This is just a trip down memory lane for me. Sorry folks but here's another one...
*************************************
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Single Mothers by Choice
I don't understand why so many people are upset about this class of women deciding to be single mothers. I mean we've had women in the lower classes as well as the rich doing this crap for decades and no one was the least concerned. Now suddenly responsible career women, who've worked productively all their lives and contributed to society, decide they wish to be mothers and it's the end of civilization as we know it.
It's not that big a deal.
This woman has worked, she has a career. That child will do just fine. He'll be no more of a burden then any of the millions of ghetto mothers' or some rich bimbo starlets' irresponsibly produced children will be.
Actually having a baby in this manner takes planning as well as stable finances. Anyone can see this as it's already cost the woman $10,000 in IVF treatment to have her child.
If people want to pick on some irresponsible reproductive behavior why not focus on some of the two categories I mentioned above. Those that produce vast amounts of children through irresponsible reproductive behavior which eventually become a burden on the taxpayers in most systems.
This child and others produced like him will not become that...their mothers will make enough income to support them quite comfortably...
This woman is rather plain, although she appears nice enough from the story. Yet, she might have never met a man who was willing to settle down and have a stable long-term relationship with her, however. As let's face it, in our media-obsessesed world most men want the women they marry to be much nicer looking then this poor girl.
Not to mention that at her age, she'll probably never meet anyone if she hasn't met them already.
YET she'll probably be a fine mother, dote on her only child and ultimately raise a fine, healthy, productive son--all without the use of a male overseer to monitor her behavior.
Imagine that.
Many are condemning her as selfish. Well guess what ALL parents are selfish. You have to be to bring any children into the world we've created for them today. So if you are going to tag women like this as selfish, then prepare for extinction...as that's the next step when all these wonderful unselfish people lead us down that road.
Last point: men better get used to this happening more and more today, as women are getting highly fed up with their behavior...even all this custody crap they started recently to avoid child support, ie., as in Fed-ex's and Brittany's Spears' custody fight.
Men are rapidly sliding into irrelvancy with all the trouble they are causing.
As I've said many times, a test tube is cleaner, quieter, and a heck of a lot less trouble then the average man is today...and these women are proving my point.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?
in_article_id=416733&in_page_id=1879&in_a_source=
Daily Mail
24 hours a day
Motherhood is my right
By RUTH YAHEL Last updated at 08:22am on 16th November 2006
A growing generation of single career women are reaching their late 30s unmarried but still desperate to become mothers. Many are embarking on parenthood alone - and their quest will soon be made easier.
Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt wants the law changed to allow single women and lesbians to have fertility treatment without the need to prove there will be a father figure in the child's life.
Here, Ruth Yahel, a 41-year-old TV production executive, explains why she decided from the outset to be a lone parent, and why - in her opinion - they should not be vilified:
When I was in my 30s, I remember feeling pangs of longing whenever I held friends' babies. My biological clock was ticking but it was never the right time, never the right relationship.
Even when I reached my 39th birthday, I didn't feel I had yet become one of those women destined not to have children. Then, at the start of 2004, my married sister - the mother of a baby boy - asked me whether I still wanted children. When I said 'yes', she asked me how I thought 'that might happen'. My initial reaction was one of annoyance, but her words sparked something inside me. I was fast approaching 40 and a potential loss in my fertility, yet I had a desperate desire to have a child.
In every other area of my life I had made conscious decisions about what I wanted.
But when it came to what, potentially, was the most important thing of all, I was leaving everything to chance. I had always been rather intimidated by career women who would categorically state that motherhood was not for them. I couldn't imagine letting go of the idea unless I had to.
Sometimes I envied them and thought how liberating it must be not to have to worry any more. But, mostly, I feared falling into the group of women who don't get around to having children and end up bitterly regretting it.
Like most women my age, I had tied in all hopes for children with the desire for a lasting relationship. It had never occurred to me to see the two things as something separate. That evening with my sister, it suddenly dawned on me that these two things might never coincide. I had to act - and quickly.
I was lucky enough to have a friend, Nico, prepared to father my child. We met in Italy in 1991 when I was teaching English as a foreign language in a private school. Nico was one of my students. He was married at the time and I was in a relationship, and we became close friends - although sex was never on the agenda.
Long before I'd started worrying about my fertility, he once suggested having a child together and I'd laughed it off. Now I thought about it differently.
I was fortunate in that I already had a genetic father, Nico, who wanted to be an active figure in the child's life, so I decided to go for it.
Before embarking on the process, I went to a clinic in London to make sure I had no fertility problems. With hindsight, I wish I'd done this when I turned 30.
A lot of women spend their 20s and 30s trying to not get pregnant and it's only when they want to that the problems begin to surface. In my case, the damage had already been done.
Endometriosis had affected my ovaries and Fallopian tubes. The only option now was IVF. Two cycles of expensive IVF, costing £5,000 each, followed. I had counselling before and during fertility treatment to help me through the outcome.
