Online Child Support Petition

The online Child Support Petition almost has the 100 signatures we were looking for.

We currently have 84 signatures.

The link for signing is at:

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/NYSCS/petition.html

Thanking everyone in advance who signs.

Here is the petition below. Please use the link above to sign. There is a comments section with your signature, but please keep your comments brief and polite.

To: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York

NEW YORK STATE BILL-A05117
An act to amend the domestic relations law and the family court act, in relation to child support payments in New York State.

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
This bill would change the manner we currently award child support and make it fairer to children where one parent has a much higher income then the other. Instead of using custody as the criteria for a child support award; we would now (in certain cases) use disparities in income between households as Pennsylvania has since the Colonna vs. Colonna ruling last May.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:
Paragraph (g) of subdivision 1-b of section 240 of the domestic relations law, as amended by chapter 41 of the laws of 1992, and paragraph (g) of subdivision 1 of section 413 of the family court act as amended by chapter 41 of the laws of 1992, are both amended to remove the requirement that any court order of child support be in the amount of at least $25 month and replace it with a Judge may use his discretion in these sorts of income disparity cases to make a child support award to a lower income non-custodial parent.

JUSTIFICATION:
Situations have arisen in court whereby a custodial parent`s income greatly exceeded the non-custodial parent`s income, and yet courts are mandated to award at least $25 a month in child support from the non-custodial parent. This change in the law would allow a judge to evaluate the particular circumstances of each case when awarding child support and if significant disparities in income are apparent, the higher income parent (even if custodial) would be required to pay child support to the lower income parent (even if non-custodial) so that the households would have parity in living situations facilitating the best interest of the children involved.

This would nullify the situations, as they exist now, where very low income parents (such as formerly unemployed stay-at-home mothers who NEVER worked) are currently forced to pay child support to custodial parents (who could very well be millionaires even) just because the higher income parent was designated custodial by our courts.

It sets up scenarios now where many lower income formerly stay-at-home mothers have been imputed income and forced into destitution trying to pay child support to a higher income custodial parent. Frequently the lower-income parent winds up unable to even visit their children due to warrants being issued for their arrest for not being able to pay imputed child support. Actually the situation with Colonna vs. Colonna ended exactly with this scenario as Mary Colonna, the non-custodial mother in this case, has lost her home due to back taxes owed which she was unable to pay and I believe missed her summer visitation with her children last year due to this.

Additionally it can also have the unintended effect of having children living dual lives; as when they are with the higher income custodial parent they are living at a middle-income standard of living whereas on their visits with the non-custodial parent, they could be consigned to living in a trailor eating nothing but hot dogs on every visit.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

ALL COLLECTED SIGNATURES WILL BE FORWARDED TO NEW YORK STATE SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, TO ASK HER PERSONALLY TO SUPPORT THIS BILL.

You can also Email the Honorable Senator Hillary Clinton to ask her to support this bill on your own.

http://clinton.senate.gov/




Advertising Moms Web Ring/Join List /Previous /Next /Random/ Previous 5 /Next 5/ Skip Previous /Skip Next

Good Discussion Regarding Gender Neutrality but Avoidance of the Far Larger Issue

I posted some excerpts from this interview with Kate O'Beirne on her new book, "Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining our Schools, Families, Military and Sports.

She had some very good answers in here to some critical issues such as one that has always puzzled me particularly, which is why these gender neutralized feminist Judges hate women who are mothers so much. Especially stay-at-home mothers, who have been losing their kids in great numbers due to gender neutral custody rulings in our courtrooms.

Unfortunately Kate O'Beirne (like many feminists actually) appears to have missed the more important point regarding this whole attempt to gender neutralize our society. Which is how can we admit that there are essential differences between men and women that will impact every facet of their lives including the military issue and NOT admit the same thing regarding the care, custody and control of our children? Which is a far larger issue for women since most of us (at least we used to anyway, until men starting pulling this custody war crap) will become mothers. Far fewer women enter the military. So if we are going to discuss gender neutral issues that impact people in our society, we need to start looking at the ones that impact far more of us and is NOT the military one.

Thus, using gender neutrality as a yardstick to cause women to lose their children is as wrong as it is to force women into front line military duty.

Same thing.

Our society cannot and should not continue the current trend of allowing millions of fit loving mothers to loss custody of their children for no good reason. Gender neutrality not being a sufficient one. I'm sorry but the best person to raise a child has already been decided (other then the rare cases where a mother is guilty of abuse or neglect) and that choice, burden, glory (whatever you wish to think of it as) rightfully belongs to a child's MOTHER. This issue was settled eons ago by God, evolution, nature, (whatever, take your pick) and the person chosen for the task of bearing, caring and raising the young of every species including our own is WOMAN as MOTHER...

Sorry for the ones who don't like this fact.

Any complaints take it up with God, Evolution, nature...whatever...

The state, unless PROVEN abuse or neglect is involved, should have NO right to force a mother into a courtroom to go through a whole dog and pony show having to prove she's the person who will always act in the best interest of her children.

That should be assumed to be the case unless someone has proof otherwise. Of course, the burden of proof (as it always was in the past) should be on the person who wishes custody to be transferred to them to prove a mother unfit. That is the standard we need to return to with a 'fit' mother automatically having custody.

As it always was in human history, not just here btw, but everywhere.

Always.

Since there is NO other society, NONE, including western society until recently, that believes men and women are equally invested in children (especially infants) and that fathers should have custody over a mother's objection. These are lies put out by mens and fathers rights groups and gender neutralized feminists trying to claim that women only recently were allowed custody of our children. The point of these lies is an attempt to imply women NEVER raised our own children, like this is a gift we received from men or feminists just recently in our history.

Actually the real truth is that historically most children were never in any custody. Divorce was rare and for the most part if abandonment or divorce did happen in the past, children were left in the defacto custody of their own mothers. Those few children in court-ordered custody or conservatorship were children who had estates or wealth of some kind which needed to be administered. Not your ordinary kid. As it appears that when kids are worth no money, the only person traditionally interested in them was their own mothers.

What has changed for western children is that today every child is worth something in either child support, tax benefits/credits, citizenship, or a whole assortment of public benefits. So now children are a prize to be won. I understand men are even beginning to fight now to get the WIC program name changed. So that a program orginally begun to benefit pre and post-partum women, infants and children (who are the ONLY ones who actually go through any trauma in a pregnancy/birth/nursing situation and needing extra nutrition due to this) now men want to begin getting food through WIC too...Although what men do during pregnancy, labor and delivery, or nursing an infant after the fact to actually justify getting extra food is beyond me. Anyway these benefits I've highlighted above and more flowing to someone for having the care, custody and control of a child are a recent historic development and explains the whole 'custody wars' phenomenon we are currently facing.

Remember this, women are not going to be willing to invest themselves in having any kids if they have to spent the next 18 years afterwards looking over the shoulder afraid they are going to be dragged into a custody hearing. Or have to face down some crazed gender neutralized feminist or fathers' rights supporter as a Judge.

So yes, Kate O'Beirne is correct, there are essential differences between men and women; however, we need to address ALL of them honestly. Not just cherry pick the ones that we wish to discuss, while ignoring the ones we don't.


"December 29, 2005, 8:19 a.m.
Women Who Make the World Worse
Kate O’Beirne calls feminists on their bad ideas.

Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez

"They talk "freedom of choice," but feminists are too contemptuous of dissenting women to allow them to choose freely how to live their lives without ridicule and disdain," Kate O'Beirne writes in her new book, Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports. And she would know. Having taken on some feminist stalwarts on Capitol Hill and the likes of Crossfire, Kate puts a final (or so we can hope) nail in feminism's coffin in her new book, calling their bad ideas out with facts and figures and good sense.

NRO Editor Kathryn Lopez recently talked to NR Washington Editor Kate O'Beirne about Women Who Make the World Worse.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Kate, knowing you and your reputation, I was not surprised to read that you were a traitor to your sex even in law school. Does wanting to see other women fail just come naturally to you?

Kate O'Beirne: Having been raised with three sisters and educated by women in a girls-only high school and all-female college, it was jarring to find myself labeled as a traitor to my sex. Some of my best friends were women! But I never believed that men and women were interchangeable, that marriage was a patriarchal plot, or that women's equality rested on abortion rights. So wanting to see feminists fail came naturally to me.

Lopez: You mentioned the influence of the women in your background. But does being the mother of boys make you especially sensitive to women who make male lives worse?

O'Beirne: The men in our lives can shape our views on the most destructive ideology afoot. I have long thought that if high-school boys had invited homely girls to the prom we might have been spared the feminist movement. We live with the destructive feminist agenda because the fathers or husbands of so many of them, including Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, and Jane Fonda, never failed to fail them. The views of these angry, abandoned women inform the modern women's movement.

Lopez: You write that "A battle was won when the ETA was defeated, but feminists went on to win the war." How did they win — it lost, for Pete's sake — and if they won why don't they act like winners?

O'Beirne: What feminists couldn't impose by constitutional amendment (thanks to Phyllis Schlafly) they have imposed through the schools, college faculties, and the culture, by judicial fiat and advocacy dressed up as legislation. Don't be fooled by their militant insistence that women's equality has been thwarted. These women are chronically dissatisfied and qualified for only one job: professional feminist. They are generously paid, largely by taxpayers, but also by corporations anxious to look good on "women's issues." The fact that American women are the most privileged women in the history of mankind (woops!) must be vehemently denied.

