Dad spends $100k and counting trying so save his kids

Originally posted by CobraCommander
I dont mean to poke fun at anyone, but I thunk that a certain poster is very young and unaware. Sadl, what we are seeing in her posts, is "initiation."

She believes in everything that is "good" about feminism as she is being indoctrinated.

It truly scares me, because I have young ladies in my own family following that path. Subconsciously believing that subjugating men is the answer, that homes without fathers is the answer.

As I understand feminism, it is good. After all, it did give women their constitutional right to vote and to participate in the work force. Is that what you truly feel threatened by? Because that's a whole other topic.
You still fail to point out the exact correlation between feminism and this case. What I see is gender bias, and gender bias is exactly what feminism draws away from. Perhaps you're so rooted in your mysoginistic ways that you can't even see that.

Originally posted by laiguana

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that..you're just so filled with bias and misogyny that you aren't even able to properly read my posts. Try reading them next time.

edit on 17-6-2011 by laiguana because: (no reason given)

I apologize. I admit that i have taken certain liberties beyond what you have said.

But at the end of the day it comes down to a simple question.

Why is this man, like so many others, being tortured and robbed for simply trying to do what is best for their children?

Originally posted by laiguana
I am a feminist and I don't apologize for being a feminist, because feminism also gave me the right to vote, hold a job and own property. Anti-feminists want to blame feminism for custody disputes. That makes no sense to me. Both parents are responsible for the children, but who is going to look after them? Will the father have the means to stay home and look after the children? If he does then, sure...let him go at it. If he's going to be a full time employee...I don't understand how he could raise a child on his own. Explain how a child will get the proper care when their only parent is working full time. It doesn't seem like it would. Why deny them the other parent that would be willing to look after them in that case?

It appears like you're overlooking the child's rights in this.

edit on 16-6-2011 by laiguana because: (no reason given)

DId you even bother to read the article??

First off, no one worries about a mother being a full time employee and having custody of her kids. So why should it be an issue for a man?

Secondly, if the father managed to pull together 100k to fight this in court, I think it goes without saying he had the resources to support the kids.

Third and most importantly, since you failed to read the actual article before forming an opinion..

the judge ignored the opinions of several highly-respected physicians at a renowned area medical center. Those physicians examined Jack’s children for signs of sexual abuse and/or molestation and, afterward, advised against allowing the children to be returned to the locations where the incidents of alleged abuse took place or to associate with those who had allowed the abuse to occur (i.e., the children’s mother and her associates). The judge also ignored letters from others involved in the children’s lives on a regular basis (i.e., teachers, social workers et al). In those letters, copies of which I’ve read, the authors concurred with the medical experts’ shared opinion that the children should be kept away from the mother.

So you have medical doctors, mental health professionals, teachers, social workers, etc etc all saying that there is evidence of abuse (including sexual) and you still think it is a good idea to leave the kids in the custody of their mother?? You say it appears people are overlooking the child's rights, but I think it is you who is overlooking teh child's rights. For instance the right to not by physically or sexually abused for starters!

In another ATS thread, the topic is a man who lit himself on fire and burned to death in a protest.

It turns out if you look at his 15-page "last statement," he is a father protesting what he sees as mistreatment at the hands of the court. Ties in quite well with this thread.

Originally posted by MrWendal

DId you even bother to read the article??

First off, no one worries about a mother being a full time employee and having custody of her kids. So why should it be an issue for a man?

Secondly, if the father managed to pull together 100k to fight this in court, I think it goes without saying he had the resources to support the kids.

Third and most importantly, since you failed to read the actual article before forming an opinion..

the judge ignored the opinions of several highly-respected physicians at a renowned area medical center. Those physicians examined Jack’s children for signs of sexual abuse and/or molestation and, afterward, advised against allowing the children to be returned to the locations where the incidents of alleged abuse took place or to associate with those who had allowed the abuse to occur (i.e., the children’s mother and her associates). The judge also ignored letters from others involved in the children’s lives on a regular basis (i.e., teachers, social workers et al). In those letters, copies of which I’ve read, the authors concurred with the medical experts’ shared opinion that the children should be kept away from the mother.