I took stock of how I'd come to this point. It was my time to reflect on my fears and concerns, my time to feel sorry for myself (and at times I did) that I wasn't going to have a child within a conventional relationship.
It was like a mourning process. But I would leave each session feeling strong enough to work towards my chosen goal.
On February 7, 2005, I celebrated my 40th birthday at a party thrown for me by friends and family. Many people in the room didn't know I was having IVF treatment, and I didn't touch the champagne they handed me. I knew that in a week's time, I would be taking a pregnancy test and finding out if I was going to have a baby.
The wait was nerve-racking. When I took the test and it was positive, I was stunned. I couldn't believe that such a clinical process had resulted in a pregnancy.
Nico, my friends and family were all delighted. If they were sad that I wasn't going to have a child as part of a couple, they didn't show it. They knew that I already bitterly regretted that myself.
Luca Gabriel, was born naturally in October that year after a healthy pregnancy. My mother and sister were there and Nico held his son minutes after he was born. We chose his name together. I felt totally vindicated. I had my baby and nothing else mattered.
Now I feel utter relief and joy that I found the courage to act. But at the same time, I feel anger and frustration for other women in the same position as I was.
I believe that modern motherhood is in crisis. Women have been told they can and should compete equally in the workplace. We invest a huge amount of our time, money and energy in the pursuit of this so we feel we're achieving something.
But somewhere along the line we've all too often had to leave behind motherhood. As much as I hate to admit it, these two roles do not fit naturally together.
In your working life you have some control - you have a structure and, hopefully, you feel a sense of accomplishment and are rewarded both financially and emotionally.
As a mother, your day has little structure; you're busy all the time, yet when asked: 'What did you do today?' you can hardly recall what filled that time and why you didn't get out of the house.
When we think about returning to work, we worry we won't be flexible enough to respond to the work environment and that we'll have to compromise on material and personal pursuits. We worry about lack of money and free time.
Most of all, we feel like bad mothers for handing our babies over to childminders.
And employers don't always do all they can to dispel those fears.
Of course, being a mother, especially a single mother, is hard work. But once you've made the decision to go for it, you will find the time and energy you need and make it your priority. You learn to live a different life with your child. I've had considerable support from my workplace and have been able to work flexibly around my commitments to my son.
Things that seemed so important to me before - material things, my appearance, going out to smart restaurants - seem less so now.
The main accusation levelled at woman who, like myself, have chosen to be single mothers, is that we are selfish. People say it wasn't meant to be or accuse you of being rash and irresponsible.
But there is nothing irresponsible about the thought processes and procedures a single woman has to go through to have her own child or adopt.
As the son of a women who became a single mother by choice, at least Luca won't have to go through the pain of his parents splitting up. He knows his parents' relationship has clearly defined boundaries.
He will have access to his birth father and extended family, and will know as much of his own cultural heritage as he chooses, because I was lucky enough to have a suitable known donor. Even though Nico is now teaching in Rome, he sees Luca every few months.
I was no more selfish than any other woman conceiving. We all want to feel our baby in our arms, hold them close, smell their sweet skin, relish their triumphs and watch as others coo over our child.
In the end, we are all selfishly driven as parents. We are driven by our own need to procreate, and we feel it's something that as human beings we should do - even if we have to act outside the bounds of convention: the desire to have a child doesn't go away because a woman is single.
Motherhood is something that every woman has a right to try for. When there is no father figure, a woman will do much soul-searching on how to provide male role models for her children.
I was worried, of course, that Luca wouldn't see his father every day. I didn't know for sure what effect this would have on him, but I vowed that I would do everything in my power to compensate for that and try to limit the damage.
I agree that a good marriage or relationship may well be the best family background you can offer a child, and it's something I still want for myself. But it's most definitely not the only responsible way to do it.
And I would say that single parents planning for children are most acutely aware of the difficulties involved. They understand their own obligations and probably deal with their children's needs as sensitively as possible because they've had to struggle so hard to have them.
Hopefully, our children will be less likely to complain that they were overlooked or taken for granted.
I still hope to find a great relationship in the future. Maybe Nico will have children of his own; maybe Luca will have a sibling via conception or adoption.
Undoubtedly, Luca will have friends who come from single-parent homes via more conventional circumstances, if divorce rates are anything to go by.
Last year, I took part in the Channel 4 series The Baby Race. It brought together a group of single, incredibly brave women, all united by our quest to be mothers.
We formed a support network for each other that is still going with many more members. Of all ages and backgrounds with different routes to motherhood in mind, we always had a common goal.
I remember meeting them all for the first time at a photoshoot and being completely overwhelmed by the feeling of solidarity and unconditional support from a group of strangers.
Some of us have managed to have and adopt children, some are no longer single. The majority, however, are still trying for and awaiting their babies. Their children will have an upbringing full of love, hope and possibility.
