Sunday, October 29, 2006

Three Strikes Law for Judges

This ruling is a perfect example of why we need to pass a law mandating a three strikes rule for Judges. Whereas when they legislate from the bench ignoring the rule of law, their decision is reviewed and they are fined if found to be ignoring the law. Three times a fine and then their license to practice law is revoked.

The history of this case is that the so-called ‘biological’ father and his girlfriend left these infants in the hospital for 8 days with no contact, other then the initial visit on the day of their birth. The mother was sent home from the hospital whereupon she was eventually contacted by the hospital and informed that the infants would be sent to foster care if no one picked them up. So she went down to get them herself.

In spite of her original poor judgment in getting involved in this surrogacy for money scheme, she was rightfully awarded sole custody by the first hearing Judge, who conclude as any rational being would that there is NO EXCUSE whatsoever to not be there for your new-born infants every freakin day…you don’t leave three newborns in a hospital without even a visit no matter the insurance issues. Nor do you leave them in a hospital nursery long enough that someone else has to be contacted to pick them up or risk them being sent to foster care.

Additionally the children were in the custody of their mother for well over two years. Thus it was not in their best interests to be removed from the only home they had ever known and be handed over to this reckless sperm donor a few months ago. If the court couldn’t see it’s way to awarding her custody as the childrens’ actual mother, then surely it would have been on safe grounds to award her custody as the ‘psychological parent’.

Once again we see Judges ignoring the best interests of children in order to placate men.

This ruling is outrageous as was the initial one reversing custody of those poor kids.

We need to get a Three Strikes for Judges Law going in Pa and every other state in the union actually.

Pa. court refuses surrogate mom's appeal
Sat Oct 28, 5:26 PM ET

PITTSBURGH - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal filed by a surrogate mother who lost custody of triplets she delivered nearly three years ago to their biological father.

A lower court had ruled in April that Danielle Bimber had no standing to challenge the custody rights of James Flynn, 65. Since then, the boys have lived with Flynn in Kirtland, Ohio.

The decision Tuesday means Bimber must now appeal to a federal court if she wants the case to continue. She did not return a phone call to The Associated Press on Saturday and it wasn't clear whether she plans to appeal.

"I knew there was a 95 percent chance that I wasn't going to get them back," Bimber told The Journal of Corry, Pa., for Friday's editions. "Now I know it's 100."

Still to be decided is a suit Flynn filed that seeks $350,000, which includes legal fees, child support and the $20,000 surrogate fee he paid Bimber to bear the children.

Flynn contracted with Bimber in 2001 and agreed to pay her to carry the babies for him and his girlfriend. The three boys were born in November 2003.

Bimber took the children home eight days later and raised them with her husband because, she said, Flynn and his girlfriend didn't name the children or visit them for several days. (emphasis mine: This comment in the article is misleading, as the hospital themselves contacted Bimber and told her they were ready to place the infants in foster care if no one came to get them. Thus this article is another example of bias against mothers in the media trying to mitigate the irresponsibility of the father's action here.)

Flynn and his girlfriend saw the children the day they were born and said insurance and medical issues related to the triplets' premature births kept them from visiting in the days afterward. (emphasis mine. Excuse me but bullcrap...there is NO excuse for not visiting or being with your newborn infants for eight days. NONE.)...

Friday, October 27, 2006

Shout-Out to a Brave Woman

I just want to give a so-called ‘shout-out’ to Marilyn Musgrave and a heartfelt thank you to her for her courage in trying to have Michael Schiavo escorted out of the Auditorium where she was giving a speech.

Thank you Ms. Musgrave.

I don’t know this women’s position on any other issues but I sincerely thank her from the bottom of my heart for having the courage to try to get this man evicted. Shunning people to let them know that you consider them repulsive is a practice that needs to be brought back into American life. It’s the equivalent of the community deciding that, although what you do might be legal, we as your neighbors still reserve the right to judge if it’s right.

So again thank you Ms. Musgrave for giving voice to the millions of Americans who felt that what Michael Schiavo was allowed to do by the courts was, although legal just not right.

Every once in a while a woman will do something extraordinarily courageous so even if is not a motherhood related issue, I will mention her on this blog.

My unreal night in Colorado - with radio link
by Michael Schiavo
Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:05:14 PM PDT

If it were fiction, you wouldn't believe it.

Sadly, what happened in Colorado on Tuesday is true and unbelievable.

At the conclusion of a three-day, three-state campaign trip to promote candidates who will bring needed new leadership to Washington, I flew to Ft. Collins, Colorado to attend the only "debate" between Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave and her courageous and forceful challenger Angie Paccione in the Colorado 4th district.

What happened there made the clearest case I could ever imagine for why change isn't just needed - it's required.

That was Tuesday.

But before we even got to Colorado, I had a great meeting with Joe Sestak who's running an incredible campaign against Republican Curt Weldon in suburban Philadelphia. My PAC gave Sestak's campaign a $1,000 check to assist his efforts in restoring some sanity to Congress.

And I was impressed with Joe's candor, compassion and decency and I have no reservations in saying he'll be a great Congressman - they kind who will have the courage to stand up for our rights and the wisdom to know the difference between national policy and divisive politics.

Back to Tuesday in Colorado...a little background, first. Back in mid-July I travelled to Colorado and delivered a letter to Congresswoman Musgrave's office. asking her why she felt compelled to interfere in my family's personal affairs - questioning, in fact trying to refute the medical facts of my wife's case on the floor of Congress.

Not surprisingly, Marilyn Musgrave never responded to my letter.

So on Tuesday I joined about 1,000 citizens and members of the local and regional media in the Windsor High School Auditorium to hear the debate and try to get an answer to my question from Congresswoman Musgrave.

About twenty minutes before the debate started and after speaking to several reporters about how Musgrave had voted to transform her values into our laws, I took a seat in the front row. As it turned out, I was seated next to the timekeeper who held up yellow and red cards to signal time to the candidates.

But just minutes after taking my seat, I noticed a flurry of activity around my seat including about four uniformed police officers who were - I would learn later - called in by Musgrave staffers and asked to remove me from the building.

At this point, I had made no speeches, I had no signs, had made no attempt to disrupt or cause any commotion. I only came into the auditorium, spoke to a dozen or so reporters and took a seat.

To their credit, the police refused the Musgrave campaign's appeal to have me removed.

There's more to come, but I still can't get over even that part. A sitting member of Congress asked the police to remove me - a taxpaying citizen - from a public debate.

Obviously, I misunderstand the concept of a political debate. I thought a debate was a place to share ideas, answer questions, defend your record and tell citizens what you've done and what you will do. Marilyn Musgrave believes, I have to gather, that debates are places to have the police remove people who don't agree with you.

