Friday, March 31, 2006

Too Little, too Late to Save These Societies from Punishment for their Crimes against Women

India sex selection doctor jailed

A doctor in India and his assistant have been sentenced to two years in jail for revealing the sex of a female foetus and then agreeing to abort it.

This is the first time medical professionals have been jailed in such a case.

Under Indian laws, ultrasound tests on a pregnant woman to determine the gender of the foetus are illegal.

It has been estimated that 10m female foetuses may have been terminated in India in the past 20 years.

Dr Anil Sabhani and Kartar Singh were caught in a sting operation in the northern state of Haryana.

Government officials sent in three pregnant women as decoy patients to find out if the clinic would carry out abortions based on sex selection.

Audio and video evidence showed the doctor telling one woman that tests had revealed that she was carrying a "female foetus and it would be taken care of".

A cultural preference for sons over daughters has skewed India's sex ratio.

But convictions are rare due to lax and corrupt officials and the slow judicial system.

The government brought in laws 12 years ago to stop the practice of aborting female foetuses.

'Social evil'

The president of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), a grouping of doctors, Dr Vinay Agarwal said the convictions were "historical".

"The medical profession is doing all it can though we have to address this as a social evil. People should be proud to have a girl child," he said.

The northern states of Punjab and Haryana have some of the worst gender ratios in India.

There are about 861 women for every 1,000 men in Haryana, according to the census. The national average is 927 women to 1,000 men.

The national average has gone down from 972 in 1901 to just 933 in 2001, according to reports.

Earlier this year researchers in India and Canada said in the Lancet journal that prenatal selection and selective abortion was causing the loss of 500,000 girl births a year.

If this is true, 10m female births may have been lost in India over the past two decades.

Indian doctors, however, disputed the report saying pre-birth gender checks had waned since a Supreme Court crackdown in 2001.


Leading campaigners say many of India's fertility clinics continue to offer a seemingly legitimate facade for a multi-billion pound racket and that gender determination is still big business in India.

Experts in India say female foeticide is mostly linked to socio-economic factors.

It is an idea that many say carries over from the time India was a predominantly agrarian society where boys were considered an extra pair of hands on the farm.

The girl child has traditionally been considered inferior and a liability - a bride's dowry can cripple a poor family financially.

This is good of course, but far too little, far too late.

Yes doctors and other medical personnel involved should be arrested. But the technology must be removed as well. As quite frankly that region of the world has demonstrated by their behavior, that they are not fully mature enough as societies to have free access to all technology since they behaved irrresponsibly with sonograms machines. They used them for sex selection MILLIONS OF TIMES and thus, created an inbalance of millions of men in their societies.

Thus a refusal to sell them sonogram machines or parts to repair the ones they currrently have as they break must be instituted. This boycott should include other technology as well, including military as if they couldn’t handle a sonogram machine, they can’t handle any military technology either, especially nuclear.

That’s for sure.

The other issue is I wish they would stop pointing to the dowry as being implicated in this, as the dowry tradition has NOTHING to do with this.


It’s a complete red herring, strawman, whatever…

As we in the west have the same dowry tradition and have more women then men in our society. Actually the dowry tradition here has morphed into women, if they wish a big wedding, to pay for most of it themselves and with the cost of a wedding today, well basically you are spending your dowry on the wedding with flowers, dress, reception, honeymoon, etc., It has NOT turned into parents trying to murder girl babies in order not to help them pay for their wedding. The whole assertion is ridiculous and just another attempt by men (in Asia this time, although our men do the same at every opportunity) to shift the blame from something they did themselves and try to put it on historical forces, over which they supposedly have no control.

Total and complete baloney.

Additionally China, which has NO dowry tradition (they have a bride price to be paid when they get married) is in the exact same situation as India. Actually I just had a dicussion a while back with a good friend of mine from China. She’s been here about ten years and was very excited, as she has a son and just found out that here the bride’s family pays for the wedding.

I didn’t have the heart to tell her with so many women marrying so late, that most of the women I know (myself included) pay for the wedding themselves AND frequently ask for some rather LARGE contribution from the groom and/or his family.

Oh well.

Anyway, both countries India and China (with two totally different traditions) have condemned themselves to years of social chaos by messing around with mother nature and causing an inbalance of men in their society. It’s not any tradition of either place that has done this, but the selfishness of modern-day men.

Well, what else is new.

Just reading “Bare Branches” by Valerie Hudson demonstrates how most of Asia shot themselves in the proverbial foot and now will be facing decades of civil unrest, high crime rates, wars, etc., Actually it’s no coincidence that many recruits for terrorism come from societies that have also done the same thing as India and China, places such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Perverting all of the technology western civilization sold them to monitor the health of mothers and using it to abort girl babies. Now the resulting overflow of young men with no wives around to divert them into family life are fertile ground to be recruited into every quirky movement from Al Queda to Prestor John’s ultra-religious revival.

God only knows where it will end.

Anyway, these regions are going to be living with their decisions now for the next couple of decades, maybe centuries. I just know one thing, they better not be trying to export the problems they have created to the west either…

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Perfect versus the Good

Here finally is a sensible article about how women's greater access to reproductive technology has permanently altered the institution of marriage. Not out-of-wedlock births or gay marriage, these are EFFECTS of that change in the institution itself, not the cause.

For some reason, people don't want to admit that the interactions between men and women have been permanently changed by sex and childbearing no longer being linked. Maybe it's because it gives too much power to women to admit we are responsible for a change this profound, I don't know what the issue is with this.

Nor do I care.