Because their goal of a sex-blind society is frustrated by biology (see my last chapter — "Mother Nature Is a Bitch"), feminists' schemes are increasingly coercive. In that sense, they are losers.

Lopez: Abortion gets the rap as the topic you can't bring up in polite company, but daycare is pretty incendiary too. Talk about day care's healthy and developmental drawbacks and you're mommy warring. But our reticence to talk about it is a problem, isn't it?

O'Beirne: Any discussion of day care's drawbacks invites the wrath of the child-care industry and their friends in the media. Proponents of the male model of career success for women and substitute care for young children — typically working mothers themselves — use subterfuge and censorship to thwart the free choices women make. As you'll learn in Chapter 2, "Day Care Good; Mother Bad," the propagandists don't just insist that day care benefits children, they see stay-at-home mothers as a timid and fearful lot whose full-time attention damages their children.

Lopez: Why do you raise questions about women in the military while we're at war? Don't we need every man or woman we can get in our overstretched military?

O'Beirne: In the lull of peacetime, regulations that kept women in uniform at a safe distance from combat were lifted. We are now paying the price and being made to think that our national defense rests on the ability to deploy teenage girls and single mothers. What a disgrace. In the name of a phony equality, the military shouldn't ask women to serve where they don't have an equal chance to survive. Experience with integrating the service academies and the great majority of military specialties has shown that women can't and don't meet the male physical standards. The institutionally self-confident Marine Corps hasn't integrated its basic training and has little trouble recruiting the kind of good men who recognize that women should be protected from physical threats.

Lopez: Has Hillary Clinton's work making the world worse only begun? Would a President Rodham Clinton unleash a destructive feminist nightmare on the world much worse than anything Geena Davis could ever portray?

O'Beirne: Oh boy. Hillary Clinton is a committed feminist. She's a true believer in the grievance agenda and promotes the myth of stunted progress for women's equality. She would reliably be one of the women who make the world worse by endorsing all of feminism's pet causes — strict sex quotas for college sports, "girl power" in our schools, the "epidemic" of domestic violence, abortion on demand (despite her phony rhetoric), universal, federally funded day care, enforced "equal pay for equal work" and women in combat. I have to lie down now."


http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/obeirne200512290819.asp


Again as I said earlier Kate O'Beirne and many others like her wish to pick and chose the things they like out of the whole gender neutral feminist-idea package. Sadly they remind me of many American Catholics. They want to just pick and chose what they like about religion (the elaborate masses making holidays meaningful, the church weddings and other ceremonies that bestow a deeper meaning on these personal-family events) meanwhile totally ignoring the rest they don't like (such as no pre-marital sex, no divorce or birth control, etc.,) yet think they are following church teachings and are a serious Catholic.

It's inconsistent and most of all, as Dr. Spock would say, it's illogical.

Thus, it's the same thing with gender neutrality. You cannot claim there are essential differences in humanity due to gender and then pick and chose the ones you like and say well in this area we'll all be the same, but in this we'll be different.

Sorry.

Feminists' Continue their Relentless March into Gender Neutrality

"CONGRESS REAUTHORIZES THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT

NEWS: A look at what's in the final bill.

By Ann Friedman

December 19, 2005

The Violence Against Women Act gained final approval from Congress on Saturday, just before the holiday recess. Final negotiations between the House and Senate versions of the bill centered on language and funding for crucial programs such as rape prevention and education, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and training for health care providers.

Women's rights advocates, who had worried that important provisions would be lost at the last minute, are celebrating the bill's passage as a major success.

"There was a sustained level of drama, trying to figure out if those desperately-needed programs were going to make it in," says Lisalyn R. Jacobs of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women. "I guess Santa decided he was going to be beneficent."

The legislation also contains a section "clarifying" that VAWA-funded programs are gender-neutral. Men’s rights groups, which have long pushed for VAWA to be made “male-inclusive,” are hailing the language as a victory. But domestic violence groups say VAWA has never denied services to men.

"From our perspective, VAWA was never discriminatory. So we don’t necessarily understand why there was such an organized movement toward incorporating that language," says Cheryl O'Donnell of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. "Of course we want to ensure that services are available to all victims of violence.

At the same time, the reason it’s called the Violence Against Women Act is that it's recognizing that women are overwhelmingly the victims of violence."


http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/12/vawa_update.html


Well yes, Virginia we know that women are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence, just like we know that women are overwhelmingly the parent who invests the most blood, sweat and tears into children.

PERIOD.

Yet, pushing gender neutrality into the language of custody law and burying our heads in the sand on that issue has enabled millions of men to wrestle custody of children from normal, fit, loving mothers. While condemning children to years of being used to either enable men to avoid paying child support or to torture their mothers using the court system as a club against them.

So yes, the gender neutral language WILL make a difference.

It will probably mean that another tool has been added to the “I’m going to take the kids away from you now and you are never going to see them again” toolbox that men have available now THANKS TO FEMINISM.

Thus enabling some idiot to torture another mother and her kids claiming she is the one who is abusive to him and then stealing services from what should be a sanctuary for women.

Feminism, at this point in it’s strange and twisted evolutionary history, has proven basically useless to mothers in this whole decades long custody war crisis that mothers have been experiencing. Their mindless support of gender neutrality in custody decisions has led to millions of fit and loving mothers losing their children and since most women become mothers (or at least used to), they can pretty much cross those women off their supporters list.

If history is any guide to what will happen next, feminists will fall into a similar useless pattern vis-à-vis abused women as they did with ordinary fit mothers. Probably eventually striving to have every shelter reflect a male population of 50%, so feminists can show they are totally gender neutral.

Thus, it appears that the more time passes the more useless the entire feminist movement becomes to women. AND like most entities that have outlived their usefulness (such as dinosaurs) extinction as a real possibility begins to loom on their horizon…

Women Who Wish to be Mothers Must Plan Accordingly


Finally a common sense assessment of the actual costs versus perceived benefits of various college degrees from census data. Which I might add, at this point, is the only data I trust. Sadly today much data is put out by either so-called advocacy groups, or even these internationally based non-governmental organizations, which stand to profit from the statistics they release. Frequently they appear to ‘juice’ up the problem they are organized to address, thus getting a larger amount of the budget pie then the real numbers would have entitled them too. Using this approach no problem can ever be solved nor any public policy ever created to effectively address it, as this would mean some group would not be able to get the same share or even a bigger share of public funding once this happened.

Anyway this topic is particularly important to women in their role as mothers for a number of reasons.

Firstly, of course, is the timeline element of investing years in an education when this investment is structured to take place during the same precious years that are also the most fertile of a women’s reproductive life. Women’s fertility timeline is far shortly then men. Pretty much we know this now after Sylvia Ann Hewitt’s book “Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children” came out. Prior to this getting realistic information from anyone regarding our reproductive timeline was like pulling teeth and women were frequently assured that we really didn’t need to start worrying about declining fertility until our mid to late 30s. Actually the real time to begin worrying is really almost a decade earlier. As women’s actually fertility peaks between 27 and 28 years old and then begins the slow decline that will continue until menopause begins sometime in the mid 40s to early 50s.

Much propaganda was generated using these facts. Painting them to mean women didn’t need to begin worrying about declining fertility until their mid-to late 30s a few years before menopause actually begins, but this was not really true. Even if a woman is not actually in the midst of menopause yet but just a few years away, doesn’t mean she can still easily get pregnant. That’s probably the main reason we see this sudden interest in ‘donor eggs’ from young women. Interestingly enough many of the older women seeking these ‘donor eggs’ want college age women to donate. Why? Because this is the age when nature intended women to have children and thus their bodies as well as their ‘donor eggs’ are at peak levels. Of course, these are also the least likely women to wish to donate eggs. As with their whole life stretching out ahead of them, with all the endless possibilities, why should these young women risk the painful and arduous procedures that go hand in hand with donating her eggs to a total stranger? Not to mention the risk that she might injure herself in the process and not be able to have her own children later.

Of course, this has meant that women who waited too long to have children as they listened to feminist’s propaganda and pursued a career instead, now are offering anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000 to young college girls to donate eggs to them. This sort of money by the way is far too much of an inducement to a poorer student to be ethical, thus even this should be regulated, but that’s a topic for another day.

Anyway, women investing this much time during our most fertile years in an education and career might not pay off, even financially, to the extent originally thought. As we can see in this sentence taken from the article below which indicates that “the Census Bureau's figures show that someone with a liberal arts master's degree earned just $5 a month more, on average, than someone with a bachelor's in the same field ($3,460 compared to $3,455). ”

Now clearly in the fields women predominate in such as social work, teaching, early childhood education (working in a daycare center), etc., which require a master’s degree for the most part, you ONLY make $5.00 more monthly then someone with a bachelor’s degree in the same field. Not to mention that even with a bachelor’s degree in liberal arts, you still might not be making enough to justify the $20,000 to $30,000 annually you are expending for the four to six years it takes to get the required degrees for work in one of those fields.

