BEING A FATHER

Dad makes roller coaster for his baby daughter VIDEO
Six Truths About Dads Feminists Don’t Want You to Know
by Janet Bloomfield

A typical stroll through feminist media will leave you with a strong impression of what feminists think of men, in general. Men are stupid. Men are weak. Men are obsolete. Men are arrogant. Men are clueless. Men are useless. Can’t you just feel the love?

Feminists nurture a special hate for men who are fathers. Institutional feminism openly rejects the idea that fathers are in any way important to children and actively opposes shared parenting. In response to recent criticism, much of which was leveled by yours truly, NOW removed its 2009 and 2005 statements opposing parenting equality, although given that NOW has not endorsed equality, we can only assume they are attempting to hide the evidence. Luckily, we have copies of everything, available here, thanks to historian and citizen journalist Prentice Reid.

Here are six truths about fathers that feminists would rather you didn’t know. These pesky little facts make it hard to sell the story that men are the oppressors of women and children. The truth is a little different.

1. “Deadbeat Dads” are largely a myth

Most Dads support their children financially. Thanks to laws that refuse to acknowledge men as equal parents and refuse to put the best interests of the child first and recognize that children have a basic human right to have meaningful relationships with both their parents, and thanks to the total lack of reproductive rights for men, more men than women pay child support. The vast majority of non-custodial parents pay child support, and most of the parents who fail to meet their child support obligations fall under the poverty line. It’s likely that poor men fail to meet child support, not because they hate their children, but because they are poor. In 2011, only 25 % of custodial mothers did not receive any child support payments, while 32% of custodial fathers were left high and dry.

Oops. Looks like “deadbeat moms” are more common as a percentage of the population than “deadbeat dads”.

2. Dads are more likely to refuse child support, and less likely to alienate the other parent

When the US Census Bureau carried out the Current Populations Survey in 2012, it asked custodial parents why they had no legal child support award. Turns out that dads were more likely than moms to say that they just didn’t want the other person to pay support. 27.5% of dads and 22.9% of moms had no legal child support award by choice. Only 12.7% of Dads didn’t want their children to have contact with the other parent, while 21% of women indicated they wanted their children alienated from the other parent.

The parent most likely to assume full responsibility for their children? That would be Dad. The parent most likely to deny children their very basic right to know their other parent? That would be Mom.

Not quite the story NOW wants you to believe, is it?

3. Dads would rather have more time with their kids than get gifts from them

It’s a rite of childhood to make macaroni necklaces and duct-tape wallets for our Moms and Dads on their special days, but what do Mom and Dad really think about our efforts? When CNN asked Moms and Dads what they really wanted for Mother’s Day or Father’s Day, only 35% of men selected a gift that cost money. 52% of women wanted cold, hard cash laid out. Only 3% of Dads said the perfect Father’s Day gift would be time away from the kids, while 11% of Moms chose time alone.

There is no doubt an interesting conversation to have about why Moms are more materialistic than Dads, and why they would rather have more time alone, but starting that conversation will require us to acknowledge that Moms really are more materialistic and selfish than Dads.

4. Dads not only do their fair share of housework, they do more than that

Sheryl Sandberg might be convinced that men are lazy assholes who can’t be arsed to pick up a broom unless they’re getting a blowjob in return, but the facts tell a slightly different story. Women tend to work fewer hours in paid labor than men, and a fair division of labor would mean that men and women spent equal amounts of time at all forms of work combined: paid work, housework and childcare. Measuring the gross hours spent on each is not a fair reflection if one person is working longer paid hours than the other. The PEW research council agrees, and when they looked at all labor combined, it turns out Dads do more work than Moms. Dads spend an average of 54.2 hours a week working their paid job, doing housework and running after the kids. Women spend just 52.7 hours a week doing those same things.

5. Most Dads live in the same home with their children

Quoting Prentice Reid, who says it better than I ever could, “most fathers in America, regardless of ethnicity, live under the same roof as their children. The idea that most Dads have skipped town and walked out of their children’s lives does not reflect the actual data. Though the number of fathers living with their children can never be high enough and the number of Dads living away from their children is increasing due to the declining rate of marriage; 79% of white fathers, 65% of Hispanic fathers, and 56% of black fathers actually live with their children.

6. The best predictor of a child’s success is whether they live in a house with a Dad

Feminist commentators lost their minds when George Will, writing for the Washington Post, pointed out that women and children who live in a home with a man to whom the children are biologically related are much less likely to suffer any kind of physical assault in their lifetimes. Yes, it is apparently offensive news that men tend to protect women and children from violence, and tend not to hurt or injure them. This news directly contradicts the feminist narrative of men as dangerous monsters who are out to oppress and enslave women and children, so the witches mounted their brooms and demanded Will be fired.

But Will wasn’t reporting anything new. In 2006, the US Department of Health and Human Services partnered with the Children’s Bureau to examine the role of fathers in the maltreatment of children and discovered that not only were fathers less likely to engage in child maltreatment, their presence in the home protected the children from their mother’s abuse.

Children who grow up with fathers have better educational outcomes and experience social benefits that last well into adulthood. Fathers have a positive influence on children’s cognitive abilities, on their psychological well-being and on their social skills.

But no matter what the evidence, feminists continue to sing the praises of single mothers.

What they always manage to forget is that if a “single mother” is receiving support from the father of the child, and most of them are, then she is not a “single mother”. She is a “single woman”. He rejected her, not the child. He is still a Dad.

