Mothers Day Has Passed. Prepare for the Assualt on Fathers Day!

Mothers Day has passed, the day when we set aside any differences, wrongs, resentments, and other negatives about our moms across the country, and focus on all the good mothers have accomplished in raising us, the sacrifices, the hardships, the unconditional love, and other benevolent qualities perceived as only coming from moms.
It’s wonderful that we have created a day to remember the good things about our moms, as any person in the psychology profession will tell you, harping on the negatives without considering the positives in any given situation in life will only lead to anger and resentment. Even better is that we have actually created a day where society - families, media, politicians, governments - will not dare to venture into, or raise awareness to the number of mothers that have failed miserably at the role of parenthood. This is not the time to dwell on the dark side of mothers in America they will tell you. Instead, it is a day to honor women who have managed the difficult role of motherhood for better and for worse - and I couldn’t agree more. Positive, emotional reinforcement will carry greater benefits for women and their children in the long term rather than berating them for their failures during Mothers Day weekend. We all need to know our efforts are being recognized and appreciated, and that our imperfections are being judged relative to our imperfect humanism.

In a short month, the mood will change. Fathers Day weekend will arrive and society - families, media, politicians, government - will let fathers know they are appreciated, but not without condition. Unlike mothers, fathers will hear every detail of their failures, and unlike mothers, will not have the opportunity to enjoy a weekend of compassionate reminiscing, where society refuses to dwell on the negative, and makes an effort to focus only on the positive results of fatherhood.
Right now, politicians are preparing speeches that will remind us how important a father is in a child’s life. The speeches will be eloquent, dramatic, and condemning, because in the end, these politicians will let fathers know they are failing in this important stabilizing family and societal role.
Police chiefs across the country at this very moment are organizing their usual Fathers Day “deadbeat” dad sting operations, as a way to remind men and fathers of their obligations and responsibilities as a parent. These dark headlines will be splashed across most newspapers and newscast during the weekend and will be a mood altering topic of conversation at most family gatherings.
Media outlets will begin to organize tributes to fathers for Fathers Day, but will also make sure to find room for stories that highlight the failures of fathers in order to bring “perspective” to the present condition of fatherhood in society.

So what’s wrong with reminding fathers of the significance and influential role they play in the lives of their children and society? Nothing, except why aren’t these same pivotal, poignant speeches and actions addressed to mothers around Mothers Day? Isn’t the role of a mother just as important as the role of a father, and therefore, a good jolt of reality placed upon them just as important?
The only reason this isn’t done is due to the unjustified discrimination of fathers and men in this country. In the arena of family issues, men and fathers are perceived to be inferior to women, yet this daily discrimination goes unaddressed. In the role of spouse or parent, men are seen as dysfunctional, irresponsible individuals, in need of constant fixing, adjusting, and scolding in order to eradicate and manage their many faults and maintain sensibility. If the genders were reversed, it would be called blatant sexism.
If you think I’m kidding, let me show you why I think this way.

-– Last year presidential contender Barack Obama gave a Fathers Day speech in which he said:

“It’s about to be Father’s Day, let’s admit to ourselves that there are a lot of men out there that need to stop acting like boys; who need to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; who need to know that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise a child.”

When was the last time a politician chose Mothers Day to humiliate irresponsible mothers by calling them little girls that need to grow up? It has never happened and never will. The discrimination of fathers is based on the mythology that mothers are superior to fathers, in spite of evidence that proves otherwise.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through the Administration for Children and Families
reported that in 2006, 40 percent (39.9%) of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone; another 17.6 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone.
The agency defines maltreatment as: Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

According to Obama, the reason he felt the need for his Fathers Day speech:

“The key to having this conversation constructively is to realize that there’s really no excuse for not behaving responsibly toward our children.”

If this is true, then why has Obama not chosen to scold or humiliate mothers on Mothers Day for the horrific abuses towards their children which is more that double of that with respect to fathers?
Is he implying that a father who refuses to participate in the raising of his children is not a real man and does not deserve forgiveness, but a mother who abuses her children should be forgiven and honored?

 -– Last year, here in the Chicago area, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart launched a weeklong “deadbeat dad” sting operation that resulted in the arrest of 130 deadbeat dads. Sherriff Dart also arrested four deadbeat moms to show that he was being gender neutral.
However, Dart addressed his reasoning for carrying out the sting around Fathers Day this way:

“For hundreds of thousands of people Father’s Day is just a very, very painful day,” Dart said. “It actually serves as a perverse reminder of just how difficult their life is because there is no father, and not only is there no father there, but there is someone who has walked away from their responsibilities.”

Isn’t Mothers Day a very, very painful reminder to all the children that are abused every year by their mothers? And if Sheriff Dart is truly concerned with the difficult lives of children neglected by a parent, why not launch a campaign around Mothers Day touting the many irresponsible and criminal mothers in society that are abusing their children. It can include the little known fact that besides abuse, mothers also lead fathers in failing to pay court ordered child support.
Glenn Sacks and Jeffery Leving wrote an article refuting Sheriff Dart’s claims that all the men arrested were intentionally avoiding their responsibilities. The article also reveals the discrepancies and complexities between society’s perception of the deadbeat dad and the human reality.

 –- Last year for Fathers Day, Time magazine wrote an article called The Psychology of Fatherhood  which questioned whether fathers deserve to be honored with a special day like mothers because of men’s alleged undesirable track record concerning parenting.
The two female writers (coincidence?) wrote how the research they uncovered shows that:
– In the U.S., more than half of divorced fathers lose contact with their kids within a few years.
– Men are more likely to default on a child-support payment (49%) than a used-car payment (3%).
– U.S. fathers average less than an hour a day (up from 20 minutes a few decades ago), usually squeezed in after the workday.
The female writers never mentioned what research or sources their information can be referenced to, but men’s writer Glenn Sacks was familiar with the sources. He wrote a response to the article and the research in question, showing how the women used family research from the 1960’s and other sources that were eventually proven to be unreliable.
But the best repudiation of the Time’s article comes from the magazine itself. In 2005 it ran an article about fatherhood called The Missing Father Myth in which it disputed the very claims made by it’s own female writers two years later.
In this article the male writer (coincidence?) claims the perceptions of the irresponsible father is false. His article looks at recent study of teenage fathers which show:
– 82% reported having daily contact with their children
– 74% said they contributed to the child’s financial support
– Almost 90% maintained a relationship with the mother
The findings of this study are very similar to the findings of other studies concerning fathers and families. (An excellent, in-depth look at the reality of fathers and custody issues can be found here.)

– Paul Coughlin, a writer of Christian issues wrote an article titled Pastors, Don’t Use Mother’s Day to Bash Dads in which he writes about the discriminatory practices within churches concerning mothers and fathers. Paul writes,

This Sunday we will extol the value and benefit of motherhood, which is great. But in some churches, this will be done by degrading Christian husbands, which is not great. “Our pastor makes us husbands get on our knees on Mother’s Day and beg for forgiveness. I don’t want to do it again this year,” one reader tells me. Another writes, “Our minister makes husbands write on paper all the things we’ve done wrong. Then we’re suppose to give it to our wives and pledge that we won’t do them anymore.”

A church in my community handed out a flyer to all parishioners this past week which read:

With all respect to fathers, no one influences a child as much as a devoted mother. She passes on her faith in God, her beliefs in all the virtues, patience, kindness, forgiveness. As the growing child follows her about, all the mother’s ways of thinking and doing things, are flowing into the life of the child. One might say, the mother is programming the brain and the heart of the little one on how to live in this world.

