Are you anti-Bush or just anti-Family?

by unevolved man Mon Jun 21, 2004 15:17

Roger, I suspect that your 'national' organisation is actually a one-man band. Come clean with us now, you couldn't find anybody else who shares your neanderthal hatred of women could you and decided to make yourself feel more important by giving yourself an important sounding name, didn't you?

Your views are incredibly patriarchal, sexist and repulsive. Your pretence that you somehow represent all the men of Ireland is pathetic. Why do you hate women so much? Why do you want to control them and force them back into the awful repression of the mysoginistic catholic Ireland.

by Akrasia Mon Jun 21, 2004 15:35

Patriarchy, stands in the way of a just egalitarian and free society. Religous dogma restricts freedom and enslaves the mind.

Banning partial birth abortioins is just aobvious sense. No ethical person would condone the murder of intelligent fully developed Baby's. It's a totally different issue to early term Abortion where Bush's policies have actually increased the rate of Teenage pregnancies in all the places where his abstinance programs are in operation (because the abstinance 'message' comes at the expense of all family planning education)

Bush is a christian fundamentalist lunatic. He's a christian zionist who believes in the rapture prophesies. He's the one of most dangerous men on the face of this planet alongside Rumsfelf and Cheney.

by Pamela Mon Jun 21, 2004 16:17

*...8 billion dollars to strengthen the family...

Where did he get the projected costings from? and when they were strengthened, would they then need to be stretched/built-up or otherwise worked-out as well? and how much is that going to cost?

by John - CAWC Mon Jun 21, 2004 16:30

Tell that to the thousands of families in Iraq and Afghanistan who have had family members blown to bits by Bush's bombers. Tell that to the families of the torture victims of Abu Ghraib.

Tell that to the families of young Americans sent to fight Bush's dirty war who've had their son or daughter brought home in a body bag or flag-draped coffin.

Tell that to the millions of US families living in poverty.

Tell that to the families of hundreds of internees in Guantanamo Bay concentration camp.

by ipsiphi - came closer than most to a spike in the accidental brain Mon Jun 21, 2004 17:01

you're wrong on many points-
1. The most anti-Abort country in Europe is Malta. They've not even gone to referendum.
2. bush has steadily reduced from day one funding to welfare budgets which include single parent and low income families.

So. you're on the "ban abortion" but do nothing for young mothers section are you?
Opus dei have websites.

by pc Mon Jun 21, 2004 17:02

methinkd he's been bothering rte and they've knocked him back boohoo

by haha Mon Jun 21, 2004 17:30

PARENTS COUNCIL(IRELAND)JAILED UPDATE 25th Feb 2002


An update on the situation from roger

I was released on bail after spending the night in a disgustingly unsanitary
cell on Thursday evening until the hearing in Carrick-on-Shannon at 11am on
Wednesday 27 February.

The original charge was for "Breach of the Peace" for refusing to leave
Carrick-on-Shannon Circuit Court but they wanted to amend that at the
preliminary hearing in Charlestown last Friday to "Breach of the Peace" in
"a public place" and wanted me to sign an undertaking that I would not
return to Carrick on Shannon Courthouse. I refused of course, but wonder
what game is being played in trying to make a Circuit Court hearing
(call-over) into a "public place".

The judge at the District Court hearing on Friday was not at all pleased
that the Circuit Court judge had landed me into her court. She believed that
he should have dealt with me himself ­ presumably by contempt of court
proceedings. Why did he not?

Another man, who was in court when I asked my questions was arrested
yesterday when he tried to carry out a Court Order he had to see his
children. He has been denied seeing them, despite having a valid Circuit
Court Order, for the past twelve months. He is in Dowra (Co. Cavan) District
Court today.

Roger Eldridge

by Roger Eldridge - NMCI Mon Jun 21, 2004 18:29

Unevolved man or woman (?) You appear to describe yourself pretty well.

The first line of defence of someone who is ignorant and who has nothing intelligent to offer to a discussion is to make scurrilous attacks on the person and not deal at all with the substantive issue that has been raised.