Truth. It can sting sometimes.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • Amelia Fawcett American feminist controlling the UK's feminasty Guardian rag
  • Guardian Media Group
  • The UK's feminasty Fawcett society (Claims their roots date back to 1866, with Millicent Garrett Fawcett)
  • Fawcett Society wiki
  • The true nature of men's bravery on display VIDEO


    This is where men separate themselves from the man hating feminists
    Proud to be a heterosexual male and father

    We don't need to parade down the streets of cities in the most outrageous garb pushing a hedonistic lifestyle into the faces of the onlooking public.

    We don't require positive discrimination to justify our position in the world.

    We don't need the global media barons to create endless propaganda to push an agenda.


    We earn respect through hard work and doing the most challenging and filthy work that no other group who demand equality would do.

    We are committed to restore sanity to a madness that is causing chaos across the globe with a political mafia bowing to the demands of the feminists (lesbians) and homosexuals determined to undermine society and the family unit that have heterosexual males at the head.

    We, above all others, recognise the children of this world as a top priority and that the strongest protection they can have from a hostile homosexual leaning state machine is the protection of biological fathers.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • Parents reunited with their biological son who was switched at birth VIDEO
    Green Eggs and Man
    green eggs and man People don't know what to do with males, they've lost relevance. Males are obsolete, unneeded and in many cases unwanted. Guys are represented as a terrible blight upon greater creation, and indeed males are the last politically correct group to receive cultural wrath and mockery en masse. We occupy an environment where the male sex is devalued and abused an a wholesale level. Males are mocked and belittled unceasingly. We ingest the besmirchment of males as a sex and slander with impunity: males are killers, rapists and opportunistic criminals lying in wait. Males are filthy, vile and disgusting. Males are cheating dogs, and chauvinistic pigs. Males have screwed up the world and subjugated all life there upon.

    This prejudice is epic, and every single person is on one side or the other of this bigotry. You think you understand the depths of our contempt for the male sex? You have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes. Mistreatment of males is the paramount struggle of our day. So, here's where we are as a species: females are the producers of life and objects of unsurpassed beauty...guys are the mutants who amuse them and carry their heavy stuff. Males are clowns meant to be pack mules. Sadly enough, this is the only remaining relevance man holds a tenuous grip on; comedic fodder and manual labor.

    We exist in a society that hates males and is proud of it. ...we do not like males with a tan, we would not like them in a van... We do not like green eggs and man!

  • FULL PREVIEW HERE
  • The cost of our wild, unprecedented national experiment in fatherlessness is now £49 billion each year
    happyfathersday


    fatherless With NO ACCOUNT of the human emotional cost of fathers deliberately separated from their children to appease the ruling judicial,legal and crown mafia's greed and perversions(masonic)

    The £49bn bill we pay for children who can't celebrate Father's Day: The devastating financial - and human - cost of our fatherless society

  • Britain's 'fatherlessness' is costing each taxpayer £1,541 per year
  • Money spent on benefits, criminal activity and educational failure
  • Four in ten children have no contact with their fathers at all


  • By the end of his or her childhood, a British boy or girl is much more likely to have a TV set in the bedroom than a father at home. Our 45-year national war against traditional family life has been so successful that almost 50 per cent of 15-year-olds no longer live with both their parents. At the same time we have indulged our neglected and abandoned young with electronics, so that 79 per cent of children aged between five and 16 have a TV in their room. As we soppily mark ‘Father’s Day’ with cards, socks, sentimentality and meals out, we should remember that in almost all cases the absent parent is the father. There is no doubt about the facts here. Let me list some of them.

    The cost of our wild, unprecedented national experiment in fatherlessness is now £49 billion each year – more than the defence budget. This figure, currently costing each taxpayer £1,541 per year, is rising all the time, and has gone up by almost a quarter since 2009. The money partly goes on handouts and housing, which an old-fashioned family with a working father would not have needed.

    Partly it goes on trying to cope with crime, disorder, truancy, educational failure, physical and mental illness and general misery, which are so much more common among the fatherless than in those from stable homes. And there is more to come. One in three marriages ends in divorce, while many who would once have married never even bother. About 300,000 families of all kinds separate every year. There are now three million children growing up in fatherless homes. Another 58 fatherless families are launched every day. And be in no doubt that it is the fathers who are, overwhelmingly, absent in these new-style modern households. Only eight per cent of single-parent homes are headed by a lone father.

    Four in ten children being brought up by their mothers – nearly 1.2 million – have no contact with their fathers at all. Another 67,000 (in England alone) dwell in the organised despair and neglect which are cruelly misnamed ‘care’. In the past 40 years the proportion of adults who are married has sunk from 70 per cent to fewer than half. The number of single adults has hugely increased (up 50 per cent). A quarter of a million people each year spend Christmas alone. One in six adults now co-habits, compared with one in 50 in the 1960s. Co-habiting households, which have doubled in number since 1996, are the fastest-growing type of family arrangement in the UK.

    By 2015, there will be two million lone parents (up 120,000 since 2010); more than 24 per cent of children will be in lone-parent households. It matters. Young people from fractured homes are statistically twice as likely to have behaviour problems as those from stable households. They are more likely to be depressed, to abuse drugs or alcohol, to do badly at school, and end up living in relative poverty. According to studies in the USA and New Zealand, girls with absent fathers have teenage pregnancy rates seven or eight times as high as those whose fathers have stayed in meaningful touch with them.

    By contrast, the link between marriage and good health is so strong that one study showed the health gain achieved by marrying was as great as that received from giving up smoking. In all these dismal statistics of marriage decline and failure, the UK is one of the worst afflicted among advanced nations. And in many of the poorest and most desolate parts of the country, the problem is concentrated into certain areas where fathers in the home are an endangered species. From Gosport in Hampshire, to Cardiff, Liverpool, Easington in County Durham, inner London, Bristol, Birmingham and Sheffield, there are whole city wards where at least 60 per cent of the households are headed by a lone parent.

