Submit a MessageBack to Feminocracy

From: Timothy Hopkins <thopkins@kraft.com>
To: Photius Coutsoukis <photius@theodora.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 1:33 PM
Subject: IMPEACH BRASLOW Help Feedback

I can only tell of my experience with
Judge Braslow.  It was biased and I
believe very detrimental  to my son.

Referred_by:  A friend who read of this
page, with full knowledge of what I've
been through at Judge Braslow's hands.

Post a reply to This Message

From: Pei-Lan   <zoltan13@ix.netcom.com>
To: Photius Coutsoukis <photius@theodora.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 12:13 AM
Subject: EX-Judge Braslow

May her BROOM fly out of CONTROL!!!

---------------
From: Pei-Lan   <zoltan13@ix.netcom.com>
To: Photius Coutsoukis <photius@theodora.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 9:39 AM
Subject: Christmas Greetings

01/06/00

Merry Christmas on Theophany, the true
day of Christmas, or as it is known
in Mexico & the Rio Grande Valley, Three
Kings Day !!!

The business of that ex-judge who flew off
to Arizona, whose name will not
be mentioned because it would profane
today's significance reminds me of a
certain chapter of a certain book. "Why
the Worst Get to the Top", from "The
Road to Serfdom" by Nobel Peace Prize
Winner Fritz von Hayek comes to mind.
Hailed by Readers Digest in 1948 as the
Book of the Century, nothing since
then has altered my opinion.I think that
you may find this selection
enlightening.

Enjoy!!!

--ceb

Post a reply to This Message

From: Michael Martin  <michael_martin@iname.com>
To: Photius Coutsoukis <photius@theodora.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Feminocracy - An American Man's Perspective

Dear Photius,

I came across your Web site
recently, and I have followed
your "Feminocracy" discussions
with interest.

I am an American, who grew up
in the 1950's and 1960's. 
While I did have a
stay-at-home mother, I can
relate to your comments about
the American style of raising
children, particularly about
the emotional and spiritual
scars that result.  The
spiritual lives of American
families (intact or no) are,
as you say, empty beyond
belief.

My own response to the
"Feminocracy" of my lifetime
is somewhat different than
yours.  First, I am a
bachelor, because I have a
more old-fashioned romantic
view of love and marriage,
that is simply unsupportable
in the current, poisoned
environment.  I was determined
not to mindlessly emulate the
destructive choices of my
peers.  Also, I was determined
to correct my own (above
mentioned) spiritual
deficiencies as much as
possible before making any
attempt to establish a family.

As for the United States being
perhaps the worst place on
Earth to raise a child, I
agree with you.  In fact, for
this reason (among many
others), I left the United
States this past April and
moved to New Zealand. 
Although New Zealand is not
without its problems (some of
them quite serious), I find
the people of this country to
be kinder, more rational, much
more honest, more caring, less
punitive and infinitely less
predatory than the average
American.  Police here do not
carry guns, people don't shoot
cops (only 25 have died in the
line of duty in all of New
Zealand's history) and kids
don't shoot kids, either. 
Ownership of firearms is
limited, for the most part, to
farmers, shepherds and
ranchers in rural areas.  

New Zealand is not perfect,
but (in my book) it is a vast
improvement.  "Feminocracy"
has made some baleful inroads
here, but they are more recent
and much less severe.  I
regard the problems that exist
here as still being
reversible.  In the U.S., I
think it's Sodom and Gomorrah
time.

I'll share one story with you,
to illustrate the difference. 
In New Zealand, American T.V.
shows are rebroadcast, and
some of them, such as "Judge
Judy," are quite popular.  New
Zealanders also watch the
"Jerry Springer" show, more
for sly amusement than
anything else.  One local T.V.
producer misinterpreted the
popularity of that show, and
decided to produce a local
variation of it, called "You
Be The Judge."  The premiere
episode involved an adopted
boy, who discovered (on the
air!) who his natural parents
were.

