-
From South Park Season 2 Episode 12 “Clubhouse”
Sharon (Stan’s Mom): [sighs] Stanley, you know you’re the most imprtant thing to me, right?
Stan: If that’s true, then get back together with Dad for me!
Sharon: Now Stanley, you have to understand how divorce works. When I say, “you’re the most important thing to me,” what I mean is, you’re the most important thing after me and my happiness and my new romances.
Stan: Oh.
I think South Park is the most moral show on TV. Even with all the cursing and gross-out humor, I think it should be shown in Sunday School.
I wonder if you hold the same standards for men, as for women.
Do they, too, have an obligation to stay in loveless marriage for decades? To live a lie, pretending to be content day and night – for the sake of the children, of course?
Tatyana,
No of course not. Men have entirely different moral obligations! They just have to party, booze and have promiscuous sex. At least, that was what I was taught in the conservative evangelical South Baptist Church I grew up in.
Only a degenerate atheist believe that the happiness of children comes before the happiness of adult males. Only atheist believe in such selfless moral code!
[Note the previous was satire in keeping with the South Park theme.]
Thank god I’m a degenerate atheist, then.
[note, the above was a “play along” comment, to keep with masterly shifting of a topic from personal/family morals into religion by an author of the post]
Tatyana,
…with masterly shifting of a topic from personal/family morals into religion by an author of the post
Sorry, I thought you were being humorous when you asked if I held a different moral standard for men than for women. I took it that way because, well, it is a silly question. After all, do you know of anyone, regardless of religion or ideology who believes that men have less of a moral obligation towards their children?
Granted, traditional culture held that children were usually better off with their mothers but it didn’t teach that men could shirk their own responsibilities.
Ot but probably not unrelated: traditionally, men kept the children; it is generally described as a sign of the relative equality of women under the Puritans (not a notably atheist group) that custody was not decided on gender but on other grounds and therefore not automatic. I’m not sure when women became more likely to keep them but suspect a larger role for government (forcing child support payments, subsidies from the government, etc. were related).
It’s a question. Not sillier than referring to a stupid vulgar show as if it has some sort of influence or authority. Or as if it’s particularly clever.
[even if you didn’t ask: in my house I made it clear my displeasure with the South Park. I know my son watched it – during his 14 -16 yo rebellion period, but he watched the idiotic Tom Green show, too. Until he grew up a little]
Not only I know numerous examples of men caring less about children, I consider it a default situation. Burned into human genes, so to speak. Well, not only human – try to find a male bear with cubs vs. a mother-bear; and incidentally – try to fight a she-bear with cubs vs. a male bear: who’ll selflessly defend the cubs till own death, male or female?
Men and women in adulthood tend to adhere to a model of family life and morals that they have learned in childhood. Regardless of teaching from other sources they have received, be it religious instruction, secular morality from books or influence of social circle or mass-media. A son of a single mother has more chances, statistically, to have difficulty with sticking to his own obligations as a father.
Why you brought religion into this, incidentally? I know more moral, decent atheist men and women who raised moral, decent kids than same – from religious families. In fact, I’d learned, by long experience, to be on alert when dealing with religious people – and the louder they condemn “degenerate atheist”, the louder they beat their chests about their superior morality, the more dirt and general immoral behavior is to be expected from them. I’ve seen enough of hypocritical neo-Savanarolas to be on immediate alert as soon as they start preaching: more often than not they’ll turn up beating/enslaving their wives and kids, keeping a lover (of either gender) or three (and beating that lover, too).
Now y’all can start with your rotten tomatoes – the more you’ll throw, the more sins I’ll assume you have behind you.
Or, and returning to the topic of the post: no-fault divorce is a greatest achievement of our civilization.
Something else occurred to me: what kind of person that character Stan is growing up to be? Selfish, manipulative bastard; a user who pushes just the right buttons to make another human being to serve him – at expense of that person’s happiness. Is that what you’re advocating, raising boys in the belief they are the center of the Universe – and others are here to serve them?
What kind of moral model that growing boy is going to have in his mind – that women are required to live with a partner they don’t love and respect, who [often] abusive, physically or morally (which is even more hurtful) – and of course he will, because <i.goodwomen are supposed to be permanently on receiving end?
Damn right that woman deserves to be happy, just like any other human. If that means leaving a failed relationship – so be it. Children are happier and grow up better people when their mother is happy – that’s another lesson I learned in life.
Stan’s a kid Tatyana. It is his father’s responsibility to raise him not to give him a token acknowledgment every other weekend. What happens if both his mom and dad are “unhappy”? Do they dump him out on the street? Have the state take care of him? Statism is the ultimate end of your dogmatic atheism.
Cue the personal insults.
Have you stopped beating your wife on Saturday mornings, Mishu?
Note a sleuth of hands here: Stan’s mom was NOT unhappy with the kid – but with the kid’s father. But Mishu attributed her unhappiness to the kid. How convenient.
You’re the one “kid Stan”, Mishu: an egoistic manipulator.
Also, where did I ever entered State into it? You’re the with the dogma, putting your preconceived notions into people’s mouths.
You’re so predictable. Indignant about personal insults after you call Stan a selfish, manipulative bastard. Granted he’s a fake person but you did insult him and you dumped your preconceived notions into his fictitious mouth. What a horrible person he is for wanting his dad around. Dad’s gotta party. It’s his path to his own personal fulfillment.
Uh, so it’s not the mom dumping poor Stan in the streets anymore, huh, Mishu?
Kids need to hear more about them being egotistical manipulative bastards. God knows (even if he/she is non-existent), children hear much too much how special and precious they are – from school and various do-gooders.
Tatanya,
Something else occurred to me: what kind of person that character Stan is growing up to be? Selfish, manipulative bastard; a user who pushes just the right buttons to make another human being to serve him – at expense of that person’s happiness.
Frankly, I had to think a while before I could respond to this post.
Why do you think that a child has any responsibility to suffer just for the sake a parents happiness? Why isn’t it the responsibility of the parent to suffer for the sake of the child’s happiness? Were the hell did that concept even come from?
Why do you appear to assume that parents and children are somehow emotional equals? A parent isn’t “another person” i.e. a social equal to whom a child owes only reciprocal sacrifice. A parent is, well, a parent which is why we have a unique word for the relationship.
Why should a child have responsibility for a parents happiness when they have no input into any adult decision? They didn’t ask to be born and children do not have the necessary developed intellect or experience to make adult decisions. In fact, that is pretty much the definition of a child. Children can’t even just walk away from a relationship like an adult can. Instead, they just have to accept whatever the adults in their lives decide.
But somehow you believe it is the responsibility of children to just suck it up and deal with it whenever adults decided that the adults would be happier after they rip their child’s world apart. You believe this even though in terms of decision making a child is no better than a slave.
We don’t teach children to respect the needs of others by making them responsible for the happiness of adults. We teach them to respect the needs of others by making them responsible for their interactions with their age peers. Even then, this is a gradual education. We don’t
You obviously do believe children and parents are equals because you call Stan a selfish, manipulative bastard. Yes, he would be a selfish, manipulative bastard if he were an adult trying to guilt another adult into many years of unhappiness but sense he is not his honest question reveals nothing more than child’s innocence. He foolishly believes his mother we she says she values him, and presumably his happiness, more than anything else in her life.
Tatanya, I would like to be able to say I am shocked your adult furry at a child but I am not. My entire life I have seen this kind of rationalization frenzy in which adults argue themselves around to the conclusion that everybody in the world will, by utter shocking coincidence, be happier off if the adult doing the rationalization is happier. You’ve simply bought into this extreme narcissistic culture that equates self-sacrifice and responsibility with cowardice and oppression while equating selfishness and irresponsibility with bravery and freedom.
A divorce without cause makes children just as miserable as the adults would be if they stayed in the marriage but your narcissism leads you to rationalize that children and adults are equals and that therefore you have no more obligation to sacrifice your happiness for the sake of your children than you would any randomly selected adult.
You should stop and think how you allowed yourself to reach such a silly conclusion.
“We don’t teach children to respect the needs of others by making them responsible for the happiness of adults. We teach them to respect the needs of others by making them responsible for their interactions with their age peers.”
Yes, and even more, we teach them to respect the needs of others by living a life, that they see with their own eyes, where we actually do respect the needs of others, including making whatever sacrifices we need to make to take care of the people we are responsible for. Since we all fall short, the kids need to at least see us trying. That is why the quoted passage is funny. The child, as children do, asks the simple and direct question that shows the Mom is dishonest. Unlike in real life, the Mom on the TV show then tells the truth.
As Jim Stenson put it, in one of his books, you are not a grown-up when you can take care of yourself. You are not a grown-up until you can take care of the other people in your life, and want to do it.
I’m Tatyana, not Tatanya. [should I start calling you Chignon again?]
Right, now I’m responsible for an “adult fury” you’ve seen your entire life.
Divorce, when it’s an out of an unhappy marriage is not “without cause”.
Stan might not be manipulative bastard yet (but he’s already selfish, since he is putting his pleasure first), but he has all the chances to become one – if his mother would follow the route you want her to take and sacrifice her life for his convenience.
I, like you, can say that all my life I’ve seen examples of women sacrificing their life and happiness to that of their husband and children. All they had achieved was spoiled kids who grew up messing someone else’s life by their deep-seated confidence that They Come First. And these women’ own life, filled with boxed-in resentment, dissatisfaction and pretense at normality and love when there was none left, was making them dishonest, lying, cunning bitter old hags. Did their husbands appreciated their sacrifice? Of course not – at best they were looking for consolation on the side – and I don’t blame them. Did their kids? Very rarely; they just grew up to repeat the same disgusting pattern.
Yes, Lex – the women is dishonest: she should’ve said – honey, we’ll be happier together without your father. He makes my life hell – and you don’t want your mother’s life ruined, are you?
Lex,
Yes, and even more, we teach them to respect the needs of others by living a life, that they see with their own eyes, where we actually do respect the needs of others, including making whatever sacrifices we need to make to take care of the people we are responsible for.
A very good point. When children see their parents put the parents happiness over that of the child they intuitive assume that such behavior is acceptable. Worse, they may generalize that, since a parent-to-child relationship is supposed to be the strongest human relationship, they have even less responsibility to their equals.
and you don’t want your mother’s life ruined, are you?
And this passage doesn’t make the mom sound selfish and manipulative, how?
Tatyana,
I’m Tatyana, not Tatanya. [should I start calling you Chignon again?]
Sorry, I usually copy and paste your name to prevent that error.
I would like to point out that you didn’t answer any of the questions I poised. Do you believe that parents and children are equals? Do you believe that children have an equal responsibility to the parent’s happiness? If you don’t believe this then your argument is nonsense.
Divorce, when it’s an out of an unhappy marriage is not “without cause”.
“Without cause” is a legal term of art. It means a divorce without some overt negative physical act such a physical abuse, adultery, intoxicant addiction, reckless gambling, failure to support etc. Traditionally, simply being unhappy was not viewed as a reason for a divorce. Marriage was not viewed a primarily an institution to make spouses happy.
Personally, I don’t think that being unhappy is an excuse to abandon a responsibility. It certainly isn’t in any other sphere of life. I have to fulfill my commercial contracts and civil obligations whether I am happy about them or not. Why should my responsibility to my children be any different?
Stan might not be manipulative bastard yet (but he’s already selfish, since he is putting his pleasure first), but he has all the chances to become one – if his mother would follow the route you want her to take and sacrifice her life for his convenience.
