Chivalry

If they’re anything like Rebecca Watson, then do we actually want more women in the atheist/skeptic movement?

ArgusEyes — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:19:30 GMT

Since I last commented, I’ve heard many podcasts and read many articles on the wretched Rebecca Watson affair. Not because I sought them, but because they are brought up at the places I regularly visit. I have commented before, but I feel a sort of last word is required since I’ve not heard many people go over what really pisses me off about this whole thing.

It’s about this whole idea of privilege. The idea being peddled is that we men have such a sense of privilege and chutzpah that we brazenly go where we please propositioning women left and right?

Guys. Do you feel ‘privileged’ to be the pursuers, do you feel ‘empowered’ when approaching a woman at a club or bar? Are these women weak and diminutive? Or are they fully aware of the power behind their own positions? In my experience, it’s normally the latter.

In fact, being able to sit on your arse and be propositioned by guys and be offered drinks. That sounds like a privileged position to me! If I’d exchange my ‘privilege’ for their ‘oppression’ on any day of the week then guess what? It isn’t privilege!

Men and women are different. We ask the women out, because we want to get laid. Sorry. Is this debatable? (And no, I’m not saying that women never ask men out for fucks sake). If the world changed tomorrow, and guys stopped asking women out, then women would probably be the first ones to complain.

Take the ardent atheist podcast episode that dealt with this. The gay host has a female co-host and he fills the panel with three women! So one gay guy and four women discuss this issue. Are you serious! I’ll give you one chance to try and guess which perspective is missing here. This brings a side issue to the fore, the intrusion of politically correct victim groups into a movement which is ostensibly about facts and science. Take this comment:

(2) There are also women out there who do not believe this is an issue because they haven’t personally experienced it, or have experienced things they feel are far worse. Please do not diminish the experiences and emotions of your sisters in skepticism. Remain open to the possibility that you, too, might be unconsciously influenced by cultural baggage.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2011/07/20/is-it-cold-in-here/

Feelings and emotions have no place in scepticism. Skepticism is about facts, not your petty personality problems. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Feminism makes women weak and pathetic. Look at how the goalposts have moved. From sensible arguments about legitimate differences to these Orwellian phrases about “cultural baggage”. It’s all an excuse to continue feeling aggrieved and a victim in societies which, generally speaking, excellent in their treatment of females.

Feminism & PC is not going away, it's getting shriller and it’s growing like mould in a movement that is not ostensibly about it. A lot of people didn’t come here for this.

JREF president DJ Grothe did just that when, a few days before TAM9, he openly addressed the rift caused by “Elevatorgate” and made it clear that unwanted sexual advances or other harassing behavior were unacceptable, and grounds for being ejected from the conference. Grothe also deserves credit for making diversity a priority in his selection of speakers and topic. That’s the mark of a true leader, and the JREF is lucky to have him. Kudos, also, to Big Name skeptics like Phil Plait, PZ Myers, Josh Rosenau, Greg Laden and others who spoke up eloquently in support of Watson.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2011/07/20/is-it-cold-in-here/

How do you know it’s unwanted until you try? Then you’re already fucked (as we know from elevator dude). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. You are a Neanderthal for being a normal, healthy male. Submit to the thought collective and let them mould you like putty.

A lot of people don’t particularly like the victim mongers and their cringing, hand-wringing supporters (most of the leaders in the movement support the Watson view by the way, the kerfuffle comes from those who are in the movement but are not in positions of power – the rot will continue). A lot of people think that Watson’s comments were going too far in criticizing someone coming on to her, they don’t live in bubbles of PC, they’re out there in real life where they have to ask chicks out.

My recommendation. Become a monk. Live on a mountaintop, and laugh at the ridiculous monkeys scurrying around below you with their stupid, petty little gripes and lives.

