young mom's

hey now..... lol..... I'm not stupid....... hahahaha​

 

No, actually, I still think that you are a creep. Men have made themselves more ambiguous over the years, and have forgotten how to be men. This is their own fault. I do know my social history, women fought for the right to be recognized as intellectual equals, and I'm sorry if there are men who are uncomfortable with that, but I hardly see how that should legitimately affect a man's ability to be a father to his child? A father is an unchanging role and has nothing to do with his role in the woman's life. There are very good fathers who are not with the mothers of their children... That isn't the issue. The issue is these fathers not participating in their childrens lives.

No, I'm not interested in your backwards philosophies, but thank you for the offer. But if I ever want to listen to a morally deficient opinion, you'll be the first to know, friend.

 

Hear hear..

 

Of course you "hardly see how that should legitimately effect a man’s ability to be a father to his child". You are a woman born to a single mother. You can’t see past your own self. You won’t because then you can’t praise your mother. You won’t be able to take it when it comes out that the same revolution that gave your mother the power to raise you on her own self is the same damned revolution that caused her to have to. I am not sure whether it has ever occurred to you before. I could give you the benefit of the doubt but based on the two posts of yours I read I am not sure if I should. You sound like a teenager. All that angst.

You have to see that when women decided to change their standing in society they changed their roles in every aspect in their lives. They didn’t just become intellectual equals [I think we males are still waiting for that to happen] they transformed completely. Included in that transformation was the role of the mother. Once the mother’s role is changed, the family is different. To deny that is just ignorant. Notice I called you ignorant and not stupid, is that something a creep would do?

Luckily enough for you someone has asked for an explanation from me. I will happily oblige. It’ll be posted in a bit.

 

Are you saying that when it comes to the intellect, women are less developed than men? Could you give an example of this?

 

Yes I can! Right here:

Heh heh heh. Come on now, you knew that was coming.

 

OSF you're a dumbass. There is no way to blame the irresponsibility of a 15 year old child on the womens rights movement. Women are not to blame for children being irresponsible.

 

you know keowyn, I would have waited before I called someone a dumbass, but thats just me I guess.

Just r a l a x, it'll be here soon.

 

maybe it's more a matter of men losing responsibilties to women. A new generation of men are taught through the actions of their mothers and sisters that men can not and should not be trusted to bear responsibilties. When it's apparently wrong to be masculine it becomes difficult to fit into the roles of a man.

i'm days away from being a father and i'm terrified. My mother and grandmother WERE my father and grandfather. What is my role?

men have been psychologically displaced.

 

What we have here is a funny little thread. It is the inevitable outcome of the restructuring [if you want to call it that, I don’t because any paradigm shift based on anything but reasonable means is a rape] of society. I say it is the inevitable consequence because it was predicted by many social philosophers when the revolutions were taking place. Of course, at the time, it was ignored and frowned upon because the very idea that this revolution promoting the two staples of liberal democracy, freedom and equality, could produce anything but favourable results was almost heretical to mention. It seems not much has changed. Forty years later and people will still refuse to believe that the progress we made in the sixties was overwhelmingly harmful to civil society. It seems for some that it is enough to say we made progress without a mention of where that progress has gotten us. It is frightening but not surprising. I was in a discussion with a poster here called ‘metro’ in the environment forum that I started about the fundamentals of environmentalism. After only a few posts the conversation degraded into him telling me that his green revolution was here to say and any opposition to it was stupid. Most minds on this earth understand the need to keep this place green and also understand that the world as it stands is in no grave danger. Which is why this green revolution is going to be inevitably harmful to society. It is the need to do something ‘now’ that comes from the rashness inherent in humans that was the first wrong turn.

The paradigm shift I want to look at is at the heart of this thread is the shift in sex and its consequences – love, marriage and family. The two successive waves of the sexual revolution and feminism walked hand in hand. Sexual revolution under the promise of freedom and feminism held the banner of equality.

The sexual revolution brought a bold affirmation of human senses and tore us away from the repression by our puritanical ancestors. For a brief time, very brief, moral inhibition, the fear of disease, the risk of pregnancy, the social consequences, even places to have sex were no longer obstacles keeping humans from their natural impulses. It was the phasing out of female modesty that did the trick. This emancipation intended to accentuate the difference between the sexes. As fucking was the primary activity, men became resolutely male and females female. Of course the sex that kids were having was being helped along by the growing idea that parents were better off letting their kids have these kinds of relationships than they were if they repressed them. I wonder how many of you have slept over innocently at a friend’s house of the opposite sex? Probably 90%. In your mind, as it is in mine, it was no big deal. If that statement doesn’t say it all, no statement does. Although the sexual revolution was meant to be a liberation of the natural, it’s effects reached far beyond physical intimacy. Now sex is not taboo, sex is common. Now sex is not full of passion, sex is passionless. Sex, thanks to the sexual revolution is no longer special.

The old veil of ignorance that most of you think our great great grandmommies were under did more to suppress the raw and unfairly distributed natural advantages of beauty over ugliness, young over old. Now there is little attempt to apply egalitarian justice to those matters. Now we justify our magnification of the level of the young and the beautiful by uttering the harmless and mildly ridiculous phrase: "beauty, my dear, is in the eye of the beholder".

Feminism, on the other hand, worked more to liberate us [and I have to say us because to think that the changing role of women had no effect on men is ... stupid] from nature than from society. The women’s movement was not founded on nature. The position of women, to them, was established by nurture not nature and therefore it was a crucial contention that women should not be ruled by biology, as it was nature. It ends, as do all [and have all] movements seeking abstract justice, in forgetting nature and using force to refashion human beings to secure that justice. Feminism attacked male sexual passion as it resulted in sexism. It was the male sexual passion that made men rape their wives, it made bosses assault their female workers, it made teachers abuse their students. These were crimes that were fought against. What sensitive male can avoid realizing how dangerous his sexual passion is?

