Saturday, February 16, 2008

Another Hostage Crisis for England

I’ve been following with some interest the Heather Mills-McCartney divorce story, not because I’m particularly interested in how much money she ultimately wins in the divorce settlement. But I’m curious to see if Paul McCartney wins in his attempts to steal Heather Mills’s only child from her by using his superior financial position to ‘work’ the British family court system.

I actually think the custody case has already been settled (with Paul as defacto legal custodian of the child) ever since he got the idea to lock Heather out of the marital home. Previously both parents had a form of shared custody and Paul had moved into another house, some short distance away. The guy is a billionaire, so I’m sure he had plenty of houses.

Anyway, the papers then started reporting that he had made a $50 million dollar settlement offer to Heather (with the little reported condition attached that she give up custody of her only child to him). She refused. But of course, we rarely hear that little detail of his offer. Only that Heather Mills turned down a $50 million dollar settlement offer from poor, generous, put upon, Sir Paul.

What a guy.

She’s so greedy, such a bad human being, yada, yada, yada.

Thank God Ringo was always my favorite Beatle.

Shortly after I heard about that settlement being turned down, I then saw on the news that Heather Mills had been locked out of her house. There was a news feed showing her trying to use a key on the gate and it wouldn’t open. The camera then followed Heather back to her car as she angrily drove away.

Of course, she shouldn’t have been angry the story implied since a good mother would just take this sort of event in stride, go off demurely and find a stable somewhere to live. After all if it was good enough for Mary, the mother of Jesus, it’s damn sure good enough for Heather Mills. According to the media for the sake of a good relationship between both parents, Heather should just ignore whatever low-down sneaky trick her billionaire husband decided to pull.

BTW, this is the usual sort of advice given to mothers when they are engaged in fighting off some dirtbag who is trying to steal their children from them. I hate to sound like a broken record here, but the same criticism was leveled at Bridget Marks when she went into that whole screaming/crying drama on TV. Bridget Marks’ two twins daughters were taken away from her by some crazy gender neutralized feminist “Judge Judy’ clone and it was for the same reason: to aid and abet some sneaky dirtbag trying to gain custody for financial benefit to himself. Marks’ children were to be held as bargaining chips by her boyfriend’s wife in order to negotiate a better financial ‘deal’ for him.


This is the sad legacy of feminism and what ‘women’s rights’ have degenerated into today. What a waste of time fighting for that was, but that’s another blog story for another day.

To return to the McCartneys: Paul McCartney should have been investigated and officially charged with some sort of crime for even making an offer like that to his child’s mother. It should be a criminal offense just like it is if you attempt to ‘buy’ children on the black market by offering desperately poor mothers money for them.

Anyway after the lockout event, I never saw Heather Mills featured with her child again as a news item. There’s been a total media lockdown on what’s going on with her child. The only item I’ve read since the lockout event is that Paul McCartney was with his grown children and the baby on vacation and they were all overheard calling the baby by a different name, then her legal one. Probably the name her mother picked out for her daughter is now being ignored.

I smell parental alienation here.


Especially lovely that Sir Paul has his two grown daughters helping him with this little scheme. What a wonderful world he is creating for them to live in. Long after Sir Paul is dead and buried, the legacy he has helped create will be haunting his adult daughters.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Heather Mills should be entitled to any of Paul McCartney vast fortune. I think that sort of division of property/assets should be strictly reserved for wealth accumulated during the life of the marriage. Even then it needs to be carefully evaluated to assess each partner’s actual contribution to ensure that one hard-working person isn’t taken advantage of by a parasite (as in Kevin Federline getting $15,000 monthly from Brittany Spears in spousal support, plus equity from a house she purchased with her own money after a two year marriage where he contributed absolutely nothing of value). The media vastly UNDERstated the total dollar amount of Kevin Federline’s divorce settlement, as it was closer to $17 million versus the $700,000 I believe was reported. Plus the media rarely mentioned the $15,000 monthly in spousal support Kevin Federline receives.

