One in five parents believes it is more important for their child to be successful and wealthy than happy and healthy when they reach adulthood, research has revealed.
A study of 2,000 parents of children aged between four and 18 found 20 per cent of parents think money and success are imperative to their child’s future.
Researchers found a further fifth of parents have a difference of opinion on their child’s future – with mothers wanting top exam results while fathers just wants them to be happy.
I have a couple of thoughts about these results. It’s odd that people hate the rich so much and at the same time, this is what people, particular mothers seem to want for their kids. And if mothers want their sons to be successful and get top exam results, then they should become men’s rights advocates. Female teachers often give boys bad marks based on behavior and not test scores. This means fewer of them will even need top exam results because fewer guys are going to college. So, if moms care about sons, then they have some work to do to make sure their futures look as bright as their daughters. Or does their concern about “kids” really mean concern about girls?
Sadly, nothing has changed in recent years. In the early 1990s, I – along with several other feminist scholars (Wendy Kaminer, Daphne Patai, Camille Paglia, Mary Lefkowitz, Katie Roiphe, to name only a few) – went to battle against hard-line, sex-panicked conspiracy feminists like Andrea Dworkin. My side won the arguments, but their side quietly assumed all of the assistant professorships. So colleges are now full of gender scholars who instruct students on the ravages of the capitalist, heterero-patriachal system and its ‘rape culture’. Everywhere we hear about ‘micro-aggressions’, ‘trigger-warnings’, and the toxicity of masculinity. It’s as if George Orwell’s Junior Anti-sex League has occupied feminism.”
Huffington Post: “One-Eighth Of South Carolina Inmates Were Jailed Over Child Support Payments. Walter Scott Was One Of Them”:
Like so many other noncustodial parents in South Carolina, Scott frequently found himself in jail or under the threat of incarceration. That’s because the state metes out especially harsh punishments to those who fall behind on paying child support.
A recent MSNBC investigation highlighted that in South Carolina, noncustodial parents can be held in contempt of civil court if their child support payments are just five days late, which means a judge can send them to jail.
Libba Patterson, a law professor at the University of South Carolina and a former director of the South Carolina Department of Social Services, has been a vocal supporter of an ongoing effort to reform the way South Carolina punishes those who owe child support payments — an effort that has gone all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
In 2009, Patterson conducted a survey of 33 county jails in South Carolina, which found that one out of every eight inmates — or 13.2 percent of the inmate population — was behind bars for contempt of civil court after falling behind on child support payments. In Charleston County, where Walter owed his back payments on child support, Patterson’s survey found that over 15 percent of inmates had been imprisoned for not paying child support. In a handful of the other counties studied, the figure was as high as 20 percent.
Terry Brennan points out that most of those jailed are men. Men’s bodies belong to the state in so many ways; one of them is the involuntary servitude they must serve if they owe a debt for child support. The Walter Scott story is one of police brutality in the news, but the real story here is that men are swept up by the state for owing debts and then turn desperate enough to run from the police because of their situation. When men are so easily turned over to the state for various “offenses” bad things often happen. Maybe the state should rethink its blind willingness to make men criminals over matters that should not include jail time.
So women “feminists” (more like female-privileged fascists ) are protesting austerity in Canada by proclaiming it sexist and chanting that the police are sexist, too:
A demonstration “banning” men was held in downtown Montreal Tuesday night by a feminist group opposing the Couillard government’s austerity measures.
Several hundred women gathered at Norman-Bethune Square near Concordia University for the protest.
A strong police protest observed from both sides of the march, which began by heading north on Guy St. At times, the women chanted “Sexist police sexist, feminist resistance.”
The organizers had warned on Facebook that male protesters and journalists would not be tolerated in the march. The event was trans inclusive.
Many feminists prefer to gather in same-sex environments, organizers explained on the Facebook group dedicated to the event, to justify their refusal to accommodate male protesters.
One person was arrested for a P6 municipal violation. The protest ended before 11 p.m.
Since the protests against austerity began, several feminist groups have emerged to protest government decisions and the impact they have specifically on women.
The Quebec Women’s Federation recently said that the cuts to the state affect women disproportionately, because they make up 75 per cent of personnel in public sector jobs.
This is rich: 75% of women are in these public sector jobs, meaning that the jobs are only made up of 25% men. So women are now protesting that their disproportionate share of these jobs getting cuts is sexist, but apparently it’s not sexist to have it only be 25% men making up the jobs in personnel. Also, I wonder how many of these female-dominated state jobs in Canada are being funded by male taxpayers. Maybe Canadian men should just go on strike and let the female taxpayers pick up the slack to help their “sisters.” Maybe Canadian men are already going on strike as their employment rates are sinking while women’s rates are increasing:
Employment has grown more rapidly among women than men. Between 1976 and 2012, the employment rate for women rose from 41.9% to 57.9%, a 16.0 percentage point increase. On the other hand, the employment rate for men declined by 6.9 percentage points from 72.7% in 1976 to 65.8% in 2012.