Well…if this is true, why does society even bother trying to convince men of their importance in a child’s life? After such an overtly pious description of the dominating influence mothers have on their children, what is left to say to men and fathers on Fathers Day that will convince them fatherhood has any value, or is need at all?
And if the writer of this piece really believes that mothers “program” the brains and hearts of our children, is the writer willing to accept the consequences that he/she is implying that the blame for children who grow up and engage in violence and sin must rest solely on mothers since they - not fathers - are fully responsible for the “programming” of the child?
Of course not. If the individual grows up to be a criminal, it’s because the father wasn’t present. Or if he was present, he taught the wrong set of values and virtues - despite the admission of his limited influence.
And so the cycle of discrimination against fathers continue.

While men are expected to share the responsibilities of raising children; the stress, the frustration, the anxiety, the financial drain, the personal limitations, etc., it becomes clear that when it is time to wallow in the rewards, fathers are told to sit in the corner of the room and wait until they are called - if they are ever called.
Fathers are expected to share all the first class responsibilities and hardships of being a parent, yet are treated as second class parents, or even strangers when the adulations and rewards are handed out.
Mothers are given honor and rewards in spite of their failures. Fathers are given greater scrutiny, humiliation, and shame in spite of their numerous successes.

Is it any wonder there are any good fathers left these days? Despite being vilified, disparaged, and unjustifiably attacked at every turn, including Fathers Day itself, men are consistently making progress at becoming better fathers regardless of the roadblocks so many vindictive people try to place before them. In this environment, it would be much easier for men to walk away and give up, yet many choose not to.

I will be smiling in admiration this Fathers Day.

 

Contact:           

soltys.joe@gmail.com

http://jsoltys.wordpress.com

Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

The Great Communicators. Are They Listening?

  Let’s get one thing straight; women are not better listeners than men. Contrary to popular belief, I feel men are better listeners than women. So bear with me while I vent a little bit.

The reason why men are considered lousy at listening is based solely on the assumptions and vocalization of women, the recipients of men’s alleged callous behavior. But isn’t asking women if they feel they’re being heard by their men the same as asking teenagers if their parents understand them? Hearing only the teenagers’ side of the conflict would leave the impression that the majority of parents in this society are abusive and oppressive (As a parent of a teenager, I can confirm this theory).
The same can be said for the conflict of listening between men and women. If it’s true men don’t really listen to women, then why would any woman marry a man who didn’t consistently acknowledge her?

The truth is, men listen very well to the women in their lives. Sometimes we do fail, but not as much as portrayed. We are tuned in to many aspects of her needs, personality, desires, etc. That is why women fall in love with us.
However, overtime the relationship changes. Women find ways of letting men know where they are lacking in the relationship. As the saying goes, “Men marry women hoping they will never change, while women marry men hoping to change everything about them.”
Men perceive the constant nagging as a reminder of their failures, and sadly, many men try to change only to find out their “change” wasn’t good enough, or more commonly, after each change is accomplished, they are immediately greeted with another “change” that needs addressing. “And why not?” women will reason. “He did so well with that one, this next one should go faster and easier.”

When I worked with men in a group setting years ago, these men became exactly what every woman says she desires from the man in her life: a man in touch with his feelings.
Since the men in these groups were dealing with serious issues, it was imperative that they learn the art of going deep within the core of their feelings and emotions, and developing appropriate ways to express and talk about those difficult feelings and emotions. Without this ability, it would be difficult to heal any past physical, emotional, or psychological trauma.

The result?

Some men found while they were becoming more skilled in dealing with their emotions, from their more mature, emotional perspective, they began to realize how unskilled their wives were in dealing with their own issues. More importantly, some men found the more attentive they became to their wives emotional needs, the more aware they had become of how their wives really didn’t want to seriously acknowledge their needs. In other words, as the men recognized and asked for more attentiveness to their emotional needs in order to build a deeper relationship with themselves and their wives, the more their wives tuned them out.
I remember reading somewhere that one of the biggest lies women tell is their desire to have a man in touch with his feelings. I don’t remember who said it, but they warned that a woman only wants a man who is in touch with his feelings because she believes he will understand HER feelings better, and be more attentive to her needs. The truth is most women aren’t interested at all in men’s true feelings, unless of course, they are the ultimate beneficiaries.

In my group experiences I found this to be true.
One common thread I discovered in my personal experiences and listening to the experiences of other men is how wives or girlfriends are quick to embrace and display their omnipotent knowledge of men. Wives and girlfriends do not listen to the men in their lives because they have already concluded how they [men] think and feel. In many conflicts, it becomes apparent that women have already made up their mind about how men feel, so any expression by their men that does not fulfill a woman’s provisory belief, is discarded or de-valued. In other words, men’s true feelings - when expressed - are ignored, and the ability to obtain a resolution to the conflict is lost.
Over time , men listen again and again how their thoughts and feelings are not important. Couple this with the systemic aspersions women and society will endlessly direct towards men which overwhelmingly portrayed them as lazy, selfish, incompetent, and many other negatives, and it becomes apparent the only way to manage the overload is to cut it off. Eventually, the ABUNDANT listening done by men in which they consistently hear their feelings and behavior consistently disparaged and ignored causes them to “tune out”, or more appropriately referred to as, not listening.

So you see, its not that men are not listening, it really becomes a matter of men listening too much - AND ITS ALWAYS NEGATIVE. I can assure that men, just as much as women, what to be acknowledged and heard. Unfortunately, feminism and society has done a good job equating men’s thoughts and feelings as a form of sexism if it doesn’t corroborate the man as bad, women as good point of view.

And this is the point of this post.

If we compare gender issues with relationships, we can see how similarities arise. The most important is how we acknowledge and recognize the male point of view in these issues. Feminism has been at the helm of most gender studies, and unfortunately, feminism has conducted their studies to perpetuate their own political and social agenda. These inherent biases have resulted in the feelings and thoughts of men being deemed unimportant unless those thoughts and feelings can be malleable enough to “fit” the provisory feminist ideology of:
power and control = patriarchy and masculinity.
This behavior, in my opinion, has created its own form of sexism, and also has shown a lack of serious problem solving when addressing gender issues. Feminism has never looked into men’s behavior with the same depth and compassion as they have for women. And for this reason, just as in personal relationships, the ability to find resolution is lost.

So what the hell am I getting at?
Let me explain.

I recently posted a column in which I offered two different views concerning the controversy between a women’s right to her sexuality and prostitution. I wrote how there is a shifting belief in society that prostitutes are victims of the highest order, and the only way to resolve this problem is to come down hard on the johns. This is not just happening here in this country, but also around the world.
I took exception to the fact that researchers – influenced by feminism - are willing to look deeply into why women become prostitutes, reserving compassion and dignity for them, while perceiving the johns as cold, uncaring, selfish men who have the ability to know right from wrong, and the knowledge to make better choices.
I questioned, why aren’t we asking the same compassionate questions to the men as well as the women? Maybe these men frequent prostitutes due to past abuses, sex addictions, or other tragic life events? Why do we always find compassion for our women and their past abuses but not our men? If we really want to solve issues such as these, shouldn’t we dwell deeply into the male side of the equation?
The reason why this is so important to me is because when I worked in my men’s group, I found some men engaged in risky or unusual sexual behavior due to sexual, emotional, and physical abuses in childhood, from both males and females equally. For some of these men, frequenting prostitutes was a form of escape or “acting out” what had happened years ago.
Since my experiences with these men, I have often wondered how many men who arrested in prostitution stings are men who are better served with counseling rather than jail time.

A report was released this week by researchers that studied prostitution in Chicago over the last couple of years. What makes this research different is that it actually dwelled deeply into the men who visit prostitutes. Research into prostitution has never really addressed the thoughts and feelings behind why men solicit prostitutes.

So what did it find? (Pardon me while I bite my lip and try not to scream “I told you so.”)