What Heather Mills should walk away with is her child (unless she is proven to be an unfit mother) and a decent amount of child support to provide for said child. If Paul wishes to give her a house, fine. But Heather Mills worked before marriage, she had a decent lifestyle and I’m sure she’ll work after marriage and have the same. A marriage license should not be viewed as a quik-pick lottery ticket where you hit the jackpot if you marry rich and divorce a short time later walking away with a million dollar prize.

However the settlement fight is really a sideshow to the real issue going on here. Which is that once again we see a man holding a mother's child hostage to negotiate a better financial 'deal' for himself and the ability for any man to do that needs to end.

Addendum to post:

I just found this on Heather Mills website, I didn't even know she had a website but here it is:


Heather Mills has today won a landmark victory in her fight to stop tabloid newspapers smearing her name with inaccurate stories.

The Sunday Mirror newspaper, one of the biggest selling tabloids in Britain, has apologised to Miss Mills and agreed to pay her undisclosed damages.

The newspaper has also published an apology into today's edition.

Under the heading We're sorry the apology says: On 4 March under the headline "BEATLED" we published an article claiming that a High Court judge in the Heather Mills McCartney divorce proceedings had thrown out some of her claims against Paul McCartney as being inadmissible and that she had been exposed in court as a fantasist and a liar about those claims and her previous public statements, leading her to erupt with rage and shout and rant before breaking down in floods of tears.

"We now accept that the judge did not throw out any of her claims, she was not portrayed as a lair in court and she did not erupt with rage."

"We apologise to Heather Mills McCartney for any distress or embarrassment caused and have agreed to pay her damages and legal costs."

A spokesman for Heather Mills McCartney said: "Heather is delighted the Sunday Mirror have put the record straight. She is determined to stop newspapers and broadcasters publishing false stories about her and has a number of legal actions pending which she will continue to pursue."

Heather is currently appearing on the American TV show Dancing With The Stars, where her routines have been widely praised by the judges."

Like I said, I didn't know about this before I posted but added it after I saw it, since it's relevant to what I've been saying about the media coverage and how it's often slanted against mothers.

In the words of a good friend of mine: Who knew??? This woman is no Kevin Federline, that's for sure.


Val said...

"According to the media for the sake of a good relationship between both parents, Heather should just ignore whatever low-down sneaky trick her... husband decided to pull."
Why does this sound hauntingly familiar?
[Great post BTW]
I just finished filing reams of paperwork required to file a formal complaint against the psychologist who performed OUR little evaluation...Don't know if I will accomplish a damned thing, but at least I can say I tried!

Anonymous said...

I love this crap with celebrity fathers. Alec Baldwin verbally abuses Ireland over the phone, but still gets his visitation. Kim Basinger has said all along that this is Baldwin's usual behavior, and she gets slapped with paretal alienation claims. David Hasselhoff gets full custody even though he has been in rehab over and over. Tom Cruise has physical custody, but there are reports that his adopted children with Nicole Kidman actually live with his sister while Kidman is allowed little contact. Britney Spears loses custody because it's now shown she has bi-polar disease, but K-fed is allowed to keep her from any contact with their children while she is getting psychiatric help. If any woman did this to a bi-polar father with a drug problem, she would be labeled as a parental alienating bitch who is interfering with a father's rights. In fact, if any woman, celebrity or not, did any of the behaviors exhibited by these celebrity fathers, she would be labeled as an unfit mother. Fathers can do whatever the hell they want.

NYMOM said...

Well I hope it works out Val; however, sometimes these professionals react similarly to the infamous 'blue wall of silence' which goes up whenever a police officer's conduct gets questioned.

But, I'm like you. I believe in filing the charges and to hell with it. At least there's a record on the person which might benefit someone else in the future. Whereas if no one says anything now, nothing ever changes.

NYMOM said...

Anonymous, you're right on the money. Actually in some states now you can even be FORCED to take your child into prison for court-ordered visits with the other parent. Of course it's supposed to be gender neutral but with 1.3 million men in jail and slightly over 100,000 women who does this policy benefit the most.