But since people's behavior is probably not going to change back again anytime soon, no matter how many marriage institutes are created and studies are funded or phonied up statistics released demonizing single mothers, we better start thinking of legitimatizing some new family forms if we want to still continue existing as a society.

Now according to our latest census figures, it appears that at least roughly 35-36% of women are perfectly content to have children as single mothers. I'm sure this might fluctuate, either up or down as the economy changes, but for now this is where the numbers stand. This also appears to be the percentage of single mother pioneers in other westernized societies as well.

AND btw, we better be damn grateful that this segment of women still exists. As plenty of women today don't even bother having kids anymore. They just have a nice life at everyone else in society's expense and then dieoff, leaving no one behind to replace the seed corn they just ate up with their extravagent lifestyle.

So let's not kid ourselves about who are the more valuable contributors to our society today.

Women as mothers are worth far more then your average, gender-neutralized, child-free, professional feminist, for instance. As let's face it unless you are discovering the cure for cancer or fighting off an invasion of space aliens MOST of us are very replaceable in MOST jobs. Thus, the only people you are irreplaceable to are your children.

Anyway, we must begin to look at ways to assist these pioneers (single mothers) to successfully raise their children. Not sit around day and night trying to twist some statistics into a ball of confusion to make them look bad, like they are having problems raising their kids. Well, sure they are after listening to everybody postulating this bullcrap out there about them.

Of course, I also accept that there will be some percentage of women who will continue struggling to raise their children within a legal marriage, even if this means they will be desperate enough to resort to polygamy in order to even get a percentage of a husband.


But let's stop with the propaganda attacks on single mothers. We need to make room for the two kinds of families that our society appears to be evolving towards by accepting single mother households as a legitimate family form. Just because men aren't in charge of them doesn't mean they can not be a successful albeit new addition to the western tradition.


Save Marriage? It's Too Late.

The Pill made same-sex nuptials inevitable.


Opponents of legalized same-sex marriage say they're trying to protect a beleaguered institution, but they're a little late. The walls of traditional marriage were breached 40 years ago; what we are witnessing now is the storming of the last bastion.

Marriage is primarily a social institution, not a religious one. That is, marriage is a universal phenomenon of human cultures in all times and places, regardless of the religion of the people concerned, and has taken the same basic form in all those cultures. Marriage existed long before Abraham, Jesus or any other religious figure. The institution of marriage is literally prehistoric.

The three monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) actually recognize this explicitly in their holy writings. The book of Genesis ascribes the foundation of marriage in the very acts of God himself in the creation of the world: "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him. . . . A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:18, 24).

The three great religions base their definition of marriage on these verses and others that echo them. In Christian theological terms, the definition of marriage is part of the natural law of the creation; therefore, the definition may not be changed by human will except in peril to the health of human community.

Psychobiologists argue that marriage evolved as a way of mediating the conflicting reproductive interests of men and women. It was the means by which a woman could guarantee to a specific man that the children she bore were his. In biological terms, men can sire hundreds of children in their lives, but this biological ability is limited by the fact that no one woman can keep pace.

Siring kids by multiple women is the only way men can achieve high levels of reproduction, but there is no adaptive advantage for women in bearing children by men who are simply trying to sire as many children as possible. For a mother, carrying and raising a child is a resource-intensive, years-long business. Doing it alone is a marked adaptive disadvantage for single mothers and their children.

So the economics of sex evolved into a win-win deal. Women agreed to give men exclusive sexual rights and guaranteed paternity in exchange for their sexual loyalty and enduring assistance with childbearing and -rearing. The man's promise of sexual loyalty meant that he would expend his labor and resources supporting her children, not another woman's. For the man, this arrangement lessens the number of potential children he can sire, but it ensures that her kids are his kids. Guaranteed sex with one woman also enabled him to conserve his resources and energies for other pursuits than repetitive courtship, which consumes both greatly.

Weddings ceremoniously legitimated the sexual union of a particular man and woman under the guidance of the greater community. In granting this license, society also promised structures beneficial to children arising from the marriage and ensuring their well-being.

Society's stake in marriage as an institution is nothing less than the perpetuation of the society itself, a matter of much greater than merely private concern. Yet society cannot compel men and women to bring forth their replacements. Marriage as conventionally defined is still the ordinary practice in Europe, yet the birthrate in most of Europe is now less than the replacement rate, which will have all sorts of dire consequences for its future.

Today, though, sexual intercourse is delinked from procreation. Since the invention of the Pill some 40 years ago, human beings have for the first time been able to control reproduction with a very high degree of assurance. That led to what our grandparents would have called rampant promiscuity. The causal relationships between sex, pregnancy and marriage were severed in a fundamental way. The impulse toward premarital chastity for women was always the fear of bearing a child alone. The Pill removed this fear. Along with it went the need of men to commit themselves exclusively to one woman in order to enjoy sexual relations at all. Over the past four decades, women have trained men that marriage is no longer necessary for sex. But women have also sadly discovered that they can't reliably gain men's sexual and emotional commitment to them by giving them sex before marriage.

Nationwide, the marriage rate has plunged 43% since 1960. Instead of getting married, men and women are just living together, cohabitation having increased tenfold in the same period. According to a University of Chicago study, cohabitation has become the norm. More than half the men and women who do get married have already lived together.

The widespread social acceptance of these changes is impelling the move toward homosexual marriage. Men and women living together and having sexual relations "without benefit of clergy," as the old phrasing goes, became not merely an accepted lifestyle, but the dominant lifestyle in the under-30 demographic within the past few years. Because they are able to control their reproductive abilities--that is, have sex without sex's results--the arguments against homosexual consanguinity began to wilt.

