A broken man in a broken marriage is upset his son isn’t broken

Holy shit, this story of emotional damage is difficult to read:

I wanted my son to reject masculine stereotypes. Then he fell in love with tractors.

At first I thought this was written by a single, Leftist mother.

Then I discovered it was written by a dad and I almost had a stroke.

After turning 2 years old, my son, Avishai, started demanding that he only wear tractor shirts, and my mind spiraled into darkness. I catastrophized worst-case scenarios, imagining a world where he fell for everything stereotypically manly. I envisioned him on a football field, barreling through mega-muscled opponents. Imagined him waxing a sports car on a warm summer day. I have always judged other guys who seemed boxed in by masculinity, but 3 ½ years ago, when I became a stay-at-home dad, my bias skyrocketed.

This boy likes tractors and his dad immediately became repulsed by the idea of his son being a happy boy, embracing the stuff that guys often like.  Not even 2 years old and he doesn’t like who is son might be because the dad has misunderstanding of masculinity.

Minutes after his arrival, we took turns cuddling him against our bare chests. While the midwife and her assistant cleaned up, my wife, always one to joke, even soon after giving birth, bragged that she had a connection to our new baby that I could never attain because men couldn’t bond with babies like women could.

What an absolutely horrible thing for a mother to say to a father.  This is truly atrocious.

Now we have a piece of the puzzle as to why this man is so broken.  He is in an emotionally abusive marriage with a psychopathic wife.

Her comment stabbed into me, but I feared she was right. To me, femininity was connected to empathy and kindness while masculinity equated to being frigid. Men didn’t hug. Men didn’t say I love you. Men were angry. Aggressive. Inept as parents.

Fuck this guy sideways, this is absolutely wrong.

Every day I fed Avishai and cuddled him and soothed him. We co-slept, and he snoozed with his head resting on my chest, listening to the rhythm of my heartbeat.

I did the same thing.  When my son was a baby, I had nap magic.  I’d swaddle him in a blanket, lie down on the couch, put him on my chest, and we’d nap together.   Worked every time.

The difference is that I never felt like my masculinity was diminished doing this or that I was boxed out by my masculinity to snuggle my son.

I held resentment that so much of society acted as if dads couldn’t care for their kids (therefore putting pressure on women for the brunt of the caregiving) — but I too looked at dads that way. I shuddered at jokes about men being incapable of figuring out how to work a diaper, yet I felt most couldn’t.

I hate this too.  I hate the pop culture “dad is an idiot” trend from TV shows and advertising.  Again, the difference is that I didn’t let it break me.  I didn’t let it make me hate my masculinity or other fathers.  It made me hate the people that pushed that bullshit.

What I discovered is that a lot of came from a toxic form of femininity, single mothers who felt the need to denigrate men as a way of justifying not having a husband.  “Dads can’t take care if kids the way women can so it’ll be fine not having a father around for my baby.”

I became even more of an avid stereotyper: I grimaced at anyone driving a Ford car, the John Wayne of automobiles. I hated men who wore plaid. Felt ill if someone mentioned a wrench or another tool. When my mom-in-law bought Avishai a coverall with footballs on it, I shoved it into the depths of his closet, never to be found.

This man is broken.  Absolutely broken.

I have two pickup trucks, a sportscar, two safes full of guns, five chainsaws, almost a dozen axes, a shop full of tools.  My diaper bag was a converted range bag.

I snuggle my children.  I am champion kid breakfast maker (French toast is my specialty).  I changed diapers.  I am the preferred hair brusher for my daughter, and I’ve painter her finger nails on more than one occasion.  I set up an archery range in the back yard for my son.

At no point is a owning a truck or tools antithetical to being a loving father.

In fact, I’d say they go more hand-in-hand than not.

It wasn’t as if I’d grown up with a negative example of fatherhood. My dad was an interior decorator, working 60 hours a week at the family business: Deitcher’s Wallpaper and Design Center. Outwardly, my father filled the role of man of the house, but inside, my mom made most of the family decisions. My father was never afraid to blur boundaries. I was hugged frequently and told I love you. He, too, despised sports, but loved watching Hallmark movies with my mom.

