Margie, Michael, and Miguel
Started their stories to tell,
It was all about home stuff
And none thought it rough.
My tree house is great,
My dad built from a crate,
I had lots of fun,
Just like everyone!
A tree house?
Is it for mouse?
Is it for a bird?
Or, am I absurd??
Go on your back yard green!
Use scrap, as you have seen!
We don’t know what y’a mean,
We can only go to the screen.
Do you live in a jail?
Or are you a snail?
I live on a block,
With no tree or rock.
Me too, on a block,
The door we must lock,
We only come to school,
We don’t have pool.
And, equal we all are,
We could really go far,
If we could buy a car.
by DFF Leonardo
A moment
"I think, therefore I am"
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Male Bashing? Is Religion Destroying Families?
The family is under attack from all sources, especially from the very sources claiming to be defending the family—religion among other institutions. As an adult, I attended over 21 congregations, in different religions or sects Christian and non-Christian. From the layman’s viewpoint, I am surprised by what I have heard in different congregations, in the media, and in academics.
However, it is not appropriate to mention any particular church or religion among over 4,000 religions. It would be unfair to mention a few churches while other religions or sects would appear to be OK.
Sometimes, I attended different religions simultaneously at different schedules—once this happened for over two years. I was looking for knowledge, and I am continuing to search—knowledge is infinite.
The interesting paradox about religion is that it seems to be doing the feminist’s work by claiming to be building the family while bashing husbands—thus, bashing fathers also. Such bashing, creates contention in the family. In feminism “man’ is removed from society using the euphemism “neutral” or “neutrality” as (political correctness). A nasty source neutralizing men, or fathers, or husbands is Tele-Evangelism. I learned to shot off the radio.
According to Professor (Emeritus) Louise Forsyth, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, at a workshop in feminism at the Federal University of Goias (UFG), in Goiania, Brazil in 2010, “neutrality” and “play of words” is what conveys the message [feminism].
The question is: What is the logic for the family which every Sunday at church or on the radio hears about the husband–thus the father being indirectly pictured as in need of being a better person? Should we expect the mother/wife to view the husband/father any differently? The wife and mother at home relates to her husband—the father of her children, in the same way that she learned in church.
How about the children? What image can the children have of their father when the children hear only negative things about “men” husbands, thus-fathers too?” The children will not think much about their fathers. Thus, will these children have the desire to be fathers when they grow-up? It does not seem logic. The children simple follow the rhetoric they hear in church, in the media, in school, and in films, and from their moms. Children see dad as the dummy, regardless of any good things dad may do, the picture is set by default. Then, if unemployment hits home, the father’s image is absolutely negative.
Here is a classical example: Recently a husband prepared a dish high in protein and vitamins. It was something of his creation. Since the husband and wife have different cultural backgrounds there is a bit of the wife’s resentment about the husband’s cooking, or rather the spices he uses—shelf ingredients. Nevertheless, she enjoys the food when she is not aware of such ingredients. This is a wife who did not know how to prepare eggs for breakfast, when they married.
As the wife arrived home one day, the husband greeted her with “We have a new dish high in protein, vitamins, and fiber, and low in carbs, and no cholesterol.” The wife’s simple response was “Hum.” Sometimes such news is met with “Another invention!” She ate and had seconds on the “Hum” dish. But, one of the children simple said: “No way” without even tasting it. Criticizing dad’s sequence or amount of ingredients is mom’s routine.
Some of this family’s dishes that this good wife brags about are based on the dummy’s creation—the husband’s. It has gotten to the point that any food this husband prepares, is rejected by the children without them tasting it, or seeing, unless mom prepared it first. When dad prepares food, the first question from the children is “What is in it?” The only exception to this antagonism is bread and plane-pizza which is mostly done by the father. Both spouses have university degrees.
A former friend invited me to attend one of his church’s services in central Massachusetts. It was pretty sad. The message implied that men are evil; it repeatedly admonished men while omitting the same from women, as if women were perfect. The subliminal message was that men are the problem at home.
The religiofeminists know that at times in the bible men have been commanded to follow their wives’ counsel, and wives also have been commanded to follow the husband. Thus, biblically, each spouse must listen to the other spouse. But the relegiofeminists want to mold men to be submissive to the wives. To be straw figures, without input at home.
