Fatherhood Killed in Canada
by Marc H. RudovThe Ontario Court of Appeal ruled last week that a father is no more than a dispenser of sperm and cash: he must share custody of his own son with the gay partner of the boy’s mother, according to an article published today in the International Herald Tribune.
Had the lesbian partner adopted the boy — apparently possible, over the objections of the father — the biological father would have lost all rights to his son. The two mothers, feeling this would be unfair to the man, elected to allow him to stay in the triumvirate. Aren’t they special! Furthermore, setting yet another legal precedent, if the biological mother dies, the biological father will have to share custody of the boy with this total stranger.
Insanity has taken on a new meaning, the liberal feminists have destroyed fatherhood in Canada, the misandric courts care more about gay marriage than traditional marriage, and the vaginized Canadian eunuchs sit idly by while all of this happens. No reports so far of men protesting in the streets.
This anti-male, anti-child, anti-family ruling is especially pernicious because its precedent could and probably will flow across the USA border like toxic waste. The more men do nothing but privately express outrage, the more they will find society’s toxic waste marginalizing them.
Imagine that, some day, a group of little children will go on school field trip to their local history museum. Through the window of a display, located near the dinosaurs and labeled “father,” they will see a weird sight: a man playing with his children.
Quizzically, these kids will ask the proctor to explain the strange display. She will describe an era, long ago, when men lived with their children, held the title of father, and played a major role in raising and influencing said children. Confused, incredulous, and laughing, these kids just want to know when they will eat lunch. You can almost overhear one child say to the other: “My daddy just got her period yesterday. She’s gonna be in a bad mood tonight.”
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 45+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables™ (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth™ (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
January 7th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
That is terrible! The father is the father no matter what a court says! To have to share custody with the mother and her lesbian lover is too much! Next thing you know they’ll say that if the mother dies, he will have to provide for the lesbian lover as if she were his ex!
January 7th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I read this story yesterday at:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/52007e.asp
“”The whole thing was driven by two lesbians and a professor who inseminated one of them artificially,” he says. “And this whole ruling was based on one particular case — these three people deciding that somehow they wanted to all be considered the parents.”
He also contends that another driving factor was the agenda of the two lesbians. “[They] don’t like the law the way it is, and they wanted it altered — and consequently they found a judge finally who would do it,” he says.”
I hoped that MND posted it, but it’s cool that you picked up and made an insightful comment.
I suppose that lesbians are extreme feminists, finding men so bad that they refuse to marry them The feminist family court is pleased to oblige lesbians, while leaving the increasingly troubling concerns of traditional fathers ignored.
Most ignored will be the innocent, but, I suspect, confused, children (growing up in a divorced home absent the natural father is a challenge).
January 7th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
You can look back to find real examples, Marc. Not exact regarding simply fathers but close ones and more realistic. A totalitarian state is progressing to fruit. Kids are being separated from fathers. Soon it will be mothers too. The State will have them.
Sgt Maj Reg Seekings, SAS, in the closing stages of the war in Europe, behind enemy lines ( as usual for SAS), went into a German farmhouse where two adults were. He wanted to brew a cuppa tea.
” “Yes , certainly “, the old girl said, we could brew up. We were talking to her. She was quite pleasant. The old man was there. Then in came her daughter, ten or twelve years old. God, she screamed. She struck her mother and father, kicked and spat, screamed her bloody head off. We said, what’s all this? The mother and the old man belted her. “It’s because you are British soldiers coming into our house. We daredn’t do any thing before because she would have reported us and we’d have been in a concentration camp by now”. This happened all over Germany. Hitler had the kids with them and the older folks just had to knuckle down. They were terrified of the kids.”
(From ‘The Originals’. Author:Gordon Stevens. Chap 26, pg 299)
January 7th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Those are the “Social Experimentations” that goes around right now. A child with a father and two mothers, this will be fun if the lesbians chose to divorce one day. This would generate a real borthel of legalese.
This is Frankensteinian at best but, hey, we are living in a strange new world.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Hmmm… unfair to the man. This mentality bugs the hell out of me. A new life is coming into the world, wild eyed with wonder, innocent. Such a new addition to the human family ought to have been the focus — the entire focus — of these “parents.” Instead, they created this baby as a social experiment. Even the act of allowing the father some contact was seen as a gesture to the father. Nowhere are these numbskulls thinking of the effect that a fatherless life will have on the baby; no one is thinking about showing regard or fairness to the baby. It’s all about proving that “we lesbians can have it all too!”
