I found an interesting post on a Christian blog that is sensitive to men's issues. In the post, the author (me) talks about 4 different times that father's leadership in the home was overridden by feminist layers and judges. I asked what people thought that men would learn from this. Feel free to stop by and comment.
Source: https://winteryknight.com/2022/06/15/psychologist-claims-father-is-an-unfit-parent-for-refusing-to-give-son-unhealthy-fast-food/
Full text: Should a man marry a woman who doesn't respect his decision-making ability? To me, if a woman doesn't think that the man is good at making decisions, then she should just steer clear of him. Strangely enough, many women do marry men who they don't respect at all as leaders. Let's look at four cases where this happened, then draw some conclusions.
Consider this story from CBS News.
Excerpt:
Saying no to a toddler's demands for a McDonald's meal got a father branded an inept parent, he says in a lawsuit claiming a psychologist urged a judge to curtail his parental visits over the dinner debacle. David E. Schorr says psychologist Marilyn Schiller pronounced him incapable of caring for his nearly 5-year-old son after he offered a choice — dinner anywhere but McDonald's, or no dinner at all — and let the boy choose the latter. He then took his irate son home to the boy's mother's house early from their Oct 30 dinner date, according to a defamation suit Schorr filed Tuesday. [...]"Normally not a very strict father who rarely refuses his child McDonald's," Schorr put his foot down Oct. 30 "because his son had been eating too much junk food," the suit said. Schorr himself didn't immediately return a call Friday. He quickly regretted his stance when his son threw a tantrum, but he felt that giving in would reward bad behavior, so he offered the elsewhere-or-nowhere "final offer," as his court papers put it. "The child, stubborn as a mule, chose the 'no dinner' option," the suit says. And the father promptly carted the boy back to Bari Schorr's building, still trying to entice the child into changing his mind as they waited in the lobby for her to get home from work, according to the suit. Schiller told a judge the fast food flap "raises concerns about the viability" of the father's weekend visits with his son and asked a judge to eliminate or limit them, his lawsuit says.
The NY Post reports that the brat's mother immediately took him to McDonald's.
Excerpt:
Adding insult to injury, he said: “My wife immediately took him to McDonalds.” [...]But the son apparently tattled on his dad and his wife flipped out and called the shrink, according to the suit. Schorr claims that Dr. Schiller only interviewed the child and his mother and never asked for his side of the story before telling the court she was gravely concerned about Schorr’s parenting. Bari Yunis Schorr sued her husband for a divorce in 2011, just four years after they married in a lavish ceremony at the St. Regis Hotel in Manhattan.
Now does this situation happen a lot? I mean a situation where a mother goes to the feminist authoritities (psychologists/social workers/lawyers/teachers/judges) in order to overrule the father's parenting authority?
Another case from Canada
Here is a story from Canada that provides another examples of mothers, female lawyers, female judges, etc. overriding a father's leadership of his home.
Excerpt:
A Gatineau father lost an appeal Monday after a lower court ruled last June that he had issued a too severe punishment against his 12-year-old daughter. The case involves a divorced man who says that in 2008 he caught the girl, over whom he had custody, surfing websites he had forbidden and posting “inappropriate pictures of herself” online. The girl’s father told her as a consequence that she would not be allowed to go on her class’ graduation trip to Quebec City, even though her mother had already given permission for her to do so. The girl then contacted a legal-aid lawyer who was involved in the parents’ custody battle, who convinced the court to order that the girl be allowed to go on the trip with her class. The father appealed the decision on principle, although his daughter went on the trip in the meantime. The appeals court reportedly warned in its ruling that the case should not be seen as an open invitation for children to take legal action against their parents when grounded. The girl now lives with her mother.
You may think that this would be overturned on appeal, but the father LOST his appeal, too. So, what the daughter, wife, prosecuting attorney and judge (all feminists?) are all telling this Dad that he can donate sperm, pay bills, and pay taxes to welfare spending, but that he cannot lead his own children. He cannot have any moral authority to guide the child into becoming a man. That job is for child care workers, single mothers and public school teachers. Men need to butt out of parenting - except they can pay for all these experts through taxes, of course.
Recently, I blogged about a case in Canada where a father was overruled by female teachers, principals, lawyers, and judges, because he opposed the transgendering of his child (which was supported by the mother).
And there was also a case in California, where the mother of a child also wanted to transgender the child. The father collected together all the evidence showing that this would not be a good idea in the long run, but a female judge overruled him. Not only did he lose custody of the child, but he was banned from contacting the child, too.
Questions:
- Does anyone care what men want from marriage and parenting, or should we just be ordered around like little boys?
- Do we really think that state coercion is going to make men be more involved with their marriages and children?
I think that marriage should allow men to express themselves as fathers, just as much as women can express themselves as mothers. Parenting should be an equally shared responsibility, and the father should have at least as much parental authority as the mother.