After the police talked with obviously irritated Musgrave staffers and the debate organizer, the Musgrave campaign complained that my seat, next to the timekeeper, was inappropriate because - get this - Marilyn Musgrave would have to look at me. In an effort to appease the Musgrave camp, the debate organizers moved the timekeeper to the other side of the stage - about 15 seats away.

If you need to re-read that again, it's okay. A member of Congress who took to the floor of our Congress to speak about my wife, my family and my values made the debate timekeeper move so she wouldn't have to look at me. Just amazing.

The "debate" went on for an hour and at two points the audience actually broke out into laughter at Musgrave. Once, in response to a question about health care when she said America had the best health care in the world and again when she said the 700 mile immigration fence Congress approved would stop immigrants and protect "our children from drug dealers."

I admit I'm new to politics, but it just can't be a good sign when a home-town crowd is laughing at their Congresswoman. But given who their member of Congress is, I understand it.

As if the evening weren't already strange enough, as the clock wound down on the debate I noticed about half a dozen Musgrave staffers and supporters gathering near the stairs to the stage. They were whispering and forming a line. It stuck me as odd but I soon discovered why they were there.

As soon as the moderator wrapped-up the evening, they rushed in front of me forming a human shield for Congresswoman Musgrave - trying to keep me from speaking to her.
I called out, "Marilyn, why won't you answer my question?" and "It's just one question." But, like before, she ignored me. And as I approached the stage with other debate watchers, Musgrave staffers surrounded me trying their best to shout over me silly things like, "We love you Marilyn" and "Way to Go! Marilyn!"

It was really lame.

And, no kidding, within seconds of the debate ending, three or four other Musgrave staffers ran on stage, took the Congresswoman by the arms and whisked her through a side door and into a waiting car. She not only avoided my question, she didn't take a single comment from a single voter or shake a single hand.

I will give her credit, though, Marilyn Musgrave may have been the first member of Congress with the courage to actually demonstrate for all of us what "cut and run" really looks like. Marilyn Musgrave's display was the sorriest excuse for Democracy I'm likely ever to see.

Angie Paccione, by contrast, acted like a Congresswoman and stayed on stage and in the room for nearly an hour after the debate talking to people and shaking hands.

But underneath it all I'm left with something I can't get past. Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, as I said, had no problem at all in speaking about me and my family on the floor of Congress. Yet she can't bring herself to even look at me. She has to seek help from the police to have me removed from a public debate.

It's crystal clear that Marilyn Musgrave not only can't admit she's wrong, she can't even face the consequences of her own actions. She must believe that if she runs away fast enough or surrounds herself with enough people who tell her she's great, it never happened.

Well, Marilyn, it did happen. You were wrong. And that you don't have the decency to admit it or even face me - even to disagree with me - is more than cowardice. It's un-American and disgusting.

Even though you'd rather not see it or hear it, Congresswoman Musgrave, your votes have consequences. What you do impacts real people. And a wall of staffers, police and debate complaints won't hide the truth.

After seeing Marilyn Musgrave in action, I hope more than ever before that voters in Colorado are wise enough to make a change. I just can't think of any better reason to dump her from Congress than her refusal to even see the people she hurts. I just don't know how you can get any worse than that.

Angie Paccione needs your help.

There's more at stake here than just a seat in Congress.

And there are real parallels between Mariyn's outrageous behavior on Tuesday and the course our country is on. Like Marilyn Musgrave, too many of our "leaders" in Washington just refuse to see what's happening in Iraq, they refuse to see the members of Congress in hand-cuffs, they refuse to see people still living in the tragedy of Katrina, they refuse to see our un-insured and homeless.

Like Musgrave, they'd rather run away than face any American who sees what's really going on.

Please, please, please help Angie Paccione.

America needs this Congress to be swept away and take Marilyn Musgrave with it.

UPDATE: Yesterday, I was a guest on the Ed Schultz radio show to talk about the Colorado debate debacle. They have audio of my interview up on their website, here.

Tags: Michael Schiavo, Terri Schiavo, Colorado, CO-04, PA-07, Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak, Congress, Angie Paccione, Marilyn Musgrave, TerriPAC, Recommended (all tags)

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Fatherhood Programs--Nothing but Propaganda Tools Against Mothers

Many of these fatherhood programs are the impetus to millions of young mothers losing custody of their infants. A lot of these programs provide information to men inciting them with hatred against mothers and encouraging them to work the legal system in various ways in order to get custody of infants away from their mothers. Using all kinds of statistical lies about mothers, especially single mothers, they incite men into believing that children will be better off with fathers and instigate them filing for custody. 30% of the pool of custodial fathers is composed of these never-married, recreational sperm donors.

Even the abductions of babies is used as a tactic since these programs advise these never-married fathers of their so-called ‘rights’ which include in some states being able to race down to court and file for custody themselves if the mother hadn’t already done so herself. Since a good number of states consider a father, even if never married, to have Joint Custody with mother if she hasn’t gone down to court to file for legal custody. If they are not in such a state, the programs give the fathers legal advice on how to get a fathers rights attorney to help them wrestle custody of these infants away from their mothers.

I’ve spoken with and heard from numerous mothers who have lost custody of their children in this manner, many of them nursing infants, btw. Some of these mothers have not seen their babies again due to these abductions and these programs incite fathers to do this. Even sending your baby with the father or any of his relatives for a brief visit out of your home can end with a judicially-sanctioned abduction of your child.

One mother was telling me how she sent her week old nursing infant for a ‘visit’ with the father (claiming he wanted to take the child to his sister’s house) and she didn’t see the child for weeks afterward, the father simply disappeared with the baby. BTW, she went to the police, the FBI, that 1-800 Missing, etc., and no one would help her. As it turns out she lived in a state where both parents have joint custody immediately upon birth. So even though his name was not on the birth certificate, this scenario was not considered an abduction. Eventually her child was returned because this man had to return to active duty, he was on leave from Iraq. But quess what, that didn’t have to happen that way. She might have never seen that kid again if that sneaky dirtbag wasn’t afraid of being classified as AWOL.

I happen to believe that Christopher Rhodes (who murdered 7 year old Jerica) was probably also involved with one of these fatherhood programs, as many of these hate mongers against mothers are active in upstate New York. AND that’s what they are, in spite of the propaganda they hid behind, nothing but hate mongers. This aspect of the Rhodes murder case was never properly addressed in the media, so to this day we do not know the names of any of the people involved with inciting this man to fight for custody of a child that was not even his. Ultimately these monsters escaped detection and punishment due to the media neglecting to properly investigate this case.

These fatherhood programs should be immediately disbanned, the tax-payer money returned and investigations should be launched to see how many of the employees have been actively involved in stirring up hatred against mothers under the guise of helping men be better fathers. The whole thing is a racket to make money off of children, as well as a well oiled propaganda campaign against mothers.

Additionally in states where they are the most successfully with these establishment of paternity claims, the single mothers’ birthrate has dropped drastically, by 20% or more. Since single mothers are the engine of growth for the African American community, I believe a closer investigation will reveal that the black community’s population is actually the one falling in those states.