When society decided--and we have decided, this fight is over--that society would no longer decide the legitimacy of sexual relations between particular men and women, weddings became basically symbolic rather than substantive, and have come for most couples the shortcut way to make the legal compact regarding property rights, inheritance and certain other regulatory benefits. But what weddings do not do any longer is give to a man and a woman society's permission to have sex and procreate.

Sex, childbearing and marriage now have no necessary connection to one another, because the biological connection between sex and childbearing is controllable. The fundamental basis for marriage has thus been technologically obviated. Pair that development with rampant, easy divorce without social stigma, and talk in 2004 of "saving marriage" is pretty specious. There's little there left to save. Men and women today who have successful, enduring marriages till death do them part do so in spite of society, not because of it.

If society has abandoned regulating heterosexual conduct of men and women, what right does it have to regulate homosexual conduct, including the regulation of their legal and property relationship with one another to mirror exactly that of hetero, married couples?

I believe that this state of affairs is contrary to the will of God. But traditionalists, especially Christian traditionalists (in whose ranks I include myself) need to get a clue about what has really been going on and face the fact that same-sex marriage, if it comes about, will not cause the degeneration of the institution of marriage; it is the result of it.

Rev. Sensing is pastor of the Trinity United Methodist Church in Franklin, Tenn.

He writes at

Man did not rescue child for fear of 'pervert' slur


A BRICKLAYER who passed a toddler walking alone in a village shortly before her fatal fall into a pond said yesterday he did not stop to help in case people thought he was trying to abduct her.

Clive Peachey, from Cornwall, told an inquest jury in Stratford-upon-Avon that he had passed two-year-old girl, Abby Rae, in his van shortly after 10am on 28 November, 2002.

This was just moments after the toddler disappeared from the Ready Teddy Go nursery in the Warwickshire village of Lower Brailes, according to staff.

Abby was found an hour later in an algae-covered garden pond and rescued by her mother, Victoria Rae.

She was taken to Birmingham Children's Hospital by air ambulance but was pronounced dead.

Mr Peachey, of Liskeard, told the inquest he had passed the little girl as she tottered towards the road in High Street.

He said: "I kept thinking I should go back. The reason I didn't go back was because I thought people might think I was trying to abduct her.

"I was convinced her parents were driving around and had found her."

Mrs Rae, 36, wept as Mr Peachey gave his evidence to the packed hearing.

She had earlier read emotionally from a statement as she relived the moment she dragged her daughter from the pond.

Two nursery employees had gone into the garden during their search but told the inquest they did not see the pond because it was covered in green vegetation.

The inquest was adjourned until today.

Boy this is a sad day.

That someone would be so concerned about the legal implications of reaching out to help another human being in distress, so they just drove past a toddler out and about unsupervised.


BTW, I don't believe for a minute that the danger was so great that he would be accused of being a prevert if he had attempted to help this child. Clearly he had overblown the odds of this happening in his mind, probably listening to the nonsense of these men rights advocates exaggerating how often this actually happens today. Even a simple telephone call would have sufficed to let police know this child was unsupervised on the street. The 911 operator probably would have told him to follow the child until police arrived and ensure she didn't get hurt.

Back in the 60s I remember reading an article where the police were warning young people about picking up hitchhikers, how dangerous it was, you could get killed doing it, etc., and I remember a young man's response when they told him he could be putting his life in jeopardy to give a stranger a ride: Well he didn't want to live in a world anyway where he had to be so afraid of other people that he couldn't give a ride to another fellow human being.

I feel the same way about this situation.

I'll take my chances with the law before I'd turn my back on helping a child (or anybody really) in distress.

This story was a sad commentary on our times. Like a doctor listening to his insurance carrier at the scene of an accident and letting someone die. When someone calls out is there a doctor in the house ALL doctors are expected to respond, not just the ones who have affordable insurance rates.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006



by Marcia Pappas

The state Legislature is considering the worst joint custody bill that the National Organization for Women -- New York State has ever seen, presuming joint custody in all custody cases, including a deceitful attempt to redefine visitation of non-custodial parents as shared parenting.

NOW NYS has always favored primary caregiver presumption legislation to ensure stability and continuity of care for children. If a person is not involved in the lives of his or her children during the marriage, why would that involvement increase after divorce? Therefore, we oppose court-mandated joint custody and oppose changing the terminology to shared parenting.

Primary caregiver presumption would cut down on the abusive practice by the moneyed spouse (usually the husband) of coercing the non-moneyed spouse (usually the wife) to make monetary concessions rather than risk a custody battle before a biased court. This threat of a fight for custody is the fear factor that leads mothers to make financial concessions in exchange for the chance to give her children a stable life. One attorney has acknowledged that he often gave that advice to male clients. When he became chief justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals in West Virginia, he was responsible for the passage of a primary caregiver bill.

NOW NYS would like to set the record straight. It is a lie that mothers are awarded custody in 95 percent of divorce cases, as fathers rights advocates would have the public believe. Only 1 percent of cases are litigated so mothers get custody by agreement of the parties, whether or not the agreement is coerced as we describe.

Let us learn from the experience of others. In California, a report prepared 15 years after divorce reform legislation, found that one-third of joint-physical custody arrangements were indistinguishable in practice from the sole-custody visitation arrangements. After seeing the harmful effects on children by court-ordered joint custody, California ended its presumption in favor of joint custody awards in 1989.

