School Meals

============================================

The anti male system

Anyone remember Steve. Like me, he wasn't anti women, especially the OPF variety. In fact, very much like me, he admired all OPF people, but the anti male system really used to get to him.

My Daughters dancing exams are coming up next week. All the Mums will be there in the changing rooms getting kids ready, dress, make up etc. We will be in the car park. I understand that I'm not welcome in the girls changing rooms, but no facilities are available for Single Parent Dads and their Daughters, or Dads and their Sons for that matter.

My Daughter also swims for the County. Again I understand why I'm not welcome in the ladies changing rooms, but at almost every event I have to listen to the "dirty old men lecture". Apparently DOM go to swimming Galas just to look at little girls in swimming costumes. I sit alone, feeling the eyes boring into me. On more than one occasion I have had to leave because I felt so uncomfortable being there on my own.

Why should I be victimised for being a Single Parent just because I am male. I'm proud of it. I want to flaunt it. I am a minority, but just as important as Single Parent Mums. I'm not weird, strange or a DOM. I love my children, they love me and I do my best for them.

I gave a girl a lift to work because her car was broken last week. People who hadn't spoken to me in years suddenly started waving as I drove by. Why ?, because I had a "lady friend" with me and I was "normal" again.

I won't go the ground already covered by Steve, the strange looks in the playground, people crossing the street to avoid you etc. one parent family men aren't weird, just in the minority.

My house is the local youth club, always full of kids, but they are all male (friends of my son), my Daughters friends aren't allowed round my house. She has to go to their house. Just because I'm a one parent family Dad doesn't make me weird, a child molester or worse.

Society has difficulty accepting the minority, but it's time it woke up to single parent family Dads. We are growing in numbers and we are here to stay.

All Single Parents, Mums or Dads, be proud of what you are. In years to come, your children will look back and see what you have done for them.

Chris

Message Board Manager

============================================

SMACKING YOUR KIDS?

Some children bruise more easily than others. With some children you only have to grip their arm and they bruise. Who will define the difference between smacking and beating up? Children had more respect for adults/property when schools could slipper or cain and policemen could give a slap around the head and tell them to bugger off home. Some poor parents have 13/14/15/16 year old kids who are bigger and more stronger than the parent and who hits the 'parent' and will not be grounded - what rights have PARENTS got against abuse (verbal or physical) from their children?
Geri St Albans, England

This will punish good parents who discipline their kids properly, it won't tackle child abuse. Teens are bad enough now, imagine what the streets will be like in 15 years?
Mike Hiddleston, Liverpool

No parents don't have the right to smack their children. If they do they may accidentally cause more serious harm to their children. There are other ways of stopping them misbehaving such as restricting them from going outside or not letting them play with certain children etc.
Lorna Braniff, Belfast, Ireland

People seem to forget there is a difference between smacking and beating...

El Spencer, Cumbria

I was abused up until the age of 13 and have been seeing counsellors since I was 14, I am now 18. A small part of the abuse was beatings. Even at a young age I could recognise the difference between my parents' methods in that my mother would give us three warnings and then one slap, my father would come in from work in a bad mood and beat us. People seem to forget there is a difference between smacking and beating... maybe they should refresh their memories? In all the times I remember being harmed by my parents, if any of us got a slap from my mother it was well deserved and well warned and we knew it was coming, and we certainly didn't do it again, therefore we were better behaved with her. My father on the other hand was abusive and cruel and did not smack - he beat. When I have kids I will not have a problem with smacking them, after just warning. Speaking as a survivor of extensive abuse I do not think smacking should be banned.
El Spencer, Cumbria, England Don't people realise that those children in our society that have a tendency to abuse others will take that attitude into their adult lives, if there is no form of discipline. The best deterrent to enforce this is a short sharp shock that lets them know that there is a point you can reach and if you go passed it there is a penalty to pay. Perhaps if there was more discipline in schools there wouldn't be the increase in murder, rape and hooliganism that has occurred since my childhood in the seventies and eighties.
Mark, Shipley

If the government want to take away our rights to reprimand our children then they should change the laws of responsibility and not take parents to court when the children break the rules like refusing to go to school. If the child has no deterrent then how do we control them? Grounding them only works if they agree to be grounded. What happens when they just think they can do as they please?
Glen Barber, Tamworth, UK

I think strong discipline during the upbringing of a child is crucial to ensuring they develop into a decent adult with respect for all things. And strong discipline most certainly includes smacking. Teachers should also have stronger powers of discipline, such as use of the cane. The current fashion of overprotecting your child is the reason why there is so much petty theft, vandalism, and hooliganism.
Jon, Cambridge, UK

We now have a society of children who are anti-social and have no respect or regard for others.

