I guess it would be fruitless to inform these people who believe themselves to be conservatives that one of the core tenets of American conservatism has always been limiting governmental power. If the government can detain these people without charge, it can detain you and me without charge. And by the way, it can, as per the old Koramatsu decision. There was a time that American conservatives were troubled by these facts. Not any more apparently.

since Rebecca Traister urged us to keep talking about sexism. With Salon purveying so much misandry, there's always something to talk about, but I wonder if this is what she meant. Maybe so, but something tells me otherwise.

Or maybe it was "Iron my shirt!" What's the matter everyone, didn't you find that funny? I guess only misandry is funny, not misogyny. Do I have that right?

So how about it? Do you find "Iron my shirt!" humorous? If not why not? It couldn't have anything to do with its being misogynistic, could it? Well then...

Uh, actually what I said was quite simple to understand. You said, "if you don't like what you're reading, you have the right to move on and read something else." My perfectly clear point was that that's a really silly way to approach the many depredations of the media, i.e. to "move on," not complain, not protest, not point out how hypocritical, ill-informed, etc. they are. I mean honestly, is that the approach you take to all issues? Whatever nonsense the media dish out, just "move on." It's not a very smart or constructive approach do you think? I tried to get you to THINK about what you wrote. I should have known better.

First, this dad-bashing wouldn't be so contemptible if Salon made a habit of covering the many massive injustices done to fathers in family courts in every state in the country. I won't burden this post with the details, but the denial of parental rights to fathers is one of the greatest scandals in this country, not least because it is so little covered. If Salon has ever said an intelligent, informed word about the many issues which affect millions of fathers, I haven't seen it. So this piece fits a pattern - an anti-father pattern - at Salon.

Second, to the several fathers who have posted defending this article, I say, "I'm glad you have a sense of humor." It'll sure help if your wife decides to divorce you, tell the judge you physically abused her and the children, gets custody, moves 2000 miles away and otherwise makes a mockery of your visitation "rights." It'll help a lot if you get a letter in the mail informing you that that woman you had sex with once 15 years ago (you remember her, right?) now names you as the father of the child and by the way you owe 14 years of child support for a child she decided you shouldn't be allowed to see, hold, bathe, put to bed, read to, etc., in short a child you've never set eyes on because she decided you shouldn't. A good sense of humor will be a great asset if you have a serious, debilitating health problem or a lengthy period without a job, which makes you fall behind on your child support payments and renders you a "deadbeat dad."

But don't worry guys, stuff like that will NEVER happen to you, so keep smiling.

As I said before, this would be a lot easier to swallow if Salon made a habit of covering the continuing scandal of the abuse of fathers and their parental rights by mothers and family courts. But it doesn't, and so this, as well as last year's fathers day dad-bashing put Salon in the anti-dad category for which it well deserves being called onto the carpet. The fact is that there's a lot to write about the many anti-father injustices of our family court/adoption/custody/visitation/child support, etc. systems, and the fact that day after day, week after week, Salon scrupulously ignores all of it creates a pattern that is hard for some of us to ignore.

And of course it's far more pervasive than just Salon. Take a look at the NYT's Sunday magazine of today. More of the same - fathers day dad-bashing. The NYT, like the vast majority of the MSM consistently ignores the well-known facts about fathers for the sole purpose of denigrating them. Today's outrage is the well-worn "when will dads do an equal share of childcare/housework?" trope. Never, never does the NYT or the MSM ask why women don't do more paid work. Why? Not because the two questions don't go together, not because they're not equally relevant, but because to do so would challenge the myths about fathers we've spent the last 40 years or so creating. When time at work and time doing household chores are added up, men and women spend the same amount of time. The Bureau of Labor Statistics consistently reports this and the MSM consistently misrepresents the facts.

So this is not about getting over myself as you claim. It's about opposing the many great injustices of family courts when it comes to fathers' rights, and the media that would rather denigrate fathers than report facts about this scandal accurately and in a principled manner.

I and many others have been harping on this stuff for a long time. Do you even read your letters?