Sunday, March 30, 2008
Please help my son and I put out the word about Kentucky House Bill 685. Please call the Kentucky Legislative support line, 1-800-372-7181. The Kentucky House just passed a bill, March 24th, that would allow me to successfully re-petition for custody and visitation to see my son. A bill that would guarantee and end my being alienated from my 21 month old son! But I need your help. If the Kentucky Senate does not push House Bill 685, which they received on March 26th, thru before April 1st it will be dead. Please call and ask your friends to call 1-800-372-7181 in support of HB 685. Please ask the message to be given to the entire Kentucky Senate, Senate Committee on Committess, and Senate Judiciary Committee to push and pass HOUSE BILL 685 before the end of this legislative session. Tell the operator you are in support of HB 685 and equal parental rights. They will ask your name and address, and it does not matter if you don't live in Kentucky. Please, please, please help me, for I love my son and want to see him. And it only takes a minute, a minute that will change my son's life.They take calls until 11pm eastern.
Here's the link to HB 685: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/08RS/HB685.htm
Here's the link to my blog: http://www.letmeseemyson.blogspot.com
Please take the time to call the numbers provided and to forward this to everyone you know and be sure to check out the link to James's blog for more details on this travesty.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
I decided to do an experiment and I googled 'advice for women'. Once again, I came up with all sorts of articles on how to avoid "toxic men", on how to further your career, on how to bag a boyfriend, how to catch said boyfriend cheating, how to look 10 lbs. slimmer, even how to keep from being caught when you've cheated.
The advice for women on how to improve their character, on how to be the best person, mother and wife they could be, was notably lacking. Not once did I encounter advice that I would consider of value. Not once did I see a suggestion that women should strive to be anything of real worth.
When I was growing up, in my church for girls ages 12-17, we had a young women's theme that we would repeat each and every Sunday. It's a bit religious in nature but I think it's worth sharing. Here's a section of it,
We are daughters of our Heavenly Father, who loves us,and we love him.
We will "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places..."
as we striveto live the Young Women Values, which are:
Choice and Accountability
Good Works and
We believe as we come to accept and act upon these values,we will be prepared to strengthen home and family......
Not only did we repeat this theme weekly, but there was a whole program based around it. We set daily, monthly and weekly goals to help us further develope those values listed. We integrated those values into every aspect of our lives and were taught that nothing (not even makeup and fashion tips) was as important as developing them. My daughter is now 12 years old and is also setting goals to reflect the young woman's theme.
Where in general society do we see such things promoted? Where do we see young women being taught anything of true worth? Not on T.V, not in movies and definitely not in what has been dubbed the Bible for women. The title 'the Bible for women' implies that everything a women needs to know to be the best and most she can be is found in there. Everything a woman needs to acquire peace, happiness and truth should be found within those pages. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women's magazines don't give women any of the keys to happiness. They don't teach them anything of worth.
If Cosmopolitan magazine encompasses sacred advice for women then one must take a look at what women have deemed sacred. It's an interesting observation. Motherhood is no longer sacred, nor the life of an unborn child. Marriage has lost it's sanctity along with wedding vows. It should come as no surprise as feminism has devalued everything of true worth that everything petty, selfish and shallow has taken their place.
While I roll my eyes and feel disgusted, the fact is that T.V. and the movies have got it right. Cosmopolitan truly is the Bible for today's modern woman. It's promotes everything women today value and nothing that they don't....which is why you don't see any articles on charity, kindness, compassion, modesty, humility or integrity, because these are not traits today's women have been taught to or are interested in embodying.
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Role Of Patriarchy In Domestic Violence
by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.
patriarchy: 1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe. 2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization.
The feminist viewpoint
Gloria Steinem has asserted that "The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself...The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home."
Feminist analysis thus states that a patriarchal society is a direct cause of domestic violence against women.
Steinem's theory rests on such works as Robert Burns' 1788 poem:
The Henpecked Husband
Curs'd be the man, the poorest wretch in life,
The crouching vassal to a tyrant wife!