The other thing the article showed me was that the two fields where a degree still made the most difference in earnings (besides law and medicine) were in computer-related fields and engineering, which women generally don’t major in anyway. Regarding law and medicine, yes, they still make enough income to justify the cost of the educational investment IF a woman actually goes on to become a PRACTICING lawyer or a doctor. It doesn’t however if you decide to quit working after you have your children to stay home with them. Then yes, you have wasted the equivalent of over $100,000 to $150,000 dollars of our society’s educational investment in you. Not to mention taking up a scarce slot that could have been used for someone who was actually going to graduate and become a practicing doctor. I have to say I personally don’t consider it a loss to have one less practicing attorney wandering around out there, however, so staying home with a law degree could actually be considered a public benefit.

One mystery was cleared up for me with this article; however, which is why fewer men then women go on to get degrees today. They figured out, before we did, that in many cases it just isn’t worth it (with the exception of a few fields) when you look at the dollars invested in education versus the actual return in additional income upon graduation.

Anyway to wrap up, time is just as important to women (if they intend to become mothers) as future income. One can always go back to school in their late 30s – early 40s (when your kids are teenagers) but it is not so easy to have children then. Additionally women might even want to investigate the possibility of starting their own small business versus investing anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000 in a college education at that point.

However as I have said earlier, proper planning must take place in women’s lives in order to achieve these goals. We, unfortunately to not have the same time to fool around, experiment, try on different hats, etc., before we settle down as men do. Not if we wish to avoid being childless anyway like Maureen Dowd, Cathy Young, Wendy McElroy, Condi Rice, Harriet Miers, Kay Bailey Hutchingson, and thousands more women just like them…


Will Your Degree Pay for Itself?
by Liz Pulliam Weston

With college tuitions heading toward the stratosphere this year, you might well be wondering whether a degree is still a good investment, especially if you're facing the prospect of going into debt to pay the tab.

And if, as we all know, some bachelor's and master's degrees are much more lucrative than others, which are the best investments? To find out, I sat down with my handy-dandy financial calculator to play with some numbers.

It would be an impressive understatement, by the way, to call these figures a rough estimate. I had to make too many assumptions and leave out too many factors for these numbers to be anything other than a parlor game for those who might be interested.

But what they told me supported both common sense and what I've observed in the employment marketplace. For example:

o Associate's degrees are a slam dunk. These two-year degrees seem to result in a massive payback, compared to their relatively low cost, for a high school graduate.

o Ditto, usually, a bachelor's degree. Any bachelor's degree you get at a public university is likely to pay off handsomely, as well. If you're attending a private college, though, you might want to steer clear of education degrees.

o Some degrees are a step back. Thinking of a master's degree in a liberal arts or social sciences field? Let's hope you're in it for the love of learning, because on average there doesn't seem to be any financial payoff. ·

o Professional degrees rule. There's a reason why people borrow tons of money to attend law and medical schools. The return for a professional degree is huge.


http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Departments/elearning/?article=degreeworth


Last point, the return for a professional degree is huge IF YOU GO ON TO PRACTICE.

That’s the key.

Anyway hope I gave all mothers out there and future mothers some ideas to ponder.

Also everyone have a Happy New Year, enjoy yourselves and stay safe.

Defacto Parental Decisions Continue Legal Attacks on Mothers

"Friday, November 4, 2005

Court redefines parenthood

By Lornet Turnbull
Seattle Times staff reporter


The Washington Supreme Court established what amounts to a new category of parents -- one that's the legal equivalent of moms and dads -- when it ruled Thursday that a lesbian who was neither the biological nor adoptive parent of a girl she helped raise has co-parenting rights to the child.

The decision, which significantly impacts parenting laws in the state, may also signal the direction the high court will take in deciding a gay-marriage lawsuit pending before it -- a prospect that delights same-sex marriage advocates and horrifies opponents.

In the 7-2 decision hailed by gays as an acknowledgement of the complexity of families, the court recognized what it called a "de-facto or psychological parent" under the state's common law as one who "in all respect functions as the child's actual parent."

The attorney for Page Britain, the child's biological mother, warned that the ruling strips away parental authority, setting the stage for any adult who helps raise a child -- from roommates to live-in lovers -- to make parental claims. He will recommend his client appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, he said.

Writing for the majority, Justice Bobbe J. Bridge said, "In the face of advancing technologies and evolving notions of what comprises a family unit, this case causes us to confront the manner in which our state ... defines the terms 'parents' and 'families.' "

She said neither the U.S. nor state Supreme Court has ever restricted the definition of parent or family by biology. "Today we hold that our common law recognizes the status of de-facto parents and places them in parity with biological and adoptive parents in our state," she wrote.

In regard to common law, the ruling said, "the courts will endeavor to administer justice according to the promptings of reason and common sense, which are the cardinal principles of the common law."

Six other states also recognize de-facto parents."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002603184_gayparents04m.html



I really really wish women would stop doing this. Going into court to decide these issues has the potential to build up a state-by-state erosion of the laws protecting the rights of all other mothers, particularly single mothers. Don’t women understand that these defacto parenting decisions are simply being used to undermine the rights of ALL mothers.

All mothers are at risk when Judges are empowered to decide who should be the other parent of our children, if anyone at all. Since, yes, the ultimate decision by a mother can be that she doesn’t want another person to be given decision-making power over her child’s life. Sadly in today’s world with so many competing interests in children and not all for good, a mother could decide it’s in her child’s best interest that she and she alone be the final arbitrator concerning said child.

The Jerica Rhodes case is a perfect example of how leaving these sorts of decisions to a Judge undermines the rights of not just the mother, but the child as well, leaving them at the mercy of total strangers really.

Now there is another state in the union that has taken that right away from a mother and given it to a Judge to make that decision. Additionally the article tells us six other states now have similar laws on the books which recognize defacto parents. Between defacto parents, step persons now demanding rights as psychological parents, five million grandparents now with custody of other mothers’ children, where in the heck are we heading with this if it continues?

Of course, this is all the result of men trying to be in charge of everything again. I understand that the latest census showed 36% of children were born this year to single women. Yet rather then accept that irreversible fact and begin thinking of ways to assist those mothers and their children achieve their full potential as citizens; instead, men set up these sorts of legal situations and empowering of other women to act as surrogates for men (such as step persons or grandparents) so mothers have more of their rights eroded.

Because make no mistake about it, men are behind this, in spite of the lesbian lead. Since the question has to be asked as to the why of giving legal standing to a lesbian in bringing a case like this to court?

Why?

Especially since the Washington State Supreme Court was the author of the Troxel decision, which wouldn’t even give a grandparent overnight visitation. NOW you are giving some unrelated person parental rights?

So again why?

In my opinion, this is because it’s the perfect setup to get what amounts to an anti-mother ruling advanced, while appearing to be ‘assisting’ some individual woman. As who can argue the point now that this ruling MIGHT ultimately negatively impact every other mother, after it helped just one.

We saw this recently in New Jersey last May, when the court there allowed one unrelated woman to be placed on the birth certificate of her partner’s child, when she could have waited the six months or so that it would have taken an adoption to go through and had the same result. Using the ‘best interest of the child’ standard Superior Judge Patricia Medina Talbert of Newark granted the unrelated lesbian immediate parental rights to her partners’ child.

Women don’t seem to understand that building up case law that it’s in a child’s best interest to have two parents on a birth certificate, EVEN if it’s a child conceived by lesbians through artificial insemination with an anonymous donor, can one day translate into it ALWAYS being in a child’s best interest to have two parents on EVERY birth certificate.

Thus having the result of no more women being allowed to use anonymous donor insemination, as two people will ALWAYS have to be on a birth certificate. While at the same time, empowering Judges with the right to make the decision to place someone on your child’s birth certificate, even if you are AGAINST it.

It is clear now that lesbians from New Jersey to Washington State are in the vanguard here, being used by the legal system to advance an anti-mother agenda. Thus, if they continue to take these cases to court, we will eventually see a string of states which have eroded the rights of all mothers (both gay and straight) and hindered us from protecting our children’s best interest.

Memorial Post for Little Jerica and her Mother Lisa Mason (Colon)

When tomorrow starts without me and I'm not there to see, if the sun should rise and find your eyes all filled with tears for me.

I wish so much you wouldn't cry the way you did today, while thinking of the many things we didn't get to say.

I know how much you love me, as much as I love you, and each time that you think of me I know you'll miss me too.

When tomorrow starts without me please try to understand, that an angel came and called my name and took me by the hand.

It said my place was ready in heaven far above, and that I'd have to leave behind all those I dearly love.

But as I turned to walk away, a tear fell from my eye, for all my life, I'd always thought I didn't want to die.

I had so much to live for, so much yet to do, it seemed almost impossible that I was leaving you.

I thought of all the yesterdays, the good ones and the bad, I thought of all the love we shared, and all the fun we had.

If I could relive yesterday just even for awhile, I'd say good bye and kiss you and maybe see you smile.

But then I fully realized that this could never be, for emptiness and memories would take the place of me.

When I thought of worldly things I might miss tomorrow I thought of you, and when I did, my heart was filled with sorrow.

When I walked through heaven's gates I felt so much at home, when God looked down and smiled at me from His golden throne.

He said, "This is eternity, and all I've promised you, for life on earth is past but here it starts anew.

I promise no tomorrow but today will always last, and since each day's the same day, there's no longing for the past.

So when tomorrow starts without me don't think we're far apart, for every time you think of me I'm right here in your heart.