Shockwaves strike the skeptic community as an act of such untrammeled sexism shakes out very foundations

ArgusEyes — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:12:08 GMT

PZ says:

here is an odd attitude in our culture that it's acceptable for men to proposition women in curious ways — Rebecca Watson recently experienced this in an elevator in Dublin, and I think this encounter Ophelia Benson had reflects the same attitude: women are lower status persons, and we men, as superior beings, get to ask things of them.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php

He’s incited people to “always name names”. Other’s have chimed in too. PZ’s followed up with “The Decent Human Beings' Guide to Getting Laid at Atheist Conferences”.

At Furious Purpose:

Sometimes I feel ashamed to have a dingdong, seriously.

http://furiouspurpose.me/2011/06/21/rebecca-watson-has-a-new-video/

Wow, that’s pretty harsh rhetoric. “Decent human being” indeed. Whatever did happen to Rebecca Watson to incite such flapping?

Well, she left a party at 4am in some atheist/skeptic conference and a guy got on with her and said.

Don't take this the wrong way but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?

Oh. Sweet. Jesus. Call the fucking police. Now!

Oh, and she named and shamed him publicly afterwards. Classy.

So many thoughts are swilling throughout my mind, that if I don’t curtail them to a certain degree then this will become an uber-post. I suppose the most important one is just how weak and pathetic women infected by feminism can be. Can I imagine a woman of my mother’s generation making such a fuss about something like this? Now, it is creepy, I’ll admit that. An elevator is a confined place and it’s an early hour of the morning but I guess that he liked you Rebecca, and he was waiting to ask you all evening and grabbed a chance and that he didn’t think about the creepiness of it at the time and was probably a little bit intoxicated and… Well, he probably regrets liking you now doesn’t he?

If only feminists come in bright colours like tree frogs do. Then you’d know to stay away from something that is incredibly dangerous.

Rebecca Watson is, of course, the classic victim narcissist. An event like this that most decent people would drop, or communicate to friends, is aired out to dry for the whole world to see. The point? To bring attention to herself and her victim ideology. Rebecca, like all religious dogmatists, has a deep need to prove herself right on the issues she holds emotionally true. Every little thing becomes further fuel for the cause. “See! I told you we’ve still got some way to go”. However, as the privilege of women continues its inexorable rise, the examples they need to use to prove their case become increasingly thin; hence clumsy elevator passes.

But I guess we’re all talking about Rebecca Watson now aren’t we? Remember, this is a woman who foisted her wedding on an auditorium of unsuspecting people who didn’t come there for that event.

There are so many more troubling things people are saying though. One things PZ was harping on about was that us men are somehow striding around considering it our right to proposition women in all sorts of ways. First off, the denial that it’s not men’s role to do this (socialized, biological or not, I don’t care, it’s the way it is) is another grand Leftist denial of human nature. Does he think this is a privilege for us?! I suppose he also thinks it’s a privilege for us to pay for the meals at dates too?

I truly hate these people.

I don’t buy that PZ was ever a great puller. Does he remember the horrible feeling when approaching a woman in a club, or wherever? I tell you, you don’t feel happy to have that privilege then. If you’d give anything to have the other sex have that privilege then it ain’t privilege.

The last point before this absorbs my entire morning is about the sheer wussification of the atheist/skeptic community. Now, people have been supporting the side of sanity on this, but it’s a battle between PC feminism and a slightly lesser version of it. I’m not happy to belong to a classification that has anything more than 10% of people who would make a comment like this:

I'm sorry we men can? be horrible assholes a lot of the time. It gets me down. Hopefully we'll grow.

(from the youtube comments on Watson’s video)

Oh yes mistress! We can change our silly, boyish ways, teach us the ways of the angelic being that we know women to be!

What. A. Worthless. Pussy.

So I think that’s it for today. The atheist/skeptic community is filled with worthless, weak, pathetic men. Angry, furious, chip-on-the-shoulder embittered women. Feminism has turned women into losers; and last.

