21 November 2006
“Super nannies” are to be brought in to try to improve parenting in 77 areas of England with high levels of anti-social behaviour, Tony Blair has said. The prime minister is to give more details of the £4m scheme later.
Why should hard-working taxpayers have to fork out four-million-quid to try and lessen the effects of shit parenting?
Or shit single-parenting. There may be a fair number of yobs and hooligans from two-parent families but they are far more likely to come from single-parent ones, stupid slags getting knocked up, failing to raise their bastards properly because they’re busy still whoring around, and their kids end up hanging out on the streets, using the local drug-dealers and thieves as role-models, the only ones they have save for a long string of “uncles.”
[Blair said] “But life isn’t normal when you’ve got 12-year-olds out every night, drinking and creating a nuisance on the street, with their parents not knowing or even caring.”
Actually, it is normal in a Matriarchy, which is what we increasingly have these days thanks to feminism.
A single mother called Natalie said that introducing a sticker chart with rewards for good behaviour, as she had been advised at parenting classes, had not been successful for one of her sons. She told BBC Radio Five Live: “He wouldn’t even participate, and then if he actually did something wrong he would rip the whole chart up.
“The reward he wanted was £20, instead of what I wanted – we were told to suggest a pound – and it’s very difficult the older the children get to actually rein them back in.”
See what I mean?
Previously we had children being raised in two-parent families with a father being the backbone of issuing sound and fair discipline and providing the parameters of morality. Now that feminism and it’s political lackies have ensured the removal of fathers from families on a vast scale and encouraged – both financially and ideologically – young women to whelp kids out of wedlock all over the place we now have stupid single-mothers trying to keep their wild and feral brats in line by pissing about with hair-brained “sticker schemes” and flat-out bribery on the instructions of crappy government advisors! Then, when this nonsense fails, mummy sits around complaining, waiting for Someone Else to come up with another suggestion for them.
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:01 PM
At 7:13 PM, Kim Il Jong said…
Surely feminists are now reaping what they have sown:
Picture the rapist being hidden behind a screen to protect his identity because he accused his victim of sexually assaulting an underage male (him).
My my, how quickly they learn.
At 8:36 PM, Jerkmenistan said…
This is why I’m an advocate of corporal punishment. Children are in many ways no different than animals. They let their primitive instincts control their behavior, and as a result, primitive means must be used to control them. Put simply, dominance is often required to engender respect from a child, but not so much that it becomes mental or physical child abuse. Good fathers know the difference. Single mothers usually don’t.
At 9:11 PM, Anonymous said…
Okay, I’m just some random guy from across the pond in the good ol’ USA, so this may seem like a stupid question and all, but… Jesus H. Christ! What the Fuck Is Going on in Great Britain?!?!?
Seriously, you had this 12 year-old last year giving birth, on top of that that same 12-old was smoking up to 20 cigarettes A Day!! >:-(
You also had a news story on your blog from a few months back, when three girls from the same mother all gave birth within a year of one another, but all three sisters looked totally different from one another…
Now this! “UK youths are the worst behaved in Europe, research suggests” Not only my father, but every one of my friends fathers wouldn’t hesitate to at least Yell at us if we got out of line…
“But life isn’t normal when you’ve got 12-year-olds out every night, drinking and creating a nuisance on the street, with their parents not knowing or even caring.” NO SHIT SHERLOCK!!
Holy Shit! Is this what I have to look forward to for the USA in 20-40 years?!?
At 10:16 PM, Bird’s Eye View said…
These are all the unavoidable degenerational effects of liberalism (slippery slope of permissiveness)…
At 10:29 PM, Anonymous said…
Before you go bagging on the UK. This was reported today in Atlanta.
Out-of-wedlock births in the United States have climbed to an all-time high, accounting for nearly four in 10 babies born last year, government health officials said Tuesday.
You will not have to wait 20 years.
At 12:13 AM, Brazilian Bachelor said…
In Brazil this happens long before feminism, and is considered the cause of many social problems we have over here.
Corruption and criminality are examples.