AND don’t think that’s not a lot of the motivation for these programs as well…

I have attached a link to an earlier post on my blog about this situation.

Study Ties State Laws, Unwed Child Births

By REBECCA COOK, Associated Press Writer

Researchers at the University of Washington and Columbia University said Friday that child support laws' power to reduce single parenthood is an unintended consequence of a policy designed to help children and cut public welfare costs.

“Unintended” only the very gullible would believe this crap knowing the history of racism here. Another interesting read for those who haven’t noticed the link between these hate campaigns being waged against mothers and lower birth rates for certain segments of our population.

Anyway here is the article regarding a fatherhood program below. Don't be fooled by the language they use describing the program however.

Posted on Mon, Oct. 16, 2006

Program helps teen boys adjust to fatherhood


— Becoming a father at 17 meant big changes for Oscar Perez.

Going to school was no longer about having fun with his friends. He would have to work hard to graduate from Bowie High School, get a job and help support his daughter.

Fortunately for Perez, he had support from his family, his girlfriend and an innovative program run by the Arlington school district’s Pregnancy Related Services office.

For the past five years, the office, which provides dropout prevention for teen parents and abstinence-education services for younger students, has been using a chunk of a yearly $320,000 federal grant to focus on teen dads.

The fatherhood program serves about 50 to 80 teenagers at a time, providing support groups and educational sessions at each of the district’s high school campuses and lots of other one-on-one contact. The teen fathers and fathers-to-be learn about parenting basics like changing diapers and feeding as well as how to register with the state child-support office or establish paternity.

Perez said just gathering with others who were going through similar experiences was a source of support.

“We would talk about what was going on in our lives,” he said. “Everybody tried to help out one another.”

The Pregnancy Related Services office gives support and parenting education to more than 500 adolescent mothers and pregnant teens each year through the work of five Pregnancy Education and Parenting counselors, a nurse and other staff. All the counselors have master’s degrees, and their attention to the students’ needs is intense.

“We’re keeping kids in school. That’s our ultimate goal,” said Tori Sisk, coordinator for Pregnancy Related Services. “If we have kids dropping out of schools, we don’t want it to be because of pregnancy-related issues.”

Though the program receives an average of $200,000 in funding from the state each year and some is available from the school district, the federal funds let it do more. The grant funds a salary for a sixth counselor assigned to the boys program.

It also supplements programs for teenage mothers and their children.

Funding for the original grant, from the federal Office of Population Affairs, ran out in July. But this month, officials were notified that Pregnancy Related Services will receive an additional $1.85 million over the next five years. Only nine such awards were made, and just one other dropout-prevention program for teen parents in Texas, Dallas’ Promise House, received a similar grant.

Because administrators are still learning the best way to track the fatherhood program’s success, anecdotes and the results of focus groups made up of teen dads are the strongest indicators of the program’s impact.

Keith McGee, the counselor assigned to the fatherhood program, said he usually contacts boys who are about to become fathers after one of the girls’ counselors or a teacher points them out. He talks to them about what pressures they’re facing and offers help.

Perez married the mother of his child less than a year after their daughter, Mariah, was born. Being parents hasn’t been easy on them, but both graduated and are buying a home in south Arlington. Oscar Perez works in Home Depot’s freight department and hopes to attend Tarrant Community College. Deven Perez, who works in a local school cafeteria, is pregnant with their second child.

“When we first found out she was pregnant [with Mariah] a lot of people were ” said Oscar Perez. “But we like, ‘You’ve just messed up your whole life,’ didn’t look at it like that. We look at it as we started a new life.”

Traci Shurley, 817-548-5494

Saturday, October 21, 2006

I Decided to Put Up This Old, but Interesting Post

All this week most of the blogosphere was discussing secondary characteristics adapted by women to assist them in surviving their historic and ongoing second-class citizenship status...except for the usual assorted outbreaks of threats to: sue each other, get another blogger fired, expose someone's real identity, beat up or kick another poster's ass if they made a comment someone didn't like again, etc.,

Just another ordinary week in cyberspace...

Oh well.

Anyway it made me return to this old post since it somehow appeared it could be relevant to that discussion; so I decided to put it up again in case any of the crew of misfits and trolls who frequently comment on this blog missed it the first time. Or more importantly were so busy aggravating me on this blog, that they missed last week's discussion on other blogs...

My motto has become if we can't blog with the ones we love, we must love the ones we're struck blogging with...

Thus the mission continues:

The Historic Psychic Scars that do Not Heal

Sometimes a moment of revelation can happen in the midst of a very ordinary event.

I was recently watching a very disturbing performance on C-SPAN the other day where a group of women sat transfixed before a man who spent the better part of an hour trying to convince them that mothers were not very good at raising our own children. Even though God, nature or just plain dumb evolutionary forces have designated us, women, the female of the species to bear, nurture and guide our young to maturity, this jackass thought he knew better then God, nature and evolution itself.

He brazenly stated that single fathers performed better then their female counterparts (single mothers) in 20 something different categories.* He blamed single mothers, as well as female teachers, for the fact that boys entered into gangs, claiming they were looking for the ‘male presence in the family’ they missed out on in their home life; very conveniently forgetting to mention the male presence who abandoned those families in the first place, thus making young men susceptible to the call of the wild, so to speak.

Additionally he let ‘white America’ get a free pass on this, as most of these problem homes are and will continue to be African-American, clearly impacted by the historic legacy of slavery in this society. Wherein single black women were encouraged to have one child after another, outside of the institution of marriage. Actually these women were rewarded for this behavior, as after they produced anywhere from 13 to 15 children for their white master to trade off for profit (remembering that this man was often the father of these children as well), this unfortunate mother was finally rewarded with her freedom.

This proved a true bargain with the devil and we live with this legacy today…and we MUST stop running away or trying to deny this responsibility or we will never solve the problems associated with it. By the way, anyone desiring more information on this phenomenon only need read the autobiography of Frederick Douglass...a real eye opener for those truly interested in the history of fathers in American society throughout that whole historic epoch.

Actually, historically North America was the only place in this hemisphere that micromanaged a people into being a self-reproducing slave population. Every other country, except our own, such as Brazil, the West Indies, etc., had to import slaves in order to have any, whereas the United States worked out a system that we could produce our own…and like I said, above, we live with this shameful legacy today as do the women who bear the psychic scars of this trauma and pass that along to their chilldren and their childrens' children.

There should be no minimizing of that crime and subsequent obligations we all bear because of it, none. It is our historic burden, our shame, an unpaid debt we still owe and we must bear it and deal with it, without blaming the victims who are still being crippled by that very ugly historic legacy.

We must accept this situation and it’s historic causes (us) and, most importantly, stop blaming the single black mother for this problem as young black men in gangs or in prison or doing drugs are not in trouble in this country because of their mothers.