Who has no will but by her high permission,
Who has not sixpence but in her possession;
Who must to her, his dear friend's secrets tell,
Who dreads a curtain lecture worse than hell.
Were such the wife had fallen to my part,
I'd break her spirit or I'd break her heart;
I'd charm her with the magic of a switch,
I'd kiss her maids, and kick the perverse bitch.
Feminist theory thus renders the idea of therapy for men who assault their female partners as implausible because such behavior is "normal" in a patriarchal society. That unproven feminist theory has been translated into laws that forbid mediation in cases where domestic violence is alleged and require the forced separation of the man and woman regardless of their desires.
Men who abuse their mates, the theory goes, act violently not because they as individuals can't control their impulses, and not because they are thugs, or drunks, or particularly troubled people, but because such behavior is inherent in a patriarchy. Domestic abuse, in feminist eyes, is an essential element of the vast male conspiracy to suppress and subordinate women. To keep men from abusing women they must be taught to see the errors of the patriarchy and to renounce them.
Patricia Pearson (p. 132) points out:
That men have used a patriarchal vocabulary to account for themselves doesn't mean that patriarchy causes their violence, any more than being patriarchs prevents them from being victimized. Studies of male batterers have failed to confirm that these men are more conservative or sexist about marriage than nonviolent men. To the contrary, some of the highest rates of violence are found in the least orthodox partnerships — dating or cohabiting lovers.
In short, correlation does not imply causation, a fundamental theorem of statistics. Yet on the basis of this fundamental error, a multibillion dollar domestic violence industry has arisen to the detriment of families and civilization.
More objective viewpoints
Dutton has examined the patriarch theory and rejects it for the following reasons:
• Battering in lesbian couples is much more frequent than heterosexual battering and lesbian relationships are significantly more violent than gay relationships.
• There is no direct correlation between how power is shared in a relationship and violence within couples.
• There is no direct relationship between structural patriarchy and wife assault.
Research to date indicates abuse and violence occurs in upwards of 50% of lesbian relationships compared to around 10-20% in other types of relationships. That would certainly not be true if domestic violence were in any way related to a patriarchal society.
There is evidence from a variety of sources that women are more violent in a domestic setting while men wage war globally. The Revs. Sewell point out in their recent report that:
"We think it is important to note that there have been the same kind of studies done in many countries. There is cross-cultural verification that women are more violent than men in family settings. When behavior has cross-cultural verification it means that it is part of human nature rather than a result of cultural conditioning. Females are most often the perpetrators in spousal violence in most cultures that have been studied to date. That leads many professionals to conclude that there is something biological about violent females in family situations. Researchers are now exploring the role of the 'territorial imperative' as a factor in women's violence against men. Women see the home as their territory. Like many other species on the planet, we humans will ignore size difference when we experience conflict on our own territory. So, the scientific results that reveal the violence of American women are not unique to our culture, and do not indicate a special pathology among American women. World wide, women are more violent than men in family settings."
Susan Steinmetz, Ph.D., a leading researcher in the field of family violence, has done a cross-cultural comparison of marital abuse. Using a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), she examined marital violence in small samples from six societies: Finland, United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, Belize, and Israel. Her results suggest that "...in each society the percentage of husbands who used violence was similar to the percentage of violent wives." The major exception was Puerto Rico where men were more violent. She also found that: "Wives who used violence...tended to use greater amounts."
A 1988 survey of couples in Canada by Brinkerhoff and Lupri found the same pattern. They examined interspousal violence in a representative sample of 562 couples in Calgary, Canada. They used the standard Conflict Tactics Scale and found twice as much severe violence where females assaulted males, 11%, as male assaulting female, 5%. The overall violence ratio for men was 10% while the overall violence ratio for women was 13%. Their study found significantly higher violence in younger and childless couples, and that male violence decreased with higher educational attainment while female violence increased.
As she did with many issues, Erin Pizzey recognized very early that domestic violence had nothing to do with the patriarchy. In her book Prone to Violence, she compares violent men from the patriarchal society of Nigeria and the matriarchal society of West India and finds no basic differences. She has also argued that the feminist movement's intent is to destroy families as we know them.