The irony from these pulpit bullies is that feminism excludes God. Yet they are on the feminists’ side. Religionists can not be honest to the scriptures they are teaching from, if simultaneously they take both sides on the same issue.
On one side, they say that God created the family, and a man should preside, provide, and suffer for his wife and even die for her. On the other side they imply that men are no-good. Such teaching is against statistics that show about equal numbers in both genders starting domestic violence.
Male bashing is not an easy topic to discuss. Even scholars may have some catching up to do. A few years ago while taking a journalism course at UMass Amherst, I presented a take where men are just as much victims of domestic violence as women. I was surprised by the reception from my Professor B. J. Roach. ‘’You are going against the grain.” She said.
My bibliography was not sufficient. I had to bring in the books and a magazine in family relations. No other student was required to bring in the evidence to support their articles. Nevertheless, this professor was honest. After she made some of her own research, and after consulting with other professional journalists—according to her, she told me that she learned that “Men are being short-changed”.
At a religious gathering for singles, a mid aged woman told me that women were smarter than men—she cited a religious leader for such knowledge. In another instance, after joining a congregation, my wife at that time, told me that men were “no good” and that God would compensate for women. The women in church had taught her that, she said. That teaching, may have contributed to our divorce. Nevertheless, each person is responsible for his or her deeds.
In the same congregation, after a heavy dose of male bashing in a men’s class, in private, I approached the leader who had taught the class. He was the leader of spiritual leadership management group; thus, someone of more weight. I told him that the problems a home are attributed to both spouses. Instantly he replied “Do you do the dishes? As I started to answer to him that I not only do the dishes, but the laundry too, and cooked when conditions permitted, That spiritual leader walked away without saying a single word.
At another congregation very rich in culture, where most of the regular attendees have Master’s degrees, and some have PhDs, there was a culture shock. In the women’s poster board appeared a monthly poster with a humor section as usual. However, this particular poster stayed up for about two months. These nice women in leadership saw it appropriate in humor to bash men with what they would cry to be offensive if the reverse had been said. The local leaders had to see that poster; for they had to pass by the yellow 8.5 x 11 poster paper in their way to the services.
Once, a newly installed local leader who was new to the congregation, had a meeting with me at my request. During our exchange of information I stated that I had never hit my ex-wife. That leader reacted with high tone voice saying “You better not!” Yet, after I stated that my “ex” had hit me, he disregarded my comment, as if wives beating husbands was tolerable. This leader was a physician by trade.
One of my wife’s friends told my wife that her daughter-in-law brook a foot trying to kick her husband [this woman’s son] as he moved way from her—the wife. Mom advised him to divorce to avoid such routine abuse. After a while, as jobs force people to move, that man by chance ended-up in the same congregation as his “ex.” Soon after his arrival at the new congregation, he was “invited” by that congregation’s leaders to move out of the congregation, because his “ex” was uncomfortable.
There are two other cases of my knowledge where local church leaders “invited” the man to leave the congregation, because the “ex wife.” In two of these cases, children were involved. In all three cases the wife had been the violent party.
These religious leaders did not ask for details, nor show any concern for the children involved. The weekly contact of father and children got weakened. Afterwards, the children only saw their dad two weekends a month. Religion is supposed to care for the children, yet they separate children from their fathers to empower divorced moms. Some of those children abandoned both the religion and their father.
These religious leaders’ audacity is shocking, when they are asked about bias against men. At a church conference, a speaker (non-professional) started his discourse by stating “I will be pulling the brothers’ hears.” His talk was only about how much men should support, and listen to, and love their wives. He did not even put men as parallel to women—by implication men were put down. As usual, he quoted scripture to support his point; but, he quoted only the 1st half of verse 33 in Ephesians 5th chapter.
Afterwards, while I was in the rest-room, the area-leader used the facility too. I took the opportunity of privacy and while the topic was still fresh in our minds, I expressed my hurt to that leader. Even though he acknowledged that during the speech, women had not been reminded of needing to listen to their husbands, he claimed to see nothing wrong with the speech.
One of his replies was unbelievable. As I reminded him that the only reason he supported the discourse was because his wife must not have hit him yet. “I don’t give her, a reason to”, he answered. I was devastated.
