The Tennessee Department of Safety issued an Amber Alert Monday for the 6-year-old girl, who was allegedly taken from her home in Lexington, Ky., at gunpoint Monday by her father, Lance Franklin Spurlock, 29. Police suspected that Spurlock might be headed for Rhea County where he has family.
Dayton Police officers Jeff Hill and Rocky Hill and Rhea County Deputy Davin Payne went to the home shortly after 1 a.m. Tuesday where they took Spurlock into custody without incident.
Spurlock was arraigned in Rhea County General Sessions Court Tuesday morning. He was released from the Rhea County Jail on a $25,000 bond shortly thereafter.
Spurlock’s daughter was released into the custody of family members Tuesday, according to Jeff Hill.
The most important part of this newsclip was left out, which was that AFTER this 6 year old girl was found, she was NOT returned to her mother but instead handed over to her father's relatives, her paternal grandparents, who probably aided and abetted him with this stunt. So the father who abducted this little girl at gunpoint was then probably allowed to visit her at his leisure since she was with his parents; while her mother was threatened with arrest by Tennessee if she tried to even go over there.
These are the 'happy endings' that are frequently left out of the stories when mothers lose their children through an abduction by the way...We rarely if ever hear these stories behind the story...
This is by no means an isolated event either as many mothers lose their children through abductions. It appears that many court systems in the US and OVERSEAS as well (remember that) do NOT consider it a crime for a father to take a child for a visit and just refuse to return said child.
Actually a number of fathers get custody this way, through abduction. I personally know a number of mothers now who have lost permanent custody of their children through fathers taking the child for a visit and just refusing to return said child.
Mr Jelicich, 39, disappeared with baby Caitlin on an access visit last week.
He and his wife had been staying in Auckland while visiting his family on an extended holiday when their marriage broke down before Christmas.
"I never imagined that Stephen would take Caitlin away from me like that - never," Mrs Jelicich told BBC Wales before Caitlin was found. "Because I know how much he loved my little girl".
But she said she thought her husband, whom she had met over the internet, had not wanted to live in Wales. "Stephen has never liked living in Wales and basically I think he just saw his chance to stay in New Zealand."
Both Caitlin and Mrs Jelicich's 11-year-old daughter from a previous relationship had been with the couple on their holiday.
Mrs Jelicich had been planning to fly home on 10 January.
Stephen Jelicich took baby Caitlin a day before she was due to leave for Wales with her mother last week.
A court had ruled Diane Jelicich, 41, should have custody of Caitlin and said British courts should decide on her long-term care arrangements.
However on Wednesday New Zealand's High Court will look again at the custody decision taken by the lower courts.
Mrs Jelicich told GMTV she was glad Caitlin was safe but "appalled" her estranged husband had not been arrested. "I was absolutely devastated because I had planned to go to New Zealand to fetch Caitlin home very, very soon," she said.
"Now they've put an appeal in to the courts in New Zealand, I really don't know what's going to happen until the court case tomorrow."
This was a VACATION mothers...This couple had met over the internet, married and had a child in Wales and gone to New Zealand to bring the baby to visit his family... then he decides he doesn't want to return to Wales...so what does he do...he ups and kidnaps their baby and refuses to return the child...
What do the police do...so far nothing...They know where this man is and have done nothing. The baby remains separated from her mother and older sister by the way (11) so her sister, of course, will be emotionally devasted by this stunt as well having her baby sister kidnapped while on a freakin holiday...
AND to top it all off, he could get permanent custody now...New Zealand actually rewarded him for this stunt by agreeing to give him a custody hearing, instead of putting his butt in jail where it belongs and sending that infant home to Wales where her mother, sister and SHE belong, as that is her permanent home where she was born...She was in New Zealand on a holiday.... so who know when if ever this mother will see her baby again...
Who knows...
This is just to point out that these are NOT isolated cases as 350,000 parental abductions take place every year in the US alone. Many of the abductors in these cases are fathers who take the child for a visitation and just NEVER return said child.
I just recently saw a post on a message board where a young women's two week old infant was abducted by the father in this manner...he was home on leave from Iraq and just decided to up and disappear with the infant for two weeks...She had no idea where her child was, none. AND his name was NOT even on the birth certificate as this couple was never married and he was in Iraq when infant was born.
She went to the local police, to 1-800-MISSING, to the FBI and guess what, even though she had said birth certificate showing that she was the only LEGAL PARENT, she was turned away from every one of those places. Eventually her infant was returned to her after two weeks of hell not knowing where her infant was and she's now a lot sadder but wiser regarding the limits of the state in keeping her baby safe.
So mothers do NOT think that if this happens to you, that you can just expect help from the police or any other legal entity. You are strictly on your own in many of these situation unless you have a LOT OF MONEY for an attorney to fight this with and sometimes, even then, you can lose. It is NOT a given that your child will be returned to you, not a given at all.
Actually, as noted above, many police departments will refuse to help mothers in these situations no matter what the birth certificate saids, they won't even LOOK at it. So unless you are unusually physically capable for a woman and can go kick some serious butt, you will NOT be able to get your child back. It's not happening, even if said child is located right up the street from you.