The cross-cultural studies referenced above yielded results very similar to family violence studies done in the United States and other nations.
Conversely, there is considerable evidence that the feminist matriarchy has had considerable negative influence on domestic tranquility in the form of draconian Big Sister laws that forcefully separate men and women and are destroying families regardless of the individuals wishes.
We are not aware of any matriarchal society that has independently developed beyond the Stone Age. While such societies readily use technology borrowed from patriarchal neighbors, if left alone matriarchal enclaves appear to quickly revert back to a Stone Age level. Haiti, and any inner city ghetto, would be modern examples.
The studies referenced find no evidence that a patriarchal society has any direct influence on family violence.
Are we the only ones who regard the present unsubstantiated, radical social engineering based on destruction of the patriarchy as extremely dangerous?
Are the lessons of the previous century so quickly forgotten?
Perhaps George Orwell's 1984 was simply premature and it is really a matriarchal Big Sister that is our danger?
Before I continue, allow me to clarify my position. I do not post this article or anything else that I write in this blog to further the current war of the sexes. Quite the contrary. I assert that the family is integral to society and the family unit needs to consist of a man and women who are united. The reason I post this article is to disclose the lies of feminism.
Feminists would have you believe that women are perpetually victimized by men. They would have you believe that they are fighting a righteous battle to end the abuse and oppression of women. In fact, their fight has nothing to do with truth or righteousness. Their fight is about lies, separating the sexes and destroying the family.
What better way to divide men and women than to convince women they are the victims of men? You can not trust those who oppress you. You cannot be open, loving and giving with those who would seek to abuse you. When you're 'sleeping with the enemy', you must at all times be on guard and suspicious. Feminists have clearly defined to women that men are the enemy as we can see in Gloria Steinem's quote,
"The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself...The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home."
The facts are that women and men are both capable of violence. They are both capable of murder and of hate and of every other evil act and emotion within human capacity. Neither gender has a monopoly on evil or, for that matter, on goodness.
Human beings are the sum of their actions, not their sexual organs. The myth of the evil patriarchy, that men are prone to violence and, perhaps the greatest myth of all, that women are perpetually victimized by men is nothing more or less than a lie; a destructive, corrosive lie, promoted by feminists to erect a wall between men and women.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Violent men, victimized women
Walter S. De Keseredy, National Post Published: Friday, March 07, 2008
In her Feb. 27 article "On domestic violence, no one wants to hear the truth," National Post columnist Barbara Kay stated that people claiming women are as violent as men in intimate, heterosexual relationships are "truth-tellers," while those who challenge or reject the sexual symmetry of violence are "all reading from the same myth-riddled hymn book." However, by denouncing a gendered understanding of intimate partner violence and promoting the work of Erin Pizzey and Donald Dutton, Ms. Kay has engaged in a process of activism herself. She is trying to advance a political agenda instead of telling the whole truth.
One part of the truth Ms. Kay didn't tell is that sexual assault is violent behaviour committed primarily by men, especially by male dating partners and acquaintances. How many men do you know who have been raped by their spouses, ex-spouses or girlfriends? How often do we read newspaper stories about women stalking ex-husbands and then killing them and their children?
Sadly, in Canada, the risk of women being killed increases sixfold during the process of separation, which partially explains why so many women are afraid to leave abusive or controlling men. Ms. Kay selectively ignores other serious acts of male abuse, including strangulation, the destruction of women's prized possessions, threats to harm or take away children, and the mutilation of pets. No wonder Canadian battered women's shelters are filled every day and night.
Another part of the truth ignored in Ms. Kay's column is that we rarely see men seeking aid in hospital emergency rooms because they were beaten or raped by their female partners. On the other hand, male violence against women is the number-one injury to women treated by emergency room staff. It is painfully obvious, but worth stating again: The bulk of violence in intimate, heterosexual relationships is committed by men.
Why do men hit, rape or kill the women they love? Ms. Kay, psychologist Donald Dutton and many others claim that they are "sick." Large-scale surveys of the general population suggest that if violence is a function of mental illness, then close to a third (if not more) of the men in our society are sick.