At 2:12 AM, Anonymous said…
Same Anonymous here:
Won’t have to wait 20 years to see the rotten fruits of feminism here in the USA…
Oh well… Western civilization had a good run while it lasted…
At 2:45 AM, Anonymous said…
Regarding out of wedlock births in the USA soaring, this is due to the tremendous success of the ever escalating Marriage Strike of the American Male!
Go American males! I’ve even made up a little cheer for our boys:
We’ll give no ring,
We’ll give now vows,
We’ll turn those witches
But seriously, if we would also just completely stop giving single women any of our sperm, we could bring this whole matter to a head (so to speak)and cause a sane, sensible and peaceful settlement of the Femnazi-initiated gender war in America.
Until we American guys succeed in completely withholding our DNA — not just our marital vows — women will not be forced to join forces with us men to drive sanity and equality back into our legal system when it comes to family matters.
So I offer this original poem to your blog readers:
No Sperm No ring,
Until you sing,
To set men free,
from the lawyers’ spree.
You chicks are pawns,
to pay for lawns
of houses big
of the the lawyer pigs!
Stop being used
in this stupid scam
if you ever hope
to have your Fam!
See American women need to make our legislatures know that even they are sick of the female-victim culture here and its horrible consequences for women.
We need to help them connect up how all of this “protection” is actually making them so unattractive that we guys would rather stick our dicks into the back of an electric fan than get involved with them.
At 9:40 AM, Anonymous said…
Actually women could marry at 12 years of age in former times.
But they were MARRIED.
Today the government is giving free condoms and sex education to 12 year old girls, but does not force them to get married when they are pregnant.
That is totally contradicting.
If the government thinks that a girl is old enough to have sex (which is in itself strange) they are also old enough to get married.
The whole article is ridiculous. They need to stop single mothers, the problem will be solved.
Stop divorces, marry pregnant women instantly to the fathers, punish adultery and women who get children with men who are not their husbands.
At 3:04 PM, Anonymous said…
Ah yes, the blessings of illegal immigration….
At 4:24 PM, NYMOM said…
Well let’s face it and I don’t want to appear to be a racist but someone needs to say it. Most of these problems in UK as well as the US are related to our history of slavery.
That’s the backstory here that’s never addressed.
Most of the rest of the world does not experience these problem on the same scale, in spite of greater poverty even, as they did not inherit the self-inflicted problems that the US and the UK did…
In the US we did not address the problem of over 3 million landless and uneducated slaves after the Civil War, we ignored it until it became a time-bomb in the 60s…
The end result we saw in the sorts of anti-social behaviors exhibited in New Orleans after Katrina…
Bill Cosby was the only one who openly addressed this issue in the aftermath of that storm. Others chose to ignore it.
The UK did the same thing with their former colonies…
We are both reaping the whirlwind now.
To just point the finger at single mothers or feminism is simplistic.
The problem is complex and so must be the solution.
At 5:27 PM, VoodooJock said…
Just goes to show you that there’s no better deterrent to inappropriate behaviour than “Wait till your father gets home.”
At 7:23 PM, unpleasant bitter git said…
ROTFL @ nymom 😀
You may not be a feminist nymom, but you sure are crazy. Please don’t ever stop posting, we need the larfs.
WTF has our glorious leader Tony B.liar wasting taxpayers cash on nannies for yobs got to do with slavery?
And speaking of ol’ Tone, even the Ministry Of Defence seems to be insinuating that “the war on terror” is a sham.
At 7:59 PM, Kim Il Jong said…
At 9:19 PM, Patriarchal Oppressor said…
This is proof that government serves to answer the stupid questions while ignoring the sound ones.
At 11:08 PM, Anonymous said…
“…you sure are crazy…”
What’s crazy about it…
Many leaders in both the United States and the United Kingdom including Bill Clinton when he was President have begun speaking up about this situation…if you actually break out the statistics you can see that certain racial groups are very overrepresented in the statistics for arrests, drug/alcohol abuse, domestic abuse, child abuse…
All of these things you keep blaming on feminism…
Much of this is not related to feminism, but is the historic legacy of slavery and racism in many societies…
It has nothing to do with feminism…
Like many others in the west, you just don’t want to face our historic responsibility to these people…
Additionally I find it quite telling that one of your commenters mentioned Brazil as having these problems long before feminism.
