This is a good example of what I was talking about recently (and which Richard denied happens) when men rush down to the courthouse to file for temporary custody (and as I said before it usually morphs into permanent)...
These childrens' mothers will find out from the news that another member of the Jackson family has custody of their children now...one, who I might add, Michael Jackson himself claims often stood by silently while his father abused him...
But this doesn't happen according to our resident expert Richard...
Oh well!!!!
Jackson's family moves quickly to take charge
By ANTHONY McCARTNEY, AP Entertainment Writer Anthony Mccartney, Ap Entertainment Writer – Mon Jun 29, 7:39 pm ET
LOS ANGELES – Michael Jackson's family moved quickly Monday to take control of his complicated personal and financial affairs, winning temporary custody of his three children and asking a judge to name the King of Pop's mother as administrator of his estate.
In documents filed in Superior Court, Jackson's parents said they believe their 50-year-old son died without a valid will.
They also made it clear they believe they should take charge of both his debt-ridden but potentially lucrative financial empire and act as permanent caretakers of his three children.
Judge Mitchell Beckloff granted 79-year-old Katherine Jackson temporary guardianship of the children, who range in age from 7 to 12. He did not immediately rule on her requests to take charge of the children's and Jackson's estates.
Beckloff scheduled a hearing for July 6 and another for Aug. 3 to consider those issues and whether Katherine Jackson should be appointed the children's permanent guardian.
L. Londell McMillan, the family's attorney, said in a statement that the Jacksons are pleased with the results of their Monday filings.
"Mrs. Jackson deserves custody, and the family should have the administration of the brilliance of Mr. Michael Jackson. Mrs. Jackson is a wonderful, loving and strong woman with a special family many of us have admired for years. The personal and legal priorities are focused on first protecting the best interests of Mr. Michael Jackson's children, his family, his memorial services and then preserving his creative and business legacy with the dignity and honor it deserves."
When Jackson died Thursday, he left behind a 12-year-old son and 11-year-old daughter by his ex-wife Deborah Rowe, as well as a 7-year-old son born to a surrogate mother.
The Jackson family said the children — Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. (known as Prince Michael), Paris Michael Katherine Jackson and Prince Michael II — are living at the Jackson family compound in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley.
"They have a long established relationship with paternal grandmother and are comfortable in her care," the family said in court documents.
Family patriarch Joe Jackson, 79, said at a news conference that the children were enjoying playing with other kids — something they do not normally do.
The documents state that although Rowe is the mother of the two older children, her whereabouts are unknown. The document simply listed "none" for the mother of the youngest child, Prince Michael II.
Supporting Katherine Jackson in her petition bid to administer the estate was Jackson's father, Joe Jackson.
The Jacksons say they have not heard from Rowe since their son's death. Rowe's attorney, Marta Almli, did not respond to an e-mail message seeking comment Monday. She previously said, "Ms. Rowe's only thoughts at this time have been regarding the devastating loss Michael's family has suffered."
Mark Lester, a former British child star who is godfather to Jackson's children, told The Associated Press he believes they belong with Jackson's mother.
"She is a very loving, kind and gracious woman, and she had a very close relationship with Michael and a very good rapport with her grandchildren," Lester said. "I know the kids are fine. They are deeply saddened by what's happened, but they're coping."
Meanwhile, authorities continued to investigate Jackson's death. Officials with the Los Angeles County coroner's office returned to the mansion he was renting at the time of his death and left with two large plastic bags of evidence.
Assistant Chief Coroner Ed Winter said the bags contained medication. He declined to elaborate.
Lawyers for Jackson's cardiologist Dr. Conrad Murray said the physician never prescribed the powerful drugs Demerol or Oxycontin for Jackson and did all he could to revive him when he found the entertainer near death.
Attorney Matt Alford told the AP it took as long as 30 minutes for paramedics to be called after Murray found Jackson with a faint pulse and performed CPR.
The delay was partly because Jackson's room in the rented mansion didn't have a telephone and Murray didn't know Jackson's street address to give to emergency crews, Alford said.