AND I’m getting sick of listening to people trying to claim this.

Anyway, I digress…

This arrogant and foolish man then went so far as to mention that men appeared to be very willing to stay at home, while women went to work to support them, so men could raise the children, that they invested a whole two-second sperm donation in creating.

While mother who starts preparing for her children physically, psychologically and emotionally since about the age of 13 or so, (some say 7) then goes through 9 months of hell and high water (not to mention the hours of painful and bloody labor) to finally get them here in one piece, that she should be perfectly content to, well go join the marines, for instance, for a job to support her family…since there really didn’t appear to him to be much too different in being a marine or a mother…

Well at least it answers the question of why the US had to abandon most of its post-Vietnam era military ventures…and why some are beginning to question whether or not higher education, itself, is proving to be a huge waste of time and money for the US. As we appear to have raised and educated our ‘best and brightest’ to be some of the biggest jackasses in history.

Actually listening to this rant did not surprise me; as I’ve been listening to the male of our species pontificating on how much better a job they could do at raising children then mothers for the last 10 years or so now; but what did surprise me was that none of the women challenged him; they just sat their dumbly nodding in assent with faint smiles on some of their faces. There was more of an uproar at Harvard a few weeks ago, when someone dared to questions womens’ aptitude for science. Like, let’s face it, that is probably priority #853 for most women, as compared to these attempts to intellectually convince us that we aren’t good for our own children.

I almost hate to tell this jackass that mothers have been designated, since life itself first crawled out of the primal mist, as the most obvious, natural and best guardians for the young. This is the case in every species, including our own, and this designation was no accident. It’s because mother is the one who invest the most in bringing forth life, that she is the most natural guardian to see to it that that investment produces ‘fruit’. This has been the case and will remain the case long after this idiot falls into a hole somewhere and hopefully pulls it in after him; and if we are really lucky he’ll pull in the rest of these gender-neutralized social engineers who are perfectly willing to experiment with our kids in all kinds of weird family forms and strange custody arrangements.

A mothers’ children are her most precious possession, yet here we are ready to hand over, what women and women alone bring forth in pain and bloody suffering, to hand off into some sort of weird, gender-neutralized, social-engineering experiment, without a word of freakin protest.

I was disheartened and puzzled but then tonight once again, another revelation (and thank God it came just as I was ready to update my blog because otherwise, I would have been hard pressed to have an optimistic post tonight with all the death and destruction visited upon women by men this week; one bloody murder of us after another.)

Anyway, I’m watching C-SPAN again, listening to Tavis Smiley’s forum on the “State of Black America” and he introduces Thomas A. Parham, Ph.D who begins to expound on why African-Americans are in so much distress in spite of the 30 or 40 years since the civil rights movement and all the changes and assistance that is currently available for them. One of the issues he focuses on was psychic scarring. It exists, it run deep, it’s not visible. Additionally it can run so deep if you have enough traumatized generations born during the process, that you don’t even recognize it anymore. You think it’s normal and natural.

Thus you act and react to events, totally unaware that you are following a script that was written for you long before you, yourself, even existed. So no control is needed to keep you in your place, since you have already internalized the role that you’ve been assigned. It’s the matrix write large. Worse actually, as a matrix, if it existed, would be a physical ‘thing’ thus susceptible to being located and destroyed, whereas a historic psychic injury is not detectable, yet it can destroy your soul or, worse yet, cause you to destroy your soul since you don’t even recognize your essential self when it appears.

It struck me with a shock of recognition that Parham could have easily been talking about women, as what group has been living someone else’s script longer then we have.

Women, in their role as mothers, are frequently convinced by others that the mother/child bond is non-existence, so we have no more right to our children, then anyone else. Actually others should have more rights to them, as they are smarter and better then mothers, far more worthy to raise our children then we are. Additionally, we should be willing to participate in allowing men to experience being mothers, especially since they are so much better at doing everything else then us, why not this to? Or that our feeling towards are children are real, but irrational, primitive, not as significant as thing as a career in science. Definitely not as important as even a one-night stand with some jackoff who is only interested in women for how fast they can get you into the back seat of their cars, leaving you with a quick-drop sperm deposit before you are kicked to the curb again.

Actually everything in the world should be seen as more important to a mother then her children.

This fixation lately on women chasing after men for sex (as imprinted upon women via the media as in Sex in the City, Brittany Spears, every music video ever made, breast implants, etc.,) or the white wedding that must precede community-approved childbearing (that women spend much time chasing after causing tremendous soul-searing damage to ourselves in the process) keeps the focus on men, front and center in all womens’ lives.

It has caused women to expose ourselves to constant danger as in bringing dangerous men into our lives and our homes, rather then live alone.

It has caused women to allow men to disrespect us on both an individual and collective level, while we try everything possible to drag them to the altar for the traditional white wedding, that most men run from like the plague.

It has allowed women to subject ourselves to every sort of abuse from the one-night stand to posing half-naked everywhere we go, (more psychological rape of women which we enable to be done to us, we enable it). Regarding the one-night stand, let’s face it, this does nothing physically or emotionally for women. If we are being totally honest about it, women really use the one-night stand as a negotiating tool in a misguided attempt to build a deeper relationship with a man, who is actually only using women for sex in these one-night stands, nothing more.

It has allowed women to overlook the fact of abuse, both physical as well as emotional, in order to keep just about any relationship with a man no matter how destructive to us or our children.

It has caused women to use pregnancy as a negotiating tool in more desperate attempts to convince men to commit when men clearly want no part of us; thus causing our children untold hardship as they are court-ordered into relationships with men who would rather they do NOT even exist. Not to mention the worse case scenario if these ‘fathers’ decide to take custody in order to evade child support. Then our children, who should be front and center in our lives, our most precious possessions, are lost to us through the greed of men.

Sometimes lost forever as a mother losing custody might never see her child again. It the equivalent of sending a slave mothers’ child off to the deep south. It was the fear of most slave mothers as they knew it portended the end of their attempts to nurture and protect their children from outside forces…and spun their children out into the world and God only knew where they would wind up, God only knew…very similar to Bridget Marks’ twins or even Lisa Mason’s daughter…Once a mother loses custody of her children, anything can and frequently does happen to them…anything.

Thus, women must recognize this distortion of our priorities for the psychic scars that they are and work to heal ourselves.

Women must stop this trite madness of chasing men for either sex or marriages until we have healed ourselves to the point that we are able to negotiate a truly mutual relationship.

Women must focus on what should be front and center in our lives, our most precious possession, our children.

Women must stop listening to others who are either jealousy of the mother/child bond or are attempting to regain their position at the top of the hierarchy and have no problem with climbing unto the backs of our children to get there again.

Not to mention that they are quite content to continue inflicting even more psychic injury on women, as they continue this struggle to deprive us of our children.