Now many states have passed laws automatically giving single mothers custody to try to head these abduction attempts off at the pass, sadly, however a number of mothers located in those states have told me that this is not working either, as police officers, in the field, pay no attention to these laws, birth certificates or any other documentation you might wish to show them...
Sadly, they're just not too interested.
So abduction as a tool for fathers to get custody (many of them attempting to avoid paying child support) is alive and well, still kicking and still encouraged by law enforcement that refuses to get involved and a judicial system that continues sanctioning these abductions after the fact, by awarding these monsters a custody hearing AFTER they've kidnapped your baby.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Sunday, January 16, 2005
The Insidious Propaganda Campaign Behind the Ad Campaign
Dad's in Charge in New TV Ads
They say sex sells in advertising, but apparently, Daddy changing a diaper can also lead to big bucks.
Fathers are watching the little tykes without Mom around in ads for carpeting, department stores, nasal spray, wireless technology, cereal and other products — a move that experts say reflects the modern family.
Or what gender-neutralized, social-engineering experts would LOVE to see more of, which is...little tykes without Mom around...that is their vision of a 'brave new world' order...
Although on the surface harmless, in fact, these ads are part of the larger campaign to disenfranchise mothers in our society. They are an attempt to paint mothers as expendable, out busy shopping or working and not paying attention to our children. As any working mother knows this is a lie. Actually when mothers run these errands, usually we must DRAG OUR CHILDREN along with us. This is the reason many checkout counters sell little products like candy, small toys and other items attractive to children. Since mothers usually have our kids with us as we shop, frequently we pick up some little item for them on the way out of the store.
These ads are just another of the continuing attempts by men in their never-ending campaign to be "IN CHARGE" of everything again (as the title of the article clearly demonstrates) and another example of the male-directed media smear campaigns denigrating women in their role as mothers.
Women must begin to boycott the sponsors of these ads and not buy their products.
Any company that attempts to use our children as the latest fashion accessories for men to strut around with, or to try to get our children to sell products (like men having children around is sexy, sex sells, now our kids will be used like women have been for years to sell consumer goods to men), or to spread propaganda against women in their role as mothers (like the movie Spanglish, which I discussed after its opening), or by attempting to airbrush mothers out of their childrens' lives, any company attempting to do any of these things needs to be boycotted by women.
Then maybe these a@@holes will wake up.
Last month, The Advertising Council and The National Fatherhood Initiative announced they were launching their latest public service announcements encouraging more fatherly involvement with the kids.
The new PSAs, airing soon with actor Tom Selleck (search) doing the voiceover, conclude with the tagline, "It takes a man to be a dad." One features a father dancing with his daughter in the living room and, according to the Advertising Council's Conlon, tries to speak "directly to fathers of the importance of being engaged in their children's lives."
And while fatherhood activists are grumbling about some of the ads they see as daddy mockery, they're also taking note of what they call "father-friendly" commercials.
Yes, it figures...fatherhood activists never-happy, always greedy and grasping, looking for more, in spite of the fact that these ads (which are springing up like poisonous mushrooms everywhere) are clearly just another result of the strong-arm tactics of fathers rights advocates and their simpering, brain-addled pawns.
Yet they still aren't satisfied, still grumbling, still want more...
Don't get me wrong, I love many of these ads...the fathers and children are adorable...I wish one of them had been my father...really...AND I adore Tom Selleck...who wouldn't want him as their dad...Sadly however, we must deal not with the fatherhood 'masks' that the ads portray but with the real-life monsters that are the fathers in our lives...
For instance, the men who urge women to get an abortion until the date of delivery and then spend the rest of the next 18 years dragging them in and out of court to get custody of said children, usually to avoid paying child support.
Actually like what happened with that Bridget Marks situation which many New Yorkers are familiar with.
Well God only knows where her poor little girls will wind up before that one's over...
God only knows...
The recreational sperm donors or 'prodigal fathers' as fatherhood activists and their simpering, brian-addled pawns like to call them...who disappear for years and then get a wild hair up their a@@ and suddenly decide they want to be a father. Turning you and your childrens' lives upside down, NO MATTER THE AGE OF YOUR CHILDREN, with the full support of the state btw, is no problem for them...none whatsoever.
And last but not least, the fathers who eventually DO manage to wrestle custody of a mothers' children from her and then spend most of that child's life busily turning said child against their own mother. A child's mother, the MOST obvious, natural and best guardian of a child being alienated from them...which most likely means that after emancipation, that child won't have ONE person who is in their corner 100% no matter what they do...not one...and for what...for financial gain on the part of men, no other reason, to allow men to avoid paying child support, that's the bottom line here and to help a group of gender-neutralized, social engineering experts experiment with dumping our kids into all kinds of weird custody arrangements. Using our children like a group of little guinea pigs with no idea whatsoever of the final result, no idea.