As usual men.

Well they invented the so-called 'judicial' system so, of course, they benefit the most from it. Which is why in spite of many misgivings about it, I always tell women to accept mandatory Joint Custody as the alternate is far far worse if women don't accept it. Since any appearances in court, for any reason, from child support to filing for paternity can result in a loss of custody for a mother.

So it's better for women to steer clear of the courts.

Anonymous said...

That is why I am considering an anonymous sperm donor. I use to think that I wanted my child to have a father. In fact, I would still consider this option if I found a decent guy. However, after a shitty ex-husband and ex-boyfriend, I think that I would do better as a single mother than with some loser. The clock is ticking, and I'm not going to spend my kid's childhood in court with some asshole. My own father was classic MRA material, and I just think how much better our lives were after my mother divorced him. Not having a father is not the end of the world.

NYMOM said...

Well anonymous, just to let you know that finding an anonymous sperm donor is quite difficult today. Men have passed many laws to stop this from happening anymore.

First of all if you know the donor, it's not legally considered an anonymous donor and he can come back at anytime and file for paternity claiming he never agreed to the arrangement and that you hid the child from him after birth.

Additionally, some doctors check to see if you are married before they'll inseminate you. There used to be a service on the internet, located in England, that would ship you donor sperm by FedEx that you could insert yourself. But I believe many restrictions were put on their services last year. The service was called "Man Not Included" but I'm not sure if they still exist.

Also it's quite expensive.

Of course not having a father is not the end of the world.

Men have made this whole phony scenario up painting themselves as so essential to a child. The real person essential to a child is it's mother. That's the case in every species on the planet including our own. Don't get me wrong, it's nice if you have a father around, but certainly not essential in anyway, manner or form.

Their jealousy, however, cannot allow them to accept this. So they race around the world and find a few odd exceptions dangling off the edge of the bell-shapped curve, like Clown Fish or Penguins, and then start creating a cult around them. It's totally ridiculous and self-serving to act like these rare creatures tell us anything about ourselves. Mothers have always borne and raised the young of this species and every other one. The only time the male is engaged is when 'custody' involves some benefits to themselves.

That's why the way to fight this is to change the child support laws and others public policies that link custody of a child with any financial benefits. It's like blood in the water for sharks, the financial benefits involved with custody drives too many custody fights.

When we get back to children being worth no money/benefits again, then, as usual, few will be interested in their custody but for their own mothers.

So solve the child support problem and everything else will solve itself.

Anonymous said...

In my state, it's fairly easy to get an anonymous sperm donor. I plan to act quick before the patriarchy laws set in.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Silda Spitzer leaves "dear" Eliot if he'll get joint custody? Of course, if the kids get a little pissed reading about how dad is into leather or "choking," it must be all mom's fault right? Certainly not daddy's. He apparently has no responsibility to keep his pants zipped or keep away from prostitutes or embarrassing his wife and children. Arghh.

NYMOM said...

I was actually just thinking the same thing myself last night. Who's to say it will even be Joint Custody??? As there is nothing that could stop him from filing for and winning full legal custody for himself.

The Governor of New Jersey, Jim McGreevey, is STILL abusing his wife by using the courts as a club against her.

Their custody case is ongoing for THREE YEARS NOW.

The trial will take place this May. He has a new motion against his wife every few months (they're not even divorced, yet never mind custody being settled). Can you imagine the stress this woman is under, her kid is 6 now, she was 3 when this started?

I can see our NY Governor doing the same thing to his wife, if she tries to divorce him.

This is all thanks to these crazed gender neturalized feminists, btw, which is why I have scant sympathy for the likes of Hillary Clinton...

Val said...

That's funny, Anon 4, the same thought occurred to me! (actually it was more along the lines of how much custody Spitzer will fight for -- I don't even know how old his daughters are, but they look like "big" teenagers -- or will he just slink shamefacedly away?) The photos of Silda just struck straight to my heart w/her expression of exhausted, bemused contempt for this a**hole...I'm tempted to blog about it tho' I never blog politics/celebrity stuff!