This thread really is the last on this specific topic. The only thing I've so far found useful about them is that they've smoked the flaming misogynists out of the woodwork. Try not to be one of them, OK?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/oh_no_not_againonce_more_unto.php

It’s good to know that the issues are always, the saints versus the haters. Classic left.

The modern atheist movement is a boiling sea of oppression and bigotry

ArgusEyes — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:42:09 GMT

..by which I mean people may innocently call female atheists pretty.

Oh noes!

[Me, trying to make a purchase]: Do you have any of these in a box that doesn't say "from someone in New Orleans who loves you"? I was going to get them for my lab and that might be kind of creepy.

[Retail salesguy]: Your lab? I'm not sure those are good for dogs.

[Me]: No, not the dog lab. A science lab. My laboratory. The people who work for me.

[RSG]: Oh, you're here for the science conference?

[Me]: Yes, microbiology. I study germs.

[RSG]: But you can't be a scientist!

[Me]: I can't?

[RSG]: No, you don't look like a microbiologist.

[Me]: Um, what exactly does a microbiologist look like, then?

[RSG]: Uh...

[Me]: Because I'm pretty sure that I am one. (Rummaging through bag, digging out ASM nametag). Yep, that's my name, and that's the microbiology conference logo right there.

[RSG]: But you're too pretty! You should be in Hollywood.

[Me]: (picking up bag, leaving unpurchased boxes on counter) I bet you've had dozens of scientists just like me through your store today, and never even realized it because of the stereotypes you hold. Conference runs through tomorrow, so I hope you'll say hello to a few of them.

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2011/05/youre_too_prettyyoungfemale_ta.php

Let’s make a parallel. I’m a computer nerd; computer nerds have a reputation of being either thin & sickly, with glasses or a fat tub or lard. Say, if I were an attractive guy (let’s make this a though experiment shall we? Since I am firmly in that aforementioned fat tub of lard demographic so solidly that you’d think I’d have pioneered the stereotype), and I was talking to a bird, and she said something like “oh, you’re far too normal/handsome to be a programmer!”.

Now, if I started stomping my foot and making a big stink about the “bad image of programmers” then you could legitimately call me a sad berk. Many women do it. Fine.. After all, they have a berk-enabling ideology called feminism behind them, driving their actions.

Check out one comment at the thread at the above post:

This summer a fellow med student told me I got called nurse a lot bc I'm young and pretty...?? Um bc OBVIOUSLY there are no young or pretty med students or doctors and all nurses are young, beautiful females. So frustrating!

God dammit! The thought of living in a world where you get called beautiful all the time, it makes me want to fucking puke! That level of oppression.

Here's a hint guys. No compliments. Don't compliment women, don't even bother.
And when they complain that we don't, cite shit like this..

If you’re wearing a whore’s uniform…

ArgusEyes — Mon, 30 May 2011 18:18:06 GMT

So these ridiculous slut walks are heading in my general geographic direction.

A "Slut Walk" protest is planned in Wellington next month as protests grow following a police officer's remarks about how woman should dress to avoid sexual assaults.

In Boston approximately 2000 protesters marched yesterday some holding signs saying We love sluts! and Jesus loves sluts, Associated Press reported.

The protest movement, sparked by a Toronto police officer's remark that women could avoid being raped by not dressing like "sluts," came to Boston after advocates saw similar events - largely organised through Facebook and Twitter - pop up in Canada, England and other parts of the US.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4976243/Slut-Walk-protest-planned-for-Wellington

I don’t have much to say on this topic. So I’ll let Mr. Chappelle say it best.

Also, whilst Googling for images to use in this post, I came upon a piece called “These 'slut walk' women are simply fighting for their right to be dirty” by Germaine Greer (the subtitle is “True liberation is women wearing what they like and abandoning the Hoover.” – what fucking decade is this stupid woman living in?). I love how ridiculous feminism has become. Look at the words used here, “fight”, “right”. Question; what right are these women being deprived of? Is there some sharia-style law being proposed against slutty clothes. No. A police officer made a comment. Oh noes! Better take to the streets then! You gotta know how to pick your fights in life I guess…

Oh BTW, if you’re a man, and you’re at one of these slut walks in the march, you’re a pussy.