Compassion vs standards
Here is a pretty good article by Jewish scholar Dennis Prager that argues against compassion and for moral standards. He tells a story of a team losing a baseball game 24-7, when the scoreboard is reset to 0-0 DURING THE GAME. He then asks what beliefs would motivate this action.
As is happening throughout America, compassion trumped all other values. Truth was the first value compassion trashed. In the name of compassion, the adults in charge decided to lie. The score was not 0-0; it was 24-7. Wisdom was the second value compassion obliterated. It is unwise to the point of imbecilic to believe that the losing boys were in any way helped by changing the score. On the contrary, they learned lessons that will hamper their ability to mature.
He lists the lessons that the winning and losing boys learned from this compassionate act, and how they will act in the future. Then he continues his list.
Building character was the third value trumped by compassion. People build character far more through handling defeat than through winning. The human being grows up only when forced to deal with disappointment. We remain children until the day we take full responsibility for our lives. …The fourth value that compassion denied here was fairness. It is remarkable how often compassion-based liberals speak of “fairness” in formulating social policy given how unfair so many of their policies are. It was entirely unfair to the winning team to have their score expunged, all their work denied. But for the compassion-first crowd, the winning team is like “the rich” who earn “too much” and should therefore be penalized with a higher tax rate; the winning team scored “too many” runs to be allowed to keep them all.
What the "compassion" crowd mean by compassion is "don't judge". "Don't judge" is their highest morality. Male leadership isn't just worthless, it's dangerous. Men are only good for spending money, and for being sperm donors. It would be best if they didn't talk at all. Compassion undermines moral standards, but also standards of rationality. The former is under attack from moral relativism, and the latter is under attach from postmodernism. These ideologies are dangerous, and they are at the root of a lot of the problems we're seeing with children today. When men cannot correct moral relativism and postmodernism in their homes, then the children make terrible decisions, and often get into big trouble later on.
Advice for men When men are getting into relationships with women, they should consider whether the woman is choosing them because they are good at leading, especially on moral and spiritual issues. If she is not choosing you because she likes how you lead, then run for the hills. You do not want to invest in a relationship that is going to be adjudicated in the courts by feminist lawyers and feminist judges. If you like to lead, pick a woman who likes how you lead. A woman who thinks that moral relativism is false, and postmodern relativism is also false.
DextroShade 1y ago
Apparently all children in communist shit holes like Canada and California defacto belong to the state. I would recommend men in these places either "kidnap" (it's not really kidnapping if it's YOUR kid) their kids and take them to a place where paternal authority is still recognized or cut their losses and go the full Tommy Sotomayor "fuck them kids" route.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
Wonderful set of stories, thanks. I found this tidbit interesting "just four years after they married in a lavish ceremony at the St. Regis Hotel in Manhattan". I read that apparently lavish weddings correlate with MORE divorces I suspect because women who insist upon spending lots of money to show off tend to make lousy wives.
Regarding the meat of the article. In the case of the fathers who were penalized for denying the son junk food and then denying him food and the other who lost custody because of denying the daughter a class trip: Leadership, in the words of Sun Tzu, means choosing your battles. In the case of a nasty ex looking for a fight, denying a child food even for good reasons just isn't worth it. In both cases, the fathers sought punishments via means they didn't have full control over. The mothers could choose to give the boy junk food and the girl her trip, respectively.
Inflicting disciplinary punishment requires firm jurisdiction. In the case of the daughter, I'd disable her internet and other devices.
I'm raising a 6 year old daughter and I'm looking ahead to when she's a teenager and that gives me urgency. Heck, it's tough to assert authority over teenagers, particularly teenage girls, even if both parents are on the same page. As we know here, teenage girls can get sexual attention and validation and this undermines an ability to deny it to them. You gotta get to them when they're young.
NotaBene Jr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
Pre-teen daughter here, I get that. We homeschool, choose her friends, and I'm extremely vigilant about what comes in the house.
I laugh at the idea of getting a teenager a phone in the first place. I view that as really stupid, just asking for needless temptation in many ways. Worst case if she really needs it she can borrow the family phone (wife doesn't have her own either, this is also stupid).
It's not hard to assert authority for me, because I rarely need to. Like the military or a good trainer, once dominance is established you can choose your battles more carefully and even be friends with those under you.
My daughter obeys me in everything because my wife does. Any child will naturally look to the mother for what he can get away with. Does she do whatever she wants, break rules, talk back? Then the child will get away with the same things. Divorce is chaos, you have zero reinforcement, two jurisdictions, and pandering sources of authority. No child remains unharmed by this. I'm one of them.
winteryknight WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
You're right, but don't you find that it sends a message to men? What's the point of having kids if they can just go to the mother and the courts to have the father overruled? I think it deters men from marrying.
woodsmoke Respectful reprobate 1y ago
It absolutely does, which is precisely why increasingly more and more men aren't marrying even if they could.
Better to disengage altogether and watch from the outside as the system collapses under its own corpulent weight. Maybe toast some marshmallows over the ashes so we can enjoy some s'mores.