Single women can change things and set a good example to those around by exercising their right to have children and bringing them up compassionately and with dignity in the face of any scepticism. The face of modern motherhood is changing and we must accept that.
Luca has just turned one-year-old. I planned a family party at home with cake and presents. Nico came over for the weekend.
The last year has been a whirlwind. I don't realise how much he has changed my life until occasionally I'm without him, and I walk into his bedroom and look at the empty cot. When he's not around, something is always missing.
I wouldn't go back to my old single life for anything. My overriding message to women in my position would be to make a positive choice about whether to try for motherhood. Don't leave things to chance and don't feel powerless simply because you haven't met the right man.
It is your decision, and yours alone.
posted by NYMOM | Saturday, November 18, 2006
9 Comments:
Anonymous said...
I don't really have much of a problem with the woman in this story. If a woman is fertile and she wants to get pregnant no one can really stop her. She wasn't but she paid for her own IVF treatment so thats fine.
This is what I have a problem with:
"Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt wants the law changed to allow single women and lesbians to have fertility treatment without the need to prove there will be a father figure in the child's life."
Ok, if men have all these supposed privilages then will the law be changed so that men in the UK can have children like this at the expence of the taxpayers?
11:13 AM
NYMOM said...
It's pretty simple really: because of expense and the fact that men having children require a surrogate mother.
It's one thing for the government to pay for and allow a sperm donor to be used. Basically they are paying a small sum for a guy to read a few Playboys and ejaculuate into a plastic cup.
With a surrogate mother involved, you are going to a whole other level of expense on top of taking advantage of a woman who needs money. As there is no reason on earth for a woman to go through all the difficult and painful procedures involved with being pregnant and giving birth EXCEPT that she desperately needs money.
But I think most people who ask these questions already know the answers. This is an attempt to continue the gender neutral farce that feminists and men have been trying to make of motherhood for years now...
AND I don't think it would make any difference to the distractors of this woman in the article, whether or not the government paid for her procedures or she paid for it herself, as they would be against women doing it either way.
This is another red herring...
Another ploy on the part of men to sidetrack women who are independent of one of them.
I mean what's the point of claiming the UK government will pay for the procedures when you effectively passed laws that it's illegal to be an anonymous sperm donor in the UK anymore? What woman (other then the one in this article who clearly wasn't thinking very clearly when she signed up for this) is going to take a chance that some sperm donor can show up at anytime in the future and have her and her son dragged through an expensive and ongoing custody battle?
Most women would not take a chance like that.
The whole point of women going to this kind of trouble to get pregnant outside of normal channels is so that they don't have to face one of these custody wars incited by some man in the future. Clearly it negates the whole point to do what this woman did with someone you know...as she's actually got the WORSE of both worlds...she's doesn't have a traditional father to help out on a daily basis, YET she has given someone the exact same legal rights to her child as herself...
It really didn't make much sense.
Anyway, when the UK banned anonymous donors it killed the whole point for most of the women who would have children using a donor.
Thus the whole issue is moot anyway.
Few women will avail themselves of the government services, as the dealbreaker would be that you couldn't use an anonymous sperm donor. Otherwise, you'd be signing yourself and your child up for years of litigation AFTER birth and potentially loss of custody within a few years down the road.
The woman in this article wasn't thinking very clearly when she did this...and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if her 'sperm donor' didn't show up again in a few years time and wind up wresting custody of her son from her and just moving to Italy with him.
I predict most women who wish to have children in this manner will just leave the UK and go to countries where they can use an anonymous donor and get pregnant there...otherwise they put themselves and their children at risk later...
8:05 AM
Anonymous said...
Interesting spin you put on it.
If men and women are supposed to be equal then why cant men say "It's my right to be a father!" and recieve government funding to assist him as women will be getting soon in the UK.
You need a man and a woman to make a baby so why does only one side get funding for single parenthood? That's not 'equality' at all is it?
As for the sperm donor clinic question, your right, it is a moot point but not for the reasons you state. Sperm banks have dried up because removing anonymity means men are now being hit for child support. As far as I know no male donor has ever sued a woman for custody of the child, at least not in the UK.
As for your last comment about women going abroad to get pregnant what can I say. Yes, women will always have this choice and I'm sure a few will exercise it. But I can't see the majority of western women going for this option because having an overseas 'recreational sperm donor' rules out free-loading some child support doesn't it?
8:50 AM
NYMOM said...
"It's my right to be a father."
It's not government that denies men the right to be a 'father' but God, nature or evolution which has deemed WOMEN as the bearers of life.
Okay.
Fatherhood is not a naturally occurring event, like motherhood, but rather a social construct.
Government allows you equality in the things it is possible for us to be equal in, bearing children for men is not one of them.
Thus, your rights to do anything ENDS the moment they infringe on someone else's, ie., as in having to force women to bear your children for you. AND yes, it is force when you use economic power over someone else to manipulate them.
BTW, no anonymous sperm donor was EVER hit up for child support.