So you have medical doctors, mental health professionals, teachers, social workers, etc etc all saying that there is evidence of abuse (including sexual) and you still think it is a good idea to leave the kids in the custody of their mother?? You say it appears people are overlooking the child's rights, but I think it is you who is overlooking teh child's rights. For instance the right to not by physically or sexually abused for starters!

I wasn't specifically making reference to the article in the post, but how people are responding to it and claiming it is tied to feminism when in actuality it has more to do with gender bias. If both parents work, then both parents need to spend as much time as possible with their children. Ideally, it would seem that children benefit most if at least one of their parents stays home with them most of the time. However, in reference to the article, I did say that the mother was not fullfilling her role as a mother and that she shouldn't have custody of the children.
I don't see what people find so complicating about my stance on the issue.

Originally posted by laiguana
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that..you're just so filled with bias and misogyny that you aren't even able to properly read my posts. Try reading them next time.

edit on 17-6-2011 by laiguana because: (no reason given)

Both parents are responsible for the children, but who is going to look after them? Will the father have the means to stay home and look after the children? If he does then, sure...let him go at it. If he's going to be a full time employee...I don't understand how he could raise a child on his own. Explain how a child will get the proper care when their only parent is working full time. It doesn't seem like it would. Why deny them the other parent that would be willing to look after them in that case?

It appears like you're overlooking the child's rights in this.

The above was your first response. It mentions nothing about the ability of the mother to raise the children, only the apparent lack of ability of the father to. I'm not filled with anything but compassion and anger for the children that have to be held up from being in a healthy family by a disgusting sub-human of a mother and a "justice system" hell-bent on destroying them.

Why aren't you?

/TOA

Originally posted by silent thunder
In another ATS thread, the topic is a man who lit himself on fire and burned to death in a protest.

It turns out if you look at his 15-page "last statement," he is a father protesting what he sees as mistreatment at the hands of the court. Ties in quite well with this thread.

There is a lot more to that story than you let on. The story in this thread actually depicts a concerned and dedicated father. In the one you're referring to in your link had a record for child abuse and appeared to be mentally unstable (confirmed now). Apparently, it seems that he was under the impression that he was being bullied for being a man...and blamed feminists for all his shortcomings. Hmm...sounds familiar....

reply to post by The Old American


You're twisting what I've said...It's no different than what I replied to you in the last post. If the mother can dedicate her time to look after the children....why exactly do you see that as a problem? If the father can also, then he should do so. That's what I said. It seems you have a hatred for mothers.
I'm not referring to the mother in the article btw...So stop using that as your basis for aguing with me.

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by The Old American

 

You're twisting what I've said...It's no different than what I replied to you in the last post. If the mother can dedicate her time to look after the children....why exactly do you see that as a problem? If the father can also, then he should do so. That's what I said. It seems you have a hatred for mothers.
I'm not referring to the mother in the article btw...So stop using that as your basis for aguing with me.

I'm not twisting anything. I've posted exactly what you've said and responded to it. This thread is about a father, apparently perfectly able to raise 3 children, not in trouble with the law, and apparently so dedicated to them that he has had to spend $100k just to keep the rights he has as a parent, and a mother to those children, a person that habitually consorts with prostitutes and drug dealers, abuses drugs herself, has been in jail and prison for it, has attempted suicide multiple times, and is somehow winning in a fight to raise said 3 kids. Why don't you see that as a problem?

But, if you weren't referring to the mother in the OP, which mother were you referring to? Or were you going off-topic to derail the thread and talk about your feminism?

Perhaps if you'd tell us your stance on the fact that this issue, the issue of the OP, is that the courts seem ready to hand over 3 young children to a woman bent on destroying herself, then maybe I, or anyone else, would no longer be confused about where you stand on this.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American

I'm not twisting anything. I've posted exactly what you've said and responded to it. This thread is about a father, apparently perfectly able to raise 3 children, not in trouble with the law, and apparently so dedicated to them that he has had to spend $100k just to keep the rights he has as a parent, and a mother to those children, a person that habitually consorts with prostitutes and drug dealers, abuses drugs herself, has been in jail and prison for it, and is somehow winning in a fight to raise said 3 kids. Why don't you see that as a problem?

