Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Supreme Court Clarifies for Mothers the Very Real Limits of Restraining Orders

High Court Nixes Restraining-Order Suits

Justices Protect Police from Legal Action over Enforcement

Monday, June 27, 2005; Posted: 4:41 p.m. EDT (20:41 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police cannot be sued for how they enforce restraining orders, ending a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed police did not do enough to prevent her estranged husband from killing her three young daughters.

Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of the court order against her husband, the court said in a 7-2 opinion.

In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said that the woman's "description of the police behavior in this case and the department's callous policy of failing to respond properly to reports of restraining order violations clearly alleges a due process violation."

"The restraining orders are not worth anything unless police officers are willing to enforce them. They are just paper," said Brian Reichel, the attorney for Gonzales. "If nothing else this case has shined the spotlight on a very important issue."

If Judges ever lie awake at night pondering past rulings this will be one of the cases that keep them thinking long into the wee hours of the morning, for it is truly a tragedy of our modern age. A woman marries a dangerous man bears him three children and then attempts to leave. She is given ALL the help our society has to offer from supervised visitation of the children to the infamous ‘restraining order’ and YET he still manages in a final, bloody, spite-fueled and heinous act, to violate the order, take the three children and subsequently murder all of them. It’s his final deadly act of revenge against his estranged wife.

As always in these tragedies, we look for some meaning, reasonable explanation, something or someone that can be assigned blame. Not just for reasons of punishment although that is part of it, but more so I believe to assure that this does NOT happen again. To convince ourselves, in spite of some evidence to the contrary, that we are in complete charge of our destiny and are capable to handle whatever life throws at us, come hell or high water…

Unfortunately in the case of Jessica Gonzales and her family, this did not prove to be the case. She put her faith in the ‘system’ and the system failed, as it often does and probably will continue to in the future. For ultimately women have to be aware that a restraining order is NOTHING MORE THEN A PIECE OF PAPER…only as good as the greater society’s willingness to follow it’s dictate. For law enforcement in the field to ENFORCE it’s provisions and mostly for the person it’s served against to FOLLOW the rules as it lays them out…otherwise as many women have found out to their sorrow, restraining orders are pretty much useless.

Today everybody and his grandmother is having restraining orders placed against one another and they mostly appear to have morphed into a tool used by enterprising lawyers and their clients to get the jump on an adversity in a divorce/custody case or any case really involving property issues of one kind or another where the first one to get a restraining order ‘wins’ due to the long held legal principal of “possession being 99% of the law”. Thus a restraining order barring your adversity from the property is a tool now of negotiation as opposed to a legal restraint against a dangerous individual. Actually the people who follow restraining orders without question are probably the least likely to need having one issued against them.

I, myself, was threatened with a restraining order for sending too many emails to someone in one of those internet ‘flame wars’ when I discovered they had allowed my personal information, including my picture, to be posted on an unfriendly website. So instead of being a victim I instantly morphed into the victimizer, through this clever ‘bait and switch’ tactic that was used against me.

Thus, we can see that the use of restraining orders has now mushroomed to the point that it’s probably a physical impossibility to expect the local police department to be able to monitor the use and misuse of them. Colorado, which is NOT a small state, probably has Judges issuing thousands of restraining orders covering couples fighting over custody to neighbors disputing property lines, loud music or Christmas tree lighting issues. Thus, I’m sorry to say how were the police to know this was the one time out of 10,000 where a restraining order was issued against an extremely dangerous individual and that they needed to put out an Amber Alert to locate him and the children.

Short answer, they couldn’t know.

Same issue with parental abductions now btw, for the mothers who don’t know this yet. As many mothers have told me that the police in their states have become so immune to hearing about abductions by the other parent now, that mothers who sent their kids for a visit to their fathers and never get them returned are routinely met with a yawn when they go to file a complaint and directions to hire their own attorney to handle this.

So mothers be prepared.

I wish it was different. I wish that there had been something that could have been done if not to help this mother and her children, to help the next ones, as there will surely be others. The only thing I can say that applies and hopefully it won’t sound like blaming the mother here is that women MUST take great care in who they marry and/or have children with today. I’m not sure if enough of us retain this age-old, simple, common-sense way of ordering our lives anymore. I mean I hate to say this but sometimes I get the sense that many women no longer take the care they should in choosing a future spouse or father for their children. Perhaps there is a feeling amongst many of us that because we live in a world safe from 4-legged predators, the elements and plague in marvelous cities, with accessible public transportation, supermarkets and a hospital, library or precinct on practically every other corner, that we are invincible from ANY harm.

Remember there are STILL dangers that lurk out there especially for unwary women, the smaller, less aggressive and generally physically weaker of our species.