AND by the way, these alienating custodial fathers is no small group of 'outside of the mainstream' fathers here...but a good portion of them. Richard (died by his own hand) Gardner, their PAS expert (I say theirs since I wouldn't have believed Richard Gardner if he told me the sky was blue, yet he's THEIR EXPERT so I'll use him here) Gardner noted back in the 90s that one-half of his clientele were alienating FATHERS, 50% and considering how few fathers have custody, 50% is a pretty high number...so let's face it, these alienating monsters are a very representational group of fathers overall here.
We have to deal with the real historic fathers, not the 'fatherhood masks' like that wonderful Tom Selleck or the great dad featured in the carpet commercial...from Augustus (murderer of his OWN daughter, granddaughter and great granddaughter) to Ray Carruth (murdered pregnant mother in an attempt to kill their child, so he could avoid paying child support) and finally the 50% of Richard Gardner's caseload for alienating parents, which is made up of custodial fathers.
THIS is the enduring historical legacy, that women as mothers must wrestle with in our everyday lives. THESE are the monsters behind the fatherhood mask that these ads promote. THIS is the history of motherhood and REALITY still for many mothers today as that very siginficant article in the Washington Post demonstrated. The percentage of pregnant women who get murdered by their child's fathers, so these monsters can avoid paying child support, is roughly about 20% and that's just the numbers from ONE SMALL STATE, Maryland.
We probably should DEMAND that these studies be replicated nationwide so we can see what the real numbers are...but of course, even as we speak, fatherhood activists and their simpering, brain-addled pawns are attempting to sweep the study under the rug so as to obscure the facts of it.
Thus it's important for mothers to NOT let propaganda obscure facts, as IF WE FORGET our history we are dooming, not just ourselves to repeat it, but all the generations of women who follow after us, some our own daughters...ALL OF THEM..
Actually it wouldn't be too strong to say we were dooming ALL women worldwide to repeating this terrible and bloody mother/child history as women in western society are the ONLY women with the the civil and legal rights to speak out against these monstrous attempts to separate mothers and children from one another.
They say sex sells in advertising, but apparently, Daddy changing a diaper can also lead to big bucks.
Fathers are watching the little tykes without Mom around in ads for carpeting, department stores, nasal spray, wireless technology, cereal and other products — a move that experts say reflects the modern family.
Or what gender-neutralized, social-engineering experts would LOVE to see more of, which is...little tykes without Mom around...that is their vision of a 'brave new world' order...
Although on the surface harmless, in fact, these ads are part of the larger campaign to disenfranchise mothers in our society. They are an attempt to paint mothers as expendable, out busy shopping or working and not paying attention to our children. As any working mother knows this is a lie. Actually when mothers run these errands, usually we must DRAG OUR CHILDREN along with us. This is the reason many checkout counters sell little products like candy, small toys and other items attractive to children. Since mothers usually have our kids with us as we shop, frequently we pick up some little item for them on the way out of the store.
These ads are just another of the continuing attempts by men in their never-ending campaign to be "IN CHARGE" of everything again (as the title of the article clearly demonstrates) and another example of the male-directed media smear campaigns denigrating women in their role as mothers.
Women must begin to boycott the sponsors of these ads and not buy their products.
Any company that attempts to use our children as the latest fashion accessories for men to strut around with, or to try to get our children to sell products (like men having children around is sexy, sex sells, now our kids will be used like women have been for years to sell consumer goods to men), or to spread propaganda against women in their role as mothers (like the movie Spanglish, which I discussed after its opening), or by attempting to airbrush mothers out of their childrens' lives, any company attempting to do any of these things needs to be boycotted by women.
Then maybe these a@@holes will wake up.
Last month, The Advertising Council and The National Fatherhood Initiative announced they were launching their latest public service announcements encouraging more fatherly involvement with the kids.
The new PSAs, airing soon with actor Tom Selleck (search) doing the voiceover, conclude with the tagline, "It takes a man to be a dad." One features a father dancing with his daughter in the living room and, according to the Advertising Council's Conlon, tries to speak "directly to fathers of the importance of being engaged in their children's lives."
And while fatherhood activists are grumbling about some of the ads they see as daddy mockery, they're also taking note of what they call "father-friendly" commercials.
Yes, it figures...fatherhood activists never-happy, always greedy and grasping, looking for more, in spite of the fact that these ads (which are springing up like poisonous mushrooms everywhere) are clearly just another result of the strong-arm tactics of fathers rights advocates and their simpering, brain-addled pawns.
Yet they still aren't satisfied, still grumbling, still want more...
Don't get me wrong, I love many of these ads...the fathers and children are adorable...I wish one of them had been my father...really...AND I adore Tom Selleck...who wouldn't want him as their dad...Sadly however, we must deal not with the fatherhood 'masks' that the ads portray but with the real-life monsters that are the fathers in our lives...
For instance, the men who urge women to get an abortion until the date of delivery and then spend the rest of the next 18 years dragging them in and out of court to get custody of said children, usually to avoid paying child support.
Actually like what happened with that Bridget Marks situation which many New Yorkers are familiar with.
Well God only knows where her poor little girls will wind up before that one's over...
God only knows...
