I just wanted to talk a bit about women making historic inroads into our political system this year and point out that it still remains to be seen yet whether this will translate into an overall positive trend for mothers and their children. Nancy Pelosi making history as the first female Speaker of the House and Hillary Clinton with a strong possibility to be our first female President does not automatically translate into a good for us.
Sadly as we have seen in the past many women climb up into prestigious and powerful positions painting themselves as victims of the patriarchy, then as soon as they get in a position to do something positive for other women, they suddenly turn gender neutral on us.
Of course they are never gender neutral when it comes time to grab their share of the ‘goodies’ that go along with being identified as a so-called victim of the patriarchy. They will all take their share of the spots in higher education and the corporate/legal/political hierarchy of this country which are reserved for women. Yet when it comes time for them to give back to their sisters’, the millions of women whose backs they climbed onto in order to launch their own careers, suddenly they have second thoughts and decide they have to exhibit their gender neutrality.
We saw this in New York with that whole Bridget Marks custody switch fiasco. Where not one woman of substance spoke out on behalf of that mother or her twin daughters. Actually it was a group of the old patriarchs in the appeals court of upstate New York who finally overturned that travesty of a custody ruling and returned those little girls to their mother. Otherwise who knows where they would be right now. I didn’t hear anyone from NOW or any other female Judges or groups speaking out about this injustice. Really it was men like that Bill O’Reilly and a few others whose names I’ve forgotten right now who kept this case in the news and that’s the only reason those little girls were given their lives back again.
This is not the first time I’ve noticed women in power, not just being silent on important issues for mothers and their children, but frequently aiding and abetting men in these ongoing custody wars we see going on all around us. Many of these custody fights and/or abductions incited by the fathers rights movement in an attempt to get out of paying child support.
These are important issues for mothers and I don’t see any womens’ group or female politician addressing them. Instead they spend much time on issues of gay rights (which is 99% a mens issues and I might add an elite mens issue) that has little or nothing to do with the rights of mothers and their children. Since most women still become mothers, this is a major lack on the part of every women group that exists today.
Mothers rights are being undermined by a legal establishment which seems determined to assist men in holding our children hostage, the better to control their mothers with, and so-called womens groups better start addressing this issue.
Additionally when I say addressing this, I don’t mean another waste-of-time do-nothing conference about it either where everyone spends all their time at meetings and expensive lunches. I mean some public policy changes that will demonstrate real positive impact on the lives of mothers and their children.
Thus to return to my original point: it still remains to be seem how much the success of some women in reaching the highest levels of political power is actually going to benefit mothers.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Lesbian Mothers Targeted Today, All Mothers Tomorrow
These decisions were the logical outcome of the vicious fathers rights propaganda campaign that has been waged against mothers for the last decade or so in the West. Both are a good example of the direction that public policy is heading in since a number of countries made anonymous sperm donors illegal. The recent changes to public policy, although painted as limited to just giving a child information on their 18th birthday, will eventually prove to be far more insidious.
In fact the real goal of the changes in public policy was to stop women from becoming mothers without the required male overseer in charge of her.
As this Judge who made the ruling clearly stated, getting inseminated outside of the country and then petitioning for your lesbian partner to adopt was simply an attempt to circumvent the original intent of the law. As anybody but an idiot could have told them, the law’s original intent was not to allow a child to know who its sperm donor was on their 18th birthday for the so-called medical history reasons. The real intent was to have man with his foot back on the neck of woman again by using the power of the state to give recreational and anonymous sperm donors the same legal rights to a child as its mother.
As I’ve said in the past lesbians have allowed themselves to be used, both here and abroad, to get many anti-motherhood polices passed. Clearly they will be the first but not the last victims of these new public policy changes now.
Even if these cases are overturned on appeal, it is clear the direction we are heading in. It’s just a question of time before it will be illegal for single women in the West to have children at all unless they have a male sperm donor named on the birth certificate, who will be equal with a mother in all legal mattters pertaining to her child.
So it appears that once again men have manipulated the state to help them usurp the natural rights of women.
Thus the struggle continues.
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/01/010807sweden.htm
Swedish Court Rejects Lesbian Co-Parenting
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 9, 2007 - 12:01 am ET
(Stockholm) A Swedish judge, ruling in two cases involving lesbian couples has ruled that the nonbiological mothers cannot adopt their partners children.
In each case the birth mother had been artificially inseminated. And in each case the birth mothers partners had been approved for adoption by social services authorities.
But in separate rulings Judge Mats Orstadius rejected the applications saying that the couples were trying to bypass Sweden's law allowing children to identify biological parents.
"It is not acceptable to use the institution of adoption to in this way circumvent such a basic right of the child. The benefits that the child might gain from the adoption still do not warrant its approval," Orstadius wrote in both rulings.
In both cases the couples are registered under Sweden's civil partner law.
The women called the ruling "incredulous" since the fathers were unknown sperm donors.
"There is no father, only a donor. That's why I'm trying to adopt," said one of the women.
An expert in family law at Uppsala University called the ruling flawed.