I've posted some statistics below to dispute the 20 something talking points put forth by these gender-neutralized idiots in their quest to convince women that joining the marines would be more significant to mothers, then mothering our own children...

*Shaken Baby Syndrome Statistics

One shaken baby in four dies.

Some studies estimate that 15% of children's deaths are due to battering or shaking, and an additional 15% are possible cases of shaking.

Of the 37 children that died in Florida in 1995-96 13 died from a combination of Shaken Baby Syndrome/ Head Trauma.

Of the thousands that survive death, serious injury usually occurs.

"SBS" victims range in age from a few days to a few months old; the average is six months.

More than 60% of the victims of Shaken Baby Syndrome are male.

Almost 80% of the perpetrators of Shaken Baby Syndrome are male

Information courtesy of:

By the way these statistics hold true for New York as well.

I guess they forgot to include the 21st item on the list.

Here we have some other info overturning more lies put out about mothers.

Additionally the information indicates child abuse is increasing, probably as more men get custody of more children in their ongoing attempts to avoid paying child support, we will continue to see an increase.

This is why I frequently tell women never be afraid of honest statistics. As I am confident enough that thousands of years of evolution is not going to lie about the choice of women as the most obvious, natural and best guardian of the young in every species, including our own...

Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities: Statistics and Interventions
Author(s): National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information

Year Published: 2004


Despite the efforts of the child protection system, child fatalities remain a serious problem.1 Although the untimely deaths of children due to illness and accidents have been closely monitored, deaths that result from physical assault or severe neglect can be more difficult to track. Intervention strategies targeted at resolving this problem face complex challenges.

Unless otherwise noted, statistics in this fact sheet are taken from Child Maltreatment 2002 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004).

How Many Children Die Each Year From Child Abuse and Neglect?

The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) reported an estimated 1,400 child fatalities in 2002. This translates to a rate of 1.98 children per 100,000 children in the general population. NCANDS defines "child fatality" as the death of a child caused by an injury resulting from abuse or neglect, or where abuse or neglect were contributing factors.

Many researchers and practitioners believe child fatalities due to abuse and neglect are underreported. States' definitions of key terms such as "child homicide," "abuse," and "neglect" vary (therefore, so do the numbers and types of child fatalities they report). In addition, some deaths officially labeled as accidents, child homicides, and/or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) might be attributed to child abuse or neglect if more comprehensive investigations were conducted or if there was more consensus in the coding of abuse on death certificates.

Recent studies in Colorado and North Carolina have estimated as many as 50 to 60 percent of deaths resulting from abuse or neglect are not recorded (Crume, DiGuiseppi, Byers, Sirotnak, Garrett, 2002; Herman-Giddens, Brown, Verbiest, Carlson, Hooten, et al., 1999). These studies indicate that neglect is the most underrecorded form of fatal maltreatment.

Are Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities Increasing?

The rate of child abuse and neglect fatalities reported by NCANDS has increased slightly over the last several years from 1.84 per 100,000 children in 2000 to 1.96 in 2001 and 1.98 in 2002. However, experts do not agree whether this represents an actual increase in child abuse and neglect fatalities, or whether it may be attributed to improvements in reporting procedures. For example, statistics on approximately 20 percent of fatalities were from health departments and fatality review boards for 2002, compared to 11.4 percent for 2001, an indication of greater coordination of data collection among agencies.

A number of issues affecting the accuracy and consistency.

Who Are the Perpetrators?

No matter how the fatal abuse occurs, one fact of great concern is that the perpetrators are, by definition, individuals responsible for the care and supervision of their victims. In 2002, one or both parents were involved in 79 percent of child abuse or neglect fatalities. Of the other 21 percent of fatalities, 16 percent were the result of maltreatment by nonparent caretakers, and 5 percent were unknown or missing. These percentages are consistent with findings from previous years.

There is no single profile of a perpetrator of fatal child abuse, although certain characteristics reappear in many studies. Frequently the perpetrator is a young adult in his or her mid-20s without a high school diploma, living at or below the poverty level, depressed, and who may have difficulty coping with stressful situations. In many instances, the perpetrator has experienced violence first-hand. Most fatalities from physical abuse are caused by fathers and other male caretakers. Mothers are most often held responsible for deaths resulting from child neglect. However, in some cases this may be because women are most often responsible (or assumed to be responsible) for children's care (U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995).

Information Courtesy of:

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Useless Couch Shrubbery -- Yet Still Looking to Control Women

Well I thought the little news piece below was very interesting, as well as revealing.

Since it showed that much of the propaganda about gays having children is really nothing more then attempts to restrict the rights of single women to have children without the requisite male overseer.

As gay men have had the right to adopt children for decades with few bothering to do so.

AND as we can see from the article below most of the women using sperm donor services are single women wishing to be mothers and just not having an adequate partner, they are not lesbians.

AND I predict that we would see the same pattern in surrogacy arrangements as well as single parent adoptions, if anyone cared enough to check. Most would turn out to be ordinary single women wishing to have a family before it's too late, after being kept hanging around for years waiting for a commitment from some useless male reprobate (probably parked in front of the TV watching the Sports Channel for 75% of his existence).

Anyway, this whole uproar about gay marriage and parenting is a code for: men trying to be in charge of everything again and their ever more frantic attempts to exert male control over women (without having to move off the couch, of course, or relinguish the remote). In other words: restore the control over women men USED to have, without them having to make any real changes in their lives. Thus, limiting women's ability to be single mothers if we never happen to marry is the real motivation behind these crazed campaigns against gay marriage, procreating via sperm/egg donors, etc.

This was even the basis for England passing that ridiculous law last year making it illegal to use anonymous sperm donors anymore. Painting it as concern for children when in fact it was another sad attempt by men to try to regain control of women again.

United Press International
News. Analysis. Insight.

10/8/2006 8:03:00 PM -0400

NewsTrack - Quirks
'Bio-panic' leads solo women to parenting

LONDON, Oct. 8 (UPI) -- "Bio-panic," a term referring to single women's attempts at motherhood without a man, has driven scores of women to British clinics to embrace the endeavor.

Most of the women suffering from "bio-panic" are said to be in their 30s and have the mindset that waiting for the "perfect" man in order to have children could take too long, ultimately leading them to fertility clinics in increasing numbers, The Telegraph said.

"Many are suddenly realizing that this commitment-phobic man they are living with, who says he wants children 'at some point', cannot hear their biological clocks ticking," said the head of the British Fertility Society ethics committee, Dr. Gillian Lockwood. "These are wonderful, educated, professional women who are making a definite choice about motherhood."

While the number of single women forgoing relationships for motherhood has been increasing across Britain, recent figures have shown that the number of lesbian couples undergoing in vitro fertilization has also risen by nearly four times since 2001.

Altogether 536 single women in Britain underwent in vitro fertilization during the last year in comparison to 156 lesbians who attempted to become pregnant in the same way, the newspaper said.