The recreational sperm donors or 'prodigal fathers' as fatherhood activists and their simpering, brian-addled pawns like to call them...who disappear for years and then get a wild hair up their a@@ and suddenly decide they want to be a father. Turning you and your childrens' lives upside down, NO MATTER THE AGE OF YOUR CHILDREN, with the full support of the state btw, is no problem for them...none whatsoever.
And last but not least, the fathers who eventually DO manage to wrestle custody of a mothers' children from her and then spend most of that child's life busily turning said child against their own mother. A child's mother, the MOST obvious, natural and best guardian of a child being alienated from them...which most likely means that after emancipation, that child won't have ONE person who is in their corner 100% no matter what they do...not one...and for what...for financial gain on the part of men, no other reason, to allow men to avoid paying child support, that's the bottom line here and to help a group of gender-neutralized, social engineering experts experiment with dumping our kids into all kinds of weird custody arrangements. Using our children like a group of little guinea pigs with no idea whatsoever of the final result, no idea.
AND by the way, these alienating custodial fathers is no small group of 'outside of the mainstream' fathers here...but a good portion of them. Richard (died by his own hand) Gardner, their PAS expert (I say theirs since I wouldn't have believed Richard Gardner if he told me the sky was blue, yet he's THEIR EXPERT so I'll use him here) Gardner noted back in the 90s that one-half of his clientele were alienating FATHERS, 50% and considering how few fathers have custody, 50% is a pretty high number...so let's face it, these alienating monsters are a very representational group of fathers overall here.
We have to deal with the real historic fathers, not the 'fatherhood masks' like that wonderful Tom Selleck or the great dad featured in the carpet commercial...from Augustus (murderer of his OWN daughter, granddaughter and great granddaughter) to Ray Carruth (murdered pregnant mother in an attempt to kill their child, so he could avoid paying child support) and finally the 50% of Richard Gardner's caseload for alienating parents, which is made up of custodial fathers.
THIS is the enduring historical legacy, that women as mothers must wrestle with in our everyday lives. THESE are the monsters behind the fatherhood mask that these ads promote. THIS is the history of motherhood and REALITY still for many mothers today as that very siginficant article in the Washington Post demonstrated. The percentage of pregnant women who get murdered by their child's fathers, so these monsters can avoid paying child support, is roughly about 20% and that's just the numbers from ONE SMALL STATE, Maryland.
We probably should DEMAND that these studies be replicated nationwide so we can see what the real numbers are...but of course, even as we speak, fatherhood activists and their simpering, brain-addled pawns are attempting to sweep the study under the rug so as to obscure the facts of it.
Thus it's important for mothers to NOT let propaganda obscure facts, as IF WE FORGET our history we are dooming, not just ourselves to repeat it, but all the generations of women who follow after us, some our own daughters...ALL OF THEM..
Actually it wouldn't be too strong to say we were dooming ALL women worldwide to repeating this terrible and bloody mother/child history as women in western society are the ONLY women with the the civil and legal rights to speak out against these monstrous attempts to separate mothers and children from one another.
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Evolution Promotes Free Agents in Every Sphere of Life--So Get Over It Already
"...At a time when the medical community has been heartened by a decline in risky sexual behavior by teenagers, a different problem has crept up: More adult women are forgoing birth control, a trend that has experts puzzled -- and alarmed about a potential rise in unintended pregnancies.
The December report did not tabulate unintended pregnancies, though preliminary information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found a slight increase in the birth rate in 2003, most notably in women older than 30..."
Well before we go getting our panties in a bunch over this development, let me first say SO WHAT??? A woman over 30 is a free agent and there are NO LAWS against her deciding to have a child as a single mother. As long as she's a self-supporting, reasonably normal human being and since MOST PEOPLE are that, we must assume she is too...So what is the big deal here? Do we vet all those married youngsters in trailor parks across the nation popping out one kid after another before they are barely functioning adults themselves?
If we do, I never heard of it...
So why do we NEED to vet these adult women? Quick answer, we don't...
The logical reason for this situation is that these women are just looking around at their prospects and deciding that the current crop of men we've spawned are not up to their standards. AND who could blame them...the men of our society have morphed into a bunch of useless crybabies, who are never quite sure if they are ready for a committment yet (like David Letterman, at 51, still wasn't SURE if he was ready to be a parent, righto). A woman's eggs could get 'hard boiled' waiting for Mr. Right at that age and I'm not sure most of them should wait much after 30 before making a few hard choices in this area anyway.
Let's face it the book "Making a Life"...was a real eye-opener for many women really cutting down by as much as a decade the timeline of the waiting period before decisions NEED to be made. We USED to think that around 40 fertility started declining in women, NOW we know womens' fertility begins declining around 27 or 28 and continues that decline each years thereafter until she finally hits menopause...which just to let you know ladies is no day at the beach either, but that's another discussion...
Now, never-married women over 30 tend to be the cream of the crop (well-educated, higher income, probably better groomed). On the other hand, their counterparts, never-married men over 30 are the dregs of our society, many of them ex-cons, drug addicts or just barely recovering acoholics, in short a pack of losers and slobs...