Would you like to try again?

Society evolved through patriarchy - the guarantee that society would give a husband through marriage the possibility a having a family. The natural state of affairs, ie matriarchy, what you find in any jungle or city ghetto is for the mother to rear the young on her own.

This leaves the males (possibly like yourself) aimless and without motivation. What life is there for a man if he can only exist as one of a series of expendable 'boyfriends" for the mother.

Apart from the abuse and disadvantage that mother-headed households bring to children it reinforces this pathology in the next generation.

One of the reasons stated by the Moslem activists for their condemnation of the West is the way that matriarchy has been encouraged by big business and the state working hand in hand.

Patriarchy is what has motivated men to create the lifestyle and standard of living that we now have. Societies that have not developed along patriarchal lines are still dubbed 'primitive'.

Matriarchal or ghetto societies can only exist at a level above the poverty line because they are subsidised by the patriarchal sector of society, ie married men working and earning twice as much on average as single men and so contributing the lion's share of the taxes used to support them.

We are rapidly approaching the time when we need to draw a line down the country and people can decide which side they want to live in. The civilised patriarchal side or the ghettoes on the other side, but not necessarily with the subsidies they get now.

Which side will you live in?

by haha Mon Jun 21, 2004 18:33

you could look at the posintg in two ways, perhaps I was suggesting you too were not willing to take out-of-touch judges as sensible rule and you too were put in jail for your convictions just like many on this site?

by Chekov Mon Jun 21, 2004 18:50

Roger, that is the biggest pile of shite that I've ever heard. Your theories of matriarchal life in 'ghettoes' being promoted by western capitalism is so crazy that it's difficult to know how to respond. It's like trying to have a rational argument with somebody who has just given a detailled explanation of how the world is run by alien lizards - just where do you start?

QUOTE: "The natural state of affairs, ie matriarchy, what you find in any jungle or city ghetto is for the mother to rear the young on her own."

This is just complete rubbish. Matriarchy is not a 'natural' state of affairs (nor is patriarchy btw) and there is no anthropological evidence of any matriarchal societies existing _ever_. You don't even have the first idea of what matriarchy means. In fact your beloved Irish catholic patriarchal society is probably one of the best examples of the mother rearing the young on her own. In traditional Irish families, the father had little if any interaction with his offspring, his job was to bring in money and to exercise authority over the rest of the members. In terms of interactions with children, our modern culture, although far from perfect, has a much bigger element of father-child interactions than the prison-families of the 1950's in Ireland.

Also, I can't finish without mentioning the insulting mentions of 'jungles' and 'ghettoes' together. This leads me to believe that you are a nasty racist as well as being a very unpleasant mysoginist. Why not go for the hat-trick and let us know what you think of homosexuals? You could also let us know how many members your 'national council' has and how you have the gall to present your absurd arguments as if you were speaking for all Irish men.

Seek help buddy, the hatred is driving you mad.

by charlie Mon Jun 21, 2004 18:57

Wanna join my family? The Family. We got lotsa cute obedient, white gals fuh yuh pleasuh'.

Why done yew jess hightail your butt join to Spahn Ranch, Sudden California.

I will teach you Great Things.

Thats what Family all about.

by Roger Eldridge Mon Jun 21, 2004 19:21

Dear Chekov

Thank you for your concern.

It is true I stated that matriarchy is the natural way, the way of animals in the wild.

Patriarchy, ie putting the man to do useful work so that he can earn a position in a family on the other hand is completely artificial and so has to be supported by laws that we call common law based on the marriage contract.

By the way who mentioned Catholism? That has nothing to do with patriarchy.

Ireland is a patriarchal society. Bunreacht na hEireann is a patriarchal Constitution.

***

Article 41

1.    1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2.    1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3.    1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

***

Article 41.2. places the married mother in the home so that she can look after her children and in Article 41.3.1 it pledges to guard the position of the husband through marriage.

It does this "FOR THE COMMON GOOD".