Joint custody establishes rights without responsibilities. There is no way under current law to enforce visitation. There are no penalties for failure to visit. There is nothing in this bill, or any other joint custody or shared parenting bill, to enforce compliance with a parenting plan. The term parenting time suggests that all non-custodial parents take an active, positive role in their children's lives. Reality shows us that many parents who are granted visitation choose not to be involved in their children's lives. Change in terminology does nothing to enforce parental responsibility or involvement. Opponents feel that the term visitation carries a negative connotation with respect to non-custodial parents, stating that visitation is associated with visiting relatives in prison.

This is clearly a ridiculous argument. People visit family members and other people in many and varied relationships. If parents want to take an active role in their child's life, why would terminology make a difference? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

NOW NYS believes the actual motivation for this change in terminology is to require the court to equate the parenting plan or schedule with actual parenting responsibilities, financial and otherwise. Arguments have been made by non-custodial parents that the costs of spending time with their children should be deducted from their child support obligations, ignoring the fact that it is the primary caregiver who is responsible for the day-to-day expenses of the children. This newly proposed legislation lays the dangerous groundwork for the courts to decrease child support awards based on a change of terminology.

It is an erroneous implication that the caregiver and the non-custodial parent carry the same load and devote the same time to their children.

The basis for this strong battle of the fathers' rights groups is totally financial. It is frequently reported by school guidance counselors that a common complaint of children of divorce is that they don't see their fathers, and it is not unusual for children to complain about the inequities of material advantages they often observe when their father acquires his new family.

This bill establishes the pretext of a continuing relationship between children and non-custodial parents, and falsely legislates in the best interest of the child. The reality is that it does nothing to advance the welfare of the children of New York.

Marcia A. Pappas is president of NOW-New York State.

I just want to say that even though this article CLAIMS NOW NYS "has always favored primary caregiver presumption legislation to ensure stability and continuity of care for children" yet NOW never actually DID a thing to see that this became law and or even standard operating procedure in New York State OR any other state for that matter. Since the West Viriginia example they cited is no longer valid, it was changed a few years back.

THUS, there is NO state that has a primary caretaker presumption.


This is a red herring thrown out by NOW to act like they have been involved on the side of mothers over the last decade or so when millions of you lost custody of your children. The primary caretaker presumption exists in NO STATE and I believe that presumption will probably never exist again, as MOST of the people involved in making public policy are against this presumption since it is NOT gender neutral and favors mothers.

This is really a moot issue NOW NYS is teasing mothers with. As the issue facing mothers now is NOT the primary caretaker presumption OR Joint is rather mothers being forced into court where they will be facing a bunch of fathers rights advocates or gender neutralized feminists who SUPPORT giving fathers custody (it is seen as progressive and trendy right now to do this) OR this presumptive Joint Custody.

Unfortunately although I know most mothers were the primary caretaker parent and SHOULD have sole custody with child support being paid to them by the fathers who were the providers during the life of the relationship, it's not going to happen anytime soon, so we must get over this false hope. As it's just pie in the sky for anyone to act like it's a possibility. So this presumptive Joint Custody is the lesser of MANY evils that could happen to mothers and children if you do NOT go along with far the lesser.

As the worst that could happen is you will have Joint Custody, get no child support and the childrens' father will not pick up his kids for visitation. That's the worse case scenario.

Whereas listening to NOW, the worse that could happen is that you lose custody of your children, are not permitted to visit (since as was pointed out in the article their is NO effective legal enforcement for visitation) plus YOU are forced to pay your ex child support that you can't even afford, as you were a stay-at-home mom who never worked.

See that's the WORSE that can happen listening to those idiots...actually that is what has been happening listening to them over the last decade...many mothers have lost custody and rarely if ever see their kids again, not to mention the numbers of mothers who have been put in jail for not being able to pay child support. Even though BOTH feminists and mens' rights advocates admit mothers make less money because they are home with their children instead of building careers...YET not ONE feminists spoke up when mothers were sent to jail for not having the money to pay child support...not ONE...

In short, they were useless...

Last point about we saw with that whole Bridget Marks fiasco in New York City, many gender neutralized feminists of the NOW variety said nothing during that crisis. Even though if that decision had been allowed to stand hundreds of thousands of never-married mothers would have been under threat to lose their children at anytime, anytime to one of these prodigal fathers (who were given the okay by Judge Arlene Goldberg's ruling). These prodigal fathers would have been empowered to show up three, seven or even ten years after the birth of a child and be allowed to exercise parental rights, including a reversal of custody, AFTER not even bothering to sign their child's birth certificate.

NONE of these feminists spoke up to defend Bridget Marks or help her get her children back. In fact, it was the Albany Appeals Court who eventually overturned that decision and returned Bridget Marks' children to her. Probably some of the old patriarchs of the Appeals Court in Albany felt sorry for Bridget Marks and her kids. YET not ONE feminist said a word in her defense (Bill O'Reilly and some male columnists were more outraged by the decision then any feminist in NY was).

They would have GLADLY yet that ruling stand as it was made by one of their own, a gender neutralized feminist Judge.

So let's not forget that...
Sad, Cautionary Tale for Young Women and Feminists

I was watching Fox news this morning and Cindy Adams, the gossip columnist, came on. She was being interviewed about her new book: Living a Dog's Life, Jazzy, Juicy and Me. Being a dog lover myself (my dog died almost 2 years ago so I am currently dog-free), I was prepared for a few light-hearted New York dog tales and a couple of laughs just before work.

Instead, I was treated to one of the saddiest stories I've heard in a long time. I don't even think Cindy Adams herself or the people who set up this interview realized how poignant this segment could prove to be for her and for the many young women who might have been watching particularly if they hadn't had any children as yet. Or were too old to have any now having passed their fertile years without meeting a solid partner.

