Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Mothers Should Not be Forced into Drastic Action to Establish Their Rights

Whether or not it’s 51% or 47% of women living alone with no husband, the bottom line remains essentially the same. Millions of women are essentially going to be spending a good part of their lives alone. So in recognition of this fact, public policy must begin reflecting the way we actually live today. We cannot continue ignoring this reality.

Thus, we need to begin making our society welcoming to these millions of single women if they wish to become mothers. Women shouldn’t have to go to all these extreme measures, such as being forced to spend thousands of dollars to establish themselves as custodial in the legalized version of a dog and pony show, or be forced to renounce their US citizenship ala Anne Nicole Smith. All of this in an attempt to establish legal rights to our own children; to establish rights which should belong to every mother automatically. Not something subject to litigation in order to keep our children out of the hands of greedy recreational sperm donors.

Nor should these women be subjected to vicious fathers’ rights propaganda after they have their children, trying to guilt trip them about what horrible people they are because they decided to become single mothers. This is nothing but spin to enable men to undermine the natural rights all mothers have always had to their own children.

It’s simply out-freaking-rageous that this be allowed to go on today.

Sadly the so-called advocates of womens’ rights have ignored these issues, too busy focusing on ways to further their own career ambitions. In their attempts to social engineer a gender neutral society, feminism has signed away the rights of mothers to their children. A right I might add far older then both feminism and the courts of men combined and a right I might add which was not theirs to give away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/opinion/11pubed.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

Can a 15-Year-Old Be a ‘Woman Without a Spouse’?

By BYRON CALAME

Published: February 11, 2007

The opening paragraph of the article sounded like grown-up stuff: “For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.”

It was a statistic that put the story on a fast track to the front page, providing a noteworthy benchmark for a well-established trend. But the new majority materialized only because The Times chose to use survey data that counted, as spouseless women, teenagers 15 through 17 — almost 90 percent of whom were living with their parents.

Major newspapers and broadcast and cable news programs picked up on this tipping point, spotted by Sam Roberts, a veteran Times reporter who writes frequently about census data. A few media outlets stopped to question the logic of including teenage females, before going on to discuss the Jan. 16 article’s interesting exploration of the “newfound freedom” for women that was reflected by the new majority.

Several readers, including some who perceived the article as an attack on family values, challenged the inclusion of 15-year-olds, in e-mails to me and in comments posted on the Web version of The Times. “The article is a little deceiving because it is based on the percentage of women 15 and older who are not married,” wrote one reader, noting that “it’s not even legal to marry at 15” in many states. I couldn’t agree more.

Common sense would also seem to have called for telling readers how many women above high school age were living without spouses in 2005. Simply subtracting the numbers for the A.C.S.’s 15-to-17 category from the total provides the data for females 18 and older. It shows that 48 percent of them were living without husbands — short of the 51 percent reached when high-school-age females were included — a fact that merited equal billing in the article. Eliminating all teenagers and counting only women 20 and older would have shown that 47 percent were living without a spouse in 2005, according to my math.

After dealing with three weeks of questions from readers and from me, Mr. Roberts on Monday expressed a little less certainty about the new majority trumpeted in the first paragraph of his article. He wrote to me: “I think the essence of the article remains accurate: that, depending on how one adjusts the census’s definition, about half — maybe a little bit more, maybe a little bit less, depending on the age group —of American women are living without a spouse at any given time.”

12 comments:

silverside said...

Yes, I've been wondering why Anna Nicole was so desperate for citizenship in the Bahamas. It's even been hinted at lately that there was some bribery/deal with the chief Bahamas immigration official to get citizenship, since it appears she does not actually own her house there.

Just hope this baby doesn't "suddenly" die in the same way that Anna Nicole or her son did. She's potentially worth a lot of money to some "father."

NYMOM said...

I understood her predictament.

She wasn't really very well thought of in the US so she could have easily lost custody of her child a few weeks after birth actually. Which is much more common then many people realize. Really, as soon as a birth certificate is issued with a fathers' name upon it, he's legally entitled to file for custody at anytime. Anytime.

Or at his leisure, years after the fact whenever it's most advantageous for him really like that Aylsworth with Bridget Marks' twins.

Many women still believe they have to be proven unfit or do something wrong to instigate a custody battle but that's not the case anymore.

For any little reason or absolutely none at all, a mother can be dragged into court and lose her kids, just like that...

Actually I could even see that Marshall family in Texas paying for the opposing side in a custody battle against Anna Nicole Smith. They could have used it as leverage against her to force her to drop the lawsuit for a share of her late husband's estate. She made herself very vulnerable with this pregnancy and frankly I think the stress of the whole thing was what killed her and claimed her son as a victim as well.

She would have been better off to have had an abortion or used adequate birth control in the first place.

So basically she was facing a crap shoot to stay in the US and I guess she figured she would take her chances somewhere else. But the laws there are not so different then the laws of the US. Once this recreational sperm donor got an attorney and forced a DNA test, he would have the same rights as her. The best she could hope for was a delaying tactic where maybe he would run out of money...but with custody of a baby, whose mother might be worth $450 million dollars, at stake this guy would have begged, borrowed and stole before he gave up that fight. Like I said the Marshall family probably would have bankrolled him...

She was very foolish to put herself at risk in this situation.