Brazil was one of the last countries in the west to outlaw slavery. They were still importing slaves from Africa long after other places had made this practice illegal. Actually some plantation owners from the south had relocated to Brazil after our civil war. Taking their families and all their slaves with them…they were so determined not to lose their ‘property’ that rather then free their slaves, they moved them to Brazil to re-start the plantation/slave economy all over again…
This is the legacy they have left behind, which we are all responsible for and are going to have to invest time, money and patience in to correct…
So you’ll just have to continue ponying up extra money for these nannies and other correctives as deemed necessary…
At 11:52 PM, VoodooJock said…
Geeze Walrus, that’s pretty racist of you to declare this a problem strictly limited to the black community rather than the entire UK community. Then again, racism isn’t much of a stretch from misandry now isn’t it?
And your comments are made even more ludicrous by the fact that the Times shows that it’s young white males fairing the poorest in English classrooms.
But hey, thanks for commenting. A good laugh is for us what a free twinkie is for you.
At 1:54 AM, Rob Fedders said…
Uh Oh, Duncan,
You’ve got another flare up of the Online NYMOM Herpes Virus!
Lucky for you, Rob “Valtrex” Fedders is here!
NYMOM, you may not want to appear racist, but obviously blatant supremacist ideals are not out of the reach of your mind, are they? Anything to keep the blame from landing squarely on the cellulite ridden laps of white, divorced, angry women promoting anti-family agendas from within modern academia. (Sound familiar, Walrus?)
Please explain, Walrus, how the anti father movement you are involved with, is not responsible for the creation of inner city ghettos – you remember, the “no welfare if Dad is at home” policies? After all, it wasn’t until the last 30-40 or so years that the massive rise of single motherhood occurred in African American communities. They were the first targets of the anti-father programs that you so ignorantly promote. Notice the rise in “gang culture” also co-incides with the timeline?
Whimin firsterzzz like you played a large role. Step up to the plate, take responsibility, take it like a man… oh, that’s right, that’s how you get away with spewing supremacist filth – your gender is exempted from responsibility.
This sounds like another of your hair-brained schemes, Sea Cow. Just like your incessant claims that men are responsible for the spread of STD’s without recognizing that men and women get said diseases FROM EACH OTHER – you are the epitome of a supremacist, NYMOM. And a dumb one at that.
Next, you’re going to quote the feminist study done at the University of Manitoba that claims that men have more sex than women – without realizing that the very term “sex” means that both genders must be doing it at the same time in order for it to be sex, therefore the “average” man has sex EXACTLY as many times as the “average” woman. God, how do you femikooks manage to get government funding to promote your stupid ideas?
Listen, Walrus, why don’t you step up to the plate and explain your racist theory a little more in depth, rather than the illogical “slavery caused single parents” and “slavery was the cause of Katrina” argument. That’s a pretty big leap you made there, Margaret. Don’t forget to include the feminist inspired agenda to boot fathers out of welfare homes in your explanation of those 140 years.
Everything about you is supremacist.
If you can’t explain it a little better, then perhaps you should…
FUCK OFF, SKANK!
Btw, let’s not forget NYMOM’s other racist statements – the ones she makes on her blog, (while speaking to a black woman).
“Everytime you post on this blog or make a cell phone call or use a microwave, drive a car, etc., you are benefitting from ‘white’s people’s culture’ or whatever you want to call it.You should be damn grateful for it’s existence.”
Lol, the woman on NYMOM’s blog only called her a moron, but I think she was just being nice – inside, her inner voice must have been screaming:
FUCK OFF, SKANK!
At 2:21 AM, Anonymous said…
Black families were more intact and functional (e.g., 2 parent homes, high literacy rates, low rate of out-of-wedlock births, etc…) in 1906 vs. 2006. In fact, that observation can be made about all families.
Black families are a canary in a coal mine, however. They way 20th century government/academic social policy has systematically destroyed them (feral kids, widespread matriarchy, single parent families) is spreading to all groups and classes.
At 9:39 AM, unpleasant bitter git said…
Well said Voodoojock.
I bet nymom never even bothered to read the original article.