Now why in the heck should we waste the cream of the crop on these losers?
Why?
Puhleeeeeease...
The statistics showing children from single mother households as having problems showed that the mid to higher level income mothers (making $50,000 annually and up)were doing JUST FINE with their kids and I'm sure if we cared enough to check some of the income statistics of this new batch of 30 something single mothers, we'd find the same thing...their kids are going to do just fine...
This latest 'finding' that women over 30 are taking the plunge into motherhood alone is NOT a bad thing at all...but just another necessary step up the evolutionary scale as more and more men opt out of the marriage market to pursue more important life goals such as Monday Night Football and/or hanging around the corner trying to score a dime bag of weed...
Thus women deciding to have children on their own after 30 ensures the ongoing contribution into the gene pool of our best and brightest mothers even as their male counterpart continue their existence as laid-back slackers just barely existing on the fringes of real life...
This trend is absolutely nothing to worry about, just more scare tactics from the other side...busily spinning more bs in mens' never-ending attempt to regain their place at the apex of everything, even when they are not really very interested in marriage or children to begin with...so I guess women shouldn't be either...until men get around to it at 50 or so...we'll just wait...
Again, puhleeeeease....get over yourselves already...
The December report did not tabulate unintended pregnancies, though preliminary information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found a slight increase in the birth rate in 2003, most notably in women older than 30..."
Well before we go getting our panties in a bunch over this development, let me first say SO WHAT??? A woman over 30 is a free agent and there are NO LAWS against her deciding to have a child as a single mother. As long as she's a self-supporting, reasonably normal human being and since MOST PEOPLE are that, we must assume she is too...So what is the big deal here? Do we vet all those married youngsters in trailor parks across the nation popping out one kid after another before they are barely functioning adults themselves?
If we do, I never heard of it...
So why do we NEED to vet these adult women? Quick answer, we don't...
The logical reason for this situation is that these women are just looking around at their prospects and deciding that the current crop of men we've spawned are not up to their standards. AND who could blame them...the men of our society have morphed into a bunch of useless crybabies, who are never quite sure if they are ready for a committment yet (like David Letterman, at 51, still wasn't SURE if he was ready to be a parent, righto). A woman's eggs could get 'hard boiled' waiting for Mr. Right at that age and I'm not sure most of them should wait much after 30 before making a few hard choices in this area anyway.
Let's face it the book "Making a Life"...was a real eye-opener for many women really cutting down by as much as a decade the timeline of the waiting period before decisions NEED to be made. We USED to think that around 40 fertility started declining in women, NOW we know womens' fertility begins declining around 27 or 28 and continues that decline each years thereafter until she finally hits menopause...which just to let you know ladies is no day at the beach either, but that's another discussion...
Now, never-married women over 30 tend to be the cream of the crop (well-educated, higher income, probably better groomed). On the other hand, their counterparts, never-married men over 30 are the dregs of our society, many of them ex-cons, drug addicts or just barely recovering acoholics, in short a pack of losers and slobs...
Now why in the heck should we waste the cream of the crop on these losers?
Why?
Puhleeeeeease...
The statistics showing children from single mother households as having problems showed that the mid to higher level income mothers (making $50,000 annually and up)were doing JUST FINE with their kids and I'm sure if we cared enough to check some of the income statistics of this new batch of 30 something single mothers, we'd find the same thing...their kids are going to do just fine...
This latest 'finding' that women over 30 are taking the plunge into motherhood alone is NOT a bad thing at all...but just another necessary step up the evolutionary scale as more and more men opt out of the marriage market to pursue more important life goals such as Monday Night Football and/or hanging around the corner trying to score a dime bag of weed...
Thus women deciding to have children on their own after 30 ensures the ongoing contribution into the gene pool of our best and brightest mothers even as their male counterpart continue their existence as laid-back slackers just barely existing on the fringes of real life...
This trend is absolutely nothing to worry about, just more scare tactics from the other side...busily spinning more bs in mens' never-ending attempt to regain their place at the apex of everything, even when they are not really very interested in marriage or children to begin with...so I guess women shouldn't be either...until men get around to it at 50 or so...we'll just wait...
Again, puhleeeeease....get over yourselves already...
Custody Wars to Evade Child Support: The Beginning of Their End...
Well it's been a while since this decision and the statistics are not in yet, but I think it ultimately will be seen as the Waterloo of our society's attempts to collect child support from stubborn fathers; and, thus, the beginning of the end of the custody wars to evade child support that have been raging across our country for the last few decades...
With one swift blow, Tennessee made the issue moot. Predictable as always, the region that has been on the wrong side of every social issue this country has ever been faced with, from slavery to unions, once again come down on the wrong side of the child support issue...
Allowing men to base their child support for first children on how many subsequent children they will spawn is like allowing someone to decide how much their minimum credit card payment will be based upon HOW much they purchased...AFTER telling them that the more they spend, the less that payment will be...