Babies are not status symbols, or trophies to prove that an adult has achieved fulfillment. They are human beings, damn well entitled to a life with a loving and responsible father and mother. This is the biological right of all human beings.
The sad thing is that this baby will probably grow up hearing justifications about the morality and just nature of his “family,” internalize such justifications, and perpetuate the travesty in the next generation (either actively, as a homosexual, or passively, as a sympathetic voter).
As long as demons like this retain the physical capability to procreate, we will never be able to stop such insanity from happening anywhere in the world. But the law sure does have its influence. Every voter who cares about preserving the biological imperative of the family ought to make it his or her litmus test to vote only for candidates that support sanity and propriety in family law. To do any less is to invite the slow but inevitable approach of Civilization’s demise.
John Dias
January 8th, 2007 at 4:39 am
John…
If it weren’t for the fact that all too often Political Candidates say one thing to get elected then intentionally do the opposite after being elected I would agree with you…But like Marc says it will take men going into the streets in massive protests to put a stop to this nonsense and if they won’t I don’t want to hear them cry about it later…
January 8th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Hold on a minute. The article states “They then approached a friend, a recently separated father of two, to see whether he would agree to both father a child and play a role in the upbringing. Since the boy’s birth, the man has entered a relationship with another woman and had a child with her.”
The lesbians didn’t want to use sperm bank so they found a willing, portable sperm bank who was already a father, became a father again, then later became a father yet again.
Does that sound like a “Father” to you? Sounds more like a “sperm donor” to me.
My sympathy is neither with the lesbians nor the “father” but with the true and legitimate “mothers and fathers” who will be affected by this ruling.
January 8th, 2007 at 7:04 am
I read the article from this link
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/07/news/canada.php
January 8th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Doncha’ know? Protesting this kind of thing makes one a homo-phobe and no one wants that LABEL. We need to start labeling the labelers. Label for the hatred of fathers? Patri-hate. Those that hate fathers and fatherhood; Patrihaters.
wtexas has the right “spin”. This bozo is a sperm donor, not a father.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:17 am
To Wtexas and tonysprout:
While you are technically correct about the way in which this child came into the world, people will forget that in six months. The ruling, while specific to this case, is now a general law that affects all fathers in Canada.
The main fallout is that the Ontario Court of Appeal attaches zero value to men; this will cause longlasting societal damage.
One rule of life is that people will love and respect a person only as much as he loves and respects himself. Somewhere, somehow, the powers that be in Western cultures — the majority of whom are self-hating men — have the impression and belief that men everywhere do not love and respect themselves. That’s why these wielders of power so frequently and callously bludgeon men in the legislatures, the courts, and on TV.
Unless and until men take their fight to the streets in a major way, to prove them wrong, Western societies will do more of the same. Misandry will end only when men end it.
I was at a bar last night, talking to the men to my left and right. I told them about my books and philosophies. ALL OF THEM admitted being too chicken to ask women to pay on dates. There you have it — this sniveling, pathetic fear of women is the root cause of misandry.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:26 am
this has the odor of polygamy to it….of course the lesbos would object to that description, but isn’t this “relationship” getting really close to a cluster of females with one male providing sperm and resources?
January 8th, 2007 at 10:45 am
A cluster of females with one male providing sperm? (I know…resources also but I am a bright side kinda guy) Didn’t I want something like that sometime in my life? Even still, if I could pick the females, and a turkey baster wasn’t involved in the sperm sharing, well the mind wanders.
January 8th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I think the “sniveling pathetic fear of women” which Marc describes has some interesting causes, not the least of which is the Bible itself — or at least some people’s interpretation of the Bible.
The main Biblical quote among many to which I will point is one which goes something like this (which may be a slight paraphrase since I’m doing this from memory)….
“Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself up for her as a living sacrifice, to present her holy and blameless before God.”
It’s in the New Testamenet somewhere. I’m going to guess the book of I Timothy. Some of you Biblical scholars out there can correct me if I’m wrong.