The married father, the husband is given the Custody of the family. This means that he is liable for the protection and maintenance of his dependent wife and children.. If he fails he can be sued. His wife has no such accountability

If anyone has a better system for people to live together they haven't come up with it yet.

It's easy to condemn anything that might seem 'old-fashioned' but if you have serious criticisms you must provide viable alternatives.

As for the misogynist smear. Women have always had a privileged position in society. They and children are given special protection and that is the way it should be.

Women have had fifty years of political activism and today have their own Government Department – YET THEY HAVE NEVER ASKED FOR THEMSELVES TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR THEIR FAMILIES in place of men.

We have reached a crossroads in development. The 'equality' and 'rights' based movements have realised that they have been CONNED by the state. There is no such thing as equality and giving 'rights' to groups (as opposed to the original concept of universal rights) only takes them away from everyone else and further empowers the totalitarian state.

by Lone Gunman Mon Jun 21, 2004 23:32

loon as is vomited regulary by the ignorant know it alls here.What then is Osama Bin Ladin?[may Allah immerse him and his followers in pig manure for ever in Hell] Go on INDYMEDIA censor that again!I dare you!
Nothing but a fundamentalist,religious loon of another persausion.Maybe thats what we need to sort out the world religious nutters at each others throats...Oh sorry thats already happening in the middle East,Ireland and in former Yougoslavia.

Anyway i must agree with our Muslim bethern on the keeping of women.A chattel for house keeping and child bearing.Walk three paces behind their man.walk three times around your house shouting you are divorcing your wife.then you can get her stoned as a harlot after Friday prayers.Us unemancipated men in the West could learn alot from the Muslim men.
Allah U Akhbar

by Chekov Tue Jun 22, 2004 02:03

Roger, am I right in guessing that your one-man organisation was founded in response to a personal encounter with the child custody laws? If so, I sympathise with your plight - I understand that those laws are far from just. However, it is hardly a decent basis to use as a general theory of our society. Try to put yourself into other people's shoes for a change - you'll find lots of worse things that those who aren't white western males have to face. You might even see just how out-there your matriarchal theories really are.

From your above posts, I learn that you take matriarchy to mean the woman rears the children alone. You define partiarchy as "putting the man to do useful work so that he can earn a position in a family." Neither of these definitions has anything to do with what the words actually mean. A patriarchy refers to a social system where senior men have the power to take decisions on behalf of their families (the breadth of which is variable). Absolutely nothing to do with the man working or the mother rearing the kids. In extremely patriarchal historical societies, such as Victorian England, the father had little or no contact with the children and could just as well have been an alcaholic layabout as doing useful work.

QUOTE "matriarchy is the natural way, the way of animals in the wild."

No it's not. Even by your own _unusual_ use of the term, the child rearing arrangements of animals are many and diverse. For example, Marmosets, a South American monkey, where the fathers take care of their babies from birth. When the marmoset is born, the father cleans it, then carries it to the mother only when it needs to be nursed. When the baby can eat solid food, the father feeds it.

You should also note that your theory that patriarchy is somehow a social evolution away from "the jungle" and matriarchy is an old falsehood that has been soundly refuted by a hundred years of anthropological research. To quote the Internet encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy).

"Belief in a matriarchy, and its replacement by andrarchy or "patriarchy" can be linked to the historical "inevitabilities" which the nineteenth century's concept of progress through cultural evolution introduced into anthropology. They formed the curious and rather racist notion that some primitive peoples did not grasp the link between sexual intercourse and pregnancy."

This myth is actually a rather common one that crops up again and again and it's purpose is solely a desire to keep women under the domination of men:

"Regardless of actual historical fact, many cultures have myths about a time when women were dominant. Bamberger (1974) examines several of these myths from South American cultures, and concludes that, by portraying the women from this period as evil, they often serve to keep modern-day women under control."

It's educational to see a man such as Roger replicating this age-old myth in modern Ireland. How little distance we've come!

QUOTE "As for the misogynist smear."

