I'm posting my usual Christmas message: to give some hope to mothers of better days to come and to help ruin the holidays of the jealous misfits who hate them...
**************************************************************************
Mum's the word, says the world: Mother was most loved, while father was absent...
Mother is the most beautiful word in the English language, according to a survey of non-English speakers.
More than 40,000 people in 102 countries were polled by the British Council to mark its 70th anniversary. Mother, passion, smile, love and eternity were the top five choices - but father did not even make it into the list of 70 words.
But some unusual choices did make the list, such as peekaboo, flabbergasted, hen, night and oi.
SOME OF THE TOP WORDS 1. Mother 2. Passion 3. Smile 4. Love 5. Eternity 48. Peekaboo 50. Kangaroo 61. Oi 63. Hiccup 70. Hen night Fantastic, destiny, freedom, liberty and tranquillity rounded out the top 10.
The British Council promotes the learning of English around the world and teaches the language to more than 500,000 people each year. Chris Wade, director of communications at the council, said the most favoured choices in the list were all strong, positive words. He said: "All of us have a mother and have a reasonable idea of who that person is, it's one piece of certainty we can have and it's also a very powerful word in a variety of cultures. "But I wonder if we would have had the same result if we had done the survey in the UK." He said the list showed the diversity of the English language: "There are words denoting concepts that people aspire to, like freedom; words that sounded fun like peekaboo and others that aren't really words at all but they convey real meaning, like oi."
Other words to make the top 70 included serendipity, loquacious, kangaroo and zing. There were also words imported from other languages, such as renaissance and aqua. Presumably, a maternal kangaroo would be highly rated indeed." We'll grab anything we can take. Lots of words have been stolen over the years," Mr Wade said. " But while other languages may be reluctant to use our words, [this has provided] a real richness in the English has evolved."
He said one English word to have gained widespread usage recently was flip-flop, which came 59th in the survey. Failed US presidential candidate John Kerry was accused by the Republicans of having "flip-flopped" - or changed his stance - on a number of policy areas. "Flip-flop was used a lot during coverage of the US election. If the survey had been done a year ago it probably would not be in the list," said Mr Wade.
Michael Quinion, whose recent book Port Out, Starboard Home examines some of the quirks of the English language, said it was a very "eclectic" list. He said: "These non-English speakers certainly have wonderful English vocabularies. "There seems to be a curious mixture of the formal and the colloquial. Oi is not a word that I would've thought turned up in English manuals all that often." The list also included what Mr Quinion said was his own favourite English word - serendipity, which came 24th. "It's so mellifluous but it's such a nice concept too."
Monday, December 24, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Happy Third Birthday to this Blog...
Well I have some good news and some bad news.
The good news is that I have been posting for THREE YEARS now this November.
So Happy Anniversary to me...
I first started this blog in November of 2004. It was the end result of much brian-storming and soul-searching. I intially had so many other ideas of things to do to address the issues I write about and even thought about other groups I could join forces with...but in the end, I felt my views would best be expressed openly and honestly, if I worked alone and accepted no assistance (including financial) from anyone.
So this little blog was born.
The bad news is that I am not posting another original article today, but another repeat of a post from two years ago.
Still relevant, however, still relevant...
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Another Urban Myth Shot Down...
Well we finally have a study linking child support enforcement to a lowering of single mother birth rates.
“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.”
Often the unintended effects are bad, so it's refreshing to see that," said lead study author Robert Plotnick, a University of Washington professor of public affairs. "Women living in states that do a better job of enforcing child support are less likely to become an unwed mother."
The really GOOD NEWS is that this clearly demonstrates that women do NOT have children to get child support; as the states that collect the MOST child support have demonstrated a 20% DROP in single motherhood. So if women were having kids to collect support you would see just the opposite happen with a 20% increase in single mothers to match the child support collected.
So another urban myth shot down.
This could be more BAD NEWS for those who hate mothers and like to spread lies about us.
AND MORE BAD NEWS:
Additional research will now be required to ascertain if actual population NUMBERS in any particular community are being impacted OR if this study's results just means more mothers getting married now, so no drop in overall population for any community has occurred. Although somehow I suspect this drop in numbers of single mothers is mainly translating into lower population within the African-American community.
AND one must always suspect any public policy where this is the ultimate outcome.
Thus the search for truth continues.
Study Ties State Laws, Unwed Child Births
By REBECCA COOK, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jun 18, 2005, 1:52 PM ET SEATTLE - Tough child support laws may dissuade men from becoming unwed fathers, as states with the most stringent laws and strict enforcement have up to 20 percent fewer out-of-wedlock births, a new study shows.
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.
"Often the unintended effects are bad, so it's refreshing to see that," said lead study author Robert Plotnick, a University of Washington professor of public affairs. "Women living in states that do a better job of enforcing child support are less likely to become an unwed mother."
The percentage of unmarried births in the United States has increased from 10 percent in the 1960s to about a third of all births today. Because children of single parents run a higher risk of poverty, academic failure and other problems, lawmakers are always seeking policies that will discourage unwed births — usually focusing on the mothers.
Researchers said their study recognizes the father's responsibility. "Decisions about sexual intercourse and marriage involve two people," said study co-author Irwin Garfinkel, a Columbia University professor and one of the nation's top experts on child support. The study, which has not yet been published, looked at a nationwide sample of 5,195 women of childbearing age using data from 1980-1993.
It didn't show whether tougher child support laws prevented pregnancies or encouraged marriage. Plotnick said the data limited the researchers to observing a strong correlation between tough child support enforcement and fewer out-of-wedlock births. Whether that's caused by fewer unmarried people getting pregnant or more couples marrying when the woman is expecting, he could not say. But he said the findings warrant further study.
"It's been very hard to find conventional programs that reduce unwed childbearing that work," Plotnick said Friday. "If you found a program cutting nonmarried births by 20 percent, you'd be happy."
Researchers noted wide disparities in child support policies. For example, in 2002 — the most recent year for which data were available — only one state, New Jersey, collected at least 80 percent of owed child support.
According to Columbia University's National Center for Children in Poverty, 31 states collected 41 percent to 60 percent of child support orders. The District of Columbia collected less than 20 percent of all child support owed.
posted by NYMOM | Saturday, August 13, 2005
8 Comments:
PolishKnight said...
Lying Statistics
The old saying is: "correlation is not causation." (A Polish friend of mine LOVES this English saying because it has a nice rhyme to it and is so often true.)
If single motherhood rates are going down, it may be due to a number of factors not necessarily tied directly to increased child-support enforcement or even potential single mother's choices: Maybe single motherhood rates are going down because of fear over welfare reform overall. Or maybe the women likely to become single mothers are just moving to other states for some particular reason. Or as you pointed out: Maybe women are just getting married more. And of course, maybe it's not just single mothers who make choices but also men: A system that relies upon men being breadwinners must therefore have breadwinning men both stupid enough to sleep around at random _and_ intelligent enough to bring home an income.
I've noticed a lot of posters around warning men about the pitfalls of not using contraception and being busted for child-support. There's wanted posters for deadbeat dads at nearly every post office in many states. Working men have to be _incredibly_ stupid to not get this message.
Of course, lots of men are driven by hormones to either ignore the risks or try to hedge them. The sexual revolution has given them access to a lot of sexually available women, but they must now deal with the pitfalls. This ties into the male BC pill or contraceptive which would be far more revolutionary than abortion rights since men wouldn't be bluffing: They really wouldn't want to have children from casual sex.
11:15 AM
NYMOM said...
Yes I understand that correlation is not causation, not always
anyway.
Yet sometimes it is.
I think we need to look a little deeper into the issue BEFORE we decide that there is no correlation between rise in collection of child support and 20% drop in single mothers.
As this is a pretty big drop.
I mean men have always wanted casual sex, even in very puritanical societies with harsh punishments for both men and women for acting upon this. So to me this is a given that nothing will impact this; including being forced to pay child support if having a child from said casual encounters.
I mean if imprisoning men or even killing them hasn't stopped them hankering and chasing after casual sex, I seriously doubt if asking them to pay child support will.
The pivotal people here are the women. What is stopping them??? That's the question??? I guarantee you that they are still having casual sex with men, but I bet they are just using better birth control.
Thus the question is really what is it about stricter enforcement of child support collection that is driving these potential single mothers to take more care when having casual sex....and I bet if we honestly researched it, that it's related to legal issues like custody.
Anyway, I was more interested in what you said regarding feminism going 'back to a more moral sexual stance between men and women'? Or something like that? Where have you read or hear anything related to this??? Or what leads you to believe it???
"Of course, lots of men are driven by hormones to either ignore the risks or try to hedge them. The sexual revolution has given them access to a lot of sexually available women, but they must now deal with the pitfalls. This ties into the male BC pill or contraceptive which would be far more revolutionary than abortion rights since men wouldn't be bluffing: They really wouldn't want to have children from casual sex."
Exactly...
Then let's see how far our population numbers drop before the government steps into this too. As let's face it, if women waited for men to be ready to have kids we would have probably gone extinct somewhere around the time of the Romans.
Actually the Roman DID go extinct, they were overrun by the Germanic tribes...
Probably a large portion of our population is related to those 'whooopies' where women finally just get tired of waiting and take matters into their own hands.
9:14 PM
PolishKnight said...
Hello NYMAMA,
So make up your mind already! Do you want to deeply examine a simple correlation before drawing a conclusion EITHER way, or do you want to go randomly with your correlation?
I'm reminded of Robert Klien standup routine where he laughs at the old Hi-C commercials where the Osmands brag that Hi-C has "10% fruit juice for that taste you love!" "What's the other 90 percent!", he screams, "Paint thinner?!?!"
In other words, even if we don't consider all the other factors both of us have mentioned, it doesn't change the fact that there's still 80% of these women out there having out-of-wedlock children and usually insisting upon child-support. Yes?
In answer to your point that men are horny enough to seek sex even if they jump off a cliff: This is often true but not necessarily for all men at all times. Pornography allows men to masturbate (sorry for this visual, but it's true.) We live in a different time than 30 years ago when most men only had access to porn from a few soft magazines at the newsstand or dirty movie theaters. It's a Billion dollar business. SOMEONE is using all that stuff to satisfy their sex urges.
Next, I'll elaborate on my point that the system relies upon such men being stupid enough to have casual unprotected sex AND intelligent enough to make a good living: Child-support enforcement hasn't increased income in recent years but has rather consumed it in the cost of the enforcement agencies themselves and even prison costs as such men just stop paying altogether. It's an ugly statistic that the mainstream media AND the feminists don't want getting out but is aggressively reported by MRA's who just gather up regular government statistics.
There are suckers out there, but as you and I both know, it's a matter of being in the right place at the right time for such women. If they sleep with some guy at a bar, it's possible he may have a good income AND not use a condom, but can she rely upon both of these being the case AT THE SAME TIME when SHE needs it?
Sure, these women can still have sex but maybe they're having it with men who are broke and now they're using birth control precisely because they realize that there's no money to be had. Also, I think I've seen studies that sexual promiscuity in these women have been going downhill as of late as men have wised up. I know from my own social circle of co-workers and friends that young men aren't the slutty dogs they used to be. They still enjoy sex, but they're a lot more saavy. (This is good news. I don't think these men are bad, they're just more smart. They're not likely to buy into the "just let her worry about birth control" mentality or try to get laid at any cost.)
I don't think feminists are going back to a more "moral" stance (since they're totally morally bankrupt man, society AND child hating materialists) but rather to puritanical sexless mores because the sex is with, well, men and men enjoy that. :-) In the old days 20 years ago, it was right wingers who were labeled as prudes who freaked out over a woman wearing a mini-skirt but today it's feminists who insist that workplaces be sexually sterile and men get busted for telling women they are pretty.
The reason is that they want to both harm heterosexual femininity (and push as many into lesbianism) AND to bash men for a profit. This is what's causing a mainstream "feminist" backlash: The "double dipper" career women who thought they could flirt and get stuff from men AND get a big fat paycheck are beginning to join up with the MRAs.
Even as birthrates drop, note that it only tends to drop ironically with white collar mainstream feminist types. "Red state" women and immigrants including Muslims and Latinos are having plenty of kids. I laughed when French leftists were trying to do something about it with more government benefits which would just even more burden their leftist native workplace and spur up immigrant birthrates. Can you say "digging deeper?"
Men have long been willing to commit to marriage with women under decent conditions. Women REALLY had it best in the 50's and blew it. Life wasn't perfect, but it was as close as possible for them. I know plenty of working class men, including my family, who happily married and had kids. What do you think of them?
The question of why the Romans "went extinct" has literally filled libraries. I want to fry some other, more practical, fish.
In conclusion, when you talk of women taking matters into their own hands, that's NOT the best way to try to portray motherhood that you claim is getting a bad rap. Yeah, why can't society seem to admire women who have bastard children out of wedlock and then argue for state benefits or track down deadbeat dads lest the child suffer in her care? Why isn't she getting humanitarian awards? Well, duh!
There are ways to "take matters into her own hands" that don't involve doing something so reprehensable including being more assertive and proactive about meeting breadwinning (and decent) men. One of the things that annoyed me the most about American women was how incredibly passive they can be. Foreign women seem more open in a manner that American women would refer to as "desperate" (and I don't just mean Eastern European women either. Even "normal" western european women are more "easy" when it comes to starting a normal relationship.
12:32 PM
NYMOM said...
Well that was a depressing post not even counting the NYMAMA wise crack.
Listening to you, everyone in western civilization might as well just collectively join hands and jump off the nearest bridge.
2:02 PM
PolishKnight said...
hello NYMOM
Sorry about the "wisecrack". It's more a matter of me just being awful with names. (In Polish, people say "mama" not, "mom") Nothing personal.
"Depressing?" Surprisingly, I'm accused by other MRA's of being overly optimistic. I see "red state" conservative men and women having tons of kids while the leftist/communists die out as their cities are taken over by immigrants. I don't know how the Roman empire fell, but it's becoming rapidly apparent how modern leftism is collapsing.
The situation is admitantly depressing just as post perostroika Russia was depressing but that's because it was a transitionary period. Since leftism had very little to offer me to begin with, I'm obviously not crying a river over the turn of events even as I acknowledge that there's a lot of human suffering created by the situation.
For most people who are aware of events, I think that they are coping reasonably well: Women who really value marriage, more than social conventions or games they've been taught by the culture, ultimately find men and families just as men ultimately find such women. It's difficult, but every generation has it's challenges.
I'm sure throughout most of history people have been tempted to jump off a bridge, yes?
5:13 PM
NYMOM said...
It's depressing because you are telling me that western civilization is going to be overrun by barbarians who are going to take over our nations in a generation or two.
This will not happen via invasion but through sheer inertia; as we die out from having too few kids.
With the fall of communism, came new hope for people as basically the 'heroes' of the Cold War won a major victory and democracy, capitalism, all sorts of freedoms were now available to people.
There was hope in other words of a better world for most of the people in those countries...
Now however you appear to be telling me that religious fundamentalists, either Pat Robertson or Osama bin Laudin will be in charge of western civilization in the future...
So some of the same guys who were barbaric enough to drive three planes into the World Trade Center killing thousands of innocent people and who regularly chop off each others heads and hands for relatively minor offenses are now in line as the heirs apparent to centuries of our blood, sweat and work that went into building this great civilization...
I'd sooner return this place to the Indians before I let those assholes have it...
11:12 AM
PolishKnight said...
Hello NYMOM,
This kind of brings to mind the "Capital One" barbarians, doesn't it?
As I said, I don't see everyone not having kids. Times are tough, but strong spirited people will find ways to get through them. I look back at the worst times of the cold war and WWII and WWI and think it's amazing that people could function, don't you?
What's wrong with Pat Robertson? I disagree with much of what he has to say too but largely view Christian communities as peaceful and economic prosperous places to live. But yes, there is a showdown coming for a variety of cultural elements that will over-shadow (pardon the ugly pun) gender squabbles and most of them will tend to push society in a conservative direction.
Do you think this is a bad thing?
I'm curious, NYMOM, what is your view of the 'perfect' or at least workable society? What do you see society, if all things go well, progressing towards? How much equality is enough? How much is too much?
In answer to your question: as ugly as it seems that Osamas may inherit the Earth, consider that we've been living in a self-loathing society for some time now. Is this any surprise? I know a number of middle class families where the women basically buy into leftist loathing of men as oppressors and women as entitled victims. Do you think such a society can be stable and survive outside pressures much less attacks?
The good news is that people who don't have this attitude will have children. That _is_ how things should work, yes? Isn't it good that the red staters are having more kids?
I find your Indian comment interesting. Ultimately, the land will belong to the people who decide they want to have children in the first place to have it AND are willing to make ALL the necessary sacrifices for that possibility, I don't view unwed single mothers as having that commitment. If they can barely get along with men to have children with them, what makes they think their children will ever have the tools to maintain and protect their society?
12:15 PM
NYMOM said...
"I'm curious, NYMOM, what is your view of the 'perfect' or at least workable society? What do you see society, if all things go well, progressing towards? How much equality is enough? How much is too much?"
The 'perfect' society would be equality in all outcomes when people can and do make the equal contribution...
In essence, equal opportunity with no guarantee of equal result according to some quota...
For instance, if you go to medical school and fulfil all the requirements you become a doctor.
It would NOT be people having equal rights/results to something that they have contributed little or nothing of their own to...such as being allowed extra points on a test so you could pass and become a doctor in order to have enough women in medicine.