    And it is in such circumstances that a procession of serial boyfriends, a type of domestic arrangement closely associated with physical and sexual abuse of children, is most likely to exist. This great fleet of hard truths is known in general to those who govern the country, and in hard detail to millions who suffer from their consequences. How, as a country and a people, can we manage to be so indifferent to them when we claim to set fathers and fatherhood at the centre of our culture? The fundamental prayer of the Christian Church begins with the words ‘Our Father’. Americans speak of their ‘founding fathers’. The father has, since human society began, been protector, provider and source of authority, bound by honour and fidelity to defend his hearth.

    If he is gone, who takes his place ? Of all people, D.H. Lawrence, author of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, wrote of a man and his wife as ‘a king and queen with one or two subjects and a few square yards of territory of their own . . . true freedom because it is a true fulfilment for man, woman and children’. But he warned of a great danger if marriage, which makes fatherhood what it is, fell. ‘Break it, and you will have to go back to the overwhelming dominance of the State, which existed before the Christian era.’ And now we see his prophecy fulfilled. The State spends billions, and intervenes incessantly, to try to replace the lost force of fatherhood, and it fails.

    I owe most of the facts listed to the Centre for Social Justice, which on Friday published its full report into what it calls ‘Fractured Families’. The CSJ is very close to the Tory Party, to the Government and to Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary. So it is startling to find that the report is coldly savage in its dismissal of the Cameron Government’s efforts to fix this problem. ‘Conservatives say they would have been more radical on family policy had it not been for their Liberal Democrat colleagues, but even those commitments made in the Programme for Government have been ignored so far,’ it says.

    ‘So for all of the promises the Conservatives made in Opposition, for all of the gimmick giveaways politicians have unveiled for middle-class families, and for all of the safe “families come in all shapes and sizes” rhetoric Ministers have used for decades, hardly anything has been done to resist the tsunami of family breakdown battering the United Kingdom.’ The authors continue: ‘Saying that family form is irrelevant is inaccurate and ultimately counter-productive . . .’ This is true. Someone ought to speak up for marriage. But is it entirely true to say that ‘backing commitment and setting a goal of reducing instability does not equate to criticising or stigmatising lone parents’?

    Doesn’t approval of the one inevitably stigmatise the other? And if you aren’t prepared to do that, will you get anywhere? They also assert that ‘marriage is not a Right-wing obsession’, though, speaking as a Right-winger I rather think it is. It certainly isn’t a Left-wing priority. The authors argue: ‘People throughout society want to marry, but the cultural and financial barriers faced by those in the poorest communities thwart their aspirations.’

    It is certainly true that some benefits actively discourage couples from being or staying married. But it is the ‘cultural’ barriers I want to talk about here. Anyone who dares to discuss this subject is quickly accused of ‘hating’ or wishing to persecute ‘single mothers’. Any article on the subject is supposed (maybe it is an EU regulation?) to contain a disclaimer saying that many single mothers do a great job. Well, I neither hate single mothers nor wish to persecute them, and I am perfectly prepared to believe that many of them do a great job. But it isn’t the point. The main problem with single mothers is that they are acting rationally, in a society which actively encourages them with money and approval. Who can blame them? There is a lot of piety about this. Suggest that anyone deliberately gets pregnant (or rather, in this age of morning-after pills and abortion on-demand, deliberately stays pregnant) to get a house and a handout, and you are angrily dismissed as some kind of snobbish hate-figure.

    Well, mightn’t it be true? As far as I know, nobody has ever researched the motives of the young women who accept this sparse arrangement. I wish they would. But is it unreasonable to suggest that if you reward certain types of behaviour with money and housing, and with social approval, then that behaviour will increase? It’s not just me. Singer Adele Adkins once recalled: ‘The ambition at my State school was to get pregnant and sponge off the Government’, adding: ‘That ain’t cool.’ Perhaps successful singing stars can get away with saying what others only think. I don’t myself see that it is a particularly harsh view to hold.

    A baby is a wonderful thing, and many young women long to be mothers, and good luck to them. Many modern males are a pretty unattractive proposition, so why marry one, if the State will give you a home and an income on your own? Meanwhile, men have learned enough about the divorce courts to know that marriage is a big risk. If it goes wrong, they are the ones who have to move out, and yet they will still have to pay. Why not take advantage of the fact that the State – which once demanded the father’s name when any baby was registered so he could be made to pay for his child – now happily allows us to leave this space blank?

    My guess is that doing anything really radical about this scares all politicians too much. For the War on Fatherhood is protected by a great taboo. In every family, every workplace, every school, every pub, every weekend football or cricket team, every political party, every church congregation, there are now large numbers of people who signed up for the Great Cultural and Moral Revolution which was launched in the 1960s and swept through the land like a mighty rushing wind in the 1970s. The fiery heart of this was the Divorce Law Reform Act of 1969. This change was very popular. It is interesting to note that, just before it began its way through Parliament, Engelbert Humperdinck’s hymn for would-be divorcees, Release Me, pushed the Beatles off the top of the music charts for weeks on end.

    The new law pretty much embodied the song’s plea, ‘Please release me, let me go/For I don’t love you any more/To waste our lives would be a sin/Release me and let me love again.’ Portrayed at the time as a kindness to those trapped in loveless marriages, the new law made it much easier to end a troubled union than to fight to save it. And once this had become general, marriage changed with amazing speed from a lifelong commitment into a lifestyle choice. And from a lifestyle choice it changed into a risky and often inconvenient contract. Divorce wasn’t shameful or embarrassing any more. The country was littered with male divorcees complaining about the division of the property and the child support payments.

