Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Puritans had some crazy ideas, but one concept they had that I agree with is that they felt that the STATE had no say so over marriage - period. They did not believe in having to go to the government for permission to get married (that's what a marriage license is) or to get divorced.
What's wrong with Fathers' Rights? You keep putting it into quotes like it's somehow illegitimate. Is there something wrong in your opinion with fathers advocating for their rights to their children to be protected?
Are you kidding me? Either you are clueless about the "Father's Rights" organizations, or you are VERY familiar with them, and are part of one or two or three. Absolutely nothing in between.
Just in case you're clueless:
"Father's Rights" organizations, are organizations run by misogynists. Whatever else they do, that's the #1 and most important thing to keep in mind. These a-holes (because, really, there's no other way with which to describe them) are misogynists. They hate women, whether these happen to be their wives, ex-wives, daughters, mothers, bosses, co-workers. You name a woman anywhere, and these males feel threatened by her, and hate their guts.
So, now that you know they hate females, what else do they do, or how do they channel their hatred? They do it by posing as victims while at the same time doing tremendous harm to children and ex-wives. They deceptively call their organization, "fathers' rights." These organizations have about as much to do with fathers' "rights," as I have to do with native polka dancing in Croatia.
One of the #1 heroes of the "Fathers' Rights" movement was the leader of the Massachusetts' Fathers' Coalition group, Thomas James Ball. Among other things he did, one day, while he was putting his daughter to bed, she licked his finger (accidentally or on purpose), so he punched her in the mouth, bloodying her mouth. After the divorce, he refused to pay child support. The Massachusetts court ordered counseling for him, and ordered him to pay the overdue child support. He refused to give a dime to his child for support, litigating the thing for 10 years, and organizing "fathers' rights" organizations, doing a great deal of writing about the victimization of men, and how much men were suffering at the hands of women. After the court won against him, and he was about to be thrown in the slammer, he went to the front of the courthouse, threw gasoline and burned himself to death. Since then, he's admired all over the U.S. by American misogynists.
Fathers' rights movements have other equally-heinous "heroes," but I won't go into those.
And THAT is what the "fathers' rights" movements are.
The Puritans had some crazy ideas, but one concept they had that I agree with is that they felt that the STATE had no say so over marriage - period. They did not believe in having to go to the government for permission to get married (that's what a marriage license is) or to get divorced.
Yeah, in general, I'm not really sure why government licenses marriage at all. Sanction the contract, sure - in the same way that the government (that is, the law) gives other contracts meaning by making them legally enforceable.
But why license, which as you rightly point out is permission. In a different age, say Elizabeth I's time, when public morality was very much understood as the prince's business, because the prince swore an oath to uphold the faith, and the morality of the people were explicitly his charge and responsibility, then fine, it makes sense.
But clearly our ideas of public morality have moved on slightly since the late 16th century.
And THAT is what the "fathers' rights" movements are.
Do you contend that it is not possible for an organized group of people to express concern for the rights or interests of fathers without being a cover for abusers and misogynists?
Ever, under any circumstances, no matter how constituted?
Are you kidding me? Either you are clueless about the "Father's Rights" organizations, or you are VERY familiar with them, and are part of one or two or three. Absolutely nothing in between.
Just in case you're clueless:
"Father's Rights" organizations, are organizations run by misogynists. Whatever else they do, that's the #1 and most important thing to keep in mind. These a-holes (because, really, there's no other way with which to describe them) are misogynists. They hate women, whether these happen to be their wives, ex-wives, daughters, mothers, bosses, co-workers. You name a woman anywhere, and these males feel threatened by her, and hate their guts.
So, now that you know they hate females, what else do they do, or how do they channel their hatred? They do it by posing as victims while at the same time doing tremendous harm to children and ex-wives. They deceptively call their organization, "fathers' rights." These organizations have about as much to do with fathers' "rights," as I have to do with native polka dancing in Croatia.
One of the #1 heroes of the "Fathers' Rights" movement was the leader of the Massachusetts' Fathers' Coalition group, Thomas James Ball. Among other things he did, one day, while he was putting his daughter to bed, she licked his finger (accidentally or on purpose), so he punched her in the mouth, bloodying her mouth. After the divorce, he refused to pay child support. The Massachusetts court ordered counseling for him, and ordered him to pay the overdue child support. He refused to give a dime to his child for support, litigating the thing for 10 years, and organizing "fathers' rights" organizations, doing a great deal of writing about the victimization of men, and how much men were suffering at the hands of women. After the court won against him, and he was about to be thrown in the slammer, he went to the front of the courthouse, threw gasoline and burned himself to death. Since then, he's admired all over the U.S. by American misogynists.
Fathers' rights movements have other equally-heinous "heroes," but I won't go into those.
And THAT is what the "fathers' rights" movements are.
You are now officially a misandrist nutcase.
I would also like to point out, for the 1000th time, child support is not alimony. They are two completely separate issues. Apparently you are extremely dense.
Last edited by coloradoalimony; 02-06-2013 at 09:40 AM..
the head and intellectual force behind the Institute for American Values (IAV)
Yeah, I know what you mean. Reading is hard.
For instance, the sentence you quote: to someone with poor comprehension skills, the phrase "intellectual force" might sound like praise or endorsement. As if the author were asserting that the subject is "a great force of intellect".
It takes practice with the language, and perhaps some work with a reading coach, to understand that what it actually means is that the subject is, within the organization described, the one who comes up with the ideas which gives the organization its direction and character. In other words, a description of the subject's function rather than quality.
Don't worry - keep at it, you'll get the hang of it.
The Puritans had some crazy ideas, but one concept they had that I agree with is that they felt that the STATE had no say so over marriage - period. They did not believe in having to go to the government for permission to get married (that's what a marriage license is) or to get divorced.
The government tries to use taxes as a tool for social engineering. They don't want people to smoke, so they tax cigarettes. They want people to buy energy efficient cars, so they offer tax credits on hybrid cars.
The reason for government involvement in marriage is to encourage families. I think as long as you accept things like taxing one product higher than another product that it is a logical extension of that to encourage people to marry and raise children by licensing marriage and giving benefits to people who qualify.
So there is a reason for the government to be involved in marriage. I don't agree with the reason personally, but it is there and it is more than just trying to legislate morality. I'd rather the government stay out of trying to influence peoples' choices in any matter but I do recognize there is an allegedly legitimate reason for the government to be involved.
Do you contend that it is not possible for an organized group of people to express concern for the rights or interests of fathers without being a cover for abusers and misogynists?
Ever, under any circumstances, no matter how constituted?
I would also like to point out, for the 1000th time, child support is not alimony. They are two completely separate issues. Apparently you are extremely dense.
LOL! I'm so good. I must be a bloodhound. I can sniff out a misogynist "fathers' rights" sham artist a mile away.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