The men said going to prostitutes is similar to an addiction. As a matter of fact,
83 percent view buying sex as a form of addiction, according to the study.
Also, the study found that these men are often deeply conflicted about their behavior (I’m biting my lip harder).
Rachel Durchslag, director of the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, which conducted the survey in Chicago said she was stunned by the large response from men, and their willingness to talk to strangers about such a taboo subject.
More importantly, it was noted the mostly all female researchers expected to be offended by some of the men’s viewpoints - and they were - but the female researchers were shocked to find they felt sympathy for many of the men. Durchslag said,
“A lot of us felt really sad for a lot of these men. It’s more complicated. We were all surprised by the number of men who said, ‘I’ve never had a chance to talk about this.’ “

A former prostitute named Olivia Howard, who knows first hand the mentality of men who regularly use prostitutes and is now an advocated against prostitution says, “Some of these men are very sick men who have been abused themselves. And who need to be taught early on that this is not acceptable.”

“These men also have lived troubled lives and started buying sex at a very early age and that’s impacted their idea of what women are like,” said Samir Goswami, Justice Project Against Sexual Harm.

So what does it all mean?

It shows how devaluing and/or ignoring men’s thoughts and feelings transcend personal and societal behavior. Discarding what men have to say concerning gender and family issues has been the norm for too long now. And because of it, a more complete understanding and resolution to many issues has been left unaddressed.
In the study above, the female researchers were “surprised” how willing and open the men were when it came to talking about their thoughts and feelings concerning their use of prostitutes.
Why should they be? Let me make it clear: MEN ARE NOT GOING TO OPEN UP IF THEY FEEL THEIR THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS ARE NOT GOING TO BEING HEARD.
I learned a while back men will “tune out” if placed in an in an environment were their thoughts and feelings will be judged, humiliated, or shamed; consequently, place a man in an environment where preconceived notions about him - or men in general - will carry more weight than anything he has to offer, and he will become adversarial, and any hope of deeper thought is lost. However, change the environment to where he feels what he has to say will be taken sincerely, and a man will jump at the chance let you in on his deepest thoughts - it is an opportunity he rarely enjoys.
The myth created by feminist and perpetuated by society is that men do not open up and talk about their feelings due to the restrictions of masculinity. Wrong! That is only a part of it. The other missing piece is how men have been made to feel marginalized or shut out concerning gender and family issues if their thoughts and feelings do not corroborate feminist beliefs, or place blame and responsibility upon women.

When the researchers gave theses men an opportunity to speak under favorable conditions, they actually felt sorry for them. Why? For the first time they became aware that men are not monsters, just human - just like them. They learned a man’s present behavior is predicated on the behavior he experienced by others in his life, and how deeply it impacted him – just like most women. In other words, for the first time these women decided to really LISTEN to men, and in the process, discovered valuable information to address and help resolve an issue that involves both genders, and in turn, help both men and women. Instead of taking the traditional, indolent, feminist approach that requires all men’s thoughts and behavior to be automatically filed away in the “power and control” box, these women decided to approach the male side of prostitution with the same detailed, compassionate, and aggressive approach usually reserved for women. This required thinking “outside” the box, and for that they were rewarded.

My point in all of this is simple: women label themselves great communicators and great listeners, and this is true – as long as their concerns are dealing with women. But when it comes to communicating and listening to men, women fail miserably. And I should note its not only women, but also men who have been influenced by feminist ideology that pressures society to believe men are naturally bad and women are naturally good.

And I have a major influential organization that corroborates what I feel.
In October of 2006, The World Bank released a study concerning what obstacles  women face in achieving equality. The female researchers concluded:

Accomplishing the goal of gender equality will be difficult, if not impossible, without considering men in the gender and development debate and focusing on the relations between men and women.

While gains have been made over the decades, initiatives by government and development agencies that focused exclusively on women have in some cases inadvertently increased women’s work burden and violence against them, and recommends applying a more inclusive perspective that also considers men’s gender issues.

The authors believe that while there is a long way to go making a more inclusive gender perspective a reality, the first step must be to move beyond the conventional gender paradigm that focuses exclusively on women and is based on the oppositional and two-dimensional “women as victim, men as a problem” attitude that has pervaded the gender and development debate over the decades.

“We believe that the time has come to better understand men from a gender perspective, for the benefit of men, women, future generations, and the society as a whole.

There you go. The concept of LISTENING to men rather than judging them is not just a concept of some male blogger such as myself, but also the findings of a major organization whose sole purpose is to research and address issues concerning the well-being of humanity around the world.

If women what to have a more satisfying relationship with the men in their lives, and if they want to resolve the gender wars that inhibit both men and women, take the time to listen to men rather than judge them.

We are listening, and willing to talk, more than you think.

Some men say using prostitutes is an addiction

Studies look at prostitution in Chicago

What About Men And Gender? World Bank Publication Calls For “Menstreaming” Development

 

Contact:           

soltys.joe@gmail.com

http://jsoltys.wordpress.com

Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

Our Pretty Little World of Distorted “Truths”

   Today’s theme is going to address how reality and perceptions about men and women in society clash. However, instead of doing all the writing myself, I am going to use articles written by others to help address these distortions. These writers address the issues as well, if not better than I could, so I’ll share their articles with my readers.

Are Other Men Keeping Men Down?
In this article Dr. Helen addresses the way men in power actually use their power to discriminate against other men. Her article contains many elements that I feel are relevant to issues surrounding perceptions of men and masculinity. The most poignant is the belief that because men hold the most powerful positions in the world, men are living in a state of bliss because this aggregate wealth of power is shared. This is probably the most absurd myth generated by feminism.
The priority for the judgment of power should be less about who has it, and more about what those who have it actually do with it.
While men in this country hold most of the power, how many of these men can openly advocate for more resources and attention directed toward causes that are exclusive to males? And how many can openly advocate resources and attention to causes that are exclusive to females? It is easier to do the latter.
Any politician or corporate board member who openly advocates for male exclusive issues would immediately surround himself in damaging controversy - one he would never professionally recover from.
Quote from article: The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? U.S. Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men.

Why women don’t want top jobs, by a feminist
This article is probably one of the best I’ve read about gender issues in a long time. Author Rosie Boycott, a feminist, writes how she has started to discard many feminist thoughts and ideas because she has realized how unrealistic and damaging they are. All this after reading a new book by Susan Pinker called The Sexual Paradox. Pinker’s book presents evidence that males and females are genuinely different in spite of what feminist research has led us to believe, which leads Boycott to begin looking back at her own feminist beliefs, and start drawing different conclusions. Juxtaposing Pinker’s evidence, other research, and her own perceptions, Boycott begins to understand what I and others who once supported feminism have already figured out; the need for women’s equality is genuine, but feminists have made many too mistakes on the way to equality.
Her article is filled with many poignant insights, but here are two notable quotes:
Our values, Pinker asserts, are based on the simple fact that the world of men (i.e. success and drive) is the correct model.
I have always wondered why feminist disparage everything created under the umbrella of the patriarchy or masculinity, particularly its lust for power, control, money, sex, and status, only to find their advocacy desires these same components of life. It has always appeared to me that feminist conned us into believing that the behavior of the patriarchy was incorrigible, when in reality, feminists always seem more pissed off for being excluded from engaging in the same destructive behaviors as men, or just pissed off only because women are being judged more harshly when they do it. (See last article in this post)
To make men and women genuinely equal, we have to accept and honour difference, not mark everyone’s scorecard according to the same set of standards.
I find this hard to believe it came from a card-carrying feminist. When did logic trump feelings?
Anyway, good for her, and her willingness to change.