At 2:19 PM, Anonymous said…
Well I speak from the perspective of the US where a realistic reading of the statistics on boys doing badly in school showed that race played a larger factor then anything else. It was not ALL boys across the board who were impacted.
AND since the UK is very similar to our society in many ways I bet it’s the same thing there…
Another article mentioned how Germany and other European countries did not have this problem and I think it’s related to the UK trying to hang onto it’s colonies after WWII…Germany and other countries in Europe did not attempt to do this.
I don’t consider it racism to acknowledge a problem and try to deal with it…as opposed to what you people try to do. Which is paint it as impacting all men negatively and try to get laws and public policies instituted to benefit all men…when, in fact, it is a specific group that is impacted not all of you at all.
In eesence more statistical lies to benefit men.
At 2:23 PM, Anonymous said…
Well I was going by the reality of the US (which the UK is very similar to) and our own statistics show that most of the groups of boys and men having problems are from certain racial and ethnic groups.
It’s not universal to boys and men at all even though you MRAs keep trying to paint it that way…to get advantage for yourselves.
More statistical lies.
At 6:21 PM, Kim Il Jong said…
AND since the UK is very similar to our society in many ways I bet it’s the same thing there…
Speaking as someone from neither of those two countries but who now lives in the US and who works with a bunch of POMEs, I would have to point out that the UK is not very similar to the US.
For example, blacks make up about 12.6% of the US population and Hispanics make up another 12-15% and East-Asians are reaching for 4%, while non-whites in the UK make up about 5-7% and there are lots from Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Moreover, as to your claim that poor outcomes among boys are predominantly a black thing in the US, well, yes, they are hit badly, but so are the left half of the white bell curve as well.
Historically, the way these things balance out is that large numbers of disaffected males go on violent rampages and then things change. Look at the Taiping rebellion, look at the French Revolution.
Things are building up to be interesting and I am planning on how to keep my children safe. A move to China looks interesting, considering they are half Chinese and there are lots of pretty Chinese women in China who appreciate a man with money and kindness.
At 7:46 PM, unpleasant bitter git said…
NYMOM says: “Well I speak from the perspective of the US where a realistic reading of the statistics on boys doing badly in school showed that race played a larger factor then anything else. It was not ALL boys across the board who were impacted.”
First of all NYMOM, the story was not strictly about school. It was about poor parenting resulting in anti-social behaviour amongst the latest crop of children in Britain.
Secondly, you say ‘boys’ but the article just refers to children.
From the article:
“The child psychologists will be funded by the prime minister’s Respect Task Force to work in deprived areas. They will advise new parents – of children of all ages – and intervene when children get into trouble.”
Why have you changed it specifically to boys? So that you can claim that MRA’s are trying to get “special rights” for males I presume.
NYMOM says: “Another article mentioned how Germany and other European countries did not have this problem and I think it’s related to the UK trying to hang onto it’s colonies after WWII…Germany and other countries in Europe did not attempt to do this.”
Well Germany lost WWII so they didn’t really have much say in it did they. But what about France?
List of Current French Colonies:
* Saint-Pierre and Miquelon
* Saint Martin (northern half only)
* French Guiana
* Scattered Islands in the Indian Ocean
But lets go back to this slavery thing. Although Britain was a big player in the slave trade, it was mostly transporting them between colonies. Britain itself had very few black slaves. There was no point in the wealthy importing slaves when there were more than enough white peasants around to fill the factories and fields.
British Parliament banned the Atlantic slave trade in 1807 although it took a while longer to stamp it out. West Indian immigration to Britain started on 1948 with the arrival of the Empire Windrush. Now I’m not saying that these immigrants were treated very well when they got here but thats another story.
But assuming your “slavery theory” has *some* merit, why is it just manifesting itself in the last 5 to 10 years in the UK? Is it some sort of latent racial timebomb that takes nearly 200 years to go off?
NYMOM says: “I don’t consider it racism to acknowledge a problem and try to deal with it…as opposed to what you people try to do. Which is paint it as impacting all men negatively and try to get laws and public policies instituted to benefit all men…when, in fact, it is a specific group that is impacted not all of you at all.”
