilized society, fatherhood is necessary. It is a huge disadvantage for a child to be deprived of a father in such a world as ours. Not to say all children without fathers will fail, but it is far more difficult for them, particularly at crucial stages of life such as adolescence and early adulthood.

Sometimes this is the father’s fault for abandoning his child, but when a mother pushes a father out of a child’s life she is just as much to blame as a runaway father when developmental problems come up.

We are well past the Garden of Eden. We are very complex beings who need far more than mere biological nurture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wow December 29, 2009 at 16:53

LR: No one is denying the mother’s bond, it’s only biology right, she incubates and feeds the newborn, it’s what she was made to do when the father donated the X chromosome……kinda not worth arguing.

Despite your choice in a terrible father to impregnate you, your son will always be 50% HIM. He will look like him on somedays, act like him, demonstrate his proclivities, intelligence, even desires….just when you think you own your son, he’ll hit 10 or 11 years of age and only identify with MEN (unless gay). He’ll still love you, but to him, you’ll be a surrogate breast only needed for warmth and and an occasional symbolic suckle. Oh sure, you’ll introduce an uncle, grandparent, whomever, but he’s still 50% thugspawn….and there’s is nothing you can do about that 50% “random sperm donation”! That’s science…google it!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo December 29, 2009 at 17:45

LR:

“Furthermore, how often do you hear about a person becoming a serial killer or a rapist or any violent offender….who had NO issues with his mother????

None. How many of those most violent offenders had a “bad relationship with mommy”??? Almost all of them.

That alone is reason enough for you to understand the fact of life that a mother’s influence whether positive or negative is a FAR greater influence on the child then the father ever could be. While some mothers abuse or ignore this immense responsibility is not the issue.”

Seventy-two percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. Sixty percent of America’s rapists grew up the same way.
Source: D. Cornell (et al.), Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5. 1987. And N. Davidson, “Life Without Father,” Policy Review. 1990.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 29, 2009 at 18:44

Despite your choice in a terrible father to impregnate you, your son will always be 50% HIM. He will look like him on somedays, act like him, demonstrate his proclivities, intelligence, even desires….just when you think you own your son, he’ll hit 10 or 11 years of age and only identify with MEN (unless gay). He’ll still love you, but to him, you’ll be a surrogate breast only needed for warmth and and an occasional symbolic suckle. Oh sure, you’ll introduce an uncle, grandparent, whomever, but he’s still 50% thugspawn….and there’s is nothing you can do about that 50% “random sperm donation”! That’s science…google it!

You clearly mistakenly think I “hate” my ex and wish to eradicate his genes. I look at his father as a sick, sad man who didn’t care enough about himself or his son to try to fix his life. My ex was not a “thug” by any means. He worked hard and drank too much. You wish to make it out to be MORE than that to fit your stereotypes…..but it isn’t the case. My ex was a handsome, intelligent, and never got sick. Those are things that I do not wish to eradicate from his life. I also don’t tell my son “bad” things about his real father. I don’t tell him anything at all…..my son essentially met him once or twice. I’m not worried that he’ll miss a “bond” that never existed between them.

From what I understand, my ex tells people that he has no son and never did. Does that sound like a man who is “fighting” to be that 50% to you? No. He has problems that no one can help him with but him. I don’t hate him, loathe him, or even dislike him….. I feel sorry for him for what he’s missing…..and for what he became. I turned my back on him for the sake of my safety and my son’s…..not because of some deeper Feminist agenda or some weird hatred toward men.

He WILL always be genetically “50% HIM” as you say. That is a fact. However, as we all know….biology doesn’t make you a mother OR a father. Acting like one does.

As for the part about “when he’s 10 or 11″…..that sort of thing only happens with women who openly HATE on the father or on other men in front of him and push their “bitterness” into their children’s minds. I don’t do that and never would.

I made a poor choice in choosing him. That is obvious. I don’t know if you thought that was a “zinger” that I wasn’t aware of or what, but unlike some people here….I don’t play to be a “voluntary victim” when I am not at victim at all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Lady Raine December 29, 2009 at 18:54

Oops, sorry Welmer….I didn’t see your response.

Of course a one parent household is not “ideal” and any woman who pretends that it is…..is lying to herself. However, I think everyone can agree that two BAD parents are NOT better than one good one. I am not saying that men have “no bond” with their children….I was only trying to point out WHY women may “act as if the child is solely theirs” as some commentors here were claiming.