This neurosis gets weirder all the time.

My gut reaction was that either this guy was raised by a single mom or an abusive dad.  No son to a decent father would feel this way.

Maybe the problem is that his dad was so unmasculine that he decided that masculinity traits were the problem.

I’m not versed enough in psychotherapy to break this down.

In many ways, I am an extension of my father, further pushing what is acceptable for men. Once my son could walk, I paraded him through the park while he rolled his baby doll down the sidewalk in its stroller. I felt accomplished because he mirrored being a caretaker.

Now it’s starting to get weird.

There is a difference between a dad pushing his progeny in a stroller and a little boy with a baby doll.

But then came the tractors. It started with YouTube. On days I was especially drained, I’d sit Avishai in front of the TV and click on “Little Baby Bum.” He fell in love with the tractor songs, and I was so worn, I didn’t care. When he asked to watch clips of construction equipment, I mindlessly pressed play. But when he demanded the shirts, I felt like I failed him. I pride myself on blurring gender lines. I wanted him to, also.

I had to make a choice: buy him clothes with pictures of heavy machinery on them and make the kid happy, or force him to wear shirts emblazoned with fuzzy animals to appease me.

This is abuse.  The dad has his own neurotic issues with gender roles but is forcing them on his son, to the point where he’s coercing his child to wear non gender conforming to make dad happy.

There is a word in the lexicon for this: grooming.

I took on being an at-home father because I wanted to bond with my son, and I realized that meant I needed to let him discover his own interests. He had to define his own identity, not influenced by my own bias of what I deemed to be too masculine.

This is grotesque.

Who uses tractors?  Farmers.

What do farmers do?  Work hard and feed the world.

Farmers are skilled, knowledge, caretakers of the earth, generally good neighbors, and fiercely self reliant.

That is the zenith of good masculinity, working hard to feed civilization.

But dad has a problem with that as “boxed in by masculinity.”

Dad doesn’t understand what good masculinity it and rejects all of it in perverse gender confusion.

Dad seems to have come around a little bit but is still clearly broken, not understanding actual masculinity.

His wife is also clearly broken.

I just hope to God for the boy’s sake, the boy doesn’t end up broken too.

 

Spread the love

Bloomberg’s monster is attacking its creator

This Twitter conversation is epic:

 

Remember that March For Our Lives only existed because it was initially funded and boosted by Everytown for Gun Safety.

Had it not been for Michael Bloomberg’s injection of cash and logistical support David Hogg and Co. would have been a short lived media flash in the pan.

So it is fantastic to watch ineffectual David Hogg rail on social media about the ineffectiveness of the dwarf King and the parent organization that made him the man-child he is today.

They’ve been ineffectual, not because of the money, but because gun control has been proven beyond any doubt to be useless at stopping crime and harmful to law abiding citizens.

Between the Michael Brown and George Floyd riots, bail reform, and social justice policing and prosecution, the only people left who think that gun control works and law abiding citizens shouldn’t be able to own guns to protect themselves are gun-hating true believers.

After some Leftist politicians instigate a riot, the moderate Democrats in their districts go out and buy guns as they rebuild their homes and businesses that were destroyed.

In this way Hogg is the perfect true believer, a Leftist from an Ivy League school insulated from the violence his policies create.

Even from the very beginning, he wasn’t where the shooting happened.  He showed up later to capitalize on other people’s suffering for his own machinations.

So it is with great pleasure that I see Hogg turn on Bloomberg.

Let this be a lesson to everyone else who thinks of being Hogg’s benefactor.

Hogg is a narcissist without loyalty and will eventually turn on them too.

 

Spread the love

What did I just say about fiduciary duty?

 

Handing the keys to the Magic Kingdom to a small fraction of radical Leftist activist employees cost Disney its reputation among its primary customers (parents wanting quality entertainment for their children) and shareholders $41 Billion.