Once again NYMOM, not only do you have the wrong end of the stick, but a totally different stick altogether. The point of Duncan posting this article was not to call for MORE laws or public policies for men or anyone, but for the polititians TO STOP WASTING TAXPAYERS MONEY ON SILLY MEDDLING SCHEMES WHICH DO NOT ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. It’s socialist government meddling at the behest of feminists thats caused a lot of these problems in the first place and this “super nannie” scheme is just more meddling, more useless spin and more wasted money.
But hey! If you want to have a discussion about boys in school doing badly because they are black and the legacy of slavery how about this article then.
Is half the USA’s population black and is it only that half that are dropping out or are lots of white kids dropping out too?
At 7:50 PM, VoodooJock said…
Yeah, statistics the Walrus agrees with are valid, yet statistics used to refute the Walrus’ arguments are ‘lies’.
Dream on, ye of the 6-digit cholesterol level and single-digit IQ.
At 11:38 PM, unpleasant bitter git said…
Apart from this quote in the BBC article there were no statistics at all.
“The public would “be aware that Labour’s flagship anti-social behaviour policy – the Asbo – has a breach rate of over 50% according to latest indications”
And notice NYMOM that there is no bias for or against females or for or against males.
Please try to read for content in future NYMOM. It will stop you from looking like a total nutter.
At 2:00 PM, NYMOM said…
This is another statistic lie that most Afr.-Amer. families were more stable earlier in the first half of the 20th century then they were in the second half. We really didn’t have the instruments to measure family stability then, the way we do now.
So we have no way of knowing the real situation of Afr.-Amer. families following the Civil War in this country and into the 1960s before Daniel Moyihan’s initial report about their family life was published…
For instance, although divorce was rare in the past, abandonment of a family or the ‘poor man’s divorce’ was not. Before social security numbers were required in order to be employed, a whole new life could be started in another state and you could not be traced for child support.
So abandonment of a family was much more common in our historic past and not tracked the way it is today…
Growing up as a child in the 50s/60s I knew a number of married families, whose father had just abandoned them. Yet these families went into the census report as married, even though for all intents and purposes they were single mother-headed.
Regarding the statistics I mentioned, I was outlining stats your movement has used in the past, not taking them from just this one article.
AND your movement, like the gender-neutral feminism one, has used many statistical lies, exaggerations and distortions to paint a false picture for the public…
If you need to exaggerate or distort to make a point, it probably isn’t worth making…
At 2:24 PM, NYMOM said…
You’re right I didn’t bother reading the article…I took it’s essence from Duncan Idaho’s summation of it…
So what’s your point????
Anyway, I don’t believe that in 1906 most Afr.-Amer. families were in better shape then in 2006…
Quite frankly I think this is a self-serving lie put out by people who are attempting to roll back all the rights that were won in the 1960s for a number of groups of people in this country.
Selfish, unprincipled people.
Thus, Afr.-Amer. families do NOT function as any kind of canary in the coal mine for American families. It is deceptive to use their statistics to paint a picture for anyone else, as their situation is unique in the west and is more a reflection of the history of slavery and institutional racism that immediately followed after the Civil War…
Their current plight has NOTHING to do with feminism or their mothers…
Additionally saying half of students in cities drop out of school is a misleading headline. As most Afr-Amer. live in urban areas. So anyone who knows how to read the ‘codes’ that the media uses immediately knows what they are referring to…
These are more attempts to use statistical lies and distortions to sway the public…
BTW, Rob Fedders you should stop taking comments out of context on my blog. I was responding to someone who made a racist comment on another blog about white people claiming we didn’t contribute anything to the culture or civilization of the world and that’s why we were always trying to imitate or ‘steal’ other people’s cultures…because we didn’t have one of our own…
Another attempt to mislead by you telling only half the story…
Anyway my main point about the UK still stands. I have seen that they are similar to the US in many ways and I believe this to be the case here too…much of their immigration is from their original colonial holdings in places like the Carribbean where slavery left it’s sad mark as well on the populations who remained after the fact.