It wasn't a smear, it was just an observation based upon what you wrote. Your use of a 100-year old discretited myth equating partiarchy with civilization and matriarchy with ghettos and the jungle reveals your opinion of women - and it's not too high.

QUOTE " Women have always had a privileged position in society. "

Privileged enough to get less wages in worse jobs while doing the bulk of the domestic labour. Or maybe all of the statistics are compiled by women?

QUOTE: "They and children are given special protection and that is the way it should be."

Whether they like it or not! You mention the special protection, but not the control that you want. Why not be honest, Roger, and just say that you want them to do what they're told?

To finish, I should say that your desire to limit the subsidies to the "single mothers" in the "ghettoes" leads me to believe that the poor are another group that you don't like. So my list of the people that you dislike is now women, foreigners, gays and poor people - it must be a lonely life.

by Harry Rea - NMCI - Southern Region Tue Jun 22, 2004 04:09

This set of comments is quite fascinating to watch. We see Roger presenting a logical, informative set of facts that allow others to agree with or contradict his statements, and in there he says;

“Society evolved through patriarchy - the guarantee that society would give a husband through marriage the possibility a having a family. The natural state of affairs, ie matriarchy, what you find in any jungle or city ghetto is for the mother to rear the young on her own”.

He substantiates his beliefs with the direct wording of Article 41 of Bunreacht na hÉireann the very book that defines who we Irish Citizens are in the world, and all he gets in return are ‘Grunts’ and ‘Gurgles’ that seem to emanate from the very ones he suggested exist in opposition our civilised society. The comments to date have not even come close to contradicting the facts that Roger raised. Particularly those by ‘Chekov’ who I think is really a pseudonym for ‘Patricia the Irishman’. His ‘Off the wall’ question on what Roger thinks about homosexuality perfectly defines his confusion with reality.

Considering that homosexuals apparently represent only 1-2% of the population it is hard to understand how we are expected to give their unnatural social concepts equal marital and childrearing status in our democracy. As the old proverb goes; ‘To change, and to change for the better are two different things’.

I believe that every proposition is reasonable until it is proven otherwise but I would like someone to explain to me how the open acceptance of homosexuality could improve our society or add in any positive way to the security and longevity and continuing health of our species. The best ‘protection’ available for homosexuals and normal people alike is Bunreacht na hEireann, and remember that the last time a superpower tried to dominate Europe they quickly unmasked their real hidden agenda; to eradicate the ethnic minorities, the disabled and the queers. In fact it seems to me that a thought worth considering is that they have already started with the homosexuals, they haven’t been exactly overspending on the budget to eliminate AIDS. Of course there is the other argument that AIDS was actually a designer solution to an aged old problem, but who knows.

Our Irish Constitution is remarkable. It seems that when we look at what is happening all around us today that those who wrote the protection of the people so well within the different articles of our Constitution were somehow forewarned of what is now happening. The married family, which is the source of all stability in our country, is under attack, according to surveys people were never so unhappy, although suicide is at a higher level than road deaths it is being strategically ignored by the state, the facts are carefully censored out of public view and we Irish owe more money than any other European people. We are therefore slaves to the ‘Powers that be’. It is true what they say: “There are none so blind as those who will not see”. Let me offer you an image you might like to remember.

In light of all of that we are about accept the governance of the Bertie Bawl - EU Constitution, to protect our people of course! According to BBC 5 yesterday, we are not even going to have a referendum; we accepted the superiority of the EU Constitution more than twenty years ago when we ratified EEC directives. Our honest, decent and trustworthy state and it’s employees have decided what is best for us. We are well on the way to the jungle and our very own jungle VIP - Tarzan Ahern, adorned in his big-belly-hugging loincloth, will be there ahead to usher us through.

Wise up people! The animals ain’t that friendly in the jungle were heading for, so before we decide to throw away the Constitution that was provided by our forefathers to protect us from that very state, remember that neither the state nor any of it’s employees have the right to take or give away our Constitution, it is owned solely by the people.