Christopher Rhodes - Guilty

Well it’s over, at least Part I is.

As this monster, Christopher Rhodes, has finally been found guilty of murdering that poor little girl Jerica.

I extend my sincerest condolences to the mother of that poor kid, Lisa Mason (Colon) as well as to Jerica's brothers and sisters (who never got to meet their sister due to this monster unjustly being giving custody).

Dozens of questions still remain unanswered; however, and a full investigation is still needed to be undertaken on this case.

The people of this state (especially its mothers) need to know how this monster got custody of this kid to begin with… As that issue has YET to be addressed.

"Justice for Jerica
Rhodes guilty on all counts

By Oliver Mackson
Times Herald-Record
omackson@th-record.com

Goshen – People will ask "why?" for years when they talk about the murder of 7-year-old Jerica Rhodes, but a jury yesterday left no doubt about the "who:" The killer was Christopher Rhodes, who called himself Jerica's father.

Rhodes, 28, of Highland Falls, was convicted of murder and seven lesser felonies yesterday in Orange County Court. The jury delivered its verdict at 2 p.m., after about eight hours of deliberations over two days. The verdict could send him to prison for 29 years to life.

Rhodes showed no emotion at the verdict, heeding a warning from his lawyer that the judge would not tolerate any outbursts. His parents and his younger brother were a daily presence during the trial, but they weren't in the courtroom for the verdict. When they got the news from Rhodes' lawyer, Sol Lesser, outside the courthouse, Rhodes family members quickly got into their cars and departed.

The verdict arrived nearly 10 months to the day after Jerica's body was found on the morning of Jan. 27, in a boys bathroom at Sacred Heart of Jesus School in Highland Falls. Jerica, a first-grader, had been stabbed 16 times, an act of violence that thrust the little village into the national spotlight.

From the start of the three-week trial, prosecutors told the jury that they might never know why Jerica was murdered. Rhodes insisted he didn't kill her, and he even took the unusual step of taking the stand in his own defense to proclaim his innocence.

The jury didn't buy it.

"There was no motive when we began. There was no motive today. But at least today we have accountability, and that's more important," said Assistant District Attorney David Byrne, the lead prosecutor."


Can someone explain to me WHY we need a motive when a drug addict commits a crime?

When you are high on dope you can do ANYTHING and not even remember it the next day…You could probably wipe out your entire family, including the dog, and pass a lie detector test the next morning claiming you had nothing to do with it.

Could we wake up here please, and realize we do NOT need a motive.

He was on DOPE…that’s the motive.


"In addition to murder and possession of a weapon, Rhodes was convicted of six felonies for concocting bogus letters that purported to be "confessions" to Jerica's killing by another inmate at Orange County Jail. Rhodes told the jury that he cooked up the letters out of desperation to get out of jail for a crime he didn't commit.

The phony letters backfired. Byrne pointed out to the jury that they contained details that only the killer could know, such as Jerica's muffled screams of "Daddy, Daddy" as she was stabbed."


I’m against the death penalty but for this detail ALONE, I’d be willing to pull the switch on this dirtbag…

The only consolation here is that for the next 29 years to life, Rhodes will be hearing this muffled voice screaming 'Daddy' every night in his dreams.

Pleasant dreams, you monster.


"The weapon was never found, which was another detail contained in the fake letters.

When Rhodes is sentenced on Jan. 4, prosecutors will ask Judge Jeffrey G. Berry to treat the murder and the bogus letters as separate crimes and impose consecutive sentences.

That would expose Rhodes to a maximum sentence of 29 years to life in state prison."


AND I say good riddance to bad rubbish…

Not that this will help much as ten to one, Rhodes will CONTINUE this lie in jail and have other inmates convinced he is only in prison due to a conspiracy by the establishment against him.

In fact it was really an establishment conspiracy against mothers and their children that led to Christopher Rhodes getting custody of this poor kid to being with…as Jerica Rhodes SHOULD have been with her mother and her other siblings.

She would still be alive today if these gender neutralized social engineers hadn’t chosen this poor kid to be used like a lab rat in a vast experiment, trying to see how many kids they can wrestle away from mothers to hand over to fathers.

They are the real criminals here the ones who aided and abetted this Christopher Rhodes.


"His mother, Linda Rhodes, watched and wept when her son testified on Friday. When the jury got the case on Monday, a well-wisher from Highland Falls passed by her, lightly squeezed her shoulders and whispered, "May God be with you."

Oh hold the pail while I puke.

This woman helped her drug addict son steal a child from it’s mother, aids and abets him in keeping this kid from its mother and her siblings for almost SEVEN YEARS and now she’s painted sympathetically in this article.

It’s been very clear for a while now that the news coverage of this crime was very inadequate, very inadequate.

Instead of focusing on the people, including the Judge and whole legal establishment up there in Highland Falls, who helped this guy kidnap this kid and keep her away from her mother for almost SEVEN YEARS, we have been given nothing but story after story trying to smear Jerica Rhodes mother, Lisa Mason.

Now Lisa Colon, I was just informed by email--so I believe she may have recently married. Congratulations!!!

Anyway, I believe we are owed an explanation for this lack of proper news coverage on this case. As the people of New York State were denied the full story of how this was allowed to happen.

Why was Christopher Rhodes given custody of a 5 month old infant, which was not his?

Why was his record of domestic violence ignored by the police when they responded to the initial 911 call, as well as the courts later?

Why was Lisa Mason and this child not taken to a shelter immediately by the police officers who initially responded to the first 911 call, seven years ago?

Was there a mens/fathers’ rights group or attorney aiding and abetting this guy to get custody and if so, are they liable for any damages in helping a drug addict get custody of and eventually murder an innocent child?

Why weren’t the grandparents, the girlfriend or the teachers charged in this case as well, as I find it hard to believe that this man was a good father figure for seven years and then just up and stabs this little girl 16 times in the head, face and neck…

Surely there were things happening right along and these people’s silence aided this guy, as this 16 times stabbing sounds to me like the culmination of YEARS OF ABUSE, YEARS, ending in this final horror.

Finally I think this newspaper, the Times Herald-Record, needs to assign another reporter to do a series on this case, as this Oliver Mackson did a very sorry job on this story. Ten months after the fact and we know as much today as we did the day it happened, which is absolutely nothing, except the dirt he dug up on Jerica's mother which had NOTHING to do with the murder, NOTHING...

The people of this state (especially its mothers and innocent children) deserve better.

Motherhood's Special Status Under Attack Again from Jealous Misfits

Mother: Most Beautiful Word in the World

Of course, there will be the usual jealous, demented misfits, who will be mad that father wasn't included within the list.

Oh well...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Mum's the word, says the world Mother was most loved, while father was absent, Mother is the most beautiful word in the English language, according to a survey of non-English speakers.

More than 40,000 people in 102 countries were polled by the British Council to mark its 70th anniversary. Mother, passion, smile, love and eternity were the top five choices - but father did not even make it into the list of 70 words.

But some unusual choices did make the list, such as peekaboo, flabbergasted, hen night and oi.

SOME OF THE TOP WORDS 1. Mother 2. Passion 3. Smile 4. Love 5. Eternity 48. Peekaboo 50. Kangaroo 61. Oi 63. Hiccup 70. Hen night Fantastic, destiny, freedom, liberty and tranquillity rounded out the top 10.

The British Council promotes the learning of English around the world and teaches the language to more than 500,000 people each year. Chris Wade, director of communications at the council, said the most favoured choices in the list were all strong, positive words. He said: "All of us have a mother and have a reasonable idea of who that person is, it's one piece of certainty we can have and it's also a very powerful word in a variety of cultures. "But I wonder if we would have had the same result if we had done the survey in the UK." He said the list showed the diversity of the English language: "There are words denoting concepts that people aspire to, like freedom; words that sounded fun like peekaboo and others that aren't really words at all but they convey real meaning, like oi."

Other words to make the top 70 included serendipity, loquacious, kangaroo and zing. There were also words imported from other languages, such as renaissance and aqua. Presumably, a maternal kangaroo would be highly rated indeed." We'll grab anything we can take. Lots of words have been stolen over the years," Mr Wade said. " But while other languages may be reluctant to use our words, [this has provided] a real richness in the English has evolved."

He said one English word to have gained widespread usage recently was flip-flop, which came 59th in the survey. Failed US presidential candidate John Kerry was accused by the Republicans of having "flip-flopped" - or changed his stance - on a number of policy areas. "Flip-flop was used a lot during coverage of the US election. If the survey had been done a year ago it probably would not be in the list," said Mr Wade.

Michael Quinion, whose recent book Port Out, Starboard Home examines some of the quirks of the English language, said it was a very "eclectic" list. He said: "These non-English speakers certainly have wonderful English vocabularies. "There seems to be a curious mixture of the formal and the colloquial. Oi is not a word that I would've thought turned up in English manuals all that often." The list also included what Mr Quinion said was his own favourite English word - serendipity, which came 24th. "It's so mellifluous but it's such a nice concept too."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Reviewing the article below, which appears to be a bitter retort to the article above I can clearly see what piece of the puzzle has been missing from the Men Rights movement in the West. Basically nobody has mentioned that this movement is, at its heart, a hate movement.

It’s a hate movement against women in general, mothers in particular, especially single mothers, who also appear to be its biggest victims.