To question the guilt of Darren Wilson was to be a racist, and to question the veracity of Sulkowicz’s story was to be a sexist rape apologist. Doing either of these things would almost certainly get you branded as a conservative. As a liberal who did both of these things, I have been appalled by the irrational mob mentality displayed by my fellow liberal students at events like the Ferguson protest and the “Carry That Weight” march in support of Sulkowicz. I am struggling to come to terms with this new reality wherein sticking to an objective view of the facts is considered a conservative trait. The campus left’s complete unwillingness to adjust their opinions of these cases to fit with the facts shows a thought process completely devoid of reason.
It got me thinking about the whole UVA case and the lies that the reporter so easily swallowed from “Jackie,” the woman who was supposedly raped. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the Rolling Stone Magazine article and the facts are being picked apart but that is not the real story. The real story is that liberal rags like the Rolling Stone mag, the liberal media, and liberal politicians in general are so used to getting away with lies, exaggeration, and twisting the facts to suit their agenda that they don’t even bother to conceal it anymore (if they ever did is perhaps debatable).
Those who identify as liberal figure they will get off scot-free and the truth is, they often do. The media is on their side and the current administration is even more so. Lying is a way of life that carries no consequences in their world. Are conservatives just better people? Maybe, (some research shows conservatives are more moral) but more than likely, liberals lie because they get away with it in our country. It is simple operant conditioning, When the rewards for lying for liberals diminish and the consequences for lying increase, maybe the lies will diminish.
The Student Resistance Handbook provides children with information on how they can effectively fight back against their school and work towards abolishing this abusive and oppressive institution. Legal non-violent tactics are presented that are designed to: disrupt the operation of school, substantially increase the costs involved in its operation, and make those who work for and support schools as miserable as they make the students who are forced to attend. The text was conceived to empower youth to struggle against the helplessness, passivity, and despair that schools were designed to instill. John F. Kennedy accurately claimed that “learning without liberty is always in vain.” This Handbook provides students with tools to fight for their liberty in order to attain a real education.
Here are a few examples from the book: Score poorly on tests, refuse to be tested, or go slowly on tests. These suggestions are only for state-mandated tests where the school needs students to do well. Show apathy: “…the school system relies on you caring about your grades, a diploma, your test scores,and your reputation as a good student. As soon as you stop caring, you take away the power the system has over you. Naturally, there are consequences to this, but there are alternative methods of getting the equivalent of a high school degree and colleges accept students who do not attend traditional schools or even school in general.”
I admire this writer’s book in a lot of ways as I often talk to young men who are in school and don’t know how to deal with a system that is so stacked against them. For example, one young man told me his school would not sponsor an all-boy’s reading club (of course there was an all-girl’s reading club). He asked me what to do and it is a hard thing to tell a young man to go against a school that may retaliate and harm his future. But the author is correct, he believes we should stand for liberty. So do I. But where do you draw the line at possibly hurting an individual’s future?
What do you think? Should students, particularly young men resist their school? Or should they resist in certain ways and not in others?
I read an article over at CNBC about women’s network organizations wanting men to join up entitled, “Women’s networks to men: We want you!”:
Think women’s network, and one thing that probably does not come to mind is men.
Time to rethink that. In a new study by the Financial Women’s Association, an overwhelming majority of people agreed that “men are instrumental to the success of women,” and 39 percent agreed that men should join women’s networking groups that have been set up to promote and advance women in the workforce. …
Women’s networks have been a presence in many workplaces for years. The Financial Women’s Association, for example, was started in 1956 when several Wall Street women were shut out of a professional organization. But for the most part, these groups have been for women only.
The networks have helped women connect with each other and obtain feedback, and Openshaw said those features remain important to women.
So, since the fifties, these groups have been for women only. Now, after almost 60 years of reverse sexism, they aren’t getting anywhere with their exclusion of men and now want men to join? Seriously? Why would any men join up?
Readers often have fascinating questions and I thought maybe commenters here might have some answers for a military reader who wonders where the best place in this country (or the world) is for men to “go Galt” (his data and info has been changed):
I have a question for you. After reading Atlas Shrugged countless times to keep myself sane at an ivy league, I had already decided to go Galt a few years ago and I never asked myself, “who is John Galt?” but rather, “Where is John Galt?” What I mean by this is where would I be able to move and enjoy the most rights and appreciation? I am an earth scientist now and after I have worked at my current job in Colorado enough to credential myself (hopefully within the next year) I think that I will have a valuable enough skill set to be able to work anywhere in the world. I am researching different countries to move to and any input or advice you may have would be greatly appreciated.
My response was as follows:
Thank you so much for your email and for taking the time to read “Men on Strike.” Your question is a very important one. What are the best places to go Galt? What about places where it is cheap to live and no income tax? I like Tennessee myself but it is not everyone’s cup of tea and it might not be the best fit for your job. I might ask readers to answer this question because they often have great ideas.
So if you have ideas about the best places in the country or world for men to go Galt, drop it below so our reader (and others) can benefit.