NYMOM said...

Well, I'd rather not use these celebrity cases either, especially if they are too unusual. The problem now, however, is that a lot of these celebrity cases are just the tip of the iceberg and there are millions of ordinary women underneath that iceberg going through the exact same scenario.

It used to be that you could never judge ordinary women by what happened to the rich and famous. We could just sit back and watch the horror show unfolding like some tv soap opera and think, "Wow thank God I'm not married to some rich monster". But with custody of children worth so much today, custody fights have simply become too common to turn our heads away and act like it's a rare event any more.

For every one Brittany Spears or Silda Spitzer there are thousands of more ordinary women, many of them are our family, friends, and neighbors. So we can't just ignore these celebrity cases.

Another thing I often point out to people is that a lot of bad precedence is set when these cases go in front of these crazy gender neutralized judges.

For instance, I don't know how many other women were impacted when Bridget Marks' boyfriend got custody switched to him after she had her kids with her for three and 1/2 years and he never said a word about it. Even though her boyfriend John Aylsworth (and his wife) were at the hospital when the twins were born.

Aylsworth never signed their birth certificate, never filed for a visitation plan or custody. Never paid child support as far as we know. Actually never took an interest in his children, only stopping off to see them whenever he was passing through New York to shack up with their mother.

Bridget Marks was just signing the girls up for 1/2 day kindergarten when he hit her with the custody lawsuit. Probably figured she might hit him up with the tuition bill.

Anyway, in New York State you are not supposed to be able to switch custody like that w/o a 'substantial change of circumstances' taking place in the CUSTODIAL PARENT's household. Single mothers in New York are automatically considered custodial so they can register their kids for school, take them to the doctor, etc., so Bridget Marks was the custodial parent from the moment the kids were born under NY law.

The courts accepting that case acted like the twins were three days old not three years old and totally disregarded the defacto custody already established with Bridget Marks. If that decision had been allowed to stand, it could have impacted hundreds of thousands of ordinary women just like Bridget Marks, where some recreational sperm donor can show up at anytime, anytime and just file a custody case against you...

Clearly Bridget Marks was no saint. Yet we have to defend women like her, as they are us. What happens to them can happen to any one of the rest of us. They don't make special dispensations for mothers who are 'good girls'. So this Silda Spitzer is as vulnerable to losing her kids as Bridget Marks or any of the rest of us. No difference.

Val said...

"They don't make special dispensations for mothers who are 'good girls'"
Amen to that -- great points NYMom!

Anonymous said...

"Anyway, in New York State you are not supposed to be able to switch custody like that w/o a 'substantial change of circumstances' taking place in the CUSTODIAL PARENT's household."

Earth to NY: Those kids were being put through psychological abuse by being made to accuse their father of molestation.

That's the reason the old man filed for custody to begin with, and while psychological child abuse may not seem like a substantial change of circumstances to you, it does to most normal people.

Even the appellate court who reversed the decision saw this monster for what she was. If the old bastard had given any indication that he intended to cut back on his jetting around and actually raise those kids, the decision probably would have stood on appeal, too.

So go on defending abusers like Bridget Marks. You set your cause back a mile every time you do.


PolishKnight said...

Hello ladies,

I wandered in here out of curiosity to see if NYMOM was still around. I don't think she's as active as before and I don't know if anyone will read this comment (or if she'll delete it) but here goes.

If you're, pardon my bluntness here, NUTS enough to think that the court system and especially family (liars) court is biased against women and avoid it, then you're a fool or you're just posturing here. We all know that women still get custody and "child" support most of the time. Celebrities are a special case since these men have millions of dollars to spend to get a fair shake in court and even then, these women including the poor golddigger Heather Mills still came out pretty good with a settlements a lottery winner would be jealous of.

AskYahoo claims it costs about $260 to buy sperm. Even if it's 4 times that, the question becomes that if a woman can't afford this then how can she afford to raise the child on the her own? Of course, in most cases, she'll need "child" support or welfare. So much for women "raising" children all by themselves!