Same thing regarding children.
Thus, women should ALWAYS be the custodian of their children, as they unequivocally make the larger investment in their existence. It's a natural law and right that should be automatic and is the case in MOST other societies with the exception of Western societies where our men have obviously made themselves mentally ill with jealousy over women's role as the givers of life.
IF a mother wishes to voluntarily assign that right to others, such as when a young girl gives her child up to adoption or voluntarily gives up custody, or is found abusive or negligent, that's one thing. But for a court, some group of unknown individuals to be given the right to decide someone else is more suited to have custody of her child then a child's mother is monstrous. That should be a human rights violation. I don't think we should even recognize the rights of courts to do this...
It's an abomination really and will be seen as such when people look back on this period in our history where millions of mothers have lost custody of their children..
An unnatural event, evil really aided and abetted by both MRAs and gender neutral feminist who encourage it. Thus I could NEVER really be involved in anything that included any of you within it such as a group or something...as MRAs and gender neutral feminists support of this puts them hand in glove in petpetuating a great evil against mothers and their children.
Sorry there is no nice way to say this.
The good news is that I have been posting for THREE YEARS now this November.
So Happy Anniversary to me...
I first started this blog in November of 2004. It was the end result of much brian-storming and soul-searching. I intially had so many other ideas of things to do to address the issues I write about and even thought about other groups I could join forces with...but in the end, I felt my views would best be expressed openly and honestly, if I worked alone and accepted no assistance (including financial) from anyone.
So this little blog was born.
The bad news is that I am not posting another original article today, but another repeat of a post from two years ago.
Still relevant, however, still relevant...
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Another Urban Myth Shot Down...
Well we finally have a study linking child support enforcement to a lowering of single mother birth rates.
“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.”
Often the unintended effects are bad, so it's refreshing to see that," said lead study author Robert Plotnick, a University of Washington professor of public affairs. "Women living in states that do a better job of enforcing child support are less likely to become an unwed mother."
The really GOOD NEWS is that this clearly demonstrates that women do NOT have children to get child support; as the states that collect the MOST child support have demonstrated a 20% DROP in single motherhood. So if women were having kids to collect support you would see just the opposite happen with a 20% increase in single mothers to match the child support collected.
So another urban myth shot down.
This could be more BAD NEWS for those who hate mothers and like to spread lies about us.
AND MORE BAD NEWS:
Additional research will now be required to ascertain if actual population NUMBERS in any particular community are being impacted OR if this study's results just means more mothers getting married now, so no drop in overall population for any community has occurred. Although somehow I suspect this drop in numbers of single mothers is mainly translating into lower population within the African-American community.
AND one must always suspect any public policy where this is the ultimate outcome.
Thus the search for truth continues.
Study Ties State Laws, Unwed Child Births
By REBECCA COOK, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jun 18, 2005, 1:52 PM ET SEATTLE - Tough child support laws may dissuade men from becoming unwed fathers, as states with the most stringent laws and strict enforcement have up to 20 percent fewer out-of-wedlock births, a new study shows.
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.
"Often the unintended effects are bad, so it's refreshing to see that," said lead study author Robert Plotnick, a University of Washington professor of public affairs. "Women living in states that do a better job of enforcing child support are less likely to become an unwed mother."
The percentage of unmarried births in the United States has increased from 10 percent in the 1960s to about a third of all births today. Because children of single parents run a higher risk of poverty, academic failure and other problems, lawmakers are always seeking policies that will discourage unwed births — usually focusing on the mothers.
Researchers said their study recognizes the father's responsibility. "Decisions about sexual intercourse and marriage involve two people," said study co-author Irwin Garfinkel, a Columbia University professor and one of the nation's top experts on child support. The study, which has not yet been published, looked at a nationwide sample of 5,195 women of childbearing age using data from 1980-1993.
It didn't show whether tougher child support laws prevented pregnancies or encouraged marriage. Plotnick said the data limited the researchers to observing a strong correlation between tough child support enforcement and fewer out-of-wedlock births. Whether that's caused by fewer unmarried people getting pregnant or more couples marrying when the woman is expecting, he could not say. But he said the findings warrant further study.
"It's been very hard to find conventional programs that reduce unwed childbearing that work," Plotnick said Friday. "If you found a program cutting nonmarried births by 20 percent, you'd be happy."
Researchers noted wide disparities in child support policies. For example, in 2002 — the most recent year for which data were available — only one state, New Jersey, collected at least 80 percent of owed child support.
According to Columbia University's National Center for Children in Poverty, 31 states collected 41 percent to 60 percent of child support orders. The District of Columbia collected less than 20 percent of all child support owed.
posted by NYMOM | Saturday, August 13, 2005
8 Comments:
PolishKnight said...
Lying Statistics
The old saying is: "correlation is not causation." (A Polish friend of mine LOVES this English saying because it has a nice rhyme to it and is so often true.)
If single motherhood rates are going down, it may be due to a number of factors not necessarily tied directly to increased child-support enforcement or even potential single mother's choices: Maybe single motherhood rates are going down because of fear over welfare reform overall. Or maybe the women likely to become single mothers are just moving to other states for some particular reason. Or as you pointed out: Maybe women are just getting married more. And of course, maybe it's not just single mothers who make choices but also men: A system that relies upon men being breadwinners must therefore have breadwinning men both stupid enough to sleep around at random _and_ intelligent enough to bring home an income.
I've noticed a lot of posters around warning men about the pitfalls of not using contraception and being busted for child-support. There's wanted posters for deadbeat dads at nearly every post office in many states. Working men have to be _incredibly_ stupid to not get this message.
Of course, lots of men are driven by hormones to either ignore the risks or try to hedge them. The sexual revolution has given them access to a lot of sexually available women, but they must now deal with the pitfalls. This ties into the male BC pill or contraceptive which would be far more revolutionary than abortion rights since men wouldn't be bluffing: They really wouldn't want to have children from casual sex.
11:15 AM
NYMOM said...
Yes I understand that correlation is not causation, not always
anyway.
Yet sometimes it is.
I think we need to look a little deeper into the issue BEFORE we decide that there is no correlation between rise in collection of child support and 20% drop in single mothers.
As this is a pretty big drop.
I mean men have always wanted casual sex, even in very puritanical societies with harsh punishments for both men and women for acting upon this. So to me this is a given that nothing will impact this; including being forced to pay child support if having a child from said casual encounters.
I mean if imprisoning men or even killing them hasn't stopped them hankering and chasing after casual sex, I seriously doubt if asking them to pay child support will.
The pivotal people here are the women. What is stopping them??? That's the question??? I guarantee you that they are still having casual sex with men, but I bet they are just using better birth control.
Thus the question is really what is it about stricter enforcement of child support collection that is driving these potential single mothers to take more care when having casual sex....and I bet if we honestly researched it, that it's related to legal issues like custody.
Anyway, I was more interested in what you said regarding feminism going 'back to a more moral sexual stance between men and women'? Or something like that? Where have you read or hear anything related to this??? Or what leads you to believe it???
"Of course, lots of men are driven by hormones to either ignore the risks or try to hedge them. The sexual revolution has given them access to a lot of sexually available women, but they must now deal with the pitfalls. This ties into the male BC pill or contraceptive which would be far more revolutionary than abortion rights since men wouldn't be bluffing: They really wouldn't want to have children from casual sex."
Exactly...
Then let's see how far our population numbers drop before the government steps into this too. As let's face it, if women waited for men to be ready to have kids we would have probably gone extinct somewhere around the time of the Romans.
Actually the Roman DID go extinct, they were overrun by the Germanic tribes...
Probably a large portion of our population is related to those 'whooopies' where women finally just get tired of waiting and take matters into their own hands.
9:14 PM
PolishKnight said...
Hello NYMAMA,
So make up your mind already! Do you want to deeply examine a simple correlation before drawing a conclusion EITHER way, or do you want to go randomly with your correlation?
I'm reminded of Robert Klien standup routine where he laughs at the old Hi-C commercials where the Osmands brag that Hi-C has "10% fruit juice for that taste you love!" "What's the other 90 percent!", he screams, "Paint thinner?!?!"
In other words, even if we don't consider all the other factors both of us have mentioned, it doesn't change the fact that there's still 80% of these women out there having out-of-wedlock children and usually insisting upon child-support. Yes?
In answer to your point that men are horny enough to seek sex even if they jump off a cliff: This is often true but not necessarily for all men at all times. Pornography allows men to masturbate (sorry for this visual, but it's true.) We live in a different time than 30 years ago when most men only had access to porn from a few soft magazines at the newsstand or dirty movie theaters. It's a Billion dollar business. SOMEONE is using all that stuff to satisfy their sex urges.
Next, I'll elaborate on my point that the system relies upon such men being stupid enough to have casual unprotected sex AND intelligent enough to make a good living: Child-support enforcement hasn't increased income in recent years but has rather consumed it in the cost of the enforcement agencies themselves and even prison costs as such men just stop paying altogether. It's an ugly statistic that the mainstream media AND the feminists don't want getting out but is aggressively reported by MRA's who just gather up regular government statistics.
There are suckers out there, but as you and I both know, it's a matter of being in the right place at the right time for such women. If they sleep with some guy at a bar, it's possible he may have a good income AND not use a condom, but can she rely upon both of these being the case AT THE SAME TIME when SHE needs it?
Sure, these women can still have sex but maybe they're having it with men who are broke and now they're using birth control precisely because they realize that there's no money to be had. Also, I think I've seen studies that sexual promiscuity in these women have been going downhill as of late as men have wised up. I know from my own social circle of co-workers and friends that young men aren't the slutty dogs they used to be. They still enjoy sex, but they're a lot more saavy. (This is good news. I don't think these men are bad, they're just more smart. They're not likely to buy into the "just let her worry about birth control" mentality or try to get laid at any cost.)
I don't think feminists are going back to a more "moral" stance (since they're totally morally bankrupt man, society AND child hating materialists) but rather to puritanical sexless mores because the sex is with, well, men and men enjoy that. :-) In the old days 20 years ago, it was right wingers who were labeled as prudes who freaked out over a woman wearing a mini-skirt but today it's feminists who insist that workplaces be sexually sterile and men get busted for telling women they are pretty.
The reason is that they want to both harm heterosexual femininity (and push as many into lesbianism) AND to bash men for a profit. This is what's causing a mainstream "feminist" backlash: The "double dipper" career women who thought they could flirt and get stuff from men AND get a big fat paycheck are beginning to join up with the MRAs.
Even as birthrates drop, note that it only tends to drop ironically with white collar mainstream feminist types. "Red state" women and immigrants including Muslims and Latinos are having plenty of kids. I laughed when French leftists were trying to do something about it with more government benefits which would just even more burden their leftist native workplace and spur up immigrant birthrates. Can you say "digging deeper?"
Men have long been willing to commit to marriage with women under decent conditions. Women REALLY had it best in the 50's and blew it. Life wasn't perfect, but it was as close as possible for them. I know plenty of working class men, including my family, who happily married and had kids. What do you think of them?
The question of why the Romans "went extinct" has literally filled libraries. I want to fry some other, more practical, fish.
In conclusion, when you talk of women taking matters into their own hands, that's NOT the best way to try to portray motherhood that you claim is getting a bad rap. Yeah, why can't society seem to admire women who have bastard children out of wedlock and then argue for state benefits or track down deadbeat dads lest the child suffer in her care? Why isn't she getting humanitarian awards? Well, duh!
There are ways to "take matters into her own hands" that don't involve doing something so reprehensable including being more assertive and proactive about meeting breadwinning (and decent) men. One of the things that annoyed me the most about American women was how incredibly passive they can be. Foreign women seem more open in a manner that American women would refer to as "desperate" (and I don't just mean Eastern European women either. Even "normal" western european women are more "easy" when it comes to starting a normal relationship.
12:32 PM
NYMOM said...
Well that was a depressing post not even counting the NYMAMA wise crack.
Listening to you, everyone in western civilization might as well just collectively join hands and jump off the nearest bridge.
2:02 PM
PolishKnight said...
hello NYMOM
Sorry about the "wisecrack". It's more a matter of me just being awful with names. (In Polish, people say "mama" not, "mom") Nothing personal.
"Depressing?" Surprisingly, I'm accused by other MRA's of being overly optimistic. I see "red state" conservative men and women having tons of kids while the leftist/communists die out as their cities are taken over by immigrants. I don't know how the Roman empire fell, but it's becoming rapidly apparent how modern leftism is collapsing.
The situation is admitantly depressing just as post perostroika Russia was depressing but that's because it was a transitionary period. Since leftism had very little to offer me to begin with, I'm obviously not crying a river over the turn of events even as I acknowledge that there's a lot of human suffering created by the situation.
For most people who are aware of events, I think that they are coping reasonably well: Women who really value marriage, more than social conventions or games they've been taught by the culture, ultimately find men and families just as men ultimately find such women. It's difficult, but every generation has it's challenges.
I'm sure throughout most of history people have been tempted to jump off a bridge, yes?
5:13 PM
NYMOM said...
It's depressing because you are telling me that western civilization is going to be overrun by barbarians who are going to take over our nations in a generation or two.
This will not happen via invasion but through sheer inertia; as we die out from having too few kids.
With the fall of communism, came new hope for people as basically the 'heroes' of the Cold War won a major victory and democracy, capitalism, all sorts of freedoms were now available to people.
There was hope in other words of a better world for most of the people in those countries...
Now however you appear to be telling me that religious fundamentalists, either Pat Robertson or Osama bin Laudin will be in charge of western civilization in the future...
So some of the same guys who were barbaric enough to drive three planes into the World Trade Center killing thousands of innocent people and who regularly chop off each others heads and hands for relatively minor offenses are now in line as the heirs apparent to centuries of our blood, sweat and work that went into building this great civilization...
I'd sooner return this place to the Indians before I let those assholes have it...
11:12 AM
PolishKnight said...
Hello NYMOM,
This kind of brings to mind the "Capital One" barbarians, doesn't it?
As I said, I don't see everyone not having kids. Times are tough, but strong spirited people will find ways to get through them. I look back at the worst times of the cold war and WWII and WWI and think it's amazing that people could function, don't you?
What's wrong with Pat Robertson? I disagree with much of what he has to say too but largely view Christian communities as peaceful and economic prosperous places to live. But yes, there is a showdown coming for a variety of cultural elements that will over-shadow (pardon the ugly pun) gender squabbles and most of them will tend to push society in a conservative direction.
Do you think this is a bad thing?
I'm curious, NYMOM, what is your view of the 'perfect' or at least workable society? What do you see society, if all things go well, progressing towards? How much equality is enough? How much is too much?
In answer to your question: as ugly as it seems that Osamas may inherit the Earth, consider that we've been living in a self-loathing society for some time now. Is this any surprise? I know a number of middle class families where the women basically buy into leftist loathing of men as oppressors and women as entitled victims. Do you think such a society can be stable and survive outside pressures much less attacks?
The good news is that people who don't have this attitude will have children. That _is_ how things should work, yes? Isn't it good that the red staters are having more kids?
I find your Indian comment interesting. Ultimately, the land will belong to the people who decide they want to have children in the first place to have it AND are willing to make ALL the necessary sacrifices for that possibility, I don't view unwed single mothers as having that commitment. If they can barely get along with men to have children with them, what makes they think their children will ever have the tools to maintain and protect their society?
12:15 PM
NYMOM said...
"I'm curious, NYMOM, what is your view of the 'perfect' or at least workable society? What do you see society, if all things go well, progressing towards? How much equality is enough? How much is too much?"
The 'perfect' society would be equality in all outcomes when people can and do make the equal contribution...
In essence, equal opportunity with no guarantee of equal result according to some quota...
For instance, if you go to medical school and fulfil all the requirements you become a doctor.
It would NOT be people having equal rights/results to something that they have contributed little or nothing of their own to...such as being allowed extra points on a test so you could pass and become a doctor in order to have enough women in medicine.
Same thing regarding children.
Thus, women should ALWAYS be the custodian of their children, as they unequivocally make the larger investment in their existence. It's a natural law and right that should be automatic and is the case in MOST other societies with the exception of Western societies where our men have obviously made themselves mentally ill with jealousy over women's role as the givers of life.
IF a mother wishes to voluntarily assign that right to others, such as when a young girl gives her child up to adoption or voluntarily gives up custody, or is found abusive or negligent, that's one thing. But for a court, some group of unknown individuals to be given the right to decide someone else is more suited to have custody of her child then a child's mother is monstrous. That should be a human rights violation. I don't think we should even recognize the rights of courts to do this...
It's an abomination really and will be seen as such when people look back on this period in our history where millions of mothers have lost custody of their children..
An unnatural event, evil really aided and abetted by both MRAs and gender neutral feminist who encourage it. Thus I could NEVER really be involved in anything that included any of you within it such as a group or something...as MRAs and gender neutral feminists support of this puts them hand in glove in petpetuating a great evil against mothers and their children.
Sorry there is no nice way to say this.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
History and the Horrible Ways it Repeats Itself...
Since Silverside and I have been having an ongoing and most interesting discussion regarding historical motherhood and the issue of child support has cropped up into it, I thought it would be appropriate to re-post this interesting post from January 2007.
Also it's a good way to put up a 'new' post w/o having to do a lot of work, since I have lunch plans later...LOL...
Seriously though I have been sick and I'm just recently getting back into the blogging game, so I want to start gradually building up to my prior weekly posting pattern.
