The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Government creating a fatherless society > Comments

Government creating a fatherless society : Comments

By Warwick Marsh, published 15/3/2012

Taxpayer funding for those who want to send the laws of nature into free fall.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All
A well written and well articulated article Warwick.

Your critics are so full of a sense of self entitlement that they can't engage on any rational level; so they attack the messenger. That is an old ploy for women - attack the man, his masculinity, his very sense of being. Do anything - just win. Win at all costs.

Men have a sense of fairness that many women just don't have. We have lines that we won't cross. It shows what a mistake it was to trust women as our equals. To ask them to wield power responsibly. They will destroy a man rather than let him win. There has never been a sense of chivalry, a gentlemen's agreement, a handshake, the concept of dying for your word or honour among women. How could we suddenly expect them to be fair now? They just don't have the faculty.

You have challenged their sense of privilege and superiority. You have called into question their sense of entitlement. And look at how they respond: bewilderment, confusion, anger, disbelief. Women just can't seem to put themselves in someone else's shoes. I think it reveals an emotional immaturity, a preoccupation with the self as the centre of the universe. Some women even resent having children because it takes the spotlight off them; forces them to grow up and put someone else first.

Your article forces them to make similar considerations. It asks them to put their own considerations aside and to think of someone other than themselves. Of course, the enormous ego of modern women finds that very hard to swallow. After decades of victimhood they are not about to give it up now.

In any case, their venom is your success. Well done.
Posted by dane, Thursday, 15 March 2012 5:08:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'You have called into question [women's] sense of entitlement. And look at how they respond: bewilderment, confusion, anger, disbelief.'

You left out tedium, pity, disdain and disgust. Your 'gentleman's honour' is in very short supply with that vindictive little piece. If I were a man I'd be deeply embarrassed and insulted by it.
Posted by Killarney, Thursday, 15 March 2012 5:42:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Warwick, Warwick, Warwick. We know you are trying to get back at everyone afte4r being sacked as health embassador. We know you want another monent of fame that will help you say "see told you I'm important" to Nicola Roxon. But really, do you need to keep hating on gays? As far as i can see you just diog your grave deeper, and deeper, and deeper.

You start with 21 Reasons Why Gender Matters in which you promote hate against gays by saying they are all prone to be pedophiles. Then in 21 reasons you claim all homosexuals are suffering from gender confusion disorder. Now, after the failure of 21 Reasons you try to court the female love of marraige/weddings by saying that women will no longer be able to get married if gays are allowed to be married. And if all that werent going too far you suggest that all children will be without fathers if we allow homosexuality because all men will suddenly become gay and wont want to be dads.

How about you get over you sacking, and your gay hate. and stop dragging the public into your internal drama.
Posted by PaulG, Thursday, 15 March 2012 5:53:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney,

'Your 'gentleman's honour' is in very short supply with that vindictive little piece. If I were a man I'd be deeply embarrassed and insulted by it.'

That's my point - you wouldn't be embarressed because women have no sense of honour only entitlement. However, it could have been worse, I could have said:

"I want to see a women beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in her mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig"

But I guess it's only vindictive when men question women's privileges not when feminists like Dworfkin spew hate against men. In today's world, women, having convinced themselves of their own superiority and victimhood at the same time (logic is not a feminine virtue), may say whatever they like. That is equality.

But I do agree with your statement about gentlemen's honour being in short supply when it comes to feminists. Maybe it has something to do with me having to work longer, harder and die earlier to support women's 'choices' and then being told I should be bludgeoned to death with a high heel shoe.

You'll have to forgive me for the misapprehension about men's lives being valuable too.
Posted by dane, Thursday, 15 March 2012 6:29:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Alan,
my experience is that feminism isn't just attacking marriage.

Recently I entered a competition on a radio station where the announcers wanted people to relate their most dariong act.

I'd sailed from Newcastle to Brisbane after I'd obtained a yacht. I'd never set foot on a small boat before.

I didn't win and copped criticism for doing something that wasn't 'safe'. Had someone enquired they'd have realised I understood the nature of the sea and had undertaken my adventure with great prudence.

There is now a new definition of daring. Be daring but make sure you are safely in the hands of others. I've been laughing at that stupidity.

The attitude, the world can be made safe, has arisen with the rise of feminism. A totally natural expectation of 'baby bearing and baby raising' women. So unlike the totally natural male expectations of knowing the world isn't safe... and challenging oneself by 'taking on' the environments and expanding boundaries.

Changing the nature of marriage and child rearing is just another such stupid attitude.

I raised my kids. I learned from the women and their children we'd encountered. My kids sourced what the couldn't from me from the other adults in our world. They were encouraged to do that. They encountered homosexual couples along the way. We aways openly discussed their reactions and attitudes. From all accounts such openess and encouragement just isn't evident from the individuals who endorse 'same sex' parenting. Challenge them ... you'll soon see closed mindedness.

I'd defy any homosexual couple to allow their children to have the same experience as my kids.

Can't happen. Ask any psych. Aberrant sexual behaviour leads to denying your own sexuality. Once you do that you do tend to live in a warpped controlling world.

My kids as adults are successful. My daughter's about to become a mum and my son is a daring well adjusted Electrical and Computer engineer with a degree in Applied Science (Mathematics). They both choose to spend time with me and are intent on forging an adult relationship with their mum.
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 15 March 2012 7:10:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>It takes a mother and a father to raise a child.<<

Really? Then how do we explain all the well-adjusted, contributing members of society who were raised without a mother and/or father? Are they just freaks? No, let me guess: they are the exceptions that prove the rule.

>>This is the Government, at its best, creating a fatherless society.<<

If one father is good it stands to reason that two is better. Shouldn't you be out there encouraging more young men to shack up together and start a family? Seeking to deny gay men the right to raise children is a direct attack on fatherhood: aren't you supposed to be in favour of that, Warwick?

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 15 March 2012 11:27:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy