(which incomes would, of
course, become the property of the custodial parent -- three guesses who
that turns out to be). If this is not the sleazy, greedy and underhanded
long-term motive behind the misuse of the term --child poverty-- by
feminists in the industrialized countries, I apologize, but I think it
is ridiculous to entertain the idea that feminists have any other
tactical objective in mind.
It is another example of feminists --crowding the centre,-- attempting
to make women interchangeable with men, homosexualists interchangeable
with heterosexualists and children interchangeable with adults. To me,
it is nonsensical. It is an Impossible Thing to Believe Before
Breakfast. And yet, increasingly, it is the way we conduct our society.
Yes, men are very much to blame. Take the minor hit movie which spawned
a sequel or two: Look Who's Talking. Is there any more universal a
masculine trait than to supply a comedic voice for a baby -- to narrate
the unthinking and insensible gestures and expressions of a wholly
unshaped and incomplete human-being-in-the-raw-material-state and to
give it a thinking, sensible, humorous and ironic context far, far, far,
far in excess of that being's actual aptitudes and abilities?
And could there have been any more universal a mistake made by men in
doing so? A harmless bit of fun?
Perhaps, but then a man is always aware that a baby is a baby and an
adult is an adult It seems to me that men are culpable for missing --
missing completely and thoroughly -- that the same cannot be said of a
woman's awareness. In fact, with a woman, as an emotion-based being,
exactly the opposite is true. To a woman, a baby, for all intents and
purposes, as a being self-evidently capable of feeling emotions and
capable of displaying emotions and vocalizing emotions, to a woman, in
all
.
|