Eventually, Murray found a chef in the house and had him summon a security guard, who called for help while the doctor continued to perform CPR.
Jackson's father told reporters at the family compound that his son's funeral was still in the planning stages.
"It will be some private, but not closed all the way down to the public," he said without elaborating.
He added that his son would not be buried at Neverland Ranch, the sprawling playground he built in the rolling hills of Santa Barbara County then abandoned after going into seclusion following his acquittal on child molestation charges in 2005.
Jackson's father also used the news conference to plug a record company he said he's founding with a business partner.
"We have a lot of good artists pitching to come out," he said.
His son, who had not released a new recording or performed publicly in years, was believed to be hundreds of millions of dollars in debt at the time of his death. However, his finances are complicated and could take years to unravel.
Clearly one of his most valuable assets is his recording catalog, which his father could potentially rerelease through his new record company if the family gains control of his assets. There could also be recordings in Jackson's estate that he had never released.
The AP learned that Jackson had finished an elaborate video production project just two weeks before he died. The five-week project dubbed "Dome Project" could be the final finished video piece overseen by the star.
There's also a financial bonanza to be had in the Sony/ATV Music Publishing catalog of which Jackson owned 50 percent. The 750,000-song catalog includes music by the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Neil Diamond, Lady Gaga and the Jonas Brothers, and is estimated to be worth as much as $2 billion.
"Quite frankly, he may be worth more dead than alive," Jerry Reisman, general counsel for the Hit Factory, a recording studio where Jackson produced his best-selling album "Thriller," said recently.
Jackson nearly lost his beloved Neverland, which was once filled with amusement park rides and wild animals, to foreclosure in March. Billionaire real estate investor Thomas Barrack bailed him out at the 11th hour, setting up a joint venture with Jackson that took ownership of the 2,500-acre property.
The ranch's future is uncertain, but three of Jackson's brothers visited the estate with Barrack over the weekend. A spokesman for the holding company that now operates it said it was premature to talk about the ranch's future.
___
Associated Press writers Gregory Katz in London and Nekesa Mumbi Moody in Los Angeles contributed to this story.
62 comments:
NYMOM,
I think that it's sad that Michael Jackson's kids are in the temporary custody of grandparents who, Jackson, himself, has said were physically abusive (father anyway). His sister even made allegations that all the Jackson girls were sexually abused by Joe Jackson, and Katherine Jackson knew all about it. Michael Jackson's parents may be old (79 at least, but abusers don't change with age). Debbie Rowe has legal rights as the "biological mother", but I question a woman who consents to giving birth and giving custody of those kids to Michael jackson of all people (especially with his allegations of child molesting which could very well be true). However, it doesn't look like she really wants them. The third child has an anonymous biological and/or surrogate mother, and it's commonly believed that all the children were created with sperm by sperm donors instead of Jackson's own sperm. Sperm donors get parental rights to kids all the time, what's to stop these men from coming out of the wood work when they smell the money? OTOH, the kids were raised by a nanny, and there were reports that Michael Jackson wanted her to get custody if something happened to him. I would support that, but even this nanny is suspect in my book. She, supposedly, covered for him a lot when he was in trouble on his sexual abuse allegations. Who knows if he didn't sexually abuse his own kids, and she turned a blind eye to it? I just think that these kids are in a lose/lose situation, no matter what is decided for them.
Of course I agree with you 100%...and the grandmother getting custody MIGHT be the best deal these kids will ever have.
But my main point was HOW she got custody not whether she was the best person to get it.....basically she just positioned herself for a 'first strike' option by petitioning the court for temporary custody FIRST. Now the second hearing on this is scheduled for August so until then the kids are with her...
I mainly posted this article to prove to Richard that this does happen. It's actually quite common for people to file for temporary custody and get awarded it immediately with NO notification whatsoever to the other parent...