Dan Abrams to write a bigoted supremacist book

ArgusEyes — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:39:14 GMT

Msnbc legal eagle Dan Abrams is making the case for women, literally. He’s inked a six-figure deal with Abrams Books (no relation) to chronicle ways women are superior to men. In “Man Down,” he’ll present studies, polls and other “evidence” to prove that women actually best the boys in typically male areas like gambling and enduring pain, and even make better hedge-fund managers and cops. Abrams isn’t basing this on his own studies of gorgeous actresses: “If I had any unique insight into women, I would be married. I don’t. This is a fun book written from the perspective of a lawyer making a case. A lot of people will be surprised by what we found.” It’s due around Mother’s Day next year.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/dan-abrams-to-write-book-proving-that-women-are-better-than-men-yes-really/

Mother’s day eh? Isn’t that nice. Maybe I can pick up a copy for my mum to help illustrate to her how her son is a worthless piece of shit. Here’s my view on supremacy.

Whilst it is an unavoidable fact that men are better than women at some tasks and women are better than men at some tasks, it seems like a silly endeavour to state that “X is superior, in a general and absolute way, to Y”. Even if you could do it, why do it? Why upset people and sow the seeds of hatred and angst. If women make superior nurses, why jump about shouting “aha – in your face!” It’s obnoxious and counterproductive. Here’s my view on supremacists

Supremacists are not secure, decent people. A person to whom it is important to argue for the supremacy of whites, blacks, men, women, gays, straights, Muslims or whatever, is not arguing for that groups as much as they are arguing for themselves. Feminists or blacklists or many other types of activists are of the same template but with the target stripped out and replaced by something else. The target of the supremacist is not an earned skill such as chess playing proficiency, or interest in Chaucer. Rather, it is a chance physical attribute that took no effort to assume. A black is a black and a female is a female, they do not earn these identities but the identity is the only thing they have to cling to. Let’s refer to this as the identity complex. After many years of talking to feminists, I can safely generalise that the more dedicated a woman is to feminism (let’s put the issue of male feminists aside for now) the less impressive she was as person to me. The nice kinds of feminists who email to take me to task have a passing interest in the subject. They are not on the forefront of the activist wing of the feminist movement and I normally ask them where they fit into things.

The identity complex I described the last paragraph is inevitably going to be tied to the victim complex. Someone send me a great quote about victims:

"The victim stance is a powerful one: The victim is always morally right, neither responsible nor accountable, and forever entitled to sympathy. "

http://www.zurinstitute.com/victim_psychology.html

Whilst it may not make sense to think that a person is happy to be unhappy (as in, someone seeks to be a victim which makes them unhappy), but humans are not rational beings and there is power in victimhood. In Theodore Dalrymple’s book “Life at the bottom”. Dalrymple recounts many tales of how criminals in the prison where he had worked would constantly blame others for their actions (IE “it wasn’t my fault I stole the VCR, they should have locked their window”). To not be a victim is to stand face-to-face with one’s own flaws. It requires a savage degree of self honesty to say “I was wrong”. Humans generally do not do this because of cognitive dissonance, any ideas that challenge the things we hold to be emotionally important (I am worthwhile / I am honest / I am good) get filtered by the brain and rationalised before they even get to our conscious mind.

In short, identity complex and victim complex go hand in hand because of the worthlessness of the people who assume them. It takes guts to say “I am unintelligent” and “I have no skill”. It is human nature to blame our flaws on others. The identity victim (that’s it – I am coining that phrase from now on) reaches to what they can, the problem is because I am a woman and women are oppressed, or that I am black. Winners do not whine, they achieve.