STILL…danger exists...

Bringing an aggressive, violent man into your life and allowing him to become the father of your future children can turn into a mistake that there is NO recovery from…


So you not only place yourself in danger, but any offspring that he spawns, as with or without marriage men today have the exact same legal rights as you to any children you birth…the moment the children are born your sole legal rights are lost…those children are no longer yours to protect and legally a court can rule that the man you picked as a father (no matter how dangerous he is) has the same or MORE access to them then you do…

Women in their role as mothers need to keep these facts in mind for future reference.

As this Supreme Court decision makes clear, care MUST be taken BEFORE this becomes an issue.

Saturday, June 18, 2005

Michael Jackson Verdict Engineered by Women's Inhumanity to Other Women

"Jurors Describe “Stressful” Deliberations
They Criticize Demeanor, Testimony of Accuser's Mother


SANTA MARIA, Calif. (June 14)

“Jurors said they were put off by the accuser's mother, who tended to stare at them and snapped her fingers at them during her testimony.

Cook said the mother had perfect hair and makeup when she appeared in a video made by Jackson's associates to rebut the damaging BBC documentary in which Jackson said he slept in a bed with young boys. But when the woman took the witness stand, Cook said, she appeared disheveled, with no makeup and unkempt hair.

''When she came into court, she looked like Mother Teresa after a bad rain,'' she said Tuesday on ''Good Morning America.'' ''She was trying to be pitiful to us, I felt.''

So once again it came down to women’s inhumanity to other woman and a not-guilty verdict based upon the disheveled appearance of the mother of the victim. God forbid that she should be unnerved at the situation and forget to visit her hairdresser or not have her makeup and manicure perfect before entering the jury’s presence. How dare she show up looking unkempt?

Well now at least now America can sleep comfortably in their beds knowing that a probably child molester did NOT beat the case because of any serious problems with our judicial system; but due to the fact that WOMEN were so busy judging and clawing apart one of our own that we missed the whole point of what we were supposed to be doing in the jury room…not picking apart one woman’s appearance for those critical fashion faux pas, but examining the evidence which seemed to pretty clearly demonstrate that the defendant had a pattern of victimizing young boys…and was finally, finally being prosecuted for it by Santa Barbara’s County District Attorney Tom Sneddon, which, btw, I just want to add my personal thank you to this man for taking a chance and trying this case against a wealthy and famous defendant.

Sneddon put up one hell of a case there and under normal circumstances I think he would have gotten a guilty verdict.

Thanks anyway for trying.

Just to quickly review Sneddon’s case (which as I mentioned above was excellent) as he even had a former child victim, now a man, actually testify for the prosecution.

The former victim laid out a very convincing case for what happened to him over ten years ago and it followed, pretty much, the same story that the current victim had laid out. Some said the two victims even LOOKED alike, same skin, hair and eye coloration, certain mannerisms, etc. Numerous other witnesses testified, who worked at the ranch or in other positions where they came in touch with the defendant while he was out and about unsupervised with the children, including a former police detective who reported his suspicions earlier; yet it appears that this jury composed of 8 women and 4 men chose to believe that EVERYBODY but the defendant lied.


Additionally it never seemed to occur to the jury that the Neverland Ranch itself was probably created with treats, amusement park rides, and animals to specifically lure child victims into it, similar to a certain Gingerbread House we are all familiar with. Can everybody say Hansel and Gretel, Gingerbread House, witch, children in trouble and connect the damn dots here???

Obviously not…

Of course, this jury would have considered nothing less then a videotape of the actual encounter as being clear and convincing evidence and even that MIGHT have been disregarded if a woman without a perfect manicure was shown to have been involved with the production of it.


It appears that Phyllis Chesler in her groundbreaking book “Women’s Inhumanity to Other Women” was not off the mark when she addressed these issues back in 2002. Yet I’m not sure that enough women read her book or seriously thought about the implications for all of us in Chesler’s thesis. I still see a level of viciousness being exhibited by women against other women, particularly against vulnerable mothers…not just in this recent acquittal because other women jurors didn’t like the victim’s mother; but we only have to look at the Bridget Marks situation here in New York and what happened there to know what I’m talking about.