NYMOM,
I agree with you that you have a point about whoever filing first for temporary custody has an advantage. However, I think that it's disgusting that Michael Jackson even had custody of these kids to begin with. He lived a VERY wierd lifestyle, has allegations of child molestation against him since the early 90's, dangles the youngest kid over a balcony to show photographers, and makes all the kids wear masks when they go out in public, and it seems that he was a big drug addict to boot. If any normal person did that, they would've had their parental rights terminated long time ago. OTOH, some famous, rich MOTHER (Britney Spears) gets her kids taken away at the drop of a hat. It goes to show, if your a guy, you can get away with anything.
Hello you two. I hope you have a good fourth! Oh my, where to begin? What an interesting case to bring up (come on, NYMOM, why don't you say something about Jon and Kate? Let's party!)
Let's start with Virago's castigation of Michael Jackson as a worthy parent. She has a point, he was crackers, but sadly he was still better qualified to parent his children than welfare mothers.
Regarding child endangerment (dangling over the balcony), the "drop of a hat" Brittany Spears drove with her baby in her lap in the front seat instead of using a car seat, assaulted papparrazi in public, and was on suicide watch. If you're going to criticize Michael, you can't give Brittany a blank pass without revealing motherly bias at the expense of the children.
Regarding weird lifestyles: That isn't enough to disqualify someone from parenting especially in times when the left seeks to embrace dual lesbian marriages and families.
Sperm donors, especially if they go through legal channels, have little rights to their offspring in this situation.
Finally, I haven't followed the debate between Richard and NYMOM regarding the advantages of temporary custody but from what I read here, I agree that temporary custody is invaluable in getting both permanent custody and, of course, the mullah that often comes with the kids. Before I go on record as saying I disagree with Richard, it's nice to understand precisely what he was saying. Was he saying that MEN who rush to file for temporary custody orders don't see a tremendous advantage? Or that maybe most men aren't doing such a thing? Context is important.
"Let's start with Virago's castigation of Michael Jackson as a worthy parent. She has a point, he was crackers, but sadly he was still better qualified to parent his children than welfare mothers."
Figures you would say this. Michael Jackson was a PEDOPHILE. Do you think all those sleepovers with young white boys were just innocent slumber parties? I highly doubt it. Prince Michael I and "Blanket" probably had more than their fair share of "sleepovers" with daddy. OTOH, you most likely had plenty of "sleepovers" with underage eastern european prostitutes anyway. It takes a pedophile to defend a pedophile.
"Regarding child endangerment (dangling over the balcony), the "drop of a hat" Brittany Spears drove with her baby in her lap in the front seat instead of using a car seat, assaulted papparrazi in public, and was on suicide watch."
There isn't any doubt at all that Britney had issues that prevented her from parenting those kids properly. Those kids needed to be taken away temporarily until she got her act together. I don't have a problem with that at all. Btw, Britney Spear's tour has grossed $100 million dollars AND she has her kids MORE THAN HALF THE TIME WHILE ON TOUR.
http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/11/britney-spears-kevin-federline-kids/
And before, you make some lame point about Britney Spears dumping her kids on nannies, K-Fed (who doesn't have a job) has a full-time nanny, the help of the mother (Shar Jackson) of his first two kids, AND a live in girl-friend (Victoria Prince).
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2007/11/kevin-federline-shar-jackson-a-great-parenting-team/
http://www.tmz.com/2009/01/21/k-feds-new-gal-plays-mommy-for-brits-kids/
http://www.celebrity-gossip.net/celebrities/hollywood/sean-preston-and-jayden-james-zoo-day-204350
OH, boy, let's see what kind of dad K-Fed is when he went to Disneyland with TWO NANNIES, and A BODYGUARD. He actually lost his daughter, but I suppose that's the nannie's fault! Can't blame the father now can we. Besides, the kid was one of Shar Jackson's kids, and she's not worth any money anyway. What a joke!
http://www.hollywire.com/featured/daddy-k-fed-loses-kid-in-disneyland/
"If you're going to criticize Michael, you can't give Brittany a blank pass without revealing motherly bias at the expense of the children."