Sorry ladies, the male birth control pill is not about you
Excellent article concerning the controversies surrounding the development of a male birth control pill. The author, George Dvorsky, explains why the male contraceptive will actually liberate males the same way female contraceptives did for women.
Dvorsky cautions that while women have been looking at the male pill as another step towards equality, the reality is, it will begin to address the inequalities males endure concerning reproductive rights - an inequality females refuse to address.
Quote from article: According to the 2004 National Scruples and Lies Survey (which polled 5,000 women in the United Kingdom), 42% of women claimed they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners.

Despite DNA, Dad’s Paternity Denied
Here is another story that makes me question all those in society that vocalize how important fathers are to their children. I am not talking about father rights activists or men’s rights activists; I know their commitment is genuine. I’m addressing those who talk so feverishly about the importance of a man’s role in raising his children until, of course, a crisis develops. These people consist of men and women, feminist and liberals, Christians and conservatives, and most importantly, politicians, lawyers, and judges.
Hope I didn’t miss anybody.
And that’s my point. Our society is hell bent on making men take responsibility for their children, that is of course until a situation arises where a man is actually trying to take responsibility for his children, and in return it may lead to the mother having to sacrifice some of her rights. This is when we find out emphasizing the importance of fathers and fatherhood is nothing more than an insidious conceptual tool used to manipulate men into believing they are of equal parent status, and will receive the same treatment as mothers for similar responsibilities.
In this story, a man named James Rhoades had an affair with a married woman that resulted in the birth of a child. Stupid on both their parts, but it gets crazier.
Instead of running from his parental responsibilities, which would have been the easiest thing to do, he chose to venture into the unknown, an uncomfortable situation of fighting for the right to be the father of his child under these unusual circumstances.
He lost.
The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that Rhoades could not move forward with a paternity case to prove he is the biological father. The court ruled that the sanctity of the women’s marriage and the undisturbed well-being of the child is of greater priority than Rhoades inherent biological right. He is denied any part in his child’s life until he/she reaches adulthood and decides on his or her own to have contact with him.
After reading numerous stories like this over the years, I’ve come to really appreciate the saying, “Actions speak louder than words.”
I only trust those people of action concerning fatherhood, not words. The “wordy” people are pious “do-gooders” looking to shape an egocentric image of themselves rather than a sincere image of fatherhood.

I pay a man for regular sex
This article is anonymously written, and from what I read, it was the only thought that showed an ounce of intellect.
The female writer shares her story with readers concerning her arrangement for sex - she pays for it.
After being divorced, and feeling the need for an active sex life, she decided to pay a man at least once of month for sex.
What I love about this article is the many excuses she uses to justify her behavior - just like women’s stereotypical assessment of men. As a matter of fact, she shows an interesting trait that most women have over men - they are much better liars. Not only does she concoct a ritual used to shield and deceive her family and friends from her behavior, but it is apparent her ego has convinced herself that this arrangement benefits everybody - the “benevolent factor”.
The benevolent factor is a term I use to describe women who, when caught engaging in the same behavior as men, twist the consequences of their behavior to appear as if it actually is a greater benefit for everyone involved. As an example she says,
“I don’t want all the complications involved in getting into a relationship – I want to be able to concentrate on my children, my job and my life without introducing a man who might well walk out at some point, thus upsetting the children.”
She uses the emotional needs of her children to justify her behavior. And at the same time, she blames men and their irresponsible behavior for her irresponsible behavior. She believes,
Her behavior can be seen as a cry of desperation towards the recognition that men need to change their behavior. If they would just change, then those like her will change; therefore, everyone will benefit!
I think this is where Tiny Tim exclaims, “And God Bless everyone!”
It’s prostitution - that’s it!
As I wrote earlier, it appears women have never been actually upset or appalled at some of men’s behavior as they claim. As women become more empowered, their own questionable behavior creates the appearance that in the end, inequality has only denied them the opportunity to do the same.
This is why I am proud to be a man and masculine. It seems to me, contrary to popular belief, when women are put in the same situations as men, they are not any better than men.
It’s just another distortion of the truth.

 

Contact:           

soltys.joe@gmail.com

http://jsoltys.wordpress.com

Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

What Message Are We Sending?

   Reverend Jeremiah Wright was back in the news this week. After laying low since the controversy over his offensive and racially insensitive sermons and his relationship with presidential hopeful Barack Obama, he decided to make several appearances and interviews including one before the NAACP and The National Press Club.

If you haven’t seen some of the video clips and observed some of his theatrics (a “spectacle” is what Obama called it) or read some of his comments made at these conferences, I can say it is well worth the time. Any effort to persuade the public that Rev. Wright was being unfairly judged by a “few sound bites” on the internet can be put to rest - he validated almost every disparaging remark his critics have directed towards him.

The real shocker for me has been that as controversial as his remarks have been, the NAACP and The National Press Club asked him to speak at their events.
The NAACP invitation seems obvious until one considers the NAACP’s own mission statement:

The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.

Having Rev. Wright speak at a NAACP event seems to challenge the very integrity and sincerity of the organizations mission and purpose.
Consequently, The National Press Club honestly describes its history as having to deal with its own “isms”. The NPC originally was a steadfast, all white male organization that shunned women and blacks, but eventually came to terms with their own segregation practices. One would think they would be a little sensitive to controversy.
And it should be noted the Rev. Wright was going to be honored by, and receive an honorary degree from Northwestern University this week.

So what message were these organizations trying to send by asking a controversial person like Rev. Wright to speak at their events? One would think in this politically correct environment Rev. Wright would be ostracized and abandoned for his insensitive remarks, his name sending chills down the spine of event organizers. Instead, his offensive remarks and beliefs blossomed into speaking engagements and interviews.

Contrast the flexibility afforded Rev. Wright compared to that of Lawrence Summers.

Back in 2005, Harvard University president Lawrence Summers addressed a crowd of intellectuals brought together to discuss economic issues. During his speech, he made the mistake of trying to tackle the academic differences between the sexes concerning math and sciences. In an effort to find a reason for this gender gap he suggested that maybe universities should look more closely at possible genetic or biological differences between men and women since most research cannot find concrete cause and effect for this discrepancy. Summers was sincerely trying to help, not offend, but since feminist professors were present in the audience, his remarks could only be seen as insensitive, offensive, sexist, vile, and Neanderthal to name of few. One Feminist professor said Summers’ comments made her so physically ill she had to leave.
Because of his remarks, Summers eventually had to step down from his position. Although his comments were made in a sincere effort to help women, his one time slip of the tongue was weighted by feminist and academia to the conclusion that he was inherently a flawed, troubled, and backwards man.
Eventually Harvard replaced Summers with Drew G. Faust, the dean of the Radcliffe Institute, where she oversaw the study of women, gender, and society.
Today, scheduled speeches by Lawrence Summers on some university campuses have been cancelled due to protest by feminist and other “equality” groups who feel his presence on campus sends the wrong message.

The wrong message? What is the “wrong” message? Rev. Wright has tenaciously preached his controversial “message” for twenty years. Lawrence Summers had no message, just a lapse of reason.
Reverend Wright is honored, Lawrence Summers is vilified.

I’m not surprised. As a follower of gender issues it is apparent that the common thread in these controversies - that is, determining who will be condemned and who will be rewarded - depends greatly on who the malicious attacks are directed towards. If an attack is perceived to be directed at women as a whole, that person can expect to be condemned for life. If an attack is directed at men as a whole, that person will be considered an intellectual.
Rev. Wright’s “message” involved directing his anger at the government, which in societal politics is a euphemism for men. Lawrence Summers mishap was seen as an aspersion towards women - BIG mistake.
If you want to openly display hate, contempt, and discrimination in our society, and be rewarded for it, make sure your aspersions are directed towards men. When this form of gender discrimination is a part of someone’s “message”, it is guaranteed that the equality and diversity police will be present to distribute “get out of jail free” cards.