I was smacked as a child. I am not physically or mentally scarred. However it taught me to respect other people and their property, sadly something that is lacking in today's society. We now have a society of children who are anti-social and have no respect or regard for others. Who is going to control them if they have no self discipline?
Martin, UK

I think this is a very grey area! I agree that to cause physical or mental harm is totally wrong but the occasional, short sharp smack to the back of the hand may well get across the appropriate message, especially if safety of the child were an issue. I have a 3 year old whom I would not hesitate to smack if they were to run into a road or such like. Also, how is all this going to be monitored in people's homes? Is it not just going to make smacking something that is done in secret and therefore unable to monitor and control?
K. Jones, Bristol

I cannot wait for the next 10 to 20 years or so when all the people who support a ban on smacking will be moaning that the kids "have no respect" and that they are too frightened to go out because of the yobs who are ruling the streets. Please, no decent person wants children being abused, but a smack on the legs is not abuse. As usual the do-gooders are trying to make out that anyone who smacks their children is as bad as someone who beats their children. There is a huge difference.
Derren Cooper, SE London, UK

Over here in Sweden they've had a total ban on smacking children since the seventies. The problem in England lies with the mis-education of the poor. Sweden has one of the highest standards of education in Europe and at the same time, one of the lowest crime rates. You need a licence to have a TV but anyone can have a child...
Andy Pints, Sweden

The only outcome of such a law would be the criminalisation of parents who lose their tempers at the supermarket. It will not save children from abuse.
David, Bristol, UK

I disagree with some of you who claim that smacking cannot be planned and only done impulsively. At a time when our 4 year old son's behaviour was often dreadful and sometimes dangerous to himself, we agonised for weeks over whether we should smack him and decided very reluctantly that it was in HIS best interests. A few slaps on the wrist over the next couple of weeks was enough training. I suspect many caring parents have had to make this very difficult decision. Outlawing smacking will not stop the cruel child beaters - they need psychiatric help - but will compromise the abilities of caring parents to raise their children the best way they feel they can.
CB, Southampton UK

I remember the (few) times I was smacked as a child. The main emotion was shock, rather than pain, and it stopped me in my tracks when talking and shouting didn't. My sister has smacked her kids a few times - and she cried longer than they did afterwards. That's how it should be, and is by no means abuse.
Sylvia, Cardiff, Wales

I agree that children should have the same rights as adults - so let's change the law to allow smacking of adults. I can think of a few who could do with a good slap.
Paul, London, UK

Parents today are being given more and more responsibility, with less and less power

Linda, Colchester, UK
When campaigners look at all these countries where smacking is banned, what do they choose to introduce first? The generous maternity and paternity leave, free high-quality childcare for toddlers, supportive social workers to teach parenting skills? No, just push through a ban on smacking ... at the same time as the government introduces more laws to punish parents whose children go astray, e.g. truanting, with fines and jail sentences. Parents today are being given more and more responsibility, with less and less power.
Linda, Colchester, UK

I was hit regularly as a child by both my parents and my school. I was beaten with canes, cricket bats, hairbrushes and by hand. I remember the terror of being chased round the garden by my father who was intent on thrashing me for some supposed misdemeanour. I was 10 at the time. My parents were not monsters, simply good middle class folk who believed in the value of discipline. But they left me wit a burning hatred of adults and authority figures which remains with me 30 years later. No-one should be allowed to hit children for any reason.
Steve Thomas, Ealing, UK

Recent scene on a bus: 2 tough looking council estate women and a 4 year old boy. The boy, (fidgeting or something, but doing nothing wrong!) is smacked hard, once, by his mum. He started crying. "You're bad, mummy". He had such a wee sad voice. The mother responded with "Do you want another smack? Do you?" Afterwards, I don't know if I was more mad at the mother, or at myself for not giving her a piece of my mind.
Caroline , Edinburgh, Scotland

We already have a near lawless society

Keith, Sunderland, UK
We already have a near lawless society full of yobs and thugs. This is why. This country will never recover from the damage already done by the goody goody two shoes who think criminals should be taken for holidays not punished.
Keith, Sunderland, UK

Are we really at the stage where we need legislation to raise children properly, as well as eat the correct food or to decide whether we smoke or not? Will this really protect children who are at risk? I think not.
Kelvin, Oxford, UK

I'd dearly love to know how many anti-smacking people are actually parents. If anyone wants to know I've got four kids, I can't remember the last time I smacked one of them and I'm against a ban of smacking.
Dr Ged Cowburn, Durham, England