Here again, you treat a child as an equal to an adult Even if a child were equal, Stan isn’t any more selfish than his parents. They ripped his life apart all the while telling him he was the most important thing in their lives. I find it very revealing of your unstated assumptions that you call a child’s wish to live with both his parents a mere matter of “his convenience.”
I, like you, can say that all my life I’ve seen examples of women sacrificing their life and happiness to that of their husband and children.
I think this and other similar statements reveal that your attitude has more to do with anger towards men than it does a belief in the equality of children. In your very first post you bizarrely assumed that my position on the matter was related to the fact the particular characters in the scene were mother and son. Then you repeatedly focus on women sacrificing for the good of husbands and children. You say that the 8 year old Stan is destined to be a selfish man merely because he very naturally wants his mother and father to get back together.
I can’t help but wonder how would have responded if the scene had been between father and daughter. In the actual episode, Stan’s father shows up for his weekend custody in a red sports sporting and open shirt and gold chains. He then spends most of his time with Stan making social phone calls and hitting on sleazy young women. Do you feel that a father has the right to leave a marriage just because he thinks he would be happier playing the field. Do you approve of men who reach success in middle-age and trade in their first wife and children for a much younger trophy wife? After all, what responsibility do they have to the happiness of their children much less their adult first wives?
This argument isn’t about the responsibility of women, it’s about the responsibility of parents.
In the 60’s and 70’s, I thought there was something sad about people who stayed together for the children; I now realize that there was something adult about it. And being adult, like being responsible and civil and independent and helpfull/useful to others brings considerable pleasure.
I suspect Shannon and Lexington deserved respect & affection Sunday – and that gave both them and their children pleasure.
And sometimes I think it took boomers like me a ridiculous amount of time to grow up.
Dear Shannon,
For the length of time I participate in your comment threads (what is it – 2 years, three?) I’d expect you learned how to spell my name without copy/pasting. I certainly did. It’s shows respect to a person. And respecting people who give you a benefit of talking to you is considered polite in my family.
You didn’t answer my question either, dear Shannon. I asked you – do you reserve the standard of “staying with the parent of your children despite your unhappiness” only to women?
So, dear Shannon – you can engage in reminiscences and generalizations as if your anecdotal evidence is valid statistics, but when I share MINE, you immediately turn personal? We are not discussing me, the faults you presumed I have and my anger (if there any), dear Shannon. My “attitude” is not your business, you have no right to speculate if my opinion “reveal” anything or not. Don’t patronize me – or I’ll indulge in speculations about your wife and how trapped she must feel in the marriage with you, with you shameless statement that her happiness is not a concern for a marriage. I can just see her loudly protesting my comments; I’ve seen these demonstrations too often: and how can’t she? She’s trapped.
What I say might appear “nonsense ” and bizarre” to you, I can’t say I’m of a good opinion about your “logic” or your attitude.
How am I supposed to know how old Stan is, or who are the rest of the set of characters, or what the episode consist of? I said already – I detest this show; it’s vulgar, rude, crude and frankly – disgusting. Translation: I don’t watch it. Regardless, if later in the episode the father appears to be as you describe him, then absolutely – Sharon should not stay with him. He’s not a good husband and not a good father. The kid is better off with his mom. As in 90% of divorce cases I know of.
The fact: women have more parental instinct than men. The fact: women would stay in a loveless and mentally (if not physically) abusive marriage much longer than men – exactly because of children’s interests. The fact: a single woman’s life without a husband is much, much more difficult than that of a single man – in all aspects, from financial to emotional security. And very few women abandon their children – unlike men. Simply because we wired different biologically.
But that doesn’t give men right to use our decency against us. And yes – people enter a marriage in pursuit of happiness. If it’s not a traditional view – tough. Looks like only men benefit from this “traditional” view; luckily, we don’t all live in catholic marriages. I don’t envy catholics; they are forced to present a happy face to the world, while living in bondage for life.
I’d expect you learned how to spell my name without copy/pasting.
I would except that my serially dependent recall I.Q. is only 83. I have trouble remembering a new telephone number long enough to dial it. I’m a little bitter about this personal failing since it dropped my aggregate I.Q. just under the score I needed to get into Mensa. Fortunately my unusually good visual-spatial skills compensate in other areas.
If anyone’s name/nick is even slightly unusual I copy and paste so my personal failing won’t accidentally insult them. I must have missed up your name because I tried I thought I did know how to spell it and I got careless.
I asked you – do you reserve the standard of “staying with the parent of your children despite your unhappiness” only to women?
I have been answering that in the negative since my first reply. You inability to see that is disturbing. Nothing that I have written applies exclusively to only parents of one sex. You are the one who strangely sees a sex bias in my arguments when there is none. I am writing about the attitude and responsibilities of parents not the responsibilities of mothers versus the responsibilities of fathers.
My “attitude” is not your business, you have no right to speculate if my opinion “reveal” anything or not.
I do when you become bizarre. If I wish someone good morning and they respond with, “I hate ducks” then I have a right to wonder what is going on. From my perspective, you have introduced a matter of sex bias into a discussion which in no way requires it. You have painted an, albeit fictional, grown women as a victim of an 8 year old boy and portrayed a child’s innocent wish to have both his parents as incipient malignant narcissism. So, I do think I have something to legitimately comment on. If you don’t want people to point out your weird behavior, don’t act weird. At the very least, you might have taken my comment as an indication that I believe you have seriously misunderstood my argument.
How am I supposed to know how old Stan is, or who are the rest of the set of characters, or what the episode consist of?
Well, I would assume that it wouldn’t matter. All children want their parents together and in most cases would be happier if they were. You seem to find this wildly irrational behavior.
The rest of your post is just a one sided rant about women being the victims of men and is beyond the scope of this discussion. This discussion is about the responsibilities of parents towards their children and what they will sacrifice for those children.
I would note that you still have answered my core question: Do you believe that parents and children are equals? Do you believe that children have an equal responsibility to the parent’s happiness?
No, parents and children are not equals. No, children have no responcibility to parent’s happiness.
Is the trial over?
Tatyana
“The fact: women have more parental instinct than men. The fact: women would stay in a loveless and mentally (if not physically) abusive marriage much longer than men – exactly because of children’s interests. The fact: a single woman’s life without a husband is much, much more difficult than that of a single man – in all aspects, from financial to emotional security. And very few women abandon their children – unlike men. Simply because we wired different biologically.”
You stating this as ‘fact’, the outrageous bias in the court system against fathers, and popular media and cultural bias does not make these statements “facts”. Railing about “deadbeat dads” gets votes. If a politician were to campaign as an advocate for father’s rights the media would crucify him.
Why is NOW so lathered up about Father’s Rights Groups pushing for a presumption of joint physical custody in the courts? That doesn’t support your “facts”. There are growing father’s rights groups in just about every western country comprised of hundreds of thousands of fathers who are fed up with court systems denying them the right to fully participate in raising their children as a result of nonsensical laws based on the very nonsense you spew as “facts”.
You might want to check the real facts before you preach.
And Shannon,
You are way over the line in setting yourself up as a moral judge of everyone and anyone’s marriage and their relationship with their children based on your marriage experience, or anything else. And using trash like South Park to support your position? C’mon, you can and usually do a whole lot better than that.
I suggest you stick to politics, and knock off the moral judgement of your readers.
I’m not sure why Shannon can’t comment on marriage and family and South Park. And I really can’t understand why his readers take these personally. Some marriages don’t work; I don’t think he said they all do. But assuming that children a) want their own parents together and b) should be considered as an important factor in parent’s decisions is hardly “over the line”. I don’t see Shannon setting himself up as a judge. I do see him telling us that it is probably moral to weight children’s needs more highly than the parent’s. And I suspect some responses have little to do with his argument and much to do with private obsessions of others.
Bill,
some things are just axioms. Even if the number of fathers advocacy groups will exceed the population of this country, it will still not make biological facts wrong.
