Why a commercial? All of this is common knowledge isn’t it?
I like the fact that it’s the right mix of fun and responsible, which the vast majority of fathers are anyway. After years of ads like THIS and reports of how negatively men are portrayed in advertisements over the years, we finally have images of a father who is actually cool, funny, interesting, loving, caring, and runs his home. I’ve had it with the nonsense and I’m glad the fight is starting to pay off. Check this out:
Do girls fall behind in science and engineering because our society tells them they should be pretty, rather than, “pretty brilliant?” That’s the message of a new viral Verizon campaign. But the Factual Feminist shows that many inconvenient facts were held back to construct the the misleading narrative.
Argument: One in five children from a broken home loses touch with the parent that leaves the family home within just three years. (Picture posed by models)
An excerpt from this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2158490/Mothers-deny-fathers-access-couple-s-children-break-jailed.html
Separated parents who fail to allow their partners to maintain a proper relationship with their children could be stripped of driving licenses or passports, hit with curfews, ordered to do a period of unpaid work or even jailed.
Ministers will today propose a dramatic extension of punishments for breaches of court orders regarding care arrangements amid concern that millions of youngsters are losing contact with absent fathers.
The move is part of the most radical shake-up of the family courts for decades, with a new right to ‘shared parenting’ following family breakdown to be enshrined in law.
Ministers have decided reform is necessary in the light of heartbreaking evidence that one in five children from a broken home loses touch with the parent that leaves the family home within just three years and never sees them again.
Many more lose contact with a parent, most often with fathers when mothers are awarded custody, as they grow older.
Children’s minister Tim Loughton will announce that the Government is to rewrite the 1989 Children Act, which states that the child comes first in law courts in the UK.
Campaigners for fathers’ rights complain that the courts repeatedly pander to the notion that mothers are ‘more important’ than fathers.
The Government will consult on how the law should be changed, but its preferred option is for courts to be required to ‘work on the presumption that a child’s welfare is likely to be furthered through safe involvement with both parents’.
Unless their welfare is threatened by staying in touch with either their mother or father, children must have an equal right to a proper relationship with both, ministers say.
The move is designed to ensure that the parent who moves out of the family home – normally the father – cannot be cut out of their children’s lives following an acrimonious separation.
Ministers say they also want to ‘put a rocket under the courts’ to ensure that parents who flout court orders about access or care arrangements are punished.
Courts are to be told to deploy existing but rarely-used sanctions more often, including fines, unpaid work or imprisonment.
Read the rest HERE
An excerpt from this article:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2014/07/16/the-myth-of-the-empowered-working-class-single-mother/?utm_source=pulsenews&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheSpearhead+%28The+Spearhead%29
I’ve been coming across a lot of articles about how working and lower middle class women are better off raising their kids “alone.” It’s a bit baffling, really, because taking care of a baby alone is a special kind of hell — even for women: you’re practically guaranteed sleep deprivation for months, there’s no way you could reasonably do so and hold a job, and even if you could, without at least an upper middle class salary daycare for infants is unaffordable ($20,000/year in Seattle last I checked).
You’d think that having someone around to help, even if he isn’t bringing in much income, would sure beat the alternative.
So what gives? Why are all these women going it alone? Actually, they aren’t. What is happening in the working class is the ghettoization of working Americans. We are seeing a family model that first arose in the northern urban black community become more and more the norm throughout society.
When I was growing up, I had some friends from the nearby projects. One kid, Ernest, lived down near the community swimming pool at Rainier Beach High School, so after swimming lessons we’d sometimes hang out in his neighborhood. I never recall seeing Ernest’s mother — it was his grandmother who took care of him. All told, she did a respectable job. He was a nice kid and, unlike most of the others stuck in that lousy situation, had a grandmother who actually bothered to teach him the basics (like how to swim). These little things add up to a lot over the years.
Over time, I found out that Ernest’s family arrangement was the norm in that neighborhood. I have no idea what most of the mothers were doing, but they were definitely not “empowered single mothers” by the commonly understood definition. They were hardly mothers at all. It was their mothers who were doing the heavy lifting.
Lest some say that this is a natural family arrangement for blacks dating back to Africa, it really isn’t. Africa may be different from Europe in important ways, but it never was, nor has it ever been, a matriarchal utopia. This state of affairs occurred after the great migration, and it was an urban phenomenon.
Instead of some natural matriarchal love-fest, it is more properly termed “multi-generational female dependency.” It’s an insidious kind of charity, because it renders men socially superfluous even as it encourages women to depend on the state for support, which creates an entire community that is a net drain on the surrounding society. Of course, there are incentives built in all along the way.
For example, if a woman gets section 8 housing after having a daughter, then raises her to adulthood on public assistance, when her daughter has a child she can stay with her mother (who will provide daycare) and collect welfare while she waits to get her own section 8 voucher. The daughter then gets her section 8 apartment, and the cycle repeats itself. I’m sure there are many families today entering their fourth generation of this lifestyle. For the men, the choices are significantly more limited. A lucky few may hit it big somehow, a large fraction will be arrested and incarcerated for something or other, and a minority will finally escape through the military or a reasonable job. Many will be reduced to the humiliating, demoralizing state of “mooching” off women who are state-supported. Naturally, this has incentivized favoritism toward female over male children amongst the underclass. Poor urban women invest more time and money in their daughters than their sons. This is sad but rational, because state assistance flows toward the female of the species — not the male.