If parents can't control their kids without smacking then it is time to call the police or social services. Perhaps some parenting class could be made available for those parents unable to cope.
John , London, UK

Smacking is banned here, and the children are much better behaved.
Tracey, Stavanger, Norway

It's an interesting conundrum that over the last 50 years or so the 'child lobby' has managed to make disciplining a child, whether by smacking or any other tried and tested method, an anathema yet at the same time violent crime has increased exponentially. I wonder if there is a causal link between the two issues?
Andy, Salisbury, UK

If we put a complete ban on smacking, children will push the boundaries even further

Sean, Shropshire, England
As a police officer I attended a house in which a little boy had had an argument with his mother. She was unable or unwilling to control him, and left the house to let him calm down. As she got half way down the street she heard the sound of smashing glass. The little boy had smashed the window of an interior door, and then stamped on the telephone. The woman called the police, and owing to our obligations, we arrested an 11 year old boy for criminal damage. The whole time that I was there I couldn't help but think that what the boy was lacking was discipline, and what the mother was lacking was a will to discipline. If we put a complete ban on smacking, children will push the boundaries even further, until it's too late for anyone but the courts to address their behaviour.
Sean, Shropshire, England

There is a difference between smacking and hitting. The former is reasonable chastisement, delivered in context as a last resort and with the parent in control of their actions. The latter is abuse and is delivered in anger.
David Browne, Frome, UK

If smacking is to be banned, then schools should begin to teach good parenthood instead. Otherwise we will see more and more out-of-control children, who have not been taught respect for others, nor for their property, and who think it fine to steal and run riot. I suspect older children will now get away with anything they choose, saying 'you can't touch me, the government says so.' It's about time that all children are taught respect for their fellow humans, and that it is wrong to abuse them and steal from them. Otherwise, we are going to fall into anarchy.
Kathy, UK

So it's ok to take pre-emptive action half way around the world, but illegal to smack in chastisement. What a load of rubbish. A waste of tax payers money and parliamentary time which could be used for something far more useful, like getting to the bottom of WMD lies. I have two children who were both smacked when appropriate and what lovely children they have turned out to be. In fact in the case of my daughter, her school wishes every child in the class was like her.
Sheldon Telliam, Dunstable, UK

I'm all for a total ban. If only this legislation had been on the statute book when I was a kid 30-35 years ago, it may have made my mother think twice about kicking the living daylights out of me for 10 years.
Chris, London

Verbal abuse can be far more damaging

Julie, London
I don't agree with a total ban. But I also think it is foolish to discuss how to monitor how hard the child is slapped. Is it not always how hard you smack a child but how often. Daily smacks as well as verbal abuse can be far more damaging than the occasional hard smack - the law does not seem to taking this into consideration
Julie, London

Part of the learning process of any child is to push the boundaries of acceptable behaviour until they get a clear indication that they have gone too far. A short sharp smack clearly defines that boundary of acceptable behaviour. Psychology doesn't.
Simon, Essex, UK

I have very clear memories of the smacking I received when I was little. It's not about hurting someone physically but about sense of punishment. I am grateful to my mum for smacking me and I oppose any stupid law that would take away what I consider not only a right but a duty (the duty of punishment so to teach social rules) of every parent. Look around yourself and try to explain why young kids are lacking of respect to everyone in a contest where they have become untouchable.
Frank,

What about the right of a child

Chris Barton, Reading, UK
All this talk about parents rights, what about the right of a child not to be smacked.
Chris Barton, Reading, UK

Parents smacking their children as a disciplinary aid is not a "right". It is an indispensable obligation and privilege that all parents should observe until their children able to understand reason and to take responsibility. Parents who cannot discipline their children without losing their temper are in a very small minority. Child abuse usually results from totally different issues. Working with children who have behavioural problems, I am very aware that many cases could have been prevented by simple discipline in the home. In these instances the lack of smacking has been the abuse.
Mike, Ivybridge, UK

We may indeed need to inflict physical pain on each other to maintain discipline. But that hardly says much about human nature, does it?
Alexander Hay, Winchester, United Kingdom

It's only going to stop responsible parents from adequately disciplining their children

John, Southampton, UK
This law is not going to stop abusive parents from beating their offspring. It's only going to stop responsible parents from adequately disciplining their children.
John, Southampton, UK

Nobody is saying it's acceptable to beat your children - but smacking is a useful disciplinary tool if used with restraint and proportion. Keep the law out of it, unless the child's health is in danger.
Iain Howe, Amsterdam, Netherlands

I've said it before, I'll say it again. What makes it right to smack a child, but illegal to smack an adult?
Jenny, UK