That covers supremacists, but what about Mr. Abrams? He obviously isn’t acting on behalf of his own sex here, he’s acting against it. I think he is motivated by other things. Number one is political correctness. PC thought is the “appropriate” way to think in our modern western societies. Because it has successfully garnered the image of being “compassion” to oppressed groups. These oppressed groups are, of course, fronted by people with the identity victim complex. Dan is being very correct in the spirit of the times to be writing a book like this. As can be seen from the questions in the article like “Where are you in terms of writing the book? Is it done?”. This might be the kind of question you ask a policy wonk but it is not what you ask a bigot writing a work of supremacy. PC tells all of us that this how you treat people acting in favour of a victim group but not one in favour of an oppressor group.

It is also possible that Abrams may be seeking affirmation from women. This is an affliction of males to a greater degree than for women because men do more work to earn women approval and attention. To be honest, I have psycho-analysed enough for one day. I’ll end with this. We live in a society of many different types of people. And we do this by getting along. People like Mr. Abrams make the world worse by picking at scabs and setting man against woman. There are better endeavours in life to which one can dedicate oneself, greatening anger is not one of them.

The lies of a female

ArgusEyes — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:50:18 GMT

I have expanded on this post in a new post, I reccomend that you read that version instead of this one as it explain my point in more depth. You can find it here.

The girl suing a tattoo artist who left her with 56 stars on her face has admitted she lied.

Kimberley Vlaeminck, 18, claimed that she'd asked for three small stars but fell asleep during the procedure and woke up with a whole galaxy on her face.

But she has now confessed she knew exactly what tattoo parlour owner Rouslan Toumaniantz was doing but changed her mind later.

She said she lied because her father was "furious".

Link to article

As I would be. It was a stupid thing to do. Why am I mentioning this? Because this incident made me think about how women falsely accuse rape on the same grounds. Many times they

We need to eradicate the ridiculous idea that women and girls don’t cry rape when it didn’t happen. Why even suggest such a common sense notion? Well, because there are people who adhere to faith based belief systems, not facts, that say that women do not falsely accuse rape. The most prominent example of this that comes to my mind is the Duke Lacrosse rape case, where the young men were assumed to be guilty.

But feminists and left-wing activists will dismiss these studies as biased because men where involved. For instance, one feminist, Wendy Kaminer, stated that "it is a primary article of faith among many feminists that women don't lie about rape, ever; they lack the dishonesty gene." Anyone believing women lack a dishonesty gene never dated women. If they do lack that gene, then someone out there is performing miraculous surgery to implant that gene. What's so amazing about such statements is: they are not based on any scientific evidence -- it is a sexist premise.

John O'Sullivan, a left-wing social scientist, discovered a widespread defense of the belief that "no woman would fabricate a rape charge. Feminists themselves admit as much."

Law Professor and left-wing political activist Susan Estrich stated that "the whole effort at reforming rape laws has been an attack on the premise that women who bring complaints are suspect."

Duke Rape Case All Too Common

For tales of false rape accusations, one of the best resources on the web is the False Rape Society.

Patriarchal Society via Socialization versus Personal Responsibility

ArgusEyes — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 06:47:15 GMT

Men's Right's News - The Pendulum Effect Episode 4

ArgusEyes — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:54:04 GMT

Man must pay support though twins not his

http://www.thestar.com/article/563571

Every now and then those who are sympathetic to men's issue need to pause and take stock of just how egregious the instances of anti-male courts can be. In this piece from the Toronto Star entitled "Man must pay support though twins not his".

An Ontario Superior Court judge has ordered a Toronto man to continue paying child support even though a DNA test shows he is not the biological father of his ex-wife's twins.

In her ruling, Madam Justice Katherine van Rensburg decided that even though Pasqualino Cornelio did not father twins – now 16 – with Anciolina Cornelio, he must continue to pay child support because "he was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage.