But, if you weren't referring to the mother in the OP, which mother were you referring to? Or were you going off-topic to derail the thread and talk about your feminism?

Perhaps if you'd tell us your stance on the fact that this issue, the issue of the OP, is that the courts seem ready to hand over 3 young children to a woman bent on destroying herself? Then maybe I, or anyone else, would no longer be confused about where you stand on this.

/TOA

It would seem you've failed to read much of anything I've said on this subject. I did not bring up feminism in this thread...another poster did and then all jumped on the anti-feminist band wagon. And I responded to that. Now you're saying I'm derailing the thread? You're taking it all out of context and you're making no sense. What exactly is your agenda here?
Using the article in the OP as an attack on feminism is what is going on here...or do you deliberatley look past the obvious?

reply to post by laiguana


So everyone jumped on the anti feminist bandwagon??

My post says nothing about feminism at all. With all due respect, I do not think anyone has been twisting your words around, they are pointing out exactly what you have said. Maybe you did not mean for it to come off in the manner in which it did, but it has.

reply to post by MrWendal


Then explain what you think I was or am saying. I'm curious to know how the mind of a misogynist works.
Anyway, there's not much else to say here...I'm going to have a bowl of cornflakes now with some toasted mudkipz. You all have a good one.

reply to post by laiguana


How interesting. Can you explain to me what I have said that gives you the impression that I am a misogynist? I find it very interesting that I am the second poster you have accused of being a misogynist, and the only thing I can see that myself and the other misogynist have in common is that we disagree with you and are pointing out your obvious bias. I can not help but wonder how long before you play the race card instead

Originally posted by laiguana
I am a feminist and I don't apologize for being a feminist, because feminism also gave me the right to vote, hold a job and own property. Anti-feminists want to blame feminism for custody disputes. That makes no sense to me. Both parents are responsible for the children, but who is going to look after them? Will the father have the means to stay home and look after the children? If he does then, sure...let him go at it. If he's going to be a full time employee...I don't understand how he could raise a child on his own. Explain how a child will get the proper care when their only parent is working full time. It doesn't seem like it would. Why deny them the other parent that would be willing to look after them in that case?

It appears like you're overlooking the child's rights in this.

edit on 16-6-2011 by laiguana because: (no reason given)

“The feminist notion that women should be independent of men, followed by affirmative-action/female quotas in employment, tended to carry out the goal stated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated.” These feminist ideas and practices demean marriage by discriminating against men and also against fulltime homemakers.” -Phyllis Schlafly — The Cost to Taxpayers of Missing Fathers



Glad to know your part of the problem.What you DONT understand is the system DOESNT care about any parent or child.Its supportive of BREAKING up the family,and society. THE TRUTH is there,but your to blind to see it.

Women's Movement




Affirmative-Action Feminism
Anti-Feminism
Amazon Feminism
Anarcho Feminism
'Boss Tweed' Feminism
Catholic Feminism
Christian Feminists
Constructionist Feminism
Cultural Feminism
Difference Feminism
Dominance Feminism
Eco Feminism
Equity Feminism
Erotic Feminism
Femaleism
Femicommie
Feminazi
Feminism and Women of Color
Gender Feminism
Hegemonic Feminism
Individualist, or Libertarian Feminism
Lesbianism
Lesbianism — 30+ sexual orientations
Liberal Feminism
Libertarian Feminism
Marxist Feminism
Material Feminism
Matriarchal Separatist Feminism
Moderate Feminism
PC Feminism
Pod Feminist
Pop Feminism
Post-modernist Feminism
Power Feminism
Pro-Family Advocates
Pro-Life feminists
Pro-Sex Feminists
Radical Feminism
Redfem
Resenter (angry at men) Feminism
Separatists
Socialist Feminism
Survivor-Feminism
Total Rej (total rejection) Feminism
Victim Feminism
Women of Color Feminism

The "family" in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after.
It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communities—such as tribes, villages, peoples, and nations—grow.