Of course, some abusive men have clinical pathologies, but most do not. If violent husbands, cohabiting and estranged partners and boyfriends are in fact mentally ill, then why do they beat, rape or kill only female partners and not their bosses, friends or neighbours? If we are dealing with men who have terrible problems with self-control, how do they manage to keep from hitting people until they are at home alone with their loved ones?
These questions cannot be answered by psychological theories, primarily because these theories ignore the unequal distribution of power between men and women in Canadian society and in domestic contexts.
Ms. Kay incorrectly assumes that feminists have more influence over police officers, politicians, judges and other practitioners than people who claim that intimate violence is a gender-neutral problem. She also ignores the fact that -- despite federal and provincial directives to police to lay charges for all cases of domestic violence where reasonable and probable grounds exist -- charges are uncommon. The same can be said about sexual assault and stalking.
Ms. Kay quotes Erin Pizzey, who stated that for gender politics "Canada is the scariest country on the planet." Indeed, many Canadian women live in fear on a daily basis -- but not for the reason Ms. Pizzey suggests. As my friend and colleague Dr. Meda Chesney-Lind once stated, given the alarming amount of violence women suffer at male hands, the incredible story is that the number of female murderers is so low.
-Dr. Walter S. DeKeseredy is a professor of Criminology, Justice and Policy Studies at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology.
What Dr. DeKeserdy fails to mention, while he points out forms of violence that are commonly attributed to men, are the types of violence that are more often committed by women. I guess it's easy to disregard that women are more likely to not only abuse but murder their children then men. Apparently Dr. DeKeserdy does not think this type of violence rates mentioning.
I also like how he considered destruction of a woman's possessions and threats to keep away the children acts of violence. If that's so, women are just as guilty (in my opinion more so) of such acts, and, if we're expanding violence to such a broad definition, then surely we should include alienating children from their fathers and verbally maligning fathers in front of their children.
We should also include in our tally false accusations of rape and abuse. Even if he avoids jail time, a falsely accused man's career and life are typically ruined by such charges. Clearly these would also count as 'acts of violence' since destroying a life is surely a greater offense than the destruction of personal possessions.
Of course, this is to be expected. As soon as we see factions of society starting to accept that men do not have a monopoly on violence, the feminists and their supporters come out of the woodwork attempting to reaffirm that evil actions are committed solely by men.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
"Boys like guns and stuff because they're the ones who are soldiers."
"Boys are better at hard stuff because they're stronger than girls. Right, Mom?"
"Boys make good heroes because they're good at saving the day."
"Just me and Dad are going because this is only for boys, Mom"
How do I feel about his comments? I think they're great. I love that he's proud to be a boy and prouder still that he'll grow up to be a man.
I realize that if I followed today's version of Motherhood 101 I'd quickly squash these notions, informing him that a girl is capable of doing anything a boy can do, just as well or better. I prefer to let me sons relish in all the wonderful aspects of being a boy and my daughter to appreciate all that's special about being a girl.
Do I worry that my sweet little boy will grow up to devalue women? Not for a second. If anything, allowing ourselves to recognize gender differences only makes us appreciate those differences all the more. The reason men love women and women love men is because we are drawn to those differences.
One of my son's best friends is a little girl. They are so cute together. Two adorable, blonde-haired, blue-eyed kids. They play games, ride bikes and scooters together, battle it out on Guitar Hero III....of course, he saves games of football and soldier for his male friends...."cuz girls don't really like those, huh, Mom."
Thursday, March 20, 2008
I got this in an email, talking about this story:
A Dying Wish
Save Email Print
Lincoln, Neb. Posted: 5:15 PM Mar 17, 2008Last Updated: 10:20 AM Mar 20, 2008Reporter: David JespersenEmail Address: mailto:email@example.com?subject=A
A little girl fights for her life, and her last wish is to see her father. But that wish
may not come true. "They didn't expect her to still be here. She's fighting,
day by day, minute by minute," said Vonda Yaeger, mother.
10/11 has followed the story of 10-year-old Jayci Yaeger as she battled brain tumors. Now doctors say she is about to lose that fight. Her last wish is to spend what time she has left with her father, but he is in a federal prison for drug charges.