I mean those two girls and their mother were ONLY saved from having their lives destroyed by MEN at the appellate level that overturned the original ruling. Of course they probably only changed their ruling due to the public outrage expressed over the original court decision, but even MOST of that public outrage was generated by other men in newspaper columns and on TV ie., on the Bill O’Reilly Show and Dr. Phil’s…

Sadly, I didn’t see any women speaking out during that firestorm…

Not to mention that on a daily basis I’m emailed or confronted with stories regarding mothers being subject to vicious and unprincipled family court rulings, many handed out by female Judges or instigated by spiteful female Evaluators, GALs, etc. These women seem to have no problem whatsoever with the wanton destruction of the lives of the women and children who come into their sphere looking for justice. Instead of finding it, these mothers are set upon and subject to what can best be described as psychological and emotional abuse at the hands of other women who appear to have no other agenda, but hatred of women. I mean I sometimes watch a TV show, the name I won’t mention, where a female Judge presides over a court that is so vicious to women coming in front of her (particularly if they are mothers) that’s it is terrifying…and the really really scary thing is that this Judge practiced in New York family court for YEARS…I mean I shudder to think of what the mothers went through who were forced in front of this woman…

Anyway, let’s take a look at an interview here with Phyllis Chesler discussing some of the women-on-women cruelty issues she discussed in her book "Women's Inhumanity to Other Women":

"The cruelty you document ranges from mothers-in-law burning their daughters-in-law because of dowry disagreements to women stealing each other's boyfriends. Can it all really be lumped together?

It helps to understand that in these non-Western countries where you have mothers-in-law dousing daughters-in-law with kerosene for their dowries and we say ''how shocking,'' we have a version here. You have here mothers who think their daughters have to be thin, their daughters have to be pretty and their daughters need to have plastic surgery and their daughters have to focus mainly on the outward appearance and not on inner strength or inner self. It's not genital mutilation but it's ultimately a concern with outward appearance for the sake of marriageability.

Although you note that women don't have as much power as men, you view them as equally culpable for many of society's ills.

I'm thinking back to the civil rights era and the faces of white mothers who did not want little black children to integrate schools. What should we say about those women who joined the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazi party? You have a lot of women groaning under the yoke of oppression. Nevertheless, there are women who warm the beds and are the partners of men who create orphans. Women are best at collaborating with men who run the world because then we can buy pretty trinkets and have safe homes and nests for ourselves.

You say that women are the ones who police and monitor one another and silence dissent.

Women are silenced not because men beat up on us but because we don't want to be shunned by our little cliques. That applies to all age groups. That's one of the reasons that women are so conformist and so indirect: we end up sabotaging her rather than risking the loss of her intimate companionship. Women stealing each other's lovers and spouses and jobs is pandemic.”

What can I say about Phyllis Chesler…

Clearly the woman is a genius…

Buy her book, read it, study it, live it…Okay…

Anyway, I think that the reason behind the not guilty verdict of Michael Jackson needs to be closely examined by us. Personally I think Jackson is guilty but I don’t ultimately care if he winds up in prison or in a mental hospital. If his family has any concern for him, they’ll take the steps to get him some help NOW before he gets in trouble again, because maybe next time he won’t be lucky enough to have mostly women hating other women on his jury.

But no matter what happens to him, WE, women, need to examine why this happened for our own sakes. We need to make ourselves aware of our capacity for savaging other women, to make other women aware of it when they are doing it and most of all to control our own behavior as it’s happening…

Women should not have to worry when they walk into a courtroom (or other situations) and see women there, that they are going to be mistreated because some of us cannot control the auto remote biological trigger that tells us to immediately savage other female competitors in our vicinity. We’re been out of the jungle for a while now and can relax, there is plenty of resources for ALL…so get over that retro sh*t already…


Sunday, June 12, 2005

Regarding Chivalry and its Historic Origins

I just wanted to do a post on Chivalry as I've noticed a lot of confusion about it's origins lately and many men attempting to distort historic Chivalry to give themselves much undeserved credit today.

First of all Chivalry was NEVER about women or how men treated us, that was an afterthought that was tacked on to it in an effort to paint Chivalry as much more then it was long after the fact; while at the same time allowing western men the pat on the back (that they love so much) for being such all-around great fellows.

In fact, the origins of Chivalry are rooted in one of men's favorite pursuits namely war and how men are supposed to conduct it honorable and treat each OTHER during it's commission...It has always been closer to the Geneva Convention and battlefield morality including the treatment of prisoners of war; as opposed to a code of conduct relative to the treatment of women and/or children...

Eventually Chivalry appears to have evolved to include the wives and children of the higher social orders within it's environs; but by no means was it ever what men try to paint it as today, which is some sort of code of courtesy and just or kind treatment by All MEN applicable to ALL WOMEN...

This is just ridiculous...and actually from reading some of the material below it mostly seemed to function vis-a-vis noble women as treating them chivalrously when men were interested in getting laid...Very similar to the 'code of chivalrous conduct' as practiced at any modern singles bar you walk in today...Men being on their best behavior in the earlier part of the evening, spending extra money on drinks, dinner, etc., in the hopes of attracting the attention of a pretty woman so that she'll agree to spend the later part of the evening in his bed...