The First Law Of The Jungle Is
When Swinging From Limb To Limb;
Don't Let Go Of The One You Have
Until You Have A Firm Grasp On The Next One

by Charles Darwin Tue Jun 22, 2004 07:51

So Chekov are you a marmoset or a man ?

by Yossarian Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:43

“The married family, which is the source of all stability in our country, is under attack,…”

Some reckon that the source of stability in human society is the community, composed of families and individuals working together (male and female equally) towards a peaceful and fruitful existence. This sense of community is under attack with the powerful interests playing single mother off against immigrant for the label of “scroungers”, workers union against union for the least badly paid jobs or to keep jobs at all.

When we are all finally suspicious enough of one another and have greediness thrust at us throughout our lifetime, we will finally accept competition (of the pre-fixed market type), isolation and will be happy to be alive and getting our Soma (TV, legal and illegal drugs, propotainment, etc). Or so the script goes…

Fortunately there’s a thing called human nature which, contrary to popular propoganda, strives towards sharing, caring and meaningful social interaction (playing, loving, discoursing, etc). If this were not the case, we’d still be working in coalmines (or the modern equivalent) from the age of three, 24 hours a day for a spud and a drop of milk.

The struggle between co-operation (community solidarity) and competition (atomisation) is what is behind the conflict between the capitalists and the peoples movements everywhere. This struggle is taking place in every country in every continent. The purveyors of competition are currently in the driving seat with almost total control of the resources. Unfortunately for them, they need all of us slaving away to access those resources. This will not continue indefinitely….


Incidently, “the best ‘protection’ available for homosexuals and normal people alike is” human decency. No piece of paper can deliver respect. Also “open acceptance of homosexuality could improve our society” in the same way that open acceptance of people with different ideas/skin colour/ages/sex/physical ability improves and enriches our society. Makes for a more peaceful existence, less fear and hate, etc By the way, Harry, your argument gets a little confusing at this point: first you ask what possible good homosexuals can offer society (ie you think none and would sooner they were gone, then you go mention the Nazis and their pograms against homosexuals (amongst others) as if that were a bad thing. Which is it?

by Roger Eldridge - NMCI Tue Jun 22, 2004 19:21

"Some reckon that the source of stability in human society is the community, composed of families and individuals working together (male and female equally) towards a peaceful and fruitful existence."

I would agree with your statement but you fail again to explain how the male is to be incorporated as more than a temporary addition to the family of woman and child so that he can do HIS JOB OF PROTECTING THE OTHER MORE VULNERABLE MEMBERS.

Marriage does this and the genius of the system is that it has worked!

For every pathology - smoking, obesity, underage sex, underage drinking, unsocial behaviour, juvenile crime - children who are reared in a married family show the benefits of the deep protective Custody of having their father married to their mother.

Marriage actually derives from the French word for husband, "Maris", it literally means "to husband".

Incidentally the National Men's Council of Ireland carried out a survey just three weeks ago in both cities and rural towns.

It found that incredibly 95% of randomly selected respondents, men and women, old and young, stated they either were married or HOPED to get married in their lifetime.

Why do the media and the state pour out propaganda trying to persuade us that only right wing Catholic extremists want the position of marriage to be honoured.

Your position appears to be one where you believe that the state is some benign dictator who only has the people's interests at heart and the only difficulty is controlling those nasty capitalists.

Since history has been recorded there has been a power struggle between the three major forces in society - the married family, the church and your lads, the state.

Of late the state has acquired an important and ominous ally in big business. Despite your position seeing the state as your protector against big business the facts show that they have joined forces and are going hell for leather ARM IN ARM to undermine the position and ability of the church and more importantly, the family to protect its members so they can get their hands on all our assets and enslave us.

by kino Tue Jun 22, 2004 22:48

Hey Roger, I'm irish and hold neither strong pro-marriage or anti-abortion views.
I also think Bush is a selfish murdurer.. that's two sins at least, init?

what is more likely than your analysis is that the people of ireland are the most damaged by christian values of the type that the monster bush promotes. - you know they kind that says it's ok to blow people to bits, coz god said i was to do it.

get some help lad.

by moonwolf Tue Jun 22, 2004 23:46

The Bush regime has presided over the denial of basic foodstuffs and medicines to the children of Iraq therby causing tens of thousands to die. The Bush Regime has also presided over the destruction of families in Afghanistan,Iraq,Palestine and elsewhere through its foreign policy. To call this man or his outrageous regime either pro-life or pro-family is a delusion of the highest order.
Furthermore should the "mens council of Ireland" wish to support the effects of the Bush Regime policies on Health, Welfare and Education in the U.S.A then they are more misguided and deluded than the aforementioned Regime.