I also think it's important for us NOT to get confused about the 'original intent' of child support, and make no mistake about it, high child support is what is driving the current custody wars raging throughout our society, nothing else.
Anyway, the intention behind child support was never meant to be some benign action taken on the part of our government to help families raise children, as it is ofttimes painted.
Nor was it some idea pushed by any feminists in order to help mothers and children.
Again, complete misreading of the 'original intent' here. Just like a rooster crowing at dawn is not the cause of the sun rising, so too feminists' support of child support was NEVER the reason it was instituted.
Thus, it was never a 'good' idea gone bad.
Instead it was begun as a tool to punish the African-American population for the rioting and other so-called deviant behaviors that took place during the 60s; as well as cut down on the use of public benefits by instituting a pay-as-you-go (or pay-as-you-grow) system for having children.
I know the accusation of racism has been done to death today, as everything is not racism and when you cry wolf too much with accusation of racism underlying everything, it belittles the term.
Yet we cannot escape the historical fact that the initial intent behind the beginnings of our current child support system was, in fact, due to racism. That taint continues today with many poor mothers being denied access to their children due to inability to pay enough child support. Not to mention the ones who are jailed due to it, which are many in spite of the lies that continue about this issue...
Last point: I don't want to hear any stories about more men then women being jailed due to inability to pay child support as I am not in a contest here with men vs. women. This is a blog about mothers: so my ONLY concern is MOTHERS being unjustly imprisoned due to not being able to pay child support and not being able to see their children. Advocates for men have plenty of other places to vent about their issues. This blog is not one of them.
I also posted the comments section for 'comic relief'...so people can have a few laughs about how this nutty commenter (who claimed to be a custodial father) used to try to derail every discussion...
************************************************************************************
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Blowback from Attempt to Destroy Other Peoples
Child support enforcement in the US has morphed into a weapon to be used against poor mothers in the US today in order to terminate their parental rights and to discourage them from having children in the future. Studies have now demonstrated that the states with stricter child support enforcement also show drops of 20% or more in the number of single mothers. I believe this will eventually translate into a far larger drop in minority population figures eventually, as single mother are the engines of population growth for those communities. This was the original racist intent behind these programs to begin with, so they need to be reviewed for the disparate population impact on certain communities and then reformed accordingly.
Looking at the history of child support we can trace its origins from that the so-called War on Poverty instituted by President Lyndon Johnson. It should have really been called the War on Population as that was its target: getting the African-American population under control. America woke up shocked one morning when it discovered that what was originally a small population of slightly over 3 million African-Americans residing in the US after the Civil War ended in 1865 had suddenly morphed into a substantial force to be reckoned with by 1965. The sheer weight of the numbers involved in the marches and demonstrations throughout many US cities broadcast night after night into the living rooms of America frightened many of them and convinced US politicians that something had to be done. What they decided on was the War on Poverty and a Research Institute was established in 1966 right in the heartland of the US, Wisconsin, to research the causes of povery in African-American communities, even though there were far more prestigious and better known research universities in the US. Of course they immediately tagged as the “cause” of poverty single mothers. Not the institutional and legal discrimination that had been allowed to go on for almost 100 years, but single motherhood was identified as the root cause of most of the problems in the African-American community and the campaign to demonize single mothers, especially those in the minority community, began in earnest and has continued unabated to this day.
Pretending to be concerned for children, a parallel campaign was also begun glorifying fatherhood. Many of these supposedly concerned fathers were incited to fight for custody through government financed fatherhood program or be faced with draconion child support bills which they presumably owed to the state and had to be paid under threat of imprisonment.
Thus began the ongoing custody wars that have been slowly eating away at the fabric of our justice system with parental abduction the newest and fastest growing crime in the FBI’s lexicon. I guess they thought that mothers were just going to go quietly along with these attempts to steal their children from them for the greater good of society or something. Bad miscalculation on the part of greedy men.
Another unintended consequence, along with the mess it is making of our entire legal system, that has come about from these attempts to destroy the African-American community through unconventional warfare has been the decimation of all birth rates in every community throughout the west as these ongoing child support and custody wars unleashed against mothers has caused women to not wish to take a chance having children and be faced with losing them to some greedy and unprincipled monster.
************************************************************************************
posted by NYMOM | Sunday, January 07, 2007
7 Comments:
Anonymous said...
you idiot. women use the child support money 99 fuckin % more tahn men even though it is an illegal tax and breaks the constitution to put anybody in jail over a debt. That why so many men go postal. injustice brings violence and I hope many more die because of it!!!
11:20 PM
NYMOM said...
I'm talking about its original intent here not what it's morphed into. The premises underpinning child support first reared their head as LBJ was beginning his war on poverty. It was supposedly seen as a way to force Afr. Americans to be more fiscally responsible when having children so the US wouldn't go too deeply into debt providing benefits for them.
The rest as they say is history.
BTW, this is supposed to be a discussion about how to reform child support policy...
9:17 AM
silverside said...
What an asshole. I'm a mom and I PAY child support to a deadbeat dad who hasn't held a real job since 1991. But you know what? Like all other non-custodial moms I know, I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE CS MONEY UNLIKE ALL THE NON-CUSTODIAL DADS. I just want to have a normal life and raise my daughter free of an abuser's constant interference and harrassment.
8:47 AM
BloggerNoggin said...
NYMOM said, "Studies have now demonstrated that the states with stricter child support enforcement also show drops of 20% or more in the number of single mothers."
What study are you referring to? Do you have a link?
Personally, I think child support is too high in some states and too low in others. The basis of child support is not only to funnel money to the mother to help support the child, but where it crosses a line that upsets allot of obligator's is that support is designed to keep the mothers standard of living the same as if she were with the father when they were together.
10:06 AM
NYMOM said...
As anybody who has been paying attention would have known bloggernoggin I posted a study from Columbia University months ago on this site. But as usual you weren't paying attention to anything that's really significant, just the bullcrap.
1:57 PM
Anonymous said...
"I just want to have a normal life and raise my daughter free of an abuser's constant interference and harrassment."
Amen to that silverside! Another great post, NYMom...
I have been having a hell of a time posting comments since I SUPPOSEDLY "upgraded" to beta Blogger, but it's me, Val!
3:09 PM
NYMOM said...
I know it just took me almost 30 minutes to login and update my blog. What a pain in the neck this new blogger has become. You have to log in first into your own blog by the way before you can post on other people's sites. I had the same problem before
Also it's a good way to put up a 'new' post w/o having to do a lot of work, since I have lunch plans later...LOL...
Seriously though I have been sick and I'm just recently getting back into the blogging game, so I want to start gradually building up to my prior weekly posting pattern.
I also think it's important for us NOT to get confused about the 'original intent' of child support, and make no mistake about it, high child support is what is driving the current custody wars raging throughout our society, nothing else.
Anyway, the intention behind child support was never meant to be some benign action taken on the part of our government to help families raise children, as it is ofttimes painted.
Nor was it some idea pushed by any feminists in order to help mothers and children.
Again, complete misreading of the 'original intent' here. Just like a rooster crowing at dawn is not the cause of the sun rising, so too feminists' support of child support was NEVER the reason it was instituted.
Thus, it was never a 'good' idea gone bad.
Instead it was begun as a tool to punish the African-American population for the rioting and other so-called deviant behaviors that took place during the 60s; as well as cut down on the use of public benefits by instituting a pay-as-you-go (or pay-as-you-grow) system for having children.
I know the accusation of racism has been done to death today, as everything is not racism and when you cry wolf too much with accusation of racism underlying everything, it belittles the term.
Yet we cannot escape the historical fact that the initial intent behind the beginnings of our current child support system was, in fact, due to racism. That taint continues today with many poor mothers being denied access to their children due to inability to pay enough child support. Not to mention the ones who are jailed due to it, which are many in spite of the lies that continue about this issue...
Last point: I don't want to hear any stories about more men then women being jailed due to inability to pay child support as I am not in a contest here with men vs. women. This is a blog about mothers: so my ONLY concern is MOTHERS being unjustly imprisoned due to not being able to pay child support and not being able to see their children. Advocates for men have plenty of other places to vent about their issues. This blog is not one of them.
I also posted the comments section for 'comic relief'...so people can have a few laughs about how this nutty commenter (who claimed to be a custodial father) used to try to derail every discussion...
************************************************************************************
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Blowback from Attempt to Destroy Other Peoples
Child support enforcement in the US has morphed into a weapon to be used against poor mothers in the US today in order to terminate their parental rights and to discourage them from having children in the future. Studies have now demonstrated that the states with stricter child support enforcement also show drops of 20% or more in the number of single mothers. I believe this will eventually translate into a far larger drop in minority population figures eventually, as single mother are the engines of population growth for those communities. This was the original racist intent behind these programs to begin with, so they need to be reviewed for the disparate population impact on certain communities and then reformed accordingly.
Looking at the history of child support we can trace its origins from that the so-called War on Poverty instituted by President Lyndon Johnson. It should have really been called the War on Population as that was its target: getting the African-American population under control. America woke up shocked one morning when it discovered that what was originally a small population of slightly over 3 million African-Americans residing in the US after the Civil War ended in 1865 had suddenly morphed into a substantial force to be reckoned with by 1965. The sheer weight of the numbers involved in the marches and demonstrations throughout many US cities broadcast night after night into the living rooms of America frightened many of them and convinced US politicians that something had to be done. What they decided on was the War on Poverty and a Research Institute was established in 1966 right in the heartland of the US, Wisconsin, to research the causes of povery in African-American communities, even though there were far more prestigious and better known research universities in the US. Of course they immediately tagged as the “cause” of poverty single mothers. Not the institutional and legal discrimination that had been allowed to go on for almost 100 years, but single motherhood was identified as the root cause of most of the problems in the African-American community and the campaign to demonize single mothers, especially those in the minority community, began in earnest and has continued unabated to this day.
Pretending to be concerned for children, a parallel campaign was also begun glorifying fatherhood. Many of these supposedly concerned fathers were incited to fight for custody through government financed fatherhood program or be faced with draconion child support bills which they presumably owed to the state and had to be paid under threat of imprisonment.
Thus began the ongoing custody wars that have been slowly eating away at the fabric of our justice system with parental abduction the newest and fastest growing crime in the FBI’s lexicon. I guess they thought that mothers were just going to go quietly along with these attempts to steal their children from them for the greater good of society or something. Bad miscalculation on the part of greedy men.
Another unintended consequence, along with the mess it is making of our entire legal system, that has come about from these attempts to destroy the African-American community through unconventional warfare has been the decimation of all birth rates in every community throughout the west as these ongoing child support and custody wars unleashed against mothers has caused women to not wish to take a chance having children and be faced with losing them to some greedy and unprincipled monster.
************************************************************************************
posted by NYMOM | Sunday, January 07, 2007
7 Comments:
Anonymous said...
you idiot. women use the child support money 99 fuckin % more tahn men even though it is an illegal tax and breaks the constitution to put anybody in jail over a debt. That why so many men go postal. injustice brings violence and I hope many more die because of it!!!
11:20 PM
NYMOM said...
I'm talking about its original intent here not what it's morphed into. The premises underpinning child support first reared their head as LBJ was beginning his war on poverty. It was supposedly seen as a way to force Afr. Americans to be more fiscally responsible when having children so the US wouldn't go too deeply into debt providing benefits for them.
The rest as they say is history.
BTW, this is supposed to be a discussion about how to reform child support policy...
9:17 AM
silverside said...
What an asshole. I'm a mom and I PAY child support to a deadbeat dad who hasn't held a real job since 1991. But you know what? Like all other non-custodial moms I know, I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE CS MONEY UNLIKE ALL THE NON-CUSTODIAL DADS. I just want to have a normal life and raise my daughter free of an abuser's constant interference and harrassment.
8:47 AM
BloggerNoggin said...
NYMOM said, "Studies have now demonstrated that the states with stricter child support enforcement also show drops of 20% or more in the number of single mothers."
What study are you referring to? Do you have a link?
Personally, I think child support is too high in some states and too low in others. The basis of child support is not only to funnel money to the mother to help support the child, but where it crosses a line that upsets allot of obligator's is that support is designed to keep the mothers standard of living the same as if she were with the father when they were together.
10:06 AM
NYMOM said...
As anybody who has been paying attention would have known bloggernoggin I posted a study from Columbia University months ago on this site. But as usual you weren't paying attention to anything that's really significant, just the bullcrap.
1:57 PM
Anonymous said...
"I just want to have a normal life and raise my daughter free of an abuser's constant interference and harrassment."
Amen to that silverside! Another great post, NYMom...
I have been having a hell of a time posting comments since I SUPPOSEDLY "upgraded" to beta Blogger, but it's me, Val!
3:09 PM
NYMOM said...
I know it just took me almost 30 minutes to login and update my blog. What a pain in the neck this new blogger has become. You have to log in first into your own blog by the way before you can post on other people's sites. I had the same problem before
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Hitting the Lottery for 20 years or so...
I thought this was an interesting comment, particularly considering the on-going situation in the news with Brittany Spear losing custody of her children recently…so I decided to take the liberty of making an entire post of it considering that all comments on the internet become public property anyway…
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "ANOTHER SENSIBLE RULING REGARDING RECREATIONAL SPE...":
My 25 year old daughter (just before she started her last year of college) got knocked up last summer after a 2 week thing with a not-so-ideal guy that she realized (shortly into the fling) that she has nothing in common with. He was 29, had an 8 year old daughter living in another state from a prior marriage whom he doesn't see but has child support payments that are automatically withdrawn from his paycheck. (He REALLY resents the payments but has no choice. He makes about $32K per year and really needs to stretch to pay his bills...and is not shy about talking about it.)
My daughter was on the Pill and got a bladder infection during the month she was with this guy and so the pill failed her and she got pregnant. A healthy baby boy was born in April and she graduated from college in May and has a full time job. She and her baby lives here in our house in an attached apartment with my husband and I. We are supporting her a little financially and with the help of a part-time nanny.
The father who I shall hereafter refer to as SD (Sperm Donor) initially told her he wanted her to do whatever she wanted...ie, have an abortion, adoption...maybe keep the baby..etc. Maybe they'd move in together...but no marriage.
My daughter got wise to him but because of the pregnancy tried to make it work for about 8 weeks after she found out she was pregnant. She had told him when she first met that she someday wanted children and he mocked her for that in front of another couple...he made it clear that he did not want them at all----he had enough with this daughter he did not see.
So she broke up with him and had the baby and moved back with us. She really wants nothing to do with him as she has determined he's a creep. Before the baby (boy) was born, we found out that he had a vasectomy to make sure that he'd never have this happen again. He still wants sex---just no consequences.
This loser is now trying to take the infant BOY (his "show" puppy) on a 50/50 basis. He doesn't want to pay child support but suddenly he wants to be a "father". He has already promised to teach the baby the opposite of our beliefs, so he fully intends to mess with his mind. His concerns are now about him having a SON to show off to his buddies.
We really don't want anything from him (including child support). We just want him to go away as he has very opposite world views and will develop a lot of conflict in the child as he gets older.
How can we get him to go away? He's just an awful guy but nothing is sufficient so far to prove this to the courts (he's a heavy drinker, a biker, heavily into porn and kinky sex with multiple partners, he smokes, and we don't trust him not to hurt the baby, either by accident or deliberately)
Any ideas? Any case law that can help frame our argument? This is essentially stranger casual sex that resulted in a child and now the stranger wants to impose himself on our lives and the baby's innocence.
Help!!
Posted by Anonymous to Women as Mothers at 8:00 PM
My Reply:
First of all there is absolutely nothing either your daughter or anyone in the family can do about it and if you try too much, your daughter can lose custody due to a finding of “parental alienation”. Just to let you know: most parents who lose custody due to alienation are mothers and it’s virtually impossible to overturn on appeal and doubly impossible to enforce visitation afterwards.
Additionally, if this jerk manages to get joint custody or shared custody, whatever they call it in your state, he can sue your daughter for child support (if he makes less income then her) and ultimately wind up getting money from YOU…as a Judge can decide to impute income to your daughter, even as a student. Students loans, for instance, can be considered income for child support purposes as can any cash assistance you and/or her father give to her. Even non-cash assistance can be imputed to her as income for child support purposes (such as providing her free room and board, living expenses, etc.,).
So prepare yourselves, you now have a leech attached to you for life or at least for the minority of your grandchild.
This is a similar situation to what Brittany Spears faces right now. AND let’s make no mistake about it, I have no sympathy for Brittany Spears. She should have lost custody of her sons due to her conduct. My problem is the fact that instead of her family getting custody, as should have happened and would have happened years ago until she straightened out her life, they gave custody to this money-sucking leech Kevin Federline. Who is, at best, a total loser similar to Brittany Spears, just contesting custody for the payday it involves.
Getting custody today from someone like Brittany Spears is similar to hitting the lottery. Hundreds of thousands of dollars for at least 20 years, most of it tax free. So it’s actually better then hitting the lottery, as you pay taxes on lottery winning, but not on child support.
Women need to wake up to this totally new abuse of us and our children and be damn careful about who they pick as husbands and fathers.
Wake up…
Sorry for your situation.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "ANOTHER SENSIBLE RULING REGARDING RECREATIONAL SPE...":
My 25 year old daughter (just before she started her last year of college) got knocked up last summer after a 2 week thing with a not-so-ideal guy that she realized (shortly into the fling) that she has nothing in common with. He was 29, had an 8 year old daughter living in another state from a prior marriage whom he doesn't see but has child support payments that are automatically withdrawn from his paycheck. (He REALLY resents the payments but has no choice. He makes about $32K per year and really needs to stretch to pay his bills...and is not shy about talking about it.)