From the Men’s Rights Movement have emerged two umbrella groups the Father’s Rights and the Grandparent’s Right Movements and both of these movements have as their goal to get as many children separated from their mothers as possible.

This is their aim.

Millions of single mothers, many minority women (who have had infants seized) appear to have lost custody of their children through our court system with little or no cause. Additionally loopholes in various state laws are allowing fathers to abduct their children legally, if the mother hasn’t rushed down to the courtroom immediately after birth to get some sort of legal custody established.

Right now about 2.5 million women have lost custody of their children (figures from 2000 Census) some good number of these mothers to never see these children again (similar to the Jerica Rhodes situation) for no other reason then to appease this hate movement known as the Fathers Rights Movement (a subgroup of this Men’s Rights Movement).

Also, as I said above, these hate-filled groups have coopted millions of grandparents into aiding and abetting them in these activities leading to another 5 million women losing their children to paternal grandparents (figures from AARP) and again, losing all contact with their children.

Sadly these groups have been aided by a the gender neutralized militant wing of NOW, which has always had a radical stream running through it as we can see from the following quote: “"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” (Simone De Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p. 18.)

After reading the article below I will post some ideas to short-circuited the plans of these demented idiots.


"COMMENTARY

D.L. Stewart: For some inexplicable reason, mom's the word
By D.L. Stewart

Dayton Daily News

Like most persons who have had one of their own, I'm a great fan of mothers.

D.L. Stewart: For some inexplicable reason, mom's the word
RSS headlines available

Motherhood has been around nearly as long as there have been persons. Without mothers, the sales of flowers and candy in May would plummet, there would be fewer songs for Irish singers and the birthrate would fall dramatically. Because I have nothing but the deepest respect for mothers, I never would say anything bad about them. Besides, dissing someone's mother is a good way to get hurt really, really badly.

Still, I think those of us in the news business need to be a little careful about how — and when — we refer to motherhood.

The other day, for instance, there was a story about a traffic fatality. The headline said that a mom had been killed.

I'm very sorry for her family's loss, but I'm not sure why the fact that she was a mom was included in the headline. On the same page there were two stories about men, and both headlines merely used the word "man."

But I might not have noticed all that except for the fact that it came just a few days after a television report that caught my attention.

Promoting the upcoming 11 p.m. news, an announcer declared that the top story concerned "four moms" who had been found guilty of a serious crime that day. So I stayed tuned to the channel, and when the 11 p.m. news came on, a news reporter confirmed that the top story had to do with "four mothers."

According to the report, the four women had stolen some clothes from a store. As they were making their getaway, their car struck and killed a man who had just stepped off a sidewalk. All four women were found guilty of murder, although the verdicts may be appealed.

However it turns out, the story was a tragedy for all concerned. But I'm still trying to figure out where motherhood entered into it. If four guys who happened to have children were in that car, would anyone have reported that "four dads" had been found guilty of a serious crime?

Maybe it was because the thought of mothers committing a crime goes against our perception of motherhood. But in the past few years, stories involving mothers who have committed crimes against their children have become way too frequent to support that notion.

Or maybe it was because we're still uncomfortable with sending mothers to prison.

One of the women, in fact, immediately played that card. As the verdict was read, according to news reports, she pleaded, "We've all got kids. My baby is 1." At the risk of sounding hard-hearted, she probably should have thought of that before she went out to steal clothes.

Still, it's a tragedy. Four women will be going to prison. At least four children will be minus a parent. And, by the way, a man is dead.

None of the news accounts I saw mentioned whether he was a father.

D.L. Stewart's column appears Tuesday, Friday and Sunday in the Life section. Contact him at 225-2439 or by e-mail at dlstewart@Dayton-DailyNews.com.



Sadly I could see the envy dripping from this poor demented soul...that someone referred to these women as mothers...

Oh let's mount a campaign to stop the newspapers from doing that...

Well as we can also see beyond the envy the more important issue is that this envy has caused millions of mothers to lose custody of their children over the last decade or so, thus, these movements are gaining momentum. They have managed to get government funding for groups, which give fathers assistance (but not mothers) in learning how to gain custody of their children especially through these loopholes in state laws.

Additionally they have been putting out false statistics about mothers, especially single mothers and have managed to get public policy changes due to these statistically lies they’ve spread.

Thus:

One. The first area which must be addressed is the tax money spent ONLY on fathers. That must end. Either that money helps both single fathers and single MOTHERS or it has to stop. It’s the equivalent of giving men free attorneys to help gain custody of children from perfectly fine and loving mothers, many of them minority women btw as statistics appear to point to black women losing custody of babies; whereas white women are voluntarily giving custody of older children to their fathers. I have no problem with the latter situation MANY MANY MANY problems with the former…MANY...

Two. Organizations that insist on continuing to JUST help fathers must lose their non-profit status and be made to pay taxes on any monies they receive. These must include internet based groups as well.

Three. The FBI website must include pictures of abducted children and their parents in PROPORTION TO THE NUMBER OF PERPETRATORS who actually commit the crime. In essence if 2/3 of the perpetrators of this crime are men that should be the proportion of the pictures highlighted on the site.

What currently happens is it’s mostly women and their children featured on the site even though 2/3 of the parents who abduct their children are men…

That needs to stop yesterday.

Four. We need a separate statistics group to analyze any data coming out from any ‘fatherhood’ groups BEFORE it is released to the public. As it has just come to my attention that many fathers do not respond to the surveys of these groups at the same rate as mothers. Thus 50% of a lower response should NOT be allowed to be released as 50% of fathers…as 50% of 100 responses from fathers should not be allowed to = 50% of 1000 responses from mothers.

This, in fact, would be a statistical lie sent out to the public

Five. ALL media must now begin to put out 50% of all ads, movies, TV shows, news spots, magazine stories, etc., to be positive about mothers…36% of these spots must represent single mothers as our latest statistics show that 36% of births now occur to single mothers.

This will include internet sites as well…

The media has become much too focused on a small minority of single fathers to the detriment of single mothers, who make up the majority of the pool of single parents and are being underrepresented here.

One Year Anniversary as a Blogger

I just wish to note that October 27th was my one-year anniversary of having a blog...

My very first post was inspired by Mary Colonna's situation in Pennsylvania and my first post of my 'new year' mentions her as well.

It's interesting, I orginally became involved in these matters after the location of a child, Ryan Patrick Greene, abducted from my state, New York.

He was abducted by his father and a step person when he was two years old and not located until his mother finally tracked him down (on her own, the authorities were useless) 14 years later...

YET the ending of this story was not even a day served in jail for the monsters who kidnapped him, not even ONE DAY...



"Sunday, January 21, 2001
Parents say it's like losing their children twice
By Jeffrey Klineman
Eagle-Tribune Writer

For years, the problem for parents who have had their children abducted has been locating their loved ones.

Now, however, as coordinated police work and a number of high-profile recoveries have focused attention on the subject of parental abduction, a new set of problems has emerged: how to overcome the abductees' almost unanimous rejection of the left-behind parents, most of whom have spent countless hours and dollars looking for them.

Last week, it took just one night for Ryan Patrick Greene, 17, of Newbury to decide he wanted to return to his father and stepmother after being reunited with his mother. He hadn't seen his mother in 14 years. His father and stepmother now face kidnapping charges.

But some experts would say that the one night Ryan Patrick Greene -- known as "Patrick" -- gave his mother is one more than most left-behind parents can hope for.

As recent cases have highlighted -- and many more that have been studied have proven -- the road to reunification is often a tragically brief one, ending with the abducted child returning to the kidnapping parent, and little or no relationship developing with the parent who did the searching.

"Initially, not one single abducted child ever wants to speak to or see the parent who was left behind," said Pamela Stuart-Mills, the head of the Rachel Foundation, a new organization based in Damascus, Md., that tries to facilitate the long, difficult process of reunion.

"When it's long-term, it's very hard to bridge that gap," Ms. Malky added. "Because of all the lies they're told, and for so many years, it's hard to break through. All they're hearing is the other side of the story. And they can't understand why we can't find them."

The failure of those reunions has been laid bare for the public recently through two well-known cases with Massachusetts ties.

Last week, after 14 years in hiding, Patrick was reintroduced to his mother. The reunion, which began in Newbury but continued in Oneonta, N.Y., the site of Patrick's abduction, lasted less than a day. The 16-year-old has said he intends to take advantage of a New York law that will allow him to emancipate himself from his parents. Patrick has said he plans to live with his father and stepmother in Newbury, even though the pair may face jail time for charges they kidnapped him.

Parents who are left behind are often lied about by the parent on the run, if not "killed off" completely through stories about car accidents or overdoses.

"Very often the abducting parent will program the child to believe the parent who has been left behind is noxious or dangerous," said Dr. Richard A. Gardner, a New Jersey-based psychiatrist, Columbia University Medical School professor and author who has written about "parental alienation syndrome," a condition, frequently associated with custody disputes, in which one parent turns a child against the other parent. "It provides some justification to explain to the child why they are in hiding."

Second, it is difficult to find a parentally abducted child. It took fourteen years and hundreds of false leads to locate Brian Greene and his children. And when the discovery is made, frequently children cannot believe that the parent has been looking for them."