I agree with you on SOME of your points….but the point about “men building this civilization” is NOT true. Not historically at least. And not in the way you are presenting it to be.

MANY Ancient Civilizations such as the Egyptians (for example) had female Pharaohs. Many modern civilizations still have Queens. Now, it’s true that they are just “figureheads” much like the U.S. President…..but that doesn’t change the fact that even the most prolific of Ancient Civilizations SHARED the power equally between male and female rulers (usually based on whomever had the most royal blood).

Now while men may have been the ones to PHYSICALLY do the building…..maybe even the fighting (in wars and such)…..and the protecting….that does not mean that they were/are the “power” behind the “building of civilization” as you claim. There is not a SINGLE empire in the history of the world who FAILED just because they had a woman Pharaoh, Queen, Dictator, Duchess, or Prime Minister.

Men may have had a greater hand in fighting our wars and the actual literal “building”…..but not in the way that you are presenting it. You know it and I know it, Welmer. You are not a stupid man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Lady Raine December 29, 2009 at 19:02

Seventy-two percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. Sixty percent of America’s rapists grew up the same way.
Source: D. Cornell (et al.), Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5. 1987. And N. Davidson, “Life Without Father,” Policy Review. 1990.

I think you missed the point. I am not trying to say that the father “doesn’t matter”. I’m saying his negative or positive influence isn’t as prolific as the negative or positive influence of the mother. The fathers are “absent” in MANY households across the world who DON’T raise killers. HOWEVER. When the MOTHER is a negative influence with or without the father…..THAT’S where your killers come from.

Basically, my point was that it’s VERY rare to hear about a serial killer, a rapist, or a molestor who had a “great relationship with mom”. Thus, the (negative) influence of a ‘bad mom’ is what almost always goes hand in hand with breeding a killer…..whether the dad was present or not.

I’ll bet if you adjust those stats and google “how many killers had a good relationship with their mothers” you’ll find a statistic nearing zero.

Thus, my point is that the absence of a father alone usually does not breed THAT kind of Criminal. Usually the absence of a father coupled with a NEGATIVE motherly influence does. Therefore, the influence of the mother is more immediate and notable in most children’s day to day life and what kind of men/people they grow into.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Welmer December 29, 2009 at 21:48

Now while men may have been the ones to PHYSICALLY do the building…..maybe even the fighting (in wars and such)…..and the protecting….that does not mean that they were/are the “power” behind the “building of civilization” as you claim.

-LR

Sorry I didn’t respond sooner, LR; I was busy taking care of my children, one of whom seems to have come down with something.

I’d never argue that women had nothing to do with civilization, but I maintain that it is fundamentally based on a sense of male stewardship — patriarchy if you will. In all patriarchal societies, the children are bound to the father. In fact, the very last verses of the Old Testament, which has a great deal to do with our civilization, give a stern warning against forgetting that:

5: Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

-Malachi 4:5-6

And if you have a problem with the Bible, I could find plenty more in ancient Greek and Chinese texts.

There is not a SINGLE empire in the history of the world who FAILED just because they had a woman Pharaoh, Queen, Dictator, Duchess, or Prime Minister.

You might want to check into the story of Cixi, Empress Dowager of the Qing dynasty, who presided over the collapse of the Chinese Empire, the world’s oldest and arguably greatest empire of all time. Over a billion Chinese may disagree with you.

Men may have had a greater hand in fighting our wars and the actual literal “building”…..but not in the way that you are presenting it. You know it and I know it, Welmer. You are not a stupid man.

Not stupid anymore, I hope. :)

Sometimes I think women are frustrated by the predominance of males in the construction of civilization. They shouldn’t be: we did it out of love, after all. You take that away, and what motivation remains?

This is why I’m not all that optimistic about our future if current trends continue. Men have been shunned, and our love is held to be worthless — we are expendable and unwanted. So it’s back to the jungle, I suppose.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
nilk December 30, 2009 at 03:35

Oh dear. Lady Raine, please allow me to do a brief fisking of your comment.

Once again, way to make it about your sperm and your penis’s and NOT the child.

No. In this article, the child’s welfare must come first. Sure, her friend commenting has the same level of disability, and has 3 kids, but the friend also has a husband and isn’t going it alone.

Having a read of the article, there is nothing that says she would be an unfit mother; just one who is not as physically capable as the father is.