Less than six months ago, Jayci was energetic, fun and upbeat. Now she's just a shadow of what she used to be -- lying in a hospital bed.
Jayci has brain tumors and doctors say she's dying. "What doctors say? They say there's nothing they can do for her. The tumors are growing and hemorrhaging, and right now nothing they can do for her, just keep her comfortable," Vonda Yaeger said.
In less than two months, cancer turned an energetic little girl into someone those who know her hardly recognize. During the fight, her family has been hopeful, but now reality is setting in.
"It's really hard to say it, but it's time now and she doesn't need to suffer anymore. She needs to be where she can be peaceful and happy and not in pain," Yaeger said.
There's one more thing Yaeger said her daughter needs -- her father, Jason. But he's in federal prison in South Dakota and has been denied repeated attempts to grant him a 30-day release. Yaeger was convicted of methamphetamine charges nearly five years ago.
"She expressed many times that she misses him, and he talks to her on the phone now and she cries. That's the only time I see her cry," Yaeger said.
In fact, Yaeger said the need to see her father is the only thing keeping Jayci going.
"I think she understands. She knows what the outcome is going to be. She's very
scared, and I think she's holding on for her father," Yaeger said.
Yaeger said denying Jayci's last wish is cruel, and goes beyond punishing Jason for any crime he ever committed.
"She didn't do anything wrong. He was there for her when she was born. He should be there for her when she goes," she said.
Jayci's family said they aren't looking to get Jason out of prison, or
shorten his sentence. They even asked for him to be put on electronic
surveillance while was in Lincoln, and he offered to serve double his remaining
time when he went back. Yankton Federal Prison Camp officials said they had
no comment on the situation.
Jayci's family just hopes they have a change of
heart before it's too late.
For those of you who have not already done so, please contact some or all
of the following people and ask that they help this dying girl to see her
father. I contacted the Make a Wish Foundation which is working on making this
young girls wish come true.
Then I sent this to the Governors of Nebraska and
A young soldier in Iraq emailed me about 10-year-old Jayci
Yaeger's wish to see her incarcerated father before she dies from brain tumors.
He's in a federal prison in South Dakota and earlier requests to prison
officials for Jayci to see her father have been denied.
Please intervene and help this small girl see her father.
Harry Crouch, President
National Coalition of Free Men
This was posted in response to the story
about the young girl:
Posted by: Do Something!
Location: USA on Mar 20, 2008 at
If you want to do something about this case, contact the following
people. I've already made calls and explained my feelings on this (yes, I feel
tough on crime, but we should still be human. As long as the guy does not have a
history of violence, what's the harm in letting him see his dying daughter?) and
the politicians have been receptive.
I also called Gov. Mike Rounds. The more calls the better. Linda Asher / public relations - Yankton FPC Phone: 605-665-3262 Fax: 605-668-1113 E-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org You could also contact the federal SD congressional delegates: Senator Tim Johnson........ (800) 537-0025 Senator John Thune..... Sioux Falls: (605) 334-9596 Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth......... (866) 371-8747 or the Yankton (18th) district state delegates: Jean Hunhoff (senate -R) Business: 605-668-8312 Garry Moore (house - D) Business: 605-665-3294 Charlii Gilson (house - R) Business 605-260-1600
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Jump back to current times and, sure enough, CA has done just that. A state appeals court ruling two weeks ago held that parents who teach their kids at home must have a teaching credential.
Did you get that?
Parents have to be accredited in order to teach their children. Apparently, merely being their parent no longer qualifies one to teach or decide the best interests of your child.
I would like to say I'm surprised by this....but I'm not. It's merely another in a series of CA rulings aimed to undermine the family and elimate the role of parents in the lives of their children.
If California parents choose to teach their children traditional values that promote the nuclear family the children will be indoctrinated differently in the school system and sent in for reconditioning if they reject the indoctrination.
Under SB 777, schoolchildren as young as kindergarten will be sexually indoctrinated and introduced to homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality, regardless of their parents feelings or beliefs on the matter. Not only will they be introduced to these concepts but they will be promoted as acceptable variations on traditional lifestyles.