AND as I pointed out not ONE DAY of jail time was handed out to the monsters who perpetuated this crime...

This injustice was actually what started my involvement in mother's issues.

I "met" Mary Colonna and many other mothers over the internet and after going back and forth on trying a number of things to get some light focused on our issues, I eventually decided to start a blog pertaining to them, as I felt the news media was covering motherhood issues, if at all, very inadequately.

When I first started this blog I was worried that I wouldn't have enough material to update often enough, as stories focusing on mothers were not plentiful...so I decided to try for once a week updates.

Now, I think I could post a couple of new posts every day. I don't know if there are more stories about mothers in the media, or if I've just become a better detective scooping them out or what...

Anyway my one year anniversary just passed...just thought I'd let anyone who was interested know.

Great Minds Thinking Alike

As many of you know we are currently trying to get 39 more signatures for our online Child Support Petition to Hillary Clinton.

We are trying to get New York State to adopt the Colonna vs Colonna child support ruling that changed the way Pennsylvania awarded child support. PA now allows a low income non-custodial parent to get child support from a high income custodial parent in order to even out disparities in household income and make it easier for children to have a similar lifestyle in both households.

Surely we don’t want to see a child living in a home in a nice middle-class neighborhood with one parent and then during parenting time with the other moving into a trailer park? This could be quite confusing to a young mind not to mention demoralizing to the non-custodial parent to see their child maybe not even wanting to visit, due to a huge disparity in living standards.

Anyway I was quite gratified to see that this standard was also being applied in other countries now.

I guess great minds think alike. Thus, we have much to thank Mary Colonna for in her courageous struggle to make custody and child support rulings fairer to everyone.






www.Macleans.ca

"Supreme Court of Canada upholds mother's child-custody appeal

STEPHEN THORNE

OTTAWA (CP) - In a decision lawyers hope will clarify often-murky guidelines, the country's highest court said Thursday that support payments do not necessarily rise or fall in concert with changes to child custody.
In a majority decision, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld an appeal by a mother whose support income was significantly reduced when her ex-husband started seeing more of their child.

The high court awarded the mother $500 a month, down from the original $563 a month but more than the $339 awarded by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Eight of nine judges said courts must take the financial situations of both parents into account when determining support payments, and courts must recognize that many child-care costs are fixed.

Indeed, the court said the cost of raising children may actually be greater in shared custody than in sole custody.

"They're saying that time, in and of itself, does not mean that child support should be reduced," said Deidre Smith, lawyer for mother Joanne Contino.

"It's an important case because it helps Canadians understand how to interpret the child-support guidelines. This issue has been bedevilling Canadians, judges and lawyers . . . across the country."

The mother had primary custody of her son after she and husband Joseph Contino separated in 1989 and divorced four years later.

The father had access to his boy on alternate weekends and Thursday nights, but his visits increased by four evenings a month to accommodate his ex-wife, who had enrolled in an evening class.

Various courts awarded wildly varying amounts over a five-year legal fight.

In September 2000, Ontario Superior Court reduced Joseph Contino's payments to $50 a month and awarded him court costs of $3,800. The Divisional Court overturned the decision and boosted his payments to $688.

The appeal court set that decision aside and ordered child support payments of $399.61 a month.

The high court essentially said such awards cannot follow a strict formula and must take into account inherent fixed costs such as car and house insurance payments.

"The determination of an equitable division of the costs of support for children in shared custody situations is a difficult matter; it is not amenable to simple solutions," Justice Michel Bastarache wrote.

"Any attempt to apply strict formulae will fail to recognize the reality of various families."

Smith said food and the like are the only things that tend to change with custody arrangements. "And as expensive as it is to feed a teenage boy, it's not the biggest ticket item on any budget."

Justice Morris Fish disagreed with his colleagues, saying child support is an "imprecise" science that should at least ensure the child's standard of living with both parents.

He said the appeal court's $399.61 award fell within the "acceptable range."

The justices did not award costs, and their decision is not retroactive. Four highly anticipated Alberta cases slated to come before them next year will likely clarify retroactivity in such cases.

"Obviously, there has been a lot of difficulty for judges to come to a consensus about how to approach this kind of situation," said Smith.

She said two important principles appear to emerge from the high court decision - ensuring as little change to the child's standard of living as possible and demanding clear evidence from parents of expenses related to custody arrangements before changes to support payments are made."

Life of a Professional Soldier Should NOT have to be Burden of Children

Senate Committee Passes Measure on Soldier Custody

Legislation meant to help Military members with child custody battles has been passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bills would prevent a court from making a decision about a child's custody based on a parent's separation while serving overseas. It also would prohibit permanent custody from being decided while a parent is deployed overseas. The legislation already passed the State House. It now goes to the full Senate for consideration.


http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=4066962&nav=0RbQ


Sadly this is one of those ideas that will have little impact on the problem of GI Joe or (Jane for that matter) losing custody of their children to the non-military parent.

Sorry but that’s the way it is and probably should be.

The Romans recognized this and didn’t allow their professional legionnaires to marry or begin a family until they left Rome’s service. The bottom line is this was obviously even cheaper for the Empire and it’s taxpayers; as they probably didn’t want to have to provide for thousands of widows and orphans in the event of huge battlefield fatalities. Not to mention the emotional impact of thousands of families losing a husband, father and head of household.

One of the ironies of our own lack of realistic discussion vis-à-vis the parent and the military was the news of Cindy Sheehan and her husband having her son’s military life insurance (which at $100,000 was far too high for a military man or woman with no family) as part of their divorce settlement. This is the sort of dollar amount that a man or woman insures themselves for when they have dependents. Not to leave as an unexpected windfall for their parents. Unfortunately because we have allowed so many parents into the military, life insurance had to be raised to reflect this reality.

Previously it was in the $10,000 range, which was adequate as a burial policy and to pay off the few debts that a single soldier might have accumulated.

This is also the same wrong-headed policy that is feeding the ‘custody’ of children problem.

The bottom line is that if you have those sorts of civilian obligations and responsibilities, a high-risk job where you can be deployed to any part of the world, at and for any length of time is NOT the job for you.

When you make the individual decision to choose the life of a professional soldier as your job, you have to expect to forfeit certain civilian privileges. In return you also forfeit certain responsibilities that civilians are burdened with, ie., providing their own food and shelter. Generally the army provides that for you, along with a salary and generous medical care in the event you get injured. Because guess what, chances are you are going to be injured; as you chose a high-risk profession call WAR.

That is why the military, is at it’s best, when it is reserved as a job for the young. You go into it, anywhere from 18 to 22. Put in your 20 years and (for men anyway who are financially, emotionally and biologically at their peak for siring a family anywhere from 30 to 40 years old) retire with some savings, training and a pension that will enable you to take your ‘stake’ and then settle down with a wife and start your family.

The military is NOT a 9:00 to 5:00 job that you put in your 8 hours and then return home to the spouse and the kids to settle down for dinner and helping out with the homework. You are on call to Uncle Sam, day or night, in any part of the world; as the nature of modern war today (and probably it was ever so, even in the time of the ancients) is that you never know where a need will break out and you’ll have to drag out the old battle shield and sword to start marching.

It was never a job for a person burdened with the civilian responsibility of a spouse and/or kids. Actually men, in the time of the ancients anyway, didn’t marry until their 30s (although girls were anywhere from 14 to 19 years olds when they married) so for the ordinary man being a soldier from the ages of about 16 to 30 probably worked out just fine.

I believe that the US has gotten away from this essential fact of a professional soldier’s life. Probably due to the fact that the US had two national emergencies in the last century WWI and WWII where nationwide mobilization had to take place and where parents were forced to get involved in the military. But those were national emergencies. In the ordinary course of events a country of almost 300 million people should have NO reason to have parents running around the battlefield as professional soldiers. Realistically, it’s a whole different set of skills sets.

Not to mention the high risk of injury or even death, which will leave thousands of children traumatized and cost civilians millions of dollars in benefits having to provide for them. I mean just recently I read about a man with ONE LEG and TEN KIDS who volunteered to return to Iraq. Sorry folks as proud as I was that he wished to continue serving his country, for his, ours and most of all for his family’s sakes, he should have been turned down and told to go home and focus on raising his children.

We have to accept that this sort of situation being successful is unrealistic on its face. Human children have one of longest periods of dependency throughout the animal kingdom. Probably the ONLY mammal that has a longer one then human beings is the elephant. A child needs a parent who is going to be physically there for them. Who is going to be there for them every night when they return home, have dinner, help them with homework, out there driving them to the soccer or baseball game every weekend or taking them to grandma…It is impossible to plan to be a consistent part of your childrens lives when you are on call at anytime, anytime to someone else and children need consistency. They need to be the number 1 priority in their parent’s life.

I have wrestled with this issue due to the number of mothers who lose their children due to being enlisted in the service. I do feel very badly for these women.

I’m sorry to say it, however, but I have to conclude that due to the fact that you cannot count on being there for your child, as your life is NOT your own, then you have to expect to forfeit custody if you are in the military.

Sorry mothers, it’s just the way it is.

Changing the laws to continue unrealistic custody arrangements is not going to solve the problem. The military needs to encourage (and ultimately maybe enforce though law) the idea that the life of a professional soldier is not conducive to having children. Beginning a family is a civilian pursuit; which should probably not happen until a soldier is once again a civilian.

