Sunday, February 10, 2008

Ramblings on the Current State of Affairs Regarding Women and the Presidency

I wanted to say something about the current campaigns going on to select the candidates who will be running for President. There is a lot of hand-wringing going on in certain circles because what everyone assumed would be a sure win for Hillary Clinton now doesn’t look so sure.

Well I said it before and I’ll say it again, I don’t see this as such a big loss for mothers.

First, I know a number of mothers who wrote to Hillary Clinton when they had their children stolen from them by men who were trying to work the system and get out of paying child support or get some other financial benefit by becoming the legal custodial parent. Sadly, she never saw fit to even respond to them.

Second, I’ve never known Hillary Clinton to make a comment about the issues of fit mothers losing custody of their children. She’s ignored the issue for years like most feminists. Thus, she appears to fully support the gender-neutral policies of our family courts, which policies have cause millions of mothers to lose their children.

BTW, we’re not talking about abuse here. So nobody come up with this whole list of women shelters feminists have set up or policies helping abused women they helped establish, that’s a small percentage of the total. I’m happy feminists did it, thanks a million, but what about the millions of ordinary woman out there who are being held as virtual hostages through men manipulating the family court system?

More importantly, what about these crazy gender neutralized feminists judges they’ve helped unleash upon unsuspecting mothers? Like that venomous Judy Sheindlin of the “Judge Judy” TV show. Now I know she’s only a TV court judge, but the most horrifying thing I keep thinking everytime I see her going off on some unsuspecting non-custodial mother in her courtroom show is that this woman was a real family court judge in New York City for many years. Very similar to the female judge in the Bridget Marks case, that Arlene Goldberg and I can mention dozens more female judges with the exact same profile; all trying to build their gender-neutral “street creds” by going off on some poor mother who doesn’t know what hit her.

The bottom line is that most of these gender-neutralized feminists who we, ordinary women help get into power have the same unfortunate habit of suddenly going ‘gender neutral’ on us as soon as they get in a position where they can finally do women some good.

So I can practically guarantee that Hillary Clinton will do absolutely NOTHING of significance to help mothers once in office. Actually, Bill Clinton, her husband, when he was president passed a federal mandate that obligated all federal programs from Women, Infants, Children (WIC) to Section 8 housing vouchers to become aggressively gender neutral and come up with numbers showing exact 50/50 representation of men and women in every single program. Women are included in WIC, obviously, since they actually bear children and need extra nutrition before, during and after pregnancy to recover, as it is a strain on the body. Not to mention women might be breast feeding after birth. But can someone tell me ONE PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT OR STRAIN a man goes through before, during or after a woman gets pregnant that would cause a man to be entitled to extra food at taxpayer’s expense????

There isn’t one I can think of offhand.

This mandate was clearly another of the politically correct attempts to show everyone how gender-neutral Bill Clinton’s administration would be and Hillary Clinton went right along with it. Actually let’s be honest, she probably put Bill Clinton up to it. God only knows how many mothers lost their children to some lazy loafer looking to get free food and housing by being named custodial parent of some poor kid, who had the misfortune to be born during the Clinton years.

Do we really need a return to that?

Now, what will happen vis-à-vis these issues if she doesn’t get elected President? Probably nothing. Things will continue on just as they have been for the last decade or so, ever since the laws were changed making it profitable to gain custody of children. That’s won’t change under a man, but nothing would have changed under Hillary Clinton either. Actually things could get a lot worse under her then they are right now, far worse.

For instance, I could even see another Clinton presidency changing the way maternity leave is allocated following the reasoning of that, Linda Hirshman, who thinks woman ‘owe’ some kind of moral obligation to feminism and wants all mothers to rush right back to the work place after giving birth, so as not to squander the ‘legacy’ feminists supposedly left us.

Remember maternity leave, right now, is handled as a medical leave. So clearly a child’s mother is the one entitled to take it for three or six months depending upon the company’s insurance policy. Well what’s to stop a gender neutralized feminist in power who thinks women ‘owe’ feminists like her something, from making ‘maternity’ leave gender neutral? What if these crazy gender-neutralized feminists decided to move it out of the realm of insurance in order to force more women into remaining at work? They could even start penalizing men financially who didn’t take the leave. Then what? Some European countries are doing this right now.

Our future could include women being forced into court before our babies are even born, so a Judge can rule on who was legally entitled to ‘maternity’ leave and it could easily be some one-night-stand recreational sperm donor looking for a paid vacation. You, as the child’s mother, could be forced back to work. It would leave some layabout at home with your infant, while you are forced into paying him child support to be there. He’d probably be watching superbowl reruns all day and tossing your kid a stale potato chip every now and then, so he doesn’t have to move from the couch too often.