Smacking can never be right. Whenever I have smacked my children, it has been when I lost my temper and control of the moment. I would never choose to smack as a cold-blooded action. And you only have to look around at all the parents smacking the older sibling whilst saying "Don't hit your brother/sister!" to see the futility and perpetuation of it. But legislating against it? How do you legislate against people losing their tempers? Better I think to instil an awareness of the pointlessness and consequences of smacking and give parents alternative strategies for coping with what can be very trying situations.
Alastair, Reading, UK

Parents, teachers and police already have no power to control children. This will just make matters worse.
Gary, Sutton, Notts

The law is the last thing on a parents mind

Lee Sutcliffe, Bradford UK
An outright ban is not only ludicrous, it is completely unenforceable. Is a new bill really going to stop children being smacked? I seriously doubt it, a toddler is not aware of their rights, and when a toddler is gouging out their little baby sisters eyes, the law is the last thing on a parents mind.
Lee Sutcliffe, Bradford UK

I would be horrified if anyone accused me of abusing my 4 year old simply because i smacked his legs for constantly trying to run into the road. There is a vast difference between abuse and necessary discipline. Those quoting the law as it applies to adults are missing the point, adults can be reasoned with.
Martyn, Nottingham UK

As I child, I was disciplined, but never abused, by my parents, who used the occasional smack. It brought me up to respect authority, and to behave in a considerate and courteous manner. Whatever the law may say on the subject, I will discipline my children with a smack if that is what I think the situation requires.
John Atkins, Bridgwater, England

Common sense should prevail

Nigel, UK
Can someone tell me the difference between 'moderate smacking' (which is in the bill) and 'reasonable chastisement' (which is being removed?) Also, what is 'moderate smacking'? Once a year? Once a week? Common sense should prevail whatever the description. I'm not in favour of corporal punishment on a regular basis, but there are times when we all need a short, sharp shock. Let good parents exercise common sense with their own children and let the law continue to prosecute people who truly abuse children.
Nigel, UK

It seems that a few high profile cases of blatant and horrific child abuse have lead to an almost universal assumption by some groups that all parents using smacking are monsters.
Chris, Bristol

Why do these people who propose such legislation insist that it will "protect" children? The legislation does not, and cannot, prevent someone hitting a child: it can only punish the offender after the fact. Where's the "protection" in that?
Rob, London, UK

We need to enshrine in law that it is wrong to use physical violence towards children

Martin, Isleworth, Middlesex
I understand the arguments on both sides but the bottom line for me is that we need to enshrine in law that it is wrong to use physical violence towards children whatever the circumstances. Over time peoples attitudes and values will change slowly but the end result will hopefully be a society less violent.
Martin, Isleworth, Middlesex

I am of the opinion that the behaviour of a great many children today leaves a lot to be desired. Smacking should be allowed as a suitable form of punishment, especially when a child misbehaves badly. Children today need more discipline, not less! A good smack never did me or any of my friends any harm.
Mike Beare, England

Do kids have a right to smack parents?
Stephen, Tunbridge Wells, Kent

No amount of legislation will protect the children who are "abused" by their parents/guardians"
Cheryl Bailey, Ramsbottom, UK

Nanny state strikes again

Kevin T, Alton, UK
Nanny state strikes again. Another silly law! This will do little to protect vulnerable children (just as the tighter gun laws do not deter use of guns by criminals) but I suspect it will deter caring parents from effectively disciplining their children. I am increasingly dismayed by the unruly behaviour of many children in public and by their parents lack of control and unwillingness to discipline them. This new law is a step in the wrong direction.
Kevin T, Alton, UK

So it's OK as long as we don't mark them? A hard thump round the back of the head will pass that test. What a ghastly fudge. Children should have the same protection from assault as adults. Yes, it may be very difficult to police but at least it draws a very clear line: hitting people is wrong.
Frank, Bristol

The arguments for smacking children are as backwards and outmoded as those that used to allow the smacking of one's wife. We wouldn't accept "It's nobody's business if I smack my wife", "How will my wife learn discipline otherwise?" or the pathetic "Sometimes the only thing my wife respects is a slap". Yet these are seen as valid arguments for hurting kids. If someone tries to teach an adult a lesson by giving them a slap, it's called assault, the same applies to children.
Matt, Amsterdam, Netherlands (ex UK)

The Government should make a huge effort to educate people about more effective, positive forms of discipline

Adam, Brighton
What about children's human rights and children's civil liberties? The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to be protected from all forms of physical punishment. What is "moderate" smacking? All smacking causes pain and hurt. There are far better ways of disciplining children. The Government should make a huge effort to educate people about more effective, positive forms of discipline.
Adam, Brighton