"It feels like the court is somehow trying to punish the women because they did something that is contrary to the interests of the child. But it is doing this in a way that is also contrary to the interests of the child," said Dr. Anna Singer.
Both couples said they will appeal the ruling. In previous cases judges have approved adoptions of partners' children.
©365Gay.com 2007
In fact the real goal of the changes in public policy was to stop women from becoming mothers without the required male overseer in charge of her.
As this Judge who made the ruling clearly stated, getting inseminated outside of the country and then petitioning for your lesbian partner to adopt was simply an attempt to circumvent the original intent of the law. As anybody but an idiot could have told them, the law’s original intent was not to allow a child to know who its sperm donor was on their 18th birthday for the so-called medical history reasons. The real intent was to have man with his foot back on the neck of woman again by using the power of the state to give recreational and anonymous sperm donors the same legal rights to a child as its mother.
As I’ve said in the past lesbians have allowed themselves to be used, both here and abroad, to get many anti-motherhood polices passed. Clearly they will be the first but not the last victims of these new public policy changes now.
Even if these cases are overturned on appeal, it is clear the direction we are heading in. It’s just a question of time before it will be illegal for single women in the West to have children at all unless they have a male sperm donor named on the birth certificate, who will be equal with a mother in all legal mattters pertaining to her child.
So it appears that once again men have manipulated the state to help them usurp the natural rights of women.
Thus the struggle continues.
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/01/010807sweden.htm
Swedish Court Rejects Lesbian Co-Parenting
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 9, 2007 - 12:01 am ET
(Stockholm) A Swedish judge, ruling in two cases involving lesbian couples has ruled that the nonbiological mothers cannot adopt their partners children.
In each case the birth mother had been artificially inseminated. And in each case the birth mothers partners had been approved for adoption by social services authorities.
But in separate rulings Judge Mats Orstadius rejected the applications saying that the couples were trying to bypass Sweden's law allowing children to identify biological parents.
"It is not acceptable to use the institution of adoption to in this way circumvent such a basic right of the child. The benefits that the child might gain from the adoption still do not warrant its approval," Orstadius wrote in both rulings.
In both cases the couples are registered under Sweden's civil partner law.
The women called the ruling "incredulous" since the fathers were unknown sperm donors.
"There is no father, only a donor. That's why I'm trying to adopt," said one of the women.
An expert in family law at Uppsala University called the ruling flawed.
"It feels like the court is somehow trying to punish the women because they did something that is contrary to the interests of the child. But it is doing this in a way that is also contrary to the interests of the child," said Dr. Anna Singer.
Both couples said they will appeal the ruling. In previous cases judges have approved adoptions of partners' children.
©365Gay.com 2007
Thursday, January 18, 2007
New Changes in How we Live Need to be Followed by Public Policy Changes to Match
Well I guess it’s official now since the NY Times has said it. 51% of women in the US are living without a husband now. Between later marriages and a higher divorce rate, longer intervals before remarrying for women then men (if ever remarrying, let’s face it, many women never do), we’ve quite simply spending more time on our own then married.
Actually if I had known in my own situation how long I would be single versus the short duration of my marriage, I would have ordered my life very differently. First of all I would never have dropped out of college or had children so early. Instead I would have focused on graduating and paid more attention to my career then I did. Planning my whole life around the expectation of being a married woman and making my home, husband and family my career was a critical error. It led me to being a young single mother very early with few opportunities after my divorce. Actually I had to wait until my children were teenagers before I could go back to school and establish myself.
So that one false expectation formed my whole life.
Thus it’s a good thing that young women are being informed of these changes today. We should be working to get public policies and laws reformed to reflect these changes as well. Especially the laws negatively impacting single motherhood. These changes in adoption laws trying to exclude single women as well as the attempts to stop women from using anonymous sperm donors and create families invitro should be rescinded.
After all, if women are going to be spending so much time alone, they are going to need these other options available to them to start families with, if they so chose. As what do we want so many women to not be able to be mothers if they wish? Many changes must begin to follow in the wake of this new found information about how we are living our lives today.
Actually if I had known in my own situation how long I would be single versus the short duration of my marriage, I would have ordered my life very differently. First of all I would never have dropped out of college or had children so early. Instead I would have focused on graduating and paid more attention to my career then I did. Planning my whole life around the expectation of being a married woman and making my home, husband and family my career was a critical error. It led me to being a young single mother very early with few opportunities after my divorce. Actually I had to wait until my children were teenagers before I could go back to school and establish myself.
So that one false expectation formed my whole life.
Thus it’s a good thing that young women are being informed of these changes today. We should be working to get public policies and laws reformed to reflect these changes as well. Especially the laws negatively impacting single motherhood. These changes in adoption laws trying to exclude single women as well as the attempts to stop women from using anonymous sperm donors and create families invitro should be rescinded.
After all, if women are going to be spending so much time alone, they are going to need these other options available to them to start families with, if they so chose. As what do we want so many women to not be able to be mothers if they wish? Many changes must begin to follow in the wake of this new found information about how we are living our lives today.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)