Finally, who exactly do this mens council of Ireland claim to represent?

by Roger Eldridge - National mens Council of Ireland Wed Jun 23, 2004 00:59 eldridgeandco at eircom dot net Knockvicar, Boyle 071 91 67138

After Bush gets to know what the average Irish person thinks of him should he withdraw all the US companies in Ireland and move them to Poland?
I was hoping that there might be people on this site who had taken the time to think through why they were so violently opposed to Bush but all I have found is knee-jerk reactions from people (or one person) who are so ashamed of what they believe in that they daren't give their names - and yet are screaming that Bush is the one that we should hate for his lack of transparency.

After Bush gets to know what the average Irish person thinks of him should he withdraw all the US companies in Ireland and move them to Poland?

The fact that US companies introduced to Ireland after the signing of the Belfast Agreement account for 60% (sixty percent) of gross domestic product of the Irish economy appears to have slipped from the memory of the Irish people who are allowing the media to whip them up to a frenzy against Bush.

The majority of these US companies came here specifically as part of the International Fund for Ireland as Cross-border initiatives to give the Irish economy a boost and as a strategy for pouring money (instead of oil) on 'troubled waters'.

As such it has had some degree of success.

If one was to listen to the news reports it sounds like the man will be in grave and even physical danger from all the hatred and outpourings of loathing that the media are pumping out.

If Bush is hurt either physically or in his pride by feeling the enmity of the Irish people and decides to stop pouring money into Ireland would that be good for Ireland? What would the rest of the world think of Ireland if Bush was hurt whilst here. What would the Irish Americans think of the old home if THEIR President was pilloried and made to feel so unwelcome?


Personally I believe that the quality of life in Ireland 30 years ago was infinitely better than it is now despite all the so-called improvements in the standard of living so for me having the possibility of earning lots of money is not as important as things like freedom and family life.

However I appear to be in a minority as everyone else seems to believe that we live to work, and not as I think, that I merely work in order to live.

Unless these questions are properly and soberly considered there is a great risk that the media, RTE in particular, will be successful at whipping up a mob to its dirty work of hurting Bush, not because of his war against Sadam Hussein, but because of his war against liberal anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-democracy feminism.

by TT Wed Jun 23, 2004 01:17

Who they represent (this "mens council of Ireland"): -

There are eight of them - seven men plus Nora Bennis (God between us and all harm!)
They use five different fronts (most people will never have heard of any of them):
Family Matters
Separation Crisis
Family Men
Parents Fight Back
National Parent Teachers Alliance

They are so far to the right that most separated men would avoid them like the plauge.

P.S. Is Nora Bennis a matriarch?

by pc Wed Jun 23, 2004 01:21

roger enter john hume in to the search engine to the left and look for raytheon stories that mention him....

you'll see what their northern ireland peace investment is like...

by Mary J Wed Jun 23, 2004 01:41

Roger, are you not embarrassed to be associated with the violence of the bush regime?
I would have thought that if you were pushing for the rights of fathers you would be anxious to keep the two issues separated.

The reality:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0622/daltont.html

Today another woman died:
http://www.domesticviolence.org

by Phuq Hedd Wed Jun 23, 2004 02:19

QUOTE: "you fail again to explain how the male is to be incorporated as more than a temporary addition to the family of woman and child so that he can do HIS JOB OF PROTECTING THE OTHER MORE VULNERABLE MEMBERS."
ANSWER: Men can rear children, wash dishes, cook meals, clean houses just as well as women can. The only thing they can't do is give birth. Of course the way that you phrase the above doesn't admit of any of these possibilities.