In this case, the kid is screwed either way….but whether or not you care to admit the facts….I child who grows up with “mother” issues tends to be FAR more screwed up than a child who grows up without a father. There is a bond between mother and child that has been scientifically proven to exist from the moment of birth that does NOT exist between father and child.

Hahahhahha. Tell that to all those women who do not bond with their babies at birth.

There are plenty of those around, and there’s a lot of infanticide carried out by mothers who are obviously well-bonded to their babies.

Patricia Pearson is a good read for that sort of stuff.

The baby knows the mother’s voice while still in the womb….he recognizes her scent, her sounds, her voice, and everything else from the moment it is born. It is because the mother is both the giver of life, the incubator for the child, and the sole provider of “food” and nutrients to the child. They are born knowing this. That is scientific fact whether you like it or not.

Not sure about the scent, since I’m pretty sure we all smell differently on the inside compared to the outside, but I’m sure that little idea can be safely set aside.

As for whether babies are born “knowing this” or not, I’d suggest not. They are born with several very definite instinctive reflexes – particularly the rooting reflex (that’s the one that helps the baby find the nipple or the teat, and not the Australian usage which is the act that leads to babies) and the grasping reflex.

The mother is not necessarily the sole provider, either. The mother may be, as I was for 2 years of breastfeeding, but then again I was bottlefed. I don’t remember who held the bottle and I don’t really care.

Furthermore, how often do you hear about a person becoming a serial killer or a rapist or any violent offender….who had NO issues with his mother????

None. How many of those most violent offenders had a “bad relationship with mommy”??? Almost all of them.

Hmm. Let’s change the angle of our view, shall we?

How many of these serial offenders had a strong father-figure in their lives? How many of their mummy issues came from living in a single-parent home where mum was always working, and trying to raise the kids and keep a roof over their head at the same time?

How many of these mums got snappy, and frustrated, and vented at their sons because they were boys, and boys grow up to be men who use women and then run off when the women get pregnant?

That alone is reason enough for you to understand the fact of life that a mother’s influence whether positive or negative is a FAR greater influence on the child then the father ever could be. While some mothers abuse or ignore this immense responsibility is not the issue.

Women are not given custody for “no good reason”. It is the above-mentioned facts of life coupled by the fact that women are typically the ones who are going to end up actually RAISING the child because very few men bother to fight for custody. Men don’t want it. They’ve proven that. Women MAY not want it….but they continue to get it no matter how they feel about the matter.

Um, yes, women often are given custody for no good reason. I have an aunt who takes in foster children. She has a brother and sister who are now legally in her care until they are 16.

She’s had the girl since she was a few months old, and the boy from when he was about 5.

The mother has had 5 or 6 children, all farmed out by DoCS amongst extended family members or strangers like my aunt.

It took some work to get the kids away from their mother, who had been given handouts, and sent on responsible parenting courses, programs to get off drugs and the like. Plus the handouts from Centrelink.

There are women out there who I wouldn’t trust with a pet rock, let alone a child, and the courts hand them custody every day.

Read some Stephen Baskerville.

You can hate on women as a gender all day, but it has been proven time and time again that the bond between mother and child is present before the child is even born…..and cannot be matched by anyone else (including the father).

Well duh. Yes, there is a bond, and it cannot be matched.

Neither can the bond between a father and his child.

I had great relationships with both my parents, and they are both gone but you know what? I miss both of them equally.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
nilk December 30, 2009 at 03:49

The mother has almost an entire year “in the womb” to connect with her new baby before the father does. Again, it’s a scientific bond that is proven to exist solely within mothers & children. Not with fathers.

Hahahaahahahaha.

When I was 8 months pregnant, believe me I was so far over my baby I was out the other side.

Yes, I loved sleeping on 6 pillows in a near-upright position. I loved the block and tackle needed to get me into and out of the car, and I loved tying my shoe-laces by feel alone because I couldn’t get to my feet properly.

Fathers do actually connect with their babies.

When they are allowed to.

“Woman as nurturer” is all very well as it goes, but when it comes to the facts, there’s a reason we have all those happy hormones coursing through our bloodstreams throughout the pregnancy and when the child is a baby.

It’s to enable us to bond and therefore have an emotional stake in the child.

