Monday, September 04, 2006

Once Again Women Allowing Themselves to be Used for Men's Economic Gain

Carol Sarler has this exactly correct. There is nothing inherently wicked about modern stepmothers unless you consider someone taking advantage of an 'unearned privilege' to be wicked. The title is redundant as the author points out, as in most cases there is a living mother alive and well and perfectly capable of being a mother to her own kids.

It the 50% divorce rate and high child support which is encouraging everybody and his grandmother to fight for custody now (so poor sonny doesn't have to pay too much child support to his ex-wife) that has given this modern day step-dragon her new set of teeth.

Actually many of these so-called stepmothers function as nothing but enablers for men trying to get custody, so they don't have to pay child support. They offer their services to function as 'pseudo-mothers' in ways both large and small, in an insidious attempt to negate the children's actual mothers' invaluable and unique contribution to her own children. Frequently they manage to impact custody hearings and the like, similar to what Ellen Barkin did for Ron Perlman when he was fighting Pamela Duff for custody of her five year old.

The whole thing was quite disgraceful and Ellen Barkin should have known better particularly since she has children of her own. It's one of the reasons I hope she doesn't get a PENNY from Ron Perlman in her divorce settlement NOT ONE RED CENT. She doesn't deserve it. I will be rooting for whatever attorneys Perlman hired to ensure Barkin doesn't get a dime.

Well we'll have to wait and see if karmatic justice plays a well-deserved role in that situation.

Anyway, I notice the article didn't mention stepfathers and neither did I for obvious reasons. As this problem is not often seen in men. MOST stepfathers appear to know their place and NOT overstep their bounds. Actually the usual compliment I hear adults paying to their own stepfathers is generally along the lines of: "he never interfered or bothered me in anyway, he never hit me"...In essense he left them alone.

Stepmothers, on the other hand, are usually painted as never being able to keep their mouths shut or their nose out of the kids (whose fathers' they married) business. Generally to the detriment of the children as well as their mothers. These so-called stepmothers even comprise a large percentage of the father's rights movement and are responsible for many of the postings on their websites (as well as many of the court cases instigated by their attempts to limit the new husband's cash flow to another women's household by switching custody).

But back to the unearned privilege aspect of this, why should these women have the right to personal information on someone else's kid just because they married a father? For instance, I wouldn't want someone who wasn't my actual mother having access to my medical records. What right does a total stranger have to know my personal medical history?

It should be none of their business.

Additionally, why should a total stranger be allowed to sit in on my school conferences with my teachers and know I'm failing two subjects or am on the honor roll every semester?

If I wish to tell her that I'll do so myself.

You married someone with children and suddenly that makes you their mother?


Let's face it this whole stepmothering business today has morphed well beyond even what it was in the days of Grimm's fairy tales where at least the kid's mother was dead before a stepmother started moving in to ensure her own kidlets their piece of the economic action.

As that's the bottom line here.

Men, for the most part, still make more income then women. They are still the major providers of economic resources to the family and as long as they have another women's children living outside of the household with their mothers that kid is draining resources from the 'new' family that the stepmother is trying to create.

This is the source of stepmothers' suddenly coming into fashion again.

It's another attempt by men to abuse the maternal instincts of women, who are trying to get as many resources as they can to use for their own kids. It's using the strengths of women and turning it into a weakness, the good into evil. As women harm ourselves collectively when we allow our obsession with our own offspring's well-being to cause us to hurt other women and their children.

As what Ellen Barkin did to Pamela Duff and her daughter.

She allowed herself to be used to hurt another woman and her child.

Women who do this hurt all of the rest of us as well as themselves when they allow women's natural maternal inclination to be used as a weapon against other mothers and their children. We should not allow ourselves to be used as unpaid maids, babysitters, or pseudo mothers to children of men just seeking those services in order to get custody of a child from it's mother for their own financial benefit.

Women need to just start saying no.,,6-2331384,00.html


No only redundant

By Carol Sarler

IF WE MUST be treated to more detail of the parting of the McCartneys — and I very much fear that we must — I should like to plead for no further mention of Sir Paul’s adult offspring wherein Heather is described as their stepmother. She is not “their” anything, save perhaps their inheritance-depleting nemesis, and the use of the possessive pronoun simply proves how anachronistic the title of step-parent has become.

Once, it had purpose. When a young mother died and her widower remarried, the stepmother really did inherit the mothering of his children; she became a substitute for the mother and, for good or for bad, she would retain that role at least until Prince Charming happened by with a good fit in glass slippers

Today, very rarely does any of that apply. Certainly not following a remarriage in late middle age when the children are too grown to need mothering, or when, courtesy of an epidemic of divorce, a remarriage means that the children of the groom have a perfectly good mother at home, thank you very much, and don’t need another one.

Indeed, the use of a title implies an entitlement that might itself prove inflammatory. When Jennifer’s father recently remarried, he turned up at a school parents’ evening with his new wife, sat beside Jennifer’s mother and then introduced Mk II to the teacher as “Jennifer’s stepmother”.

“I don’t mind her showing an interest,” says Jennifer’s mother, still spitting tacks, “but she’s getting no actual say in anything; Jennifer already has two parents to do that. So what’s the point in giving her a fancy label that suggests otherwise?”

Quite so. Furthermore, far from the permanence of the step-parent of the divorce-free past, the current newcomer can promise no such thing. Her presence is entirely contingent upon the survival of a marriage whose collapse would almost certainly herald her complete disappearance.

