Submit a MessageBack to Feminocracy

From: Doubleblessings@aol.com <Doubleblessings@aol.com>
To: Photius Coutsoukis  
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 3:05 PM
Subject: "innocent children"

I clicked onto the heading "innocent children". I am a stay
at home mother but please, to compare a mother who works
to hitler is absurd. There is 168 hours in a week, just because
a mother is gone for 40 of these does not in anyway show
that they are not raising their own children. It has been proven 
by countless studies that it is just as damaging to have a 
"child-centered" home in which the child grows to think the
world revolves around them. I was just amazed at how
judgemental and uninformed this piece was.


--------------

From: photius@theodora.com 
To: Doubleblessings@aol.com <Doubleblessings@aol.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: "innocent children"

Staying at home is not the only pre-condition for good parenting.
I have seen mothers at home who hardly ever made eye contact with
their babies.

Self-justification of this sort of arithmetic does not help children.

As any developmental psychologist worth their diploma will tell
you, babies need a full-time mothering figure to whom they can
be securely attached. Abandoning a child with a third party so as
to accomplish your own goals, cheats the baby and has adverse
consequences on the baby's health. Your arithmetic may serve to
give you an excuse but keep in mind that to an infant 40 hours
seems like a lifetime.

In a society of self involved people who as a rule despise each
other and their parents and children it is hard to explain selfless
love and the fundamental role that it plays in raising healthy
individuals. Physically and emotionally healthy people are
extremely rare among the American born, most of whom are
antisocial, detached, fat, irrational, hyperactive and/or learning
disabled. Any longevity here is more related to medical technology
than to the natural longevity found among healthy human societies.

The Anglo-American model of "tough love" which supposedly
builds stronger individuals is nothing more than an excuse for the
atrocious cruelty that they inflict on their children so as to
accommodate their adult "needs". Coming up with a study to
show that some children are better off with third parties than
with their American mothers is not hard to do, given the
infanticidal instincts of many of these mothers.

You can go on year after year pretending not to know why
Americans young and old are at each other throats and why
this sewer of crime and social atrocities is full of criminals,
addicts, defective, brain damaged, learning disabled, fat
and unhealthy people, or you can face the facts, namely,
that decent human beings are raised with a lot of love and
attention by mothers and fathers (yes, children need fathers
too) who live with their children and personally care for
them all the time.

If you want to know the facts about studies you would
need to read studies from Europe where science is still
practiced scientifically, as opposed to the get-rich-quick
schemes, the publicity stunts, politically motivated
nonsense and unscientific voodoo that is prevailing here
(the morons just "proved" that the theory of evolution is
bad science and that "creationism" should
be taught to children ...).

Don't for a minute think that the American epidemics
of antisocial behavior, teenage pregnancy, HADD,
autism and other ailments are statistical flukes or
accidents. The miserable state of America's children
is strictly the result of parental neglect and given the
brutality of such mistreatment, the callous absence
of compassion for one's own babies, they are, as
far as I am concerned, worse than the Nazis.

So, if you have some sort of self esteem deficit or
a strong desire for more material goods or an
aversion to staying at home, it's OK to go ahead
and chase your dream, just don't have kids and
make them suffer for your own convenience.
Otherwise they will probably hate you as much
as you probably hate your own parents.

It would be better for the Americans to do what
the newly rich and educated, career minded
Europeans do, namely not have children (Italy,
Spain and Greece, where educated women grew
up in very caring, child oriented homes, have the
lowest fertility rates in the world). At least when
they choose to pursue dual careers they realize
that the demands on their time are not compatible
with the demands of raising children. They don't
resort to voodoo arithmetic to justify doing both
badly.

I was not comparing a mother to Hitler, but the
Americans collectively for their systematic abuse
of children and for their collective support of
hideous policies and laws that are harmful to
innocent children.