My daughter was on the Pill and got a bladder infection during the month she was with this guy and so the pill failed her and she got pregnant. A healthy baby boy was born in April and she graduated from college in May and has a full time job. She and her baby lives here in our house in an attached apartment with my husband and I. We are supporting her a little financially and with the help of a part-time nanny.
The father who I shall hereafter refer to as SD (Sperm Donor) initially told her he wanted her to do whatever she wanted...ie, have an abortion, adoption...maybe keep the baby..etc. Maybe they'd move in together...but no marriage.
My daughter got wise to him but because of the pregnancy tried to make it work for about 8 weeks after she found out she was pregnant. She had told him when she first met that she someday wanted children and he mocked her for that in front of another couple...he made it clear that he did not want them at all----he had enough with this daughter he did not see.
So she broke up with him and had the baby and moved back with us. She really wants nothing to do with him as she has determined he's a creep. Before the baby (boy) was born, we found out that he had a vasectomy to make sure that he'd never have this happen again. He still wants sex---just no consequences.
This loser is now trying to take the infant BOY (his "show" puppy) on a 50/50 basis. He doesn't want to pay child support but suddenly he wants to be a "father". He has already promised to teach the baby the opposite of our beliefs, so he fully intends to mess with his mind. His concerns are now about him having a SON to show off to his buddies.
We really don't want anything from him (including child support). We just want him to go away as he has very opposite world views and will develop a lot of conflict in the child as he gets older.
How can we get him to go away? He's just an awful guy but nothing is sufficient so far to prove this to the courts (he's a heavy drinker, a biker, heavily into porn and kinky sex with multiple partners, he smokes, and we don't trust him not to hurt the baby, either by accident or deliberately)
Any ideas? Any case law that can help frame our argument? This is essentially stranger casual sex that resulted in a child and now the stranger wants to impose himself on our lives and the baby's innocence.
Help!!
Posted by Anonymous to Women as Mothers at 8:00 PM
My Reply:
First of all there is absolutely nothing either your daughter or anyone in the family can do about it and if you try too much, your daughter can lose custody due to a finding of “parental alienation”. Just to let you know: most parents who lose custody due to alienation are mothers and it’s virtually impossible to overturn on appeal and doubly impossible to enforce visitation afterwards.
Additionally, if this jerk manages to get joint custody or shared custody, whatever they call it in your state, he can sue your daughter for child support (if he makes less income then her) and ultimately wind up getting money from YOU…as a Judge can decide to impute income to your daughter, even as a student. Students loans, for instance, can be considered income for child support purposes as can any cash assistance you and/or her father give to her. Even non-cash assistance can be imputed to her as income for child support purposes (such as providing her free room and board, living expenses, etc.,).
So prepare yourselves, you now have a leech attached to you for life or at least for the minority of your grandchild.
This is a similar situation to what Brittany Spears faces right now. AND let’s make no mistake about it, I have no sympathy for Brittany Spears. She should have lost custody of her sons due to her conduct. My problem is the fact that instead of her family getting custody, as should have happened and would have happened years ago until she straightened out her life, they gave custody to this money-sucking leech Kevin Federline. Who is, at best, a total loser similar to Brittany Spears, just contesting custody for the payday it involves.
Getting custody today from someone like Brittany Spears is similar to hitting the lottery. Hundreds of thousands of dollars for at least 20 years, most of it tax free. So it’s actually better then hitting the lottery, as you pay taxes on lottery winning, but not on child support.
Women need to wake up to this totally new abuse of us and our children and be damn careful about who they pick as husbands and fathers.
Wake up…
Sorry for your situation.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
More Pipe Dreams of Men and their Enablers
Are Women Necessary?
By NATALIE ANGIER
Published: November 11, 2003
Abundant evidence suggests that females are the first sex, the ancestral sex, the sex from which males are derived.
Boys owe their lives to their mothers in more ways than one. Yet recent experiments with stem cells hint that women, not men, may eventually prove obsolete.
Granted, a post-feminine future sounds far-fetched. In many species, including our own, the fundamental body plan is female, with maleness being a bit of window-dressing tacked on at the last minute.
Some groups of insects, fish and lizards consist entirely of females, which give birth only to daughters. By contrast, no self-sustaining, boys-only population has ever arisen in nature, the efforts of certain Southern golf tournaments notwithstanding.
Indeed, males are famous for their cheap, abbreviated gametes, and their poignant need for the warmth and wealth of the comparatively massive female sex cell to realize their dreams of immortality. You'd think they would be humble, grateful, even obsequious. But it seems that somewhere along the way those slippery flagella figured out a possible pathway to go it alone.
Here are the unnerving results that threaten the matriarchy: last spring, after years of effort, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and elsewhere announced that they could grow working egg cells in the laboratory if they started with embryo tissue taken from either a female or a male mouse.
These hothouse eggs and their accompanying follicular matrix were so persuasive they even secreted and responded to estrogen, the archetypically ''female'' hormone.
In September, Japanese researchers said they could create robust little sperm cells in the lab, too -- but only if they began with the embryonic stem cells of a male animal. It turns out that the program for making eggs is stored on the chromosomes that males and females share. To manufacture sperm, however, you need that truncated, genetically penurious Y chromosome that only a male can claim.
In theory, then, male starter cells could be used to make eggs and sperm, and those eggs and sperm could be mixed together to yield a new generation. This would not be parthenogenesis as seen in whiptail lizards or Nature's other little sororities, with the parent capable only of spawning more of its own sex and hence being limited in its power to genomically outfox parasites.
This would be like old-fashioned, shake-'em-up, male-female sexual reproduction, a meeting of eggs and sperm. You could mix and match your fabricated eggs and sperm to generate boys and girls alike.
Except why bother with girls, if you don't need mothers to lay those little egg cells in the first place? You could have robust diversity in the human gene pool without the need for pesky separate restrooms.
True, women at the moment remain useful for their possession of another baby-friendly device, the uterus. But how long will this anatomical detail be an impediment to complete female obsolescence?
Already, researchers can keep baby goats alive in an artificial uterus, a big fishbowl of bubbling fluid, for weeks at a stretch. A full-term, full-service exoamniotic cocoon cannot be far behind.
Given such recent and imminent developments, Rebecca West, journalist, novelist and companion of H. G. ''Doomsday'' Wells, was eerily prescient in her observation that motherhood is ''like being one's own Trojan horse.''
Yet as women contemplate their pending irrelevance, they can take heart in a more immediate lesson to be gleaned from the latest experimental results. If inside every man's genome is a little mother yearning to be free, well, then, no more excuses when it's time to change the diapers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F04E3D61139F932A25752C1A9659C8B63
The sad part about this article is that it was researched by a woman, written by a woman and I’m sure that same woman truly believed what she wrote, as will most of the other women who ever get to read it.
However anyone with even a elementary knowledge of humanity’s historic record would see the fatal flaw in this scenario and understand why it would be the end of humanity should it ever come to pass. As the very group the article claims might successfully inhabit the earth alone is the same group that has been ruling the planet since we first crawled out of the primal mist. It’s the larger, stronger and more aggressive half of humanity that dominates every species including our own. If you wish to be completely honest about it, they are the same ones who are currently driving our planet into ruin, killing off most of their animal brothers and sisters in between steady bouts of killing off their human ones in these endless wars over nothing that they continue to engage in. Not to mention the wars over resources that continuously spring up amongst them.
Common sense would show that if one sex was to be chosen to ensure maximum survival benefit for any species it should be female. But unfortunately, common sense appears to not be very common these days.
Any unbiased reading of statistics demonstrates that from Brooklyn to Baghdad men steadily engage in violent and anti-social behavior against humanity at a far higher rate then women do. This doesn’t even count the endless so-called legitimate wars they constantly declare against one another. I’m just talking about the soccer riots, the drunken fights they engage in, violent robberies, rapes, murders, etc., Not to mention the ordinary run of the mill stoning of woman for minor transgressions and serial killing of women in bizarre sex crimes. Reading through some of Steven E. Rhoads, book “Taking Sex Differences Seriously” you can see certain statistics hold up worldwide, btw. So we’re not just talking about behaviors specific just to western civilization here or any cultural differences that would explain male aggression for men residing in either Brooklyn or Baghdad. He’s the same essential being standing on a street corner in Brooklyn or sitting in a tent off a sand dune somewhere, same being.
Actually the incredible thing to my mind is that historically women have managed to not just survive; but also to raise so many of our young to maturity in the hostile climate that man collectively has created for us. When you read a history book or take a look at a newsfeed from another country and see what life was and still is like today for so many women, you have to just be amazed at the ingenuity, bravery and sheer tenacity that woman have displayed over the ages just to get any of us alive here today.
So you’re an awful idiot if you believe that either God or nature would chose the male of our species as the optimum choice to continue humanity’s role on this planet. That’s a choice you make when you’re fed up with a species and trying to put an end to it.
By NATALIE ANGIER
Published: November 11, 2003
Abundant evidence suggests that females are the first sex, the ancestral sex, the sex from which males are derived.
Boys owe their lives to their mothers in more ways than one. Yet recent experiments with stem cells hint that women, not men, may eventually prove obsolete.
Granted, a post-feminine future sounds far-fetched. In many species, including our own, the fundamental body plan is female, with maleness being a bit of window-dressing tacked on at the last minute.
Some groups of insects, fish and lizards consist entirely of females, which give birth only to daughters. By contrast, no self-sustaining, boys-only population has ever arisen in nature, the efforts of certain Southern golf tournaments notwithstanding.
Indeed, males are famous for their cheap, abbreviated gametes, and their poignant need for the warmth and wealth of the comparatively massive female sex cell to realize their dreams of immortality. You'd think they would be humble, grateful, even obsequious. But it seems that somewhere along the way those slippery flagella figured out a possible pathway to go it alone.
Here are the unnerving results that threaten the matriarchy: last spring, after years of effort, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and elsewhere announced that they could grow working egg cells in the laboratory if they started with embryo tissue taken from either a female or a male mouse.
These hothouse eggs and their accompanying follicular matrix were so persuasive they even secreted and responded to estrogen, the archetypically ''female'' hormone.
In September, Japanese researchers said they could create robust little sperm cells in the lab, too -- but only if they began with the embryonic stem cells of a male animal. It turns out that the program for making eggs is stored on the chromosomes that males and females share. To manufacture sperm, however, you need that truncated, genetically penurious Y chromosome that only a male can claim.
In theory, then, male starter cells could be used to make eggs and sperm, and those eggs and sperm could be mixed together to yield a new generation. This would not be parthenogenesis as seen in whiptail lizards or Nature's other little sororities, with the parent capable only of spawning more of its own sex and hence being limited in its power to genomically outfox parasites.
This would be like old-fashioned, shake-'em-up, male-female sexual reproduction, a meeting of eggs and sperm. You could mix and match your fabricated eggs and sperm to generate boys and girls alike.
Except why bother with girls, if you don't need mothers to lay those little egg cells in the first place? You could have robust diversity in the human gene pool without the need for pesky separate restrooms.
True, women at the moment remain useful for their possession of another baby-friendly device, the uterus. But how long will this anatomical detail be an impediment to complete female obsolescence?
Already, researchers can keep baby goats alive in an artificial uterus, a big fishbowl of bubbling fluid, for weeks at a stretch. A full-term, full-service exoamniotic cocoon cannot be far behind.
Given such recent and imminent developments, Rebecca West, journalist, novelist and companion of H. G. ''Doomsday'' Wells, was eerily prescient in her observation that motherhood is ''like being one's own Trojan horse.''
Yet as women contemplate their pending irrelevance, they can take heart in a more immediate lesson to be gleaned from the latest experimental results. If inside every man's genome is a little mother yearning to be free, well, then, no more excuses when it's time to change the diapers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F04E3D61139F932A25752C1A9659C8B63
The sad part about this article is that it was researched by a woman, written by a woman and I’m sure that same woman truly believed what she wrote, as will most of the other women who ever get to read it.
However anyone with even a elementary knowledge of humanity’s historic record would see the fatal flaw in this scenario and understand why it would be the end of humanity should it ever come to pass. As the very group the article claims might successfully inhabit the earth alone is the same group that has been ruling the planet since we first crawled out of the primal mist. It’s the larger, stronger and more aggressive half of humanity that dominates every species including our own. If you wish to be completely honest about it, they are the same ones who are currently driving our planet into ruin, killing off most of their animal brothers and sisters in between steady bouts of killing off their human ones in these endless wars over nothing that they continue to engage in. Not to mention the wars over resources that continuously spring up amongst them.
Common sense would show that if one sex was to be chosen to ensure maximum survival benefit for any species it should be female. But unfortunately, common sense appears to not be very common these days.
Any unbiased reading of statistics demonstrates that from Brooklyn to Baghdad men steadily engage in violent and anti-social behavior against humanity at a far higher rate then women do. This doesn’t even count the endless so-called legitimate wars they constantly declare against one another. I’m just talking about the soccer riots, the drunken fights they engage in, violent robberies, rapes, murders, etc., Not to mention the ordinary run of the mill stoning of woman for minor transgressions and serial killing of women in bizarre sex crimes. Reading through some of Steven E. Rhoads, book “Taking Sex Differences Seriously” you can see certain statistics hold up worldwide, btw. So we’re not just talking about behaviors specific just to western civilization here or any cultural differences that would explain male aggression for men residing in either Brooklyn or Baghdad. He’s the same essential being standing on a street corner in Brooklyn or sitting in a tent off a sand dune somewhere, same being.
Actually the incredible thing to my mind is that historically women have managed to not just survive; but also to raise so many of our young to maturity in the hostile climate that man collectively has created for us. When you read a history book or take a look at a newsfeed from another country and see what life was and still is like today for so many women, you have to just be amazed at the ingenuity, bravery and sheer tenacity that woman have displayed over the ages just to get any of us alive here today.
So you’re an awful idiot if you believe that either God or nature would chose the male of our species as the optimum choice to continue humanity’s role on this planet. That’s a choice you make when you’re fed up with a species and trying to put an end to it.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Women Should not be Diverted by a Red Herring
The story last month of pro-wrestler, Chris Benoit, murdering his wife and 7 year old son was framed in so many ways by various commentators that it was hard to know what to believe. Was he a good husband and father who was using steroids and unexpectedly went off into a so-called ‘roid-rage’ with the murder of his family the result, a man under stress with a hectic traveling schedule due to his wrestling career and a handicapped son who just finally snapped or just an ordinary run of the mill abusive jackoff who took the beatings too far one day?
Of course, it’s a given the early coverage spent most of their ink blaming the woman involved here, Benoit’s wife, Nancy Benoit. Frankly I would have been surprised if they hadn’t, since this pattern has been established since the story of Adam and Eve. Some things never change I guess.
Many of the news articles immediately began harping on the fact that Nancy Benoit was married and divorced before (thus, implying she was a slut) while this was a first marriage for Chris Benoit. She was once charged with pulling a knife on an ex, so, of course, the implicit assumption being that she somehow brought this upon herself by her own behavior. AND what would one of these stories be without the requisite picture of the female victim dressed in some wholly inappropriate (considering she was just murdered) provocative outfit? Again, the implication being that she was somehow responsible for what happened to her. She wasn’t a ‘good girl’ was the message being radiated out here. If she had been a better person, dressed more conservatively, never divorced, etc., this probably would not have happened to her.
Thus woman across America were lulled back to sleep confident in the knowledge that if Nancy Benoit had been a better person, acted differently, not been so out-there, she’d be alive today. Everything that happened to her was her own fault was the message women were being fed. Don’t be like her and you and your kids won’t wind up in her situation.
But is this true? Was Nancy Benoit’s situation really entirely the result of her many bad choices? Or was it the result of a family court system that has empowered men to use custody of children as a club against women, forcing us back into marriages we wish to leave otherwise we risk losing our children?
“…Nancy Benoit had filed for a divorce in 2003, saying the couple’s three-year marriage was irrevocably broken and alleging “cruel treatment.” She later dropped the complaint, as well as a request for a restraining order in which she charged that the 5-foot-10, 220-pound Benoit had threatened her and had broken furniture in their home.
In the divorce filing, she said Benoit made more than $ 500,000 a year as a professional wrestler and asked for permanent custody of Daniel and child support. In response, Benoit sought joint custody.”
As we can see in the above quote from an AP release dated June 27, 2007, Nancy Benoit did try to escape her fate. She attempted to take her son with her to escape his as well. Yet Chris Benoit was able to force this woman back into the marriage using the power of his half a million dollar annual income, probably assisted by some slick attorney screaming about fathers’ rights and empowered by a gender-neutral court system that refuses to recognize or honor the unique bond between mothers and their children.
Thus, this is not just the story of one woman who made some unfortunate life choices which ended in her and her son’s death. This is instead the story of how our family court system has enabled men to use custody of children as a club against women. How men have used their access to greater financial resources to assist them in this monstrous endeavor. Additionally it is the story of how gender-neutralized feminists have aided and abetted in these crimes committed against their sisters. How they have used the womens’ movement to advance their own careers, climbing up onto the back of their sisters to establish themselves into cushy jobs and well-paid positions throughout our judiciary, only to stab us in our collective hearts as soon as they are embedded within the system.