I guess that branch of Chivalry could be called Chivalry Lite...

Actually to be perfectly honest from my interpretation of the material below, it appeared that men could be considered chivalrous and STILL rape and murder women as well as kill children...that was no bar to being considered historically chivalrous ...

Anyway, we could just ignore men's' constant attempt to distort historic Chivalry (and to falsely make it about their kindly behavior towards women and children then and now) as being just another example of the meaningless "circle jerks" they endlessly engage in, but I think it's important to address this particular distortion of history...

Now, you might ask why?

Well because for one reason men are now indignant it appears and organizing long running cyber grip sessions (which they call mens rights groups) that spend most of their time complaining that women are being treated with too much chivalry now and that it puts men at a disadvantage. For instance, now men have to spend a couple of hundred dollars going out on a date in order to get sex outside of marriage.

Is this fair they say?

Additionally now women have obtained the same inalienable rights as men. Well whose's dumb idea was that, they keep asking? After all following the logic of Chivalry, all women needed to exist would be given to us through the Chivalry of men...AS IT WAS IN OUR PAST...so what do women need rights for now, after all this time...

I mean I optimism get the impression that it's almost as if men feel insulted that women would even demand rights...

That's correct...women should just be willing to depend upon the just and kindly actions of individual men as opposed to having inalienable rights like they have. After all, according to men, it was such a better world when women HAD to depend upon their fathers and husbands to decide everything for them and since MOST men, according to the Chivalry myth, were protective of the weaker sex, what in the hell did woman need to go and get rights for...it just complicated things.

Go figure.

It might appear to the casual observer that perhaps men have overstated historic chivalrous benefit to women and that's why women wanted rights just as men have; After all men didn't just sit back and wait for the rights of men to be handed to them by a benevolent king or other ruler, did they?

So why should women...

I find it interesting that men have NO problem vastly exaggerating the benefits of chivalry for women, yet appear quite blind to the benefits men obtained through feminism...

I mean let's face it women being allowed into the workforce has taken a tremendous financial support burden off of men, a tremendous one; and women being allowed to freely engage in sex with whatever man takes their fancy has allowed men to delay marriage indefinitely (or never marry at all) yet STILL fulfill their sexual urges with no societal repercussions whatsoever against them (until the recent imposition of excessive child support demands in the event men got careless and one of their partner became pregnant) but even this was ONLY imposed after two decades of men's' flagrant abuse of the new sexual freedom feminism allowed MEN...

Thus men brought that aspect of it upon themselves.

Still a reasonably careful and responsible man today has unlimited freedom to do pretty much whatever he wants, as long as he takes proper precautions and for THAT he has feminism to thank...for the gains women won under feminism frequently pass down to men for their benefit as well...

Let men think about that the next time they enjoy casual sex with some woman they have no intention of marrying, might never even know her proper name...they can thank a feminist for that.


Now before we go on to the article I will give a brief recap of what Chivalry is NOT...for those who might be a little slow on the uptake.

Chivalry is NOT spending money on dinner and drinks when you go on a date. Many men do that to get laid.

Chivalry is NOT seeing a pretty girl stranded on the roadside and pulling over to help her change her tire. Again, a whole lot of men do that for other reasons that have NOTHING to do with Chivalry.

Chivalry is NOT holding a door open for someone. Many people do this for others, it doesn't mean you've just done some special favor for a woman and now she owes you something for it.

Chivalry is NOT about usually being the one to pay for vacations or other special events...The bottom line is that most men make more money so generally if you want someone to accompany you somewhere and they don't have the funds, you pay for them or they just don't come. Go by your damn self if you have so many issues spending money on other people...If I want somebody's company at dinner and I know they don't have enough money to pay their share, I'll invite them and pay for them myself if I want their company bad enough...If I don't, then I'll just go alone...It's that simple...nothing to do with chivalry...

There are a million and one other similar situations that women find themselves in that are falsely painted as Chivalry when they aren't, but I'm not going to cover everyone of them now since I think my main point is pretty clear.

In essence, chivalry is NOT doing nice things for others in order to get advantage for yourself...


Anyway, on to the article.


Chivalry was a peculiarity of the practice of war in medieval Europe. It can be likened to the Code of Bushido produced in very similar feudal Japanese society. The feudal knight was supposed to be devout, honest, selfless, just, brave, honorable, obedient, kind, charitable, generous, and kind to women. Sort of a heavily armed Boy Scout . His life was to some extent governed by complex rituals and rules, and he belonged to a quasi-religious international brotherhood.

There were numerous examples of truly chivalrous conduct during the Hundred Years' War. Thus, the Black Prince accorded Jean II of France all the deference due him as a king, even though Jean was a prisoner of war. And Jean, having been released from captivity in England to help negotiate his ransom, voluntarily returned when one of his sons, who had been standing surety for his return, escaped from England.