Well, the premiere episode of
that program was also its
derniere!  An apocalyptic
firestorm of public outrage
broke out.  Every editorial
page in the country condemned
the program for its
exploitation of children and
its "decadent Americanism." 
Politicians thundered from the
floor of Parliament about the
need to amend the censorship
laws to proscribe such
programs.  Every commentator,
talk show host - in short,
anyone in New Zealand with
access to a TV camera,
newspaper or microphone -
joined the chorus.  The progam
was pulled after one episode,
and has not been heard of
since.  All I can say to that
is "God Defend New Zealand!"

One more thing.  I decided,
about two years ago, that I
would not marry any American
woman, under any
circumstances.   Indeed, I am
reluctant to consider any
Western woman as a wife.  I am
more inclined to consider
Asian or Eastern European
women as better suited to
raise a family.  Once I am
securely settled in, that is
the direction in which I plan
to look.

In closing, I extend to you my
sincere sympathy and
compassion for your plight. 
It sounds as though you would
leave the U.S. if you possibly
could without abandoning your
daughter.  Given your
situation, you have no humanly
acceptable choice but to stay
and fight.  All I can say is,
"Good luck, guy!"  May God
have mercy on your daughter's
soul.

Michael Martin

Post a reply to This Message

From:CRJ94@aol.com  <CRJ94@aol.com>
To: Photius Coutsoukis <photiusc@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 12:09:51 EST
Subject: 

  Although I find your article
extremely interesting I feel the
need to point out that women
working is not a choice most make. 
Many would love to stay home and
raise their children.  I live in
the state of Maine, I see a great 
deal of issues everyday, that you
are right, we should not allow
here. 

     I also know that many women
are left to raise their children
alson, which they do willingly, but
they are also not given child
support by the fathers, nor does
the State allow them to stay home. 
The funds they do provide are not
sufficiant to support the children
and there is a time limit on how
long they 
can stay home.

   There is also the issue of the
requirements that the women must
meet to continue to receive aid. 
Most have to either work or
volunteer 20 hours a week.  Many I
know not only have to do this but
must go to college so they can
afford to support their families.

    I am not sure I understand your
point on this issue, I see just as
many women that would love to stay
home with their children,  I also
see many women who pay more than
50% of there paycheck for daycare. 
Perhaps you should also evaluate
the fathers efforts in this matter,
or should I say lack of effort.

Post a reply to This Message


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


From: photius@theodora.com 
To: CRJ94@aol.com  <CRJ94@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: 

	I beg to differ, and I do hope you
realize how absurd it sounds for the women
of one of the richest countries in
the world to say that they have to
abandon their infants in order to
survive themselves when women in
poorer places manage otherwise. It's
just the good ol' American notion of
money over love and everything else.

	Yes, it is a conscious and malicious
choice that these women do make. My
personal survey has shown that
ultimately these women, and there are
millions of them in the U.S., would 
much rather go to work, school, or
just shopping than to "endure" the
work it takes to care for an infant.

	The task of raising children in our
society has been debased by feminists
to the point of being considered
undesirable by American women for a
number of reasons, including the
strongly held notion that it is
detrimental to women's self esteem. 
And so are the concepts of mariage,
masculinity and fatherhood.

	No, most single mothers are not
abandoned by the fathers of their
children. On the contrary, it is a
conscious and deliberate choice of
most of them to have a child without
the inconvenience of a relationship
with a man. Keep in mind that in
the case of women who abandon and
discard their babies, often in 
toilets and trash cans, the father
was not even aware that a child
existed or that a child was on the
way.

	In the case of divorce after birth
it is the insanity of the mother and
her feminist "right" to expell the
father on frivolous grounds that
results in most of America's children
today growing up without a father at
home. The uniquely feminist disease of
post partum depression not withstanding
they have found all sorts of excuses
for their atrocious behavior.

	I also don't buy the welfare
limitation excuse. Even in today's
restrictive environment, women have a 
choice to care for a child full time for
at least a while before going to work and
most of them choose not to do so. You
cannot blame the government for the
fact that American babies, by the 
millions, spent their precious first
months of life in the hands of paid
strangers.