That’s the real story behind the story here, not steroid use. Steroid use is a side show, the classic red herring thrown out to divert us.
Of course, it’s a given the early coverage spent most of their ink blaming the woman involved here, Benoit’s wife, Nancy Benoit. Frankly I would have been surprised if they hadn’t, since this pattern has been established since the story of Adam and Eve. Some things never change I guess.
Many of the news articles immediately began harping on the fact that Nancy Benoit was married and divorced before (thus, implying she was a slut) while this was a first marriage for Chris Benoit. She was once charged with pulling a knife on an ex, so, of course, the implicit assumption being that she somehow brought this upon herself by her own behavior. AND what would one of these stories be without the requisite picture of the female victim dressed in some wholly inappropriate (considering she was just murdered) provocative outfit? Again, the implication being that she was somehow responsible for what happened to her. She wasn’t a ‘good girl’ was the message being radiated out here. If she had been a better person, dressed more conservatively, never divorced, etc., this probably would not have happened to her.
Thus woman across America were lulled back to sleep confident in the knowledge that if Nancy Benoit had been a better person, acted differently, not been so out-there, she’d be alive today. Everything that happened to her was her own fault was the message women were being fed. Don’t be like her and you and your kids won’t wind up in her situation.
But is this true? Was Nancy Benoit’s situation really entirely the result of her many bad choices? Or was it the result of a family court system that has empowered men to use custody of children as a club against women, forcing us back into marriages we wish to leave otherwise we risk losing our children?
“…Nancy Benoit had filed for a divorce in 2003, saying the couple’s three-year marriage was irrevocably broken and alleging “cruel treatment.” She later dropped the complaint, as well as a request for a restraining order in which she charged that the 5-foot-10, 220-pound Benoit had threatened her and had broken furniture in their home.
In the divorce filing, she said Benoit made more than $ 500,000 a year as a professional wrestler and asked for permanent custody of Daniel and child support. In response, Benoit sought joint custody.”
As we can see in the above quote from an AP release dated June 27, 2007, Nancy Benoit did try to escape her fate. She attempted to take her son with her to escape his as well. Yet Chris Benoit was able to force this woman back into the marriage using the power of his half a million dollar annual income, probably assisted by some slick attorney screaming about fathers’ rights and empowered by a gender-neutral court system that refuses to recognize or honor the unique bond between mothers and their children.
Thus, this is not just the story of one woman who made some unfortunate life choices which ended in her and her son’s death. This is instead the story of how our family court system has enabled men to use custody of children as a club against women. How men have used their access to greater financial resources to assist them in this monstrous endeavor. Additionally it is the story of how gender-neutralized feminists have aided and abetted in these crimes committed against their sisters. How they have used the womens’ movement to advance their own careers, climbing up onto the back of their sisters to establish themselves into cushy jobs and well-paid positions throughout our judiciary, only to stab us in our collective hearts as soon as they are embedded within the system.
That’s the real story behind the story here, not steroid use. Steroid use is a side show, the classic red herring thrown out to divert us.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Like They Say: The Truth will Set You Free
Following article is located at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/julyweb-only/128-42.0.html
SOULWORK
We Are Not Pregnant
The glory of men and women lies in their unbridgeable differences.
Mark Galli | posted 7/12/2007 08:55AM
A male friend, married to a lovely women, comes up to me beaming and says, "We're pregnant!"
"Wow!" I reply, with inappropriate sarcasm. "When I was a young man, only women could get pregnant."
I've heard this phrase—"We're pregnant"—too much recently, but it's time to move beyond sarcasm. The intent is as understandable as the execution is absurd. It arises out of the noble desire of men (and future fathers) to participate fully in the childrearing. And I understand that for many men, it simply means, "My wife and I are expecting a baby."
But the first dictionary meaning of pregnant remains, "Carrying developing offspring within the body." Whenever a word is misused, it means the speaker is unaware of the word's meaning, or that the cultural meaning of a word is shifting, or that some ideology is demanding obeisance. Probably all three are in play, but it's the last reality that we should pay attention to. It is not an accident that this phrase, "We're pregnant," has arisen in a culture that in many quarters is ponderously egalitarian and tries to deny the fundamental differences of men and women.
This phrase is most unfortunate after conception because it is an inadvertent co-opting of women by men—men using language to suggest that they share equally in the burdens and joys of pregnancy. Instead, pregnancy is one time women should flaunt their womanhood, and one time men should acknowledge the superiority of women. Men may be able to run the mile in less than four minutes and open stuck pickle jars with a twist of the wrist, but for all our physical prowess, we cannot carry new life within us and bring it into the world. To suggest that we do is a slap in the face of women.
*************************************************************************************
Exactly, this author has it exactly right.
The really unfortunately thing is that women went along with this kick in our teeth so easily and, as usual, had to wait for a man to bring it to our attention.
The only point of disagreement with the author I have is that he's too easy on other men. As I don't agree for a moment that men did this due to 'noble desires'. In fact, it's just what it would appear to be if anyone else was doing it, an attempt to usurp womens' more significant role in the creation of life and for men to try and claim it as their own.
The male role in this area is minimal and this 'we're pregnant' business is another of their long-running, age-old, jealousy attempts to deny this reality.
SOULWORK
We Are Not Pregnant
The glory of men and women lies in their unbridgeable differences.
Mark Galli | posted 7/12/2007 08:55AM
A male friend, married to a lovely women, comes up to me beaming and says, "We're pregnant!"
"Wow!" I reply, with inappropriate sarcasm. "When I was a young man, only women could get pregnant."
I've heard this phrase—"We're pregnant"—too much recently, but it's time to move beyond sarcasm. The intent is as understandable as the execution is absurd. It arises out of the noble desire of men (and future fathers) to participate fully in the childrearing. And I understand that for many men, it simply means, "My wife and I are expecting a baby."
But the first dictionary meaning of pregnant remains, "Carrying developing offspring within the body." Whenever a word is misused, it means the speaker is unaware of the word's meaning, or that the cultural meaning of a word is shifting, or that some ideology is demanding obeisance. Probably all three are in play, but it's the last reality that we should pay attention to. It is not an accident that this phrase, "We're pregnant," has arisen in a culture that in many quarters is ponderously egalitarian and tries to deny the fundamental differences of men and women.
This phrase is most unfortunate after conception because it is an inadvertent co-opting of women by men—men using language to suggest that they share equally in the burdens and joys of pregnancy. Instead, pregnancy is one time women should flaunt their womanhood, and one time men should acknowledge the superiority of women. Men may be able to run the mile in less than four minutes and open stuck pickle jars with a twist of the wrist, but for all our physical prowess, we cannot carry new life within us and bring it into the world. To suggest that we do is a slap in the face of women.
*************************************************************************************
Exactly, this author has it exactly right.
The really unfortunately thing is that women went along with this kick in our teeth so easily and, as usual, had to wait for a man to bring it to our attention.
The only point of disagreement with the author I have is that he's too easy on other men. As I don't agree for a moment that men did this due to 'noble desires'. In fact, it's just what it would appear to be if anyone else was doing it, an attempt to usurp womens' more significant role in the creation of life and for men to try and claim it as their own.
The male role in this area is minimal and this 'we're pregnant' business is another of their long-running, age-old, jealousy attempts to deny this reality.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
More Stupidity Posing as Research
The fertility industry discriminates against sperm donors, says US sociologist Rene Almeling. Her article this month in the American Sociological Review (pdf here) describes striking inequities in the market for eggs and sperm which, she says, reflect “gendered stereotypes of selfless motherhood and distant fatherhood”.
“Staff at egg agencies constantly thank women and encourage them to think about what a wonderful difference they’re making in the lives of recipients,” Almeling says. “The sperm bank staff is appreciative, but men aren’t told how amazing they are and what a great gift they’re giving.
They’re treated more like reproductive service workers. They come in. They clock in and out. Their sample is checked for quality. And they’re only paid when they produce an acceptable sample.”
In the market for American gametes, men are typically paid between US$50 and US$75 per donation, while women are paid around $5,000, along with bonuses and thank-you cards.
While it is commonly believed that sperm donors are readily available, in fact, few potential male donors meet the standards required by the clinics, while there is an oversupply of women donors. Almeling is investigating why the laws of supply and demand do not appear to work in the gamete market. News-Medical.Net, May 27
http://www.familyscholars.org/
I think the above comments can be placed under a new category I might create which will be called "stupid questions with obvious answers trying to pose as research"...
There is no 'discrimination' against men by the medical industry vis-a-vis sperm donations. The discrimination, if you wish to call it that, is from evolution, God, nature, whatever. Which has deemed womens' contribution to be the more significant one in creating life. Men's role is perherial to the processs as men invest, contribute, risk practically NOTHING with their sperm donation.
I mean I used to own a cocker spanial and I'd walk him around the block. He'd lift his leg and urinate every now and then against a car or a building, I'm sure leaving some genetic material behind every so often. Following the logic of this person posing as research, my dog should have been given title to a few cars and buildings around the city because he deposited some genetic material here and there.
What nonsense.
It's ridiculous to compare a sperm donor with an egg donor (never mind a surrogate mother). The process to donate eggs is far more painful and labor-intensive (also potentially long term damaging to the ovaries) for women then for men and that's what the differences in pricing reflects...as well as the differences in staff treatment of women, who are actually risking themselves as well as their potential for having offspring later, if an injury should occur to them during the donation process.
Men risk absolutely NOTHING. They read a magazine and eject into a dixie cup. It's ridiculous to try to compare the two levels of contribution/risk and claim discrimination.
Probably the reason there are fewer sperm donors anymore is that they've been chased away by fear of being hit up for child support at a later date if the laws should change. $75.00 per sperm donation is simply not enough money to risk that.
Why do people publish, no why do they even think such nonsense...that's the real question?
“Staff at egg agencies constantly thank women and encourage them to think about what a wonderful difference they’re making in the lives of recipients,” Almeling says. “The sperm bank staff is appreciative, but men aren’t told how amazing they are and what a great gift they’re giving.
They’re treated more like reproductive service workers. They come in. They clock in and out. Their sample is checked for quality. And they’re only paid when they produce an acceptable sample.”
In the market for American gametes, men are typically paid between US$50 and US$75 per donation, while women are paid around $5,000, along with bonuses and thank-you cards.
While it is commonly believed that sperm donors are readily available, in fact, few potential male donors meet the standards required by the clinics, while there is an oversupply of women donors. Almeling is investigating why the laws of supply and demand do not appear to work in the gamete market. News-Medical.Net, May 27
http://www.familyscholars.org/
I think the above comments can be placed under a new category I might create which will be called "stupid questions with obvious answers trying to pose as research"...
There is no 'discrimination' against men by the medical industry vis-a-vis sperm donations. The discrimination, if you wish to call it that, is from evolution, God, nature, whatever. Which has deemed womens' contribution to be the more significant one in creating life. Men's role is perherial to the processs as men invest, contribute, risk practically NOTHING with their sperm donation.
I mean I used to own a cocker spanial and I'd walk him around the block. He'd lift his leg and urinate every now and then against a car or a building, I'm sure leaving some genetic material behind every so often. Following the logic of this person posing as research, my dog should have been given title to a few cars and buildings around the city because he deposited some genetic material here and there.
What nonsense.
It's ridiculous to compare a sperm donor with an egg donor (never mind a surrogate mother). The process to donate eggs is far more painful and labor-intensive (also potentially long term damaging to the ovaries) for women then for men and that's what the differences in pricing reflects...as well as the differences in staff treatment of women, who are actually risking themselves as well as their potential for having offspring later, if an injury should occur to them during the donation process.
Men risk absolutely NOTHING. They read a magazine and eject into a dixie cup. It's ridiculous to try to compare the two levels of contribution/risk and claim discrimination.
Probably the reason there are fewer sperm donors anymore is that they've been chased away by fear of being hit up for child support at a later date if the laws should change. $75.00 per sperm donation is simply not enough money to risk that.
Why do people publish, no why do they even think such nonsense...that's the real question?
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Hasselhoff Custody Win – A Sick Joke
David Hasselhoff winning custody of his two daughters, after his disgraceful exhibition of drunkenness in the presence of at least one of them, probably both, is just another example of the dismal state of our family court system. We need to fire the Judge immediately who made this ruling and begin an investigation into the county this custody hearing was held in. As I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg there with discrimination against mothers running amuck.
Additionally this story had traces of what I would call masking the bad boys’ behavior by focusing on punishing the person who exposed the behavior, not the person who perpetuated it. Who told everyone about bad behavior becomes the ultimate crime in these situations, not the actual behavior itself. We saw this with the Alex Baldwin situation recently and even with the Woody Allen situation some years back.
Actually here in New York, I was stunned by the hostility that Mia Farrow had to face in the media both during and immediately after the Farrow-Allen custody trial ended. Where even though Woody Allen was caught red-handed with naked pictures of her 18 year old adopted daughter in his apartment (a daughter he had been hanging around since she was 12 year old by the way; anyone ever heard of the term: grooming, a practice used by pedophiles to seduce their victims); yet afterwards everyone was mad at Mia Farrow for making the public aware of the existence of the pictures, since it damaged Woody Allen’s image with his children.
Well, maybe Allen should have thought about his image with his kids BEFORE carrying on with his girlfriend’s daughter.
Additionally many of our intellectual elite ran around claiming Mia Farrow had falsely accused Allen of inappropriate behaviors towards another adopted daughter. Well excuse me folks, but all we can judge your future behavior by is what has occurred in the past, so Farrow had a right to be suspicious about this dirtbag Woody Allen based upon his past behaviors.
Anyway this whole Hasselhoff custody win coming so quickly after the release of that tape is very suspicious and appears to me to be the act of a Judge punishing a mother for trying to protect her children by appealing to the public. She probably saw the direction the case was initially taking and decided to go directly to the American people and make her case in an attempt to get justice and the Judge was mad at her about that.
I say overturn the case on appeal and get this Judge off the bench pronto…
Additionally this story had traces of what I would call masking the bad boys’ behavior by focusing on punishing the person who exposed the behavior, not the person who perpetuated it. Who told everyone about bad behavior becomes the ultimate crime in these situations, not the actual behavior itself. We saw this with the Alex Baldwin situation recently and even with the Woody Allen situation some years back.
Actually here in New York, I was stunned by the hostility that Mia Farrow had to face in the media both during and immediately after the Farrow-Allen custody trial ended. Where even though Woody Allen was caught red-handed with naked pictures of her 18 year old adopted daughter in his apartment (a daughter he had been hanging around since she was 12 year old by the way; anyone ever heard of the term: grooming, a practice used by pedophiles to seduce their victims); yet afterwards everyone was mad at Mia Farrow for making the public aware of the existence of the pictures, since it damaged Woody Allen’s image with his children.
Well, maybe Allen should have thought about his image with his kids BEFORE carrying on with his girlfriend’s daughter.
Additionally many of our intellectual elite ran around claiming Mia Farrow had falsely accused Allen of inappropriate behaviors towards another adopted daughter. Well excuse me folks, but all we can judge your future behavior by is what has occurred in the past, so Farrow had a right to be suspicious about this dirtbag Woody Allen based upon his past behaviors.
Anyway this whole Hasselhoff custody win coming so quickly after the release of that tape is very suspicious and appears to me to be the act of a Judge punishing a mother for trying to protect her children by appealing to the public. She probably saw the direction the case was initially taking and decided to go directly to the American people and make her case in an attempt to get justice and the Judge was mad at her about that.
I say overturn the case on appeal and get this Judge off the bench pronto…
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Small, Very Small Measure of Justice Meted Out to Brooklyn Mothers & Children
Well, at least this long-running saga has finally come to an end. I won’t say a happy one; however, as this unprincipled monster Supreme Court Justice Gerald Gerson was finally sentenced to 3 to 10 years in prison. It wasn’t nearly enough but it was the best we could hope for; so I guess I’ll say I’m somewhat content. Hopefully Gerson will die in prison and I can finally say case closed.
Gerson destroyed the lives of dozens of mothers and their children (actually we’ll never know how many as none of the cases he fixed will be re-opened) and they allowed ONE of his victims (the mother of two sons) to speak at his sentencing.
Big deal.
Accepting bribes to fix custody cases, 99.9% of them businessmen in Brooklyn attempting to either get out of paying child support or to cheat their wives out of family assets by holding the kids as poker chips to be doled out in exchange for various concessions, this monster Gerson went his merry way aiding and abetting this pack of greedy beasts. Who, btw, for all intents and purposes got away with manipulating our legal system; but at least one of them didn’t, Gerson himself.
All I can say about this Gerson is good riddance to bad rubbish and leave it at that.
I would like to give a big shout out to Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes for finally bringing this monster down.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/06/06/2007-06-06_ready_their_jail_cells-2.html
Ready their jail cells
Judge sentenced to 3-to-10; Brooklyn big sent to Rikers
BY NANCIE L. KATZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, June 6th 2007, 4:00 AM
Two former Brooklyn powerhouses - a Democratic leader and a judge - were led out of court in handcuffs yesterday in a corruption scandal that has prompted calls for sweeping changes in picking jurists.
"I am profoundly sorry," cried ex-Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Gerald Garson, 74, who broke into sobs before being sentenced to three to 10 years behind bars for accepting bribes.
Garson was convicted of taking cash, cigars, dinners and drinks from a crooked lawyer - all caught on tape - in return for favors.
"As I watched the tapes, I was embarrassed and appalled at my demeanor," he sobbed.