WTF?!! You stupid moron, BRITNEY LOST CUSTODY OF HER KIDS BECAUSE OF HER BEHAVIOR. Michael Jackson was never even investigated by CPS to see how his "own" kids were doing. How the hell is that motherly bias at the expense of the children? And another thing, if a non-working custodial mother gave her kids to the working, custodial father more than half the time even through some temporary agreement, chances are pretty good that the father could claim that the mother "abandoned" her kids so that he could get full physical and legal custody. If Britney Spears were the father, she would have a very good chance of getting her kids back this way no matter if she was declared unfit or not. Fathers do this all the time, and I've seen it happen.
NY, how do you know that Debbie Rowe was afforded "no notice whatsoever?"
If Debbie Rowe were here and claiming those kids, they'd most likely be handed over absent a showing of unfitness. She's the biological parent and still has her rights (although she attempted to give them up some time back).
PK, NY seems to be insisting that a father who does not even have his kids with him can go down to the courthouse, ask for temporary custody, have it granted on the spot, and then, I don't know, call the cops in to take the kids away from the mother or something. It simply doesn't happen that way.
You don't get a temporary order without a temporary hearing and proper due process. And the decision (at least between parents) generally is a matter of who has the kids and who has been taking care of them.
Richard
"Sperm donors, especially if they go through legal channels, have little rights to their offspring in this situation."
Not necessarily. Sperm purchased from an unknown sperm donor from a sperm bank and is inseminated in a doctor's office is a situation where a sperm donor doesn't have any rights. However, a sperm donor, who is known to the mother, may have an agreement with said mother not to have any legal rights to the kid can still sue for them later on. There have been cases of known sperm donors who have done this. For all we know, Michael Jackson may have made a private agreement with a friend of his or even one of his body guards or whoever to donate sperm on Jackson's behalf. Even if these guys agreed not to have any rights to the kids, this could be challenged and overturned. It's happened before.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/gay-man-wins-right-to-be-father-of-lesbians-baby-653256.html
"If Debbie Rowe were here and claiming those kids, they'd most likely be handed over absent a showing of unfitness. She's the biological parent and still has her rights (although she attempted to give them up some time back)."
"PK, NY seems to be insisting that a father who does not even have his kids with him can go down to the courthouse, ask for temporary custody, have it granted on the spot, and then, I don't know, call the cops in to take the kids away from the mother or something. It simply doesn't happen that way."
And it wouldn't happen that way for Debbie Rowe either Richard. She may be the "biological mother", but they wouldn't just "hand those kids over to her" just like that. My cousin and her ex-husband agreed to let him have custody, and he took their son out of state temporarily. The father died in a car accident, and her son was put in a foster home. My cousin had to prove that she wasn't "unfit" before they would give her son back. It took a whole year and a half to do that.
From the LA Times:
"She is definitely first in line to get the kids," said Stanford Law professor R. Richard Banks. "In fact, she would have the legal right to have custody of the children unless it was found that she was an unfit mother."
Rowe initially signed a contract waiving her parental rights to Prince Michael Jr., 12, and Paris Michael Katherine, 11. She later changed her mind and went to court to contest the contract...
An appeals court ruled in her favor in 2006, and the custody battle was eventually settled out of court. Law professors said the contract Rowe had signed was clearly illegal.
California law permits a parent to give up custodial but not parental rights in the kind of contract Rowe signed, Blumberg said. The appeals court ruling means that Rowe is the legal mother of the older children, she said, "And if one parent is dead, the other parent is entitled to custody of the child."
But allow me to add, that sometimes CPS and their stooges DO overstep their bounds. If you ever read Glenn Sacks, he's recently done a couple of articles about babies in the UK being taken away from their mothers and placed with adoptive families on trumped- up charges of "unfitness" later proved false, but by then it was considered "not in the best interests of the child" to remove them from their adoptive homes.
Remember what I have told you repeatedly on these threads? If a father's parental rights are not respected and held inviolable, neither will a mother's be in the long run.
Women have been more than enthusiastic about chipping away at the sacred and absolute rights of natural parents (and here I mean MALE parents), ultimately the best (though not perfect) protection for children available, and replacing them with wishy-washy notions about "the best interests of the child" which can be manipulated and twisted to serve anyone and everyone's interests EXCEPT the child's.