Oxytocin is present in breastmilk to help the baby bond to the mother, which suggests that the mytical bond isn’t so mystical after all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark December 30, 2009 at 05:19

The ‘science’ which suggests that mothers have a special, mystical (cue Twilight Zone theme) bond with their babies has been discredited to my knowledge. LR please cite the scientific evidence which you think proves the mystical link, and please don’t cite John Bowlby. As I say, discredited.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark December 30, 2009 at 05:20

To say that ‘educated people know this’ is so horribly ignorant that it’s hilarious … ‘educated people’ tend to disagree on things, because they are the sort of people who tend to ask questions – especially of folksy wisdom with no empirical evidence backing it up, as in this case.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
A VICTIM December 30, 2009 at 05:45

By and large today’s “wimmin” think only of themselves. Children are handy to use for income and putting feathers in “Loving Moms” headress, but little more. Most mothers, especially single parent mothers, have their own agenda, and children are usually in the way. An example of this is all of the good mothers who have the children “involved” in about a half a dozen or more different activities. These outings are really ways for this loving, caring, parent to spend less time with their children, and also frequently to interfere with or entirely circumvent, the acyual loving caring parent , the Father, from having parenting time with the child(ren). Here is a link to a very good bit of information about this entirely female trait, SOLIPSISM!!! Here is the link:
http://www.inmalafide.com/2009/10/06/eternal-solipsism-of-the-female-mind/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 30, 2009 at 06:13

If you put a newborn in the den of a wolf mother, it will bond to the wolf mother. Magical women? More like ingeniously programmed baby.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 30, 2009 at 06:24

I actually do think women are built psychologically to be better nurturers, but if we accept this, and it is just an average, not the rule, than we must accept that men on average are psychologically built better to lead, as in lead the family as a whole, and that includes how a child should be nurtured.

Check mate?

Hey, how come the queen is the most powerful piece on the board anyways?

I’ll tell you. The matriarchy oppesses male competition through the implementation of removing restrictions on the “movement” of female activity and action. By restricing males to certain roles, from pawn to bishop, we are locked into sacrificing ourselves for the benefit of the king, whilst the queen has free reign to plunder and destroy any men who cross her unfettered path, all the while claiming, “But the king has all the power!” even as he limps along, burdened with the responsiblities and strain of holding the board/empire together. The matriarchy, or the emasculatriarchy?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark December 30, 2009 at 06:39

The chess analogy is brilliant. I might even have to use that in the future. I’ll give you credit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo December 30, 2009 at 10:28

There is not a SINGLE empire in the history of the world who FAILED just because they had a woman Pharaoh, Queen, Dictator, Duchess, or Prime Minister.

Cleopatra was the last pharaoh. Ever.

In fact, most female pharaohs ended their dynasty.

To generalize further, I am not aware of any time when any female ruler of a significant country or empire was *ever* succeeded by another female. It might happen soon because women are more involved in politics in the democracies. A female ruler often is an indicator that an empire or organization is on its last legs.

Are you aware that most Wall Street brokers routinely sell shares in companies that appoint female CEOs because they tend to crash and burn? Carly Fiorina nearly killed both Lucent and HP, and she’s held up as a successful businesswoman and is running for the Senate!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 30, 2009 at 10:52

Dooming a child to be a live slave to a paraplegic woman is cruelty at its finest. Not that I expect women to get it, that would require them to not be self-absorbed narcissists. Not happening.

LOL at the “mystical bond between mother and child”. There isn’t such thing just because children come from women’s wombs. In fact, I think that women’s are extremely angry because they have to go on labour to be able to reproduce and men’s don’t. To this point: Ancient tribes killed all the men and children and taked the women. If we are descendant from said tribes, women just couldn’t form such kind of bond when it is contrary to the needs of survival.

And finally, the kind of cunt that is brainwashed in wanting to be at a leadership position or that is put there for lineage just doesn’t have the strength to be able to, you know, lead.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 30, 2009 at 11:46

“Gx1080 December 30, 2009 at 10:52

Dooming a child to be a live slave to a paraplegic woman is cruelty at its finest. Not that I expect women to get it, that would require them to not be self-absorbed narcissists. Not happening.”