It is impossible to find any American born men
or women who will say that they childhood was
happy or perfect, while most people outside of
the Anglo-American world think of their early
childhood as the happiest part of their life.
Americans assume that childhood is supposed
to be difficult when in fact it is supposed to be
the most care-free and pleasant time of one's life.
Americans assume that when children reach
puberty they are supposed to become delinquents
as part of a "normal" teenage rebellion.
There is nothing normal about it. It is just another
nasty Anglo-American phenomenon and strictly
the result of trashy upbringing.

The reason I think of most American parents
today as worse than dictators is that whereas
the dictators did it to strangers, American
parents do it to their own babies.

Most American mothers today deliberately
raise fatherless children whom they routinely
abandon in the hands of strangers under any
pretext. I have spoken to a number of them
at length and the bottom line is that as a rule
they just can't stand being at home alone
with a child. It is hard work, but it is the
most noble task and ultimately the most
fulfilling. The problem is that it does not
produce immediate gratification, money
or sex which is all that Americans ever
think about.

No, you can't steal 40 hours away from
a baby and expect to not adversely affect
him/her. To a baby 40 hours is an unbearably
long sentence and it will affect him/her in
a bad way, unless of course you are a
brutal abuser who would better stay
away and give the baby up for adoption.

The highly abnormal epidemic of post-
partum depression/psychosis that is a
uniquely Anglo-American phenomenon,
the thousands of babies that American
mothers dispose of in dumpsters and
toilets, may give people pause in this
line of thinking.

Mother Teresa characterized America
as a place where there is a "big hunger
for love", and I am sure that this world
class diplomat did not want to say that
America is full of hateful, loveless,
vicious people. But that's what it is and
the absence of selfless love (not to 
mention the feminist-imposed absence
of fathers) makes this country the
absolute worse place in the world to
raise children.

The best way to raise an infant is to serve
him/her with complete devotion and to
instantly satisfy their every request and to do
so at the cost of enormous personal sacrifice.
The American idea of making newborns
accommodate the needs of adults is cruel
and vicious.

Post a reply to This Message



From: Mary E. Mackesy-Amiti <marymack@uic.edu>
To: Photius Coutsoukis  
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 12:21 PM
Subject: Feminocracy

I must say, you have a very skewed 
perception of the American people.  Yes, there are people who are like you 
describe, but they are not representative of all Americans.  The decadent 
culture that pervades our society does not have its roots among the masses, 
but in a decaying capitalist system that turns everything into a commodity 
for sale and perverts human relationships.

I agree that there are many problems with out of home child care.  I think 
women should be given at least 6 months paid maternity leave when a child 
is born to allow sufficient time for bonding.  Child care centers need to 
be high quality, and retain high quality staff.  Children should be cared 
for by the same caregiver from infancy until they are ready to transition 
to preschool.  Women with young children should be able to work reduced 
hours.  There are many things that society could do to enhance the lives of 
children and their mothers without relegating women to the home for those 
years.  I am advocating the university to establish an infant/toddler 
center so that working women can be near their children, visit them during 
the day, continue breastfeeding for a longer period of time, and be able to 
come to them quickly if they become ill.

Women have various reasons for wanting to work, whether to raise their 
family's income above poverty, for personal fulfillment, or fear of 
economic dependency on a husband.  They are all valid reasons.

I am sorry that you had such a horrible experience with your ex-wife, and I 
am sad for your little girl.

--------------

From: photius@theodora.com 
To: Mary E. Mackesy-Amiti <marymack@uic.edu> 
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: Feminocracy

Let's not blame capitalism for the destruction of families, the elimination 
of fatherhood and mistreatment of children by their parents (which in 
America mostly  means a single mother). After all families have thrived and 
continue to thrive in many capitalist societies.

The cause of the dissolution of families, the notion of a father as the 
occasional visitor to his children and the relegation of responsibility 
for raising infants to strangers and institutions is a virulent form of 
selfishness called American feminism. American women have fatherless 
children by choice. They abandon (some times kill) their babies by choice 
as well.