Well quess what folks...After hearing that, you'd be a darn fool not to run that card up to the limit and then some now, wouldn't you? Heck buy a whole freakin department store, maybe you can get a minumun payment of $10.00 a month to pay it all off whenever...WTF...
Frankly at this point, I say GOOD...as I and I suspect many others (including the FBI, who has been forced to set up a website and assign agents to address all of the many issues instigated by these custody wars to avoid child support) were getting darn sick of the whole thing...darn sick of it...
I can just imagine the glee of the fathers in Tennessee as they slowly became aware of the significance of this decision, not to mention the glee of the fathers' rights movement nationally as this retarded view of financial planning for your children spreads to all the other states...
Oh well...
Maybe things can get back to normal now as men continue with their history of evading responsibility for their children and women continue with ours of scrabbling around for resources to raise our children with...since the stingy male cheapskates of our society have been doing everything in their power to find a loophole like this (and let's face it you can drive a truck through this one) ever since the laws mandating higher child support guidelines were passed...
The court ruled in a case in which a Memphis father faced an 80% increase in his child support, and the father argued that the expense of raising two children in his current marriage should be considered in figuring how much he should pay to support a third child from a previous relationship. Current child support guidelines prohibit financial considerations for children from second families, except under extreme circumstances. The court found that these guidelines "violate the equal protection guarantees of the federal and state constitutions."
Now comes the spin...
It's all about the children, as it not constitutional to allow children of the same father to be treated unequally...
No...it's all about not taking on more responsibility then you can afford and then becoming a slacker because you bit off more then you can chew...that's what it's about.
Sigh...
With one swift blow, Tennessee made the issue moot. Predictable as always, the region that has been on the wrong side of every social issue this country has ever been faced with, from slavery to unions, once again come down on the wrong side of the child support issue...
Allowing men to base their child support for first children on how many subsequent children they will spawn is like allowing someone to decide how much their minimum credit card payment will be based upon HOW much they purchased...AFTER telling them that the more they spend, the less that payment will be...
Well quess what folks...After hearing that, you'd be a darn fool not to run that card up to the limit and then some now, wouldn't you? Heck buy a whole freakin department store, maybe you can get a minumun payment of $10.00 a month to pay it all off whenever...WTF...
Frankly at this point, I say GOOD...as I and I suspect many others (including the FBI, who has been forced to set up a website and assign agents to address all of the many issues instigated by these custody wars to avoid child support) were getting darn sick of the whole thing...darn sick of it...
I can just imagine the glee of the fathers in Tennessee as they slowly became aware of the significance of this decision, not to mention the glee of the fathers' rights movement nationally as this retarded view of financial planning for your children spreads to all the other states...
Oh well...
Maybe things can get back to normal now as men continue with their history of evading responsibility for their children and women continue with ours of scrabbling around for resources to raise our children with...since the stingy male cheapskates of our society have been doing everything in their power to find a loophole like this (and let's face it you can drive a truck through this one) ever since the laws mandating higher child support guidelines were passed...
The court ruled in a case in which a Memphis father faced an 80% increase in his child support, and the father argued that the expense of raising two children in his current marriage should be considered in figuring how much he should pay to support a third child from a previous relationship. Current child support guidelines prohibit financial considerations for children from second families, except under extreme circumstances. The court found that these guidelines "violate the equal protection guarantees of the federal and state constitutions."
Now comes the spin...
It's all about the children, as it not constitutional to allow children of the same father to be treated unequally...
No...it's all about not taking on more responsibility then you can afford and then becoming a slacker because you bit off more then you can chew...that's what it's about.
Sigh...
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Enduring Legacy of Male Betrayal, Irresponsibility, and Abandonment.
Recently I was very moved upon reading a piece on another blog regarding a woman who had become pregnant with triplets. She eventually aborts two of them carrying only one fetus to term, eventually delivering one healthy baby boy who is now about 18 months old. The decision-making process she uses to arrive at her ultimate decision; however was so matter-of-fact and callous that many on both sides of the abortion debate were enraged with her...
"On the subway, Peter (the boyfriend and the child's father) asked, ''Shouldn't we consider having triplets?'' And I had this adverse reaction: ''This is why they say it's the woman's choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That's easy for you to say, but I'd have to give up my life.'' Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn't be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It's not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I'm going to have to move to Staten Island. I'll never leave my house because I'll have to care for these children. I'll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise. Even in my moments of thinking about having three, I don't think that deep down I was ever considering it."
There were no medical problems apparent with the triplets...This was not a welfare mother. She had stopped taking birth control after discussing with her boyfriend (not husband) the possibility that she might get pregnant and both agreed it could be handled...
"When we saw the specialist, we found out that I was carrying identical twins and a stand alone. My doctors thought the stand alone was three days older. There was something psychologically comforting about that, since I wanted to have just one. Before the procedure, I was focused on relaxing. But Peter was staring at the sonogram screen thinking: Oh, my gosh, there are three heartbeats. I can't believe we're about to make two disappear. The doctor came in, and then Peter was asked to leave. I said, ''Can Peter stay?'' The doctor said no. I know Peter was offended by that.