I don’t want to get involved into “custody battles” (haven’t had a misfortune myself, but observed from the sidelines a few examples – and boy, that’s worse than Iraq+Afghan combined). You have your beliefs – based on facts as you know them, and I have mine – also on facts as I know them. My mind is made up.
Shannon,
Would your Sunday school class just get South Park, or would they also be regaled with the Girls Gone Wild video commercials the rest of the viewing public sees when they watch the show?
How about the episode in which Indiana Jones is raped? I am curious to know the moral lesson your Sunday school would take from that.
Or the one commenting on the USA’s ‘torture’ of terrorists, in which the kids can hear, “I’d rather be Chinese than a nation of unethical dick shooters.” Is that the definition of America you advocate teaching the Sunday schoolers? That we are a nation of “unethical dick shooters”?
How about the show in which the statue of the Virgin Mary is bleeding from the rectum, having been sexually assaulted by the teacher with the sex change operation? And where does your Sunday school stand on showing the kids the one with the handicapped kid who gets spontaneous erections?
Your Sunday school class is a litle different from the one my kids attended, but then I am a divorced dad who doesn’t have your moral strength and wisdom that leads you to see how lampooning The Passion of the Christ with South Park’s The Passion of the Jew episode builds Christian character. Pardon my ignorance and lack of moral fiber, but please explain what moral lesson would you have them learn from ridiculing Mel Gibson and the entire Catholic community? That faith-based films are nonsense, while the South Park approach of standing for nothing and cleverly insulting anyone who does shows character?
South Park is “the most moral show on TV”? I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one. And citing it as an example of good parenting? For my money having the kids sit around with either a divorced mom or a divorced dad doing or watching something meaningful is a far better job of parenting than having a blissfully married mom and dad spending ‘quality time’ with the kids watching the Virgin Mary bleed from her rectum after being sexually assaulted.
But then you and your church apparenty see it the other way.
Tatyana
You certainly are entitled to your opinions and your beliefs, as am I. An opinion or a belief, no matter how heartfelt however, is not a ‘fact’. A fact, according to one definition anyway, is “a statement or assertion of verified information”. The notion that women are inherently better parents and more committed to marriage is your opinion and obviously a strongly held belief, but I defy you to come up with anything scientifically or statistically better than anecdotal stuff like the bear defending her cubs that would verify that opinion and make it a fact.
Bill, would you have to come up with links and statistics to prove that sun rises and rivers flow every time you mention it?
I’m sure there must be numbers and figures and long and windy explanations and probably a whole history of opposing scientific schools fighting with each other. I’m not interested in it.
All of this is very unimportant and rather boring.
All of this is very unimportant and rather boring.
Why are you engaged in this conversation then? Your “facts” have no basis and your “sun rising in the east example” is lazy argumentation. My mind is made up.
My mind is made up.
Oh I’m so sad
Bill Waddell,
Of course I don’t actually think that South Park should be shown in Sunday school. It is obviously to inappropriate for anyone who follows a discipline of speech and decorum. I do think it is the most moral show on TV because it is the only show that pokes fun at everyone and everything. Trey Parker and Matt Stone clearly view themselves as the nation’s court jesters with a mandate to poke fun at everyone. South Park is the only comedy show on TV that mocks leftist’s conceits and which treats religions with any respect at all.
For example: South Park devoted 3 full episodes to mocking Richard Dawkin’s “The God Delusion” and savaging atheist for religious intolerance. They had an episode devoted to Mormonism where they comically but accurately depicted the religion’s bizarre origins but all through the show Mormons are portrayed as friendly, giving people invested in their families and communities. In that episode’s last scene, a character points out that it doesn’t matter how Mormonism began it only matters how Mormons act today.