And you know this NYMOM which is probably why you're dropping out incrementally. That's ok. Lots of people who don't want to abandon their faith stop proclaiming it's wonders in public and do so privately (and unchallenged) until they (and their faith) dies with them.

NYMOM said...

First of all, I'm not dropping out incrementallly. I'm actually dropping back in incrementally, as I was ill for a while and I'm just getting back up to speed with blogging again. I consider my blog to be informational only, not out here to argue with people who disagree with me.

I don't post on other sites anymore because frankly many of the relevant sites for my issue are either fathers rights nuts or crazed gender neutralized feminist's ones.

The fathers rights ones just spend all their time either arguing with or threatening to find out where I live or work and kill me. While the feminists ones were using me to help score points through the woman as politically correct victims game, since they love to get 'points' for playing the women as victim cards. Even though they do absolutely nothing to help their sisters when they truly are victims and oftentimes participate in crafting public policy to ensure women's continued victimization.

So bottom line I gain nothing by posting on either of these sites and who else is interested in these issues?

AND regarding mothers and family courts, it's not true what you say about men being discriminated against. Actually it's just the opposite and maybe it always was. But we'll never know since most children never had custody decided by the courts. Most children, before child support became an issue, (sometimes around the early 80s or so) were in the custody of their mother by default.

Today just about every child has custody decided by the it's impossible for us to ever know if there was ever truly a 'mother' bias in the courts. Which to be honest, I wouldn't call it a mother bias even if it could be proven, but a simple common sense acknowledgement of who is the most invested person in a child's welfare and that's 99.99% of the time a child's mother.

Sorry Polish Knight...if you can't accept it, it's just too bad.

As I've said many times before, take your complaints to God, nature or evolution.

NYMOM said...

I forgot to respond to that buying of sperm comment. It might cost $260 to buy sperm for a sperm bank or a doctor, but when a woman tries to 'buy' it on her own, she rarely can. That website "Man not Included" was one of the first I even heard of that allowed women to do that and I hear they are being shut down. An individual woman trying to get pregnant must go to a doctor or clinic and pay all the fees herself for buying, testing and insemination. Average cost about $10,000, nothing covered by insurance and that's only if she becomes pregnant after one or two tries.

As was demonstrated in that book by Sylvia Ann Hewitt "Creating a Life...Professional Women and the Quest for Children" most women wait too long to go that route so wind up spending far more and have a far more difficult and expensive process to go through before they can have children. IF they can do it at all.

I guess few women want to face their family and friends and admit they had a child in this manner. Actually they had some survey on the news recently which stated this was one of the top ten things women would lie about, having to have a child in this manner.

So once again another distortion of the truth from you Polish Knight. You are very invested in sweeping the truth under the rug.

PolishKnight said...

Liars and statistics

Hello NYMOM,

I checked and most pages agree that sperm can be procured cheaply through the mail. Here's one link:

I don't believe your claims that sperm banks are getting away with charging $10G's to single women with no other alternatives available.

You accuse me of distortions but come up with some incredible, unsupported stats including the claim that 99.99% of " who is the most invested person in a child's welfare " is the mother.

Hmmm, wait a minute. Are 99.99% of mothers even still alive and don't use adoption services? What about all the children in social services? What about all the children raised by grandparents?

That's just your statistics I'm calling into question. I'm not even going after the logic yet. That's next.

PolishKnight said...

Older women having children

Now it's time for the logic. You had just made a smug suggestion to me to take up any complaints about the shortcomings of men with God and then, in the next comment, bemoan the natural deficiencies of career women who wait too long to have children. Hey, I'm 42 and I don't have any problems! Tee hee! Perhaps these women should just ask God to give them testes instead of ovum. They last longer...

PolishKnight said...

The family courts: Women stay away!

NYMOM wrote: "AND regarding mothers and family courts, it's not true what you say about men being discriminated against. Actually it's just the opposite and maybe it always was. But we'll never know since most children never had custody decided by the courts. Most children, before child support became an issue, (sometimes around the early 80s or so) were in the custody of their mother by default."