These were deeds celebrated throughout Europe. There was, however, another side to chivalry. Many French --and several English-- defeats in the war can be traced to a bit too much concern for knightly honor, such as Crecy and Agincourt.

And, of course, chivalry extended only to certain classes of society. The code did not restrain a person of rank in his dealings with the lower orders.

Operations in which an army treated the local inhabitants with any degree of respect were rare. Henry V was kind to the French commoners as a matter of policy, not chivalry. Henry wanted to win the loyalty of the French people and he was often successful at it. But he was in many ways unusual.

More often the march of an army through an area --whether friendly or not-- was marked by looting, arson, rape, torture, murder, and all the other usual atrocities, while hunger and disease brought up the rear. Thus, the Black Prince (Henry Vs great uncle) caused thousands of women and children to be put to the sword during the sack of Limoges.

And perhaps 12,000 commoners starved to death between the lines during Henry V's siege of Rouen in 1418-1419, the garrison having driven all the "useless mouths" in the town outside the walls, while the besiegers refused to let them pass their lines of investment.

Much of what has passed down to us regarding chivalry has to do with that aspect of it involving noble men pursuing other mens wives. The "rules" for this game are roughly as follows;

1 Worship of the chosen lady
2 Declaration of passionate devotion
3 Virtuous rejection by the lady
4 Renewed wooing with oaths of eternal fealty
5 Moans of approaching death from unsatisfied desire
6 Heroic deeds of valor which win the lady's heart
7 Consummation of the secret love
8 Endless adventures and subterfuges
9 Tragic denouement

Item 6 was often played out at tournaments , where the lady in question could watch her lover roar through the lists and make his mark jousting. Item 7 often took place the evening after the brave kinght won the tournament. Item 8 involved trying to keep the lady's husband in the dark and item 9 was the result of the husband discovering he was a cuckold.

Like the Code Bushndo, the Code of Chivalry seems to have been honored mostly in the breach.

Orders of Chivalry

During the 14th century, it became quite fashionable for kings and magnates to establish "Orders of Chivalry." Some of these still survive in England. These were not merely high honors. The members of the order were normally expected to stand with the master in battle, as did Sir Thomas Erpingham, chief of the archers at Agincourt.

-Order of the Garter (1348) founded by King Edward III of England.

The ribbon around the shield signifies the status of Order of the Garter. The words Honi soit qui mal y pense mean "Ashamed be he who thinks ill of it."

-Order of the Star (1351), King John II of France founded it in response to Edward's creation of the Garter.

-The Breton Order of Ermine (1382), founded by Duke Jean IV.

-The Golden Apple (1394), Knights of Auvergne and Bourbonnais.

-The Orleanist Porcupine (1396)

-The Golden Shield (1414), The Duke of Bourbon.

-The Dragon (c.1414), The Count of Foix.

-The Prisoner's Chain (1415), The Duke of Bourbon.

-Order of the Golden Fleece (1430), founded by Philip the Good of Burgundy, "From the great love we bear to the noble order of chivalry, whose honour and prosperity are our only concern... and for the furtherance of virtue and good manners." The Dukes of Burgundy placed at the Order's disposal the resources of their enormous wealth. In their view, the order was to serve not only as a symbol of their power; it could also be used to tie together the scattered dominions of the Burgundian state.

The lamb at the bottom represents membership in the Order of the Golden Fleece. This order technically still exists within the gift of the King of Spain (who inherits it through a very complex series of marriages in the early 16th Century), but it has not been awarded in some time.

-The Crescent (1448), Rene of Anjou.

-The Green Shield of the White Lady (?), The 2nd Marshal of Bouccicaut.

Information courtesy of the following website:

Now in the interest of clarifying for men what Chivalry IS, as I already listed for you what it is NOT, I will list two modern-day examples of Chivalry. Obviously since MOST men today are not involved in warfare anymore as we have a professional army that carries out national defense for us; many of you have become confused as to Chivalry's origins and meaning.

First example: How the United States responded to the defeat of Germany and Japan AFTER WWII, that was Chivalry.

Actually that was Chivalry's finest hour if we are being honest about it.

Whereas the Soviet Union in East Germany and Europe ran amok raping and pillaging on a grand scale and subjecting Eastern Europe to almost 50 years of stealing their resources to be shipped back home to Mother Russia (at fixed prices) and terror (which was the traditional way you treated your enemies) ; we, the United States enabled Germany (as well as Japan) to rebuild their economies as well as strengthen their governmental structures to ensure their society's stability. Actually we allowed their societies to thrive.