This poor woman was sitting there kissing her dogs and proclaiming they were the ONLY reason for her existence. It seems her husband and mother died within a few months of each other and she never had any children. So she's entirely alone with the exception of these two dogs, Jazzy and Juicy. Who were adorable btw. My favorite dogs are german shepherds and labs or spaniels...Yet Jazzy and Juicy were pretty cute and I certainly wouldn't hesitate to get two of them IF I ever decide to have a dog again. Anyway, I'm still recovering from losing my last one.

Anyhow Cindy Adams had these dogs dressed up riding in a limo, wearing mink coats and going into clubs. They showed shots of them at home...Clearly these dogs represented for her the babies she never had.

It was incredibly errie for me to be sitting there watching this woman talking about Jazzy and Juicy and see the placid smiles on the faces of the three newscasters (themselves all married with children) oblivious to the heartbreaking drama being played out here right in front of them.

Errie, sad and scary.

I mean young women need to see examples of lives worth living. Not some pallid imitation of life where you wind up with a dog or worse, a bunch of cats, as your only companions when you are entering the autumn of your life. If an educationed, successful, career women like Cindy Adams (or even that Maureen Dowd who will be the next one with the dog/cat books) cannot effectively create a life, we risk women turning their backs on all the equality opportunities they've been given in order to ensure they don't miss out on what makes most womens' lives worth living (with or without equality) our children.

Let's remember women went without equal rights to educational and job opportunities for eons while they stayed home to raise their children and I'm sure if you asked any women who is a mother what was the more important thing to her, EVEN TODAY, she's not going to say her BA or her job. It's her children that are a mother's priority and most women DO become mothers. So we are talking about most women here.

Just talking to a non-custodial mother the other day, she mentioned to me how all the rights she had marched for in the 70s meant NOTHING to her the tradeoff winded up being that she was to lose custody of her daughter. The education, the job, her own credit card, none of it meant a hill of beans to her as the price she was asked to pay for it was to lose custody of her four year old child and cause a lasting riff in the mother/child bond for both of them. As her relationship to her daughter will never be what it should have been due to those lost years.

This WILL be the issue that will destroy the entire equal rights paradigm if it is not resolved to mothers' satisfaction. As every right they fought for will ultimately come to NOTHING but some words on a piece of paper which no women will bother even reading or paying attention to in if the ultimate cost is loss of her children. Feminists better think very carefully about their support of gender neutral custody or they are going to wind up with no womens' movement. Or just a movement containing a few women existing on the margins of society with the majority of women either ignoring or even outright hostile to them.

Thus Jazzy and Juicy (as cute as they are) can be said to represent nothing more then a sad cautionary tale for young women and feminists...

Friday, March 24, 2006


I was listening to the news last night and a story came on about how some stores have started putting in parking spots closer to the entrances for pregnant women ONLY, like what they do for handicapped people. Of course, the men who made them pregnant will now start gripping about why they couldn't get a spot closer to the store entrance as well, it's discrimination, etc.,

Well that's another story.

Anyway, they interviewed a legislator who wanted to make a law mandating pregnant women automatically be able to use the handicapped parking spots from their third month of pregnancy, as they can send away for a sticker for six months and use it until delivery.

Makes a lot of sense actually...

Then, they interviewed a gender neutralized feminist from NOW who claimed NOW was against the whole idea: as pregnancy wasn't a handicap, pregnant women should be treated like everyone else, yada, yada, yada.

My first stunned thought was: who the hell designated this gender neutralized feminist to represent pregnant women????

That's my question.

What gives them the right to decide these things for mothers?

Even when they poked their big fat noses into that hearing where Congress wanted to bring those women in Iraq home (a good number of them single mothers) and Kim Gandy of NOW joined with the Pentagon to stop them.

Who in the heck gave NOW or any other gender neutralized group of feminist the okay to represent mothers?

That' s my question????

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Roe vs. Wade for Men

Today I was asked if I wished to participate in a bbc radio discussion OPPOSING Mel Feit, the founder of the National Center for Men on the Roe vs Wade case attempting to get some ‘abortion’ rights for men.


I work as a producer for a BBC World Service radio programme World Have Your Say in London.

Tonight we are talking about this case dubbed Roe vs Wade for Men.

Mel Feit, founder of National Center for Men, is coming on our programme to argue their case and we're looking for contributors, particularly those who would take the opposing to balance up the debate.

Do you have any particular views on this case and would you be available to talk to us at 1pm Eastern time in America (6pm UK time)?

If so, please contact me as soon as you can with a contact phone number and we'll give you a call.

Yours sincerely

Yannick Guerry, World Have Your Say

If you want to listen to the show you can access the site by going to

I turned them down because quite frankly, I agree 100% with the basic premise behind this case.

Anybody who thinks I would be on the opposite side of this case, obviously hasn’t been paying attention.

I mean over and above recognizing that just because a man managed to get into your pants doesn’t mean he signed on to become a father; why in the world would a MOTHER even WANT a man to have rights to her child before she even knows if he’s interested in said child?


We are in a world where casual and recreational sex rules. Where a sixteen year old has sex with two different men one day and then is tortured and raped by them the next. Every guy who has sex with you is NOT your friend or interested in a long-term relationship with you, which is what you are talking about when you demand that a recreational sperm donor pay child support. As that entitles a recreational sperm donor to legal rights equivalent to your own vis-à-vis your child.

What are women as mothers thinking?