Two days after the procedure, smells no longer set me off and I no longer wanted to eat nothing but sour-apple gum. I went on to have a pretty seamless pregnancy. But I had a recurring feeling that this was going to come back and haunt me."
Little did she know how right she was as the level of hatred for this woman after this story came out was tremendous...
Nevertheless, we MUST focus on ALL the culprits in this story as it is patently unfair to point the finger at ONLY the mother here...when there are soooooo many others.
I could go on for hours about how men in general, her boyfriend in particular, contributed to this decison LONG before this mother even became pregnant...but another blogger said it better then I ever could...
"I am still angry at Amy Richards. But I am also angry at a legacy of male betrayal, irresponsibility, and abandonment. I've been saying for years that the struggle for abortion rights is rooted in (among other things) a profound disappointment in men. That disappointment and distrust becomes multi-generational. I believe in working to end abortion by a variety of means, including legal restrictions. But as a man, I know that increasing male accountability is a critical component of the struggle to end abortion. And surely, greater male responsibility is something we can all agree on."
Finally an honest man ready, willing and able to lay responsibility right back where it belongs: ON OTHER MEN...whose legacy of betrayal, irresponsibility and abandonment over countless centuries had led to our current state of affairs...
Let's all give a big round of applause to blogger Hugo Schwyzerfor having the strength of character to finally speak up and say what needed saying...that it is the selfishness of MEN that was ultimately responsible for the horror story above and no one else...
For this legacy ensures that women cannot take a leap of faith and have more children then they can handle ALONE never knowing when a partner will decide to abandon her and child...or even try to abandon her and take child himself to avoid paying child support...
Thus the selfish legacy that men have promulgated (and STILL DO, still to this day) continues its insidious work on the psyche of women paving the way for more horror stories as noted above...
"On the subway, Peter (the boyfriend and the child's father) asked, ''Shouldn't we consider having triplets?'' And I had this adverse reaction: ''This is why they say it's the woman's choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That's easy for you to say, but I'd have to give up my life.'' Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn't be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It's not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I'm going to have to move to Staten Island. I'll never leave my house because I'll have to care for these children. I'll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise. Even in my moments of thinking about having three, I don't think that deep down I was ever considering it."
There were no medical problems apparent with the triplets...This was not a welfare mother. She had stopped taking birth control after discussing with her boyfriend (not husband) the possibility that she might get pregnant and both agreed it could be handled...
"When we saw the specialist, we found out that I was carrying identical twins and a stand alone. My doctors thought the stand alone was three days older. There was something psychologically comforting about that, since I wanted to have just one. Before the procedure, I was focused on relaxing. But Peter was staring at the sonogram screen thinking: Oh, my gosh, there are three heartbeats. I can't believe we're about to make two disappear. The doctor came in, and then Peter was asked to leave. I said, ''Can Peter stay?'' The doctor said no. I know Peter was offended by that.
Two days after the procedure, smells no longer set me off and I no longer wanted to eat nothing but sour-apple gum. I went on to have a pretty seamless pregnancy. But I had a recurring feeling that this was going to come back and haunt me."
Little did she know how right she was as the level of hatred for this woman after this story came out was tremendous...
Nevertheless, we MUST focus on ALL the culprits in this story as it is patently unfair to point the finger at ONLY the mother here...when there are soooooo many others.
I could go on for hours about how men in general, her boyfriend in particular, contributed to this decison LONG before this mother even became pregnant...but another blogger said it better then I ever could...
"I am still angry at Amy Richards. But I am also angry at a legacy of male betrayal, irresponsibility, and abandonment. I've been saying for years that the struggle for abortion rights is rooted in (among other things) a profound disappointment in men. That disappointment and distrust becomes multi-generational. I believe in working to end abortion by a variety of means, including legal restrictions. But as a man, I know that increasing male accountability is a critical component of the struggle to end abortion. And surely, greater male responsibility is something we can all agree on."
Finally an honest man ready, willing and able to lay responsibility right back where it belongs: ON OTHER MEN...whose legacy of betrayal, irresponsibility and abandonment over countless centuries had led to our current state of affairs...
Let's all give a big round of applause to blogger Hugo Schwyzerfor having the strength of character to finally speak up and say what needed saying...that it is the selfishness of MEN that was ultimately responsible for the horror story above and no one else...
For this legacy ensures that women cannot take a leap of faith and have more children then they can handle ALONE never knowing when a partner will decide to abandon her and child...or even try to abandon her and take child himself to avoid paying child support...
Thus the selfish legacy that men have promulgated (and STILL DO, still to this day) continues its insidious work on the psyche of women paving the way for more horror stories as noted above...
Sunday, January 02, 2005
More Blasphemous Tales from the Other Side
"As a student of the family, you might be interested in a small but poignant detail in today’s New York Times, a photo of the great tsunami roaring in towards an Indonesian tourist beach. A mixed group of adults and kids are running like hell away from the wave, while a young woman, closer to the foreground, appears to be running towards the wall of death, and towards the fleeing children, as though to save them. I hope she and they made it. Was she driven by patriarchal social indoctrination towards maternalism, or by the instinctive, automatic heroism of parenthood? I do think it’s the latter."