The interference with sexual desire was more intense than ever, even though the grip had just been loosened. The sexual revolution wanted women and men to get along together and feminism ensured that females could survive apart from men.

As with the sexual revolution, feminism held tight the suppression of female modesty. But modesty can’t be so easily tossed aside. Geneticists and neurobiologists tell us that modesty was the female virtue. It governs the powerful desires that related men to women. It is what provided a gratification in harmony with the procreation and rearing of children. Unfortunately the risk and responsibility fell naturally – that is biologically – on women. Modesty impedes sexual intercourse but it enhances the delicate interplay between the sexes that lets the consent of the will equal the importance of possession of the body. You suppress modesty and the end of desire is easily attained. But while doing that, the feminists dismantled the structure of involvement and attachment of the male, reducing sex to an end in itself.

Modesty is what extends sexual differentiation from fucking to living. It makes men and women always men and women. As long as modesty operates, men and women together are never just doctors or lawyers together. They have something else, they have the potentiality for ultimate ends. Ask yourself what is more important, winning the case or love and family? Men and women as doctors are no longer male and female. They are subordinate to one goal. But in parenting they are different but must be naturally related to the naturally given goal of continuing the species. Feminism fought against this natural relatedness because it meant working together which meant ‘roles’ and hence, ‘priorities’ in a way that a man and woman doctor team does not. They fought against the only voice that constantly reminded that a man and a woman have a work to do together that is far different from that found in the lawyers office, and of far greater importance.

Still with me?

The feminine nature is not in any reciprocal relation to the male nature, and they do not define one another. The male and female reproductive organs themselves have no more evident purpose than do white and black skin, and are no more naturally pointed toward one another than a white master and black slave, or so the legend goes. The feminine nature was a mystery but can now be explored because the dominant male claim to it has been overcome says the feminist.

The fact that there is today a more affirmative disposition toward childbearing does not imply that there is any natural impulse or compulsion to establish anything like a traditional fatherhood to complement motherhood.

Children are had on female terms, with or without the fathers, who can no longer lay claim in the way of the mother’s free development. Simply look at the number one argument by women supporting abortions. Men can not have say because they are men.

Children are the mothers, not the fathers.

There is no family because the feminist movement has triumphed over the traditional familial institution, women’s freedom will no longer be governed by it.

I have lots more to say but I don’t think you are reading this anyway. But that is how it always it. People ignore what they don’t want to hear. Well that isn’t entirely true here.

You just ignored that post cause it was too long. Bravo.

If you did read it, what say you?

 

*clap, clap, clap*

 

I feel your pain brother. You've obviously researched the topic extensively, however, I don't feel at all oppressed by feminism. It's only natural that men and women are different and it's those very differences that cause us to need each other. Differences don't mean we can't be equal. I have an open mind to whatever a woman wants to believe, so long as she has an open mind to my belief that as a man, I am the dominant sex of this species. That's not to say that I have to make all decisions or anyting like that. I see myself as the one who will have strength in a time of need, to do what is right. As the man, I'll blaze the trail of honesty and integrity in a relationship and lead by my examples of righteousness. That's what being a man is to me. Equally, I would want no less from my woman.

 

Please excuse me as my attention is being shared between the internet and the raging storm outside.

So anyway, I really appreciate you taking the time to so thoroughly explain your statement OSF. That's good reading and I've already read it twice. I'm sure I'll read it again. Are you saying that Feminism is the root of the destruction of the traditional family? No disrespect, just seems like kind of a stretch to me. But I did have both parents if that makes a difference. I've not been married and I have no children, but that seems like it's been more of a choice, for me at least. Have I unwittingly been dating feminist all along? I'm confused now. Should I go back to the hurricane party and try to focus on this later? hmmm.

 

Thank you gentlemen.

HippyInMyHead, no I am not saying that feminism is to blame for the breakdown of the traditional family. It was one of many tidal shifts in thinking that led there. I will not name anything as the sole culprit. Feminism is just a part of it.

I’m just glad you guys read it!!

 

Notice no replys from the women.....perhaps they agree?

 

OR PERHAPS THEY ARE CULTIVATING THEIR RAGE...

CASTRATIONS AHEAD...

 

Or perhaps they're too busy taking care of their babies while the daddies are spending all their time writing a seven paragraph excuse to get out of doing anything...

 

I had a nice thing happen to me today with my oldest son. Actually we had a few good conversations. (I can't slam his Daddy because he is the best Daddy & Husband so I will share this thought)

My son told me while we were grocery shopping that he loved me more than the moon. Earlier today he told me Jesus forgives those who do bad and who do good. (That one blows my mind cause he is only 5. We don't go to church but we do read him a children's Bible)

This was nice for me be able to share. I have been a bit irritable, quitting smoking.

 

There is no need to be mean.

 

Maybe none of the women are responding because it's pointless to argue with people who feel the way that you guys do. I think that OSF's post (which I did read, twice, actually) sounds like a really long and contrived "reason" (read: excuse) for a man to get out of being responsible for his children (although you put a lot of thought into your explaination, and I thank you, it was very interesting). That's just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.

As a matter of fact, the more I read that post, the more I hear:
BLAH BLAH BLAH, I desparately want to justify being a deadbeat!
I wonder how was spent trying to weave that little fabric to pass it off as legitimate reasoning for neglect? Eh... but what are you going to do? There's always people who are blind to the wrongs of society. Hopefully none of these boys have children of their own, that's all I have to say...