Looks like one of the Right Wing Witches has swooped down on her broomstick to piss on father's day and take a hatchet to men.Alrighty, then. My turn now.
I want to address something to all the "Good Christian Women" out there.
Ladies, grab hold of one ear.
Good. Grab hold of your other one, too, now. Got a good grip? Okay.
NOW PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS.
There's an epidemic of stupidity among you all, to wit: You are all big on the whole "Man Up" routine but when anyone proposes altering the Social or Legal status quo in such a way as would make this possible, you oppose it. Then you chowderheads - every last pair of swinging tits of you - blame men for not doing it.
I get the whole "Be in the world, not of it." It's fine, but there's a point when it becomes blinkered stupidity, such as when you imagine that chanting that somehow makes you immune to civil laws and secular society.
Let me take the case of Jim and Pam to illustrate my point. I knew Jim and Pam from way back. They met in the Baptist church, courted, and got married. I was one of the attendants. I toasted them at their wedding, and they were the textbook Christian couple. Jim worked as a factory foreman, and Pam part-timed at a dress shop and did some volunteer work with the ladies of the church.
Pam got pregnant, stopped working, and Jim started taking overtime. Pam had the baby, and by that time Jim was putting in 60+ hours a week. Plus lunch, plus travel. Often he was gone almost 12 hours a day, 6 days a week.
Jenny was their neighbor, who attended a "progressive" new-agey church who blessed gay unions and all the politically correct things. She waitressed evenings at a nightclub, and when Pam was home days, their relationship progressed from waves "hello" and short small-talk chats to morning coffee, shopping trips - an adult to talk to. And boy did Jenny talk. She ran Jim down. He was never there for Pam. Never did "his half." Left her "all alone" with the baby. Not a frontal attack, but the usual "poor dearing" when Pam was frazzled. This eventually bled into spats where Jim was a sonofabitch if he didn't come home and immediately start in on "his half" of housework and diaper-changing.
Just shut up and let me finish. I know what you are saying and that is not the point.
Pam turned into a seething ball of resentment, and the marriage grew strained, with her kicking him out of bed to the couch - which Jim, as a "loving and understanding" husband did, but with his own resentments. They went to couples counselling at their church, which was "Beat up the man" almost word for word your man-bashing screed, Becky. Let the girl win. Weaker vessel, be more gentle, loving, and understanding, yadda, yadda, yadda. Pam wanted to take classes, wanted to do some home improvement, needed "me time" so Jim agreed. To pay for it, Jim had to do some double shifts. Sometimes every other day. "He's not there enough, I want, he has to work more to pay, "ME, work? I'm a Full. Time. MOTHER!"
More resentment. When he wasn't away working at night, she was off in "enrichment" classes or book clubs. She needed space, loving and understanding Jim gave what she DEMANDED.
Intimacy went to zero.
And then it came out that some of those nights had been spent in Jenny's nightclub where Jenny first encouraged Pam to "enjoy it when a guy flirts with you" to full on adultery. After 3 months of no intimacy - rejected by Pam - Pam turns up six weeks pregnant.
BUT WAIT, there is MORE!
What happened when Jim wanted a divorce? Pam dragged him to more counselling, where he was browbeaten by the ladies of the church to forgive his wife, she is sorry for her sin, think of your vows, she wants to rebuild things, it's Christ-like to forgive, that child is innocent, you shouldn't publicly shame your wife, scandal of divorce, etc. etc. etc.
You know the drill, Rebecca. Something tells me you'd have fit in well with the church ladies.
So Jim stayed with her. For three years. And she refused to have another child "until they were right" and finally they had a blow up, where Jim shouted at her "I've taken your little bastard you had with another man as my own, but you won't give me another child?" Two days later, Jenny drove her to get an ex parte restraining order - she was "afraid" of what Jim might do to "her child.". Jim was out of his house.
I won't bore you with the litany of the divorce, which Jim - dumbass, even after all that - tried to fight, and she stonily refused to negotiate. He lost his house, and is still paying for half. He's paying support on a child not even his, and she's taken up - or brought out in the open - her former relationship with that child's father. It's six years later, and he is a mess, emotionally and financially, and was ostracized from his church for the "scandal." She's going to the "progwessive" church now.
This is just the background. So I will ask you this - what would you have had Jim do?
He tried talking, counselling. He forgave her betrayal. He even set himself up to be the father of a child not his (Man up! Man up!) He never laid a hand on her, worked his ass off, provided for her, his son, another man's son adulterously concieved, gave her what she asked for.
Specifics, Rebecca. Not your banal platitudes, and generalities. How specifically could Jim "gone into battle" more for his family?
I'd have bet on them. Jim - decorated Desert Storm Vet, never a Hell-Raiser or womanizer. Pam a 3rd generation choir-girl. While I can't speak for them, if you had told me that they were both virgins, I'd not have any evidence to contradict it. In fact, Becky, Pam once called Jim "the first and last man for me."
So how would you arm Jim, Rebecca? He talked, begged, pleaded, reasoned, and prayed. (Or did he miss his prayers one night after working a sixteen hour shift, so God said no?) He laid down the law. I can hardly think of anything more loving or forgiving than to take an adulterine bastard as your own and raise it. He stood with her when she denied him affection and didn't force himself on her.
His church threw him to the wolves.
He had no legal leverage. No fault, community property, her misbehavior irrelevant to the proceedings, so on, s forth.
"For the sake of the Chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiildren......"
He's undatable. He works a job and a part time job to keep a small apartment and a beater vehicle. All you "Good Christian Women" cluck about how unfortunate he is, and urge him to keep plugging away and be the man. Some woman will see him for what he is - someday. When his obligations are through. When he can provide for you alone, and you not have to live on his income less $1,700 a month child support. Just not you. Maybe hen he is fifty and too late to start a new life, eh? But you can enjoy his retirement as if you were there through the bad times?
I bet if I proposed changing the law so her bad behavior was relevant, so that her groundless protection order was relevant against her, so that she didn't have virtual automatic gaurantees of custody and property, or so that a man known not to be the father of a baby wasn't on the hook for supporting it, where a man known to be the father was identifiable - I'd be called anti-woman and a misogynist.
Of course, I'm sure you "aren't for" what Pam did - but change the social or legal status quo so that she was accountable for it? OH, THE HUMANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's a movable goal, Becky, because no matter how far Jim went, you'll just claim "he didn't do enough." That's how I know the goalposts move with you "Good Christian Women" because trying to get you to say "Where is far enough, then?" you dodge. I'd have an easier time nailing jello to a wall.
Or maybe it's his fault for choosing a bad woman. Really. I'm not a fan of "Marriage - The Secular Institution", but Becky - I'd have bet on Pam. Pam got poisoned.
And Jim had to tools or support to fight against it. Because feminists long ago, progressively nickel and dimed them away. Because some women are abused. Because the child is innocent. Because, because, because.
Every step of the way, Rebecca, we warned you. We told you what vile snakes these feminists asking for "just this one little thing, it's Oh So Reasonable" were. They told you their agenda - to destroy the family - and you turned a deaf ear. When we fought back against them for the ravening wolves they are, you got offended "because they are still LADIES!" You told us to tie our hands because of that. You begged and cajoled us "Well, this isn't a bad thing, we'll just stop with this. Well, this. Okay, that."
And when we did fight anyway, you called us wimps, scared of strong women, your turned your backs on us, and worse yet, sided with them - SIDED WITH THEM - as they encroached and took away our male spaces, our ability to provide for our family, to defend them, to be the authority of the family, and said we weren't necessary.
You betrayed us.
And now you have the nerve to accuse us? Woman, heal thyself.