Unsurprisingly, due to legislation such as SB 777, more and more California parents have felt their only option in raising their children as THEY see fit is in removing them from the public school system and teaching them at home. The powers that be, seeing their efforts to impose their own views and morality impeded, have countered by passing legislation effectively ruling that parents are not fit to educate their own children.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
I'll relate a story I heard several years back, it's about a woman who decided she was never going to say 'no' to her husband concerning sex. Not only that, but she was going to go out of her way to have sex every night. She realized that the reasons she was denying her husband sex were very trivial, even downright selfish, and decided to set for herself this goal. She found, after a few months, that she was benefitting from the situation as much or more than her husband. They experienced new level of intimacy and bonding. Much of the 'magic' that had been lost returned. They found themselves loving to spend time together, going out of their way to do little things to make the other happy.....basically it changed their entire marriage. Why? Not because the only thing men care about is sex, but because intimacy in a marriage is much of the glue that binds a man and woman together. It's how, even with the kids and the jobs and all the other crap that goes on during day to day life, a husband andBeing on the web and privy to the comments of many men, married as well as single, it becomes readily apparent that the prospects of a sizzling sex life within the bonds of marriage (with your spouse) are not looked upon as very promising. From the sound of things, many, many married men are not remotely happy with the state of their sex lives and have grown to view their marriages as something to endure until death kindly releases them. Now, the response from wives should be one of concern and care, predictably it tends to falls more along the lines of apathy and defensiveness, all the way to mockery and scorn.
wife can unite and rejoin, keeping alive the sense of oneness that existed when they were newly in love.
To begin this post, I need to first define some ground rules. The following have to be accepted as givens,
1. We have a right to have sex with our spouse
2. Withholding sexual intimacy is callous and cruel
3. Sex between a husband and wife is imperative to a close, loving relationship
I'm sure there are some who would argue those with me, but they are facts. Women trying to argue their way out of and circumvent these facts is a leading reason why so many husbands are not happy with their sex lives.
Let's start with number one, We have a right to have sex with our spouse . Feminism, with it's unparalleled talent for destroying everything natural, has done much to discredit this. Marriage is about union, figurative as well as literal. The literal joining of a husband and wife takes place within the marriage bed and is key to the relationship between a husband and wife.
One of the most damaging things you can do within a marriage is to hold intimacy hostage. Physical intimacy is the way a husband and wife bond together, it is an expression of their love and union. Withholding sex sends a clear message that your marriage and relationship are not above being used in vindictive games and power struggles.
Which brings us to number two, Withholding affection is callous and cruel. Saying "No" to your spouse when they come to you seeking intimacy is rejection, plain and simple. There's no point sugar-coating it, let's call it what it is. Being rejected by the one you love is never an easy thing to take, sexual rejection is generally one of the worst types. Anyone who's familiar with rejection can tell you that a person can only take so much.
I've always remembered a line from a movie, although I've long since forgotten the film itself. The line is from a husband to his wife and he says, "I don't want to spend the rest of my life hoping to get lucky with my own wife". That line really had an impact on me. No one should have to be in a place of having to beg sexual favors from their spouse....but they are, all the time. Women hold sex over men's heads like they would a treat over the head of their dog. Jump, sit, stay....do everything I say and maybe you'll get your treat.....and then they wonder why their husbands are angry and bitter....they wonder why they don't show the same degree affection and care that they once did.
Moving on to number three, Sex between a husband and wife is imperative for a close, loving relationship. Notice please the word, "imperative". There's a reason I didn't say helpful, beneficial or a good idea. A healthy sex life is an absolutely essential element to a happy marriage. Women think they should be able to sexually neglect their husbands without any corresponding impact upon their marriages. It does not work that way, and, as long as we're talking about things that 'don't work', neither does just showing up. I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about, but in case there's any confusion....sex is a two way streak. There's a reason there are two people involved. Far too many women think their sole contribution to the act of sex is giving in and being present. You might get away with that for a while, but it's going to get old very quickly.