    Men began to calculate that marriage wasn’t worth it. And the Pill and easy abortion (other parts of the 1960s revolution) put an end to shotgun weddings. Who, in such a society, could condemn the pregnant teenager without hypocrisy? Hardly anyone, especially rackety politicians and flexible churchmen. The middle classes had abandoned lifelong marriage with a sigh of relief. The aristocracy had never cared for it much. Even the Royal Family was riddled with divorce.

    The housing estate poor were simply following the same moral code as those who posed as their betters, and weren’t actually better at all. And the adults of the era have all had a lot of fun as a result. But everyone, throughout this great period of release and revolt, forgot one small thing. What was to become of the children? Now we are finding out. And a generation which has never known fathers, or family life, or fidelity or constancy, is now busy begetting children of its own. What will become of them? How will boys who have never seen a father learn to be fathers? I would have a moral panic at this stage if I thought it would do any good. But perhaps it will be the victims of this selfish generation, our children and grandchildren, who – having suffered its effects – will re-establish stable family life in our country.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • 'Fathers are treated as mere sperm donors': Captain Corelli's Mandolin author hits out at family courts
  • Should a Father be His Son's Friend?
  • DEADBEAT DAD BOOK AVAILABLE ON AMAZON
  • deadbeat dad book
    HERE

  • A Deadbeat Dad and the bloody pandas
  • IT'S OFFICIAL: MOST OF UK'S 72,000 DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILIES HAVE NO FATHER AT HOME
    fatherless day Almost two-thirds of Britain's 'problem families' have no father at home, official research has found.

    Some 72,000 of the most dysfunctional families - 60 per cent of those identified by the Government as 'troubled' - are headed by a single mother. An official review into what caused last summer's riots is expected to highlight the lack of good male role-models in the lives of many of the young people arrested for taking part in the disturbances, the Telegraph reported. Last night Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles said these 'troubled families' were in 'total breakdown'.

    He said: 'The absence of a positive father figure is a huge problem and often fathers who are present have severe drug and alcohol addictions and are not working. 'Clearly we want to work towards a situation where the fathers in these families provide stability, which means getting them back to work, so they can bring money in and be a positive role model to their children.' The Telegraph reported that another problem the study identified among the troubled families was the large number of children, which can lead to a lack of parental attention. At least 20 per cent of the 120,000 families studied have at least five children.

    In December David Cameron launched a £448m initiative for squads of ‘troubleshooters’ - a mix of charity, council and private sector workers, to help 120,000 problem families turn round their lives. The new troubleshooters are working with each family individually, drawing up detailed plans with with targets such as returning parents to work, stopping them drinking or taking drugs, and ensuring the children attend school and do not behave anti-socially. Britain's country’s worst-behaving families are estimated to cost taxpayers £9billion a year – or £75,000 each, in benefits and the costs of other public services.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • A DAD TO BE PROUD OF LOL!!!!!! VIDEO
    MEN ONLY HEROES WHEN THEY MURDER FOR THE STATE
    war victims The hypocritical bastards that are all part of the state propaganda machine that includes the media, judiciary, MP's , councillors, royalty, church ministers and a myriad of organisations that perpetuate the lies that men are only worthy of being praised as heroes when they are either shooting men, women and children in a foreign land or worse using bombs to blow them to smithereens.

    Any other time the same lackeys who are all part of a masonic agenda to smear men as abusers of their ex-wives and children , were a raised voice to a partner or child is enough for these hypocrites to class most decent men as not worthy of respect when they separate .

    For any man who has been at the brunt of these vile bastards and endlessly battling in courts to fight the allegations used as a means to separate a man from all his assets , home and children it is sickening to watch the military being constantly classed as heroes while they are busy murdering for the state .

    This while decent men are tarred as abusers and the same STATE thugs are helping themselves to our worldly possessions. It is long overdue that decent men start fighting back against the utter scum and dregs of the earth who have taken over the role of overseers of what is morally right and wrong and who are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. This is a WARNING to any femi-loving men who join in the smearing of good men to satisfy the State and crown mafia that abuse ALL our rights in their very warped perspective of what is decent and good and what REAL men are going to take on and stop these utter filth from pumping out propaganda on a regular basis.

  • MORE WAR MADNESS HERE
  • In the Wake of Heroes
  • CHRIS GREEN A CREEPY WEE MASONIC RATBAG WHO SUPPORTS RADICAL FEMINISTS (VIDEO)
  • Freemason councillors and Chris Green behind DV campaigns that plunder mens assets
  • Chris Green a little piece of freemason shit supporting radical feminist man hating campaigns (VIDEO)
  • WHAT A PIECE OF SH*T IS MAN
    "Men have all the power" - a common feminist slogan.

    In our prisons "men have all the power". But they wield it, by and large, over men!

    In our police force "men have all the power". But they wield it, by and large, over men!

    In our legal system and our government, "men have all the power". But they wield it, by and large, over men!

    In our society "men have all the power"! But they wield it, by and large, over men!

    The idea that "men have all the power" is therefore nonsense given that to the extent that there is any power, it is wielded mostly over men.

    Have you ever seen chimpanzees and how they behave?

    The alpha males have all the power, but they get all the goodies too!

    The other males are kept well in line!

    With violence and intimidation.

    And have you ever thought about soldiers fighting in wars through time immemorial?

    The male generals and the male politicians have all the power - yes indeed - but it is thousands upon thousands of more ordinary men who will have to pay the price of it.

    Are You A Man?