You don’t just pass laws and then think that overnight you can wipe out centuries of mistreatment of people…that takes generations to fix, if ever…
Perfect example the Serbs of Europe…they were ‘freed’ from enslavement by the Turks in the 1800s…YET still are suffering the impact today…
It changes the institutions, the thinking, political reactions, the traditions of an entire people to go through a trauma of this nature and it’s not so easily repaired after the fact…
At 2:28 PM, NYMOM said…
“A move to China looks interesting.”
Unless you and your children are Chinese you will not be welcome in China.
This is true of most of the societies outside of the west.
You are putting your children at risk of losing their citizenship by moving out of a western country for a myth really…and exposing them to what could be a difficult and dangerous situation for them in the future with no path of return once they have left.
Many stupid people did this in the 60s and were trapped in various other countries and unable to return here.
At 2:34 PM, NYMOM said…
By the way unpleasant bitter git, I disagree that this problem in UK has JUST begun in the last 5/10 years…
It has been building for a while but just as in the US, it was ignored and swept under the rug…it’s gotten too big to be ignored now…
I would compare it with the conflict with the Middle East.
Just because it has flared up now doesn’t mean there weren’t problems all along. We were just not paying attention to them because we wanted to continue buying cheap oil…so this is the price you pay when you don’t address a small problem at once…it turns into a bigger one down the road.
At 3:14 PM, NYMOM said…
Last point since we’re on the issue.
I think one way to address this situation is a movement which is just starting to gain momentum in the US which is reparation payments for descendants of former slaves…
We’ve had a few studies here that have shown that Afr. Americans generally have less real capital ie., equity in homes, savings, stocks, etc., even if they themselves are making a middle class income…Probably this reflects the fact that this current generation is the first, maybe the second, that is able to fully access all the economic opportunities that most other American groups have had available.
So this could be a twofer solving this problem, plus making reparations for past injustice.
The reparation amount could go for purchasing a home or a business, college tuition, etc., It would have to be substantial enough to allow for these things to be purchased, so clearly this is NOT a plan that could be implemented on the discount plan.
But I think anybody objectively looking at the statistics could see it’s a lot cheaper and fairer in the long run to attempt to address this continuing problem NOW, (even at this late date) rather then continue trying to blame the situation on someone’s mother…
Since Afr.-American men are NOT in trouble in our society because of their mothers…any objective reading of history could show that…
Just thought I’d end this discussion on an upbeat note with a possible solution to the problem rather then the usual complaining with no remedy proposed.
At 3:21 PM, NYMOM said…
BTW, Rob Fedders men CAN have more sex then women as you are probably having it with the same group of women…As in a prostitute or loose woman can have sex with anywhere from 5 to 50 men in a week…
Thus men having sex = 50
AND women having sex = 1
AND stop with the insults on every site you go to, I’m getting sick of the childest name calling already.
It shows a lack of intelligence.
At 8:20 PM, Anonymous said…
Here I just took this link from one of your sister sites.
It clearly shows that the two countries with the highest rates of out-of-wedlock teen births are US and UK for the reasons I cited.
Now New Zealand is next, probably due to aboriginal issues and Hungary and Slovina, follow which I believe could be due to the same sorts of discrimination issues with jobs and education against their Gypsy populations…
Iceland, well that one stumps me…but we will always have a few off the bell-shaped curve societies, that differ significantly from others. It could be something in their early history (high rate of men dying young for some reason, harsh climate, etc.,) that we don’t know about yet. But that doesn’t negate the analysis however…
Clearly it shows that this whole out-of-wedlock teen birth rate and resultant problems emanates NOT from feminism (as the low numbers in the Scanda. countries demonstrate) but from the distortion of societies and people under stress of slavery, racism, invasion, whatever.
It has NOTHING to do with feminism…
So let’s wake up here.
At 2:33 AM, VoodooJock said…
Wow, it takes the walrus 8 consecutive posts to spout nonsensical drivel. The lunatic bum on the corner can pack the same amount of insanity into a rant between the time it takes the traffic signal to go from red to green.
Like the lunatic bum, there’s a whole lot of “I think” and “I believe”, and “I disagree, therefore I am right and you are wrong despite my never have actually lived in the UK for any length of time, but I have seen every episode of “Eastenders” thus I know my stuff.” with minimal amount of supporting evidence, as well as an misleading statistic (# of prostitutes having sex which somehow equates to men having more sex than women).