Nobody understands this better than the children. Any fondness is adjunctive to another relationship of which they own no part. It is wholly improper, therefore, to ask them to pretend possession by saying “my” stepmother. It would be fairer to everyone, at least at first, to scrap the term altogether in favour of “my father’s wife”. Until, if all involved are very fortunate, that mutates, in time, to “my friend".


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

There is something I don't understand. Are you saying men prefer to get the children and pay 100% of the children's expenses than leaving them with the mother and paying Child Support?

Doesn't it mean that CS is a lot higher than what the child really needs, and the mom is pocketing or living off the extra money?

NYMOM said...

Yes, I do happen to believe that child support is a lot higher then it should be. It appears that the non-custodial parent, who is employed, could be shouldering the entire amount of support for the child, instead of just a prorated share.

What's happened is that the percentage of income allocated for child support was made artifically high in order to get reimbursement from low income non-custodial parents for welfare and other publicly funded benefits that a non-working custodial parent was receiving.

The whole thing was based on racism really...anger at black families getting too many public benefits and this is the solution that was arrived at to stop it...or at least get reimbursement for it from some of them...Reagan and all his 'welfare queen' stories is at the heart of most of this crap. I appreciated that Reagan was a strong international leader who helped bring to an end the Cold War, BUT he was sadly lacking in domestic policy skills...

I hate to say it.

Anyway 17% or even 25% of a low salary is still a pretty low dollar amount...but the higher up the income ladder you go the bigger the chunk of your actual after tax dollar income is eaten by that percentage. Add in a prorated share of child care expenses and uncovered medical (all things btw, that the state generally provided for low income parents) so this is clearly the model the court uses when looking at expenses to add on to child support. Anyway with all those add-ons you can see where 40% to 50% of someone's income can easily be eaten away by child support.

NOT to mention that the custodial parent is now ALSO entitled to a host of tax and other public benefits such as tax exemption for child, Earned Income Credit, medical and housing assistance, some citizenship benefits...All of these things are linked to custody today.

I actually heard a woman on tv recently talking about public policy and how it impacts african amer. men...They frequently need benefits to get on their feet after jail, rehab, etc., but they don't get custody of children so it's harder for them to qualify for anything, she said...

I was thinking: outrageous can these gender neutralized monsters be???? To brazenly advocate for men to get custody of children from their mothers so they can get more benefits????

Bottom line the entire basis of this mess is racism really...

Again, I hate to say it but it's the ongoing pattern of this entire country's history...White people trying to screw up black ones...and usually, like stupid idiots, shooting ourselves in the foot instead...

I mean what was the Civil War about but the same endlessly repeated pattern. Trying to hurt another group of people and almost destroying our whole country in the process...

When will we learn????

Unfortunately never it appears, as we've gone and done the same thing all over again...and the latest result is that by turning custody into the equivalent of winning the Irish sweepstakes, we have once again hurt outselves trying to hurt someone else.

This is the genesis of all this custody business...

In my humble opinion...

Anonymous said...

I can't stand bio Mom's (and you're obviously a BM NYMOM) who generalize the way you have about step-mothers. I'll have you know I also live in NY and have raised 3 stepchildren with their father since they were 10 and 12 until ages 19 and 21 and I was (and still am) MORE their 'mother' than their actual mother...who was around, but not enough. The kids needed stability and we gave it to them. I say 'WE' because it was truly my husband AND me. I drove the kids around, got haircuts, went to every sporting or school event, did all the back to school shopping, tended sick kids, and anything else you can think of that a 'real' mother should do. That's what I did while their mother selfishly picked and chose how little to be in her own kids' lives. Yes, we might be the minority of households where stepmothers are custodial, so you should really personalize your comments. You must have been hit pretty hard in some child support or custody mess for you to go off like you did. And the kids' mother pays a MEASLY $250 for THREE kids per month and has since the day of the divorce. My husband never took her back to have it modified because he was a NICE guy and he paid for the majority of the kids' needs, even though the kids' mother and he made almost the same amt of money. If you're going to blast your mouth off, you might as well tell people your story so they know why you're so bitter.

HUGE FAN! said...

First, I would like to thank you having a voice for so many women who are being systematically, and deliberately overlooked and abused by the judicial system. There are not many organizations for women to help combat this problem. Trust me....this is a National problem that is growing stronger day by day. Many Judges disregard the evidence and even include "made-up" evidence to find a reason to rule against the woman, against the best interest of children, in favor of the father, to elevate his obligations for child support or reduce it gravely, below what he should be paying. It is all economical! You are VERY insightful, and correct (more than you know). Trust me! It was a blessing to stumble upon your website and I truly enjoy reading your articles. Please continue. I wish more women were aware of your blog. I would say almost 95% of women who are involved in custody/child support matters are at a disadvantage within the judicial system because the "judges" that are sitting there making the rulings are doing so from the point of view of "how to use the evidence against the mother, and use it in favor of the father". Again, thank you.

However, I find you remarks above regarding "racial" element to child support VERY interesting as well. Could you please comment more on this?

NYMOM said...

I will comment more on this in future postings and thank you for your support.

NYMOM said...

"I can't stand bio Mom's"

Well your initial comment saids it all, so I'm paying no attention to anything else you say going forward. This not a place for stepmonsters to air their opinions on how generous their husband were because they only got a limited amount of money from some poor kids' mother...

Stay off my blog moron...