A few days later, I learned that I was not alone. Also, after going home, I came across that verse: Ephesians 33: “Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the awife see that she breverence her husband.” After checking the church’s website I got the following summary from the chapter relative to the topic: “Husbands and wives should love each other.” In the same page, an interpretation of “reverence” = Courtesy; Respect.”
A few years ago at another place after a church meeting with similar tones of male bashing, a man from the congregation in a soft voice told me “I get it at home, and then I come to church and get more of the same.” I don’t recall seeing that man in church again, even though I attended there for a few more months.
Contrary to the anti-family groups, men do have feelings, and men do cry, and men get low self-esteem, and men get hurt when their wives use verbal violence. Men do get hurt when people for prestige, or for profit, or for self-glory imply that domestic problems are only men’s fault.
The sacredness about the patriarchal title “To lead by example, full of love and sacrifice” becomes as a figure-head stained and mocked. Meanwhile, wives are getting indirectly encouragement to use absolute power, emotional control, and judicial liberty by all segments of society.
Destroying the patriarch’s purpose, is the focus of the feminism movement. The term patriarch is referred to with disdain in academia, especially in literature studies. Therefore, religionists and secularly aggressive groups alike are destroying the very family that they preach of being sacred. So, where is the family? The family is under attack and disintegrating quick. Nevertheless, our children are still better with religion than without it; as it has been reported so.
The good part about my observation is that not all religionists are bias. I know of two cases where influential religious leaders stated that both spouses are responsible for peace at home (Paraphrasing). They also stated that women too, need to improve in being less aggressive.
The local and immediate clergy and pastors and other religious and civic leaders have much progressing to do in preaching equality for both genders. I still attend church, and thus I have a voice; and I can help my children to distinguish between what people teach and what the scriptures really say.
I am not persuading people to leave religion, even though many churches are simply capitalist enterprises, using the name of God as bait. Some of these career preachers have financial goals to meet, and they have comfortable salaries well above their congregation. However, without religion this world would be a real jungle in worse condition.
I attend church because it sets an integrity base for the children and for adults as well, even though, many times I disregard the speakers when they start male-bashing. If a person is dishonest enough to condemn all men without knowing each man’s situation, that speaker looses all his or her credibility. Why listen to biased people, can anyone believe a biased person?
When there is no male-bashing, I enjoy being reminded of what God expects of me; and I even become more alert to things that I had not paid much attention to in the bible. Thus, I grow by attending church. And of course what my children learn about integrity is absolute priceless. But above all, I attend church because I know that God is real, and I know that there is a purpose in living, and I know that at some point in time I have to answer to my Creator.
However, it is not appropriate to mention any particular church or religion among over 4,000 religions. It would be unfair to mention a few churches while other religions or sects would appear to be OK.
Sometimes, I attended different religions simultaneously at different schedules—once this happened for over two years. I was looking for knowledge, and I am continuing to search—knowledge is infinite.
The interesting paradox about religion is that it seems to be doing the feminist’s work by claiming to be building the family while bashing husbands—thus, bashing fathers also. Such bashing, creates contention in the family. In feminism “man’ is removed from society using the euphemism “neutral” or “neutrality” as (political correctness). A nasty source neutralizing men, or fathers, or husbands is Tele-Evangelism. I learned to shot off the radio.
According to Professor (Emeritus) Louise Forsyth, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, at a workshop in feminism at the Federal University of Goias (UFG), in Goiania, Brazil in 2010, “neutrality” and “play of words” is what conveys the message [feminism].
The question is: What is the logic for the family which every Sunday at church or on the radio hears about the husband–thus the father being indirectly pictured as in need of being a better person? Should we expect the mother/wife to view the husband/father any differently? The wife and mother at home relates to her husband—the father of her children, in the same way that she learned in church.
How about the children? What image can the children have of their father when the children hear only negative things about “men” husbands, thus-fathers too?” The children will not think much about their fathers. Thus, will these children have the desire to be fathers when they grow-up? It does not seem logic. The children simple follow the rhetoric they hear in church, in the media, in school, and in films, and from their moms. Children see dad as the dummy, regardless of any good things dad may do, the picture is set by default. Then, if unemployment hits home, the father’s image is absolutely negative.