And this proves, what, exactly? Most children are still in custody of their mother by default along with the support so it's rather difficult to make a case that they're being discriminated against. As I said, I don't think you seriously believe the family court system is biased against women. If you really cared about the mothers, you wouldn't be making such a claim unless you (and they) both knew it was bogus.

So how do you think that's going to fool us? Sheesh!

PolishKnight said...

The interests of the children

Finally, I want to address you claim that 99.99% of the time the most invested person in a child is the mother.

Single mothers didn't get a bad rap because of men's rights activists. I wish they did but we're just not that politically significant yet. They got a bad rap because so many are on welfare or in need of state muscle to get a man to support them. Even the feminist friendly media can't cover up the fact that single mother households produce a majority of the criminals. Sometimes, "investment" isn't necessarily a good thing by default. Look at the housing market!

Seriously, as you pointed out in another thread on sperm donors, the state itself is leery of single women having children without a named father lest it become a ward of the state. You even agree with this sentiment. Damn men! They contribute nothing to the child's interests (oh, except financially providing food and shelter.) So this is a valid reason for sperm banks denying services to single women (assuming that happens so uniformly that costs shoot up as you claim.)

And that, NYMOM, is a pretty big deal. That's the 500 lb Gorilla on the coffee table. Yes, maybe you were more independent but, say, 99.99% of the rest (to pick a number) aren't.

NYMOM said...

As I told you before Polish Knight I do not intend to spend all of my time here constantly arguing with you or anyone else. I have articles posted on my blog alluding to the expense of getting artificially inseminated. If you had questions about the price, procedures, insurance coverage, etc., you should have posted them at the time I posted the articles.

As usual, you wait and then come up with some phony trick like separating out the cost of purchasing sperm from the entire price of artificial insemination. It comes as a package deal as you well know.

A woman has to pay for an intensive examination before she is artificially inseminated and many places have laws against single women doing it. Plus it doesn't always result in a pregnancy the first time and ofttimes has to be performed multiple times at a doctor's office with no insurance coverage available.

I have numerous articles on my website about this issue.

Also the other issue, how many women have winded up in court fights with donors trying to obtain legal rights to children AFTER the fact and how many jurisdictions are passing laws trying to give them rights both in the US and abroad.

Anyway, if you had all these doubts and questions, why didn't you ask them when I posted these articles? Instead you expect me to research this entire blog for you and come up with this information now?

Additionally there are no statistics that will show you a mother is the most invested in any child she produces. It's something called 'common sense' to know that the male investment, which is nothing but a quick drop sperm deposit, = no investment in child. Get it...Men didn't even know if one of their random deposits even resulted in a child until a few years ago when DNA tests were invented.

But I see from your barely concealed rage, that I'm not sinking into irrevelancy as you claimed last week...

Well hold onto to your hat, as I'm about to do another blog post this week dealing with the Darren Mack murders which will really drive you up a tree.

NYMOM said...

Your point about the 500 lb gorilla of single moms producing many juvenile delinquents is your only valid point, so I'll respond to it.

You have stolen the statistics of minorities in this country to make your case. It is a case built on twisted lies and half truths.


PolishKnight said...

I think there are other valid points including and especially that financial support from men and the state is necessary for children to literally eat. Hence, men are more than just "sperm donors". They are the financial and life support system for children outside of the womb!

In response to your counterpoint, I welcome your proof that I have "stolen" statistics (How does one do that anyway? "Hello police, I'd like to report a stolen statistic. It was blue!")

Seriously, what we (and EVERYONE else) knows for sure is that single mother run households put out more criminals. You have yet to show that non "minority" single mothers are statistically less likely to raise criminals than intact or father headed households non minorities with similar financials.