If you think I’m exaggerating, here are some disparaging, humiliating, and gender de-valuing remarks directed towards the male gender by men and women who are highly respected and/or influential in their profession:

– “I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it he’s just incapable of it” (Barbara Jordan, US Congress, from a speech given in Austin, Texas, The Houston Chronicle, 09/28/91).

– “As is our wont, we commenced work on a series of projects that stunk everything up and made a mess of our world. Women? They deserve none of the blame. They continued to bring life into this world; we continued to destroy it whenever we could. We can’t pin any of this on women . . . every bit of plunder and pillage, every attack on the environment, everything that has brought horror and destruction to all that was once pure and good has come from hands that, well, when they aren’t busy bringing pleasure to one-self, are working overtime to wipe out this beautiful, wonderful home we were given” (Michael Moore, Stupid White Men).

– “Men have a perfect right to be insecure. They’re doomed, poor darlings. It won’t be next Thursday or anything but men, says Bryan Sykes, a leading British researcher on sex chromosomes, ‘are now on notice’. . . . Are men necessary? I ask Dr Sykes. ‘Clearly not,’ he replies. Are men necessary? I ask British geneticist Steve Jones. ‘You don’t even need the sex slaves,’ Dr Jones assures me. ‘You just need their cells in a freezer.’ He fantasizes about ‘a world without men’, a version of the mythological ‘cult of Diana’ hunter-gatherer societies where women were in charge and men were just there for entertainment, where there would be ‘no Y chromosomes to enslave the feminine, the destructive spiral of greed and ambition fuelled by sexual ambition diminishes and, as a direct result, the sickness of our planet eases. The world no longer reverberates to the sound of men’s clashing antlers and the grim repercussions of private and public warfare.’” (Maureen Dowd, Are Men Necessary?, “Male free zone,” 01/22/06, Sydney Morning Herald)

– “The truly terrifying thing is that it could happen. The technology of asexual female reproduction in the human species really isn’t that far off. If suitably dedicated women overcame any ethical objections and applied themselves to the task they could be cloned within a decade. Those women see males for what they are, biological parasites on the parental care of females.” (John Gribbin, The Redundant Male)

– “To create and preserve a less violent world. I) Every culture must affirm a female future. II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. III) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10 percent of the human race.” (Sally Miller Gearhart, University of San Francisco, “The Future—If There Is One—Is Female,” MasMystique).

– “One can know everything and still be unable to accept the fact that sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that the one without the imminent possibly of the other is unthinkable and impossible.” (Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, Lawrence Hill Books; Reprint 1993, p. 21).

– “Nature blundered badly in designing males . . . because of neurochemical stuff like testosterone; males are not naturally suited to civilization.” (Columnist George F. Will, “Nature and the Male Sex,” Newsweek, 06/17/91).

– “If there were more women in positions of power, not just in Congress, but across the United States and around the world, lots of things would be better. Not perfect. But better.” (Dee Dee Myers’s from her book, Why Women Should Rule the World)

– “I think women are too valuable to be in combat.” (U.S. Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger, MOMP, p. 126).

- “Testosterone won’t help if you’re married to a schmuck,” (Sheryl Kingsberg, chief of behavioral medicine at Case Medical Center in Cleveland when discussing testosterone supplements for women with low sex drives, Chicago Tribune 02/27/08).

Not one of these individuals was exposed to the imminent fear of losing their jobs, their status, or their professional respectability for their derogatory, humiliating, and hateful remarks towards men. Reverse the genders and ask yourself if their remarks would have gone unnoticed or unchallenged.

As of this writing, Barack Obama has cut all ties with Rev. Wright. This has angered some in the African-American community. I’m sure Obama was aware of the consequences, but at least I give him credit, he is finally an advocate of equality practicing what he preaches. Sadly, I can’t say that about the majority of other advocates for equality.
I hope this is a shifting of the paradigm - the right message being sent.

 

Contact:           

soltys.joe@gmail.com

http://jsoltys.wordpress.com

Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

Quotes courtesy of Tim Goldich

A Reasonable Voice In A Sea of Confusion

    If you read my blog you know two things about me. First, when I find something written by a feminist that I feel is fair and balanced -meaning I do not necessarily agree with everything that is said, but feel it represents a shift to a more reasonable exchange of ideas and viewpoints concerning gender issues - I am more than willing to share it with my readers.
Second, I find the feminist viewpoint of the overt equalization of females in society really confusing. I know that this subject is controversial even among feminists themselves. The paradox is generated by the feminist ideology of a woman’s right over her body - my body, my choice. But for some feminist, this does not extend to a woman’s sexuality. Rather, they perceive any woman who uses her sexuality for the sole purpose of pleasing men, is allowing herself to be exploited by the patriarchy.

However, other feminist see women today as having a choice whether to use their sexuality as a means to an end - whatever that “end” is. These feminist postulates that women having the opportunity to choose is proof of feminism success, and anybody trying to diminish this success cannot lay claim to the feminist label because it robs women of the well guarded feminist ideology of true empowerment - personal choice.

The reason I bring this up is because I read two articles over the weekend concerning female sexuality and prostitution. The article on prostitution took the position that all prostitution is harmful, and is/should be a violation of law and human rights around the world. It states all prostitutes are victims, and feels that society glamorizes prostituion, and therefore, neglects the real harm this is having on women and society.

The second article is written as a counter-point to the first, and I want to commend the Chicago Tribune for showing the integrity needed on this subject by responding with an opposing view.
In the second article, an African-American feminist takes on the controversial paradox concerning female sexuality and whether all cases of female sexualization are really exploitive.
What I liked about her article was her honesty. She is a feminist, but she is willing to admit that the feminist movement sometimes acts as if it “knows it all” about women. She states,
“As much as my experiences have taught me, I’m still continually shocked at our lack of knowledge and the silence surrounding sexuality among feminists.”

It should be noted that I find her position similar to mine, which might explain the magnetic draw to its finer points. To the contrary, the prostitution article relates all forms of prostitution as a product of the sex slave trade. I do not feel this way. I also do not feel that our society glamorizes prostitution. If that were true, Eliot Spritzer would still have a job. Their generalizations seems to hurt their cause rather than help it. 

I have written before that I am appalled by the international sex slave operations that manipulate, then kidnap, and then force women into prostitution around the world.
However, I feel it is a different story for runaways, victims of abuse, and others who fall into prostitution in this country. Not that their stories aren’t tragic or real, but I just do not believe that all prostitutes are victims of the slave trade, and I do not believe that all prostitutes are helpless victims. And I do not believe that all men who indulge in the services of prostitution are selfish, self-centered perverts looking for a little action. (I will right more extensively on this in the future)
I believe the true power of choice and personal responsiblity are uncomfortable thoughts within the context of gender issues, especially this one. 

The power of “choice”: I felt these articles display this dilema, but I found the dissenting feminist and her approach a step in the right direction. It is honest and thought provoking. And it is an admission by another feminist that feminist can be wrong, and act elitists. Rarely will you see this.
Enough said.
Here it is: A Positive View of Sex

Here is the article about prostitution: Prostitution Looks Chic, But the Truth Is Ugly

 

Contact:           

soltys.joe@gmail.com

http://jsoltys.wordpress.com

False Accusations: A True Story - All Charges Dropped!

   A family court judge has dismissed all charges against my friend Josh. He had been facing three counts of battery for alleged assaults against his wife and one of her daughters (the accusation of molestation upon the daughter was eventually defined as an aggravated battery charge).