Many said afterwards that the United States benefitted from both of our former enemies being stabilizied and that's true...But guess what, there are PLENTY of ways to 'stabilize' people and the barrel of gun can stabilize people too, as we saw in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union didn't have a LOT of trouble from any of the East Block nations ( especially after they saw what happened with Hungary) using their methods of stabilization either.

Anyway, long story short, both of these ferocious enemies of the United States were eventually allowed to achieved the exact same economic success that the United States did and EVEN TO SURPASS THE United States in many areas such as electronics, cars, etc.,

This, in spite of the knowledge, that if they had won the war I can assure you that the United States would NOT have been allowed the same leeway.

I can assure you of that.

Thus the above example is an example of Chivalry...

Second example of Chivalry: Treatment of prisoners taken in war on terrorism.

We have a moment here to once again either individually or collectively display Chivalry. Actually the situation that exists right now with the prisoners taken in the war on terror could be a BETTER example of Chivalry then WWII, as the prisoners taken in the war on terror are not covered by any other code such as the Geneva Convention.

Thus it is entirely in our hands how they are treated.

History is replete with examples of people taken as prisoners eventually becoming leaders of governments or movements that returned to haunt their former captors.

Attilla the Hun was held as an adolescent captive in a Roman household.

Elizabeth I was imprisoned numerous times, close to death during everyone of them. After she finally became Queen, I wouldn't have wanted to be a member of a family that mistreated her in their household during the numerous house arrests she was subject to.

Gandhi was arrested in South Africa and then by the British in India numerous times.

Martin Luther King was also placed in prison in the US on a number of occasions. Concerning Martin Luther King the biggest embarrassment MOST of the Southern states (and people within them) exhibit today is HOW THEY TREATED KING during the civil rights era.

I only hope that we are not going to be looking back 50 or so years from now and being embarrassed about how we are treating our prisoners of war in Gitmo now.

Remember one thing acts of Chivalry are generally individual acts, not government mandated ones. Which means that basically each and every individual soldier, doctor or others who come in contact with a prisoner of war has the opportunity to act with Chivalry without having to get permission from anyone. It's up to each person's individual code of honor how they act. Does this mean go and put yourself or others in danger trying to be Chivalrious. No. Yet it does mean that each individual should conduct themselves honorably during each and every encounter with a prisoner of war.

Just look at it this way. If you run into a former prisoner of war 20 years from now walking in the Rose Garden with a President of the US, are you going to have to duck behind a tree embarrassed about your conduct towards him when he was at your mercy OR will you be able to stand up and let him see your face, maybe walk over and say hello...

So that's it, the wrap up on Chivalry...nothing to do with women in their role as mothers, nevertheless relevant to mothers today, since after all, every one of those prisoners of war has a mother.

Court Ruling Could Make it More Difficult for Single Women to have Families

“Baby Makes Three
N.J. Court Allows Lesbian Co-Mother on Birth Certificate
Arthur S. Leonard

Last week, a New Jersey Judge handed down a ruling with potentially wide-spread impact for the state’s families, granting full parental rights to the lesbian partner of a woman who gave birth from artificial insemination.

Kimberly Robinson, 35, the birth mother and her partner, Jeanne LoCicero, 31, met in 2003, registered as domestic partners in New York City while they were residing in Brooklyn and were married last year in Canada.

In New Jersey, a lesbian or gay man applying for adoption must go through a lengthy process that, according to one attorney who argued on behalf of the lesbian mothers, takes between six months and two years “threatening the well being’ of a child, particularly in the event that the child’s legal parent dies or becomes incapacitated.

However rather then apply for a second parent adoption, LoCicero petitioned to be considered as a full legal parent.

The couple aimed to take advantage of New Jersey’s statute governing ‘artificial insemination’ under which the husband of a woman inseminated with donor sperm is considered the child’s legal father.

New Jersey Superior Court Judge Patricia Medina Talbert ordered that “Jeanne LoCicero is presumed to be the parent of Vivian Ryan LoCierco born April 30, 2005” and made her decision retroactive to April 30, so that LoCierco would be a legal parent of Vivian from the moment of birth and inscribed as such on the child’s birth certificate.”

“This court has before it strong public policy that establishes unequivocally this State’s focus upon the best interest of children,” Talbert concluded. “The Court is unable to discern any State’s interest that would preclude LoCierco from the protection of the statute.”

Information Courtesy of Gay News June 2 – 8, 2005

Probably MOST single mothers, both gay and straight, would have been better off if this couple had used the procedures already set out for adoption, as opposed to establishing new family policy.

For this particular ruling can and probably eventually will come back to haunt other single mothers who might want to use anonymous donors to create families.