Remember, these policies are rarely restricted to just married men. They eventually include ALL MEN, from that great guy you’ve been married to for ten years to the one-night stand you picked up during Spring break (if you had a child from that relationship).

There is no limit on these sorts of policies.

So, back to my original premise, we gain NOTHING if Hillary Clinton gets in, actually we stand to lose. So I’ll shed no tears for her if she doesn’t get the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton and her ilk are just reaping what they’ve sown.


NYMOM said...

I'm making a 'test' comment on here trying to see where it winds up.

Hopefully in a new email account I've established as my old one has been acting up lately.

Anonymous said...

I agree with a great deal of what you have written. I am a long time adovcate on behalf of those who have been victimized by the matrionial and family courts in our Country.

I am, however, sad to see that though you have a clear picture of the type of backlash mother's recieve within our system of "justice" you have fallen prey to the media blitz and/or rumor of what "Bridget Marks" truly went thru.

I am both first handedly familiar with Bridget and her case. While neither parents are model citizens and leave much desired as morally grounded human beings, Bridge has never epitimomized what goes on in the Court system.

The judge in that case was disgusted with the blatant lie of this woman who had an affair, got pregnant and was not getting her way (ie: leave your wife, marry me or else). So, she did a disgraceful thing and made up a story about the girls father sexually abusing them.

We can not condemn the men for lying and then stand alongside women who do exactly the same thing.

It is very important that we discern what the media reports, that we get to know the stories and details. Sometimes, just sometimes, a judge may exercise his/her discretion wisely.

Whether you believe that Bridget should have lost custody due to her lying is a personal decision, but her behavior was an abomination and should not been held out to the public as an exampled of injustice when there are some many others with truth on their side who are better fitting for this role.

NYMOM said...

Thanks for your comments.

Also I was glad to see that my email notification on comments is finally working again.

Perhaps Bridget Marks did lie. We'll never know the truth.

But that the sort of scenarios you get when you pit a woman, without any money or power, against a millionaire trying to steal her kids from her and using the power of his checkbook to do it.

Sorry but that's the bottom line.

Men have to expect these kinds of vicious 'sneak' attacks from behind because that's what the weak do to the strong when they have no other recourse.


A hundred years ago she probably would have poisoned him.

So don't come on here trying to paint this character as a victim. If he was a victim, it's a position he put himself in and I have no sympathy for him.

NYMOM said...

Also I'm not 'condemning' men for lying in the courts to have their way, it's the aggressive nature of the beast so to speak. Of course they are all going to fight for custody of children today. Our laws and public policies have simply made it too expensive for them not to fight for it.

So go back and re-read my post. I am mainly condemning the gender-neutralized feminists who have made this scenario possible.

That's who I'm condemning.

Bridget Marks could be the biggest schemer and liar this side of the Hudson, but you know what. She is still probably the best person to raise her own children. Far better then a recreational sperm donor and his wife who just wanted custody to save some money on child support.

Val said...

My dad just LOVES Judge Judy... I sat down the other day to watch a little bit w/him & was frankly, shocked & dismayed by how much she has deteriorated into a vicious, vindictive witch, seeming to just bounce from case to case looking to "score points" on the unsuspecting victim of her abuse. Justice my ass.

NYMOM said...

Believe it or not I used to love Judge Judy too before I got involved with this whole non-custodial mothers issue. Now I bypass the channel quickly if I see her face on it. The woman is a monster, especially to women who have children involved with their case in some way; if they are a non-custodial mother, forget it...It's non-stop verbal and psychological abuse from her practically from the time they open their mouth, sometimes before as she'll frequently start her abusive comments to them as the other party is speaking about the case...

The most frightening thing about the whole situation however is that she was an actual family court judge in New York City for many years. I can't imagine the horrors she put the unsuspecting women through who had the misfortune to wind up in front of her.

AND this is what we marched for in the 60s and 70s to get women like this in positions of power? If I had known the womens' movement would empower the Judge Judys of the world, instead of demonstrating for womens' rights, I would have stayed home and read a good book.

AND she's not the only one.

I"ve encountered dozens of her ilk throughout the legal sysem of this country. We appear to have replaced the old patriarchs we were all so eager to get rid of with these vicious Judge Judy clones.

PolishKnight said...

When I stick you with the bill, I'm being a good guest. When you stick me with the bill, you're CHEAP!

NYMOM says: "Far better then a recreational sperm donor and his wife who just wanted custody to save some money on child support."

PK: Nymom, I'm honestly flabbergasted that you're impugning the men's motives for wanting to "save some money on child support" while at the same time lavishing the woman for praise even as she is motivated by the same thing.

I think it would behoove us all if you could clarify if you think "child" support should be eliminated in most cases so it won't be an issue. Until then, both the boys and girls are playing in the mud and you can't claim that her Sunday dress isn't dirty too!