To read the complete story, (written in four separate posts), click on false allegations in the sidebar of this page

Two days before the criminal trial, the eldest daughter of Judy called Josh saying she, her sister, and their mother wanted a secret meeting with Josh; meaning they wanted no lawyers present to discuss the division of assets - particularly the business.
Josh refused to meet with them because of the permanent restraining order that is in place. If he met with them, he would violate the protection order and face the legal consequences.
The daughter tried to reassure him that nothing was going to happen. She said they would never tell anybody. Josh just laughed at the audacity of her to make such a statement considering everything they have accused him of.
His reluctance to meet, and his sarcasm towards their assurances caused the daughter to become hostile with him. She began blaming him for everything, stating that if had he not asked for a divorce from her mother, all of this would have never happened to him.

“Imagine that,” Josh said to me, “If I didn’t ask for a divorce, they wouldn’t have had to file false charges against me! I told you these three women live in their own world. They have no guilt, no shame, and no morals. I can’t wait to get far away from them.”

The next day Josh received a phone call from his attorney. It seems Judy had contacted the district attorney handling the criminal case and was pleading for a continuance. She claimed the youngest daughter, the one Josh allegedly molested, can’t make the court appearance to testify about the incident between her and Josh. Seems she has a test at school that - strangely - is more important than her testimony in this serious violation of her safety and well-being. This is not the first time she has done this. In a pre-trial, she was supposed to appear and give her testimony about the incident, but strangely, she had vacation plans that were much more important. At that time, Judy contended her daughter couldn’t get out of that commitment, so she didn’t appear then.

The district attorney made a phone call to Josh’s attorney asking for new trial date. Josh’s attorney refused. He told her, “When I first presented this case to you, you admitted it sounded “fishy”, but you still chose to proceed. It should be obvious to you that this is nothing more than a perversion of justice by these women and their lawyers. Doesn’t it seem “fishy” that every time this woman is asked to testify about the allegations she has placed against my client that she cannot make it… she always has something more important going on? You and I both know these accusations are nothing more than spite and revenge, and are being used as a leveraging tool against my client in the divorce proceedings. I refuse to play this game any longer.”

Josh began formulating his own thoughts after hearing about Judy’s call to the district attorney asking for the postponement. He felt the “secret” meeting to discuss his role in helping them run the business after the divorce was a setup.

“I feel their plan was to find a way to hang a noose over my head until I gave them what they wanted. I think the meeting would have consisted of them telling me what they wanted, and if I didn’t agree to it, they would have called the police saying I broke the restraining order, and would have said I threatened them in some way. It would have been a surefire way to screw me and return power and control to them. She could keep her word about dropping the previous charges, but now she would have new charges to pressure me with. I would have been back right where I was before,” he told me over the phone.
“And I now feel it was a desperation move. I was always close with the youngest daughter, and that is why I was shocked that she would take part in these false charges. But, I now feel that I was right about her - she can’t do this. Her conscious is getting to her. I’m willing to bet that she is refusing to testify against me. Twice she wouldn’t come to court. This has Judy in a panic.
(Note: The daughter’s testimony gave credibility to Judy’s accusations. Every person involved in the legal system that I and Josh talked to agreed that the daughter’s testimony was key to Judy’s credibility. Otherwise, Judy’s accusations, made only after Josh filed for divorce, would appear transparent, and lack substance to those in the court system.)
So Judy was trying to manipulate and con me into doing something that would put her in a better negotiating position heading into divorce court. She could use the new false charges to pressure me into giving her what she wants in the divorce proceedings which would conclude before a new criminal trial. After she gets what she wants, she then drops those charges.”
He paused, and then said, “She’s a very scary person. She never stops scheming.”

At the trial, Josh had a female judge who presided over his case only one time previously. And this judge, according to Josh, seemed to be sympathetic towards women. This made Josh extremely nervous.
The female district attorney, who has admitted all along that these charges were “fishy”, presented the battery case by the daughter to the court and promptly asked for a continuance. Josh’s lawyer fought back, repeating to the judge what he told the district attorney over the phone - the charge is phony; she is not going to testify. Surprisingly, the judge agreed. She felt for something as important as this, she should have honored her commitment to the court. She felt the daughter wasn’t taking the charge seriously - charge dismissed.

When the district attorney presented the charges filed by Judy, she explained that Judy wanted to drop the charges. The judge asked Judy if she was sure she wanted to do this. The concern in her voice made Josh nervous. He said it appeared the judge was overly concerned that this wasn’t something she should do. The judge repeated the process again, and Judy maintained she wanted to drop the charges. The judge then dismissed the remaining charges.

Josh said the physical and emotional relief was indescribable. He said he woke up that morning with a backache, neck ache, headache, and numerous other aliments. But after the judge dismissed all charges, he said miraculously all the aliments went away, proving the power stress can have on the body. As he talked to me on the phone, he said this is the best he has felt in months.

Josh said there was one moment in the court room that bothered him. After the charges were dismissed, the judge turned to Judy and asked how she was handling all of this.
“How was she handling all of this?”  Josh exclaimed over the phone, “All the shit she put me through, and the judge asked her how she was handling all of this? I can’t believe how sexist the family court system is. This judge never asked me if I was OK. Not once. She ignored me the whole time. It was obvious that she believes all women who file charges are truly the victims, and men are always guilty of what they’re being accused of. I can’t believe the judge was openly assuming that I was guilty of the charges, and Judy was the victim. Obviously the thought never occurs to this judge that some of these women could be lying and putting guys through hell.”
“And if you think I’m being hypersensitive, do you know what she said after that? She told Judy she hopes the divorce proceedings go well. Again, didn’t wish me well, but she then tells Judy that if she could help her she would, but she does not preside over divorce cases. She said her job is to put people in jail!
I’m not that stupid … since this is family court, you know what she really means, it is her job to put men in jail. I can’t believe she was being so open with her sexism.”

Josh said afterwards he was right about Judy’s intentions to maintain some kind of legal “noose” over him for the upcoming divorce proceedings. He said before the trial started Judy approached him and stated she felt he should be forced by the final divorce agreement into helping them run the business to ensure that it doesn’t fail before she and her daughters have a chance to learn the everyday workings of the business.
Josh just laughed. He told me, “All this time she and her daughters have maintained that they were the brains behind the success of his business. This is why Judy has been so aggressive in trying get ownership. She really feels she deserves it. Now that she realizes it will be all hers, reality has set in, and now she is desperate for my guidance and knowledge.”

Before they walked into the court room, Judy told Josh she will only drop the charges if Josh agrees to meet tomorrow with the lawyers and agree to run the business for her until she feels she is ready to handle it by herself.
Josh told her, only if he walks out of the court room with all charges dropped.
Judy became very uncomfortable about that. She tried getting Josh to make a commitment with the lawyers present before entering the court room.

Josh reiterated, “I will do what ever you want, but only if all charges are dropped.”

“Do you promise me?”  Judy said.

“Yes. Drop the charges and I’ll meet you tomorrow to discuss it,” said Josh.

 

Later that day, Judy’s daughter called to tell Josh the time and place for tomorrow’s meeting.
Josh told her he wouldn’t be there - he had made other plans.
Judy was furious.

“They’ve lied all this time, and now I’ve lied. You reap what you sow. I have no intention of helping them run that business.  I’m going to be gone all weekend, celebrating with some of the friends who have helped me through all this. This business bullshit can wait. I just need to relax and recharge my batteries.
I know more shit is coming, but the playing field has changed. I plan on sticking to our original agreement where the business is hers - alone.
We’ll see how things go when there aren’t criminal charges hanging over my head… when neither one of us has that kind of power.” 

 

Note to my readers: I don’t know if this is really the end, but if anything develops, I’ll let you know. In the meantime, Josh and I are making plans to spend an upcoming weekend fishing and relaxing. I think he deserves it.