Children are not simply under-sized adults - the law recognises (by the age of responsibility) that they are not able to tell right from wrong, and as a result they can't be imprisoned or fined for harmful behaviour. What sort of punishments are parents supposed use to dissuade them from bad behaviour that would be thought of as criminal in an adult? Withdraw their food? Make them sleep in the garden?
Alan Young, Oxford

You are creating a time bomb by taking the right out of the parents hand to discipline their children, how they see fit. Children will soon have more rights than their parents. What will we sit with - undisciplined brats. As long as the parent is not abusing his or her child, I feel that a "proper" hiding when needed will do no harm.
Mandy Arendse, South Africa

The misery of childhood in these cases often goes unnoticed

Ray Lee, Whitstable, England
Who can ever tell why a parent or guardian smacks their children? It isn't always "justified." Let us not avoid the psychological damage from perverse parentage, which often isn't obvious to outsiders. The misery of childhood in these cases often goes unnoticed.
Ray Lee, Whitstable, England

Friends of my partner have a toddler who is resentful of his new baby sister and takes every opportunity to drop things on her, being 'woolly' liberals they tell him that's bad but he soon repeats the action. I wonder if, god forbid, their daughter sustained serious injury, whether they would feel a quick smack could have saved their daughter from a lifetime of disfigurement and their son a lifetime of guilt.
Quin MacLeod, St Albans, England

My father did not know the difference between smacking and beating - How many more are like him?
Louise, Wakefield, UK

A smack is a temporary sting and does the child no harm what-so-ever

Nick, Essex
I was smacked, my parents were smacked and their parents were smacked. It did nobody any harm and taught us the difference between right and wrong. Words to a child mean nothing - actions do. A smack is a temporary sting and does the child no harm what-so-ever.
Nick, Essex

Abuse and discipline are two different issues and the line between them must not be muddied. It is the role of the parent to instil in a child the difference between right and wrong and on occasion a child can/may be wilfully defiant, or disobedient; the best way to deter this is the short, sharp, shock of a smack. It is also essential to explain to the child why they have been smacked, if they are too young to reason with, perhaps then they should not be smacked.
Jez, UK

One thing I would say is that each parent knows their own child, their limitations and what works in terms of discipline. I smack very rarely. But to have this "final resort" taken away from me would be severely limiting my ability to teach my child the difference between what is good and bad for her. And what upsets me about the anti-smacking lobby is their complete inability to distinguish a simple tap on the hand from child abuse. I am not forcing them to smack their children as punishment - they should not be telling me that I should never smack my child.
Nichola, West Sussex, UK

Time honoured tools in moderation

Rod French, Poole, UK
The government is systematically taking away the rights of teachers and parents to wield any effective sanctions against bad behaviour. The result - a generation of children for whom the correct bounds of acceptable behaviour have not been set. Is it any wonder that Anti Social Behaviour Orders and school exclusions (admissions to the University of Crime) have increased? I'm not asking to abuse children, just to be allowed to use some time honoured tools in moderation to teach the nation's children socially acceptable behaviour.
Rod French, Poole, UK

My little boy is 2 years old, has been smacked a few times while both parents are fully in control of their emotions. He is much loved, we always receive comments on how well behaved he is, so yes is the answer to the question. Our current laws are sufficient.
Steve, London

What a waste of Parliamentary time! The law is fine as it is - a total ban will just give rise to more ill disciplined children, growing up into unruly teenagers & future petty criminals. If a child is being abused by its parents, a ban on smacking is not going to either protect the child or deter the parent.
Michael, London, UK

Parents must have the right to chastise their children

Tashini , London
I don't agree with banning smacking completely - parents must have the right to chastise their children. Some would argue you can reason with a child - I wonder how many of these have successfully reasoned with a two-year-old determined to do something dangerous! There is nothing that the government can introduce that will stop child abuse. Very few, if any, bits of legislation have protected children over the past few years. Clearly something must be done to stop the abusers and it will take far more than a simply smacking ban to attain this.
Tashini , London

It is illegal for any adult to physically abuse. A man cannot physically abuse his wife. Why shouldn't this law extend to the members of society even less able to defend themselves?
Dr Lee Clewley, Oxford

Most of us are sensible and would only give a light slap in the worst of cases. Unfortunately, there are some who don't seem to be able to control their temper or aggression and need to be stopped from harming children. Whether this bill will actually stop them remains to be seen but at least it gives those in authority a lever to act from.
Mags, Oxford, UK