    If someone identifies themselves with their colour - black, say - well, that's OK. Fair enough.

    If they identify themselves with their being gay, that's acceptable. That's fair enough too.

    If they see themselves as Jews or Muslims or Christians, or, indeed, of any main religion, well, that's completely acceptable.

    People get a lot of pride from these things.

    And, of course, any woman who sees herself, primarily, as a woman, has got it made. But what about a man who sees himself, well, as a man?

    Well, he's either naff, a bigot of some kind, or some violent piece of machismo who's thick and drinks beer - at the very least. Why is this so?

    Well, for the past three decades, white, heterosexual males have been the targets of many EXTREMELY POWERFUL groups. They have been constantly accused of being racist by highly vocal racial activists and racial minorities, and their history and their forefathers have been thoroughly undermined and blackened - and to the extent that many racial activists are now demanding reparations for past slavery. They have been continually portrayed as being violent and oppressors of their women by influential vindictive feminists and their gullible followers.

    They have been represented by the beautifully orchestrated gay lobby as being bigoted and fearful of their own sexuality. They have been assaulted ceaselessly by children's welfare groups that seek funding and the growth of their empires by indoctrinating the population with the view that all men are likely abusers of children. The feminist-dominated mainstream media have consistently sought to demonise and to humiliate the entire male gender.

    The legal profession and the all-powerful government have almost disempowered men completely when it comes to their families, their relationships and their homes. And, in both America and Europe, self-serving politicians have been passing the authority of men to govern themselves into the hands of the faceless and unaccountable bureaucrats in the Federal government and in Brussels respectively.

    No wonder, therefore, that white heterosexual men dare not identify themselves as men. After all, what man wants to identify himself with the type of person who is continually being portrayed as the lowest and most unpleasant form of human being that exists?

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • SHOULD A FATHER BE HIS SON'S BEST FRIEND?
    father and son In addition to the following article we recommend any father struggling with issues with their own children, but especially their sons, that they STICK TO THEIR GUNS. A fathers role is to ensure wayward sons are NOT allowed to take a destructive course through life but take whatever steps to ensure THEY KNOW DAMN WELL that you are NOT happy about how they behave and how they treat you and others around them. This may be some of the most difficult decisions a father has to make but what is MUCH WORSE is condoning the disruptive and dysfunctional behaviour of your offspring just to get PEACE.

    Your children , especialy your sons should be a reflection of you as a father and by supporting BAD behaviour you are providing the wrong message to rebelliousness against you as a father. There are many men distanced from their sons through these tensions but unless common ground can be had between a father and his son NOTHING can be accomplished. When a son loses the respect of his father and that is usually when a father GIVES IN to his demands that can be difficult to restore, so any father experiencing these trials and tribulations should give careful thought to the repercussions of making rash moves when dealing with a son who continually shows dissent to your views. Sometimes distancing yourself from that negativity may be the only way sometimes of coping with sons who are determined to ignore your advice and guidance. Any father stuggling with these issues can write to us HERE .


    Is a father's job to be his son's friend or to keep him on the straight and narrow? by Henry Makow Ph.D.

    I am not the greatest father and I don't expect my father to be great either.

    He overcame many more obstacles than I ever did. His parents were murdered by the Nazis when he was 19. He faced a monumental challenge to survive the war and build a new life in a new country. He married and had a family before he was ready. Nevertheless, through his intelligence, courage, and hard work, he not only survived but prospered. He is 87 now. I am 61. I salute him on Father's Day. My problem is that he was always a father, never a friend. I know the orthodox view is that fathers should not be friends. "It is the job of parents to see that the [societal] barriers hold," W. Cleon Skousen writes in "So You Want to Raise a Boy?" (1958, p.232) My father saw his role as keeping me "on track." Since his success was based on a higher education, keeping me "on track" meant keeping me in school.

    I was not allowed to get off the treadmill. Despite the fact I was a bright kid, and had written a syndicated newspaper column at age 11, he never believed in me, my talent, and especially my good intentions. He always treated me like a loose cannon that required mooring. After I graduated from high school, I wanted to take a semester and work in a mine. Then, I planned to go to an out-of-town university known for its radical leftist professors. (I was a Lefty back then.) I'll never know how this would have turned out. My father exerted great pressure, including the inducement of a car, to make me enroll at once at the local university. I succumbed and fell into a depression. I only completed three of five courses with poor marks that first year.

    My spirit broken, I ended up staying at university as a kind of hospice from a world I didn't understand. I ended up getting a Ph.D. that I have barely used. On another occasion, I wanted to use the family cottage as a spiritual retreat, a kind of Thoreau's Walden. Again, no deal. Get your thesis done.

    "FRIEND"

    I complain he was not my "friend" yet once he did act like one and made a mistake. This was much earlier when I was ten or eleven-years-old. My friends and I were going through puberty. We were swiping copies of PLAYBOY magazine from newsstands. I summoned my courage and asked my father for a subscription. He agreed. I papered the insides of my bedroom closet doors with Playmates-of-the-Month. In retrospect, this distorted my perception of women and undermined my future relationships. I fell for the "Playboy Philosophy" that a woman's sex appeal and appearance were the Holy Grail.

    Nevertheless my father's response created a major bond for me. I really dug him for it. I wish now he had known better and taught me that I was making a mistake that would mess up my life. So here I am wishing he were a better friend, and sometimes wishing he had been a better father. But I don't blame him. We all have many limitations. He gave me a lot. I wasn't an easy child - always resisting his "discipline." Now that he is old, his good nature is on display. Many old men are crotchety but my dad has never been kinder and sweeter.