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Jealousy of the Mother/Child Bond Continues and Spreads like A Cancer

Well I guess spite and jealousy against mothers makes for many strange alliances and here is one of the strangest: a Fathers’ Rights group supporting a lesbian being awarded custody simply because she lived with a mother and child for 18 months. As I have said many times: lesbians are allowing themselves to be used by men to undermine the rights of all women in their role as mothers. If this woman wins, when the smoke clears, another dangerous precedent for mothers and children will have been set.

In essence even a short-term relationship can serve as the basis for a total stranger to gain legal rights to custody of your children.

My children growing up interacted with many people on both a long and short-term basis. From teachers they loved to friendly doormen. I even shared my apartment with a woman and her children for almost two years until she found her own place. YET that didn’t mean either her or I was entitled (nor should we have been) to any type of legal rights or obligations for each other’s children.

How will men feel if this becomes standard practice and just living with a woman with kids automatically makes them legally liable for her off-spring? As in having the state come after them for child support. Massachusetts, by the way, allows gays to marry and/or adopt. So how come this lesbian didn’t do either of these things initially? Obviously either her or the child’s mother didn’t feel the relationship merited these steps. Yet she wants to pursue custody now after the relationship has ended? Sorry, but these sorts of ‘do-overs’ after the fact should not be allowed.

You want to be a mother, have your own kids or adopt...

This Fathers’ Rights group supporting this woman shows me one thing pretty clearly: that men will go to any lengths to try to disavow the mother/child bond, even if the ultimate result is harmful to most other men. As a court ruling in favor of this lesbian will do nothing good for men. Actually it puts them at more risk of having to be forced into assuming responsibility for other men’s children simply because they lived with a mother for a short period of time.

Recent News
F&F in Mass Supreme Judicial Court Yesterday

F&F Stands Up for Children, Breadwinners

Do you think that when courts make custody decisions, they should choose the parent who most often dresses the children or arranges his daycare, and give no “credit” to the parent who earns the money to pay for the clothes and daycare?

Fathers & Families submitted an amicus brief in a case argued before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) yesterday. The brief, principally authored by Dr. Ned Holstein, argued that, contrary to some court decisions and legal authorities, being a breadwinner is a crucial family function that should be considered just as important as direct caretaking of children when courts make custody decisions. (Of course, it is also necessary that the principal wage earner develop a bond with the child!) The brief also argues that custody should not be decided by rigidly counting up the hours of who does the most diaper-changing, meal-cooking, etc. Instead, custody should usually be shared because children bond equally strongly to both parents, even when one is out of the home earning a living for long hours every day.

It doesn’t seem that we should have to argue such elementary points. But, unfortunately, many legal authorities and courts still insist that being a breadwinner does not help qualify you for custody of a child, and that custody should go to the “primary caretaker.” According to those authorities, things that mothers typically do, such as buying the child’s clothes, count as caretaking, but things fathers usually so, such as earning the money to pay for the clothes or fixing up the house, do not. This sexist approach almost always leads to sole custody for mothers. Under this kind of thinking, even the most devoted fathers end up with a few days per month of “visitation.” And the children, of course, are the ones hurt the most by this antiquated way of thinking. The twist in this case is that we were supporting a lesbian parent in her custody dispute.

The woman in question, identified in court papers only as A.H., is not the biological parent of the five-year-old boy who is the center of the dispute, but lived with him and his biological mother for the first eighteen months of his life, cared for him like a mother to the present, and was the primary breadwinner for the family. Some legal authorities argue that she should lose because breadwinning shouldn’t count, and without counting breadwinning, the biological mother did more for the child. Our argument is that neither A.H. nor heterosexual parents should be punished in court because they rose to the challenge of supporting their family financially.

Chief Justice Margaret Marshall mentioned that she was aware of our brief, and counsel for A.H. mentioned Fathers & Families by name in her oral arguments.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Presumptive Joint Physical Custody: Lesser of Many Many Evils Faced by Mothers and Children

Sadly every single thing that NOW and other feminists groups are saying in this article about presumptive Joint Custody is true.

Yes, it will turn custody of children into a club to be used against mothers, forcing them to stay in marriages for fear of not being able to leave with their children.

Yes, men are doing this mostly to avoid paying high child support.

Yes, it will ultimately wind up being a joint custody parenting plan on paper ONLY just as it has in California, where they already experienced it. That the least interested parent, which is generally the father (in spite of much propaganda trying to convince us otherwise) will not continue exercising his portion of the parenting plan. So it will have the ultimate result of mothers raising the kids for 80/90% of the time with no child support, since on paper it said the parents are sharing joint physical custody.

All of this is true.

What NOW fails to acknowledge however is the role feminists have played in family courts across the nation in making this the lesser of many many evils that mothers have to accept today. Because the alternative for mothers is to have to risk going into a court system, overrun with greedy men and gender neutralized feminists, where it is considered progressive and trendy to give a father custody today.

So mothers risk a heck of a LOT more going into court on these issues then we do accepting a faux Joint Custody plan.

It should be quite obvious to any thinking person today, looking at the numbers of fathers that have become custodial over the last decade or so, that going to court to decide custody has favored men. As opposed to the defacto custody to mother approach that has existed since life first crawled out of the primal ooze. Yet feminist organizations continue to advocate for women to not accept the so-called ‘cookie cutter’ approach of presumptive Joint Custody and for us to continue letting a Judge decide these issues for us on a case-by-case basis.

Hello feminists, but millions of mothers over the last decade or so have lost custody of their children by following your advice.

Not to mention that recently studies have shown us that having female Judges in courts has proven WORSE for women in sentencing for both lesser as well as major crimes. So carrying the implication of that study through to it’s logical conclusion shows us that: a) it is not only bad for women if men are acting as Judges; but b) it is also bad for us if other women are Judges as well.

Thus, there is nothing good for women in allowing ourselves to be forced into the court system, nothing.

So NOW and other feminist groups needs to shut the hell up and quit trying to shoot down every proposal that is put forth to keep mothers out of court.


As these very feminists are the ‘slackers’ who used other women to propel themselves into educational opportunities in law schools and the like, with the subsequent cushy jobs throughout our system that resulted for them from this. Then they failed to come through for their sisters when they were needed during this whole custody war situation over the last decade or so.

That’s the bottom line here.

These feminists failed mothers when they were in crisis in this society and since most women become mothers, this means feminism ultimately failed women.
Everything Michigan

Fathers demand joint custody
Thursday, September 28, 2006
By Sharon Emery

Lansing Bureau

LANSING -- Michigan fathers who believe they've been worked over by the courts on child custody are among backers of a bill that would mandate joint physical custody unless there is convincing evidence that a parent is unfit, unwilling or unable to hold up his end of the bargain.

Currently the starting point for determining custody is the child's best interest.