The ONLY persons I would want around my baby are those who feel like I do, which is that my child is the most significant and best thing EVER since sliced bread came about…

Not somebody who is hanging around waiting for the opportunity to wrestle custody from me in order to pay less child support…

Remember one thing…the people pushing this issue are not men so much (since they are not happy to be paying these high child support amounts that public policy has been crippling them with over the last decade or so). This is a mistake people frequently make. These men are the tools (or fools as some would call them since after observing them for a while now, I can confidently say that many of these MRAs are not very bright…) but are tools being used by the brains behind this operation.

As the real manipulator behind the scenes are these gender-neutralized feminists. They are the MAIN instigators of this situation mothers and children are facing.

These feminists are doing this for reasons of ideology, not finance, although they cover it well, frequently pretending to be concerned about the public’s purse. To be honest, I never saw a program a gender-neutralized feminist objected to because it was too expensive, as long as the gist of the program involved separating mothers from their children, they have been supportive of it everytime. From daycare to gender-neutral custody, even having single mothers on the front lines in times of war, these gender-neutralized feminists have jumped on every single one of these programs and made them their own.

As feminists ultimate goal is the total destruction of the mother/child bond and having a completely gender-neutral society.

That is their goal: where 50% of women are in prison for various crimes (even though men commit about 90% of every deviant act in our society); where 50% of the armed forces consists of women (even though studies have shown that the best women EVEN with special forces training CANNOT beat the average man in combat); where 50% of mothers OR MORE have lost custody of their children (and if these gender-neutralized feminists have to drag recreational sperm donors, with no interest in children whatsoever, into the mix to achieve this goal, they are perfectly willing to sacrifice our children on the altar of gender neutrality to do it).

For instance…

Let’s watch the news tonight and see who is the most enraged that this Debra Lafave idiot didn’t go to jail. It will be interesting to see how many feminists are more upset about THIS then men are. Here feminists NEVER said a word when that Judge Cashman sentenced a man to probation, after he admitted raping a little girl since the kid was 4 until she was 10 years old. Nor did they speak out about another judge, Judge Connor, when he released another man who plead guilty to raping two boys, 5 and 11 years old…Actually to be honest the ONLY one really upset about this was Bill O’Reilly, not one feminist newscaster…I didn’t hear one as upset about this as he was.

YET they will ALL have their panties in a bunch about this teacher getting three years house arrest and then six years probation for sex with a teenager…

These are the things these idiots focus on…


Because their goal is an androgynous society where everyone is marching to the same inner drummer like a mindless pod person. Where a teenage boy acts exactly like a teenage girl and men and women are as matched as two peas in a pod. Where women care as much about sex and sports as men do and men are just as committed to ‘mothering’ as a mother is…

Thus Debra Lafave is labeled a ‘predator’ equivalent to Joseph Smith (who raped and murdered an 11 year old in Florida), Joseph Duncan (who murdered three people to kidnap, rape and murder 2 children, one was rescued through the grace of God as she would have been dead as well if it was up to Duncan) John Couey (who raped and murdered a 9 year old in Florida) and so it goes on endlessly to the androgynous drumbeat tapped out by gender-neutralized feminists.

Lafave will NOW be taking up valuable space on the sexual crimes registry as well…where thousands of irrelevant criminals like her are making that registry useless, as it’s slowly being overwhelmed with data. It has now become impossible to have a decent sex predator registry where people like Duncan, Smith and Couey SHOULD be it’s sole occupants. Why? Again, because these androgynous idiots are turning these data bases into dump sites where every idiot who has sex with a teenager is now considered a ‘predator’…

We can’t even have a decent Amber alert system going in this country. Again why? Because the same men who are attempting to get this Roe vs. Wade ruling passed are also the ones who are spending all of their time instigating parental abductions to cut their child support. So what are MOST of these Amber Alerts but parental abductions instigated by custody fights.

You could NEVER get a Joseph Duncan with an Amber Alert because everybody is using them as another tool in Round 42 of a custody fight…so who in the heck has the time to look for a real sexual predator???

Answer: no one…

So of course, I would support this Roe vs. Wade case. Thank GOD if it would become the law of the land…Heck we would probably cut out about 50% of the FBI caseload with these parental abductions alone, I can tell you that much if this guy wins his case.

But, let’s sit back and see who will be fighting tooth and nail against that case becoming law…that’s right, it will be your friendly, neighborhood, gender-neutralized feminist.

Mark my word on that…

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Online Child Support Petition

The online Child Support Petition has been printed out with 90 signatures.

I am doing a cover letter for it this week and mailing it out to New York State Senators Clinton and Schumer.

I want to let the 90 people who signed this petition know that I think it's an important first step in ending the problem of our children being used to generate income for either a greedy parent or state coffers.

Thus, I will keep everyone posted on what happens with this petition.

So far I have kept the expenses for all of this under $150. When it goes over, I'll let people know and perhaps I'll start fund raising.


New York Post
Online Edition




March 17, 2006 -- The first time he ever saw his daughter, she was laid out in a coffin.

But now, the biological father of Nixzmary Brown wants control of her estate - which could reap millions from lawsuits against the city.

And relatives of the 7-year-old girl, whose stepdad allegedly beat her to death while her mom looked the other way, are outraged.

"I tried to see her. I swear to God I did, but I didn't know where she was. Nobody knew where she was," said Abdurrahman Mian, 36, who lost touch with the girl's mother around the time of Nixzmary's birth.

Mian, 36, plans to file papers in Brooklyn Surrogate's Court within the next two months to be named administrator of her estate, his lawyer, Daniel Flanzig, said.