First of all although many are not aware of it, a sea change has taken place in the clientele that uses anonymous donors. Although touted for years as a method for married couples to have children when the problem is a man’s low sperm count, better methods of IVF now enable even men with the lowest sperm count to be able to have their own children. Thus, fewer and fewer married couples have the need to use anonymous donors anymore. Instead singletons (women both gay and straight) now make up two-thirds of the clients using anonymous donors to create their families.

Many of these singletons use anonymous donors, who have no legal rights to either custody/visitation or legal/financial obligations to whatever child is created from their donation. They are paid a small fee and then disappear back into the anonymity from which they came benefiting all three parties involved. The male donor has no legal or financial obligation to any children created from his donation, the mother has no worries about losing her child should a sudden custody battle erupt and the child is secure with its loving, committed one-parent family that it’s not going to be abducted by a crazed and spiteful non-custodial parent, possibly never to see it’s mother again.

Of course in the 80/90s, more and more women began utilizing this method of creating families, as our own men became progressively more selfish, unstable and childlike. The western male’s constant fixation with remaining single for longer and longer periods was at odds with the biological time clock of women and, quite frankly, we faced extinction if women didn’t have the sense to act when we did. Nevertheless many people have resented women taking the step of creating families on our own through the use of artificial insemination and have been ceaselessly working on ways to make it more difficult, if not impossible, for single women to continue getting donor sperm.

From phony medical reports to slanted statistics on single motherhood, everything but the kitchen sink has been tossed into the mix here in an attempt to derail this project, but since nothing appeared to stop the trend of women obtaining their dream of motherhood through anonymous sperm donors, the forces that wish to stop this have now begun using a new tactic.

Under the guise of ‘best interest of the child’ many have managed to get laws passed in some countries even outlawing anonymous donors. Now in England, for instance, all donors must be registered and the children, once adults, allowed their contact information. Of course, this will eventually morph, as its framers intend, into laws making donors responsible for child support or allowing them visitation BEFORE the children are 18, thus making moot the whole point of women using anonymous donors. As it is, every country that has passed these sorts of contact laws has seen a drop of about 85% in donations almost overnight, and again, this is the intent of the law to STOP single women from having children using anonymous sperm donation. It has NOTHING to do with the best interest of the children involved here; but instead is a tool being used to stop single women from having children.

It’s that simple.

Thus I return to the recent New Jersey Superior Court ruling that allowed two lesbian mothers to BOTH be placed on the birth certificate using the ‘best interest of children’ as it’s logic. Unfortunately, this ruling has the potential to morph into a public policy that it IS ALWAYS in the best interest of children created from anonymous donors, to have two parents’ names on their birth certificates and then we are a hop, skip and a jump away from it being illegal for single women to use anonymous donor sperm any longer…

This is the danger I see.

Of course, I’m happy for the two women involved in the individual case even though they could have gotten the same result waiting six months or so and not have jeopardized the reproduction hopes of millions of women in western civilization and possibly western civilization itself if we don’t keep our population numbers up.

That could have happened.

That it didn’t speaks to the need for women to become aware that when they bring these sorts of policy changing cases into court, more is at stake then just their own family…

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Surrogacy Contracts: Another of the Ongoing Attempts to Denigrate Women in their Role as Mothers

"Woman Births Children for Couples Around the World

Anita Brush, 39, of Modesto, Calif., is retiring from surrogate motherhood after delivering eight babies for four different couples (ABCNEWS.com)

May 31, 2005

When Anita Brush decided to go back to work eight years ago, she wanted to find a job that would allow her to spend time with her four children but also have an impact on other people. To Brush, becoming a surrogate mother seemed like the perfect solution. She just never expected to give birth to eight babies in seven years. "Every time after birth, when I'm able to hold the baby or babies afterward, and know that they're going home, it has really been a celebration," said Brush, 39.

Brush gave birth to Sarah and Michael Case's son Cole in 1999.

Doctors told Sarah Case that she would not be able to have another child after she gave birth to her older son, Garrett. The Mesa couple opted to work with a surrogate and met Brush through an agency.

"I just couldn't believe that somebody would do this for me," Sarah Case said. "When I look for Cole at night, and when I'm saying goodnight to him and reading to him, that's when I think of Anita."

That gratitude and the profound impact she has had on others' lives has kept Brush committed, even when carrying multiple babies.

In 2001, she gave birth to triplets for a gay couple from Ireland and two years later she carried twins for a gay couple from the Midwest. Last October, Brush gave birth to her eighth surrogate child for the same couple from the Midwest.

The first child she carried as a surrogate was for a Japanese couple.

Brush's fees ranged from $15,000 up to $35,000 for the triplets.

In total, she has earned $130,000 for the five pregnancies.