Good parents use psychology first and a slap as a last resort

name here
Good parents use psychology first and a slap as a last resort, because sometimes no matter how much psychology you use some children will ignore it. Although there is a link between diet and ADHD/hyperactivity I firmly believe that minority of these cases are not and it is just the child 'playing up', knowing full well that mum or dad will not smack it. A last resort smack followed up by an explanation and guidance is a tried and tested method which has worked for centuries!
Mike, Darlington, UK

It is wrong for parliament to pass legislation limiting a parents rights to discipline their child, even if the legislation does go through, it's going to be very hard to enforce.
Benjamin, Mursley, UK

I do not think smacking should not be banned but parents should think carefully before they decide to smack their child. Smacking should be reserved as a punishment for more serious or dangerous behaviour, or as a last resort when the child is not responding to any other action. A smack doesn't have to be hard - just enough so that the child knows their bad behaviour will not be tolerated. When they grow up and see a world of lawless adults and criminals around them they will thank you for not letting them grow into one of them.
G, London, UK

Almost all smacking is a thoughtless, loveless act of frustration or anger

Paul, Essex, UK
We're lead to believe smacking occurs only after parents have gone through a detailed, balanced decision-making process on what is the best form of punishment for their naughty child. This, of course, is nonsense. Almost all smacking is a thoughtless, loveless act of frustration or anger. Of course it should be banned.
Paul, Essex, UK

============================================

Women should not fancy abusive men.

It is immoral and sick to support or fancy abusive men.

It is immoral and sick to see abusers as sexy and manly

There are sick immoral people who hate nice men more than wife beaters

Women should not fancy wife beaters

Women should not fancy bullies

Abusers want women to fancy abusive men.

Abusing women or men is sick and immoral.

My article tries to out forward these original view points.

This is an article against abuse. In my view it is immoral and sick to support abuse and even sicker to be sexually aroused by abuse or by men who abuse. Too many people in society decide to see abuse and abusers as sexy and manly. This causes them to support the abuse of other people. It often causes women to stay with abusive men as they decide to see abusive men as sexy and manly.

Whenever I put this view forward I am normally patronized, ignored or insulted. When all I am suggesting is that it is immoral and sick to support the abuse of other people. Why should that be such a controversial thing to suggest.

Some people try to suggest supporting abuse is equal to being a lesbian and that we should tolerate supporting abuse, but that is an insult to lesbians. Lesbianism is a harmless sexuality, we should tolerate.. Whilst being sexually aroused by the abuse of others abuse is the deliberate actual support of the abuse of others. To compare lesbianism and supporting abuse of others people is like comparing adult heterosexuality to peadophilia. The reality is adult heterosexuality and lesbians are things we should tolerant.

While peadophila and supporting abuse are immoral and sick and unjustifiable, and should be illegal acts. It is not feminist to support abuse, Neither men or women should support abuse. Feminism is about equal rights not supporting abuse. Freedom to abuse or freedom to support abuse is sick.

People who fancy abusers are sick and give logistical, and ideological support to abusers to carry on abusing. I also find the fact they find abusive men sexy as deeply insulting. It is as insulting as you can possibly get. Imagine if you had been abused in anyway and then found out people fancied the men for abusing you. I am talking mainly about men bullying men, but definitely include other abuses. People who fancy bullies are sick and immoral and make abusive men win. Also they always seem to take sadistic pleasure in complimenting abusive men. They talk like it is kinky, original, inventive and sophisticated to support abusive men. Wen in reality is just sick, and immoral.

Often they seem to spend their entire time attacking nice men as disgusting and inferior and then they compliment abusive men as sexy and exciting. Then they even claim that is a feminist thing to do, they're more like Jews that support Hitler. .

Why can't women who fancy abusers see how insulting they are to me as a nice man. The worst thing is I bet they know they are being insulting but want to pretend they don't mean it. And all they do is compliment and support abusive men.

Loads of men know that loads of women support abusive men. The difference is I am against that as I regard that as sick, but they want that, because wife beaters want women to find them sexy. All abusive men want women to find them sexy, and manly for abusing people. They enjoy hearing women criticizing nice men as inferior disgusting burdens. Get that they regard nice men as disgusting. Wife beaters enjoy hearing women complaining about nice men, it is exactly what they want to hear, So what sort of sick supports abusive men who pick on women or men. Many serial killers are married to women who support serial killers. They even think it is honorable to stand by abusive men.

Some abusers even make the excuse that if their girlfriend fancies them abusing people that must mean they're OK people, even if the only reason she fancies the abuser is because he abuses people. Surely that is insane, dumb logic. You're girlfriend fancies you because you are abusive and yet you think the fact she fancies you because you're abusive makes you non abuse. That is insane logic.

