Roman Women
“If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, in 131 B.C. Still, he went on to plead, falling birth-rates required that Roman men fulfil their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become. “Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure.”
Misogynist or realist?? Roman Women justifiably felt the same about men; however both genders have continually created the union through the instinctive behaviour of procreation and love. Unlike Roman Men, males today are stripped of almost all power. Over the last 30 yrs men have endured incredible pain through loss of assets, future earnings and a good relationship with their children due to the break-up of the family. I believe the young generation of males will not venture in our path and will search for a lifestyle without the inclusion of children. Who in their right mind would walk voluntarily into a lions den even if they like cute pussys? Women on the other hand are desperate to fulfil the desire to procreate and, given the power base they have, will attempt to achieve it anyway they can. Driven by narcissism, which is sanctioned by the state, she ignores the childs best interests.
World wide the feminists fight for more power is relentless. The rebirth of NZ will only occur with the The Return of Patriarchy
Patriarchal societies come in many varieties and evolve through different stages. What they have in common are customs and attitudes that collectively serve to maximize fertility and parental investment in the next generation. Of these, among the most important is the stigmatization of “illegitimate” children. One measure of the degree to which patriarchy has diminished in advanced societies is the growing acceptance of out-of-wedlock births, which have now become the norm in Scandinavian countries, for example. Under patriarchy, “bastards” and single mothers cannot be tolerated because they undermine male investment in the next generation. Illegitimate children do not take their fathers’ name, and so their fathers, even if known, tend not to take any responsibility for them. By contrast, “legitimate” children become a source of either honor or shame to their fathers and the family line. The notion that legitimate children belong to their fathers’ family, and not to their mothers’, which has no basis in biology, gives many men powerful emotional reasons to want children, and to want their children to succeed in passing on their legacy. Patriarchy also leads men to keep having children until they produce at least one son
To talk of patriarchy and matriarchy is to succumb to the notion that men and women have unequal value in a given circumstance.
This then leads to confrontational dealings when parents split and the haggling begins over the children.
Personally I find it an intense sadness that the children are nearly always used as pawns in the games of confrontational parents. These players, on the one hand swear on stacks of bibles that they are good and caring folk, and that the other is an arsehole. And as their personal war rages the only real victims are the children.
Of course this war-like attitude is then taken into the court system, where some poor judge has got to try to sift through the war-games.
On the one hand we have the mother, who has probably done the ‘abuse allegation trip’ with CYFS; asserting she is the only fit parent. The evil and utterly depraved women and men in CYFS side with the mother, almost at any cost.
On the other, the father is completely disenfranchised and is now faced with fighting with whatever exagerated crap he can bring to the court.
The counsel for the child also suffers bias and presents the court with a report (at the first judicial hearing stage) which looks unbiased but is, in fact, loaded with bias; especially when the scent of sexual abuse is in the air.
Despite the fact the children’s wishes should hold paramountcy, (presuming the child can talk sufficiently to declaim his or her interest and wishes) those with bias can still toss in S4 & 5 of the Care Of Children Act and have their biases heard.
Surely, the process throughout should focus on the wishes of the child. If the child ‘is’ in an abussive relationship with either parent, yet chooses that parent, for whatever the child’s reasons, then that decision should be allowed because the child is saying, ‘I am happier there, than there,’ with the other parent.
The child can change his or her mind at any time, so can shift from parent-to-parent, as the child sees fit.
Of course such provides the child with enormous power….but only if a parent is prepared to buy into the power-trip.
A truly responsible and caring parent will recognise and accept manipulation by a child and act accordingly. If they give in then they do a huge disservice to the child. If they don’t give in they educate the child properly.
But on the day that you, Mr and Mrs Jones, decided to create a child, you took on an awesome responsibility. Sadly, your needs must always come second to the needs of the life you created for the purposes of nurturing that life through to adulthood.
Thus we have cause, effect, and consequence.
Apply that set of circumstances to the split and then act on the basis your child has paramountcy, then we wouldn’t need CYFS or the Family Court, and harrassed judges. But we would have a bunch of happy children.
Every time you parents fail to accept that your wishes must always be subjergated to those of the child, as reagrds guardianship, you simply place more power in the hands of folk whose main aim is to use your circumstances to off-load some of the crap which has happened to them in past.