Again, mothers, sorry. You would be wise to wait until you leave the military before having children. Probably women who wish to be mothers will not be able to put in the full 20 years for a pension (unless we get a law passed reflecting the biologically shortened time line of women) but until that happens ten or fifteen years is probably the more realistic ‘retirement period’ for women depending upon your age going in.

Custody, if you have children, will probably and should probably, reside with the parent who is the civilian…as they can provide the more stable and consistent environment for the child. If both parents are military, the one who is willing to leave the service should be the one who becomes custodial. Joint custody can apply if both can leave.

Nor should step persons or other relatives EVER be allowed to help a deployed parent continue an unrealistic custodial arrangement.

It’s uniquely American to believe that every problem has a solution where no one has to be hurt, but unfortunately, some problems have ONLY the hard solutions and adults must be prepared to make them or suffer the consequences.

Bitter Harvest of Human Rights Crime Against Women

Series of blasts rocks Indian capital New Delhi
At least 49 killed; terrorists blamed but no claim of responsibility made

NEW DELHI - A series of explosions shook New Delhi on Saturday, tearing through markets jammed with shoppers ahead of an upcoming Hindu festival and killing at least 49 people, officials said.

The initial blast took place in the evening in the main Paharganj market, when it was crowded with shoppers ahead of a major Hindu festival next week, fire officials said. All roads to the scene of the explosion were sealed off by authorities.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9859307/


The thing that struck me throughout the last day or so is that the television coverage of this horror did NOT feature one woman in the background of the streets of India. NOT EVEN ONE.

The last shopping weekend before a major Hindu holiday and where were all the woman who should have been out there shopping?

In short, they had never been permitted to be born.

India, like China, has abused the use of sonogram technology to identify and abort girl children; thus an abundance of men exists in the age group of 15 to 34 years old (probably also the same group more likely to commit crimes and other anti-social acts against their society, including terrorist bombings).

This inbalance according to the article below probably accounts for a shortage of about 30 million women in each country. When will we learn that human rights abuses against women anywhere needs to be addressed, as eventually they threatens all of us everywhere?


Bare Branches:
The Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population.

OGDEN, Utah - Weber State University's Honors Issues Forum will feature author and professor Valerie Hudson presenting "A Surplus of Sons."

Hudson will explore the increasing abundance of males in some Asian countries and the possible consequences it may have on those nations and international stability.

The presentation will be held at 11 a.m. March 11 in Stewart Library Special Collections and is free to the public. Hudson, who teaches political science at Brigham Young University, is the author of "Bare Branches, The Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population."

Historical and sociological evidence gathered for the book predicts that excess males in China, India and Pakistan portend instability and more authoritarian states.

According to a BYU press release, the root of the problem is a growing disparity between the number of boys and girls born in Asian societies, which place a special value on sons.

It's estimated that by 2020, China will have 29 to 33 million surplus males between the ages of 15 and 34 and India will have 28 to 32 million.

Historical research shows societies laden with surplus males were volatile and struggled with increases in crime, unrest and violence. For more information about Hudson's book and research, visit

http://byunews.byu.edu/archive04-Jul-barebranches.aspx


We can see here that much of Asia, through their irresponsible actions, has contributed to the chaos their own countries will be experiencing over the coming decades.

Millions of single men with no prospects for marriage are a source of instability for any society they exist within.

For let's face it in spite of many men and feminists attempts to deny it, women marrying men functions as a stabilizing force which most societies, throughout history, have taken advantage of to their benefit. Not having those millions of women available now in India because they were aborted has probably led in large part to this sort of situation happening.

They are now reaping the bitter harvest they sowed when they terminated the lives of 30 million or so girl children.

You can read the full story in my archives (see link below) to get an idea of the sheer enormity of the human rights crime committed here against women.

http://womenasmothers.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_womenasmothers_archive.html

The Empire Strikes Back

Well we can see the direction where the desperate attempts by men, to be in charge of everything again, are heading. Even though men voluntarily turned their backs on being the head of family back in the 60s and 70s, instead choosing to become unmarried Playboys like Hugh Hefner engaging in endless casual sex without marriage. NOW they’ve changed their minds AGAIN.

What to make of it all and where will it all end?

As in most of these situations where men have shot themselves in the foot through their own stupidity, the historic thing to do is blame a woman for it. This has been going on as long as Eve supposedly tricked Adam into taking a bite of the apple. Every time men get in trouble through either their own mistakes or some whimsical behavior on the part of nature, fate, whatever, it traditionally was blamed upon a woman.

No wind for sailing to Troy, murder your daughter; men refusing to get married since it’s more fun being a single Playboy, criminalize a single mother…

Instead of men acknowledging their own mistakes, twists of fate, unpredictable nature, etc., it’s so much easier to blame some hapless woman for what ails them, isn’t it?

In essence, this is what the new ‘crime’ being discussed in Indiana is really all about…

The crime of Unauthorized Reproduction is really about blaming women for the fact that men refusing to get married and/or deciding to do it so late (like David Letterman, for instance, at 51 having a child and STILL not certain if he wants to marry the child’s mother or Stephen Bing, 37 years old, father of two illegitimate children one from Liz Hurley and another from Lisa Bonder, marrying NEITHER); thus this sort of very common behavior today leaves many ordinary women with little choice except to just stop taking the pill and/or artificial reproduction or adoption if they wish to have children at ALL.

It’s that simple. Fertility for women starts declining around 27 or 28 years old…then continues that decline until menopause. Women, simply due to our biological time clock, cannot afford to wait until 37 or 51 years old before deciding to get married and trying to have children. Sorry but that’s the facts. Allowing single women the choice to use these reproductive technologies enables women to have families in spite of men’s determination to wait long past the time our fertility starts running on empty.

Supposedly, this bill was inspired by a horrific event where a mentally unstable man almost got twin infants through use of a surrogate mother. Only the quick thinking of a pediatric nurse in the hospital, who noticed the guy coming to the hospital with a live bird in his pocket and covered with bird droppings, averted a potential tragedy.

YET men using surrogate mothers are a small group.

Most of those who use artificial reproduction methods are ordinary women looking to be mothers. Some few in number are lesbians, but for the most part it’s just run-of-the-mill everyday women who just never met the right man or met him and he didn’t want to be married until he was 40 (and/or traveled the world, had sex with at least a dozen more women and/or watched taped reruns of Monday Football every night for another dozen more years or so) very typical of many of the men we, women today, all know.

Thus, there was no need to take a shotgun when a fly swatter would have done to resolve the issues involved here. Some small tinkering with the laws regarding surrogacy would have resolved most problems. As many have said before follow the money and everything will become clear. So just outlawing the payments involved in surrogacy or limiting them to the point that it would not be financially rewarding, as surrogacy should NEVER be able to be a steady income for someone, would have been sufficient.

This would have limited it to women who were really ONLY interested in helping someone have a child for ethical reasons. NOT someone so anti-social, disturbed or just plain stupid that they would look upon surrogating as a way to make income regularly and not realize the rest of the community would be disturbed by it. NOT to mention that I bet it ultimately cost the taxpayers money as well when these surrogates became pregnant, since public benefits are eligible for all pregnant women depending upon their income, not how they got pregnant. Food stamps, subsidized housing, possibly taxpayer funded medical care, other benefits while out of work, etc., all of these can and probably are available to surrogate mothers at their community’s expense.

Mothers let’s THINK here, please…

Anyway, even through the Indiana law has been tabled for now, MARK MY WORDS, it will be back. This is only a temporary respite. As after being reworked in committee it will result in legislative action, which will eventually pass in Indiana and will eventually pass (or some form of it) in most states and/or even at the Federal level.

Just as the Federal government did with child support guidelines and enforcement, this will be the same thing.

Nevertheless, the law supposedly with irresponsibility surrogacy as the target is really a smokescreen. As the real target of it is the many women who have decided to continue leading useful, productive lives WITH CHILDREN in spite of the decision by our men to continue behaving like irresponsible chowder heads. Women simply do NOT have the time that men do to play these irresponsible games. Our reproductive lifespan is just too short to do that. Thus passing this law will result in more of the women in our society who are the “cream of the crop” (by every objective standard they are the most educated, highest income, etc.,) going childless or having to rush into marriage with inappropriate men and increasing the cycle of divorce, child custody fight/abduction that we see going on today.


The Crime of "Unauthorized Reproduction”

"Unauthorized reproduction":Law requires marriage for motherhood

by Uncle Ho
(Why Jerry Springer would adopt a persona named Uncle Ho is probably a whole new article for another day?????????)

Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 06:51:34 AM EST

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."

According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother through assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation and egg donation must first file for a "petition for parentage" in their local county probate court.

Only women who are married will be considered for the "gestational certificate" that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the pregnancy. Further, the "gestational certificate" will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents.

As the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent "who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedure" without court approval, "commits unauthorized reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor."

The criminal charges will be the same for physicians who commit "unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction."

http://www.springerontheradio.com/story/2005/10/6/65134/8436


To continue:

We can see that this is a two-pronged attack against women in their role as mothers by reviewing the story below. A woman, who already had two children of her own, deciding to be a surrogate for a third child (for a payment of $5,000) has just lost custody of her first two children.