At any rate, many many churches…especially fundamentalist, evangelical ones….teach that this verse is a command from God for men to be self-deprecating in their relationships to their wives. In these churches and thus in the minds of many men who attend these churches, to “give himself up for her” in practical terms becomes…
“Husbands, have no self-respect whatsoever, and behave sacrifically to your wife’s benefit at all times and in all places whether or not she reciprocates or appreciates it.”
So while I agree with Marc that we men should treat women as nothing more than equals and that we should demand better behavior from them, I think there are forces at work other than simply being “fearful of women” that account for a lot of how men behave. I think the glorification of women and yoking of men is not only part of our secular culture, but it is also a major part of our sacred culture as well.
Marc’s solution for demanding complete equality in all matters (including the woman paying for dates) is one I had begun practicing long before ever coming to this site. And from personal experience I can tell you that it works.
But I also think there are significant psychological hurdles that many of us must overcome to get there. It’s not as simple as “just doing it”. In many cases we men have to first cast off some of our deeply held beliefs, even our religious training, before we can start behaving differently.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
KRS, I have been racking my brains for the last two decades trying to figure out the apparent cluelessness of the Christian preachers and the right wing Christians over the Child Support Crusade and the gender bias in the courts. I remember meeting former Promise Keepers clobbered by the divorce system, looking at me with the deer in the headlights look. It seems that doing “everything right” does not always keep the woman who does not reciprocate his love from heading to the courthouse to seize the children, the house, and the paycheck. Gluttony and avarice are not only deadly sins, but powerful motivators.
And Marc, I might remind you that cranking off orgasms does not guarantee lifetime loyalty from a wife either. Once she figures out that it can be done, she will look for ways to induce ‘em without her man. Then she don’t need him no more.
KRS’s explanation might also apply to the Church of England where Fathers4Justice had to engage in protests against their clueless or spineless churchman.
If Christian preachers from both ends of the political spectrum are teaching that men should be slaves to their wives and that the wives are not required to reciprocate their husbands’ love and devotion and are excused and never condemned for running to the courthouse, then this explains one of the major reasons why this tyranny was allowed to take hold and to continue.
Thanks, KRS, for your valuable insight.
January 8th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
KRS:
Interesting points about Christianity. Getting over those psychological hurdles, and learning the truth about the amazing female libido, is the key to the man permanently regaining parity in the male/female relationship.
Roger Knight:
Nothing a man does guarantees a lifetime of loyalty from his wife. But, a man failing to give his woman good orgasms guarantees that she will constantly fantasize about other men and likely be unfaithful. By the way, if you don’t demand — and get — from her what you give her, that’s your fault.
Women “figure out” that they can climax without men when they are nine years old; they don’t discover this as adults. Surely you weren’t serious with your comment.
If a woman prefers her finger and/or vibrator to her man, that means her relationship with him is either over or it never consummated — meaning that she NEVER had the hots for him. No woman on Planet Earth prefers her finger or vibrator to a REAL MAN. Trust me on that.
Men who equate giving women orgasms with some kind of objectionable chore just aren’t getting the job done — or they are with objectionable women. Under the Clitoral Hood solves both problems.
Tip O’Neil used to say that all politics is local. Power with women is local, too. Men won’t accomplish much by protesting in the streets if they can’t first succeed at home. If men are too chicken to challenge women in dating, they will be useless marching on Capitol Hill.
January 8th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
“Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself up for her as a living sacrifice, to present her holy and blameless before God.â€Â
It’s in the New Testamenet somewhere. I’m going to guess the book of I Timothy. Some of you Biblical scholars out there can correct me if I’m wrong.
At any rate, many many churches…especially fundamentalist, evangelical ones….teach that this verse is a command from God for men to be self-deprecating in their relationships to their wives. In these churches and thus in the minds of many men who attend these churches, to “give himself up for her†in practical terms becomes…
“Husbands, have no self-respect whatsoever, and behave sacrifically to your wife’s benefit at all times and in all places whether or not she reciprocates or appreciates it.â€Â
So while I agree with Marc that we men should treat women as nothing more than equals and that we should demand better behavior from them, I think there are forces at work other than simply being “fearful of women†that account for a lot of how men behave. I think the glorification of women and yoking of men is not only part of our secular culture, but it is also a major part of our sacred culture as well.