But she warns that it was not easy money.

"Absolutely do not do this for the money," Brush said. "If you want to classify it as a job, it's 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Brush, who is now a single mother, says support from her family helps her through.

"It affects us, but there aren't a lot of negative effects," said her daughter Margaret Fielder. "The only thing that's ever bothered us is when she's in the hospital and you miss her and we have to go to school and stuff. That's the only hard part."


The ONLY good thing I can say about this horror is that as more and more of these stories come out, the closer we get to having MOST surrogate motherhood arrangements made illegal…

The bottom line as these articles make pretty clear is that these women are NOT going into surrogate motherhood in order to unselfishly help others have families, as the article originally stated. But, in fact, women are entering these arrangement to make money. As being a surrogate mother appears to have ‘morphed’ into just another ‘occupation’ and a pretty low-income one at that.

Although for many communities throughout the US getting paid either $15,000 to $35,000 cash annually (maybe even tax free) is NOT an income to sneer at…I, myself, who work five days a week, 8 hours a day don’t make $35,000 annually…and I’m a college graduate (single mother as well) living in one of the five most expensive cities in the world. Counting the OTHER public benefits Brush is entitled to as a single low-income head of household mother such as the Earned Income Credit, subsidized health insurance for herself and the children she kept, food stamps, rent subsidies, etc., and adding these benefits to $15,000 or $35,000 in cash she gets per child, this can be a pretty substantial income for a women with no discernable job skills in many regions of this nation.

Returning to the article, it states that Ms. Brush is NOW a single mother and it doesn’t take much imagination to figure out why.

My only question is why were the children she decided NOT to sell off to other couples allowed to remain with her, especially the girl children as I can’t imagine what those poor kids must of gone through over the years as the community and their little friends saw their mother pregnant with one infant after another, only to then watch her turn over each of their siblings in their turn to someone else in exchange for cash.

It’s the same situation we saw with Michael Jackson and Debbie Rowe, his former nurse. Two pregnancies, a check and exit Debbie Rowe, stage left…BTW, I understand Michael Jackson tells his children they don’t have a mother. Imagine that, being told as a child that you have been left out of the closest biological bond that any living being can experience, the mother/child bond. You don’t have that because you don’t have a mother.

No wonder this man had the arrogance to think he could continue getting away with just about anything. Since we, as a society, have allowed him to do everything else, so why would he think someone would stand up to him now. I guess the DA who finally brought the charges against him was just ‘old school’ enough to take a chance and try to make a case. I don’t think that a younger DA would have taken the chance on it.

Well, we’ll just have to wait and see where it all ends.

Surrogate motherhood needs to be made illegal in MOST cases unless you want to allow someone to do it for NO PAYMENT, NONE, NADA, NOTHING…as $15,000 to $35,000 dollars per pregnancy (or child I don't know which) is FAR too much money to allow to be exchanged in these situations to not classify them as a business transaction. Thus, this whole surrogate motherhood business amounts to nothing more then the pre-arranged contracting for the creation and eventual sale of a child.

Our country has a tragic history regarding these sorts of issues, yet ultimately a proud legacy of being the ONLY nation in the world to have fought a war to STOP the sale of human beings, including children. I repeat we fought a war to STOP the sale of human being including children. AND that is NOT a legacy to sneeze at as EVERY civilization prior to ours had a history of slavery, every one. Sadly however, after banning the sale of human beings, including children, we are now allowing this degrading practice to be sneaked in through the backdoor again, as these surrogate arrangements continue to spread like a cancer throughout Western civilization's social fabric.

Women in the role as mother must put a stop to this forthwith. The women who participate in these arrangements, by their behavior, put ALL mothers and our children at risk of having our relationship with our children reduced to what they’ve allowed their relationship with their children to be reduced to. Nothing but a business transaction which is of no more signficance then whelping a litter of puppies and then handing them out to whoever has a check to purchase one.

The most sacred event that any mother can partake in, bringing forth life, is being reduced to a dollars and cents transaction of no more significant then a legal agreement to purchase a car. This is another attempt by men (and their gender neutralized feminist allies) in their ongoing attempts to denigrate the mother/child bond for their own selfish purposes. Both groups continue to spread their propaganda throughout society that motherhood itself is no more significant then a business transaction complete with a legal contract.

Where they hope this will ultimately end up is with a gender neutralized society where 50% of the armed forces is women, where 50% of mothers (or more) have lost custody of their children, where 50% of death row inmates are women, etc., etc., etc.,

These crazed, gender neutralized, social engineers will stop at nothing until their goal is achieved and reducing motherhood to a simple business transaction is one of the means they are using to achieve this...and it must be stopped by any means necessary.