At 3:57 AM, Rob Fedders said…
Nothing shows a lack of intelligence more than a dumb sea-cow employed at major university who doesn’t know the difference between median, mean, range and average! Fuck me gently with a wooden spoon, NYMOM, but I do believe they taught that in grade 10 or so. Quit proving Larry Summers was right or pretty soon you’ll find the feminist movement setting your fat walrus ass adrift on an outgoing icefloe. Lol! What are the prerequisite degrees you need to get hired at Columbia University, Margaret Temple? Did you even complete Curious George 101?
Since men or women cannot have heterosexual sex WITHOUT the opposite gender, Stupid Sea Cow, the AVERAGE number of each gender will be EXACTLY the same – ALWAYS! Even if, in a community of 100 men and 100 women, that all 100 of the men banged the same woman, in the end the score would be 100 men and 100 women, divided by 100 each would mean that each gender AVERAGED 1 copulation per person.
Fuck, are you a dumb cunt! Quit bringing down the bell curve, Walrus. Obviously, the University of Manitoba had a dizzy bitch like you working in the grant-giving department, causing further squandering of tax payer money when they could have gone online and had a savant such as moi explain it to their dumb asses for FREE! I think men are fleeing universities because they are smart enough to realize it is filled with stupid cunts like you!
Now, NYMOM, you know I’m not going to leave your ocean polluting walrus ass alone, don’t you? I mean if you get to declare that it is your mission to troll men’s right’s blogs and create disruptions, then I don’t see how you can object to a man declaring it is his mission to troll your every comment on said sites and point out what a dizzy bitch you are. (A bad sea-breath one at that too – brush them fishy smelling tusks, Walrus. Pulleeze!)
You do believe in “equal rights”, don’t you, Walrus?
Cause if you don’t, you can just…
FUCK OFF, SKANK!
At 4:47 AM, Rob Fedders said…
NYMOM, Smelly Breathed Walrus… you STILL haven’t explained the link between between slavery 140 years ago and single motherhood today. All you are saying is that there was slavery and there is single motherhood.
Correlation is not causation, stupid walrus!
If it was, I could say that since walrus’s eat cod, they are therefore solely responsible for the near extinction of Atlantic Cod, and therefore… OPEN SEASON ON WALRUS!!!
Either that, or you could just…
FUCK OFF, SKANK!
(Ps. Back to to Curious George 101 for you… but first you must take the prerequisite course “Clifford the Big Red Dog 101A)
At 8:18 AM, Anonymous said…
Well, even if there were fathers in these “families,” I don’t think it would help very much. The state has been insisting disciplining children is abuse, so more than likely the father can’t really do anything anymore, especially above the mother’s wishes. Badboy boyfriends can beat up the children though if they want, and then the mother gets thrown into jail.
I remember when I was a kid. The cops wouldn’t even take you to jail or reprimand you or anything. They’d just get our phone numbers and call our parents…and it was much worse. Our parents would take the side of the cops, and we’d get a lecture and a hiding, and chances were we’d never even think of doing the same thing again. Nowadays, the parents are against the cops, the cops now don’t do their jobs and would rather just harass people, and things get worse and worse.
Of course, I guess women were the same as always, since they’d never get any punishment. But at least they were held in some check by religion and social mores.
At 11:34 AM, Anonymous said…
Clearly you people here are not interested in serious discussion of anything unless it pertains to the issue of who is the bigger victim: men or women…
I guess that’s why most people either ignore or mock your movement…
At 5:15 PM, VoodooJock said…
Oh, there’s where you’re wrong, Walrus. We do believe in serious discussion. That’s why we ridicule you while shooting down your arguments. Your trolling prevents serious discussion from happening here.
If you behave, I’ll contact the good folks at the Bronx Zoo and see about getting you first crack at the leftover fish slop they feed the walruses that didn’t have the misfortune of being hired by Columbia U.
At 1:09 PM, Rob Fedders said…
Hey, sick NYMOM Walrus,
Here is an article that Carey Roberts wrote that contradicts your “theory”.