Just a few hours earlier in the same courtroom, Clarence Norman, the former Brooklyn Democratic Party chairman and 11-term assemblyman, was shackled and ordered to begin a two-to-six-year sentence for campaign corruption. His appeal was rejected last week.
"God is good," Norman said, hugging relatives before being shipped off to Rikers Island.
The courtroom drama yesterday closed the circle on a four-year probe into judicial corruption by Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes, who began going after Norman when Garson told investigators at his March 2003 arrest that the bench could be bought. No hard evidence has emerged of that yet, but the probe is continuing.
Yesterday, in a courtroom packed with family and Brooklyn residents who believed Garson had done them wrong, Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Berry slammed Garson for tainting the judiciary by allowing crooked lawyer Paul Siminovsky to "sucker him into" giving him lucrative appointments and fixing a case in exchange for thousands of dollars in free meals, drinks, cigars and cash.
"What you brought upon yourself is terrible. ... The perception you gave is that justice was being bought," Berry said in an hour-long speech before announcing the sentence. "You should be as pure as the driven snow. You abdicated your judicial responsibility, your moral fiber."
Sigal Levi said she no longer has a relationship with her two oldest sons because Garson gave custody to her ex.
"Mr. Garson, you sold my children for a very cheap price," said Levi, whose husband pleaded guilty to paying $10,000 to a middleman to gain custody. "You had a moral obligation to protect the welfare of my children. You abused the system and ruined all our lives."
Defense attorney Michael Washor asked Berry for leniency, citing Garson's battle with cancer and heart disease, personal tragedies and his bout with alcoholism.
But prosecutor Michael Vecchione shot back, branding Garson's courtroom a "vile, corrupt place" that he treated as a personal "piggy bank."
Garson does not have to head straight to jail, however. An Appellate Division judge allowed him to stay out of jail on bail pending his appeal. Garson declined to comment.
A federal judge ruled in August that the process for selecting state Supreme Court justices - where party bosses pick the candidates - is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to back-room wheeling and dealing.
Gerson destroyed the lives of dozens of mothers and their children (actually we’ll never know how many as none of the cases he fixed will be re-opened) and they allowed ONE of his victims (the mother of two sons) to speak at his sentencing.
Big deal.
Accepting bribes to fix custody cases, 99.9% of them businessmen in Brooklyn attempting to either get out of paying child support or to cheat their wives out of family assets by holding the kids as poker chips to be doled out in exchange for various concessions, this monster Gerson went his merry way aiding and abetting this pack of greedy beasts. Who, btw, for all intents and purposes got away with manipulating our legal system; but at least one of them didn’t, Gerson himself.
All I can say about this Gerson is good riddance to bad rubbish and leave it at that.
I would like to give a big shout out to Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes for finally bringing this monster down.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/06/06/2007-06-06_ready_their_jail_cells-2.html
Ready their jail cells
Judge sentenced to 3-to-10; Brooklyn big sent to Rikers
BY NANCIE L. KATZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, June 6th 2007, 4:00 AM
Two former Brooklyn powerhouses - a Democratic leader and a judge - were led out of court in handcuffs yesterday in a corruption scandal that has prompted calls for sweeping changes in picking jurists.
"I am profoundly sorry," cried ex-Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Gerald Garson, 74, who broke into sobs before being sentenced to three to 10 years behind bars for accepting bribes.
Garson was convicted of taking cash, cigars, dinners and drinks from a crooked lawyer - all caught on tape - in return for favors.
"As I watched the tapes, I was embarrassed and appalled at my demeanor," he sobbed.
Just a few hours earlier in the same courtroom, Clarence Norman, the former Brooklyn Democratic Party chairman and 11-term assemblyman, was shackled and ordered to begin a two-to-six-year sentence for campaign corruption. His appeal was rejected last week.
"God is good," Norman said, hugging relatives before being shipped off to Rikers Island.
The courtroom drama yesterday closed the circle on a four-year probe into judicial corruption by Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes, who began going after Norman when Garson told investigators at his March 2003 arrest that the bench could be bought. No hard evidence has emerged of that yet, but the probe is continuing.
Yesterday, in a courtroom packed with family and Brooklyn residents who believed Garson had done them wrong, Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Berry slammed Garson for tainting the judiciary by allowing crooked lawyer Paul Siminovsky to "sucker him into" giving him lucrative appointments and fixing a case in exchange for thousands of dollars in free meals, drinks, cigars and cash.
"What you brought upon yourself is terrible. ... The perception you gave is that justice was being bought," Berry said in an hour-long speech before announcing the sentence. "You should be as pure as the driven snow. You abdicated your judicial responsibility, your moral fiber."
Sigal Levi said she no longer has a relationship with her two oldest sons because Garson gave custody to her ex.
"Mr. Garson, you sold my children for a very cheap price," said Levi, whose husband pleaded guilty to paying $10,000 to a middleman to gain custody. "You had a moral obligation to protect the welfare of my children. You abused the system and ruined all our lives."
Defense attorney Michael Washor asked Berry for leniency, citing Garson's battle with cancer and heart disease, personal tragedies and his bout with alcoholism.
But prosecutor Michael Vecchione shot back, branding Garson's courtroom a "vile, corrupt place" that he treated as a personal "piggy bank."
Garson does not have to head straight to jail, however. An Appellate Division judge allowed him to stay out of jail on bail pending his appeal. Garson declined to comment.
A federal judge ruled in August that the process for selecting state Supreme Court justices - where party bosses pick the candidates - is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to back-room wheeling and dealing.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Irrevelevant Bloggers' Choice Awards
It has just come to my attention that I received a "Bloggers Choice Award" for being Worse Blog of All Time. I went to the site to investigate and wasn't even able to comment on this total farce; however, after reviewing the names of some of the commenters I could see it was an orchestrated attempt to do a smear job on me. Of course, organized by the usual suspects.
I recognized some of the commenters from Stand Your Ground, Eternal Bachelor and Gonzo's Bar & Grill. Mens' rights nuts who have nothing better to do with their time then organize crap like this on the internet. Sad really. I'm old enough to remember when men were actually leaders for good in their community and did useful things with their spare time.
I guess those days are gone forever...
Just to let those morons know, this doesn't bother me at all as I consider any publicity to be good publicity and feel my cause is worthy enough to stand on its own if people visit my blog due to the attention generated from this dumb award.
So once again you people shot yourselves in the foot.
Good.
http://www.bloggerschoiceawards.com/blogs/show/15743?load=comments
I recognized some of the commenters from Stand Your Ground, Eternal Bachelor and Gonzo's Bar & Grill. Mens' rights nuts who have nothing better to do with their time then organize crap like this on the internet. Sad really. I'm old enough to remember when men were actually leaders for good in their community and did useful things with their spare time.
I guess those days are gone forever...
Just to let those morons know, this doesn't bother me at all as I consider any publicity to be good publicity and feel my cause is worthy enough to stand on its own if people visit my blog due to the attention generated from this dumb award.
So once again you people shot yourselves in the foot.
Good.
http://www.bloggerschoiceawards.com/blogs/show/15743?load=comments
Saturday, May 19, 2007
More Cranking up of the Media Spin Machine
This story’s late addition to the main stream media is another example of how western media constantly works to downplay the bad behavior of men trying to protect their ever-worsening reputations. Meanwhile every time we turn around there’s more evidence of some new atrocity thought up by the most aggressive being to inhabit our planet: the human male. Anyway this latest vicious act took place last month. It’s been being discussed in the blogosphere for weeks now. Yet CNN JUST saw fit to post the story yesterday.
Not to mention how they attempted to downplay the fact that these crimes are really hate crimes against women by including a line within the article implying that men can be victimized as well. Thus making it appear to the average reader that this is just another nutty muslim tradition that included men within it, but, in fact, men are not victims of honor killings at all. When men are killed by their family and neighbors in this context it’s generally for collaborating with the enemy, not just for walking down the street or talking with a man who’s not a relative, the way a woman can be targeted for an innocent everyday act.
This is very similar to the way the media ignored the horrible rape and torture of an upper west side woman last month. She was the victim of a push-in robbery, where a man kept her prisoner for almost 24 hours raping and torturing her the entire time, even going to the extent of slitting her eyelids. He left her for dead but somehow she managed to survive, I think she’s still in the hospital however. Now what did we hear about this event which happened in the media capital of the world I might add, New York City? I think ONE ARTICLE, maybe two mentioned it. This story got almost no coverage except when they finally caught the rapist, the reporter made sure to include a comment sympathetic to him within it claiming ‘he never got a break”.
Who cares???
Well other men do obviously.
Just as they came to the rescue of their brothers Alex Baldwin and David Hasselhoff, desperately making excuses for their bad behavior towards their children.
Just as they continuously lie about the growing number of mothers who are losing custody of their children, trying to paint men as victims of discrimination in family court.
This honor killing spin is just another example of the free pass given to man by our media, as he continues plundering the resources, children and lives of woman.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.honorkilling/
Authorities in northern Iraq have arrested four people in connection with the "honor killing" last month of a Kurdish teen -- a startling, morbid pummeling caught on a mobile phone video camera and broadcast around the world.
The case portrays the tragedy and brutality of honor killings in the Muslim world. Honor killings take place when family members kill relatives, almost always female, because they feel the relatives' actions have shamed the family.
In this case, Dua Khalil, a 17-year-old Kurdish girl whose religion is Yazidi, was dragged into a crowd in a headlock with police looking on and kicked, beaten and stoned to death last month.
Not to mention how they attempted to downplay the fact that these crimes are really hate crimes against women by including a line within the article implying that men can be victimized as well. Thus making it appear to the average reader that this is just another nutty muslim tradition that included men within it, but, in fact, men are not victims of honor killings at all. When men are killed by their family and neighbors in this context it’s generally for collaborating with the enemy, not just for walking down the street or talking with a man who’s not a relative, the way a woman can be targeted for an innocent everyday act.
This is very similar to the way the media ignored the horrible rape and torture of an upper west side woman last month. She was the victim of a push-in robbery, where a man kept her prisoner for almost 24 hours raping and torturing her the entire time, even going to the extent of slitting her eyelids. He left her for dead but somehow she managed to survive, I think she’s still in the hospital however. Now what did we hear about this event which happened in the media capital of the world I might add, New York City? I think ONE ARTICLE, maybe two mentioned it. This story got almost no coverage except when they finally caught the rapist, the reporter made sure to include a comment sympathetic to him within it claiming ‘he never got a break”.
Who cares???
Well other men do obviously.
Just as they came to the rescue of their brothers Alex Baldwin and David Hasselhoff, desperately making excuses for their bad behavior towards their children.
Just as they continuously lie about the growing number of mothers who are losing custody of their children, trying to paint men as victims of discrimination in family court.
This honor killing spin is just another example of the free pass given to man by our media, as he continues plundering the resources, children and lives of woman.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.honorkilling/
Authorities in northern Iraq have arrested four people in connection with the "honor killing" last month of a Kurdish teen -- a startling, morbid pummeling caught on a mobile phone video camera and broadcast around the world.
The case portrays the tragedy and brutality of honor killings in the Muslim world. Honor killings take place when family members kill relatives, almost always female, because they feel the relatives' actions have shamed the family.
In this case, Dua Khalil, a 17-year-old Kurdish girl whose religion is Yazidi, was dragged into a crowd in a headlock with police looking on and kicked, beaten and stoned to death last month.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
SAD, SICK, SILLY AND INSANE, ANOTHER ATTEMPT BY MEN TO NEGATE THE IMPACT OF MOTHERS
Another example of the obsessive craving men have to be in charge of everything…
Is there a single thing good, bad or indifferent that women can do which men can’t find a way to take either the credit or blame for????
Dare I say the unthinkable: the person who purchases and prepares the food is the one most responsible for whether or not children gain weight and that is still the mother. Fathers are bit players in this regard as they are in many other areas involving children not ‘on the frontline’ as they wish to paint themselves, but backup and support to mothers.
Too bad if they don’t like it…
Let me be the first to put another ‘spin’ on this finding. We’ve already had studies demonstrating custodial fathers spending less money on their children for food, medical care and education. So perhaps the stingy cheapskates who participated in this study are just showing the well-documented pattern of men keeping most of their money for themselves spending it on beer and cigarettes instead of food for their kids. No wonder the kids are so much skinnier then everyone else, it’s certainly nothing to be proud of, that’s for sure.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21686557-29277,00.html
Dad, not mums, to blame for fat kids
By Tamara McLean
May 07, 2007 05:27pm
FAT children are more likely to have their father to blame for their weight problem than their mother, a study shows.
Research by Australian child health experts has revealed that fathers who are disengaged or do not set clear limits for their kids are more likely to have heavier children.
Dads who did lay down boundaries generally had children with a lower body mass index (BMI), the study of almost 5000 youngsters found.
Surprisingly, a mother's parenting behaviour or style apparently had no impact on whether a child was overweight or obese, according to research by Murdoch Children's Research Institute and The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne.
(Oh BALONEY)!!!!!
Hospital specialist Professor Melissa Wake said the large study was the first to suggest that men could be at the frontline in preventing early childhood obesity.
"Mothers are often blamed for their children's obesity, but this study suggests that for more effective prevention perhaps we should focus on the whole family," Prof Wake said.
The results also showed that 40 per cent of these young mothers and more than 60 per cent of the young fathers were themselves overweight or obese.
The research, to be presented at a paediatrics conference in Toronto this week, compared the BMIs of four- and five-year-olds with their parents' parenting styles.
The specialists said it was vital to study early parenting because home life often established patterns for life-long obesity.
Earlier research had shown that childhood obesity was highly stable during the primary school years, right from school entry, Prof Wake said.
"For instance, the BMI of a prepgrade child has an 85 per cent correlation with their BMI three years later," she said.
"Obese school children are very likely to become obese adults."
Childhood obesity is growing at an alarming rate in Australia, with more than 20 per cent of preschool children either overweight or obese.
Extra weight is a precursor to serious childhood and adult diseases like asthma, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Is there a single thing good, bad or indifferent that women can do which men can’t find a way to take either the credit or blame for????
Dare I say the unthinkable: the person who purchases and prepares the food is the one most responsible for whether or not children gain weight and that is still the mother. Fathers are bit players in this regard as they are in many other areas involving children not ‘on the frontline’ as they wish to paint themselves, but backup and support to mothers.
Too bad if they don’t like it…
Let me be the first to put another ‘spin’ on this finding. We’ve already had studies demonstrating custodial fathers spending less money on their children for food, medical care and education. So perhaps the stingy cheapskates who participated in this study are just showing the well-documented pattern of men keeping most of their money for themselves spending it on beer and cigarettes instead of food for their kids. No wonder the kids are so much skinnier then everyone else, it’s certainly nothing to be proud of, that’s for sure.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21686557-29277,00.html
Dad, not mums, to blame for fat kids
By Tamara McLean
May 07, 2007 05:27pm
FAT children are more likely to have their father to blame for their weight problem than their mother, a study shows.
Research by Australian child health experts has revealed that fathers who are disengaged or do not set clear limits for their kids are more likely to have heavier children.
Dads who did lay down boundaries generally had children with a lower body mass index (BMI), the study of almost 5000 youngsters found.
Surprisingly, a mother's parenting behaviour or style apparently had no impact on whether a child was overweight or obese, according to research by Murdoch Children's Research Institute and The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne.
(Oh BALONEY)!!!!!
Hospital specialist Professor Melissa Wake said the large study was the first to suggest that men could be at the frontline in preventing early childhood obesity.
"Mothers are often blamed for their children's obesity, but this study suggests that for more effective prevention perhaps we should focus on the whole family," Prof Wake said.
The results also showed that 40 per cent of these young mothers and more than 60 per cent of the young fathers were themselves overweight or obese.
The research, to be presented at a paediatrics conference in Toronto this week, compared the BMIs of four- and five-year-olds with their parents' parenting styles.
The specialists said it was vital to study early parenting because home life often established patterns for life-long obesity.
Earlier research had shown that childhood obesity was highly stable during the primary school years, right from school entry, Prof Wake said.
"For instance, the BMI of a prepgrade child has an 85 per cent correlation with their BMI three years later," she said.
"Obese school children are very likely to become obese adults."
Childhood obesity is growing at an alarming rate in Australia, with more than 20 per cent of preschool children either overweight or obese.
Extra weight is a precursor to serious childhood and adult diseases like asthma, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Maternal Grandmothers Should have Rights on Par with Recreational Sperm Donors
I was really glad to hear that Anna Nicole Smith’s baby was finally returned to the United States. I wasn’t particularly glad to hear that the irresponsible 35 year old idiot who acted as a recreational sperm donor to help create this poor kid actually had custody of her. But it appeared to be the best that could be done with a bad situation since none of the cast of characters involved in this DNA ‘train wreck’ were of much better character then Larry Birkhead anyway.
I did have some sympathy for Virgie Arthur I have to admit. She had raised a number of children, all appeared to have turned out well with the exception of Anna Nicole. She was a retired police officer, never convicted of any crime other then the guilt by association of being the mother of Anna Nicole Smith. Virgie Arthur worked at a respectable job, paid her bills, raised her kids, never got in any trouble, even raised Anna Nicole’s first child Daniel for the first five years of his life, yet none of her past spotless record was good enough to allow her any rights to her own grandchild. Nor did it entitle her to even have her daughter and grandson buried here in the US even though they lived here their entire lives. Of course now that the entire family will be back here in the US, it appears pretty stupid to have Anna Nicole Smith and Daniel remain buried in the Bahamas. Can they get that idiot Judge in Florida to pay for the cost of moving them both back here now I wonder? Probably not.