 

Contact:           

soltys.joe@gmail.com

http://jsoltys.wordpress.com

Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

 

False Allegations: A True Story - Update

   (This post is to inform my readers about my friend Josh who is being falsely accused of battery and molestation charges by his wife after he filed for divorce. The four-part story I wrote about him can be found by clicking false allegations in the sidebar.)
Last week, Josh’s wife Judy, called him to express her concern about the amount of money being spent on lawyers. She told Josh, “We have to stop this. The lawyers are taking all are money and were going to have nothing left when it’s over.”

Josh had a moment of two powerful dichotomies come crashing together in a split second as Judy’s words faded. First, he was ecstatic that she finally was showing some rational thought by realizing how financially draining this has been. He wondered was she finally coming to her senses and realizing the amount of damage she is caused with her behavior?
His second thought answered this question. WE have to stop this? This mess was all her doing; her immaturity, her vindictiveness, her need for power and control. And now she wants to play nice, and does so by opening up negotiations by blaming ME for helping cause this whole mess? Obviously she hasn’t come to her senses. She cannot accept full blame and responsibility for what has happened. A typical feminized woman he thought. Always got a find a way to blame someone else.

Josh listened to her offer.

The deal she offered him was to basically call everything off and resume their lives as if nothing happened - and stay married!
Again, Josh was experiencing the contradicting feelings between extreme anger and extreme relief.

“How could she expect everything to just return to normal? I spent time in jail, I’ve been sleeping on the floor of my office for almost a year, my mental and physical health has taken an enormous beating and she wants me to just forget it all and play nice,”  Josh told me over the phone. “She really is fucking crazy! And at the same time, I feel a sense of relief that I can put this all behind me and get on with my life. So there is this sense of joy - the light at the end of the tunnel.”

Josh agreed to have an emergency meeting with her - with the lawyers in tow. He had about 48 hours to think about all of this.

Josh knew he needed to make his own offer because her offer was completely ridicules. So Josh came to a decision that wasn’t easy. He decided to walk away from his business.
As of right now this is what Josh agreed to: Judy will buy out Josh’s half of the business and assume ownership of it. For what Josh calls a cut-rate price, Judy can have the business, the property, and some of their assets. In exchange, Judy drops the false charges against Josh.

I told Josh, “Are you fucking crazy? You’re going to give her everything you’ve worked so hard for? I have to disagree with you. I think your caving in.”

He told me, “You don’t know what it’s like to go through all this. I’ve taken a beating and I just want it over. Believe me, this is a great deal.”

“But Josh, what happened to your dignity in all of this? I thought you said you weren’t going to let her push you around?  If you give in, it just makes it easier for her and other women like her to continue to destroy men’s lives. You have to stick it out,” I told him. “Too many guys cave in rather than fight.”

He replied,

“You don’t understand. You haven’t been in my shoes. This is not the way to live. I thought this through and made a decision that looked beyond what is happening now, and considered what kind of future I’m going to have after all of this. I came to a couple of conclusions.
The first conclusion I reached was that if I fight it out, it is gong to cost me what ever I have left. These lawyers are making a fortune off of this. And if I decide to fight it, she has already shown her willingness to drag this out for as long as it takes to get what she wants the most - the business.
Her willingness to negotiate now does not equate to her willing to negotiate for what is fair for both of us. If she really was thinking along those lines, why not call me and present a fair proposal? Instead, she presents me with a proposal that places everything back to status quo.
Why?  Why would she want me back in her life? I allegedly beat her, threatened to kill her, molested her daughter, and she still wants to remain married to me and run a business together? What the fuck is that all about?
It’s all about her!
She sees an advantage for herself in this proposal. She doesn’t really give a shit about me or my feelings in all of this. She only sees what’s best for her, and by remaining together, she re-establishes financial and emotional power. Do you really think that I could live emotionally comfortable in that relationship? You think I wouldn’t live in fear at every little conflict? She knows this. She knows what she’s doing.
But if I fight all this win, do you really think this would be the end of it? She can’t let it go. Her personality has shown this. If the court awarded me the business, this shit would never end. She would find ways to constantly harass me, make my life difficult because she is so emotionally immature. She can’t handle losing. She has to be in control at all times, and when she isn’t, as we have seen, she will engage in unconscious behavior to reclaim that power and control over others.
So after giving it some thought, I realized how this is all about the business. She really believes that the business will make her happy. And when I thought about her life, my life, and the future as a whole, I realized I would be happier without the business, and she would be more miserable with it. So I’m giving her the greatest gift I could think of  - after allshe has put me through.
She honestly thought she was the brains behind the business, but I know she wasn’t. She won’t be able to sustain the business on her own. It’s one thing to assist in running a business, and it’s another to lead the growth of a business. She never understood this, and this was evident by her behavior during this divorce and criminal process. Remember, she called my customers telling them what a monster I was, how I abused her and her daughters, in an effort to destroy my customer base. That is not how you do business. These customers became extremely offended by her behavior, and now she thinks these customers are going to be glad to hear that she is the new owner? They’re going to bolt out the door and take their business elsewhere. She will be saddled with the debt of the business during these bad economic times; the greater debt she is going to assume from the buyout of my portion of the business and assets; the loss of customers; the lack of any real business skills to handle all of this. (She was a bartender before this.)
It was nice when I took care of the pertinent responsibilities and she just assisted and enjoyed the financial windfalls, but now that she has to do it all herself, and actually work hard for that money… she won’t survive, the business will fold.
As for me, I realized I wasn’t going to stay in the business much longer anyways. I knew I wanted to get out and move west, maybe try doing something different in my life. While I wish it didn’t happen this way, I am starting to look at this as a blessing in disguise. I realize I’m just being forced into something I was going to do anyway… just under different conditions than I had planned.
When I began to look at it this way, it became clear to me that giving up the business is the best thing for me. In order to move onto the next level of my life, it requires walking away from the business. Having your own business ties you down. It’s hard to make drastic changes in your life if you have your own business -everything evolves around it.
With the buyout from Judy, I’m actually freed from so much responsibility and commitment that has been an enormous part of my life for over twenty years. I will actually have so many opportunities available to me, things I have thought about doing or trying, but could never attempt because of the commitment to my business.
When I thoroughly thought it over, I realized by turning the business over to Judy I have the opportunity to enter a very exciting time in my life, a very liberating one. Judy will be entering a very constraining and burdensome one.

So I hope you see now where I’m coming from. I’m trying to think long term, not short term. I have everything to gain, she has everything to lose. She’s getting what she wished for. God bless her.”

After hearing Josh out, I agreed that if this is what makes him happy, then he made the right decision. I just expressed my disappointment that it appears so many men are getting their lives turned upside down by false allegations, and yet, most of these men just want to put it all behind them and not fight the system and try to change it. I explained to him I have another lead about a man who was put through the same hell he was, and yet he too doesn’t want to do anything more than just put it behind him. I’m hoping he’ll change his mind and let me tell his story.

“Well,”  Josh said, “This is all contingent on Judy dropping the criminal charges. If she doesn’t follow through with that then I’m going to fight back - hard!”

I asked him what he was going to do if Judy backed out of her agreement. 

He said, “When I had the meeting with her about this proposal, she raised that very question. I told her if she didn’t drop the charges, I would close the business and walk away…sell the building.”
“She looked stunned. She said I can’t do that while all of this is going on. I reminded her that the court has already ruled the business is legally mine. The partnership is 51% to 49% in my favor. And I told her the court can’t stop me from running the business into the ground if I choose. So if this goes on any longer, there will no business to make the money needed to pay the lawyers. We’ll have to pay the lawyers by selling all our assets. When we are done, there will be nothing left. So I told her, do want ever you feel you have to do, and so will I.”