Black Families, Black Men
March 15, 2006
by Carey Roberts
Sounding like a born-again social conservative, president Lyndon B. Johnson stepped to the podium and made this stirring pronouncement: “When the family collapses, it is the children that are usually damaged. When it happens on a massive scale, the community itself is crippled.”
And with his usual modesty, LBJ later hailed that 1965 Howard University commencement address as his “greatest civil rights speech.”
A few months later the Moynihan Report came out. Despite its commonsense focus on strengthening the Black family, civil rights leaders raised a stink that Mr. Moynihan was trying to “blame the victim.” Floyd McKissick, director of the Congress of Racial Equality, insisted, “It’s the damn system that needs changing.”
So the architects of the Great Society not only set out to ignore the formative role of the Black family — they plotted to make things worse.
They instituted programs with men-stay-away names like “Women, Infants, and Children.” They enacted Medicaid in 1965 that imposed eligibility tests slighting non-custodial parents (read “fathers”).
Then the social do-gooders delivered the knock-out blow: the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. AFDC had its infamous “man-out-of-the-house” rule that withheld benefits if the primary breadwinner (again, read “father”) resided in the house.
Sociologist Andrew Billingsley has traced the historical lifeline of the Black family. In 1890 the number of intact Black families with fathers and mothers at home was 80%. Over the next seven decades through 1960, that figure held remarkably constant.
But once the Great Society programs were put in place, the African-American family went into a tailspin.
When the number-crunchers tallied up the results from the 1970 decennial census, they couldn’t believe their eyes — the number of intact Black families had fallen to 64%.
For the next 20 years two-parent families continued their free-fall, reaching a rock-bottom 38% in 1990. And most of the remaining intact families were concentrated in the Black middle class. In the inner city, the traditional Black family had essentially ceased to exist.
So forced to compete with a government welfare program, poor Black men had suddenly found themselves persona non grata in their own homes. Like an unwelcome houseguest, Uncle Sam had moved in, unpacked his bags, and made himself a surrogate husband.
What two World Wars and the Great Depression were unable to do, the Great Society accomplished in only 25 years.
With the Black family now in shambles, no amount of federal money could fix the problem. In 1965, 21% of all American children under the age of 18 lived in poverty. Thirty years and billions of welfare dollars later, the number of American children living in poverty was — 21%.
Of course the Leftists refuse to admit the obvious failures of the Great Society. And is their habit, they tell the exact opposite of the truth.
Robert Hill of the Urban League once spun this whopper: “Research studies have revealed that many one-parent families are more intact or cohesive than many two-parent families.” Excuse me Mr. Hill, when millions of poor teenage girls are having out-of-wedlock births, how does that fit into your concept of “intact” and “cohesive”?
Likewise, feminist scholars celebrated the ascendancy of the female-headed household. Believing the nuclear family is the bastion of male privilege, feminist Toni Morrison lionized the “strong black woman” who was “superior in terms of [her] ability to function healthily in the world.”
But there’s a deeper reason for the Leftist cover-up.
Karl Marx argued that economic realities determine social conditions. According to that formulation, if you pump money into a community, social indicators will automatically improve. But the Great Society proved the opposite — squander money on programs that weaken social structures, and life becomes unbearably squalid.
Viewing the plight of the once-proud Black family, Kay Hymowitz recently mused in the City Journal, “The literature was so evasive, so implausible, so far removed from what was really unfolding in the ghetto, that if you didn’t know better, you might conclude that people actually wanted to keep the black family separate and unequal.”
When I reflect on the vestiges of the American Black family, the disenfranchisement of its men, and the despair of its children, I admit to feeling an abiding sense of betrayal — actually outrage is a better word.
They promised us the Great Society.
Now, Walrus, Mr. Roberts is a much more classy fellow than I, and so he does not swear and cuss much. But if he did, I’m sure the first words out of his mouth would be…
FUCK OFF, SKANK!
At 2:43 PM, Masculist Man said…
Is she is as innocent as the reporter claims? Remember the by-line reporter and contributing reporter are both women and women look out for themselves at the expense of men. These two women did a hatchet job on the male accuser that they never would a female accuser so let’s keep that straight and let’s try to remember that women are molesting underage charges in their care and making excuses why they did it and placing the blame on someone other than themselves so keep that in mind.