Anyway the recreational sperm donor, who appeared to have a history of unstable behavior, very similar to Anna Nicole herself actually, was automatically entitled to custody just because the DNA matched. It could just as well have been the guy who delivered the milk every morning whose genetic number matched up and he would have won the jackpot instead. What a farce.
We really need to look at changing some laws and giving a maternal grandmother automatic rights on par with never married sperm donors here, as their genetic contribution is exactly the same. So if DNA is going to rule, it needs to be consistent.
One good thing (from my point of view) which came out of this whole media mess, is that the myth of how the Bahamas was somehow so ‘different’ from the United States in matters of custody has finally been laid to rest. According to the media, the Bahamas was so fixated on mothers that fathers had few rights there compared to here in the US, for instance. I kind of, sort of, had a feeling this was total crap and that just like every other place in the world if men want custody they can get it; but then I thought maybe not, maybe the media knows something I don’t…
But sure enough they didn’t.
I really have to learn to trust my own instinct in these matters, it usually proves itself to be correct. I have a feeling that Anna Nicole Smith, if she had survived, would have been sadly disappointed to find out that just like in the US, recreational sperm donors have the exact same rights as mothers. No difference whatsoever.
I did have some sympathy for Virgie Arthur I have to admit. She had raised a number of children, all appeared to have turned out well with the exception of Anna Nicole. She was a retired police officer, never convicted of any crime other then the guilt by association of being the mother of Anna Nicole Smith. Virgie Arthur worked at a respectable job, paid her bills, raised her kids, never got in any trouble, even raised Anna Nicole’s first child Daniel for the first five years of his life, yet none of her past spotless record was good enough to allow her any rights to her own grandchild. Nor did it entitle her to even have her daughter and grandson buried here in the US even though they lived here their entire lives. Of course now that the entire family will be back here in the US, it appears pretty stupid to have Anna Nicole Smith and Daniel remain buried in the Bahamas. Can they get that idiot Judge in Florida to pay for the cost of moving them both back here now I wonder? Probably not.
Anyway the recreational sperm donor, who appeared to have a history of unstable behavior, very similar to Anna Nicole herself actually, was automatically entitled to custody just because the DNA matched. It could just as well have been the guy who delivered the milk every morning whose genetic number matched up and he would have won the jackpot instead. What a farce.
We really need to look at changing some laws and giving a maternal grandmother automatic rights on par with never married sperm donors here, as their genetic contribution is exactly the same. So if DNA is going to rule, it needs to be consistent.
One good thing (from my point of view) which came out of this whole media mess, is that the myth of how the Bahamas was somehow so ‘different’ from the United States in matters of custody has finally been laid to rest. According to the media, the Bahamas was so fixated on mothers that fathers had few rights there compared to here in the US, for instance. I kind of, sort of, had a feeling this was total crap and that just like every other place in the world if men want custody they can get it; but then I thought maybe not, maybe the media knows something I don’t…
But sure enough they didn’t.
I really have to learn to trust my own instinct in these matters, it usually proves itself to be correct. I have a feeling that Anna Nicole Smith, if she had survived, would have been sadly disappointed to find out that just like in the US, recreational sperm donors have the exact same rights as mothers. No difference whatsoever.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Bending over Backwards to Enable a Father's Bad Behavior
I had to laugh yesterday seeing all the enablers in the media, women as well as men, bending over backwards to spin this incident favorable to Alex Baldwin, desperately trying to paint this jerk as a loving father. It’s not like Alex Baldwin has never been reported to have any anger management issues before this. It’s one of the reasons Kim Basinger stated for divorcing him in the first place. He’s has a history of bizarre outbursts such as punching walls on sets when the air conditioning isn't working properly, yelling and making verbal threats to reporters, even threatening to leave the US if Bush won the last election. He appears to be a bully in his public life and now we see it’s the same thing in his private life as well.
The damage was done by Baldwin, not the person who released this tape message of him calling his 11 year old daughter a pig and threatening her that he’s going to ‘straighten her out’ when he gets a hold of her on Friday. BTW, Baldwin didn’t even know how old his daughter is, that’s how connected he is to this poor kid.
Trying to paint this Alex Baldwin as the victim here of so-called ‘parental alienation’ is total crap. As even if it’s true, you certainly don’t attack an 11 year old for something that’s totally out of her control. This shows me unresolved anger management issues with Alex Baldwin here, not parental alienation. It’s my opinion that the real victims here are Kim Basinger and Ireland, who have had to tolerate a reign of terror from Alex Baldwin.
The courts have enabled Alex Baldwin to wage a six year custody battle against this mother and child attempting to wear Kim Basinger down by attrition. It’s outrageous that Baldwin has been allowed to do this. If Kim Basinger did release that tape (although it could have even been Ireland herself who managed to do it, she’s certainly old enough) I see it more as a cry for help to the American public. Clearly Basinger didn’t feel that Baldwin's outburst would receive the attention it merited and her daughter might not receive the protection she deserved from the courts. Thus, she took her case to the public and frankly, I’m glad she did. It’s good for us to know what mothers and children have to put up with in the court system today and it's good that the courts know we know...
The short-term damage of this situation is to this mother and daughter. Kim Basinger never had any other kids and probably never will after this experience. Not to mention Ireland, who will probably grow up to be like so many other young women of her class today, using all these odd method of creating a 'safe' family such as artificial insemination and/or running around doing single parent adoptions. Or the safest alternative, adopting a string of cats or dogs and crafting them into a family of sorts. But the long-term damage is to the millions of other young girls and women who see this going on and won’t be having any kids either due to our legal system empowering men to harass a mother and daughter in this fashion. As I've said before it’s one more nail in the coffin of western civilization.
http://www.tmz.com/2007/04/19/alec-baldwins-threatening-message-to-daughter/
Alec Baldwin's Threatening Message to Daughter
Posted Apr 19th 2007 3:03AM by TMZ Staff
Filed under: Celebrity Justice, Alec Baldwin
An enraged Alec Baldwin unleashed a volcanic tirade of threats and insults on his 11-year-old daughter, Ireland, calling her a "thoughtless little pig," and bashing her mother Kim Basinger -- and TMZ has obtained the whole thing unfiltered and raw. And we've learned, a family law judge was so alarmed after hearing the tape, she has temporarily barred Baldwin from having any contact with his child.
The damage was done by Baldwin, not the person who released this tape message of him calling his 11 year old daughter a pig and threatening her that he’s going to ‘straighten her out’ when he gets a hold of her on Friday. BTW, Baldwin didn’t even know how old his daughter is, that’s how connected he is to this poor kid.
Trying to paint this Alex Baldwin as the victim here of so-called ‘parental alienation’ is total crap. As even if it’s true, you certainly don’t attack an 11 year old for something that’s totally out of her control. This shows me unresolved anger management issues with Alex Baldwin here, not parental alienation. It’s my opinion that the real victims here are Kim Basinger and Ireland, who have had to tolerate a reign of terror from Alex Baldwin.
The courts have enabled Alex Baldwin to wage a six year custody battle against this mother and child attempting to wear Kim Basinger down by attrition. It’s outrageous that Baldwin has been allowed to do this. If Kim Basinger did release that tape (although it could have even been Ireland herself who managed to do it, she’s certainly old enough) I see it more as a cry for help to the American public. Clearly Basinger didn’t feel that Baldwin's outburst would receive the attention it merited and her daughter might not receive the protection she deserved from the courts. Thus, she took her case to the public and frankly, I’m glad she did. It’s good for us to know what mothers and children have to put up with in the court system today and it's good that the courts know we know...
The short-term damage of this situation is to this mother and daughter. Kim Basinger never had any other kids and probably never will after this experience. Not to mention Ireland, who will probably grow up to be like so many other young women of her class today, using all these odd method of creating a 'safe' family such as artificial insemination and/or running around doing single parent adoptions. Or the safest alternative, adopting a string of cats or dogs and crafting them into a family of sorts. But the long-term damage is to the millions of other young girls and women who see this going on and won’t be having any kids either due to our legal system empowering men to harass a mother and daughter in this fashion. As I've said before it’s one more nail in the coffin of western civilization.
http://www.tmz.com/2007/04/19/alec-baldwins-threatening-message-to-daughter/
Alec Baldwin's Threatening Message to Daughter
Posted Apr 19th 2007 3:03AM by TMZ Staff
Filed under: Celebrity Justice, Alec Baldwin
An enraged Alec Baldwin unleashed a volcanic tirade of threats and insults on his 11-year-old daughter, Ireland, calling her a "thoughtless little pig," and bashing her mother Kim Basinger -- and TMZ has obtained the whole thing unfiltered and raw. And we've learned, a family law judge was so alarmed after hearing the tape, she has temporarily barred Baldwin from having any contact with his child.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
More Updated Census Figures
I thought this was rather interesting.
Some updated information since the 2000 census, which shows the vast numbers of mothers who have lost custody of their children. Remember each of those percentage points represents hundreds of thousands of children.
Anyway, I suspected for a while now that many fathers rights organizations were putting out lies claiming 85% of mothers had custody of their children, while only 15% of fathers did and using this lie to claim discrimination in family courts against men, when in fact it’s mothers who face actually discrimination in courts. But I had no evidence except the many mothers who email me constantly telling me how they had their children stolen from them, many of these infants btw, many stolen by men to collect financial benefits for themselves; similar to this Kevin Federline character. Who, btw, actually got 17 million from Brittany Spears (not the one million commonly reported in the media). This useless recreational sperm donor, who abandoned two children with another woman before he targeted Spears as a more lucrative mark, has now been awarded custody of the two children so he’ll be ‘juicing’ Spears for many years to come.
I get sick every time I think of this greedy useless sperm donor with those babies.
The actual figures from 2004 (and I believe they are even higher now) are 20% of fathers having custody rising to 30% for higher income men (so this targets lower income women, the most vulnerable mothers and more likely to be stay-at-home moms with few resources available to them). Anyway the 15/85 percent commonly reported in the media is a lie and has been for some time now. Over the last decade, many greedy men have become aware of the financial benefits available by being named the custodial parent of a child and have been entering the family courtrooms across this nation in droves to start working the system.
So mothers, especially younger ones who are likely to be targeted for this sort of scam, must become educated regarding this situation: how their children can be used by those who wish to profit by obtaining custody of them.
http://www.gocrc.com/research/custody-stats.html
Child Custody Statistics 2004
Single Parent Families with Own Children Under 18 Data source: U.S. Census, America’s Families and Living Arrangements 2004 Current Population Survey, March 2005. Table FG-6.Highlights and Notes:
To reflect final custody settlements as accurately as possible, data below include only "never married" and "divorced" families. "Widowed" and "separated" figures are not included.
Census does not maintain a separate category for joint physical custody. Instead, children are counted as living with the parent where they reside most. For example, if a child lives 60% with the mother and 40% with father, the child is counted as living with the mother.
For children who spend equal amounts of time with both parents, the survey counts them as living with the parent where they are found on the day of the survey. Thus half of the children in 50/50 arrangements are recorded as living with their mothers and half as living with their fathers.
For the total population, divorced single parent families headed by fathers exceeded 20%. Father-headed families increase with income, exceeding 30% at several income levels for white and Hispanic families, and at $100,000 and over for black families.
White and Hispanic families have similar levels of mother and father-headed famlies across all income categories, while father custody is rare for black families.
Divorced and never-married families have approximately the same breakdown between mother- and father-headed families.
Joint physical custody levels cannot be determined from the data, because children are counted with the parent they live with most.
For equal custody, in which children spend the same amount of time with father and mother, Census procedures result in children being assigned randomly to either father or mother, so half of 50/50 custody families are counted as headed by fathers and half as headed by mothers. The population of 50/50 custody families can be estimated by the following formula:J = 2(C - F), where J = 50/50 joint custody families; C = percent of families listed by Census as headed by fathers; F = percent of families where children live more than half time with father .The best estimator of Fis the percent of children in sole custody of fathers, because joint physical custody assignments that are not 50/50 usually give the majority of time to mothers.
Father sole custody families historically have been approximately 9% of single parent families, ranging up to 12% in some states. Based on the 9% estimate, the level of 50/50 custody for divorced families is approximately 2(21 - 9) = 24%. If the level of father sole custody families is 12%, then equal joint custody families are approximately 18% of the total. For never married and divorced families combined, the estimate for 50/50 joint physical custody ranges from approximately 11% to 17%.
Some updated information since the 2000 census, which shows the vast numbers of mothers who have lost custody of their children. Remember each of those percentage points represents hundreds of thousands of children.
Anyway, I suspected for a while now that many fathers rights organizations were putting out lies claiming 85% of mothers had custody of their children, while only 15% of fathers did and using this lie to claim discrimination in family courts against men, when in fact it’s mothers who face actually discrimination in courts. But I had no evidence except the many mothers who email me constantly telling me how they had their children stolen from them, many of these infants btw, many stolen by men to collect financial benefits for themselves; similar to this Kevin Federline character. Who, btw, actually got 17 million from Brittany Spears (not the one million commonly reported in the media). This useless recreational sperm donor, who abandoned two children with another woman before he targeted Spears as a more lucrative mark, has now been awarded custody of the two children so he’ll be ‘juicing’ Spears for many years to come.
I get sick every time I think of this greedy useless sperm donor with those babies.
The actual figures from 2004 (and I believe they are even higher now) are 20% of fathers having custody rising to 30% for higher income men (so this targets lower income women, the most vulnerable mothers and more likely to be stay-at-home moms with few resources available to them). Anyway the 15/85 percent commonly reported in the media is a lie and has been for some time now. Over the last decade, many greedy men have become aware of the financial benefits available by being named the custodial parent of a child and have been entering the family courtrooms across this nation in droves to start working the system.
So mothers, especially younger ones who are likely to be targeted for this sort of scam, must become educated regarding this situation: how their children can be used by those who wish to profit by obtaining custody of them.
http://www.gocrc.com/research/custody-stats.html
Child Custody Statistics 2004
Single Parent Families with Own Children Under 18 Data source: U.S. Census, America’s Families and Living Arrangements 2004 Current Population Survey, March 2005. Table FG-6.Highlights and Notes:
To reflect final custody settlements as accurately as possible, data below include only "never married" and "divorced" families. "Widowed" and "separated" figures are not included.
Census does not maintain a separate category for joint physical custody. Instead, children are counted as living with the parent where they reside most. For example, if a child lives 60% with the mother and 40% with father, the child is counted as living with the mother.
For children who spend equal amounts of time with both parents, the survey counts them as living with the parent where they are found on the day of the survey. Thus half of the children in 50/50 arrangements are recorded as living with their mothers and half as living with their fathers.
For the total population, divorced single parent families headed by fathers exceeded 20%. Father-headed families increase with income, exceeding 30% at several income levels for white and Hispanic families, and at $100,000 and over for black families.
White and Hispanic families have similar levels of mother and father-headed famlies across all income categories, while father custody is rare for black families.
Divorced and never-married families have approximately the same breakdown between mother- and father-headed families.
Joint physical custody levels cannot be determined from the data, because children are counted with the parent they live with most.
For equal custody, in which children spend the same amount of time with father and mother, Census procedures result in children being assigned randomly to either father or mother, so half of 50/50 custody families are counted as headed by fathers and half as headed by mothers. The population of 50/50 custody families can be estimated by the following formula:J = 2(C - F), where J = 50/50 joint custody families; C = percent of families listed by Census as headed by fathers; F = percent of families where children live more than half time with father .The best estimator of Fis the percent of children in sole custody of fathers, because joint physical custody assignments that are not 50/50 usually give the majority of time to mothers.
Father sole custody families historically have been approximately 9% of single parent families, ranging up to 12% in some states. Based on the 9% estimate, the level of 50/50 custody for divorced families is approximately 2(21 - 9) = 24%. If the level of father sole custody families is 12%, then equal joint custody families are approximately 18% of the total. For never married and divorced families combined, the estimate for 50/50 joint physical custody ranges from approximately 11% to 17%.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Women giving Birth could Morph into Paid Vacation for Men
The article below is total propaganda and more of the ongoing attempts by gender-neutralized feminists and fathers rights advocates to usurp the natual rights of mothers. This should serve as the warning shot across the bow alerting mothers to the next attack being mounted against us.
Following the trail laid by US gender neutralized feminists such as Linda Hirshman and Cathy Young, this Equal Opportunity Commission propaganda report is attempting to force mothers to abandon staying at home with their children since too many of us might made that choice. As Simone de Bouvair, gender neutralized feminist extraordinaire observed, women shouldn’t be given the choice to be stay-at-home mothers as too many of us would select it.
I can see going down the road these attempts by men to steal maternity leave from mothers in order to give themselves a nice paid vacation spreading throughout all of the western countries. Not to mention what this will mean for never-married mothers, as I can also see some lazy recreational sperm donor being empowered to go to court in order to fight for custody even before birth. That way he can start his paid vacation as soon as your baby is born.
There is simply no end to the many ways men can find to manipulate our children in order to create benefit for themselves. Make no mistake about it, this will eventually morph into every mother having to mount a court fight with a judge having to decide who gets to take any leave in order to be home with your baby and it's not a given it will be a decision in favor of mother.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2027348,00.html
Baby does best with dad off work, study finds
Lucy Ward, social affairs correspondent
Tuesday March 6, 2007
Children are more likely to suffer development problems if their fathers do not take paternity leave or spend enough time with them when they are very young, according to an analysis of thousands of babies born around the turn of the millennium.