Source: Precious Yutangco http://www.thestar.com/article/563571

At the end of the article it states:

The judge concluded that the children should not suffer because of the parents' wrongdoings.

Source: Precious Yutangco http://www.thestar.com/article/563571

The parent's wrong doings?! I see only one part has committed any wrong here, and it is the mother. Naturally this is all for the children. Apparently you can sell men down any river if the shibboleth of "it's for the children" is there to allow one to do so.

Situations like this are a dime a dozen, and it's a downright shame. It must be the only instance where the defrauded must, by court order, pay the person who defrauded him. And before you say the money goes to the children, I must point out to you the factual inaccuracy of that statement. The money goes to the mother who has no accountability over how she spends it, and can take the father to court to demand more money apparently.

Sorry, but the "it's for the children" line does not allow you to completely stamp on and abuse another human being. Even if that human being is one of those inferior males.

Anyone looking at what the feminists have been up to these last years will notice a certain trend, the expansion of terms and labels to include more and more men under their cover. It happens with the expansion of the term rape and here, with the expansion of the term father.

To all the young men who might be listening to this, if you were thinking of helping out a friend of yours with kids by letting them stay around for a couple of months. Well now it's time to think twice, because you might end up being the only father figure they've known and thus.. daddy.

Only in situations like this do people seem to get all dewy eyed over the important need of fathers... As a wallet.

In related news the blog Psychology today reports that:

On Jan. 1, Massachusetts adopted new child-support guidelines that will likely raise the amount paid by non-custodial parents, usually fathers.

Source: Paul Raeburn http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/about-fathers/200901/child-support-how-much-is-too-much

Dennis Prager Responds

http://townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=81ddddf7-6fc5-4d7d-a3da-e00fc33d38fe

As a follow-up, last week, I mentioned the reaction to a column written by Dennis Prager entitled "when a woman isn't in the mood". In short, Dennis suggests that women who do not feel in the mood to have sex with theirs should reconsider if they actually do so to help their marriages. In a large part, the feminist reaction on the blogosphere was to call Mr. Prager a rape advocate. Since then, Prager invited two of the columnists Jeff Fecke and Megan Carpentier onto his show. This is part of what he had to say (watch clip).

Bravo Mr. Prager.

In related new, this story from the Toronto sun entitled "Hey ladies, just do it".

For her husband Brad's 40th birthday, she gave him the gift of sex -- for an entire year.

It took energy, tenaciousness and focus, but the couple stuck with the experiment, even when they were exhausted, not in the mood, and overloaded with to-do list items.

"One day, the light bulb went on," says Charla, who chronicled their story in a book entitled, 365 Nights.

Source: TANYA ENBERG http://www.torontosun.com/life/sexfiles/2009/01/22/8105766-sun.html

...

Now happy with a regular sex life, the Mullers have held onto one long-lasting lesson: The importance of maintaining intimacy.

"It was, without a doubt, the most transforming year of our marriage," she says.

Source: TANYA ENBERG http://www.torontosun.com/life/sexfiles/2009/01/22/8105766-sun.html

For a woman who was raped for 365 days in a row, Charla sure does seem upbeat.

Women and children first on the Hudson crash

http://www.true-equality.net/archive/2009/01/21/the-hudson-crash---women-and-children-first.aspx

After reading and hearing far too much credulous talk in the news about God and miracles in relation to the crash of flight 1549 into the Hudson River. I encountered a news story that I had not heard anywhere else, which seemed to me to be far more important. The BBC and Associated Press report that women and children were the first onto the life rafts after the plane crash landed, then people who had fallen into the river and been plucked out.

I think that chivalry has a place in a world less hostile to men. But in 2009 with the equality of outcome of feminism prevalent in society I think men damage themselves by capitulating to chivalrous attitudes. Chivalry is the main reason male judges oppress fathers and pass anti-male laws. Throw chivalry into that icy water where it belongs.