That's a lie made up by the men's movement to justify support of a policy which was clearly nothing but a spite-driven policy against single women, like the one featured in the article above, who were wishing to be mothers but never met the right partner.
AND yes, many women will go overseas as they will figure out the motivation for this policy and not wish to burden themselves and their children with an endless custody battle afterthefact. Since you continue to try and paint this change in policy as about child support, when, in fact, it is not...
It is about men still trying to exercise control over womens and childrens' lives, even though you voluntarily chose to not be married or have families.
You made your own choices, yet you still continue to wish to control womens' choices in this area because they are different from your own.
Learn to live with your own choices and move on with your lives...
11:12 AM
Conshus_mamma said...
Having grown up with the idea that single motherhood stigmatizes a woman, I have NEVER viewed this as an option for myself, that is until I found myself pregnant.
I'd always known that if I were to get pregnant in the relationship that produced my child, I would not carry it to term. The relationship lasted more than 8 years. I was very comfortable with the arrangement. I had not wanted children, and he already had three. When I found out I was pregnant in June of this year, I thought I miscarried shortly after taking the home pregnancy test. When I went to the hospital, and heard, at 7 weeks, the immensely powerful and life-changing sound of that heartbeat, I knew that I was going to be a single-mother - there was no way I could end the life that was producing such a strong and powerful sound.
It never occurred to me that by making this choice to be a single mother I was making such a profound statement. I am in my mid-thirties, am educated, have strong financial means, and while I lived most of thinking only of my single self, am finding it easy to transition into the idea of being someone's mother.
In reading this, I am finding a sense of the power of being a woman and not waiting for the requisite man+marriage in order to start my family. I appreciate the thoughts that have been provoked and can feel a shift in my perspective about choosing to become a single mother.
11:31 PM
NYMOM said...
Well I guess I have to ask how does the child's father feel about this unexpected pregnancy as he already has three children. Is he okay with having a fourth child now????
7:23 AM
NYMOM said...
You know I love how people decide to link with you w/o asking any permission and then the link is a snide negative comment about you...it's almost like a sneaky way to get around the comment moderation I've set up.
Not that I wouldn't have published her comment, mind you. As I've published far worse.
What galls me is that I was totally supportive of the woman in the article being a single mother...yet still get side swiped by, you guessed it, another woman.
When oh when will women stop viciously sniping at one another...
7:37 AM
Conshus Mama said...
The father is not pleased with this new pregnancy, and is not okay with having a fourth child now.
3:28 PM
NYMOM said...
Well you will have to proceed extremely carefully in this situation as even the other kids and their mother(s) will side with him in this situation, believe it or not.
They will follow his lead, as you will be seen as bringing a rival to the table, thus potentially reducing their share of his resources.
Selfish but realistic...
Additionally the courts will not be friendly to you either, if it winds up there...hopefully it won't...
Take care.
4:27 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
"But Can't You Just Freeze Your Eggs?": Infertility Fear and the ...
The yoga studio where I volunteer just started a six-week workshop to enhance fertility. Apparently this isn't a new idea. And call me - single, thirtysomething, would sure like to be a mom, why yes, me - crazy, because I thought for a ...
posted by lauriewrites @ 2:26 PM
Create a Link
35 comments:
"It's my right to be a father."
For god's sake, get a uterus of your own first, and I don't mean one from a surrogate mother. Carrying a pregnancy to term can be extremely risky and life threatening for a lot of women. When you can take on this risk in your own body, than you can talk about your right to be a father without paying some poor woman to risk her life for your "rights". Until than, fuck off.
"Until than, fuck off."
My oh my, what language! FYI, the "risk" isn't hers alone but also her unborn children. I can look up the statistics, but I would bet dollars to donuts that more children are born with birth defects due to pre-natal abuse by their mothers than mothers die from birth complications (perhaps caused by their own self-destructive behaviors)!!!
Next, I find the claim "Men are rapidly sliding into irrelvancy with all the trouble they are causing." rather amusing. In this particular case, the man "Nico" wasn't causing trouble. The woman appreciated his support and contribution. Most men are financial supporters and are sought by women and the state to remain in the children's lives. If there's "trouble" the men are making, it's because they're getting too "uppity".
Finally, it's a simple observation that people who have trouble relating to adults probably are not in a great position to raise children and teach them to how socialize. Men, despite our many cootie flaws, aren't such bad creatures. We're selfLESS enough to financially support a spouse and children most of the time. This woman was the exception, not the rule. Nice try though.
Hey,
I really liked your post and take on things until I got to the points you tried to make about surrogate mothers.
Sorry, hate to disappoint you, but you've got it all wrong. Most surrogate mothers are psychologically screened to verify that they do not "need the money". And we all give this great gift of the heart.
I am a 2x gestational surrogate. I went through IVF. Twice. To help another family. Did I get paid? Yep. Its collecting interest in a savings account. Did I need the money? Nope.
