Well it seems the New York State Presumptive Joint Custody bill has been tabled for the time being. It appears that in spite of its many supporters, especially the thousands of New York State mothers who have lost custody of their children, NYNOW, which has laid claim to being women's representative on this matter, lobbied to have the bill withheld from the floor so it never came up for a vote.

It's odd really. How NOW as a national organization has self-selected themselves to represent women, even though few women even identify themselves as feminists anymore. Yet a group such as NOW, which supports many radical policies that few women support, routinely speaks out for women on so many issues. One good example is NOW's support of gender neutral custody placements, which treat mothers exactly just like everyone else in custody hearings, not just fathers, but grandparents, step persons, former boyfriends, etc., There is no recognition whatsoever of the mother/child bond, the greater risk/investment mothers make in bearing children, the emotional damage done to mothers when they have their kids taken from them for no other reason sometimes except men wanting to avoid paying child support.

Or how NOW's President, Kim Gandy, supported women being placed on the front lines in combat. Even though research done after the Gulf War, already established that even the best women with special forces training still cannot beat the average man in combat. So unless God or nature made some quick and dirty evolutionary changes in men and women over the last decade or so since that report, the issue should have been settled. But, of course, it isn't settled because NOW keeps bringing it up again.

Yet this organization continues pushing themselves into the forefront of every issue impacting women and claiming to represent women.

Interesting.

NOW's own research claims that when parents litigate in family court over 70% of fathers are awarded custody (this obviously includes abusive men since NOW also claims abusive men win custody at the same rate as ordinary men). Yet they are fighting tooth and nail over a law which would automatically award Joint Custody to both parents (unless abusives behavior was indicated previously) and to possibly avoid court altogether. Just like NOW supports keeping fault divorce in New York State because they claim women are badly treated in court. Thus they need this 'power' to deny a husband the divorce in order to give them some leverage in the process. So, if we are to believe NOW's own research and stance on similar family issues, their stand against this presumptive Joint Custody bill doesn't really make any sense. As they are advocating for a continuation of the same court system having power over women, which they claims discriminates against us?

Huh????

What's the point?

NYNOW's President claims she is for a system: presumptive custody for the primary caretaker, that was just ended a few years ago in the last state that it existed in: West Virginia. Interestingly enough I never heard any other feminist or feminist group come out in support of this presumption before. Actually many feminists were on the public policy boards of the states that put an end to this presumption because according to these 'progressives' (and feminists agreed) this primary caretaker presumption winded up continuing the status quo of too many mothers having custody of their children. It wasn't gender neutral enough or counter-cultural enough. Quite frankly it didn't push the vast social engineering experiment far enough that people INCLUDING FEMINISTS wanted to see take root in our society, which was more women working, in the armed forces, out doing other things while ignoring their children. That's why the presumption was killed off and feminists were complicit in that.

So I find it a little hard to believe that a feminist organization like NOW is really supportive of bringing it back now. I think throwing this suggestion out there is really nothing but an attempt to convince desperate mothers that NOW is really concerned about them, after ignoring us for over a decade or so. As millions of mothers lost custody of their children while NOW not only said nothing; but frequently its gender neutralized feminists supporters made the custody rulings that stole children from their mothers.

It's just more theatre, another side show diverting mothers from the reality of what's going on.

As the reality is that in the 70s about 400,000 men had custody of children. Today US Census numbers reflect 2.3 million men having custody, not to mention a couple of million custodial paternal grandparents. So all this happened to women on feminisn's watch, while feminisn was at it's zenith. So don't tell me feminists didn't support this going on. They are the strongest supporters of mothers losing custody of their children and as I have said many times on this blog, some of the most vicious custody rulings against mothers have come from gender neutralized female Judges.

The only other explanation that comes to mind and can explain NOW's inconsistent stance on these issues is that NOW basically doesn't know what it's doing. Since from state to state they have a different policy on various issues, sometimes even supporting some law or policy that directly contradicts their own research findings in the same state.

Perhaps NOW is spreading itself too thin and getting involved with issues that have nothing to do with their primary directive, thus losing focus. I know that I frequently (as a past member of NOW) get notices from them about gay marriage, anti-war protests, marches about various racial incidents, foreign policies, domestic initiatives, etc., Meanwhile in a country where over 300,000 incidents of parental abductions take place every year, many of them instigated by men in an attempt to get custody of infants in order to avoid paying child support and millions of mothers having lost custody of their children, I have NEVER once received anything from NOW addressing that issue.

I think NOW should either change its name or get some new blood in the organization so they can re-focus on their mission. Since if they think women are more concerned about any of the above issues which NOW has fixated on then about their own children, they are sadly mistaken. As the US Census has shown, many women are beginning to retreat into their homes as they become mothers, much of this is probably a reaction to witnessing so many of their female friends and relatives losing custody of their children. Gender neutralized feminists appear to have given an effective club now to all men to use against all mothers and since most of us will become mothers, that means a club that can be used against MOST women. Eventually this will mean fewer women overall in the public sphere, so the women who remain have much too lose.

Feminists better remember this, as they continue ignoring the concerns of ordinary mothers thinking the support of women is a given, no matter what. As I didn't see too much concern from ordinary women when these feminists lost what they assumed was a safe seat for one of their own on the Supreme Court. Just because these gender neutralized feminists have no children to worry about does not mean that they can safely ignore the concerns of mothers. AND I'm not talking about this bs of worrying about women half a world away while ignoring mothers issues right here. If feminists think those cushy jobs and other perks they have secured for themselves will remain unaffected, while millions of mothers lose their children due to their machinations, they are in for a big shock. Women can begin to forego the educational and career opportunities feminism won for them and just begin returning to the home again, with their husbands telling them how to vote. We can wind up with a world which once again discriminates in favor of MEN because they are the primary supporters of families, while feminists stand with their noses pressed up against the window pane of society, only allowed to look at the educational and career opportunities passing them by... and no one else will care.