Maybe some of those shareholders should be contacting lawyers who should be asking questions about why Disney thought it was a good idea to put a bunch of queer, child-grooming activists into high ranking positions, give them unchecked ability to fill children’s programing with their politics, have a Zoom meeting celebrating that, then let this group of activist employees steer the company into a head-on collision with a popular governor and parent’s rights bill.

The witness stand in a breach of fiduciary duty suit would be the perfect place to ask those questions.

Spread the love

What they are doing to Marjorie Taylor Greene is the tip of the corrupt iceberg

If you missed the news, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is on trial to determine if she is allowed on the ballot for reelection in Georgia.

 

The Washington Post covered some of her testimony this way:

 

From the article in the above Tweet:

But a few answers stand out, either because Greene’s responses didn’t make much sense, or because they’re likely to be revisited in the future.

One was early in the hearing, when Greene was asked whether she thought House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was a “traitor to the country.” Greene actually offered a firm denial — but one that didn’t hold up at all.

Greene initially tried to refuse to answer, saying, “I’m not answering that question. It’s speculation. It’s hypothetical.”

Lawyer Andrew Celli, who is representing those trying to kick Greene off the ballot for allegedly violating the 14th Amendment, responded, “You’ve said that, haven’t you, Ms. Greene — that she’s a traitor to this country?”

“No, I haven’t said that,” Greene responded.

And yet, she had. She said it an old video that has circulated widely in the run-up to her testimony. When Celli called up the exhibit showing that, Greene quickly sought a mulligan.

“Oh wait, no, hold on now,” Greene said. She then tried to put a good spin on her past comment, saying, “I believe by not securing the border, that that violates her oath of office.”

So they are trying to allege that Green us an insurrectionist because she called Nancy Pelosi a “traitor.”

This is absurd given that calling opposing politicians “traitor” has become part of the regular political rhetoric.

The entire Democratic party called Trump a “traitor” or said he was “guilty of treason” for the entirety of his term.

But when Greene does it that’s insurrectionist talk.

Why is this important?

According to the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution:

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This was intended to keep former Confederate officers or members of the Confederate States Congress from being elected to the United States government.

Today, the Left is using this as a way of keeping Republicans off the ballot by tying them to the January 6th riot.

The basic thesis is: January 6th was an armed insurrection and anyone who wasn’t vociferously against it was for it, therefore they are an insurrectionist, and therefore they are disqualified from office as per the 14th Amendment.

Last month the DOJ coerced one defendant to plead guilty to seditious conspiracy as part of a deal.  This is where it all hangs.

For the record, I do not like Majority Taylor Greene.  She has no policies of consequence, says stupid things, and loves the media attention.  She has palled around with Right Wing antisemites.  She is one of a few Right Wing AOCs, elected officials who got elected to build a personal brand and have no idea how to legislate.

I say that because I want to be clear on this next point.

Even if you don’t like her or Madison Cawthorn, who they are trying to do this to as well, we must stop the Left from engaging in this line of attack.

They are going after Greene because she is one of the most extreme and polarizing Republicans in office.  She’s an easy target.

But if they are successful in getting her, they will expand it to all potential Republican candidates.

“Did you vote for Trump?  Did you support Trump after he lost in 2020?  Did you think Trump lost fair and square?  Well, Trump supported the January 6th insurrection, and since you supported Trump you are an insurrectionist, and therefore you cannot be on the ballot.”

Or

“Did you say online that January 6th was not an insurrection against the United States tantamount to the Civil War?  Then you supported the January 6th insurrection and are disqualified from the ballot.”

They will use this to remove Republicans from the ballot or only allow in anti-Trump Romney-like Republicans who think that The Bulwark and Lincoln Project are where the Republican party should be, i.e., Republicans who can be counted on to vote for Democrat policies in a pinch.

Of course, the reverse is not going to happen.  The Right will never get Democrats who supported the CHAZ/CHOP or Antifa attacks on the Portland Federal Building or BLM riots disqualified as insurrectionists.

The Left will control who the Right gets to vote for.

We absolutely cannot let this happen.

That is what hangs in the balance here.

That is how serious this case is.

Spread the love