Here's one (granted, biased) web site I found with links but there are plenty of others if I wanted to put in the time. They refer to legitimate studies. But more importantly, as you know, most people don't need studies to tell them what they ALREADY know!
Who got their data from:

All but three of 23 recent studies found some family structure effect on
crime or delinquency. Seven of the eight studies that used nationally
representative data, for example, found that children in single-parent or
other non-intact family structures were at greater risk of committing criminal or
delinquent acts. For example: A study using Add-Health data found that even after controlling for
race, parents' education, and income, adolescents in single-parent families
were almost two times more likely to have pulled a knife or a gun on someone in
the past year. (Todd Michael Franke 2000)

Six of seven studies that looked at whether overall rates of single
parenthood affected average crime rates found that changes in family
structure were related to increases in crime. For example:
· A study that looked at the relation between divorce rates and out-of-wedlock birthrates and violent crime between 1973 and 1995 found that nearly 90% of the change in violent crime rates can be accounted for by the change in percentages of out-of-wedlock births. (Mackey and Coney 2000, p. 352)
· A study that looked at crime in rural counties in four states concluded,
"[A]n increase of 13% in female-headed households would produce a doubling
of the offense rate." (Osgood and Chambers 2000, p. 103)

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM proclaims: "It's something called 'common sense' to know that the male investment, which is nothing but a quick drop sperm deposit, = no investment in child."

Except that everyone in society knows that without mommy, er, I mean "child" support from "males" that children would starve to death (before growing up to become criminals in such households.) So much for the biological contribution of men being trivial.

NYMOM: "Well hold onto to your hat, as I'm about to do another blog post this week dealing with the Darren Mack murders which will really drive you up a tree."

I can hardly wait to see it. Apparently, that single mother isn't going to be cashing too many checks!

PolishKnight said...

I have a question

You wrote: "Also the other issue, how many women have winded up in court fights with donors trying to obtain legal rights to children AFTER the fact and how many jurisdictions are passing laws trying to give them rights both in the US and abroad."

Question: Could you answer that please? How many of these sperm donors are out there trying to do this? You asked the question but punctuated it as a statement making it rhetorical.

In answer to your claims about the high cost of sperm and medical procedures. Er, how is this men's problem again? Let's say a woman can knock out 4 kids in a grass hut somewhere without a problem while these women you refer to blow months and tens of thousands of dollars. Is the first woman (and men) supposed to feel guilty about their comparative ease of reproducing?

Yet, you like to then stick out your tongue and go nyah nyah nyah as if men are "jealous" of women. It doesn't make sense.

Anonymous said...

Since "common-sense" has been used to validate everything from the flat-earth world view to slavery, I'd prefer a bit of solid evidence to go with it if you don't mind.

Got any evidence for that accusation you just made about Polish Knight "stealing the statistics of minorities in this country?"

"Even controlling for variations across groups in parent education, race and other child and family factors, 18- to 22-year-olds from disrupted families were twice as likely to have poor relationships with their mothers and fathers, to show high levels of emotional distress or problem behavior, [and] to have received psychological help."
Source: Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro, "Long Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment and Achievement in Young Adulthood", Journal of Family Psychology 7 (1993).

For a lot more details, see this summation of the relevant research from Australia's National Observer, containing the results of studies of fatherless children from numerous countries from Scandinavia to southern Africa:

They all find mostly the same thing. Kids from single-mother homes are consistently more hosed up than kids that live with both biological parents, regardless of socioeconomic status or race.


Uncontainable Spirit said...

You ladies KILL me. Heather is a nut case. Besides... is it not Paul's child as well? Why is it bad for the man to have custody of the child that he helped create as well? Particularly since HE is the one who is best able to financially care for the child. This statement from you only goes to prove that you deserve whatever backlash you get from men.

But I’m curious to see if Paul McCartney wins in his attempts to steal Heather Mills's only child from her

heh heh... priceless. Apparently in your opinion she is the ONLY parent of the child. Feminism has failed miserably and the backlash is going to be horrific. I for one am glad. You all wanted equality then let's have it. Oh... I forgot feminism was never about equality but about being BETTER than men are. Ladies like you are completely insane.

If you all had ANY sense you'd follow the lead of the TRUE womens rights pioneers like the Susan B. Anthony's of the world and leave the feminist idiots like Gloria Steinem alone. But noooooooooo... you don't really want equality.

