Thursday, June 19, 2008

Like The Great Chris Rock Said: I'm Not Saying He Should Have Done It (But I Understand)

A woman named Carol Sarler has written a Daily Mail column titled "How DARE anyone make excuses for fathers who murder their own children" like no one has the right to mention that which she doesn't care to consider herself: the evil of the world feminism has made, or the anguish of the men - especially fathers - who are forced to endure it. Under such dastardly circumstances, I actually think it's quite easy to defend men who kill their own children, and, yes, I'm going to dare to do so now.

Miss Sarler says she's aware there are people who say, "He was driven to it," but she doesn't give much credence to the idea - even though it's recognized by many others.

What do they see that she doesn't?

She mentions the unfairness of Family Court law, which most men eventually discover is against them, and she doesn't find that as much of an excuse. But, from where I sit, once you discover the law isn't fair, and is even favoring the person who is now determined to hurt you - and who you passionately loved and supported - the world starts to look pretty grim indeed.

Miss Sarler says she's "never had much time for Fathers 4 Justice," even though "this is not to say that I disbelieve all of their stories of injustice." Well. Sounds to me like Miss Sarler is saying she's a willing participant in the injustices committed against men by women. And she could care less. So now we have a woman abusing a man, the law defending her in doing it, and a callously uninterested public turning away.

Brilliant.

My, my, what a wonderful world for his children to be raised in - by the woman who the Family Court is almost sure to give them to - possibly to adopt these same unfair (so-called) "values".

No, we can't understand a father's reasoning for wanting to spare his children such a picture of paradise at all. Especially if he has sons who may face the same fate - or even worse (whatever that could possibly be) - if this lunacy is allowed to continue apace.

Miss Sarler says "Some men, and their children, are certainly dealt a lousy hand in matters of custody, maintenance and access." What she's saying here is, he can't keep his kids, or his money, or even see his kids, and the kids may even suffer for it as well - because Miss Sarler is too preoccupied to give a damn about the injustice she's aware of - so a loving father should give his children (who, I'm sure, he was teaching about a totally different world - a better world - than the one Miss Sarler wants sustained) because,...well, because what? Miss Sarler has already outlined a nightmare scenario of a shamelessly evil existence that she's admitted she doesn't care about.

Why should he add his children to such a Devil's Playground? To appease Miss Sarler's supposedly delicate sensibilities, while she turns away from the horror she's admitted she knows is occurring, but doesn't have "much time" to correct? Please, Madam, your mock indignation is just another part of the whole.

Miss Sarler says, "women,...love their children differently," and on this we can surely agree. She admits there are men who gladly raise children who are not their own - without acknowledging that no woman has to climb over the existential chasm that a man must perform to love, pretty much, anything outside of himself - if he even loves himself at all.

Women, who (to men) spend an endless amount time shamelessly, and narcissistically, preening themselves have no idea how it can look to see a woman with your child claiming "and this is mine too," even though he was the one designated with supporting her and them - out of the goodness of his heart - only to have her snatch it all away because she may not have "found herself" yet. I dare say, by the evidence Miss Sarler has given, she probably doesn't understand much of anything at all.

Miss Sarler admits mothers "might use [the children] as pawns in a game of revenge" but she doesn't say why the fathers should play along. He's lost his wife, his life as he knew it, his kids and his money; the law's against him, and Miss Sarler doesn't care - and now he's also supposed to play the sap in a further plot against him - with his kids as the instrument for his abuse. Please, Miss Sarler, you're breaking my heart: if the world you're painting gets any darker I'll be writing this reply in the grave myself.

What Miss Sarler fails to grasp is that it is she who is making excuses for "wicked, selfish, vengeful, brutal, emotional derelicts" who revel in revealed injustice, and evil, and are more-than-willing to take advantage of it, merely because it is available and they're in a bad mood. It is she who condones it all, by not making time to do anything about it, like reign in the encouraged excesses of feminism or, at the very least, write articles that attempt to do so.

To ask someone to turn their children over to be raised in such a despicable environment, and to eventually accept it as normal, is all the more reason any traditional definition of a "good man" could come to the exact same conclusion so many others have already tried to inform Miss Sarler of through her self-willed blindness:

"He was driven to it."

And it is women, like Miss Sarler, who are pointing the way.