Here is a classical example: Recently a husband prepared a dish high in protein and vitamins. It was something of his creation. Since the husband and wife have different cultural backgrounds there is a bit of the wife’s resentment about the husband’s cooking, or rather the spices he uses—shelf ingredients. Nevertheless, she enjoys the food when she is not aware of such ingredients. This is a wife who did not know how to prepare eggs for breakfast, when they married.
As the wife arrived home one day, the husband greeted her with “We have a new dish high in protein, vitamins, and fiber, and low in carbs, and no cholesterol.” The wife’s simple response was “Hum.” Sometimes such news is met with “Another invention!” She ate and had seconds on the “Hum” dish. But, one of the children simple said: “No way” without even tasting it. Criticizing dad’s sequence or amount of ingredients is mom’s routine.
Some of this family’s dishes that this good wife brags about are based on the dummy’s creation—the husband’s. It has gotten to the point that any food this husband prepares, is rejected by the children without them tasting it, or seeing, unless mom prepared it first. When dad prepares food, the first question from the children is “What is in it?” The only exception to this antagonism is bread and plane-pizza which is mostly done by the father. Both spouses have university degrees.
A former friend invited me to attend one of his church’s services in central Massachusetts. It was pretty sad. The message implied that men are evil; it repeatedly admonished men while omitting the same from women, as if women were perfect. The subliminal message was that men are the problem at home.
The religiofeminists know that at times in the bible men have been commanded to follow their wives’ counsel, and wives also have been commanded to follow the husband. Thus, biblically, each spouse must listen to the other spouse. But the relegiofeminists want to mold men to be submissive to the wives. To be straw figures, without input at home.
The irony from these pulpit bullies is that feminism excludes God. Yet they are on the feminists’ side. Religionists can not be honest to the scriptures they are teaching from, if simultaneously they take both sides on the same issue.
On one side, they say that God created the family, and a man should preside, provide, and suffer for his wife and even die for her. On the other side they imply that men are no-good. Such teaching is against statistics that show about equal numbers in both genders starting domestic violence.
Male bashing is not an easy topic to discuss. Even scholars may have some catching up to do. A few years ago while taking a journalism course at UMass Amherst, I presented a take where men are just as much victims of domestic violence as women. I was surprised by the reception from my Professor B. J. Roach. ‘’You are going against the grain.” She said.
My bibliography was not sufficient. I had to bring in the books and a magazine in family relations. No other student was required to bring in the evidence to support their articles. Nevertheless, this professor was honest. After she made some of her own research, and after consulting with other professional journalists—according to her, she told me that she learned that “Men are being short-changed”.
At a religious gathering for singles, a mid aged woman told me that women were smarter than men—she cited a religious leader for such knowledge. In another instance, after joining a congregation, my wife at that time, told me that men were “no good” and that God would compensate for women. The women in church had taught her that, she said. That teaching, may have contributed to our divorce. Nevertheless, each person is responsible for his or her deeds.
In the same congregation, after a heavy dose of male bashing in a men’s class, in private, I approached the leader who had taught the class. He was the leader of spiritual leadership management group; thus, someone of more weight. I told him that the problems a home are attributed to both spouses. Instantly he replied “Do you do the dishes? As I started to answer to him that I not only do the dishes, but the laundry too, and cooked when conditions permitted, That spiritual leader walked away without saying a single word.
At another congregation very rich in culture, where most of the regular attendees have Master’s degrees, and some have PhDs, there was a culture shock. In the women’s poster board appeared a monthly poster with a humor section as usual. However, this particular poster stayed up for about two months. These nice women in leadership saw it appropriate in humor to bash men with what they would cry to be offensive if the reverse had been said. The local leaders had to see that poster; for they had to pass by the yellow 8.5 x 11 poster paper in their way to the services.
Once, a newly installed local leader who was new to the congregation, had a meeting with me at my request. During our exchange of information I stated that I had never hit my ex-wife. That leader reacted with high tone voice saying “You better not!” Yet, after I stated that my “ex” had hit me, he disregarded my comment, as if wives beating husbands was tolerable. This leader was a physician by trade.
