Divorce 101 Revisited – Where is the Outrage?
January 14, 2004
I must confess, dear readers, to playing a small deception on you. I must confess to ulterior motives. To those of you who wrote me to bitterly protest my last article, I thank you for responding predictably. To those who did not, stand back, because I am about to take the yahoos to task. To the former, I will now respond to you publicly.
First, I stand by Divorce 101. I think every man should adopt it, for a variety of reasons. But it is not the meat of my column this day.
I have contemplated printing a variety of the responses I have been sent on this, but looking over them I have decided that it is easier to distill them down to a common thesis, to wit: “Pete, I can’t believe you’d write such a thing! That’s hateful, to encourage men to behave that way towards the mother of their children!”
Yes, it is, isn’t it? And you want to know something? That’s exactly what happens dozens of times a day to men all over the place, in America, Britain, Canada, Australia, and other places. So where is your outrage at women who do that to the father of their children?
Hypocrites. Mere words cannot express my utter contempt for you. Brazen, scum-sucking hypocrites one and all.
I have received emails from men, women, and lawyers of both sexes on this subject, and none of them said what I cited was illegal, or contrary to legal fact in any way. Only one of them even mentioned the impact of a child losing its mother, though she was notably silent on the subject of a child losing its father. But everyone – every stinking one – said in one way, or another “how terrible to do that to a woman.”
Bah. You know, there are sometimes when I wish I could administer Ye Olde Dope Slappe through the internet.
Where is your outrage? How come it’s terrible as we can describe to do that to a woman, but doing it to a man doesn’t even rate mention? I even expected a couple of weak sister excuses of “How terrible that is allowed at all” but man, was I ever mistaken there. You couldn’t wait to burn some bandwidth to chastise me for being “mean” but nary a word for the meanness for women who do that to their husbands daily, to the lawyers who aid and abet them, and to the judges and courts who rubber stamp these things as a matter of routine.
The only thing I find even more amazing is that despite me tipping you off that I did my research for the subject by investigating Women’s Self Help sites, you all still took the bait. Hook, line, and sinker. That’s about as dumb as a box of rocks. Why don’t I just write a script the next time? Sometimes dealing with you jokers is like fishing in a barrel. No, scratch that. Grenade fishing in a barrel. And then you decide you’re going to email me and dog me? When will you ever figure out that I am dog-proof?
This is why I stand behind what I wrote in my previous column, and why I think it is important. The pain of men, the longing they have for their flesh and blood, and the way they are treated is invisible, but let someone postulate that it happen to a woman, and we have the peasant mob gathering to storm the castle of the Internet Columnist. You know, this is why a lot of men are ready to see women drafted and come home in body bags. As long as it is happening to men, the best we can get is a weak cluck of “How terrible. Ho Hum.” It’s only when this happens to women that people start to think the depriving of due process, false accusations, and persecution might be a problem.
What’s especially abhorrent, though, is the way that people who always piously pronounce how they are in it “for the children’s sake” show their true colors. It’s all about the children, sure, so long as the “best interests of the children” happen to coincide with “Whatever Mommy’s Want du Jour“ is. How evil to deprive children of a mother. What a non-issue to deprive them of a father.
I’m sure someone out there is whining by now, “Well I certainly don’t support that being done to men!” Oh yeah? Where, pray tell, are your letters and emails to papers, judges, and other media protesting when it is done to men? Where, may I ask, are your words and deeds in support of men who have had this happen to them? You were Johnny and Jane-on-the-spot to rip off a quick missive to me about what a rotton so-and-so I am. Where are your other letters, sil vous plait?
Like I said. You can only be bothered when someone says something which might wind up biting women on the butt. But to heck with men.. To bloody hell with kids. It isn’t like missing a father is anything important to a child. It’s not like hurting men is a big deal, is it? Jeez, you’d think they were people or something.
Gah. Round in the chamber … BOOM!!!! One of these days, me, my H&K, and a sack of rock salt are going to have a long, long conversation with these schmucks. Or at least I can dream.
MAIL BAG
Okay, to other mail. *sigh* Look. I love you guys, but I’m not Dear Abby. (Thank God.) Let’s just cover all of it – if you think there is a problem, you’re probably right. And if there isn’t a problem, there are obviously other issues. Criminy, folks, I’ve been divorced twice. Asking me for marriage advice is like asking Charlie Manson for advice on etiquette (Dear Charlie; With which knife is it proper to murder one’s houseguests? Sincerely, Ted) Capish?
Stan from Hotmail writes:
Dear Mr. Jensen,
You have given curmudgeonry a good name. Shame on you. Curmudgeons are not to use eloquence or logic. It is stated in the revered manual "Robert's Rules of Curmudgeonry".
<snip>
If you persist in the use of logic and eloquence you can be seriously sanctioned and your Curmudgeon license suspended. Be Warned. (Besides, I think there is a Federal Law against speaking your mind against a liberal or their policy in the new Hate Crimes laws. It is now a Federal Felony to even think or feel as you have expressed in the referenced article.)
May God Bless your Curmudgeonly Soul
Stan Rains
Stan, I stand before you now, in abject sorrow. Woe is me. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I shall commence to write a properly Neandertal diatribe, complete with missed punctuation, spelling errors, and no coherence or logic. And you’re right – it is now a nearly a hate crime to criticize feminists and leftist policy in Canada.
Speaking of which, am I on the list of undesirables yet? No? Damn! What does a guy have to do….?
John from AOL writes:
Indiana, huh? You follow the Colts? How about that Peyton Manning? I think people will say he has the monkey finally off his back.
And we saw what happened to the Chiefs since then, too, John. Heh. Ain’t our boy Peyton something else? BTW, I think Peyton just put that monkey in a uniform with the name “Stokely” on the back. Jeez, where the heck did that guy come from? Well, I’m not complaining. I’m just hoping the intensity holds.