Along these lines, some divorced women use their sons as emotional tampons. At least mine did. (It was a learning experience. I learned all types of backwards, fucked up emotionally driven bullshit, that I had to spend years unlearning later in life.) Some fully place the father role onto the eldest son, denying him of a carefree childhood. This didn’t happen to my older brother, but I’ve heard about it happening. I’m sure there are situations where they have little choice but to do so, for the sake of the rest of the family, but that doesn’t make it right.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sugar January 1, 2010 at 03:27

@Welmer

“Sometimes I think women are frustrated by the predominance of males in the construction of civilization. They shouldn’t be: we did it out of love, after all. You take that away, and what motivation remains?…This is why I’m not all that optimistic about our future if current trends continue. Men have been shunned, and our love is held to be worthless — we are expendable and unwanted. So it’s back to the jungle, I suppose.”

Welmer I’d like to believe that there are other women, like me, who have come to realise that we are all worse off for not appreciating what men bring to the table. For making men feel stupid and unwanted and unneeded. Your post makes me very sad. It reminds me of the day when I realised what I was doing to my husband and our relationship in the name of “being a liberated woman”. I spent days crying about the damage I had done to him and to myself by trying to force him into a mould of my own making…. How desperately I wished that I could take back the things I’d said and done to him because I believed he was just another man like my father. But he wasn’t my father, he wasn’t my enemy. Why had I married a strong, decent, able man if it had been my intention all along to break him down and change him into a frustrated weakling that we both would despise? I didn’t understand my own reasons and it was a hell of a wake-up call for me. It took him years and years to learn to trust me again and to accept that I meant it when I said I was sorry, that I meant it when I said I wanted him to be the strong man I married and the head of our home.

It wasn’t until I had almost lost him that I realised how much I wanted him, just the way he was.

My husband is the king of his home, and I am his queen. We are friends and partners and lovers and we accept and appreciate the very real personal and gender differences between us as part of that which makes it all the more interesting. It’s also a real challenge because we have to not only resist our innate human desire to be on top at any expense, but also the influences of the world around us to fall into stereotyping.

Being a capable, strong and intelligent woman doesn’t automatically make me a manipulative scheming bitch. It can make me one hell of a woman and wife though.

Being a capable, strong and intelligent man doesn’t automatically make him a male chauvinist pig. It can make him one hell of a man and husband though.

The world is full of hurt and disillusioned people and all we do it go out and break someone else. Instead of healing we just spread the pain. That’s what I was doing. My father was a man who emotionally devastated my mother. He was an intelligent man, gifted and much admired by others, but at home he was a cruel and self-centred man who did not tolerate any opinions unless they were his own. If he could not clone you he’d break you. My mother was a gifted artist in her own right and she retaliated by becoming a fierce feminist and by raising each of her daughters to be the same. My husband grew up in a home with a “religiously submissive” mother who spent every moment of her life telling everyone how horrible her life was. She was one of those suffering types who stay but hate the men they are married to – they whine and complain and emotionally manipulate their children into sympathy. She was also the bread-winner. His father was a self-centred man who used his religion to excuse his excesses and to force his wife to stay in a relationship with him even when he has been unfaithful to her several times and wasted their money on designer suits, fancy cars and other women. He was often out of work but imagined himself to be a hot shot. While his mother brought thrift shop clothes for them and made her own clothes so they could eat, his father painted the town red in his designer clothes and new cars. So they each spread the pain of their existence to their children and everyone around them.

We both brought these damaged ideas about men and women into our relationship. But after much pain and soul-searching we realised that we were taking normal differences between us and using them to imagine in each other the worst of our parents. He was my uncaring father and I was his overly-emotional mother. I would not be controlled by any man, he would not be emotionally owned by any woman and so the war began… and we both almost lost everything that was precious to us.

The challenge to end the war is to firstly admit that there are gender-specific differences and that we can use or abuse each other because of these differences; I can use my intuition to find your weak spot and manipulate you, you can use your physical strength to hurt me. I can flay you with words; you can shred me with your indifference. But these things don’t need to be used in this way.

Yes women are sometimes over-emotional and irrational; yes men can sometimes over-rationalise and over-simplify things. Yes woman can be a pain with over-analysing relationships and people, yes men can be a pain because of their refusal to analyse relationships and people. Yes women can see men as a meal ticket; yes men can see women as a means to self-gratification – different language – same shit.

But how about if we accept and trust that the other party is using their unique gender-specific skills to the benefit of both parties? Trust me when I tell you not to do business with that person – they make my hair rise. I’ll trust you when you tell me I’m about to buy a lemon. Trust me when I tell you someone’s taking you for a ride. I’ll trust you to hold my back when I’m in need of it. Trust me that I want to build a good life with you…for both of us.