One of my wife’s friends told my wife that her daughter-in-law brook a foot trying to kick her husband [this woman’s son] as he moved way from her—the wife. Mom advised him to divorce to avoid such routine abuse. After a while, as jobs force people to move, that man by chance ended-up in the same congregation as his “ex.” Soon after his arrival at the new congregation, he was “invited” by that congregation’s leaders to move out of the congregation, because his “ex” was uncomfortable.
There are two other cases of my knowledge where local church leaders “invited” the man to leave the congregation, because the “ex wife.” In two of these cases, children were involved. In all three cases the wife had been the violent party.
These religious leaders did not ask for details, nor show any concern for the children involved. The weekly contact of father and children got weakened. Afterwards, the children only saw their dad two weekends a month. Religion is supposed to care for the children, yet they separate children from their fathers to empower divorced moms. Some of those children abandoned both the religion and their father.
These religious leaders’ audacity is shocking, when they are asked about bias against men. At a church conference, a speaker (non-professional) started his discourse by stating “I will be pulling the brothers’ hears.” His talk was only about how much men should support, and listen to, and love their wives. He did not even put men as parallel to women—by implication men were put down. As usual, he quoted scripture to support his point; but, he quoted only the 1st half of verse 33 in Ephesians 5th chapter.
Afterwards, while I was in the rest-room, the area-leader used the facility too. I took the opportunity of privacy and while the topic was still fresh in our minds, I expressed my hurt to that leader. Even though he acknowledged that during the speech, women had not been reminded of needing to listen to their husbands, he claimed to see nothing wrong with the speech.
One of his replies was unbelievable. As I reminded him that the only reason he supported the discourse was because his wife must not have hit him yet. “I don’t give her, a reason to”, he answered. I was devastated.
A few days later, I learned that I was not alone. Also, after going home, I came across that verse: Ephesians 33: “Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the awife see that she breverence her husband.” After checking the church’s website I got the following summary from the chapter relative to the topic: “Husbands and wives should love each other.” In the same page, an interpretation of “reverence” = Courtesy; Respect.”
A few years ago at another place after a church meeting with similar tones of male bashing, a man from the congregation in a soft voice told me “I get it at home, and then I come to church and get more of the same.” I don’t recall seeing that man in church again, even though I attended there for a few more months.
Contrary to the anti-family groups, men do have feelings, and men do cry, and men get low self-esteem, and men get hurt when their wives use verbal violence. Men do get hurt when people for prestige, or for profit, or for self-glory imply that domestic problems are only men’s fault.
The sacredness about the patriarchal title “To lead by example, full of love and sacrifice” becomes as a figure-head stained and mocked. Meanwhile, wives are getting indirectly encouragement to use absolute power, emotional control, and judicial liberty by all segments of society.
Destroying the patriarch’s purpose, is the focus of the feminism movement. The term patriarch is referred to with disdain in academia, especially in literature studies. Therefore, religionists and secularly aggressive groups alike are destroying the very family that they preach of being sacred. So, where is the family? The family is under attack and disintegrating quick. Nevertheless, our children are still better with religion than without it; as it has been reported so.
The good part about my observation is that not all religionists are bias. I know of two cases where influential religious leaders stated that both spouses are responsible for peace at home (Paraphrasing). They also stated that women too, need to improve in being less aggressive.
The local and immediate clergy and pastors and other religious and civic leaders have much progressing to do in preaching equality for both genders. I still attend church, and thus I have a voice; and I can help my children to distinguish between what people teach and what the scriptures really say.
I am not persuading people to leave religion, even though many churches are simply capitalist enterprises, using the name of God as bait. Some of these career preachers have financial goals to meet, and they have comfortable salaries well above their congregation. However, without religion this world would be a real jungle in worse condition.
I attend church because it sets an integrity base for the children and for adults as well, even though, many times I disregard the speakers when they start male-bashing. If a person is dishonest enough to condemn all men without knowing each man’s situation, that speaker looses all his or her credibility. Why listen to biased people, can anyone believe a biased person?
When there is no male-bashing, I enjoy being reminded of what God expects of me; and I even become more alert to things that I had not paid much attention to in the bible. Thus, I grow by attending church. And of course what my children learn about integrity is absolute priceless. But above all, I attend church because I know that God is real, and I know that there is a purpose in living, and I know that at some point in time I have to answer to my Creator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)