My view is not skewed, but rather more objective that the views of those 
who grew up in this fatherless, violent police state/feminocracy. Where 
else but in this hideous baby killing society would someone like you think 
that SIX MONTHS is a sufficient amount of parenting for a newborn. If 
that's the awful way you grew up that's all you know.

I do agree that the government should institute paid parental leave and I 
think that it should be longer as well. Remember how the Republicans in 
congress maniacally attacked the unpaid leave proposal that Bill Clinton 
sent, as economically unfeasible. To me, the spectacle of the leaders of 
the wealthiest nation in the world cutting corners on babies (not to 
mention health care) while spending lavishly on pork was quite distasteful.

The issue is not what the government does. Americans will always pin the 
blame elsewhere. It is YOUR baby and it is YOUR choice to love or abandon 
her/him. YOU CHOOSE to go to the office or the school instead of postponing 
your other aspirations. YOU CHOOSE to have fatherless children. That is not 
the natural choice of humans and it is not the choice of most parents in 
most places outside the Anglo-American world.

It sickens me when I hear how American women, who have more choices than 
the rest of the world, are somehow compelled to have babies that they 
promptly abandon. They CHOOSE to do so because to them a baby is a prized 
possession, an object, and they care less about their baby than their own 
comfort and convenience. That makes them quite evil. There have been 
mothers of newborn babies who applied to help me care for my daughter 
while their babies would be left with a cheaper stranger. 

"Relegating women to the home" is your perverse view of the most noble
task I know of. To those who love, raising a child is the most magnificent
pursuit. To you it's punishment. How totally disgusting you childhood must
have been.

Americans are traumatizing and destroying babies on a massive scale under 
the pretext of a fictitious necessity. The dish washer, the new car and the 
bigger house matter more to them than the well being and the future of 
their babies, and it shows in US social statistics. Stop pretending not to 
know why Americans and their children are killing each other.

Advocating infant/toddler centers does nothing more than encourage selfish 
parents to abandon their babies in what amounts to luxurious warehouses for 
unwanted children so as to free the bimbos to pursue their "more important" 
superficial priorities. You are just giving people more excuses to ignore 
their kids. Decent parents would choose instead to make the personal 
sacrifices, such as the postponement of their career goals, for the sake 
of their children. By the time your clients get their University degrees 
and the well paying jobs that would provide luxuries for their children, 
those children would be no longer whole and they would be quite anxious to 
flee their nasty parents, if not kill them, as they should.

There is NO valid reason for abandoning a child, no matter how desirable 
the mother's (or father's if there is one) goals. If you want to get your 
"independence" don't do it at an innocent baby's expense. It used to be 
that the trashiest and most destitute of elements in this society would 
give up their children for adoption. It has now become fashionable to just 
have them and put them in daytime orphanages for the sake of the mere 
convenience of greedy whores. Do you ever wonder or care about how those 
children feel or what awful effects they suffer from this calous parental 
abandonment?

So, you don't get it and it seems you never will, because you are born and 
raised in this adult oriented, child unfriendly society of morons.

Post a reply to This Message



From: Duane R. Schultz <schultz@c2i2.com>
To: photius@theodora.com 
Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 7:37 PM
Subject: web site

I noticed that you include several examples of (naturally male)
dictators.  The closest you have come to any female
comparison is Hillary Clinton (which is actually no
comparison).  If you're going to make a point you shouldn't
contradict yourself.  Can you name ANY female terrorists? 
How many women have started wars?  Do you have any
statistics, which compare infant mortality rates in daycare and
in the home?  Why do you refer to feminists as evil? 
Webster's dictionary states that a feminist is one who is in
favor of equal social and political rights...not power over
others.  Are you afraid of female competition?  Would it hurt
your male ego?  After all, without women, your lack of
self-esteem would make you commit suicide.  If you do not
like the fact that many Americans don't believe in male
dominance over the female, maybe you would be happy in
Afghanistan.  America was founded on freedom, and before
the (of course male) whites invaded, the Native American
Indian tribes were run by women.  Ever heard of "Give me
liberty or give me death"?  When in Rome, do like the
Romans.  Perhaps you would have a different view if you
were not male.  Hopefully your daughter may someday realize
that women are also human...and do not exist to be the
servants of their husbands, fathers, brothers, etc.  Maybe she
will realize that her ideas will not be dismissed because she
was not fortunate enough to be born with a penis. 
Remember...if your daughter is ever the victim of a crime, it
will most surely be at the hands of your male sex.  By the
way, I know many stay-at-home fathers who have working
wives.