    MY OWN SON

    I have tried to be a friend to my only son, who is now 24-years-old. I really didn't have a choice for two reasons. Because of my immaturity, due partly to my dysfunctional relation to women, I did not have a positive model to present. Secondly, his mother, my ex-wife, had physical custody. I only saw him a few times a week. Someone said men don't want to have children because they are not finished being children themselves. That's now more true than ever. We have been re-engineered to be perpetual adolescents.

    I tried to influence my son to become a historian because true history has been suppressed. He took a few history courses, was bored and became a lawyer instead. He is happy with his decision, and so am I. The baseball player Harmon Killebrew tells this story: "My father used to play with my brother and me in the yard. Mother would come out and say, "You're tearing up the grass." "We're not raising grass," Dad would reply. "We're raising boys."

    Looking back, I wish I had also believed in raising children. I wish my father had believed in me. Faith - we underestimate its power. Instead of looking for the "meaning" of life, I wish I had realized that life has inherent meaning if we follow its innate design.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • My soft parenting has made monsters of my children
  • THE ZIONIST BASTARD CAMERON SMEARS FATHERS ON THE EVE OF FATHERS DAY
    THE VILE TORY TOFFY NOSED BASTARD OF A PRIME MINISTER CAMERON NOW RUNNING THE UK ON A THREAD HAS THE AUDACITY TO ATTACK FATHERS ON THE EVE OF FATHERS DAY . HE WOULDN'T DARE SLAG HIS JEWISH BROTHERS IN ISRAEL FOR THE MASS MURDERING IN PALESTINE AND GAZA BUT INSTEAD GOES ON THE SMEARING CAMPAIGN AGAINST FATHERS. A RICH KID GROOMED AT ETON, NEXT DOOR TO THE ROYAL HOUSE OF WINDSOR, TO BE ANOTHER RUTHLESS BASTARD INTENT ON ATTACKING MEN NOT PART OF HIS ESTABLISHMENT ZIONIST/MASONIC MAFIA MOB.THIS VILE SCUMBAG IS NOW ON A WARPATH WITH MEN WHO NEED TO STAND UP AGAINST EVIL TORY TOFF THUGGERY .

    Fathers who abandon their families should be "stigmatised" by society in the same way as drink-drivers, David Cameron has said.

    The Prime Minister signalled a new onslaught on "runaway dads" saying they should be made to feel the "full force of shame" for their actions. Writing in The Sunday Telegraph in an article to mark Father's Day, he said it "simply isn't acceptable" for single mothers to be left to bring up their children on their own. Mr Cameron also indicated his determination to introduce tax breaks for married couples - a Tory general election pledge which appeared to have been dropped by the coalition in the face of Liberal Democrat opposition.

    "I want us to recognise marriage in the tax system so as a country we show we value commitment," he wrote. He issued a strong defence of traditional family life - describing it as the "cornerstone of our society" and called for a new drive to "bring fathers back into the lives of all our children". Even when parents were separated, he said, fathers had a duty to support "financially and emotionally" their children - spending time with them at weekends, attending nativity plays and taking an interest in their education. Where men were unwilling to face up to their family obligations, Mr Cameron said that it was up to the rest of society to make clear that such behaviour was unacceptable.

    "It's high time runaway dads were stigmatised, and the full force of shame was heaped upon them," he said. "They should be looked at like drink drivers, people who are beyond the pale. They need the message rammed home to them, from every part of our culture, that what they're doing is wrong - that leaving single mothers, who do a heroic job against all odds, to fend for themselves simply isn't acceptable." Mr Cameron also described how he learned his values from his own father, Ian Cameron, who died last year aged 77. He said: "From my father, I learned about responsibility. Seeing him get up before the crack of dawn to go and do a hard day's work and not come back until late at night had a profound impact on me."

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • Cameron's Father's Day sermon shows he's out of touch, sanctimonious and infuriating
  • PM under fire over fathers comments(Some from radfem Yvette Cooper)
  • POLITICAL PSYCHOPATHS (VIDEO)

  • ========================

    Some interesting comments that made it past the extreme right wing moderator on the Daily Mail over Cameron's typically nasty tory toff attack on fathers timed for Fathers Day.

    David Cameron: Absent fathers are as bad as drink drivers

    ‘It’s high time runaway dads were stigmatised, and the full force of shame was heaped upon them. They should be looked at like drink-drivers, people who are beyond the pale.’ Well done Dave and others. I'm one of those absent fathers, not through choice though. The ex wife remarried, I was giving her generous cash payments when I was in the army and when I left and could no longer afford to pay the same, she went to the CSA. I could not afford their bills and left the country. Oh, and I did 25 years military service. What have you done for the country Dave? Spent taxpayers money on overseas aid for countries that don't need it and supported an illegal war in Iraq and a pointless one in Afghanistan. You make me want to puke you little oik. You have no idea of real life.So stick your tinpot little regime up your ar*e. and yes, I would have prefered to stay in UK with a possibility of seeing my kids, you priced me out. I hate these politician thieves, liars and scum. Roll on the revolution

    - Les, Thailand, 19/6/2011 04:37

    Mr. Prime Minister: Your Father’s Day statement is a cruel slap in the face to thousands of good, decent, & hardworking divorced dads being denied the right to raise their children because of the abuse, harassment, discrimination, & corruption of the Family Courts. Nobody cares that thousands of dads are cruelly ripped away from their children everyday by mothers who are encouraged to do so - and rewarded for doing so - by the socialist feminazi family justice system. Tens of thousands of dads & their children across Britain this Father's Day will not be together - not because the father & children don't want to see each other, not because the father doesn't want to be a fulltime parent, but because the courts, the mothers, the government, the social agencies, the media & any number of other sycophantic socialist feminist organisations have banded together to ensure that it is impossible for dads & children to see each other, & made it illegal for dads to be fulltime parents.