The reality is it all comes down to the idea that abusive men and pro abuse women have that abuse is sexy and manly. Until this is countered they will carry on supporting abuse. This causes them to support abuse, more passionately than anything, in fact they think it is wrong and unmanly and disgusting and sickening, to not abuse. Infact as the pro abuse women are sexually aroused by abuse they are more supportive of abuse than any section of society often putting forward contradictory manipulative defenses of abusers and critics of non abusive men, and if you counter their sick ideology they regard you as sick even as they beat their wife.

They consiocuisly decide to fancy abuse. It is not an uncontrollable biologic instinct, as they like to claim. It if it was an instinct to fancy the most abusive men they would fancy even more abusive men, and men would fancy abusive women who kill other people's children. The reality is they DECIDE to choose specific abuses they will support. That is not instinctive, that is deliberate calculating support of abuse. Also I know some abusers will say we all have the capacity to support or commit abuse, but so what we all have the capability to drink cow urine, become rock climbers, chop off our private parts, learn Kling On, it doesn't we all do. It is not an excuse just to say we all have the capability to these things. It is deliberate decision to follow the ideology.

Another idea put forward is that anyone who criticism the idea of fancying abusers is dangerous. That is insane. So you have one individual who supports abuse regards it as sexy and kinky and thinks it is fun to abuse others. Then they regard that as not dangerous. Then one individual comes along and say that is wrong and you regard that as dangerous. Why can't you get it you support abuse you are dangerous and support abuse, where is the difficult calculation there.

Also the worst thing is when abusers regard themselves as the voice of common sense, or some women who gets turned on by abuse decides she is the voice of common sense. I mean why can't they see they're sick and immoral. They're not the voice of common sense. Some of them even given out advice, as if it is being mentally helpful.

Anyway they're not rebels they're the problem that rebels rebel against.

Most serial killers and serial sex abusers believe abuse is sexy and manly. Yet no one apart from me is prepared to counter their ideology I think this is because of women who fancied abusers at school and want to pretend even in adult life that they were the voice of common sense even when they got turned on watching their boyfriend abusing guys like me.

It should be seen as a mental illness and immoral to fancy abusers, it should be seen as a mental illness to see abuse as manly and sexy, as it is dangerous.

Here are a few more views.

The catch 22 of abuse

If you stand up to the abuser they abuse you more, and make the excuse that is serves you right for standing up for yourself. If you don't stand up to them they abuse you more and make the excuse that it serves you right for not standing up for yourself.

What are you talking about.

Often an abuser will give that put down if you try and argue against them.

The what did he do that for.

It annoys me when a bully picks on me then when I try and get them back they act like they don't know why I tried to get them back and yet then they talk about the things they did to me and saying things like I always knew he was bizarre that was why I did this and that to him. So I suppose they were getting their revenge for what I was going to do to them in their logic, So once again they remember what they did to me but don't accept I want have a justifiable excuse for wanting revenge. I'm talking about trivial things I do like shouting abuse back, at the abuser and then they act like what did he do that for.

People who hate mongs

Other people who annoy me are the people who insult people for beings mongs. There are loads of snobs who hate people they regard as mongs. I have written a list of people who get insulted by snobs these are mongs, nerds, sad people, blacks, gays, people with learning disabilities, fat people, skinny people, etc: You know basically I don't like insults, it really gets me down. The worst thing is there are women who support men who insult and abuse people it really annoys me that, and then they claim to be the voice of common sense. There is nothing more nauseating to me in the world than the sick phrase. Why do nice girls go for bad boys. I just say how can you be nice and support abuse. That is like having a book called why do nice guys support the holocaust. It is sick, you aren't nice if you support abuse or the holocaust. It is as illogical as having a title called why are left wing people right wing, or why is green red..That is the thing that really grates with me people who support abusive men thinking they can regard themselves as the voice of common sense. I can just about accept there are going to be people who fancy abusers just like i just about accept that there are dangerous abusive people you just about accept that. It is unfair they should be locked up, but unfortunately they exist. What I really think is beyond comprehension is this way that women who support abusers think they're decent people. The very idea they think they are nice people when they support abuse is sickening. I can just about accept that they're will be people who support abusers, I still think we should argue against them, but what is sick is they actuality think they're decent people, and if you ever say they're not, in seems to be the first time anyone has ever point out to them another perspective.