From: photius@theodora.com 
To: Duane R. Schultz 
Sent: Friday, October 20, 1999 9:17 PM
Subject: web site

It appears that I did not make my point clearly enough.
 
The US is a "bottom up" society whereby the social elite get
their lessons from the bottom ranks. Whether it's fashion,
language, music, crime, greed, single mothers, drugs or
slavery, it appears that the trends started at the bottom are
eventually picked up by the upper classes.
 
For example, the "Murphy Brown" phenomenon, whereby the
fastest growing segment of single mothers is that of the older,
professional single women. My point is that uniquely in
Anglo-American societies people don't need dictators to lead
them towards evil.
 
One must be careful about interpreting and implementing
equality. Because it's ok to bring every body down to a
lower, equal lever with taxing the rich (as long as you don't
make everyone equally poor, like in the former Soviet Union)
but it's not OK to try to make women equal to men by
adapting men's worse qualities. Greedy and tyrannical whores
are not better women, no matter how equal they may be to
greedy and promiscuous, child-abusing male bullies.
 
I recall a Turk telling me that the Kurds had equal rights to
other Turkish citizens, which as you may know included
restrictions on the use of Kurdish language. I am sure most
Turks found those restrictions quite acceptable.
 
In a society where "democracy" is misinterpreted as a system
whereby the political leadership (and other elites) feel obliged
to follow the "wishes" of the mindless, greedy, adult oriented
and child-hostile majority, there is no dictator other than the
tyranny that a majority of extremely nasty people impose on
the weak, in this case children. This is truly a dictatorship of
an ignorant and self-involved proletariat with money and
votes.
 
So, no there is no dictator at the top, but there are millions of
dictators, primarily maniacal and vicious feminists who find it
appropriate to sacrifice their and their compatriots' children
for their selfish cause.
 
The rest of American society colludes with these people, so as
to serve their own self interest, such as money coming in
from a second job in the household and their own antipathy
toward the efforts and personal sacrifice that are needed to
properly raise healthy children. The latter is always somebody
else's job, such as the government, the schools, health care
providers and child care for hire.
 
Perhaps as you said women do not start wars, but mothers
whose negligence and abuse result in children growing up
antisocial and criminal certainly must be at least partly blamed
for the dictators, murderers, wife beaters and criminals that
they raised. Wars as a rule have nothing to do with gender.
Bill Clinton would probably have done nothing different than
Maggie Thatcher in the Falklands.
 
Babies, even crack babies, are not born with a predisposition
to violence. Violence is "nurtured" by others, mostly the
nasty American mothers who raise them. A new book, "Why
They Kill" by Richard Rhodes contains a thorough explanation 
of this, although to people
like myself the concept is quite obvious. And although most
Americans are not murderers, I find most of them detached,
devoid of love or any idea of what it means, completely
paranoid about being victimized or rejected and consequently
highly presumptuous of guilt and deficient in many other
ways, from intelligence to honesty to fat.
 
That you are asking me to show you proof that children are
better off being raised at home vs. strangercare only shows
the absence of common sense and also that in this society the
home environment is often even worse than strangercare.
You, of course, would not go through a red traffic light,
knowing that there is a small risk of being caught and an even
smaller one of being killed. But I bet you wouldn't hesitate to
put your child at risk by sticking her/him in day care if the
chances of his/her suffering consequences were "small". To
me and to most people around the world that's disgusting.
 