Of course they poke fun at religion but they usually do so where religion should be mocked. The Catholic church is often portrayed as being more concerned with itself as an institution than it is with the message of Christ. I think this a valid criticism of any large institution of long standing. In one episode, mocking the child abuse scandal, radical clergy capture Jesus and plan to kill him to preserve the Church’s reputation. The Church and Jesus are saved by the pure faith and personal valor of a simple priest.
In a perverse way, I think that South Park’s gross out human gives them moral authority to treat religion and non-leftists ideas even handedly. Clearly, anyone who writes a script with a curse words every three sentences is not deeply religious. People who would see a more mature even handed treatment religion as just pro-religious propaganda will watch and think about positive story about religion told with cursing, fart jokes and gore.
It’s perverse but it is the age we live in.
Tatyana,
The rising of the sun and the flow of rivers are both quite easily verifiable and are, therefore, facts. Your opinions concerning the superior parenting capabilities of mothers are not. Typical – the assertion of such false ‘facts’ and the dismissal of contrary opinion as absurd is the only way to argue in favor of the feminist agenda.
“All of this is unimportant and rather boring”
How selfish of you to so cavalierly dismiss the value of the relationship between fathers and their children, and to dismiss as inconsequential the routine denial to both parties of their rights to that relationship.
Bill,
I’m not sure is it deliberate or just a habit of continuing somebody’s thoughts in the manner you find logical, but you are misrepresenting what I said in the gross manner.
Compare.
I said: “The fact: women have more parental instinct than men. The fact: women would stay in a loveless and mentally (if not physically) abusive marriage much longer than men – exactly because of children’s interests. The fact: a single woman’s life without a husband is much, much more difficult than that of a single man – in all aspects, from financial to emotional security. And very few women abandon their children – unlike men. Simply because we wired different biologically.”
You, however, attributed to me an opinion of “superior parenting capabilities of mothers”. Huh? Never said that, never thought that, and never expressed anything remotely close
Then, you accuse me of “dismiss[ing] the value of the relationship between fathers and their children”. Huh, again? What was that idiom – when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail? A perfect illustration.
Further, in your mind I became “typical” and my supposed opinion (the straw man you yourself erected) – a sign of “feminist agenda”. First of all, feminist is a good word, not bad. I know, it’s fashionable in conservative circles to kick the dead horse of feminism and blame women liberation movement for everything that went wrong in these men’s lives. Well, I can tell you this: I’m a feminist, in the sense they understood it in the 20’s, because I generally pro-liberty and pro-equal opportunity on merit. And will be as long as there are abusive, arrogant, obnoxious bullies that treat women like their welcome mat, to wipe their dirty feet on. I have no idea what you mean by that word and why it inspires such hissing from people like you – but by your hatred I suppose they did something right.
There is a loon on 2Blowhards that bloviates at lenghth about “power of Fathers”; you remind me of him. Pathetic.
Don’t worry,Shannon,you didn’t miss anything by not making Mensa.It is mostly a bunch of third raters who think themselves second raters.
Shannon,
I have to question why Comedy Central thinks they have the wisdom or the mandate to comment on religion, at all. As you said, it is clear that the writers are not deeply religious, so where do they get off teaching lessons about religion to our kids? It strikes me as akin me setting myself up as a critic of moelcular biologists or nuclear medicine professionals. In the absence of knowledge I would have to resort to hyperbole and shock-humor to dupe a naive audience into thinking I had a legitimate message.
I see your point, but I have to believe that, on balance, the message sent by South Park that trivializes profanity, sex and violence far outweighs any positive message they have to offer. I find it tough enough to raise kids who don’t have the life experiences to put South Park into perspective.
We will just have to disagree, but thanks for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully to my cynical, emotional comment.
Tatyana,
You have mae my case: “the assertion of such false ‘facts’ and the dismissal of contrary opinion as absurd is the only way to argue in favor of the feminist agenda.”
Bill: you had no “case” and I didn’t measure dicks with you.
Note to self: two misogynists will always lock hands against a woman who doesn’t pretend to admire them. “Typical”.
Whatever, buddy. I hope your ex-wife is happy now.