You want to discount the role of fathers in the lives of children despite all of the evidence that states that the greatest common denominator of ALL people in prison is fatherlessness. You want to discount the role of fathers in the lives of children in the face of ALL of the documentation that proves that women are the MOST abusive toward children.

WOW! Incredible.

Oh... and I stand by what I say. If any of you want to contact me and tell me how wrong I am... don't worry, i'll wait.

NYMOM said...

Again this business of the 'stolen statistics' was all over the blogsphere last year. It was hashed out on dozens of blogs at that time including the one from Amp (I forgot it's name as I haven't read the blog in months) and the blog Creative Destruction. I posted on my blog about it as well, YET you waited until now to bring this up? Why??? IF you had legitimate questions why didn't you bring them up at the time this was an issue???? As you are always reading this blog although you pretend you don't.

Clearly you waited until enough time had passed so that I would have to waste hours looking up blog posts both here and on other sites...

Sorry I'm not doing it. This issue was settled. Men rights groups lied about the stats. The groups that are facing most of these problems are Afr. Americans and Hispanics, many illegal aliens.

So the picture you have painted about 'single mothers' is false. It's really a picture about race in America and you are using it to conduct a smear campaign against women.

Anonymous said...

I guess the answer to the question is no.

Just like we all knew.

Moving on...


NYMOM said...

No Richard, the correct answer is look it up yourself on my site and the sites of others who have already hashed this debate out over a year ago.

BTW, I'm still not certain of the outcome of the Mills/McCarthy custody case. I know the divorce is over and she got about 48 million which I'll agree was ridiculous for a marriage of less then 4 years.

Of course even in that situation the law was not followed, as the Judge gave Mills far less then the law entitled her to since they deliberately undervalued what McCarthy was worth.

A better result would be to change the law if it's unfair, not to keep your fingers crossed that the Judge will 'like' you better then your spouse and so distort the figures in your favor.

How many lesser men and women suffer because they have to depend on the good will of a stranger in the event of a dispute in the family courts?

Last but not least, from the amount of the child support she was awarded compared to awards of other similarly situated children, I am still not sure that Heather Mills retained custody of her child.

Anonymous said...

Now NY, you can't be serious. I ask if you have evidence for your beliefs about the harmlessness of single motherhood and you refer me to the freak show at Alas and tell me the issue is "settled?"

As if those losers could "settle" anything?

Where the issue is "settled" is within the field of child psychology and sociology. As I demonstrated in the link I provided, this issue has been studied extensively in Great Britain, Australia, and numerous European countries as well as America, and among all different ethnic and socioeconomic groups and the results are the same:

“We reject the claim that children raised by only one parent do just as well as children raised by both parents. We have been studying this question for ten years, and in our opinion the evidence is quite clear: Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents, regardless of the parents’ race or educational background, regardless of whether the parents are married when the child is born, and regardless of whether the resident parent remarries.”

There is little debate now on this issue among those who actually study it. The only "debate" remaining is the yammerings of feminuts on lefty blogs like Alas trying to paint single motherhood as some kind of noble alternative when anyone with the IQ of a trout can see that it's a triple-layer shit pie for kids and for our society and economy as a whole.

As a side note, when someone requests proof of an assertion, it is not a valid response to say "I had some but I can't find it right now. Look it up yourself." In the real world this amounts to a concession of the point.

As hot as you are for this issue, one would think you'd have some evidentiary support at your fingertips.

As far as Heather Mills goes, I heard they share joint custody. But whatever the exact details, she claims to be "very happy" with the ruling she got. (Duh!)

And on top of her child support award she also received coverage of the child's school expenses and nanny. Which tells me she has plenty of time in possession of the child otherwise she would not require a nanny on which to dump said child while she does... I'm not sure what. Perhaps searching for the next rich sucker if she can find one who'll touch her after this.

So I wouldn't worry too much about the rather despicable Ms. Mills. She's not grinning like a Chesire cat for nothing.