    - Mississauga Dad, Toronto, Canada, 19/6/2011 04:30

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • HOW TO BE MORE AT PEACE WITH YOUR DAD: FATHERS DAY VIDEO


    FOR THE MANY FATHERS GLOBALLY SEPARATED FROM THEIR CHILDREN THROUGH DRACONIAN COURT ORDERS THAT HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME AT FATHERS DAY. FATHERS WHO MAY NEVER FULLY RECOVER THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR CHILDREN AFTER BEING DRAGGED THROUGH FAMILY COURTS.
    WHY IS IT A CRIME TO BE A MAN? VIDEO
    THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD VIDEO
  • FULL SCREEN VERSION HERE
  • HOMEMADE SPACE BALLOON REACHES 100,000 FT AWESOME FATHER SON PROJECT VIDEO
  • FULL SCREEN VERSION HERE
  • Brooklyn Space Program
  • KILL FOR YOUR COUNTRY AND YOU'RE A HERO BUT VILIFIED IF YOU'RE A SEPARATED DAD
    The evil that spouts from the complicit media is breathtaking in its hypocrisy. If you murder women and children for the state you are classed as a hero with the media using complimentary quotes from everyone and anyone who are friends or family of the armed forces and who operate for the military complex .

    However if you find your ex-wife falls out of love with you that same state machine and all its evil tentacles of control over the media suddenly turns you into some sort of monster that deserves to be castigated and smeared to ensure all the arms of the industrial divorce complex can get free access to all your assets, home and especially your children. There is something vile and creepy and definitely MASONIC about how men across the globe who separate are turned into villains targeted by a legal mafia operating on behalf of the British Crown with worldwide control of courts and lawyers via bar associations.

    There is a mountain of evidence showing the distortions both the state and its propaganda machine create to turn men either into hero's or enemies of the state depending on what purpose that state has in mind. Internally when the state wants to destroy a family the man is castigated and utterly abused however if the state externally wants to destroy a country those same men, who under any other circumstances would be the baddies, are turned into hero's when they murder women and children for the financial gain of the scum who manufacture arms and for the companies who rebuild broken countries after those wars destroy everything.

    Men worldwide are dealing with an enormous conspiracy against them from a few self appointed elite madmen with many layers of hangers on who do their dirty and who are all satanically controlled to destroy anyone not part of their creepy network. Their days are numbered as the cat is now out of the bag as to how they have used every arm of the state to destroy good men to prop up their creepy system now creaking at the seams from exposure across the globe on the internet, that we have NEVER had any doubt. Men cannot afford to let these evil bastards win this war against all our lives.
    PETER ANDRE VOTED CELEBRITY DAD OF THE YEAR
    HE NEEDS A MEDAL FOR PUTTING UP WITH KATIE PRICE FOR SO LONG

    Peter Andre struck a blow for single fathers everywhere by being crowned Celebrity Dad Of The Year today. The 37-year-old triumphed in a public vote despite splitting up with his partner, Katie Price, largely thanks to his devotion to her disabled first child, Harvey, by the footballer Dwight Yorke. He also quite obviously dotes on Junior and Princess Tiaamii, his two children with the glamour model, whose behaviour since their acrimonious break-up must make her long odds on become the female equivalent.

    Andre was all smiles as he picked up the trophy today at the Crown Plaza Hotel in London, where his ex-wife was also pictured with her cagefighter husband Alex Reid. He said: ‘This feels so good. It’s been a turnaround year for me and the kids and it’s an honour to be the subject of the public’s support and best wishes.

    ‘This means a huge amount to me as being a dad is my most important role.’ It was only 2007 when Price won the largely derided Mum Of The Year award but she has attracted a lot of negative publicity before, during and after split with Andre in May 2009. The 31-year-old caused controversy earlier this year after giving her two-year-old daughter Princess a make-over and posting the photographs on Twitter. She also used Princess Tiaamii and her son Junior, 4, as models in her KP equestrian clothing range campaign, fuelling speculation that she was exploiting her children for profits. Price is viewed by many as the reason behind the break-up - largely for horsing around with an equestrian friend - and she didn't help her cause by flying off to Ibiza for a raunchy photo shoot along with a week of heavy partying straight after the split.

    But whether her wild ways have impacted the public’s perception of motherhood is yet to be revealed, as Bounty announces their Celebrity Mum of the Year Award in November. More than 35,000 votes were cast in the Celebrity Dad Of The Year poll, which also saw ousted premier Gordon Brown beat Prime Minister David Cameron.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • PETER ANDRE CELEBRITY DAD OF THE YEAR VIDEO
  • FULL SCREEN VERSION HERE
  • CALIFORNIA DAD MAKES HEROIC RESCUE OF DAUGHTER FROM RIVER VIDEO

  • FULL SCREEN VERSION HERE
  • California dad makes heroic rescue of daughter, 2, after she falls 20 feet off ramp into East River
  • THE ROLE OF THE FATHER HAS BEEN DOWNGRADED
    father and child THIS ARTICLE WOULD BE LAUGHABLE IF NOT SO SERIOUS WRITTEN BY THE HEAD OF LAWYERS IN BRITAIN WHO HAVE MORE THAN ANY OTHER GROUP BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENORMOUS HARM TO FATHERS AND THEIR CHILDREN INCLUDING THEIR FUTURE INHERITANCE THANKS TO THE FLEECING OF MEN BY THE LEGAL MAFIA.