NOW President says "Obama cabinet level picks so far under represent women"

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2009/01/14/now-president-says-obama-cabinet-level-picks-so-far-under-represent-women/

As if we need more proof that to modern radical feminism, equality of outcome has become the goal as opposed to equality of opportunity. From fox news comes an interview with Kim Gandy, the president of the National Organisation for Women.

Synopsis: The President of the National Organization For Women complains that while divers racially, the Obama cabinet-level picks so far under-represent women. She calls it 'disappointing' and says "twenty-five percent seems a little low." She says there is still time to improve that record by appointing a woman to the now open Commerce seat and creating a cabinet level office of Women's Affairs.

Source: Greta Van Susteren http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2009/01/14/now-president-says-obama-cabinet-level-picks-so-far-under-represent-women/

Hopefully the president will not capitulate to supremacist groups such as the National Organisation for Women who would promote that you assign a woman to a post purely because she was a woman. When it comes to the people who will be running the country, I would want the best person possible irregardless of if they were male, female, black, white, Asian, Christian or Muslim.

Grandmother Climbing Mount Kilimanjaro on Behalf of Shared Parenting

http://www.acfc.org/site/DocServer/Sheila_Peltzer_Kili_Release_Final.pdf?docID=1701

Not all news is bad news though, this is a heart-warming report from the American coalition for fathers and children.

Charlotte, NC - 70 year old grandmother, Sheila Peltzer, will climb Africa's tallest peak, 19,200' Mount Kilimanjaro raising awareness for Shared Parenting and Familial Dysautonomia. Peltzer, departing January 21, 2009, will make the ten day trek up the western route where sub zero summit temperatures are expected.

Peltzer's coach for this grueling climb is former 3-time Super Bowl Champion and motivational speaker, Tim McKyer.

Many people ask me how a former professional football player and a retired school teacher became involved in this effort," Peltzer said. "It's simple. The family courts in this country are broken. Children are being denied an equal relationship with both parents. I'm unable to be a part of my grandchildren's lives because the courts denied their father enough time for shared parenting. Two of my grandchildren have FD (Familial Dysautonomia), a rare and fatal genetic disease, resulting in recurring intensive care hospitalizations. Because my son has limited access to his own children they are being denied the love of their grandparents, as well as their dad.

Source: ACFC http://www.acfc.org/site/DocServer/Sheila_Peltzer_Kili_Release_Final.pdf?docID=1701

That about sums it up. I wish that the "it's for the children" crowd, like the judge from my first story, will stop and consider the destructive effects that their "beating up on fathers" antics will actually have on children. Doing it for the children mean more than wringing every last penny out of a dad.

The Hudson Crash - Women and Children First?!?

ArgusEyes — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:04:06 GMT

Asked how he got out of the plane he said: "At first chaos, but everyone was kind of orderly, man. You know after a while everyone, we just, I just kept saying relax relax, women and children first. And then it just started filling with water, quick."

Source: BBC Airbus crashes in New York river

Heading toward the forward exits, and then standing on the wings, the passengers developed their pecking order. Women and children went first into the rafts, then people who had fallen into the river and been plucked out.

Source: Associated Press Survivors offer praise, gratitude after NY crash

But that's the point, isn't it: people almost died! And they didn't die! And as interesting as semantics are, and as much inherent patriarchal nonsense there is in the fabric of society coming out all the time, I for one am not going to get exercised about something someone said — maybe off the top of his head — in an effort to successfully save several hundred lives. I agree that if this is indeed the airline protocol it bears questioning, or at least cogent, non-anachronistic explanation beyond some hoary gallantry. But yesterday what could have been a tragedy, wasn't. We know women and children were evacuated first because they — and the men who followed — lived to talk about it. I would be curious to hear what the women on that flight have to say about it — maybe in, say, a week. But, as Ecclesiastes and the Byrds would have it, for everything there is a season.

Source: Jezebel Flight 1549 Survivors: Let's Talk About "Women And Children First"