Marc’s solution for demanding complete equality in all matters (including the woman paying for dates) is one I had begun practicing long before ever coming to this site. And from personal experience I can tell you that it works.
But I also think there are significant psychological hurdles that many of us must overcome to get there. It’s not as simple as “just doing itâ€Â. In many cases we men have to first cast off some of our deeply held beliefs, even our religious training, before we can start behaving differently.”
Ephesians Chapter 5…and you are so, so right, KRS my friend. Marriage is usually presented in it’s most ideal form in the church. In reality, men find little support when the chips are down.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Ephesains 5:24-26 in context reads:
As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her,So that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word,
January 9th, 2007 at 1:13 am
When I first read this it tipped over my apple cart.
And Pharisees came up to him [Jesus] and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let not man separate.”
They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
Divorce was a problem 2,000 years ago too. Remember Jesus’ discussion with the woman at the well - she had five husbands and was living with another man.
Today with so many smart, educated people in America, yet we have litte or no wisdom of how to live life. This is my opinion others may have another opinion.
January 9th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Luna - Thanks for the clarification. I think the full text in context still supports my earlier point, which is that men are told by non-denominational churches that they are to give ourselves up for their wives. Sacrifice everything, even their very lives, as Christ did for the Chruch.
In other words, men are to consider themselves “nothing”. There are numerous other Biblical references which talk about how the church is “the bride of Christ”.
And it goes without saying that Christ’s purpose in coming to earth was to give himself up to be crucified so that the church could be saved.
It’s a central theme of marriage and commitment as proposed by many fundamentalist churchces that husbands are to do likewise — to give themselves up for their wives, to consider themselves nothing, and in various ways to “crucify” themselves for their wife’s benefit. Yes, there are teachings that the wife should “subject to her husband”, but the church that I attended didn’t emphasize this part of it nearly as much as they emphasized the first part about the husband doing the sacrificing and putting his wife up on a pedestal (my words, not theirs).
January 9th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Tonysprout looks for a word for people who don’t like fathers… I humbly offer the term “Patriphobia“. I have found the word used to mean fear of authority, but that feels more of a feminist distortion (as in Patriarchy) of the proper meaning of the Latin root and so volunteer that we should reclaim it.
January 9th, 2007 at 9:33 am
“Patriphobia” is good. The more general irrational fear of men is called “androphobia”, a label which would apply whether or not the man who is engendering the irrational fear is a father. So we could start labeling people who oppose men’s rights as either “patriphobes” or “androphobes”.
It always sounds like you know what you’re talking about if you can label something. Better yet, if you can use the label with a dismissive or condescending tone, coupled with a fake “concern” about the person who has this debilitating condition. This of course is what the left / feminists / mainstream media do all the time. Using labels to create the illusion that they have some actual training in psychiatry or psychology when they don’t. an obviuos example is when anyone who opposes the extreme feminist agenda they are immedeiately labeled a “misogynist”, when of course no qualified examination of the accused has ever been done.
“Patriphobes” and “androphobes”. I like both.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I see that you guys are again heading down the “safe” path of discussing history and scripture. To what end? What occurred in Biblical times is not a valid excuse for today’s disempowering behavior.
It would be so refreshing to read what you are going to do, NOW, in your personal lives to change yourselves, to stop tolerating female nonsense.
Success derives from action. After a point, discussion becomes the end instead of the means.
Just do it!
January 9th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Marc — I have been “acting” for years both in my personal life and in my public life, and I was doing this long before coming to this site. I’n not saying this in a defensive way… jsut as information….The Biblical references I cited were only to demonstrate that the problems to be solved are more than just adjusting personal behavior, that there are institutions which are also actively working against the interests of men.
Since 1992 or so I have required that the women I date pick up 50% of everything. I’ll usually pay for the first date if I’m the one who asked, but I’ll also expect her to pay for the first date if she was the one who asked me out. And if she doesn’t offer to pay by the second or third date, she’s gone. I don’t allow her to hide behind her kids, either, using them as a convenient excuse for why she can’t foot her fair share of the bills.
I demand that women do their share of seducing as well, or being the person to initiate sex. In my mind, in a healthy relationship of equals, we both should be doing it about half the time. I don’t legalistically keep score, but in most cases I would say that I’ve ended up having to be the initiator less than half the time now. It’s been wonderful.