No, I am not afraid of female (or male) competition and I
used to be the greatest feminist and I still believe in "equality"
and democracy. I just don't believe that Americans know what
equality means or how to implement it without screwing
others up any more than they would ever figure out education,
welfare and healthcare, i.e., the things that work quite well
elsewhere, but not here. You can blame a centuries old
tradition of the penal colony mentality.
 
The mythology of America that you recited is just that. The
liberty you speak of was and still is nothing more than the
freedom to exploit for personal gain and the revolution was
prompted by the upper crust of colonial America so as not to
pay taxes (the American IRS would certainly not have
tolerated it and no such revolt would succeed today). George
Washington was more accurate when he said that you cannot
have democracy without morality. Of course, he was
paraphrasing Aristotle without understanding, as it is not
conceivable to understand democracy while practicing slavery
in that day and age of freedom and enlightment.
 
I will certainly never do as the barbarians when in Rome and
Shakespeare's sexy phrases are not meant to be definitive
guides to a better life and they certainly are not to most
people around the world, thankfully. 
 
 Don't put words in my mouth and don't assume that women
elsewhere think the way American women do or that they
would want to be like American women. My daughter was
brutalized, as millions of American children have been, in the
name of feminism and other self interest. Her only fault was
to have been born here. I have lived on four continents and I
can promise you that she would almost certainly have met a
better fate had she been born just about anywhere else,
because the kind of abuse that is considered normal treatment
of children here is not conveniently overlooked there. My
innocent child was the victim of maniacal American females
and their male cohorts. Not a single female I know in other
places has ever been treated with such malice and cruelty.
 
It is great if a working mother supports a father who chooses
to stay home to care for children and the house.
Unfortunately, like most American men, most American
women seem to prefer the second income, which they
invariably say they "need" to make ends meet and the children
don't have a voice in the matter. The question is why do the
richest people in the world "need" two incomes to support a
family when poorer billions around the world don't feel so
compelled. The answer is simply greed and the pursuit of self
interest at any cost, including at the expense of America's
battered babies and young children.

Post a reply to This Message

From: temp@gsu.edu 
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:58:58 -0400 
Organization: Georgia State University 
To: photiusc@yahoo.com, bleau85293@aol.com 
Subject: In response... 


    Though I am responding to your column from a school computer, I
would love to hear your thoughts at Bleau85293@aol.com
    As a feminist, I found your article both accurate and one-sided.
Accurate because the problem of neglected children is a large one and
one that, you are right, few are willing to admit or address.  I think
the effects of "strangercare" are evident in a generation comprised of
children that seem to lack ethics, responsibility and a love.  And how
can we blame them?  If one is  not taught that the equation of a line
is
y = mx + b, how can she be expected to know it, much less apply it to
other problems?  Indeed, popular American culture values money and
prestige over family.  However, that is where my agreement with your
views ends.  You point out the horrors of the enslavement of African
Americans and the genocide of Native Americans, but you fail to realize
that the oppression of women was just as horrific and unfair.  Sure, we
are walking on unsteady land -- it is going to take time cope with the
changes that come with the liberation of the female population.
However, the transition would be much more smooth would men like you
recognize the rights of women and realize they are equals.  That means,
stop blindly spoon feeding yourself traditions that may or may not be
moral.  I agree that when a couple decides to bear children, there
needs
to be a parent in the home.  However, to point the finger of blame at
the mother exclusively is sexist and condescending.  As far as your
allegations of fathers not being allowed to be homemakers, well,
frankly, I did not follow your point.  It was not at all concise.  My
point is that you pick a standard position: blame the girl only who
throws her baby away (though there was, I'm quite positive, a man
involved in the creation of that child); blame the women who wants an
education, respect and an opportunity to play with the "Big Boys" on an
even playing field.  After all, it is much easier than to look at
oneself and the unjust traditions that created a gender with an
overwhelming desire to take advantage of the opportunities that have
been available to her father, brother, and son for thousands of years.