Statistically, most surrogate mothers (in America) are educated with college degrees and come from upper middle class households. The process is long and unpredictable. Anyone who "needs" the money would go bankrupt before they could ever dream of being paid, it can take months, years even to receive any compensation.
Just wanted to let you know that while I liked your original post, I felt insulted by your blanket statements later.
Oh, and the money isn't that much either.
"I can look up the statistics, but I bet dollars to donuts that more children are born with birth defects to pre-natal abuse by their mothers than mothers die from birth complications (perhaps caused by their own self-destructive behaviors)!!!"
Or the behaviors of men:
More babies are born with birth defects as a result of the mother's being battered than a combination of all diseases and illnesses for which we now immunize pregnant women.
( L. Chiles, Death Before Life: The Tragedy of Infant Mortality, Report of the National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality, at 16,
August 1988)
Homicide was found to be leading cause of death for pregnant women.
(Journal of American Medical Association, March 2001)
Nearly 50% of abusive husbands batter their pregnant wives. As a result, these wives are four times more likely to bear infants at low birth weight.
(U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary. August 29 and December 11, 1990. Hearings on Women and Violence "Ten Facts about Violence Against Women," p. 78)
Were these statistics made by Hillary Clinton while under fire in Bosnia?
I love the last statistic in particular. Does this mean that after a battered wife delivers her children, that her husband stops beating her? Logically, then, police should probably ignore reports of wife beatings from childless households since they are statistically unlikely to harbor a batterer...
Your statistical source, a commission designed to study abuse against WOMEN (note, not women AND children but these "mother's" have themselves to care about first, of course) is a sign that rather than mothers rather than being traditionally neglected and unprotected, instead are zealously protected.
FYI, the statistic about the main cause of maternal death being battering is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death From wikipedia:
"The major causes of maternal death are bacterial infection, toxemia, obstetrical hemorrhage, ectopic pregnancy, puerperal sepsis, amniotic fluid embolism, and complications of abortions."
http://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/4439_1206.asp
In addition, the march of dimes claims that 70% of the causes of most birth defects are unknown. Gee, I guess that firm is run by a bunch of wife beaters then!
Finally, ABCnews http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/WireStory?id=3520838&page=1
has a report on maternal deaths and NO mention of spousal abuse whatsoever. Yeah, we all know what a bunch of conservative right wingers run ABCnews...
Nice try.
The behaviors of "men"
Is that you NYMOM as "anonymous?" If it is, I want to observe that you generalize that this is the behavior of "men" when such violence and maternity deaths is concentrated in the African-American community. You know, the same community that you had said we shouldn't generalize one when characterizing the high rates of criminal progeny from unwed mother households...
From FACT SHEET on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome:
http://www.cspinet.org/booze/fas.htm
51% of women of child-bearing age between 18-25 and 53% between 26-34, report the use of alcohol within the past month.7
17% of women of child-bearing age between 18-25 and 13% between 26-34, report binge drinking (five or more drinks on one occasion) within the past month.8
A national survey found that more than half of women age 15-44 drank while pregnant.9
FAS is estimated to occur in 1 to 2 live births per every 1,000 in the United States each year.11
Or maybe you're going to find a claim from the Committee to Find Billions of Dollars to Spend on Battered Women that blames all this drinking on abusive men? Hey, if a biased committee looking to lavish money on a special interest feminist group can't be trusted, who can?
Polish Knight,
Glad to see that I pissed you off! Oh, and blaming NYMOM for my post was a classic. (snark)
"Finally, ABC news http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/WireStory?id=3520838&page=1 has a report on maternal deaths and NO mention of maternal deaths whatsoever. Yeah, we all know what a bunch of conservative right wingers run ABC news...Nice try."
Yeah, nice try Polish Knight.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/wireStory?id=4257646
"Quarter of U.S. Women Suffer Domestic Violence"
http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=1212346&page=1
"Why pregnant women are targeted?"
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4510372&page=1
"Domestic Violence Harms Long-Term Health of Victims"
I guess a bunch of feminists run ABC news.
Add this to the causes of maternal death that you listed.
http:www.wikiparenting.com/wiki/Domestic_Violence_during_Pregnancy
"Domestic Violence during Pregnancy"
Risks:
Falls
ABDOMENAL TRAUMA
and higher rates of:
FETAL INJURY
MISCARRIAGE
INFECTIONS
ANEMIA
VAGINAL BLEEDING
LOW WEIGHT GAIN
DRUG USE
ALCOHOL AUSE
SMOKING DURING PREGNANCY
DELIVERY COMPLICATIONS
CESAREAN SECTIONS
LOW BIRTH WEIGHT BABIES
I guess a lot of those birth defects caused by the behavior of women are caused in part by the behavior of men. Women who are being abused have a hard enough time taking care of themselves let alone an unborn baby. No wonder these women are being driven to drinking and drug abuse. Most men have absolutely no idea what pregnant women go through in a domestic violence situation, nor do they want to take responsibility for the risks to both women and unborn children caused by domestic violence either directly or indirectly. Men can't get pregnant, have absolutely no personal experience being pregnant, and absolutely no personal experience with the risks associated with pregnancy. Until than, fuck off.