A report published today by the Equal Opportunities Commission and based on research tracking 19,000 children born in 2000 and 2001 found emotional and behavioral problems were more common by the time youngsters reached the age of three if their fathers had not taken time off work when they were born, or had not used flexible working to have a more positive role in their upbringing.
Previous research has highlighted the importance of a mother's involvement when a child is small, but the EOC says this is the first study to confirm that the close involvement of a father also has a significant impact on a child's future.
The analysis finds no evidence that mothers' employment influences the extent of development problems in three-year-old children - in contrast to research published in 2005 by the childcare expert Penelope Leach which suggested young children looked after by their mothers did better than those cared for in nurseries or by relatives.
The government last night pointed to moves including the introduction of paid paternity leave and more than doubling of maternity pay as evidence of commitment to helping families balance work and caring responsibilities.
Following the trail laid by US gender neutralized feminists such as Linda Hirshman and Cathy Young, this Equal Opportunity Commission propaganda report is attempting to force mothers to abandon staying at home with their children since too many of us might made that choice. As Simone de Bouvair, gender neutralized feminist extraordinaire observed, women shouldn’t be given the choice to be stay-at-home mothers as too many of us would select it.
I can see going down the road these attempts by men to steal maternity leave from mothers in order to give themselves a nice paid vacation spreading throughout all of the western countries. Not to mention what this will mean for never-married mothers, as I can also see some lazy recreational sperm donor being empowered to go to court in order to fight for custody even before birth. That way he can start his paid vacation as soon as your baby is born.
There is simply no end to the many ways men can find to manipulate our children in order to create benefit for themselves. Make no mistake about it, this will eventually morph into every mother having to mount a court fight with a judge having to decide who gets to take any leave in order to be home with your baby and it's not a given it will be a decision in favor of mother.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2027348,00.html
Baby does best with dad off work, study finds
Lucy Ward, social affairs correspondent
Tuesday March 6, 2007
Children are more likely to suffer development problems if their fathers do not take paternity leave or spend enough time with them when they are very young, according to an analysis of thousands of babies born around the turn of the millennium.
A report published today by the Equal Opportunities Commission and based on research tracking 19,000 children born in 2000 and 2001 found emotional and behavioral problems were more common by the time youngsters reached the age of three if their fathers had not taken time off work when they were born, or had not used flexible working to have a more positive role in their upbringing.
Previous research has highlighted the importance of a mother's involvement when a child is small, but the EOC says this is the first study to confirm that the close involvement of a father also has a significant impact on a child's future.
The analysis finds no evidence that mothers' employment influences the extent of development problems in three-year-old children - in contrast to research published in 2005 by the childcare expert Penelope Leach which suggested young children looked after by their mothers did better than those cared for in nurseries or by relatives.
The government last night pointed to moves including the introduction of paid paternity leave and more than doubling of maternity pay as evidence of commitment to helping families balance work and caring responsibilities.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Back Soon!!!
I have not been updating my blog recently as I've been ill and on bedrest for a while.
I should be back shortly with some interesting new posts.
I should be back shortly with some interesting new posts.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Courts Continue Usurping Mothers Natural Rights
One of the most errie aspects about this whole custody of Anna Nicole Smith’s body is how closely it mirrored the Teri Schiavo case in showing us the working of the courts and how they establish legal rights of guardianship over those who can’t speak for themselves. If you recall Teri Schiavo was the young Florida wife, who was in a coma (cause unknown). Her husband, Michael Schiavo, was also the one legally empowered to make medical decisions regarding her care. Similarly to the Howard K. Stern/Anna Nicole Smith situation (over the custody of her body), Michael Schiavo too was in an ongoing fight with Teri Schiavo’s parents about whether or not to disconnect the food/water tubes keeping her body alive.
Over the last few weeks, I actually felt like I was reliving the trauma of the Schiavo case all over again. I happened to be sick at home during the beginning of the Anna Nicole Smith court fight and was furious watching that Judge totally disregarding Anna Nicole Smith’s mother while setting up a legal scenario designed to favor Howard K. Stern. Clearly assigning a guardian to represent the so-called ‘best interest of the child’ favored the man who had helped abduct that child in the first place and was currently fraudulently named on her birth certificate as her ‘father’ so he already had defacto legal custody of the child in question.
It was a foregone conclusion from the moment the guardian was named that any so-called guardian 'for the child' would have to name the child's current defacto custodial parent as the person with the right to claim her mother's body. Logic demanded it, unless the birth certificate could be found to be fraudalent before the right to claim the mother's remains was decided. Since this was not likely to happen, the whole hearing was a setup from the moment the statue was disregarded and a child UNDER the age of 18 was designated as next of kin. The whole thing was just a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo designed to empower the men involved and ignore Virgie Arthur's more powerful legal and as well as natural claim to her daughter's remains.
So basically Howard K. Stern was rewarded for perpetuatng a fraud. This entire legal situation was instigated by said fraud to ensure a baby was born outside of US jurisdiction. It has been a so far successful attempt to deny that child’s father any contact with his child, deny the child her American citizenship, as well as any connection with either side of her extended US family. Anna Nicole Smith was replicating the same scenario that she had gotten away with ten years earlier, alienating her son from his grandmother, Virgie Arthur, who raised him for the first five years of his life. Now Anna Nicole Smith was pulling the same stunt with her daughter and I was just sick watching this Judge rewarding an active participant in this fraud, Howard K. Stern.
Now to return to the Schiavo case: I was ready to fly down to Florida during that situation, that’s how upset I was by the whole thing. But was turned off by the hoards of religious fanatics who had taken over the argument. Anyway, even though our President himself claimed he was supportive of Teri Schiavo’s parents being named as her guardians, yet we were told the law was strictly defined vis-à-vis designation of a guardian in Florida, first a spouse, then a child OVER 18, THEN parents.
That was it.
The republic itself was at stake to listen to the media drone on about it. The President himself couldn’t change this, as it was unconstitutional for him to try to overrule a sovereign state’s laws. The President’s brother, Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, supposedly was planning on having his own police detail drive in with an ambulance and just remove Teri Schiavo from the home she was in, yet the county the home was located in found out about it and threatened a confrontation involving the state police if he tried it, so he backed down. The Supreme Court held a special session, yet they too turned down Teri Schiavo’s parents as there was absolutely no way around the Florida statues. NONE.
Even though Michael Schiavo was living as man and wife with another woman for almost ten years, he even had two children with her. Clearly he was no longer in a position to act in the best interest of a ‘wife’ lying in a coma. Yet the Florida statues were so clear, that her parents had to stand by helplessly as their daughter was starved to death. There was nothing anyone could do. Not to mention Michael Schiavo’s final spite filled act of cremating Teri Schiavo’s body and then not letting her parents even know where she was going to be buried, so they couldn’t attend her funeral. Actually I was kind of relieved he did this as it justify me hating the guy. Since this final venomous curtain call in the Teri Schiavo drama said more about him then anything else that had happened up to that point and ensured his place in the history books when this case is written about and guess what: it won’t be a good one.
Anyway until last week I think most of us believed that the Florida statues were written in stone. Guardianship statues were tamper proof, no deviations, no wiggle room, no interpretation allowed. Okay. Fine. Thus I fully expected to see Howard K. Stern, leaving the courthouse with his tail between his legs, as Anna Nicole Smith’s mother reclaimed her daughter, probably shortly followed by her grandson being removed from the Bahamas (where he had previously spent ONE NIGHT before dying there) and being reburied right next to his mother in the country of their birth. As Stern was not ever married to Anna Nicole Smith. It’s even doubtful if he was ever really her boyfriend or just a stand in to help commit paternity fraud. Thus he was entitled to no standing under Florida’s presumably very strict statues.
Yet much to my shock it appeared Florida statues are not written in stone. As the Judge in the case decided to overlook the strong possibility that Howard K. Stern engaged in fraud to get himself named on this child’s birth certificate. Or that he might have strong financial motivations (as in Marshall estate ruling) to wish to remain as a guardian, utilizing a baby, to manage the Anna Nicole Smith’s estate.
Although Howard K. Stern was shown to have leeched off Anna Nicole Smith for years, he was quickly given the moral equivalence pass, since, Virgie Arthur, Anna’s mother was found to have gotten a plane ticket to the Bahamas paid for by a magazine publisher. Excuse me but how in the heck do people think this woman, a retired grandmother, is able to finance an ongoing court battle going on between Florida and the Bahamas? Unlike Stern, who is making millions by selling exclusive rights to Entertainment Tonight for interviews or Larry Birkhead, whose parents are footing the bill for his stupidity in getting involved with this situation, Grandma Arthur has to pay for everything herself. She’s probably draining her retirement account just to pay the lawyers. AND just like most other grandmothers, she is concerned about her grand daugher being the pawn of a bunch of leeches determined to get custody of this kid so they can keep milking the situation, just as they did when her mother was alive. Grandma Arthur couldn’t do anything at that time, but she can and should act now. After all she’s already lost one grandkid to this bunch, I can see her being concerned about losing another.
There is something very disheartening about the level of jealousy within people today, who simply refuse to admit that a mother’s bond with her children is more powerful then other social bonds and don’t want to accept the possibility that Virgie Arthur is doing this out of love for her daughter and concern for her grandchild. Or that a daughter like Anna Nicole Smith: total screwup, drug addict, spite filled alienator who refused to even visit her mother for ten years, money-grubbing conniver who used men for money, could still have a mother out there who loved her and worried about her children. Yes, believe it or not this happens everyday. The most horrible adults in the world still have a mother who loves them, even if that love is not returned. Everyone keeps pointing out that video where Anne Nicole Smith appears to hate her mother. Well guess what: it doesn’t matter, as it tells us nothing about how her mother felt about her.
Anyway this new interpretation of Florida’s guardianship statues appeared to be fine with the media and the courts, since any statue that can usurp a mothers’ natural rights to her children, even when they are dead, appears to fit the bill here. This latest ruling pretty much ignoring the past precedence set was just another obvious spit in the eye to biological parenthood and let’s be clear about this: everytime it happens it’s an attack on mothers. As mothers are the only ones who have our rights designated through natural law due to our more meaningful biological link to children. It is men who need the cover of the courts to give them any legitimate claim. So each and every attack favoring legal over biological connections is an insidious attempt to undermine women in their role as mothers. To place any and all relationships over and above the mother/child one and to once again place man, any man at the center of all things in a women’s life, be he husband, boyfriend, your attorney, whatever. Sadly men do not seem to be able to deal with not being featured with star billing in every show.
Over the last few weeks, I actually felt like I was reliving the trauma of the Schiavo case all over again. I happened to be sick at home during the beginning of the Anna Nicole Smith court fight and was furious watching that Judge totally disregarding Anna Nicole Smith’s mother while setting up a legal scenario designed to favor Howard K. Stern. Clearly assigning a guardian to represent the so-called ‘best interest of the child’ favored the man who had helped abduct that child in the first place and was currently fraudulently named on her birth certificate as her ‘father’ so he already had defacto legal custody of the child in question.
It was a foregone conclusion from the moment the guardian was named that any so-called guardian 'for the child' would have to name the child's current defacto custodial parent as the person with the right to claim her mother's body. Logic demanded it, unless the birth certificate could be found to be fraudalent before the right to claim the mother's remains was decided. Since this was not likely to happen, the whole hearing was a setup from the moment the statue was disregarded and a child UNDER the age of 18 was designated as next of kin. The whole thing was just a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo designed to empower the men involved and ignore Virgie Arthur's more powerful legal and as well as natural claim to her daughter's remains.
So basically Howard K. Stern was rewarded for perpetuatng a fraud. This entire legal situation was instigated by said fraud to ensure a baby was born outside of US jurisdiction. It has been a so far successful attempt to deny that child’s father any contact with his child, deny the child her American citizenship, as well as any connection with either side of her extended US family. Anna Nicole Smith was replicating the same scenario that she had gotten away with ten years earlier, alienating her son from his grandmother, Virgie Arthur, who raised him for the first five years of his life. Now Anna Nicole Smith was pulling the same stunt with her daughter and I was just sick watching this Judge rewarding an active participant in this fraud, Howard K. Stern.
Now to return to the Schiavo case: I was ready to fly down to Florida during that situation, that’s how upset I was by the whole thing. But was turned off by the hoards of religious fanatics who had taken over the argument. Anyway, even though our President himself claimed he was supportive of Teri Schiavo’s parents being named as her guardians, yet we were told the law was strictly defined vis-à-vis designation of a guardian in Florida, first a spouse, then a child OVER 18, THEN parents.
That was it.
The republic itself was at stake to listen to the media drone on about it. The President himself couldn’t change this, as it was unconstitutional for him to try to overrule a sovereign state’s laws. The President’s brother, Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, supposedly was planning on having his own police detail drive in with an ambulance and just remove Teri Schiavo from the home she was in, yet the county the home was located in found out about it and threatened a confrontation involving the state police if he tried it, so he backed down. The Supreme Court held a special session, yet they too turned down Teri Schiavo’s parents as there was absolutely no way around the Florida statues. NONE.
Even though Michael Schiavo was living as man and wife with another woman for almost ten years, he even had two children with her. Clearly he was no longer in a position to act in the best interest of a ‘wife’ lying in a coma. Yet the Florida statues were so clear, that her parents had to stand by helplessly as their daughter was starved to death. There was nothing anyone could do. Not to mention Michael Schiavo’s final spite filled act of cremating Teri Schiavo’s body and then not letting her parents even know where she was going to be buried, so they couldn’t attend her funeral. Actually I was kind of relieved he did this as it justify me hating the guy. Since this final venomous curtain call in the Teri Schiavo drama said more about him then anything else that had happened up to that point and ensured his place in the history books when this case is written about and guess what: it won’t be a good one.
Anyway until last week I think most of us believed that the Florida statues were written in stone. Guardianship statues were tamper proof, no deviations, no wiggle room, no interpretation allowed. Okay. Fine. Thus I fully expected to see Howard K. Stern, leaving the courthouse with his tail between his legs, as Anna Nicole Smith’s mother reclaimed her daughter, probably shortly followed by her grandson being removed from the Bahamas (where he had previously spent ONE NIGHT before dying there) and being reburied right next to his mother in the country of their birth. As Stern was not ever married to Anna Nicole Smith. It’s even doubtful if he was ever really her boyfriend or just a stand in to help commit paternity fraud. Thus he was entitled to no standing under Florida’s presumably very strict statues.
Yet much to my shock it appeared Florida statues are not written in stone. As the Judge in the case decided to overlook the strong possibility that Howard K. Stern engaged in fraud to get himself named on this child’s birth certificate. Or that he might have strong financial motivations (as in Marshall estate ruling) to wish to remain as a guardian, utilizing a baby, to manage the Anna Nicole Smith’s estate.
Although Howard K. Stern was shown to have leeched off Anna Nicole Smith for years, he was quickly given the moral equivalence pass, since, Virgie Arthur, Anna’s mother was found to have gotten a plane ticket to the Bahamas paid for by a magazine publisher. Excuse me but how in the heck do people think this woman, a retired grandmother, is able to finance an ongoing court battle going on between Florida and the Bahamas? Unlike Stern, who is making millions by selling exclusive rights to Entertainment Tonight for interviews or Larry Birkhead, whose parents are footing the bill for his stupidity in getting involved with this situation, Grandma Arthur has to pay for everything herself. She’s probably draining her retirement account just to pay the lawyers. AND just like most other grandmothers, she is concerned about her grand daugher being the pawn of a bunch of leeches determined to get custody of this kid so they can keep milking the situation, just as they did when her mother was alive. Grandma Arthur couldn’t do anything at that time, but she can and should act now. After all she’s already lost one grandkid to this bunch, I can see her being concerned about losing another.
There is something very disheartening about the level of jealousy within people today, who simply refuse to admit that a mother’s bond with her children is more powerful then other social bonds and don’t want to accept the possibility that Virgie Arthur is doing this out of love for her daughter and concern for her grandchild. Or that a daughter like Anna Nicole Smith: total screwup, drug addict, spite filled alienator who refused to even visit her mother for ten years, money-grubbing conniver who used men for money, could still have a mother out there who loved her and worried about her children. Yes, believe it or not this happens everyday. The most horrible adults in the world still have a mother who loves them, even if that love is not returned. Everyone keeps pointing out that video where Anne Nicole Smith appears to hate her mother. Well guess what: it doesn’t matter, as it tells us nothing about how her mother felt about her.
Anyway this new interpretation of Florida’s guardianship statues appeared to be fine with the media and the courts, since any statue that can usurp a mothers’ natural rights to her children, even when they are dead, appears to fit the bill here. This latest ruling pretty much ignoring the past precedence set was just another obvious spit in the eye to biological parenthood and let’s be clear about this: everytime it happens it’s an attack on mothers. As mothers are the only ones who have our rights designated through natural law due to our more meaningful biological link to children. It is men who need the cover of the courts to give them any legitimate claim. So each and every attack favoring legal over biological connections is an insidious attempt to undermine women in their role as mothers. To place any and all relationships over and above the mother/child one and to once again place man, any man at the center of all things in a women’s life, be he husband, boyfriend, your attorney, whatever. Sadly men do not seem to be able to deal with not being featured with star billing in every show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)