    Legislation has effectively dismissed the contribution of half the population to the upbringing of the next generation, says Ruth Deech, the chairman of the Bar Standards Board. There is a wealth of research showing that children need fathers

    Over the last half a century there has been a sea change in society’s attitude towards same-sex relationships, marriage and the family. Homosexuality has moved from criminal status to legalisation, from legalisation to acceptance and the same respectfulness as heterosexual relationships. We have now reached the stage where, in the event of an election victory, the Conservative leader has promised that civil partners will benefit from extended paternity and maternity leave (in the case of adoption or artificial insemination babies). David Cameron has also promised that proposals to extend flexible working and married couples’ tax breaks would be granted as well. He has stated that the party is no longer hostile to same sex couples.

    While changes to the law which have given homosexual couples the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples are welcome, there are two issues involving modern society’s attitude towards children which give me unease.

    One is the new possibility of birth certificates for children born to couples of the same sex, which name two persons of the same sex as their parents. This is logical following on the extension of rights to same sex couples, but there is an issue of principle here, which is the truth. Sections of the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFEA) even allow a dead woman, never known to the baby and not related, to be named with her previous consent on the birth certificate by the choice of the birth mother, while preventing the child from having a father. Birth registration is about genetic inheritance (albeit that sometimes the truth is not told) and about the welfare of the child, not about the relationship, legal or otherwise, between the adults whose will gave rise to it. The birth certificate that names two female parents will disclose to anyone perusing it that the child was necessarily born from donor sperm or a donor embryo or a surrogate mother. It could even result in deception to exclude the natural father where the mother conceived naturally but uses this provision to cut him out of the child’s life.

    There are other ways for two adults of the same sex to gain parental responsibility over a baby, and it should not have to be through the birth certificate. It puts the demands of the adults ahead of the rights of children to know and benefit from both sides of their genetic makeup. It sits uneasily with the ending of donor anonymity in reproduction generally, and for the call for mothers to name fathers on birth certificates. This is not a moral issue; it is about disguising true facts, and it is about confusing biological parenthood with legal and social parenthood. Civil partnerships do still differ from marriage a little, and this is an area where the difference ought to be preserved with justification.

    The other area of regret for me is the removal from the law of the provision in the 2000 HFEA that when a doctor is considering whether or not to give infertility treatment to a woman, he or she had to consider the welfare of the potential baby, “including the child’s need for a father.” It was removed on the ground that it was discriminatory against single mothers and lesbians, and replaced by the need to check for “supportive parenting”, whatever that may mean. Reproductive services are in fact quite readily available to single women, and it is thought that about 25 per cent of lesbian couples have children. I regret the downgrading of the father as a person of importance – the legislative dismissal of the contribution of half the population to the upbringing of the next generation. The removal of the requirement to consider the need for a father is to make a fresh statement that the child does not need a father, no matter how liberally the old law’s requirement was interpreted. It sends a message to men, at a time when many of them feel undermined as providers and parents, contrary to government policy in this field.

    Government policy is that men should take financial responsibility for their children and stay in touch with them after separation; that they should take paternity leave and be involved. There is a wealth of research showing that children need fathers, not just two parents. Children need to see complementary roles, the relationship between the sexes, a microcosm of society, as they grow up. Recent reports have placed Britain at the bottom of international league tables for the welfare of children and we know that boys without fathers do worse at school and turn to worse role models. Research shows that their presence gives girls as well as boys advantages in educational and social development. The limit to same sex relationships is that they cannot be a reproductive unit in a way that is best for the welfare of the child if they cut out all contact with members of the other sex or falsify the birth registration. Tolerance of both types of parenting has to be ensured.

    Baroness Deech is the chairman of the Bar Standards Board.

  • SOURCE
  • DAD v BABY VIDEO

  • FULL SCREEN VERSION HERE
  • THINGS YOU DON'T SAY TO YOUR WIFE VIDEO

  • FULL SCREEN VERSION HERE
  • DAD FILMS SON'S FIRST RIDE ON A ROLLER COASTER VIDEO

  • FULL SCREEN VERSION HERE
  • PERSISTENT DAD SAVES HIS DAUGHTER'S LIFE
    lung A father who refused to accept his daughter was suffering from asthma saved her life by insisting she had an x-ray which revealed she had lung cancer. Laura Hicks was 17 when she started suffering from breathlessness and persistent coughing - her GP first gave her antibiotics and then an inhaler after diagnosing the problem as asthma.

    But dad Stan, an osteopath, was not convinced and sent her back to the doctor with a letter asking for an x-ray to be carried out and the scan showed a large tumour taking up two-thirds of her right lung. Laura, now aged 20, underwent six months of chemotherapy and radiotherapy to shrink the tumour which was then removed with half of her lung and two ribs in 2007. Laura, from Midsomer Norton, in Somerset, is now cancer free. "There was something in the back of my mind that it was more serious, but I had so many things on at the time I ignored it because I just trusted the doctor," she said.

    "I was lucky that my doctor actually listened, but you have to think that GPs see so many patients a day, and my dad sees me every day so he could tell things weren't right. "I wasn't shocked when they told me it was cancer as I suppose subconsciously I was prepared for it, but it has put things into perspective. I listen to my dad more now, well on some things anyway."

    Laura was unable to sit her A level exams while undergoing treatment but has now completed a foundation access course in economics and hopes to go to the University of Bath to study economics. "I can't walk very far and I am more prone to chest infections so I have to look after myself, but I did the Race for Life a few weeks ago," she said. Mr Hicks, who is also an animal osteopath, said his medical knowledge and instinct made him question Laura's initial diagnosis.

  • SOURCE