When I see writers for Salon or some similar publication declaring that working class women are better off going it alone, I don’t think they quite understand what’s happening here. Instead of taking a hard look at the incentives, they tend to focus on the alleged shortcomings of the male, and rarely bother to get his side of the story (a glaring omission considering that the women in question deliberately chose to be impregnated by a particular man). They assume that it’s a matter of working class women earning more money and being better providers than the males. Perhaps most stupidly, they assume that a working class woman can be a single, go-it-alone mother of an infant and a productive worker:
Read the rest HERE
This used to be me…that is until I learned how to “man up” and kick a woman to the curb at any point. I have no time for women that treat men like this:
“I can’t tell you where I was or who was there or when it happened. I don’t want to add to this guy’s humiliation, so I am keeping this vague and generic. I can simply tell you that, some time ago, I found myself in the same vicinity as another married couple.
I certainly can’t read their minds, and I don’t know what goes on behind the scenes, all I know is that the husband couldn’t seem to utter a single phrase that wouldn’t provoke exaggerated eye-rolling from his wife.
She disagreed with everything he said.
She contradicted nearly every statement.
She nagged him.
She brought up a “funny” story that made him out to be incompetent and foolish.
He laughed, but he was embarrassed.
She was gutting him right in front of us. Emasculating him. Neutering him.
Damaging him.
It was excruciating.
It was tragic.
It also was, or is becoming, pretty par-for-the-course.”
My ex-wife acted in a very similar manner. But after 11 months in family court hell, I learned my own self worth and no longer take sh*t from women like this. There are far too many women who actually know how to treat a man and are not brainwashed into thinking we act and think the exact same way. I’m so glad I have a great girlfriend now. No more dealing with women like the one described above.
Men and women are DIFFERENT and we complement one another. There is no need for dominance. I read this guy’s blog pretty often. I don’t agree with everything he says on his blog, but with this, I agree 110%.
For instance:
But I’ve noticed that the corollary – a message about the respect women must give men, a message challenging wives and encouraging husbands – isn’t quite so palatable for many people. Disrespect for men has become standard practice. That scene I witnessed was sad but unremarkable; we’ve all watched that kind of thing play out a thousand times over.
Men are disrespected by their wives – they’re disrespected publicly, they’re disrespected privately, they’re disrespected and then told that they have no right to be upset about it because they aren’t worthy of respect in the first place.
Disrespect for men is a joke to us now. A little while ago I stopped on the way home from work to buy my wife some flowers. As she rang me up, the cashier quipped: “Uh-oh, what’d you do?” I wasn’t particularly amused, but I chuckled. She continued. “I don’t know if this’ll be enough to get you off the couch tonight!”
Ah, yes, the old “husband is punished by his wife and sent to the couch” meme. I’m not sure if this actually happens in real life, or if it’s an invention of 90′s “all men are fat, witless, oafs” sitcoms, but the popularity of the stereotype is telling. Is this how we see husbands now? A man gets “in trouble” with his wife, she scolds him and puts him in time-out on the couch. Now he has to placate his alpha-bride by showering her with flowers and jewelry.
Men are painted like children or dogs. They can be shooed off of their own beds by their wives and sent to cower in the living room until she permits him to return. This is only slightly less offensive than the cliché of the sadistic wife who punitively withholds sex from her husband. “You didn’t clean the garage like I told you. No sex for you, mister! Next time, follow my instructions!”
———–
Respect is our language. If it isn’t said with respect, we can’t hear it. This is why nagging is ineffective and self defeating. This is why statements made in sarcastic tones, or with rolling eyes, will never be received well. We have a filter in our brains, and a statement made in disrespect will be filtered out like the poison it is.
Men are notoriously reluctant to share feelings or display vulnerability. Many times, we keep those inner thoughts locked away — our feelings guarded and hidden — because we know we are not respected. A man will never be vulnerable to someone who doesn’t respect him. Never.
A man isn’t satisfied or content if he isn’t respected. If he can’t find respect where he is, he will seek it somewhere else. This can have disastrous implications for a relationship, but it applies in other areas of life as well. A man is much more likely to stay in a low paying job, a physically demanding job, a dangerous job, or a tedious job, than a job where he isn’t respected.
I’m only emphasizing this because I think it might actually be news to some people. Society does not permit men to be vocal about their need for respect, so the need is often ignored
.
Read the rest of the Matt Walsh Blog HERE
A must read book:
However imperfect society may be, we should measure it against the cruelty and deprivation of the actual past, not the harmony and affluence of an imagined future. We are fortunate enough to live in a society that more or less works, and our first priority should be not to screw it up, because human nature always leaves us teetering on the brink of barbarism. And since no one is smart enough to predict the behaviour of a single human being , let alone millions of them interacting of them interacting in a society, we should distrust any formula for changing society from the top down, because it is likely to have unintended consequences that are worse than the problems it was designed to fix. The best we can hope for are incremental changes that are continually adjusted according to feedback about the sum of their good and bad consequences