QUOTE: "Marriage does this and the genius of the system is that it has worked!"
ANSWER: Define the criteria to be used in the assessment of "worked" otherwise this is just an empty statement.

QUOTE: "For every pathology - smoking, obesity, underage sex, underage drinking, unsocial behaviour, juvenile crime - children who are reared in a married family show the benefits of the deep protective Custody of having their father married to their mother."
ANSWER: Source please. And then if it _is_ true can you disentangle the effect that State-directed discrimination against single-parent families enacted by capitalist firms results in lower incomes which in turn can cause all the problems mentioned above? If you can't (and I bet you can't cite any convincing references) then again this is a meaningless assertion on your part.

QUOTE: "Marriage actually derives from the French word for husband, "Maris", it literally means "to husband"."
ANSWER: And it is enshrined and supported by the State mainly because it was part of a formal system of property inheritance. Nothing to do with the good of the family members.

QUOTE: "It found that incredibly 95% of randomly selected respondents, men and women, old and young, stated they either were married or HOPED to get married in their lifetime."
ANSWER: I'm all for people deciding that they want to spend forever with a chosen party if that is what they want. What I don't accept is people deciding that _I_ have to spend forever with someone else, or penalising me in terms of tax-breaks, employment or other social and State-regulated mechanisms.

QUOTE: "Why do the media and the state pour out propaganda trying to persuade us that only right wing Catholic extremists want the position of marriage to be honoured."
ANSWER: Eh, maybe because right-wing Catholic extremists are vocal in support of this position? It's sort of like the way a lot of us associate paedophilia with right-wing Catholic extremists. it's based on empiricism.

QUOTE: "Your position appears to be one where you believe that the state is some benign dictator who only has the people's interests at heart and the only difficulty is controlling those nasty capitalists."
ANSWER: The Church and the State are both authoritarian organisations that restrict individual freedom and liberty. Often they've worked hand-in-hand to repress us (most of C19 and C20) sometimes their interests have diverged (radical Protestant freethinking, Masons in Southern European Catholic countries, Liberation Theologists in 1970s-1990s, "liberal" states in late C20 Europe). When the State fights against the reactionary church to increase personal freedoms that's good. When the radical church fights against the reactionary State to increase personal freedoms that's good. The converses obviously apply.

Fuck the Church, and while you're doing that you can do the State too.

by Mary J Wed Jun 23, 2004 02:38

Re: "HIS JOB OF PROTECTING THE OTHER MORE VULNERABLE MEMBERS"

What you can be sure of is that the protection racket depends on violence from other males to justify itself.

by moonwolf Wed Jun 23, 2004 04:46

I am neither afraid to be identified nor am I anti American. U.S companies in Ireland are not here at the behest of the Bush Regime, nor has that regime the power to pull them out. You fail; to answer the issues that have been raised by the comments - why? do you not have facts to support your contentions?
I repeat the Bush Regime is neither pro life or pro family, as evidenced by both it's domestic and foreign policy. Regarding the insinuation that you represent Irish Men, I would like to know , How many? are AMEN affiliated to your organisation? is SOLO affiliated to your organisation. Have you a clue as to who either organisation is?
In closing, I presume that you would also state that the Popes who presided over the 3 crusades were pro family,similarly the current one that has presided over the covering up of mass paedophilia on the part of his clergy is he pro family also?

by Roger Eldridge - National Men's Council of Ireland Wed Jun 23, 2004 13:14 eldridgeandco at eircom dot net 07196 67138

Re your ANSWER: Men can rear children, wash dishes, cook meals, clean houses just as well as women can. The only thing they can't do is give birth. Of course the way that you phrase the above doesn't admit of any of these possibilities.


Of course men can do all of these things. I have done them successfully myself for the past 26 years for my six kids.

The problem that I asked has again not been answered although you have described the problem.