	In reality, most American women
just don't like babies. There are those
who have asked to hold my baby for 
a few seconds or minutes and then
left saying that they had satisfied
their "baby fix". There are those
who will "put up" with their own
infants for just a few hours before
feeling compelled to hand them
over to others. They want to have
a baby for the same reason they want
a new car, a bigger house or another
dress; an insatiable acquisitiveness
born of their own deprivation as
small children in the hands of 
similarly minded parents. Once
their baby is born these thoroughly
self involved women want them to
be seen but never heard.

	How horrible to think that a 
mother "must" abandon a baby "to go to
college so they can afford to support their families". 
Does it never occur to you that babies need
love and a mother at home, not some supposed
future money? Do you have any idea how
much money it will take over the life time of 
a traumatized child to treat the miriad resulting
ailments? 

	And how can you speak of "families"
when the only kind these women want is one
of themselves and a child, both out of the 
house most of the day with a brief encounter
in the evening? The family institution in 
America was summarily terminated by cold
hearted feminists a long time ago. And what
is amazing is that, having turned this society
into a drug infested Sodom and Gomorrah,
they pretend not to have noticed that the
values and character which are absent today
are precisely those that "families" nurture, 
families being mothers and fathers, grand
parents, uncles and aunts, brothers, sisters
and cousins, who no longer exist in America.

The women who you say would love
to stay at home but don't do not
really exist.
Many will tell you that but don't
believe it. They would find any
excuse to get out of the house. A
mother who loves her baby and wants
to stay home and care for him/her
can always find a way to do it in
this very rich society.

Finally, I don't mean to exonerate
American men. Most apparently
prefer the extra income from the
wife to the idea of a well cared
child. But ultimately the women 
make the choice of having children
and they make the conscious and
cold hearted decision to abandon
them. They are by far the most
inhumane creatures to ever set foot
on this earth.


Post a reply to This Message

From:David Mortenson <dmortens@generalgrowth.com>
To: Photius Coutsoukis <photiusc@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 1:28 PM
Subject: Feminism/Child Abuse

I don't have access to the
internet, only to email.  
A friend of mine sent
information on Nunavut, and
somehow, your writing was included.

I agree that children have become
3rd class citizens in the USA and a
lot of societal problems stem from
parents not being home.  I am
appalled by the families who feel
that both parents must work full
time, especially when the father
makes a decent income, when their
focus should be on raising their
children.  Get this, some parents
admit they would prefer to
be at work than at home because
they do not know what to do with
their children.

Thankfully, this is only a handful
of people.  Many Americans
would rather be home with their
families, if economics would allow
it.

When people move to this country,
they leave a big part of their
families in the mother country. 
Many Americans do not have
extensive families like
some foreigners who breed like
bacteria.  (Remember, our
population would be decreasing if
it were not for immigration.  Their
goal for moving to the
USA is to become successful or to
run away from the perils of their
own government.  Aren't you living
here?  And why?  Every American in
history, even the Indians, has come
from another country.  Does this
not make you a
"typical American"?)    Since
Americans have few family members
to depend
on (who, incidentally, all work or
are adamant about their
independance),
there are few choices but to hire a
stranger or institution to watch
the children.  It is unfortunate. 

With this in mind, what are single
mothers supposed to do?  
Personally, I think single working
parents (and parents
who both work) should have their
children taken away.  But that
would not be reasonable, so single
mothers have to work...and they
need help watching their children. 
Real or not, single mothers' income
are said to be less than average. 
I think this was the point Hillary
Clinton was making.

(What did mothers do in ancient
Greece during times of war?  You
bet they had to work!)   Although,
it is hideous to suggest that
government should
be involved in raising children,
for that would be socialistic. 

Some married mothers have to work
because some fathers' income do not
support his family, which is
insulting to a responsible father. 
But, this is a capitalistic
country.  Everything is based on
economics - consumer demand -
not morale.  This is not a perfect
system, in fact, capitalism is
getting out of hand...but the world
is attracted to it.

