Is it just me or is advocating that fathers "woo" their daughters a tad creepy? I'm sensing a rather incestuous subtext in this whole event. Wasn't it Cordelia in King Lear that asked, "If my sisters love their father so much [in the competition Lear sets up for who loves him best], why have they husbands?" Do fathers "woo" all the daughters with equal passion? Are the daughters supposed to compete for their fathers' love? And where do the mothers come in? And how will little princess ever find a prince if all she's allowed to see is Daddy?

Follow fathers' voice commands? Like sheepdogs? Do the fathers get any practice understanding their daughters' subtle (or not so subtle) metacommunications? Do the fathers get to see their daughters as separate from themselves?

I'm all for fathers' involvement in their daughters' lives (being a Daddy's girl myself), but this is way over the top.


I think that any event that leads to greater father-daughter bonding is worthwhile. It's too bad that feminists have to focus their opposition to the message and can't simply support the effort, especially when we know that there is a correlation between having a daughter and getting divorced. I hope I'm wrong but the message I get from the criticism is that it is better to cancel the event than let the Christian social conservative message be transmitted to impressionable young girls.

I'd love to see feminists promoting father-daughter picnics which pushed some feminist message and I'd criticize Christian dissenters who objected to the games that the feminist organizers devised which pushed their feminist ideology onto the young and impressionable girls. It's the event and the bonding that are important, not the message.


Oops, bad link. Here it is again.

Patriarch Verlch

The way feminism works is to take the children from the patriarch and poisen them with anit family and hateful rhetoric.

The statistics prove that 85% of criminals come from single mother households. The divorce rate was 10% and crime was low, survival was the name of the game. Then came bored housewives, upper middle class women, whose government agenda was putting women to work, and destroying the family. They used women to do just that. The divorce rate was 20% prior to women getting the "no fault divorce" pushed through. Within two years, the divorce rate hit 45%. The divorce rate where the women looks after the house, and the man works is still at 10%!


Studies have shown that barren women are miserable, thought they would be fulfilled in a career without children, and a man. They are not happy, now there is a backlash against anything male, because males are happy and women are not. They took a survey of 100k women and men in 1970 and present. What they found was shocking, men are relatively the same in happiness, while women are 20% more unhappy! With a culture that medicates for everything, notice how many boys they give Ritalin to and how many miserable barren women flood their bodies with meds! Yikes! Can't find happiness chasing the socialist dream now can you?

This is free speech and if you women think you live in a free land, prove it by not deleting anything you don't agree with! I challenge you, prove to me you can debate on the issues and not hide behind you ideas, in you buildings, behind your masks! Don't fight like a coward! I challenge you will all my might, to prove to me, that you are not as weak as I suspected!

The Happy Feminist

Tango Man, you're beating a strawfeminist. No one's against father-daughter bonding. Feminists are the ones who want fathers to get MORE involved in child care, remember?

The Happy Feminist

Patriarch Verlch, you may comment on this site IF your comments relate to the content of the post. This is not a forum for you to post all of your screeds against feminism. Your comments must be RELEVANT.

That having been said, I will be deleting your comments on other posts as irrelevant. You are welcome to stay and participate in the discussion but if you are insulting or violate the basic rule of relevancy again, then I will exercise my free-speech right to ban you from this site.



you're beating a strawfeminist

OK, I'm happy to be wrong. However, what was your take on this part of my comment:

I hope I'm wrong but the message I get from the criticism is that it is better to cancel the event than let the Christian social conservative message be transmitted to impressionable young girls.

Are you supporting this picnic or wanting it to be discouraged?


Is it just me or is advocating that fathers "woo" their daughters a tad creepy?

I found the whole thing ultra-creepy.

TangoMan, I can't believe that you actually missed all the not-so-subtext about daughters being obedient to their fathers and how daddies need to teach their daughters to be "under submission"; therefore I can only assume you're deliberately pretending cluelessness in order to play Bait the Feminists.



As an athiest the whole issue of crafting women's identity to comport to biblical teachings leaves me cold. I see it as an illogical faith by which people live their lives and the flip side of that illogical coin of faith is feminism. True, each side in these battles of faith thinks that they have the "One True Faith" but just as I won't condemn feminists indoctrinating their children into their faith I won't condemn Christians mainlining their faith into their kids. They have the right to live their lives in the fashion of their choice.

What I think is most important is that fathers are doing something like this with their daughters and I wouldn't advocate that the event be cancelled over a simple faith-based dispute. My question was whether HF, or you, or others, think the message is more important than the event? If it's not a feminism-affirming message is it better that the girls not go to a father-daughter event? Which do you value more - the father-daughter bonding or the "appropriate" indoctrination message? I'm saying that I'm coming down on the side of the bonding event.


For heaven's sakes, TangoMan, of course it's about the message! And it's about the values the message represents. Cancelling the event might not make a difference if the values that motivate and design the event are still present and the daughters are still being indoctrinated in other ways.

"Bonding" is not a good thing when it's more like "bondage." I think it's entirely possible that this event *harms* girls. Girls who might be *better* off if their parents divorces.

That's my sense. Evidently you think differently, and of course, you're entitled to your opinion. But I don't really see how you could actually bring evidence to support your belief that this event does more good than harm.

The comments to this entry are closed.