So they support abusive men they regard nice men as disgusting burdens. They get turned on by men abusing other men . They want abuse to occur, and yet despite all that they go around giving advice, even to guys like me. Even when they have publicity admitted to wanting nice men to die in terrible agony, they still in the next sentence decide to give you "advice". What exactly is going through their heads. They support the most incredibly abusive men and then decide the victims are supposed to listen to their advice, which normally concerns me jumping off a cliff, ofcourse they still have this idea that that is really deep profound kind advice, and that I'm ungrateful for not accepting their advice. I mean they do they have no idea that i might actually have feelings. Maybe it is because the men there are with are psychopaths, so they think all men like that, but the more likely reason is they themselves are, psychopaths. They regard people like me as trivial scum that doesn't matter. Which brings me to another point.

People who thinks their victims have exactly the same ideology as the abuser.

So the abuser thinks that shy or need or mongy people deserve to be abused, and if as a shy guy I admit I don't like being abused they get all amazed. And start demanding I get mental help because I DON'T LIKE BEING PICKED ON.

Yet if exactly same abuses were done to them or another sort of individual they would be against the abuses. So in other words they're basically like people who expect black people to think black people should be racially abused. What Find incredible is this lack of empathy to realise people have a sense of identity.

I relaise the people i disagree with have different senses of identity to me And that they support abusive people, while I support non abusive guys. I realise for instance that people who bullied me think that other abusers are amusing jokers. I realise. Wife beaters think all Wife beaters are amusing jokers. I relaise that. Yet abusive people don't seem to recognize the other side of the coin.

People who you would regard as Mongs don't like it when they get abused, I don't support the ideology of abusing them. I don't support that but Ido support the punishment of abusers. Which brings me back to my previous point. Women who fancy abusive men, And abusive men think that all non abusive men like me would think it would be a good idea for non abusive men like me to suffer terrible agony as punishment for being non abusive, Well I don't I actually think abusers should be locked up in prison, And I think mongs should be tolerated. I know you will find that the most startling, And confusing terrifying thing you have heard in your entire life but that is my view. I do not need mental help for saying that you need treatment if you disagree with what I've just said, as you are dangerous to other people you need treatment to protect the innocent, but you probably regard the people you abuse as trivial scum so you regard any pain you cause to us as trivial.

By the way people who hate niceness as are sick And immoral. Also nice people find nice sexy. Abusers find abuse sexy.

The worst thing is there will be women And men who read my article who will annoyed And angry at what I've written as if I started insulting them for no reason well I didn't. You insulted me by fancying abusive men or being abusers, I have done nothing, And wont do anything to you And I am simply pointing out to you it is wrong to support abusive men, And I would like to point out before you suggest otherwise women like you do cause me problems they do break me down And they build up abusive men.

I remember putting my views to one women in an Internet site And she posted loads of messages to me saying don't blame women like us for your hang ups. I just thought why not. You go And on And on about how you regard nice men as disgusting burdens. You go And on And on And on And on And on about how you regard abusers as sexy And exciting. You campaign for them to abuse more. Why wouldn't I get hang ups, or bitter about that. What do you expect me to do. I am not an emotionless being. When people insult people, people feel insulted. Believe it or not if someone insults me And suggests that all nice men should jump off cliffs, that sort of thing does hurt my feelings, just like you're obliviously angry as you read this article. Oh I forgot you're not able to empathize with others. Why are you allowed to be upset when people insult you but I can't even be upset, when you're the one whose actually is a dangerous individual in the first place. If anyone should be suppressing their own sick ideas And emotions it is dangerous people like you, And the sick men you fancy.

It does give me hangs up And bitterness. I know you find that incredible as you think men like me don't have feelings, And you think nice men don't have any emotions at all as that justifies to you my why you insult us, but we do have feelings. Believe it or not my lack of self confidence is caused by people who insult me And abuse me. It isn't caused by me making problems up And I've been insulted alot in my life, with insults you've never had to cope with, I was treated like scum at school, by pro abuse maniacs, while real maniacs were treated the like the voice of common sense, And that does cause me hang ups. It does cause hang ups when, when you're at school And people want you to die for being a mong, And then you turn on the TV And some maniac is saying nice men are disgusting burdens. That annoys me And It does make me bitter, It does cause m hang ups, And you'll probably try And give me some more hangs ups in response with insulting comments, And then pretend it's not your fault. I know you find that really scary And terrifying but It does annoy me It does make bitter, And i won't And haven't done anything wrong you're the one who is the problem And I write this to make you change or atlest give you the other perspective, so you stop blabbering on and on and on about how you support abusive men as if it's really funny and clever.

You cause depression in nice men and pleasure in abusers. If you think that is something to be proud of then you're sick sick sick.

Tony McRush

=============================================