Your article is about Feminism and
Child Abuse and how it parallels
with genocide.  I see your point
and it was a good attempt, but your
writing is unfocused.  For some
reason, you were getting into how
Americans could not be industrial,
intelligent, etc. simultaneously. 
You cannot take issue judging from
your poor writing skills.  You need
to reexamine this opinion and ask
yourself how America became so
advance in 200 years?  How do we
get work finished ahead of
schedule?  Why are our universities
world renowned?

Was it all from cheating, lying and
slovenly sitting around?  (Some
countries don't advance because of
cheating and lying - take a look at
Latin America).  Furthermore, some
of your evidents are from personal
observations, not from research or
facts.  In other words, you have
not gone out and questioned a cross
section of the population and
studied their lives in depth to get
a true picture.  There are millions
of stupid people, and millions who
are not.  It depends who you
observe and your frame of mind to
make prudish judgement. You will
find that attitudes in the south
are different from the north.  
"Minority" Americans (such as
yourself?) will have a different
view than the majority.  You have
not investigated your case to
explain arguement.  It appears that
you are speaking in general terms
based on the media, which is
dangerous.  Let me make a
general statement:  I have met a
number of foreigners and they all
think they are just a little bit
better than the "typical American". 
Despite that they are here, living
pretty well, not knowing our uneven
history (in short, we are not a
homogenous country), and being
hypocritical, which is one of the
phases of adjusting to a new
environment.  It is not okay to sit
on your high horse and criticize
and not look at yourself....and do
nothing about it, although, you did
write the essay.  Everyone could
use some assistance from perfect
foreigners.  That's why it's called
the "melting pot".  But foreigners
do not want participate in American
life, nowadays.

They want to huddle in their own
clans and point fingers and think
of themselves as the "perfect
Greek", while making American
money.  I'm not even sure if
today's incoming foreigners call
themselves American anymore,
even though they are coming here by
the droves, along with their own
patriotism and agendas.  Just watch
this country divide.

The tone of your writing is one of
hysteria, anger, accusations and
hypocrisy, although, your message
does eventually surface.  American
children are in trouble, certainly
now that a household requires two
incomes to operate, which takes
time away from children.  Parents
should be responsible for their
children, not institutions.  For
some reason, being a homemaker is
considered dirty work, and I do not
understand why.  It is a big
responsibility.  I know several
women who stay home to care for the
children.  It must be awful to be
forced to stay home just because
you are a mother.  As a country, we
cannot demand mothers to stay home
because freedom would be violated. 
But, there can be conquences in
children's behavior when they do
not stay home.  The father could
stay at home, but, somehow, that
does not settle well for people,
especially foreigners.  

Are you sending inane messages from
your office? or home?  I admire and
encourage your wish to do something
about negleted children.  But you
need to write your arguements
professionally and coherently to be
convincing.

In fact, you sound like a typical
American by wanting to control
other people's lives!

I will say, and this is where you
fall short, Americans are beginning
to see the damages of not caring
for their own children at home.  In
fact, that is probably what brought
your attention to the status quo. 
Many
citizens are asking if
mega-consuming is worth working 60
hours a week and lousy meals. 
People are finding that fancy cars
and gourmet coffee is not the
quality of life they need.  People
are questioning the degree and
damages of feminism.  However, I
don't think it is directly feminism
that caused both parents to work,
although that is what initiated the
demand for dual income.  More to
the point is the unsatiable wants
people have aquired with new,
increased money - and the economy
is taking advantage of those
"wants" at the risk of families. 
We have lost balance and direction.

But frankly, I see the same faults
in a few other countries that you
see here, just not as grand.
--------------
From: Doubleblessings@aol.com <Doubleblessings@aol.com>
To: Photius Coutsoukis <photius@theodora.com>>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: "innocent children"

Also if a child is allowed to be occasionally
 in the care of a loving, responsible, nurturing adult, 
they will learn that they are seperate and that 
they will be fine. They NEED to learn some 
independance,security and freedom 
before college!

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

From: photius@theodora.com 
To: Doubleblessings@aol.com <Doubleblessings@aol.com> 
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: "innocent children"

I was told that my 10 month old daughter
should go to day care so as to learn how
to socialize.

Now, the American notion of academic
institutions for babies notwithstanding, 
I am talking babies and you keep 
responding with college.

Please try to focus.


Post a reply to This Message


From: Doubleblessings@aol.com <Doubleblessings@aol.com>
To: Photius Coutsoukis <photius@theodora.com>>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: "innocent children"

This just gets more and more hilarious.
You are an extremist and extemist are 
disfunctional at best. What was your
situation and where are all these 
pitiful people who are just "polite" with
their American mothers? You 
certainly have a very disillusioned and
warped perception of things. Do you 
have children at all? If so have you never
left them AT ALL with anyone other 
than their father. I am a very involved
mother who understands the importance 
of the mother/child relationship but their is
such a thing as "too much 
togetherness". It sounds to me like you
probably don't have children at all 
or they are still young. To even suggest
that foreign countries are doing so 
much better than the US is amusing as
well. You speak of how "fortunate' you 
are not to have had an American mother,
but just the statement... "had I had 
the misfortune of having one I would have
probably shot myself, after
getting rid of the bitch first. " shows that
there was obviously some 
misguidance in your childhood.What
nationality is your mother and also where 
you never allowed to share time with other
responsible, nurturing adults? How 
very sad if you were denied that priviledge.

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

From: photius@theodora.com 
To: Doubleblessings@aol.com <Doubleblessings@aol.com> 
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: "innocent children"

The fact that you find America's
greatest tragedy so hilarious betrays
an awful lot about you and about this
society.

The answers to most of your
questions are in the document that
your letters purport to criticize.
Perhaps you should focus a bit longer
and read the entire document. The
ADD epidemic in America is so
pervasive that most mild ADD is now
thought of as normal behavior. So,
read again and completely.

This is an isolated society but those
who want to know can see the
difference in the way families in other
cultures vs. the Anglo-American born
act toward each other. If you did such
an exploration you would find that
"family" to natural human beings is an
extended group of many people who
like to be with each other, live with or
close to each other and see each
other as much as possible. Sort of like
the Kosovo Albanians you saw on TV
(by the way most of those who ended
up here as refugees left to go back on
the double when they saw what
America was about) whereas to most
Americans "family" is the people who
they can barely tolerate for a few
hours on Christmas and Thanksgiving.


In case you are too blind to notice,
just watch Jay Leno's monologue on
those holidays, usually joking about
people's agony at the short presence
of their parents and in laws.

America's idea of a family currently
consists of a working single mother
and a child who, from birth, has spent
most of their life under the care and
supervision of strangers. That is how
the majority of American babies now
live and THAT'S DISGUSTING no
matter how you rationalize it.

Yes I do have a child and if your
attention span had allowed you to
read more than just a piece of the
document that so inflamed your
feminist passions, you would have
known how I gave up my life to
personally care for her, only to suffer
severe consequences for such daring
from America's baby killing whores.

As for my own upbringing, I was born
in a peaceful corner of Africa where
love was in the air with a Greek
mother at home and a Greek father
who came home in the evening and
stayed on non-working days. They
were both well educated, multilingual
and very cosmopolitan and never did
it occur to them that their babies
should be left with strangers.

It is unconscionable to justify
abandoning a baby with excuses of
"too much togetherness" or to say
that a mother's absence is necessary
in order for a baby to be "allowed to
share time with other responsible,
nurturing adults". My sister and I had
plenty of adult company, especially
relatives and many other children as
well. My childhood was idyllic and
beyond even the dreams of most of
Americas unfortunate children.

The results, apart from the continuing,
many generations long love between
parents and children in the family, are
that my IQ has placed me in American
Mensa (in Greece I am just plain
smart) and I have the ability to think
original thoughts as opposed to your
parroting of America's feminist crap,
which is very reminiscent of past
justification for extermination of the
Indians and for slavery.

My extensive experience in the
American educational establishment
has taught me that most American
children are learning (and often
otherwise) disabled before they reach
kindergarten. The problem is so
pervasive that it is no longer noticed
by American educators, most of
whom are highly deficient themselves.
American high schools graduate
absolute ignoramuses and the
antisocial, hideous nature of the
general population will insure that for
generations you and your offspring
will continue to strive for a mile-long
driveway to keep you out of the sight
of other Americans, unlisted phone
numbers, "privacy" legislation, burglar
alarms and a ready gun to protect
your villainous selves from each other.

I have met thousands of individuals, I
have lived on four continents and I am
a very astute social observer, on top
of my exceptional intelligence and
education and I can tell you with
authority that this is indeed the sewer
of the world. Very pretty and very rich
and armed to the teeth but a stinky
sewer never the less and the major
cause is that you have the most
idiotic selfish excuses to neglect and
abuse your innocent children. 
Post a reply to This Message

From: Doubleblessings@aol.com <Doubleblessings@aol.com>
To: Photius Coutsoukis <photius@theodora.com>>
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 1999 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: "innocent children"

Your views are not only ridiculous,
they are sad. You obviously have
some 
unresolved personal issues. I am not
talking about day care centers, where 
children are treated like cattle. I am
talking about a mother working and 
leaving a child 40 hours a week with
a loving nurturing individual who can 
supply the child with additional love
and support. There is nothing wrong 
with that. You are an extremist, and
generally speaking any extreme is 
disfunctional. My mother worked for a
while and I turned out well adjusted 
and happy. I know stay-at-home
moms whose world is completely
child-centered 
who are raising children that will be
sadly disappointed that the world is 
not going to revolve around them. I
have a trusted friend that watches my

children a few hours a week, so that I
can have some "mom time". I am sure

that is child abuse is your dimented
logic. My children have learned that 
they can trust other people and that
they are seperate people. This is an 
experience I would never dream of
denying them.


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

From: photius@theodora.com 
To: Doubleblessings@aol.com <Doubleblessings@aol.com> 
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: "innocent children"

It seems that the feminist-induced
degeneration of this child-hostile
society has gone to the point where
common sense has become scarce.

I suppose if you were raised with
proper personal attention, with a
mother and a father at home as
nature intended, you would have
known that babies do not know that
they are separate from their
mothering figure (usually a mother)
and that abrupt and prolonged
separation can cause severe trauma
which manifests itself in all kinds
of disorders from learning
disabilities (therefore dumb and
American diplomas for idiots) to
neurological disorders (Ritalin
capital of the universe).

Given the complete absence of
common sense, you may want to take
a look at some European articles on
infant attachment and infantile
trauma. The reason I say European
is because the feminist-controlled
US psychological establishment is
not only lacking in serious
research on these matters (not
politically correct) but also
because the state of new-age voodoo
pseudoscience that is now practiced
here is in line with the publicity
induced stupidity that forbids the
teaching of Charles Darwin's theory
of evolution in schools in a
Southern US state (the rest of the
world is laughing VERY hard at this
latest US accomplishment and they
are up in arms over the hideous
violation of children's rights in
the US and Somalia, the only
countries that have not ratified
the Universal Convention on the
Rights of Children, the most widely
ratified human rights treaty in the
world).

Babies may not need the world to
revolve around them but they do
need a consistent and caring (and
hopefully intelligent) mothering
figure. What they don't need is a
maniacal promoter of the hideous
practice of dropping off these
helpless individuals at the
doorstep of some dumb stranger who
will take the baby off your hands
for a couple of bucks so that you
can pursue your own superficial and
selfish interests. That, by the way
is my definition of a bimbo.

Now, I do agree with you that a
nasty mother who is more interested
in her career or other interests
than in caring for her baby SHOULD
leave the baby with someone who
cares, even better offer the baby
for adoption so as to spare her/him
further agony. My general
impression of American mothers is
that had I had the misfortune of
having one I would have probably
shot myself, after getting rid of
the bitch first. That impression is
shared by most children of American
mothers who invariably speak of the
horrors of their childhood and
whose relationship with their
mothers is polite at best.

Post a reply to This Message


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.