Polish Knight:
Correction: when I quoted you I said "NO mention of maternal deaths" You said, "No mention of spousal abuse"
It pays to read the URL's. Consider this one:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/wireStory?id=4257646
"Quarter of U.S. Women Suffer Domestic Violence"
What this means is that 23.6% percent of women is a "quarter" and by domestic violence, they mean: "The CDC defined this as threatened, attempted or completed physical or sexual violence or emotional abuse by a spouse, former spouse, current or former boyfriend or girlfriend or a dating partner. The CDC estimates that 1,200 women are killed and 2 million injured in domestic violence annually."
So if a guy on a date says a woman looks fat and has a big nose, she qualifies as being "abused" at some time in her life. Pardon me for a moment.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That's just too funny! It appears important to you to think you "pissed" me off yet here you are proudly showcasing women as helpless, emotionally fragile victims. How many women nag their husbands or complain about something or other? If men were as snarky, we'd have 99% "abuse" rates.
Abuse
From the wikipedia page:
"Emotional – involves trauma to the victim caused by acts, threats of acts, or coercive tactics. Psychological/emotional abuse can include, but is not limited to, humiliating the victim, controlling what the victim can and cannot do, withholding information from the victim, deliberately doing something to make the victim feel diminished or embarrassed, isolating the victim from friends and family, and denying the victim access to money or other basic resources. It is considered psychological/emotional violence when there has been prior physical or sexual violence or prior threat of physical or sexual violence."
What's amazing is that if you just turn on the TV, you'll see all kinds of commercials trying to be funny showing women slapping around men for being lazy or stupid, criticizing them, demanding the men pay for luxuries ("a diamond is forever"), etc. I remember a recent ad for a mobile where it showed a woman boss so severely beating her underlings because they hid her mobile phone that she put them IN THE HOSPITAL.
Women tend to be emotionally abusive and even casually physically abusive. I have been in stores and seen women slapping around their children all the time. SLAP! Men may be more stronger when they hit, but they also don't think it's "funny" (haha!) to hit and don't have the common established pattern of emotional or physical abuse that women do. Except that the state and the police overlook such abuse and even encourage it.
Anonymous, if women as mothers have a bad reputation it's by no means due to MRA's or Father's Rights activists. You gals have made this bed all on your own.
I notice that you didn't bother saying anything about the reference from ABC news about "Why pregnant women are targeted?"
It verifies my statistic for homicide rates of pregnant woman. Homicide where both mother and unborn child are killed mostly by male batterers.
That's funny when it comes from a source that you brought up, but you completely ignored it.
"If men were as snarky, we'd have 99% "abuse" rates."
Men are as snarky, and they're more likely to be physically violent. Physical violence is usually accompanied by verbal abuse, and abusive men usually start out being verbally abusive. I suppose since I snarked at you in one of my posts, you're going to claim that I abused you. That would be your style. Oh, and by the way, about 95% of batterers are male, and a lot of it is physical. Since you're bringing up personal experience about seeing women slapping their kids, I'll bring up mine. My ex-husband tried to strangle me while I was pregnant with my son. He also punched me in the stomach on more than one occasion while pregnant. When I told my doctor about this, he expressed concern about my son being born with possible birth defects and injuries. Luckily, my son wasn't born with anything wrong with him, but since a medical doctor expressed concern about it, I know that the chances my ex-husband could have harmed him were pretty high. And I don't drink or do drugs. And the statistics that I gave you about birth defects, homicide, and battering I also heard right from my doctor. In fact, his wife runs the domestic violence shelter in town, and both of them see this kind of thing all the time. You can throw all the statistics that you want, but I'll go with my own personal experience, and the information from my medical doctor and his wife. Because you really don't know what you're talking about. Oh, and before you can make some tasteless joke about why my husband strangled me and hit me in the stomach, it sure as hell wasn't because I was snarky. He was trying to make me miscarry, and he didn't give a damn if I got killed in the process. And what a coincidence, he joined the father's right's movement after our divorce. He fits right in with the rest of you losers.
"Oh, and before you can make some tasteless joke about why my husband strangled me and hit me in the stomach, it sure as hell wasn't because I was snarky. He was trying to make me miscarry, and he didn't give a damn if I got killed in the process. And what a coincidence, he joined the father's right's movement after our divorce. He fits right in with the rest of you losers."
PK responds: I want to thank you for the "loser" remark at the end because it absolves me of any guilt for fully criticizing your claims and situation.
We have only your side of the story and it's possible you instigated violence against your ex and tried to hide behind your belly. As I said, I see women out in public being violent all the time against men and children. I could even take out my HP camera and make some films if NYMOM is interested in posting them.