The leading factor in a healthy sex life, as well as a healthy marriage, is selflessness. Giving of oneself completely, without reservation and with love is what sex between a husband and wife is supposed to be...but there lies the conundrum. Giving with no thought of self is less likely in today's marriage than 'till death do us part'. Feminism, in another grand destructive gesture, has taught women that it's "all about them" thus making acts of selflessness rare indeed.
If you stop to take the time and really listen to what men are saying, it's clear that when it comes to sex in marriage, women are, to put it lightly, dropping the ball. Women ask and ask, 'what do men want', they invest millions in magazines, and advice seminars all in search of 'what men want'. My observation is that most women don't really care what men want, because when they're told what men want....when they're told what will really make a difference, what will really make their significant others happy, they either choose to ignore, ridicule or dispute it.
So, while I write these things, with the grand hope that women will read them, follow them (and I guarantee they do work), I think a much more likely scenario is that they'll roll their eyes, think things like, "apparently Kim's never been married, tried to work a job all while caring for her kids" (Married 15 years, 3 kids, thank you very much). I realize that most women don't really want answers, unless those answers are a validation of their actions. They just want what they've grown to expect under feminism....validation and to be told that they are right...which is why most marriages today don't stand a chance.
I recieved an e-mail today with a message to pray for our troops. The timing was very fitting considering I'd just spoken with an acquaintance who's son is serving in Iraq. He knows his son has been injured but has been unable to gain any further information. Once again, I'd like to ask that we all remember the sacrifices made by our soldiers. If you pray, pray for them. If you don't, then keep them in your thoughts. I know I've said it before but it bears repeating....regardless of where any of us stand concerning the government, we should always remember to support our troops.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The difference, I think, between feminists and myself, is that I love being a woman. Not only do I love being a woman, but I think being a woman is a great thing to be. I do not feel the need to reject everything inherently female for everything inherently male. As much as I love and admire men, I have no desire to be anything other than a woman.
I had wonderful female role models when I was growing up.....women who were the epitome of selflessness and charity. They devoted their lives to their families and caring for those around them. They were loved and admired by all who knew them. Watching them, not once did I ever think they were oppressed or subjugated. Not once did I consider they were anything less or ever considered anything less.
When I see images of modern womanhood; pictures of women acting loud, selfish,obnoxious, promiscuous, licentious....not only am I disgusted, but I am deeply, deeply saddened, for these women truly are less...have made themselves less. I'm saddened because I realize what these woman could have been, compared to what they've become. Feminism told them to be anything they wanted...as long as it was nothing of real value. Anything under the sun a woman could aspire to be, unless it was something of worth.
It's funny because, according to feminists, any man who's against feminism is a woman-hating member of the oppressive patriarchy, yet I tend to see it in reverse. Men who hate feminism, in part, hate it because they actually care what becomes of women. Instead of saying, "Great, under feminism women are a lot more promiscuous, more sex for me..." they, like I, are saddened to see women turned into so much less than they could have been, saddened and angry to see what's become of womanhood and the subsequent effect on marriage, home and family.
I'm angry that womanhood, something I love and cherish has been tarnished and tainted so. I'm angry that feminists were allowed to tell their lies to the detriment of all society and nobody stopped them. I'm angry for all the little girls who have very little chance to amount to anything of real value because they've never been taught anything of real value.
Growing up, I was taught to seek after things that were virtuous, pure and praiseworthy; to be honest, true and charitable. This is what I now teach my children, sons and daughter, because these are the things of worth....the aspirations we should adhere to. Unfortunately, for most people, the premise of promoting such values is a virtually foreign concept. A girl is much more likely to be taught to be rude, irresponsible, selfish and shallow than any of the attributes listed above.
While feminists would mock and scorn a woman for being, first and foremost, a wife and mother, they would applaud the same woman for filing for divorce and breaking up her family because she wasn't happy. If she's home taking care of her children and family, she's barefoot and pregnant, but if she's out at the bars every weekend, getting drunk, having casual sex and aborting any unplanned pregancies....why, she's a poster child for feminism. It's long been my opinion that nothing hates womanhood more than feminism.