Anyway, I'm angry that women have become so vulnerable really and I have to say I blame gender-neutral feminists for this, not men. They took the power these gender neutrals gave them.

Ultimately these gender neutral feminists have undermined the rights of women through their selfish actions to secure cushy positions for themselves. Not to mention the long-term damage they have done to the entire womens' movement.

Idiots. I have no use for them...

Val said...

Great post, NY Mom. I had never thought to look at Anna Nicole's predicament from that side before... The poor woman (in all senses of the word).

silverside said...

I read somewhere that she had really wanted a daughter, and at 39, she was running out of time.

Maybe it was "foolish," but women who really want children take risks.

Then you end up paying in ways you never EVER imagined. Like being basically a prisoner to one geographic area for 18 years. Being broke from paying either a deadbeat or very well paid father to keep your babies from you (always seems like one or the other).

And that's not even going into the typical abuse/control games that these batterer types get into. Ongoing threats, harrassment, intimidation, destroying your home and/or business. There are women who get death threats, even after they were stripped of their kids and everything cent they had.

NYMOM said...

"The poor woman."

Unfortunately like many women her worse problems were mainly self-inflicted...

silverside: I can understand the wanting another chance at a baby when you're so close to 39...however, my question is what's the point if you face the loss of the child shortly after birth? As losing custody is just that...it's a shortcut to termination of your rights as a mother really...similar to giving up your child for adoption, as the only rights you really have afterwards is the "right" to pay child support.

As you, yourself, can personally attest visitation is difficult and expensive to enforce depending upon the Judge you get stuck with. So it's not even certain if or when or how often you'll even be allowed to see your child.

So basically it's a crapshot for a woman to decide to have a baby today unless she's using an anonymous sperm donor with no legal rights to her child after birth. Anna Nicole Smith, like many mothers, simply rolled the dice and lost.

NYMOM said...

silverside: I was listening to a news commentator going on last night about how much better off Anna Nicole's baby was now that her mother was dead. After all she was such a 'trainwreck'...that her daughter was better off without her...

Meanwhile I don't remember hearing even once anyone mentioning what a better life OJ's kids could have had if he had the common decency to die...

But, of course, Anne Nicole Simpson was so much worse a person then OJ who only committed two murders.

Val said...

"Unfortunately like many women her worse problems were mainly self-inflicted" -- amen to that!
& I am SO GLAD I don't waste my time listening to the twits on commercial TV (re: above comment), talk about IDIOTS!

NYMOM said...

I don't like listening to them either, unfortuntately everyone else does and then we have laws and public policies enforced that reflect these views.

I mean I watched that court farce over who has the right to bury Anna Nicole Smith and her own mother was treated like complete crap. Meanwhile they are searching high and low and bending over backwards to locate a recreational sperm donor to name as a 'father' and then he'll have more rights then Smith's mother...it's ridiculous...

Anna Nicole Smith appears to have been either drunk or high on something for the last 10 or 12 years and any guy having sex with her should have been arrested for bypassing the informed consent laws and having sex with someone under the influence.

Never mind creating a child with her...

silverside said...

If Anna Nicole used her deceased husband's sperm, then she kind of gets the last laugh, though. Her daughter has a pretty tight claim to the money.

Sad to say, but I'm thinking the best "personal" solution at this point (until we can get a political one) is to go find a single guy at hospice for a boyfriend. You marry him in a "whirlwind" romance, get yourself pregnant somehow, and cry yourself silly at the funeral. Meanwhile, you should be able to get his social security and so forth. You can always tell your kid (with a catch in your throat and with all sincerity) what a fine man he was. Have lots of pictures around and tell lots of stories so the kid doesn't feel s/he never knew his/her father. They're just sick of hearing about it.

I know, I'm terribly cynical these days. I'm a prisoner in this end of NYS for 3 more years. I'll be over 50 when I get out. Then I have to find a new job somewhere else. Because there is no way I can stand it here anymore.

NYMOM said...

IF she did that. She might have as she does appear to know all the angles and a couple of men claim she froze their sperm samples.

So we'll see.

By the way NYS requires child support until the child is 21 even if you pay a prorata share of college. I'm thinking that to be politically correct they will probably make you pay it until then too. So don't count on being free of this guy before then.

He hasn't had a job since your kid was four and now she's fourteen...They are not going to want to support him on the county's dime, so they'll probably take the position better you then them...Not to mention the expense of having him covered by medical as he ages.

silverside said...

I know about NYS and 21 -- I'm leaving anyway. The knowledge that I will be free in 3 years is the only way I can get up in the morning. Otherwise I'd put a bullet through my head.

I already know that I'll be 100% responsible for her college, and that he won't contribute a cent. But I make so little out here in Appalachian New York that even a secretary job somewhere else will probably pay as much as I'm making now.

Support for him in his old age? I'd rather go to jail. My life is basically prison now. I am so beyond caring at this point.

Val said...

Silverside, I feel for you... Greetings from a fellow mom "entrapped" in N Ellis Co -- I was lucky lucky LUCKY [no sarcasm there] to retain custody; but w/overzealous visitation bestowed by family court, I feel like a wage slave myself, working like a drone to give my son a decent education & socking a little $$ away for the next legal battle (in 3 yrs when we'll have to re-negotiate child support, it's a long story!). I will halt the rant & go work on my own post; thanks for giving us more "food for thought" NY Mom!