"The only thing they can't do is give birth." So do you propose that men force women to let them "rear children, wash dishes, cook meals, clean houses" by physically tying them up or by imposing draconian laws?

What we are saying and what is in the Constitution (for the Common Good) is that marriage allows a man to have a legitimate opportunity to have a family life as you describe. A man earns himself a role by being family protector and provider. As long as the woman values his role she will agree to him being part of her family.

However according to BRIFFAULT’S LAW:

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal
family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the
male, no such association takes place.

—Robert Briffault

This somewhat harsh analysis derives from the empirical data which show that despite our delusions about women being the more romantic partner in a relationship, 90% of women marry a man who has more assets or earning potential than they do. If women married for love surely they would marry a richer man only 50% of the time.

The state is aware of Briffault's Law and through social welfare policies and illegal judicial activism in the family courts has sought the place of the husband.

Effectively the army of "unmarried mothers" and 'separated wives' are brides of the state.

For example the state is able, through the so-called 'One-Parent Family Payment' scheme, to offer young women a disposable income that 99% of young men can not compete with. We have calculated using up-to-date figures how much a man must offer to compete with the equivalent take-home pay that an unmarried mother is currently receiving by way of benefits, including housing, clothing, fuel allowances etc.

If the mother has 2 children, gets the OPFP and she avails of the scheme where she works 19 hours a week when she wants, her cash in hand will be roughly 450 euro. On to this must be added the cost benefits of the Medical Card, Fuel Allowance, Back to School Clothing Allowance, say at a minimum another 30 euro. She will be put at the top of the Local Authority housing lists and will then get a reduced rent or mortgage payment benefit equivalent.

For a young man to generate an equivalent disposable income he must provide as take home pay the same 480 euro plus he must provide equivalent SECURE housing which MEANS a mortgage costing him a minimum of 150 euro per week.

So now he must provide 630 euro per week in his hand to provide the equivalent of what the state gives to the mother for her and her 2 kids.

We must not forget his basic needs. The most important being that he needs a car so that he can work at all so he needs again a minimum of another 70 euro in his hand. The state allowance for a single man on the dole is 130 euro so lets assume he lives on the breadline.

This means that he must bring to the relationship 630 + 70 + 130 = 830 euro in cash to enable his wife and him to live at the level that the mother could enjoy from the state on her own without him.

This cash is after tax and PRSI deductions so his gross pay must be in the region of 1250 euro!

It is obvious that only exceptionally fortunate young men (or any man) can compete with the state for her 'hand in marriage'. The average gross pay for 20 to 30 year old men is less than 500 euro!

Why are we so surprised by the spiralling numbers of young women who take the inducement offered by the state. One important point to remember here is that the money from the state IS TOTALLY SECURE. She gets it week in, week out without any regard to her own behaviour. The man has to suffer the slings and arrows of misfortune in the guise of potential redundancy, slack weeks at work and importantly when he is sick.

And this is where the state gets really nasty. It says that if she is even as much as seen with a man she will lose all her benefits!

If that is not the nature of a jealous husband what is?

With this information we shouldn't be at all surprised to see that the rate of suicide amongst men in Ireland is one of the highest in the world and that it peaks for males between the ages of 20 and 35 when men should be at the prime of their lives and getting married so they can start a family enjoy the comforts and benefits that it brings.

The World Health Organisation, which studied the health and behaviour of
11- to 15-year-olds in 32 European countries, as well as Canada, America
and Israel, said in its report, Young People's Health in Context, that family structures were an "important factor" in young people's health.

Jill Kirby, the chairman of the family policy group at the Centre for
Policy Studies, said: "There is a mass of evidence that children brought up
by only one parent are at risk of under-age sex, drug abuse and drinking.

So how does the state justify promoting the position of unmarried mothers to the detriment of their children?

And why with the Constitutional position clearly encouraging families based on marriage is the state penalising the formation of marriage.

The answer lies with the fact that the state wants us all as isolated, vulnerable individuals without family or community supports so that it can do what it wants with us, ie enslave us.

Is that what you want?