Josh said the look on Judy’s face was priceless. She realized in her scheme she never counted on Josh doing such a thing. The loss of power and control over the situation was evident by the look on her face.
I asked Josh, “Would you really do it?”

He replied, “Absolutely! I told you, my mind is made up. I want out of here, out of this situation. A new life awaits me and I’m excited about it. I’ve already called a friend out west and he said he will let me stay with him for a few months while I get situated. And he owns his own business, and offered me a job until I decide what I’m going to do. I’m ready to go.”

Josh’s criminal trial is at the end of this week. We’ll see how it plays out.

Two hours later while I was writing this Josh called me.

“You are not going to believe what just happened,” he said. “I just got a call from the oldest daughter. They want a secret meeting with me without the lawyers present before the criminal trial this week. Seems they might want to change the agreement.”
With a sense of frustration and pride he said, “Get this shit. Now they admit I did a great job running the business and want to know if I would remain a business partner and run the business for them. Can you believe this shit?”

“Are going to meet them,” I asked.

“I can’t,” Josh said. “There is a restraining order in place. I’ll go to jail if I break it. When I reminded her of this she assured me nothing would happen. Yeah right! Do they think I’m that fucking stupid? They’re up to something. They’re always scheming. I just don’t know what, but I you can bet I’ll find out in about 48 hours.”

Stay Tuned!

Contact:           

soltys.joe@gmail.com

http://jsoltys.wordpress.com

Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

 

A Man In Touch With His Feminine Side: The New Enemy

     A man in touch with his feminine side? After years of pressuring men to accept this, how about we accept the fact that here in America this is an antiquated concept? I say this because as a man, I constantly read articles - almost always by female writers - that remind me that male privilege is alive and well according to them. These women analyze the present social environment and extrapolate data and conditions that they conclude are indications that male dominance and influence hasn’t diminished, it has just evolved, even if the evolution was by their own design.

Before I go any further, let me tell you all a story that will help clarify my position about this phenomenon.

When I was in college I took a class about modern Catholicism; the philosophy, the influence, and the resulting benefits and consequences. The professor, a Catholic theologian, began the first class by introducing himself. He then launched into a harangue about all the problems within the Catholic Church, and detailed how disturbing some of the issues were to him. After twenty minutes, he stopped. He then asked if there were any questions. Numerous hands were raised. He looked at the students and said, “Anybody who is going to ask me why I have remained a Catholic if I feel so negatively about the Church, put your hand down.” All the hands went down. He smiled and said, “That is the first question I am always asked after launching every semester with the same speech, so let me explain.”

I will try to condense and paraphrase what he said.

I think the core philosophy of the Catholic Church is a beautiful thing, but I do not feel it is always carried out the right way. The Church seems to say one thing, and then act in the opposite. When it should be compassionate and change its position, it is defiant. When it needs to stand firm, it gives in. To me, the Catholic Church seems to have lost continuity in its message. In an effort to maintain and gather new followers, the Church is willing to compromise some of its original message. As the mood and beliefs of its followers change, so does the Church. What was wrong yesterday is OK today. What is OK today, will be wrong tomorrow, and so on.
I stay in the Church because I know I can only influence more change and continuity in the Church by being an integral part of it. Being on the inside complaining [of the organization] has more influence than standing on the outside complaining. So I will remain a part of the Church until I die, for better or for worse. 

So what does this have to do female writers and gender issues? A lot from my perspective.

I read an article today my Marie Wilson at the Huffington Post titled, Leading Like a Girl: For Men Only.
She starts her article by informing her readers that the financial genius Warren Buffet actually invests and manages his money like a woman, according to an article written by LouAnn DiCosmo, and published by the Montely Fool. The article looks at the financial differences between men and women and gushes how women are “naturally” better investors than men. And according to this article, Warren Buffet’s financial style is similar to that of women.

But Marie Wilson then continues with more data from a research group which discovered that Fortune 500 companies with a higher percentage of female directors sitting on the board did better financially than those with the lowest percentage of females. She uses these examples to launch into the true purpose of her article - how women are still being discriminated. Huh?

Marie uses the previous examples of female superiority to construct an argument that men who assume feminine qualities are being rewarded more than women are, particularly Barack Obama.
Marie concludes that men find success when they get in touch with their feminine side, and Barack Obama has proven this by successfully displaying the feminine virtues of “inclusivity, sensitivity, and an eye towards thinking outside the box” in his pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination.
But for women, Marie states, it is completely the opposite. If women display traits usually associated with masculinity, they are vilified for doing so. Displaying I’m “man enough for the job”, is suicide according to Marie.

Let me offer my opinion which I think will bring clarity to the situation Marie is talking about. 

In a typical ”women equality” supporter fashion, she excludes herself and other women from any responsibility for their contribution to the situation. Marie tries to blame a sexist society - male dominated, patriarchal, male privileged, etc. - as the reason why women are not allowed to display masculine traits without receiving a societal backlash.
The reality is that Marie, the feminist, and the majority of American women who think like them are responsible for making it impossible for women to express their masculine traits without backlash, not the patriarchy.
The reason being, the women’s movement has successfully convinced our culture - particularly women - that masculinity is inferior to femininity, and masculinity can only be trusted and accepted if it is willing to sacrifice many of its core traits, and replace them with feminine ones. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard that men and masculinity would be “better” if men were to “get in touch” or accept their feminine side. Consequently, our culture does not tell women that femininity is harmful, dangerous, and in disarray, and only the immediate infusion of masculinity in place of femininity’s core traits would solve the problem. That would be considered sexist.

Marie chooses to blame male sexism for the backlash women face when expressing masculine traits, but in reality, it is female sexism towards men and masculinity that is the real perpetrator. After years and years of bitching and complaining about all faults men and masculinity suffer from, while at the same time piously claiming that feminine qualities are superior to masculine ones, explains with utter confidence why society would abhor these qualities when displayed by a woman seeking power. It would be perceived that the woman in question was digressing rather than progressing. At the same time, a man showing feminine qualities is seen as progressing and expanding his potential, personally and professionally.

The solution is easy. If females would drop the egomaniacal behavior that feminine traits are superior to masculine ones, and start showing appreciation and acceptance for masculine behavior and traits, the culture would come to see these qualities in women as an asset rather than obstacle to their ambitions.

Speaking of the female ego, I feel Marie’s analysis reeks of the selfish attitude that is present in many women who speak out within our culture concerning gender issues. As I mentioned earlier, women have pressured men to absorb more feminine traits (their traits), in the belief that this recipe will lead to ”better” men. This in itself is arrogant and selfish, but the more selfish behavior is found when the result of their advocacy is delivered in a way that was unexpected. As more men have assimilated feminine traits into their thoughts and conduct, it is apparent the female wish of feminized men has backfired, becoming advantageous for men in society instead of women.
You see, upon a closer look, it becomes apparent to me that women have only wanted men to become more feminine because they thought there was something in it for them. But when the results are in, and the men who made the changes do become better individuals as planned, and they are recognized for doing so, there is no rejoicing by these women. Why? Because these so-called humanitarians can only focus on the thought that men have somehow “stuck it” to women again.
Men becoming better men was OK as long as women benefitted, but now that the men are actually benefitting from their willingness to accept their feminine side, these women can only scorn and cry sexism. The long term benefit to men, women, and society is ignored. Time has shown it was really all about them all along.

I have seen this in other issues too. Women have been the impetus behind getting men to recognize the restraints and narrow focus of machismo, and telling men of the liberating process of expressing their deeper emotions. One component of this was the ability for men to cry openly without harsh judgments. Today, many men have cried openly on in public and on camera, most notably some of sports most macho guys. But again, as men began to cry, and society embraced these men for doing so, here came the bitch wagon filled with female writers complaining that men who cried were being perceived as more human, more down-to-earth, and more respectable for leaving