Bleau85293@aol.com

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:07:58 -0400 (EDT) 
From: Photius Coutsoukis  
Subject: Re: In response... 
To: temp@gsu.edu 
CC: photius@theodora.com 
 
Thank you (anonymous) for your message.

I don't believe historical oppression of women excuses
the mistreatment of children and, yes, men.

This uniquely Anglo-American view that women can
become equals by some gender-bending routine of
shedding the best qualities that nature has bestowed
on them and acquiring the worst attributes of men has
only resulted in a weird and antisocial society of
women with balls and men without.

Look around and you will see women acting as the most
oppressive, unforgiving tyrants while American men are
apparently devoid of any trace of courage.

The line you did not get is that I gave up my life to
personally care for our baby and that did not sit well
with America's feminocrats. My little girl and I were
as one soul and wrenching us apart destroyed us both,
to her mother's delight.

Most American women just don't like the idea that
their child's father would stay home and take care of
a baby when there are more profitable alternatives.

But then, most American women and men grew up in
environments that are hostile to children. My own
personal survey shows that most, almost all Americans
had unhappy early childhoods and that their notion of
parents spending time with them is miserably out of
touch with proper parenting. 

A young man once told me that his mother sure spent a
lot of time with him when he was little. When I asked
how much that was he said two hours a day  !

If you are born and raised in the United States it is
unlikely that you will ever understand the true
meaning of unlimited, unsolicited, unconditional
parental love. It is nowhere to be found and what
Americans mean when they constantly tell each other "I
love you" is a bizarre Hollywood concept.

You can't have true love and do it while worried about
commitment as Americans do. There is no love without
compassion, a concept virtually unknown in the U.S. 

The absence of true love in America, observed by
others, from Mother Teresa to most immigrants who come
here, means that most of you lost part of your soul
when you were so deprived as infants and toddlers. I
don't know that any sort of new-age soul retrieval can
get that back for you. You just will never know.

If you are old enough and have lived elsewhere, you
might get a bit of the idea by comparing the way
people interact. Every sitcom, every movie and the way
Americans interact with each other shows the deap
seated and universal cruelty that lurks beneath.

Natural human beings are never delighted by the pain
of others. Natural human beings always presume
innocence. Anglo-Americans are just a severe aberation
of nature. Their concept of propriety is never from
within, because they, as a rule, have never
experienced true love and compassion, and it is only
found in rules and laws, which is why America is such
a sewer.

Compare the way most humans stay in close touch with
their immediate and extended families to the way
Americans view "family" as the people that they can
barely tolerate on Christmas and Thanksgiving.

Finally, you did not get the most important point of
all. Although Anglo-Americans have historically
discounted the value of raising a child, most
societies have traditionally revered the role of
mothers, because they know that there is no more
noble, challenging and rewarding task. 

I can tell you from my own experience that, if you are
willing to make the sacrifices entailed in caring for
a baby, you can be the most educated, worldly person
and still find that it is the best job in the world.

Just don't do it in America, because you will be
punished for it.

Some of what you said is simply not so. America's
world record teenage pregnancy rate and fatherless
children are not the result of men abandoning
prospective mothers. Most of these kids don't even
know that they have a prospective child, until, that
is, some lawyer calls them. It is primarily the result
of airheaded bimbos deciding that having a baby would
be more fun than attending school, or, in the case of
the fastest growing segment of single motherhood,
i.e., affluent single women, they just want to have
one more possession, a baby, but without the bother of
a "relationship", or, horribly, the responsibility of
personally caring for it.

Regarding the oppresion of women, keep in mind that
Americans, male or female, are ready to oppress anyone
at every opportunity, which causes serious problems
for American children, who are invariably mistreated.
I am almost certain that American women are the most
oppressive, unforgiving, demanding and punishing
creatures to ever walk on the face of the earth. I
have lived on four continents and I know what I am
talking about.

I agree that American men are mostly rotten, but then,
that's because their mothers raised them that way.