But some fathers say that puts them at a disadvantage because family courts are biased toward women and, as child-bearers, women usually already have the child under their care.

"So Dad has the burden of having to fight for any kind of parenting time or custody," said William Reisdorf, an attorney from Troy and a member of Dads of Michigan, a fathers' rights group.

He was among about 100 people, mostly men, rallying at the Capitol Wednesday to support HB 5267, sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer, R-Horton. Mortimer, who as a child saw her father only every other Sunday after her parents divorced, says she's been promised a public hearing on the bill this fall.

But advocates for women say mandating joint custody would put the father's interests above the child's and turn custody proceedings into mud-slinging affairs. Women might avoid divorce, even when the family is in a desperate situation.

"We have to make sure families are not pressured into joint custody," said Kathy Hagenian, of the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, who noted that batterers often use children to manipulate their partners in custody disputes.

"Joint custody could be used to further traumatize the child," she said, and make threats and manipulation "much more effective."

Other opponents of the bill include the Family Law Section of the State Bar and the Michigan Conference of the National Organization for Women. They pointed to California, which in 1994 repealed its mandatory joint custody law, and New York, which has failed to move a similar bill, as evidence of widespread misgivings about the move.

The legislation would affect only those cases where custody is disputed, about 5 percent of the cases, according to Kent Weichman, of the Family Law Section of the State Bar. Since 1980 Michigan judges have been required to consider joint custody when a parent requests it.

"Under this bill, one parent would have to be found unfit by the courts in order to have any kind of custody arrangement other than 50-50," Weichman said.

Ultimately, "the bill prohibits the court from considering what's best for children ... by imposing one solution on all families."

Supporters of the legislation, including Fathers-4-Justice, Moms of Michigan and the Children's Rights Council, argued in a statement that Michigan families are "being micromanaged by the family court system with disastrous consequences to our children, families and the state economy."

They say the bill would result in a presumption of joint custody for fit parents, adding that equal parenting is a civil rights issue "whose time has come."

Opponents disputed the notion of court bias in favor of women, noting that in 50 percent to 75 percent of custody disputes women lose.

Some see a financial motive in mandating 50-50 custody, noting that one parent, often the mother, usually ends up providing most of the care even when the court specifies otherwise.

"This will eliminate child support -- there won't be any support orders," said Renee Beeker, president of the Michigan Conference of the National Organization for Women.

Feminist Attorney Coming to her Senses after Lesson in School of "Hard Knocks"

The New York Times Online

Op-Ed Contributor

Don’t Let Divorce Off the Hook

Published: October 1, 2006
Lexington, Va.

NEW YORK is one of the few states without unilateral no-fault divorce, which means that New York couples can get a no-fault divorce only by mutual agreement.

Judith Kaye, New York State’s chief judge, set out to change all that. Earlier this year, the matrimonial commission she formed recommended that the state enact full unilateral no-fault divorce. Judge Kaye highlighted the proposal in her annual address about the state of the judiciary, and the idea was promptly endorsed by the New York Bar Association and the Women’s Bar Association, as well as major newspapers.

Despite all that establishment grease, no-fault divorce promptly went nowhere. While a bill was introduced in Albany, the Legislature went home in June without negotiating or making any progress on the specifics of the legislation.

A similar thing happened when the American Law Institute, an influential organization of lawyers, academics and judges, called on states to strip all remaining vestiges of fault from family law, even as a factor in alimony or property distribution. But six years later, not a single state has passed new legislation to eliminate fault in family law.

Meanwhile, this summer, Louisiana became one of the first states in years to pass a major no-fault revision, in the opposite direction: creating a new one-year waiting period for no-fault divorce when couples have children younger than 18 years old, unless there is a determination of abuse in the marriage. And a group of more than 100 legal and family scholars just released a report urging legislators to consider passing extended waiting periods for no-fault divorce.

What accounts for the new resistance to no-fault? Reasons include the growing evidence that divorce often hurts children, feminists’ renewed recognition of the importance of legal protection for mothers raising children, and concerns about the economic disparities created by differences in marriage rates. Gay marriage advocates have also played a role in this shift, by calling attention to “easy divorce,” which they say is the real threat to marriage, not same-sex unions.

But another reason is Americans’ intimate familiarity with divorce and its consequences. As a family law scholar, I have long written about the problems with divorce, driven largely by the scholarly evidence. This past year, I joined the ranks of Americans with personal experience.

While I was living in Maryland, my husband, from whom I am now divorced, assaulted me (an assault for which he has since been convicted). On the whole, I had been impressed by how Maryland protects victims of domestic violence. But I also came to understand why the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women has opposed Judge Kaye’s unilateral divorce proposals.

When no-fault divorce advocates say that family law should pay no attention to the reasons why a marriage ends, what does this mean in practice for modern women like me who have careers and have built assets? We are told that we should in effect have to pay our batterers for the privilege of divorcing them. That seems to me, as to many other Americans, not only bad social policy, but deeply and profoundly wrong.

Americans care why marriages break apart. Infidelity, violence, abandonment matter. This does not mean we must uncritically embrace the old fault-based divorce laws. It does suggest we need a prudent and realistic search for new approaches to enacting our shared moral understanding of marriage.

Marriage should be a place where spouses can count on promises of fidelity and where spouses (and children) are physically protected. Under current New York law, fault matters to property distribution and the determination of alimony only in those exceedingly rare instances of extreme brutality that shocks the conscience. But fault includes more than extremely outrageous behavior.

If New York legislators go ahead and give one spouse a unilateral right to a no-fault divorce, they need to lower the threshold for considering fault in property distribution and alimony awards. Without a more sensible threshold, there can be no norms of decency within marriages and family relationships.

Contrary to the American Law Institute and to Judge Kaye, we should recognize that often someone is at fault, and that needs to matter in the dissolution of the marriage if the law is to do justice.

Robin Fretwell Wilson, a visiting law professor at Washington & Lee University, is the editor of “Reconceiving the Family: Critique on the American Law Institute’s Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution.”

I once heard an interesting theory on conservatives, that they were liberals who once got mugged. Applying that little bit of urban folk lore to the above article, I’d have to say that the strongest supporters of fault-based marriages might eventually become feminists who get a major ‘beat down’ from their husbands. As I guarantee you that if Robin Fretwell Wilson hadn’t faced that experience, she’d be like many other gender-neutralized feminist attorneys or family law scholars out there (similar to the Judge Judith Kayes of the world) arguing to toss fault out of marriage.

In brief: keeping fault in marriage PROTECTS the more vulnerable partner in the enterprise, which is still generally WOMEN. It PROTECTS the person who has the least income, quite simply because they have taken time out from their education and career to invest themselves physically and emotionally in their marriage and children instead of a career. Actually their husband, home and children are their career. Thus, it generally protects women, who btw, are already vulnerable to losing custody of their children in a legal system currently overrun by greedy men and gender-neutralized feminists. A legal system that is already far too friendly to the partner with the most money to spend on the sneakiest attorney to help them work that system. A legal system that is apt to take custody of even infants away from their mothers and hand them over to fathers quite simply because it is considered trendy and progressive to do so today.