Who knows? We have just your side and you're making these outlandish claims about him that should have landed him in jail if they had any merit. Yet you claim he's out and about as an activist.
That said, if us men had complaints about how we were treated unfairly in court you'd sneer at us as a bunch of losers. So why should I feel any sympathy towards you for choosing a bad boy even if what you say is true? Try not basing your personal choices on the plotline of "Dirty Dancing" and your life may get better.
Hey, life is good. I have no bastard children and a wonderful wife. Neither of us would try to use a child as a bargaining tool against the other or play worthless games. I want to say I'm sorry for you, but you're such a jerk (women can be jerks I guess) that you really did bring it upon yourself.
"I notice that you didn't bother saying anything about the reference from ABC news about "Why pregnant women are targeted?""
Sure, here you go. The subtext to the article says:
"Expectant Moms Are Vulnerable to Both Male and Female Attackers"
The article was about a man and his mistress killing his pregnant wife. It's totally unrelated to the claim (that is disputed by wikipedia's thorough medical documentation) that most maternal deaths are homocides.
Even so, I can work with that logic: If the most significant risk pregnant women risk is due to murder from their spouses, then the medical risks of childbirth are even that much more trivial. So much for the claims that women are so brave to carry babies. Pfah!
I love it when people don't think their logic through...
"Math is tough" -- Barbie
"Neither of us would try to use a child as a bargaining tool against the other or play worthless games."
Yeah, right. This coming from a guy who tells me that I brought my ex-husband's abuse on myself. I feel sorry for your wife if there ever is a divorce because I personally have known the hell that
she most likely will go through.
"The article was about a man and his mistress killing his pregnant wife."
The article was about a man who killed his pregnant mistress to keep his affair from his wife. In addition to this, Lacy Peterson was mentioned. I suppose Amber Frey killed her too, huh. The article also states, "EXPERTS SAY THAT WHILE PREGNANT WOMEN ARE MORE COMMONLY TARGETED BY MEN-PARTICULARLY SPOUSES, BOYFRIENDS, OR EXES-they also have to be wary of other women." No one said that pregnant women can't be killed by other women, but this is RARE, and these women do it because they want the baby. Men kill women and their babies. Forget math, you need to take a reading comprehension class.
"So much for the claims that women are brave to carry babies. Pfah!"
Well, when you can do it, you can judge, until than fuck off.
Yeah, men shouldn't have any natural right to be fathers. They should only gain that right through marriage. But, if unmarried, they should also have no responsibility. No child support. That should make the MRA's happy, they want the right to have sex with no responsibility, Matt Dubay is their hero after all.
"Yeah, right. This coming from a guy who tells me that I brought my ex-husband's abuse on myself. I feel sorry for your wife if there ever is a divorce because I personally have known the hell that
she most likely will go through."
PK responds: As Patton would have put it, the best way to avoid war is to make the opponent scared to pick a fight. When men are "nice guys" and try to be reasonable, the system walks all over them.
At the same time: I take my wife out about every other week to do something fun and new. It can be a 12 buck boat cruise, or a beer at a new restaurant, or to try out a new dollar store. I help her with her coat, I hold open the door, and I make her a cup of tea when she watches TV.
I CHERISH being sweet and kind to my wife and protecting her and she's the kind of person that makes it a pleasure for me to be this way. Of course, we've had our difficulties but we both worked through them due to shared values.
I don't see what you offer in the way of advice or even moral insight for men to better themselves or to get involved with women such as yourselves. I'm not a loser but neither am I a condition-free sugar daddy. So that may explain your confusion.
She love babies. Long time!
"So much for the claims that women are brave to carry babies. Pfah!"
Well, when you can do it, you can judge, until than fuck off.
-------------------------
Interesting. On the one hand, if men "fuck off" they're a bunch of deadbeats such as Matt Dubay. If they stick around, they're a bunch of jerks trying to get in the way of the precious mother raising future gang bangers of America.
Do you know there's a term to describe a woman who thinks a man should pay for sex... I hate to make that comparison because I think even prostitutes would look down on someone using a child to collect for sexual services rendered.
So, you make your wife scared to pick a fight? Sure like most abusive men, you play Mr. Nice Guy until she does something you don't like (and it doesn't matter what it is), and than you let her have. It's called the "honeymoon period."
Check out the cycle of violence on any domestic violence website.
Medium Rare
"No one said that pregnant women can't be killed by other women, but this is RARE, and "
Er, pregnant women getting killed by men is rare as well but that doesn't stop you from ghoulishly trying to smear all men with the statistic. Then when statistics are used against mothers you, and NYMOM, well, cry like a girl.
Did it ever occur to you that your attitude towards men had something to do with what you wound up with? For the record, I make a great salary and I'm chivalrous as hell towards my wife. But I steered clear of women with princess attitudes or who played games.
Picking a fight
Anonymous: "So, you make your wife scared to pick a fight?"
PK: I don't pick fights and I don't tolerate my wife picking them with me. If you think that picking fights was acceptable, it's no wonder that you had so many problems.