Frankly I don’t want EITHER side in this family to make a profit out of this kid’s death. They never helped her when she was alive, they certainly shouldn’t profit now that she’s dead. Perhaps the state can have Nixzmary Brown retroactively declared a ward of the state and thus no family member would profit from this tragedy. Whatever money comes to Nixzmary Brown’s estate would go directly into a special fund set up to provide funeral money for murdered children…

Something of that nature.

Anyway the more important question is why do we allow these prodigal fathers (or recreational sperm donors as is their proper designation) to turn up YEARS after the fact, having done nothing for these children they have carelessly spawned and then suddenly expect all the rights of being a legal father?

Many of them never even bothered putting their name on their child’s birth certificate, as we saw with the Bridget Marks/John Alysworth fiasco. THREE YEARS and this Alysworth character never even bothered having his name put on his twins’ birth certificate? Even though he was at the hospital when they were BORN…Yet he couldn’t be bothered filling out a form for three years…


Same story with this Abdurrahman Mian, this guy had SEVEN YEARS and he never even SAW his kid nor did she carry his name. Even though he lived in Washington Heights and she lived in Brooklyn, a train ride away and suddenly now he’s entitled to legal rights????

Again please.

We need to look at revising the laws for never-married men when they have created children through irresponsible sperm deposits. The clock for abandonment of their children should start ticking at the BIRTH of the child, just like it does for everyone else…NOT, as is the case now, whenever they finally get around to acknowledging paternity in three, seven or even ten years after the fact.

Why should these prodigal fathers get more time then either mothers or married fathers, people who play by the rules? If either a mother or a married father walks away and pretends they don’t have children for six months to a year (no support, no contact, etc.,) their parental rights are terminated.


These prodigals should have the same treatment.

The ONLY time an extension should be considered is if one of these prodigals can prove the child’s existence was hidden from them. Which was clearly not the case with either Aylswoth or Mian.

Now some will say what about child support? Who will pay to support this child? Well obviously the child’s mother and/or her family will have to do it. Now if she cannot afford it; THEN the STATE can and should be allowed to pursue a prodigal for his share of the public benefits used to raise the children he carelessly spawned. YET again, he should still be allowed no rights unless he can prove the child’s existence was hidden from him.

Many will say this is unfair, yet the government is frequently unfair when it comes to people owing them money. When you owe a student loan or taxes, for instance, you cannot include these debts in a bankruptcy. So isn’t this unfair to your other creditors? Their debts can be wiped out, but the government’s debt still remains? So there is precedent here.

AND if it’s good enough for the IRS, it’s damn sure good enough for child support.

Now on the other hand, an unmarried mother should NEVER be allowed to pursue a court-order for support from a prodigal father. Sorry but that is a right that only the state should be entitled to exercise in order to get reimbursement for a pubic benefit.

Again, we cannot continue allowing a small group of men and women to manipulate the system and cause all this uproar for the rest of us.

Of course, if an unmarried mother and a prodigal should wish to make a private arrangement amongst themselves for visitation, child support, even custody, whatever, no one would argue against that. Actually that was what we did in the past and it cut down on litigation, custody fights, abductions, considerably…however neither party would be allowed standing to force the other into a court ordered agreement against the will of the other. This privilege would be reserved for married parents and/or the state representing the taxpayer being reimbursed for public benefits, nothing more.

As always men, prodigal and otherwise, will begin screaming that their ‘equal’ fathers’ rights under the constitution are being violated, but this is nonsense. The constitution addresses the equal rights of people who are similarly situated. Clearly mothers are situated differently from fathers. Women in their role as mothers invest, risk and contribute more to bringing children into this world, and thus, we must use our common sense when we make laws addressing their situation. The courts of men can never be allowed to overrule the laws of God, evolution, or natural law which places every child with their mother as the person MOST apt to act in their offspring’s best interest, MOST of the time. This has been the situation via mother/child bonding since humanity first crawled out of the primal mists and is pretty much the case with every species, as well as our own (with the exception of a Disney clown fish and some odd reptiles).

Which I care nothing about, so please no penguin, seahorse or clown fish emails. I don’t care about a few freaks wandering off either end of the bell-shaped curve…

Anyway, people who cannot accept this truth (such as gender neutralized feminists and men/fathers rights advocates) should probably take it up with their deity. Complain to them about it.

Saturday, March 11, 2006


Prisons ask for alternatives to jailing deadbeat parents COLUMBUS, Ohio —

Prisons officials are asking lawmakers to consider alternatives to putting deadbeat parents behind bars, where they don't earn much money and continue failing to support their children.

The 601 men and 24 women sent to prison in 2004 for not paying child support made $12 to $18 a month working prison jobs, while taxpayers paid about $63 a day for each prisoner's shelter, food, clothing and medical care.

"We strongly think each child should receive the support they are due," said Andrea Dean, spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

"But we also understand there are going to be some deadbeat dads or parents for whom, if they had an opportunity, an alternative sanction other than prison would be a good option."

About 2.5 percent of inmates admitted to prisons in 2004 were felony child support cases.

Prisons officials want lawmakers to consider work release or other programs that would allow nonviolent child support violators to work under supervision. They say those options could help alleviate crowding and save taxpayers the $23,000 each prisoner costs annually.

Some officials in charge of collecting child support payments say they go through many options before cases are even prosecuted. The Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency tries punishments such as suspending drivers' licenses, withholding money from paychecks and seizing bank accounts before filing charges, agency head Anthony Bond said.

"We've exhausted every possible administrative and judicial remedy before we do this," he said.

I just want to point out that this is not true in the case of mothers that they have exhausted every possible administrative and judicial remedy before they put them in jail.

Sadly this is more propaganda.