I always get upset when I hear men either denying the maternal instinct exists or worse yet, attempting to claim it as their own.
The above quote is an example of the sorts of politically correct bullcrap that has been floating around for the past decade or so. That there is no maternal instinct, no mother/child bond...but instead there exists a 'parenting' instinct which both mother and father possess in equal amounts.
I often think when I hear these sorts of things is there anything that men won't try to lay claim to? Is there any resource, person, place, living being, thought or even an instinct that greedy selfish men don't want for themselves?
Sadly the answer appears to be no.
The bottom line is there is no evidence whatsoever that a parenting instinct exists or frankly that even a fatherhood instinct exists. Fatherhood is a social construct. There is no bond or link between father and child, other then the one that is created after birth, of which there is nothing instinctual about it.
It's entirely a product of the human imagination, as the sheer numbers of paternity fraud cases today makes abundantly clear... The every ease of its creation probably also explains the ease of its dissolution, thus the existence of the 'prodigal fathers' of today that appear to be one of the most intractable problems faced by western civilization and has been since the time of Rome. Augustus Caesar faced the same problem for the same reason and failed just as we ultimately will to solve the problem.
As there is no solution basically, none...
You cannot force people to feel some emotion that you think they should feel. So try as we might we are never going to get men to FEEL, THINK OR ACT like mothers towards their children...
Sorry...
That being said, the people I'm really furious at right now, however, are the men that let this mother in the article down.
First the patriarchal society she was born into, that obviously cared nothing about the young of their country, since they had two hours notice and could even have ordered police officers, driving around with bullhorns, to warn people so they could evacuate.
Second the blasphemous comments from the man who posted this, witnessing the picture of this mother's death agony, yet was so selfish, so self-centered, so concerned with the male role in this (which was nothing) that he just couldn't resist trying to get points for himself and every other male in the world by attempting to divert attention from this mother. She raced into a wave, in what was a heroic but probably futile attempt to save her child and he turned her sacrifice into a self-righteous pat on the back for himself and a backhanded slap at every other mother.
Does it ever end?
The maternal instinct exists in every species including our own and has been there since before man, woman, patriarchies, social indoctrination, gender neutral propaganda or politically correct speech were invented. Attempts to deny it or degrade it's existence by redefining it into a 'parenting' instinct is just another example of men trying, once again, to make themselves the apex of everything.
This so-called parenting instinct is nothing but another attempt by men to interfere with the critical mother/child bond, which is the very essence and heart of every mothers' existence.
I always get upset when I hear men either denying the maternal instinct exists or worse yet, attempting to claim it as their own.
The above quote is an example of the sorts of politically correct bullcrap that has been floating around for the past decade or so. That there is no maternal instinct, no mother/child bond...but instead there exists a 'parenting' instinct which both mother and father possess in equal amounts.
I often think when I hear these sorts of things is there anything that men won't try to lay claim to? Is there any resource, person, place, living being, thought or even an instinct that greedy selfish men don't want for themselves?
Sadly the answer appears to be no.
The bottom line is there is no evidence whatsoever that a parenting instinct exists or frankly that even a fatherhood instinct exists. Fatherhood is a social construct. There is no bond or link between father and child, other then the one that is created after birth, of which there is nothing instinctual about it.
It's entirely a product of the human imagination, as the sheer numbers of paternity fraud cases today makes abundantly clear... The every ease of its creation probably also explains the ease of its dissolution, thus the existence of the 'prodigal fathers' of today that appear to be one of the most intractable problems faced by western civilization and has been since the time of Rome. Augustus Caesar faced the same problem for the same reason and failed just as we ultimately will to solve the problem.
As there is no solution basically, none...
You cannot force people to feel some emotion that you think they should feel. So try as we might we are never going to get men to FEEL, THINK OR ACT like mothers towards their children...
Sorry...
That being said, the people I'm really furious at right now, however, are the men that let this mother in the article down.
First the patriarchal society she was born into, that obviously cared nothing about the young of their country, since they had two hours notice and could even have ordered police officers, driving around with bullhorns, to warn people so they could evacuate.
Second the blasphemous comments from the man who posted this, witnessing the picture of this mother's death agony, yet was so selfish, so self-centered, so concerned with the male role in this (which was nothing) that he just couldn't resist trying to get points for himself and every other male in the world by attempting to divert attention from this mother. She raced into a wave, in what was a heroic but probably futile attempt to save her child and he turned her sacrifice into a self-righteous pat on the back for himself and a backhanded slap at every other mother.
Does it ever end?
The maternal instinct exists in every species including our own and has been there since before man, woman, patriarchies, social indoctrination, gender neutral propaganda or politically correct speech were invented. Attempts to deny it or degrade it's existence by redefining it into a 'parenting' instinct is just another example of men trying, once again, to make themselves the apex of everything.
This so-called parenting instinct is nothing but another attempt by men to interfere with the critical mother/child bond, which is the very essence and heart of every mothers' existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)