These sad folk don’t care one wit for you or your child. What they care about is crafting outcomes which make them feel better. And by being a part of the creation of pian in one party, their own pain is temporarily assuaged, until the need to assuage rises again, and they have to find yet another victim to persecute.
And in the pain they help create in your child, they relive their own hoping that one day, enough relivings will render them painless. Of course they never find that place so they just keep on wrecking lives as they search for personal surcease.
One party in a split, most aften the father, will pay anything up to $100,000 in his attempt to see justice done. Would it not be better for the parties to enable the father to use such a vast sum for the betterment of the child involved.
My custody action will cost me about $40,000. If I put that sum into an inbvestment account for my girl she would have more than enough to buy a home by the time she was 25 years old.
But no, I will pay this sum into the system which gorges on my plight, sustains the arguments for as long as possible, and at the end of the day may hand me a notice saying, ‘Oh well, we did our best.’
Of course, the fuel for this intense fire is hatred; hatred which eats at your soul, justifies your every action, permeates the rest of your life.
What you hatred-bearers fail to understand is that one day, the child whom you have used as a pawn will become an adult. Sure, her or she may well dutifully love you, but respect you? No, I don’t think so.
That child, upon arriving at adulthood will become aware of the giant fraud perpetarted upon him or her, as a result of you using that child to manifest your hatred on your child’s other parent.
And when you ask your adult child why he or she can’t seem to sustain a relationship, maybe you’ll have the courage to look back at the vile example you set, way back then when all you could feel was hatred for your ex, and nothing for the plight of your child.
Comment by dpex — Wed 15th March 2006 @ 7:59 pm
There is not a day that goes past when I don’t think about my children, whom I only see briefly every couple of weeks under supervision.
I look for the day when my children ask me why I was not there as a father for them.
I will simply reply – because your mother wouldn’t let me.
Comment by Al D Rado — Wed 15th March 2006 @ 8:40 pm
What an great comment, dpex.
I can admit to being one of the parents that has been a hatred-bearer and used my children as the trophy to prove I was better than the other parent.
I never looked to how in the long term I would affect my kids and thier kids and thier kids and so on. (I do now and wish I could turn the clock back)
You have given me alot to reflect on. Thank-you.
Comment by julie — Wed 15th March 2006 @ 9:59 pm
I thought this article so great and the comment by dpex that I showed it to another male and female. They ask to dpex, “What do you mean by, “you simply place more power in the hands of folk whose main aim is to use your circumstances to off-load some of the crap which has happened to them in past.
These sad folk don’t care one wit for you or your child. What they care about is crafting outcomes which make them feel better. And by being a part of the creation of pian in one party, their own pain is temporarily assuaged, until the need to assuage rises again, and they have to find yet another victim to persecute.”
Is this the legal system like the lawyers themselves?
And the other question is, “What made you think this way of them, if you do?
But if it isn’t can U please emphasise this.
Comment by julie — Thu 16th March 2006 @ 1:53 pm
Germany’s welfare system, funded by contributions from those in work, has come under increasing strain in recent years as life expectancy has increased and the number of those paying in has fallen.
Domestic politics is awash with proposals to make Germany a more family-friendly place. Economists warn that unless the demographic trend improves fast, the economy will suffer and the country could be unable to meet its long-term liabilities.
Although the birth rate was as low as 1.24 in 1994, the number of children has gone down for years, because the pool of women able to give birth has been shrinking steadily.
2.1 births per woman were needed to keep the population steady.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 9:48 pm
Comparing Roman times, to present times.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/uk/300500477/humiliation-for-prince-andrew-as-twitter-page-deleted-by-palace-to-reflect-private-citizen-status
Obviously in Roman times, Andrew would be rated prudish.
But today, it’s like he is the worst criminal.
Yet she was, no helpless minnow or even illegal.
But just like the Romans, rumoured things can ruin a person.
Her texts and her convincing picture, reveals how willing she was.
Yet despite the happiness, the victims story spreads.
But she says she was paid, and took many more payments.
Did she not herself confess offending, knowingly prostituting herself.
Yet she despite wrongdoing, demands reward.
Clearly, the payments stopped.
Now he is persecuted, and publicly shamed.
Soon the world will shun completely young females, and there desires.
What would the Romans, think of us as a comparison.
Have we not become experts, at character assassination.
Is this not our version, of the guards killing the emperor.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 20th January 2022 @ 6:58 pm