|
There was a time in my youth when I was very supportive of the ERA. I was even more for the gender equality movement than my wife at the time, and insisted that nobody "give her away" at the wedding alter. This was a ritual of male possession over a female, and that no one was "giving me away" even if it was tradition.
Several years later, I stayed home, taking time off my career to be a house husband, caring for my infant son, getting up with him in the mornings, changing his diapers and bathing him, preparing breakfast, lunches and dinner. I kept a clean house, did the laundry, all those things so that my wife could pursue her career, and find self fulfillment and self-actualization.
But after only two years, her salary no longer paid the bills. Our house fell into foreclosure. Then she said that she found her "true soul-mate," someone she knew from work, and took my baby son along with my older son, and moved in with this man, leaving me practically homeless, and jobless.
Facing contempt in family court
She filed for divorce. I faced the woman judge and explained to her how I was the primary bonded nurturing parent for my baby boy, and that I should have custody, as the child is calling out for "Daddy" and has said repeatedly, in no uncertain terms that he "wants to live with his Daddy," She asked me if I had a job. I said that I was a stay-at-home parent, and why doesn't anyone ask these questions to women when they are the stay-at-home parents?
She refused to answer, and again asked if I had a money producing job, income. I said that if I answered "that I did have an income producing job," the next question would be, "Who is going to watch the child when I'm at work?" Again, why aren't women asked these questions? Either "you don't have a job, and can't support the child," or if you do have a job, then, "you can't properly supervise the child."
The judge threatened me with contempt, and said that "by definition," only mothers are the primary bonded nurturing parents, no man was going to win custody away from a mother and stay home living on child support from his ex wife, in her court."
Apparently, she has no problems with women staying home, living the life of leisure and luxury on child support and alimony at the expense of their former husbands, even if it renders them into absolute financial ruin, abject poverty and incarceration.
Fathers don't win
Several other women, court officials and lawyers all have said to me that fathers just don't win child custody unless the mothers are on drugs, or have a criminal record, or are physically abusive (emotional abuse seems to be overlooked when women commit this act of violence on their children). I was even told by a woman law guardian, "You're a man, you'll get over it, just go home, have a few beers, go to a few bars, sleep with a few women, and soon you'll be over it." I was shocked. I was pigeon-holed and stereotyped, and I just could not reason with any of these women.
It's been ten years. My child still says that he wants to live with me, ever since he was three years old. He will soon turn 13.
The courts and his mother still refuse to allow him to live with me, although several court-appointed expert psychological evaluators over the years found that I was the primary bonded nurturing parent, and that it was my ex who has emotional problems.
This woman judge still refuses to allow my child to live with me, and just goes down the same old garden path of her preconceived ideas, based upon her own gender stereotype images, refusing to listen to reason, and her own appointed experts as if to say, "Don't confuse me with the facts, unless they support my already preconceived notions and ideas."
It's not unusual
My case is not unusual, in fact it seems to be more the rule than the exception. Many other men have far worse horror stories.
At work, I see women form cliques in which they conspire against many of their own peers, and almost demand special treatment, coming in late, leaving early, and getting too deep in over their capacity, and then getting some man to help bail them out, using sympathy, and other emotional trickery to seduce men into doing things for them.
I am left with a profound sense of betrayal about women. I can now see them and their games as they really are. Many use "projection," blaming men for the very things for which they are the most guilty of themselves, and over play the "Sympathy Card," which trumps anything else on the table, (including sympathy for the children) to get their way. A few cold-blooded crocodile tears, and the whole world seems to fall over to help and support her, while inside she is laughing all the way. Some of these women are the most self-absorbed, self-centered creatures on the face of the earth. Many of them openly express their hate and contempt for men. Others seem to be more discrete about it.
I will never have the naiveté about women as I once did.
Too much power?
Women have way too much power in society as it is, never mind this foolish talk of "empowerment." They can lie on the stand and it's regarded as gospel. A man tries to refute her lies, and he is the one who is burdened with proof and held in disbelief, his testimony minimized, ignored, ridiculed and dismissed.
Patriarchy, on the other hand, is different. True, there are a few horrible cultures that do horrible things, but for the most part the very old and stable cultures were (and are) based upon a patriarchal social structure, and work quite well: a time-honored system which, I have come to believe, is the natural order of society for our species.
Feminism has only brought ruin, misery, demise and destruction to our society and families, reducing fathers to disposable commodities, remote and distant visitors to their children, and nothing more than an endless source of financial revenue, at the disposal (under threat of incarceration) of some woman, with little or no regard for the affect this has upon the children or how it tears at the very fabric of society itself, for family is the microcosm of society, the very building blocks upon which society exists. This unspoken war upon families that feminism has waged, is a war upon society as we know it.
Double standards are a fact of life. Men may seem to have the lion's share in the workforce, but women have their lion's share in the courts. This is the other side of the glass ceiling, and they are absolutely uncompromising and unyielding, in fact, they are overtly "in-your face, what are you going to do about it, buster? - Ha!"
Achieving equality, or creating a backlash?
Women will achieve equality in the workforce when men, fathers, enjoy full equality in the courts and child custody issues. But let's face it, it's never going to happen, most women just can't seem to rise above their own double standards, even though most men have made major concessions in the workforce, practically bending over backwards to bring women up to parity.
As one of my coworkers said, "I allowed you into my corner of the sand-box, and let you play as equals, but you kicked sand into my face and teeth, and threw me out when I entered your corner of the sandbox and wanted equality; so be it, too bad."
"The workforce, and the higher salaried positions, is my corner of the sand box, this is where men like me rule. Now, get out!" A backlash is indeed underway. Feminism has run it's course, done enough damage. Now, it's time to get back to normal; for our future's sake, our children's sake, and for society's sake.
Feminism will collapse just the same as communism did in the world political arena.
What do you think? - Post your comments on the Equalitarian Forums.
|