Her husband decided to divorce her and the Judge awarded him temporary sole custody citing this woman’s decision to act as a surrogate as partial grounds for his ruling. Clearly it was a somewhat biased ruling as the Judge allowed the father’s character witnesses AGAINST this mother to run on for over 4 and ½ hours. While the mother’s witnesses were allowed only 10 minutes each and one of them was the children’s teacher, (as opposed to her ex’s family). So obviously a teacher, as a witness for this mother, was one of the most unbiased witnesses there. YET her testimony carried less weight then a father’s family, who are clearly going to side with him.

So the temporary custody decision was quite biased.

Nevertheless, I am still of two minds on this situation.

I do happen to think there are some underlying emotional problems that exist within women who decide to act as surrogates for money. Sorry, but it is simply going so far against what we know of biology, history and the normal behaviors of MOST other women, that unless the surrogate has a strong motivation for doing something like this ie., helping a sister or her best friend have children, I see it as a sign of either extremely anti-social behavior (no matter how well it is hidden), excessive greed for money or a lack of good judgment and/or plain common sense.

It’s just so darn foolish in the era of 50% of marriages ending in divorce and a custody fight these days being a very standard part of every divorce involving children. Mothers, you don’t pull stunts like this when you have your kids at stake especially when many courts at the county level have become infested with father’s rights supporters. Sure at the appellate levels courts might still talk the talk and walk the walk defending mothers, but how many mothers can afford to appeal an unfair decision made at the county level where most custody decisions are made. Short answer: very few.

So in spite of the unfair and biased means that this Judge used to arrive as his decision, even a temporary one, (since unless there is unfitness involved on the part of the custodial parent MOST temporary custody decisions morph into permanent) it appears likely that this mother has sealed her fate and will be the non-custodial parent of her children going forward. AND perhaps she deserves it. Personally I have mixed feelings about the whole thing as I normally would support a mother having custody of her children, unless abuse or neglect was involved but women selling off babies to make money is a serious breech of social trust I guess I would call it and does need to be stopped.

To sum up, the social sanctioning against mothers who act against the standard norms that favor most men (as men who will bother being fathers through surrogacy are a small group, thus MOST other men will benefit by sanctioning mothers who deviate from the norms) will now be the second prong of this attack against women in their role as mothers; along with the legal restrictions enacted (the Unauthorized Reproduction Act in Indiana) against women who try to be single mothers without a man acting as overseer of her and any children she might bear.

It appears that this is a very effective strategy devised by men to attack ALL women by using small deviant groups of women to paint the rest of us with a broad brush. Then convincing the public to enact laws that negatively impact all women because of the bad behavior of a deviant few.


Surrogate carrying novelist's baby loses custody of her children

Liberty, Kentucky

A surrogate mother carrying the child of a best-selling novelist has temporarily lost custody of her own two children.

A judge handed custody of Arletta Bendschneider's two children to her husband, Jack Bendschneider. The couple are in the middle of a divorce.

Bendschneider is carrying the child of novelist Jacquelyn Mitchard and her husband Christopher Brent. Mitchard lives in Massachusetts and is best known for her 1996 novel -- "The Deep End of the Ocean."

Casey County Circuit Judge James Weddle says that Bendschneider's decision to carry a surrogate is not in the best interest of her own children. Weddle says he would wait to rule on permanent custody until after the child is born. The baby is due in about two weeks.

http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=3966137&nav=4CAL

More Gender Neutralized Feminist Nonsense

THE NATION

Subject to Debate/Posted September 29, 2005 (October 17, 2005 issue)

Desperate Housewives of the Ivy League?

Katha Pollitt

September 20's prime target for press critics, social scientists and feminists was the New York Times front-page story "Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood," by Louise Story (Yale '03). Through interviews and a questionnaire e-mailed to freshmen and senior women residents of two Yale colleges (dorms), Story claims to have found that 60 percent of these brainy and energetic young women plan to park their expensive diplomas in the bassinet and become stay-home mothers. Over at Slate, Jack Shafer slapped the Times for using weasel words ("many," "seems") to make a trend out of anecdotes and vague impressions: In fact, Story presents no evidence that more Ivy League undergrads today are planning to retire at 30 to the playground than ten, twenty or thirty years ago. Simultaneously, an armada of bloggers shredded her questionnaire as biased (hint: If you begin with "When you have children," you've already skewed your results) and denounced her interpretation of the answers as hype. What she actually found, as the writer Robin Herman noted in a crisp letter to the Times, was that 70 percent of those who answered planned to keep working full or part time through motherhood. Even by Judith Miller standards, the Story story was pretty flimsy. So great was the outcry that the author had to defend her methods in a follow-up on the Times website three days later.

With all that excellent insta-critiquing, I feared I'd lumber into print too late to add a new pebble to the sling. But I did find one place where the article is still Topic No. 1: Yale. "I sense that she had a story to tell, and she only wanted to tell it one way," Mary Miller, master of Saybrook, one of Story's targeted colleges, told me. Miller said Story met with whole suites of students and weeded out the women who didn't fit her thesis. Even among the ones she focused on, "I haven't found that the students' views are as hard and fast as Story portrayed them." (In a phone call Story defended her research methods, which she said her critics misunderstood, and referred me to her explanation on the web.) One supposed future homemaker of America posted an anonymous dissection of Story's piece at www.mediabistro.com. Another told me in an e-mail that while the article quoted her accurately, it "definitely did not turn out the way I thought it would after numerous conversations with Louise." That young person may be sadder but wiser--she declined to let me interview her or use her name--but history professor Cynthia Russett, quoted as saying that women are "turning realistic," is happy to go public with her outrage. Says Russett, "I may have used the word, but it was in the context of a harsh or forced realism that I deplored. She made it sound like this was a trend of which I approved. In fact, the first I heard of it was from Story, and I'm not convinced it exists." In two days of interviewing professors, grad students and undergrads, I didn't find one person who felt Story fairly represented women at Yale. Instead, I learned of women who had thrown Story's questionnaire away in disgust, heard a lot of complaints about Yale's lack of affordable childcare and read numerous scathing unpublished letters to the Times, including a particularly erudite one from a group of sociology graduate students. Physics professor Megan Urry had perhaps the best riposte: She polled her class of 120, using "clickers" (electronic polling devices used as a teaching tool). Of forty-five female students, how many said they planned "to be stay-at-home primary parent"? Two. Twenty-six, or 58 percent, said they planned to "work full time, share home responsibilities with partner"--and good luck to them, because 33 percent of the men said they wanted stay-home wives.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051017/pollitt

As usual, whenever gender neutralized feminists are challenged on their many fallacies regarding basic human nature; they immediately respond by attacking the messenger. The New York Times front-page story "Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood," by Louise Story (Yale '03) is a perfect example of this tendency in action. Ms. Story supposedly ONLY took the responses that were favorable to her thesis: that women would stop working once they had children, and tossed out the other replies from women who felt they would continue working and share the child rearing burden with their husbands.

Whether or not she did or didn’t is probably a moot issue anyway; however, as I believe all of them are missing the main event here: which is that men (that critical other half of the equation that gender neutralized feminist always like to ignore), do not appear willing to marry and/or bear children with 30/35ish something career women. Thus it could be beside the point whether or not these women wish to stay home and/or work after they have children. The more important issue appears to be can they get men who appear willing to marry them after they have wasted the critical period when they were at the height of female attractiveness to the opposite sex? Once that happens then they can move on to the next stage, which is having children and deciding whether or not to stay home with them. But unless and until they first find the requisite interested male, the whole issue of staying at home versus continuing to work is a moot one.

Clearly the things that attract women to men do not work in reverse and translate into attracting men to women. Economic stability, ensuring that his children will be adequately cared for, appears to be something that most normal men can provide for themselves. So a man with a good income can and usually does look for other qualities in a woman.

Looking at it realistically most women probably wouldn’t want the beta male losers who would need to look for this anyway because they cannot provide it for themselves. As men who appear unable to reach at least one of the lower but still comfortable rungs on the American economic ladder (which is very, very, broad with plenty of room on it for newcomers) are probably the men who suffer from other lacks in their lives as well. For instance, they could be suffering from serious personality disorders, making it impossible for them to get along with their peers. Or even more severe lacks, either mental or physical, which might be passed along to any subsequent children they father.

Thus, we return to the irrefutable fact that most men appear to still be looking for the age-old standards of youth, beauty, peak physical condition, overall health (both physical and emotional), etc., which men have always looked for in their wives and the future mothers of their children. So whether or not a woman has reached the peak of her career potential, as the most powerful lawyer, politician, newsreporter, etc., does not appear to enhance her attractiveness to men or give her any additional access to the more accomplished male gene pool. Actually, it gains her nothing in that respect. If anything it appear to do the opposite and decrease a woman’s potential to get a mate, at least if Kay Bailey Hutchingson and Maureen Dowd are any example. Kay Bailey Hutchingson was reduced to having to do a single parent adoption of a Chinese orphan in order to have a family; and Maureen Dowd is still single and furious over it. Blaming it on the apparent tendency of men to look for less accomplished (and probably younger) women when looking for wives.

Again I think one thing that has become clear after the last four decades or so of continued attacks by gender neutralized feminists on the essential nature of humanity. That social engineering is not quite as easy to accomplished as they originally thought. AND that’s a good thing.