I have also demanded that the women I date have a career similar to mine in terms of income and opportunity, and that she share in paying for not only dates, but vacations, hotels, rental cars, and so on. I won’t let her even try to use the exucse that I make more than her so I should feel obligated to pay for more of the cost of dating. I control for that variable up front. I have only had a few problems with this. A few women made as much as me but still had an entitlement attitude, and I quickly kicked them to the curb.
I have turned down more than twenty marriage proposals in the past fifteen years, even though I have told all the women up front when we first started dating that it would be highly unlikely that I would ever be interested in marriage or cohabitation. I think most believed I was kidding, or that I was just “hurt” and would eevnetually change my mind, or that they were so special and different that I would surely recant.
I was asked by one girlfriend — I’ll call her “Jennifer” since that was her name — to be a sperm donor. I declined, saying that the child wouldn’t be getting the better parent.
I’ve “lost” about a dozen girlfriends in the past fifteen years because I wouldn’t agree to live with them and/or marry them until my trust in the legal system was restored. So far, it hasn’t been. I don’t even trust the courts to enforce written prenups or other contracts, since they ignored the written law during my divorce in favor of their own gender biases.
I’ve written both privately and a member of men’s organizations to state Senators, U.S. Senators, Congressmen, newspapers, and other media outlets re: men’s issues, probably more than 500 times.
There. Is that refreshing enough for a starter?
January 9th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
KRS:
This is a fantastic posting. My hat’s off to you for demonstrating how the no-nonsense lifestyle is achieved.
This is the kind of reader posting that can inspire and motivate others, most of whom don’t believe a man has any power. I thank you for it.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Kudos, KRS. I’ve had a few breakthroughs myself in the past 3-5 years as I’ve read Marc’s book and articles, as well as other things when my marriage circled the rim and disppeared. But the real beneficiaries will be my teenage sons, as I am teaching them to be men who won’t take critical, controlling or entitled behavior from a woman.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
I’m not sure I deserve kudos, but thanks. Most of the changes in my behavior came about due to extremely painful experience — loss of kids, los of house, loss of major amounts of money, and so on. The pain of continuing on in my old behavior pattern became higher than changing to something new, which interestingly is what I think has to happen for most people to change their basic behavior patterns. The cost of continuing to behave the old way has to become higher than the cost of changing.
I still say that most of the poor results I experienced in my marriage were due to my ex’s selfish, vindictive behavior, coupled with a biased court system. But it also became glaringly obvious that I was doing something wrong, too. I had to change. I had to challenge everything I “knew” about life, and about relationships. I needed to toss out long-held beliefs, and force myself to behave differently. I realized something akin to Marc’s “Double D” theory, though my epiphany wasn’t quite as well developed or expressed as his.
When I first began changing my behavior, at first it was like trying to sign my name with my left hand. Everything felt awkward and “wrong”, and the results didn’t look good. I felt “guilty” about not offering to pay, about not being “chivalrous” (read: self-deprecating), etc., and I didn’t always word thigns in teh best way. But I forged on, and like learning to play an instrument, I got better with practice.
Along the way I realized that these notions of chivalry I had and the guilt I was feeling that were controlling my behavior were things I had internalized from external sources, not things that were coming from inside me. And I realized, too, that they had one common outcome — MY needs and wants were always being subverted to the needs of others. Holy cow, was it a blinding light when I realized that! In terms of previous posts, my belief in God was even being used to try to manipulate and control my behavior — to my own detriment. Wow!
At any rate….enough psychobabble. Suffice it to say it has been a long and winding road to get to this point. Again, I’m not at all certain I deserve kudos. But I can tell you from personal experience that what Marc is saying is true. We all need to demand better behavior from ourselves, and from the women we are with. And we should not put up with selfish, entitlement-oriented women. If anyone is currently involved with an entitlement-oriented woman, they should immediately punt her as far as the eye can see …. figuratively speaking, of course.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Once again see the Bonobo Monkey experiment, Feminist think this is the future, men better wake up:
http://www.personhood.org/feminist/
January 13th, 2007 at 5:12 am
… of course, those scriptures only apply to christians.