Dale O'Leary, The Gender Agenda, p. 24

Link

So for those women who are Feminist,I would love to hear "which" group they belong to.Equal rights is one thing,but if you are going to raise a family,EQUALITY should be held in the highest order. Dont ask the Justice system that though. They care for one thing,and only one. MONEY. The breakup of the family is a bonus.

Child support was created for men who abandon the offspring they have sired, a relatively small number. But it has been hijacked by special interests and turned into a subsidy on divorce, forcing millions of men to pay for the stealing of their own children. In the case of false paternities, child support often subsidizes adultery.

States also receive federal payments based on how much child support passes through their hands. Officials therefore have an incentive to squeeze child support out of any parent (or non-parent) they can find. Like most states, California makes a tidy profit. Through federal taxes, we are all paying to subsidize divorce, unwed motherhood, and adultery. Our taxes make family breakdown profitable for state governments.

Link

MONEY. Thats what its all about. You can tie in Gender-bias,feminism,society breakdown,etc TO ALL THE ABOVE.

Originally posted by laiguana

I wasn't specifically making reference to the article in the post, but how people are responding to it and claiming it is tied to feminism when in actuality it has more to do with gender bias. If both parents work, then both parents need to spend as much time as possible with their children. Ideally, it would seem that children benefit most if at least one of their parents stays home with them most of the time. However, in reference to the article, I did say that the mother was not fullfilling her role as a mother and that she shouldn't have custody of the children.
I don't see what people find so complicating about my stance on the issue.

The gender bias you speak of is the direct result of the feminist lobby.

As far as having a full-time parent at home, yes, that is ideal. But you can thank your beloved feminists for destroying that ideal, as feminists believe a woman's place is in the workplace, not in the home.

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Then explain what you think I was or am saying. I'm curious to know how the mind of a misogynist works.
Anyway, there's not much else to say here...I'm going to have a bowl of cornflakes now with some toasted mudkipz. You all have a good one.

edit on 17-6-2011 by laiguana because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by sonnny1


“The feminist notion that women should be independent of men, followed by affirmative-action/female quotas in employment, tended to carry out the goal stated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated.” These feminist ideas and practices demean marriage by discriminating against men and also against fulltime homemakers.” -Phyllis Schlafly — The Cost to Taxpayers of Missing Fathers



Glad to know your part of the problem.What you DONT understand is the system DOESNT care about any parent or child.Its supportive of BREAKING up the family,and society. THE TRUTH is there,but your to blind to see it.

Frankly, I believe she is very young and has been indoctrinated into the movement on the pretense that feminism is what she wants it to be, not what it actually is.

Yes, women being able to vote or to go to college is a good thing, but it's also already been accomplished.

Originally posted by sonnny1
“The feminist notion that women should be independent of men, followed by affirmative-action/female quotas in employment, tended to carry out the goal stated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated.” These feminist ideas and practices demean marriage by discriminating against men and also against fulltime homemakers.” -Phyllis Schlafly — The Cost to Taxpayers of Missing Fathers



Glad to know your part of the problem.What you DONT understand is the system DOESNT care about any parent or child.Its supportive of BREAKING up the family,and society. THE TRUTH is there,but your to blind to see it.

Phyllis Schlafly is wrong by assuming people should have defined gender roles. Not every woman wants marriage and kids. If they do...they need to be prepared to support their children also, not just the father.
I don't see anything wrong with mothers that choose to be homemakers, but they should have a proper education that would prepare them for the workforce. Given the current economy (which I'm certain you all blame on feminists too), it only seems practical.

I see it like this...If I'm part of your problem, that can only be a good thing, because being a problem to misogynists is always a sign of progress.

And exactly how did you come up with that long list of feminist groups? You make it seem like there's an army of feminists out to get you. Feminism isn't a militant movement. Feminists don't shoot people or take rights away. You're just making stuff up to suit your agenda. I don't believe marriage is anything sacred...it's more like a contract. Religion is a myth anyway, but that's another topic for another time.