Since most mothers have custody of their children, even though every year that number decreases due to gender neutralized feminists and mens/fathers rights advocates, who have pushed for more mothers to lose custody, they have fewer women compared to men to jail for NOW.

YET to get ANY women in the net which they need to satisfy calls for women to go to jail by gender equity advocates, they jail women for lesser amounts or time then men...

For instance, I have heard about a mother who was jailed for missing even ONE PAYMENT or being a little late. Actually a woman in New Jersey was jailed for missing one payment, her second husband had to bail her out.

Another woman on a board I used to post on was locked up to an electronic device, where she could only go to work each day, no where else, and they just took her check for child support.

She hasn't been allowed to see her children in three years. This was in Georgia or Alabama.

Anyway, I don't want any mothers to think these gender neutralized beasts will be satified until as many women are in jail as men... that is their ultimate goal.

Actually mens/fathers rights advocates lobbied to have the amount of child support that became a felony lowered...just so they could have more mothers targeted. Most men who are finally arrested owed many thousands, women much less.

So even though many have admitted that women make less money when they have children, mothers are still subject to prison for not being able to pay enough child support.

So this is our future if we continue allowing gender neutralized feminists to claim to represent mothers' interest or speak on any public policy forums in our name.

This lawsuit makes a lot of sense. Yet I don't think the young man will win.

Still it will open up discussion and people will begin re-thinking the position on allowing recreational sperm donors, who are basically just interested in getting in some womens' pants, any legal rights to children that could accidentally result from the carelessness of BOTH parties.

A recreational sperm donor should have the same rights as any other sperm donor, basically none.

Nor should he have responsibilities either, meaning women should NOT be allowed to hit him up for child support.

The bottom line is that with many reliable methods of birth control available for women to use and recreational sex encounters at an all-time high, we cannot continue treating men we have no real connection with as if we were married to them. Expecting child support and continuous contact via visitation with your child, is just not sustainable over the long haul without a lot of trauma for everyone involved especially the children. These kids are often dumped off on unsuitable and uncaring men, with no real interest or connection to them, just the result of a casual relationship or worse yet a one-night stand.

It's not fair to children and can lead to situations where kids, at best, are handed over for long periods to men with no interest in them whatsoever. At worse, it can lead to a horror like what happened with that poor kid Jerica Rhodes. Some jackoff, who lived with her mother for a short period, got named as a 'defacto' father and Jerica was handed over like a puppy to him. Seven years later, stabbed 16 times in the face, neck and head by this defacto monster...

Some Judge wanting to experiment with this kid's life was responsible for this.

But the ultimate responsibility was the laws that allows recreational sperm donors any rights to children created during 'sports sex' marathons.

Fathers get rights through a legal marriage.

Those men who chose to procreate outside of that institution risk having no rights.

It's pretty simple.

Male activists want say in unplanned pregnancy

Lawsuit seeks right to decline financial responsibility for kids

Thursday, March 9, 2006; Posted: 6:52 a.m. EST (11:52 GMT)

Matt Dubay contends his ex-girlfriend assured him she was unable to get pregnant.

NEW YORK (AP) -- Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit -- nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men -- to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have -- it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."

Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Michigan.

Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that -- because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant.

Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.

"What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.

"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.

Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.

Opposition arises to no-fault divorce

Leaders of women's, men's rights groups fear changes in law would be harmful

First published: Sunday, March 5, 2006

ALBANY -- With key support in the Legislature, backing from the state's chief judge and lobbying by the 72,000-member state bar association to change the law, many people believe New York will soon follow the nation's 49 other states in enacting no-fault divorce.

Why, then, are some pivotal women's and men's groups insisting that amending the Domestic Relations Law would be devastating?

New York now requires a couple to wait a year after filing for divorce before a judge can dissolve their relationship, and that can occur only after a finding that one or both parties is at fault. No-fault divorce, on the other hand, allows one spouse to claim irreconcilable differences to end the marriage without the other's consent.

Activists for women's rights and fathers' rights, who often have little in common when looking at divorce and child custody issues, agree that no-fault is bad. Their reasons differ.

"If we have no-fault, then the nonmonied spouse, most often the woman, is already at a disadvantage," said Marcia Pappas, state president of the National Organization for Women.

"We all know that whoever has the money wins in court."

Either way, she said, custody, support payments and property division issues must be resolved in court, where she said women experience gender bias. NOW wants any change in the law to provide for attorney and expert witness fees, with a particular eye on stay-at-home moms with no income.

Gloria Jacobs, co-chair of NOW's Domestic Relations Task Force, said horror stories abound of judges refusing to hear the facts of a case, including physical and emotional abuse. The system gives men rights without responsibility, particularly in custody and child support, said Jacobs, a retired matrimonial attorney.

"The whole thing is stacked," she said.

While New York NOW chapter is fighting to keep fault-divorce in place, just last year Washington State NOW supported a quick and dirty divorce for pregnant women, meanwhile the Pennsylvania NOW chapter is currently fighting to KEEP no-fault divorce in place.

In essence it appears that the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing in one of the most prominent womens groups in our country. They are just chasing their tails in a great big circle and going nowhere fast.

If fault-based divorce is a good for women because courts are friendly to money and men generally have more of it, common sense would tell us that this is the case in every courtroom across the nation. Thus all groups that hold themselves out to be concerned about women should be on the same page with this issue. Not as is currently happening, with a differing point of view depending upon the state.

Let’s make up our mind here and cut out the inconsistency of positions.

It is a good for women to allow no-fault divorce? Or does it, as the New York based NOW chapter holds, cut our bargaining power down to nothing leaving women with no negotiating tools to use in a divorce court, which is unfortunately overly friendly to money.