I always thought I was very lucky to have such a forgiving husband, but I have come to realise that actually most men are like that. Those who don’t actively hate women because of personal issues or mental problems really want to make it work. Maybe not in the picture-perfect-imaginary way that most women try to make it work, but just peace, happiness and a quiet life. The challenge for both men and women is to somehow rediscover how good a relationship can be once you break free from the nonsense the media has been brainwashing you into.

No life isn’t perfect. No I’m not perfect and neither are you, but if we give each other half a chance we could have a pretty decent life together.

If my life has taught me one thing it’s never to revert to stereotyping anyone. Just because one man is a pig doesn’t mean all men are like that. Even if the world tells you the majority of men are pigs, it doesn’t mean it’s true. The same goes for women. For the most part we are just damaged people going through life trying to make some sense of it all. None of which is helped by the media and feminism pushing its stupid agenda 24/7 and brainwashing our kids from kindergarten.

So home school your children, limit their exposure to TV and the written media (especially those stupid gossip/women & men’s’ only magazines). Get rid of any words in your vocabulary that stereotype anyone such as chauvinist pig, bitch, bastard etc. and allow them to grow up as whole and emotionally unscarred as possible. That way the next generation might have a fighting chance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 1, 2010 at 03:36

Sugar,

Thankyou so much for telling us how to fix all the world’s problems. Our movement truly has nothing left to fear now that we have your insight and guidance. I shall follow your instructions to the letter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sugar January 1, 2010 at 03:58

@ Snark

Feel free to hate me if it makes you feel better. I’m not your mother though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 1, 2010 at 04:04

Criticism =/= hate

The misogyny bomb is feminism’s favoured counter-assault on the MRM … again if you’re sincere, you’ll watch that, and not resort to calling people ‘haters’ when they have implied no such thing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Brian January 1, 2010 at 04:15

Misogyny is fine if it’s well-placed and has solid reasons to back it up. For example, my own misogyny is reserved almost exclusively towards women of the Anglosphere (American, Canadian, British). They are on the whole an ugly bunch, and behave in ways that arouse understandable hatred.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sugar January 1, 2010 at 05:07

Look Snark I don’t have to prove my sincerity to anyone. No-one asked you to hold your punches to prove anything when you came on here, why are you asking it of me? I’ll accept that sometimes you are going to disagree strongly with me and probably call me a bitch. I’ll respond by reminding you that it’s not personal and I won’t take it personally. Hence..I’m not your mother, girlfriend, ex-wife.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 1, 2010 at 05:25

No-one asked you to hold your punches to prove anything when you came on here, why are you asking it of me?

I didn’t come on here using shaming language.

I’ll accept that sometimes you are going to disagree strongly with me and probably call me a bitch.

?

You’re sounding more and more like a ‘victim’ all the time … and I don’t know where you get this crap about me ‘hating’ my mother, girlfriend or ex-wife and by proxy ‘all women’ … to me it sounds like more shaming language.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sugar January 1, 2010 at 05:30

What, you’re not trying to shame me into silence by constantly and deliberately misinterpreting everything I write? “Victim” LOL you’re funny.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 1, 2010 at 05:33

I’m just pointing out that you are being intentionally inflammatory.

E.g. implying that I will or have called you a ‘bitch’ when I disagree with what you say. This makes you into the victim and it makes me the unreasonable instigator.

Be silent or don’t, but every time you say something anti-male on a Men’s Movement forum you are going to get called out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sugar January 1, 2010 at 05:42

Go for it. I’m all for free speech you know.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wonder January 3, 2010 at 07:04

“Look Snark I don’t have to prove my sincerity to anyone.”

That’s because you don’t have any sincerity to prove, I guess.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 4, 2010 at 13:44

@Sugar-

Jeez. Residuel feminist hate and insecurity is strong in you. Your ideas will be deconstructed. You will be made fun of. Prove your strength by letting it slide off your back. If you’re going to have a temper tantrum, at least try to be funny. Many of us here aren’t just men, many of us are brilliant men. I’m not sure you are ready for us. Watch “Gran Torino” for how men talk to each other. You’re not getting it. Push back in strength using logic, don’t push back defensively like a cornered animal. It makes you lash out randomly and make mistakes….why am I even trying to help her…Sugar, I believe your heart is in the right place, but you still have issues with male strength. You need to let go. We are not your “girlfriends”, here to hold your hand. We are here to get to the truth, as painful as that might be sometimes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: