Discussion Susan Samora and Photius Coutsoukis Divorce New York documents www.theodora.com - Theodora Coutsoukis, Epilepsy, Infantile Trauma, Attachment
..... Theodora
  • 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
  • Post a reply to This Message

    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.
  • Post a reply to This Message

NOT exactly . . NOT so

Thank you for making this an award winning site

Please put this page in your BOOKMARKS - - - - -

Enter your e-mail address to receive e-mail when this page is updated.
Your Internet e-mail address:

ITA Home Page
The IMMIGRATION Superhighway Feedback

Flags of all Countries
Yahoo search

Revised 29-December-1997