Anonymous: "Sure like most abusive men, you play Mr. Nice Guy until she does something you don't like (and it doesn't matter what it is)"
PK: I have never gotten physically abusive with my wife. Ever. I have had disagreements with her and vice-versa and they were resolved in an adult manner. We are both people that won't put up with, or give, grief to each other. Neither of us plays victim though.
Anonymous: ", and than you let her have. It's called the "honeymoon period."
Check out the cycle of violence on any domestic violence website."
PK: Ironically, our honeymoon period was actually difficult for us as we had to get used to each other's ideosynchrasies. We didn't feed each other sugary nonsense and then wake up. Just the opposite: We learned about each other and developed niches where we could be supportive in our own way.
If I need to find a site to blame men for raising their voice as "abusers" while championing women screaming and slapping their children around as "empowered", I know there's plenty of places to go. Thanks.
Obiously, you have no clue as to what I mean about the honeymoon period in domestic violence terms. I'm not going to enlighten you because you can look this info. up yourself though I doubt you will.
"Er, pregnant women being killed by men is rare as well"
Not when you compare it to the number of pregnant women killed by women.
"that doesn't stop you from ghoulishly trying to smear all men with the statistic"
No, just men who deny the domestic violence statistics, men who blame women for their own abuse, men who are more than likely abusers themselves, and men who most likely make up the majority of the of the MRA and FRA movements.
"For the record, I have a great salary and I'm chivalrous as hell toward my wife"
I don't believe you. Your attitudes toward women, the way you blamed me for my ex-husband's violence, the excuses you made for a man who tried to stangle me, yet, you talk about women being snarky. That's classic abuser language, and as for your so- called chivalry toward your wife, that's B.S. Your just mind fucking her into thinking that your so great. Eventually, your facade is going to crack, and it will, you guys can't keep your true nature under wraps for long, your going to let her have it when she least expects it. That's the way you guys operate. And than it will be down hill from there for your wife. I hope she doesn't end up like Lacy Peterson, or Nicole Simpson. At least, I managed to escape being a homicide statistic.
Sorry emails still bouncing...
[it's me, Val]
Anonymous casts a wide net: "No, just men who deny the domestic violence statistics, men who blame women for their own abuse, men who are more than likely abusers themselves, and men who most likely make up the majority of the of the MRA and FRA movements."
PK replies: You forgot to include my cat. He's clearly the most abusive creature out there! Seriously, it sounds as if the DV industry, and it's customers, are quite successful and categorizing (and finding) men as abusers. But hey, that's how they make their living...
It's paradoxical that you claim I'm going to "crack" and at the same time let my wife have it when she least expects it. Isn't "cracking" something that happens precisely due to pressure rather than the absence of it?
You have the right to not believe what I said about my life just as I don't believe that you're telling the whole story about yours either. I guess that's only fair.
"I guess that's only fair."
Well, I can appreciate that. I guess I'm going to sign off for good because this gets old after a while. It was interesting while it lasted. Maybe we can do this on another post some other time. Until
than, adios
Instead of a known or anonymous donor, here's what you do. Take a nice trip out of the country. Check your monthly cycle. Find nice looking intelligent guy. Sleep with him. Give him phony name. Come home. You're done! Except for sending out the invites to your baby shower.
Silverside
That is exactly what is going to happen more and more because women aren't going to risk having their kids taken away by some abusive jerk. I can just see the idiots in the Batterers R'Us A.K.A Father's Rights Movement frothing at the mouth at that one. In fact, they probably are.
Polish Knight: you are right regarding the observation that people who have trouble relating to others are not the best ones to raise and socialize children. However I'm not sure that the case with this woman. Actually I find it at lot more irresponsible and anti-social to have a child accidentally then planning it in this manner.
Sorry Rayven I don't buy that there exists a test to psychologically screen people to ascertain their true motives for ANYTHING.
I'll stick with my original premise which is that there is something psychological wrong with women who become surrogate mothers for strangers. Take away the money and there would be few surrogate mothers and that's the way it should be. If some woman wants to do a nice thing for a sister who can't have her own kids. Fine. But other then those rare occasions it should be illegal.
Well few men or women abuse other people. What I think I would like is for people to admit this and stop coloring everything from this prospective. Women should NOT have to prove they are not abusive or that men are more abusive in order to retain custody of their children. Actually it should be a given that a mother has custody of her children UNLESS she is abusive...It should not be allowed for a court to remove custody of her children unless abuse was proven.
"Instead of a known or anonymous donor, here's what you do..."
To me that's worse to do then use a donor. There is something very dishonorable about it. I think your kid would hold that against you when they were old enough to know, as then they could never know their parentage. At least with a donor they someday might.
I think the laws have to be changed to reflect the difference and women who use donors need to be respected more and protected versus the ones who go out to a bar or on a singles cruise and get accidentally pregnant...
Post a Comment