Thus assigning fault (if it exists) in divorce is a necessary evil to protect the partner who has done no wrong, is very frequently the one with little income to defend themselves in court and stands to lose not just their home and standard of living but their children as well. Since alimony is rarely awarded these days and the shelf life of women in the market expires very quickly. Otherwise like Ms. Wilson points out men behaving badly (or women as the case may be) get rewarded for bad behavior.

Actually fault should not just exist for property settlements, but for custody of children as well. Since I find it hard to believe that the 50% of us that is male and is responsible for the most crime and anti-social acts in every society worldwide is not also responsible for committing the most acts of fault that bring about divorce as well. AND we need to stop rewarding the bad boy and irresponsible behavior that leads to most divorces, no matter who ultimately files for them first.

Monday, October 02, 2006

More Excuses from the Media for Another Hate Crime Against Women

Students Killed by Gunman at Amish Schoolhouse
Published: October 2, 2006

A lone gunman walked into a one-room schoolhouse in a largely Amish community in southeastern Pennsylvania today and shot as many as 10 girls, killing three immediately before turning the gun on himself and dying at the scene, according to the state police.

The school is just outside Nickel Mines, a tiny village about 55 miles west of Philadelphia.

The man, identified as Charles Carl Roberts IV, 32, who lived in the area, was evidently nursing a long-ago grievance expressed in notes left for his wife and children, said Jeffrey Miller, commissioner of the state police. He said the gunman lined the girls against the blackboard, bound their feet and shot them execution-style in the head.

“He split them up, males and females," Commissioner Miller said. "He let the males go, some of the adults go. He bound the females at the blackboard, and apparently executed them."

Three of the girls were dead at the scene in Nickel Mines, Pa., and seven others were rushed to nearby hospitals, some of them severely wounded. An earlier Associated Press report quoted a local coroner as saying there were six people dead, but the coroner later said he was unsure, The A.P. said.

Commissioner Miller told CNN this evening that of the several victims who had been taken to hospitals, two of the girls were in “dire” condition and might not live.

“There was some issue in the past” that had left the gunman with a desire to harm female students, Commissioner Miller said. He said that the murders were premeditated and that the gunman had called his wife — without telling her he was holding hostages in a school — that he would not be coming home.

Commissioner Miller said Mr. Roberts called his wife from a cell phone, saying he was "acting out in revenge for something that happened 20 years ago.”

Here we go again. The bodies of these young girls aren’t even cold yet and here comes the usual ‘blame his mother’ game or blame some other woman in this murdering monster’s life. Gee plenty of women get abused as children by their parents and guess what: we don’t go running into classrooms shooting all the male students down, now do we. When was the last time we heard of a woman doing that. How about NEVER?

This is becoming a sad fact of life today, btw, as although the media tries to cover up for men, many of these spree killers (all men by the way) target women just like serial killers do. But rather then the media honestly facing up to that by giving us factual information in the news, it becomes another exercise in gender-neutral news coverage. Of course now we’ll see the media frantically trying to dig up some story about a woman who killed someone…

I guess it’s time to wheel out the Andrea Yates coverage again or Susan Smith, so we can continue fooling ourselves about what’s really going on here.

Of course, just because we have about 2 million men in prison here versus slightly over 100,000 women AND the numbers are even WORSE in other countries shouldn't tell us anything. Or the fact that men outnumber women in arrests and imprisonment by 20 to 1 in other societies, that information really shouldn't count for much either. AND btw, that just counts outright crime, not the many anti-social acts that men commit that they get away with like raping female domestic servants in Saudi Arabia and the like...

After all, we are all the differences between the sexes...

Sunday, October 01, 2006

The Role of Collaborators in Undermining Emanicipation

An interesting email was sent to me last Friday regarding a new book and a blog discussing single women who decide to create their own families...

This is becoming quite common today as more and more women are just becoming fed up with hanging around waiting for the men in our lives to commit. Women only have so long to wait before our fertility starts declining and everything related to birth and recovery becomes doubly harder on us the older our bodies get.

So if women wish to be mothers before 40 (realistically even 40 is a stretch for most women especially if we want more then one child and studies say most women want two: 1 boy and 1 girl, thus we should be shooting for 30, 35 at the latest) anyway women might need to start checking out some other options besides waiting for Mr. Right to grow up, turn off Monday night football and finally propose. Especially when women can see 30 on the horizon and no man who is husband material in sight.

This is why it's even more important for women in the US to flex our political muscle and ensure that recreational sperm donors have NO RIGHTS to any children we chose to bear. Men should get legal rights to children through marriage or adoption and no other way, none of this half-stepping business. You're either in for the duration right from the beginning or you're out permanently. Just because a man has a fling or one-night stand with a women should give him no rights to any children he accidentally spawned that the child's mother decides to carry and give birth to.

Men have come up with this nonsense as a way to undermine women's autonony.

It's the equivalent of the south eviscerating the emancipation of African-Americans by undermining their voting rights. They managed to prolong the suffering of those people by adding another 100 years to their enslavement (from 1865 to 1965) through this method. Let's not allow them to do the same thing to women. Undermining all the rights women won back in the 60s/70s by using custody of our children as a club to be used against us. Since most women become mothers this is a threat against ALL women.

Additionally, the gender neutralized feminists who assisted men in this endeavor have to be treated like the totally worthless trash they are. They are deserving of no support from other women as they forfeited it by conspiring with these dirt bags against us in an attempt to rollback the clock on the rights of women. Just as the Republican Party (which was the Party of Lincoln and orginally emancipated the slaves) lost their privilege to be considered as a legitimate representative of African-Americans through their collaboration with the Southern states, so too have feminists lost their right to speak for women now. They have aided and abetted men to separate millions of mothers and children from one another, literally millions. All in an attempt to both avoid child support and/or undermine all the rights and freedoms women won back in the 60s and 70s.

Anyway visit the website, the link is below. Buy the book, read the book and think about it...


Subject: Single By Chance, Mothers By Choice| Hertz Q & A
From: "Ford, Rebecca"
Date: Fri, Sep 29, 2006 2:26 pm


I just wanted to make sure Rosanna Hertz's Single By Chance, Mothers
By Choice: How Women Are Choosing Parenthood Without Marriage and
Creating the New American Family was on your radar. Hertz is a
Professor of Sociology and Women's Studies at Wellesley College and
has generously taken the time to do a Q & A with the OUP BLOG.

Check out what Hertz has to say at I hope
you will encourage your readers to visit our site and leave feedback.

Have a great day!

Rebecca Ford
Blog Editor
Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
(212) 726-6060
Visit our blog at