Even our friend NY here was all for taking Anna Nicole Smith's baby from her natural father, who had no strikes against him whatsoever, and giving her to a grandma who crawled out of the woodwork smelling money.
When it all comes back to bite you, it's hard not to say, "Tol'ja so."
Richard
AND as I've told you many times I do NOT consider a recreational sperm donor to be a "natural parent"...it's an artificial construct, a total legal fiction made up to assist men in getting custody of children away from their mothers...most of the time (just like in this Jackson case) to use children as leverage to control assets...
YET do NOT try to change the subject Richard...which is that people can go to court and get temporary custody without notifying a child's mother and ultimately this is why women today file first in divorce...to protect themselves and their children from the greed of men...
Okay that's the point of the post which you conveniently twisted...
Polish Knight there is no reason for me to mention Jon and Kate plus 8 since I think my position on all of these situations is well known.
The show should be taken off the air and it should be made illegal for a doctor to implant more then 3 fertilized eggs at one time. Just like what they have in Europe...
But having 6/8 kids at one time is a rare occurrence...but men using the court system to to preempt a mother and child's natural rights is very common...
So that's what this post is about...not a freak show but ordinary men working the system.
Remember something: the main purpose of this blog (in spite of what anyone has twisted it as) is to discuss with like-minded people ways to address the issue: which is ordinary fit mothers losing custody of their children.
Discussion of public policies, laws and ways to address this situation (and ONLY this situation) are always welcome...not constant personal attacks against posters and/or constantly trying to work your own personal agenda into every post...
So take note...
"AND as I've told you many times I do NOT consider a recreational sperm donor to be a "natural parent"...it's an artificial construct, a total legal fiction made up to assist men in getting custody of children away from their mothers..."
NY, you're a riot.
Every child on this planet has two "natural parents." That's simple biology. What in hell do you think your "recreational sperm donor" label is EXCEPT an artificial construct, made up by you personally for your own agenda and that of other woman-firsters (which mainly seems to amount to zero accountability for women)?
If you prefer the old system of unmarried men having no rights to children, then don't look to us for its demise.
Look to those who started the whole thing.
Such as illegitimate children who wanted a share of their fathers' estates (because it wasn't "fair" to treat them differently from legitimate children of course).
Followed closely by unwed mothers who wanted support from those fathers (because that's only "fair to the children" of course).
And the hordes of women from the late 60s onward who wanted to breed illegitimate babies and collect government checks for it, and raised multiple generations to do the same, until the taxpayers (male AND female) got fed up and had to drag in dads to reimburse those checks (because it wasn't "fair" for taxpayers to pay while the more responsible party did not).
You girls wanted ALL of that. It was handed over on a platter. All at the expense of traditional marriage and solid families. If it comes with some details that don't suit you, well, tough tooties. That's what usually happens when you do stuff on someone else's tab.
Richard
But about those temporary orders,
Let's take the family law of California, my native state, as an example.
Here is a brief and simple explanation of the relevant statutes and procedures from the website of a California family law attorney:
"Temporary custody/visitation orders may be issued ex parte (Ca Fam §§ 2045(b), 6323) or after notice and hearing (Ca Fam §§ 2047, 6340(a)). The "ex parte" procedure allows for a hearing to be held within 24 hours of oral notice of the hearing to the opposing party.
However, an order granting (or modifying) custody or visitation CANNOT issue on an ex parte basis unless there has been a showing of immediate harm to the child or immediate risk the child will be removed from the state. [Ca Fam § 3064; Ca Fam § 6323(a) (incorporating by reference § 3064 limitation on ex parte visitation orders)]
For purposes of § 3064, "immediate harm to the child" includes a parent's acts of "domestic violence" (any act of domestic "abuse" as defined by the DVPA) found to be of "recent origin" or "part of a demonstrated and continuing pattern of acts of domestic violence." [Ca Fam § 3064]"
http://www.kinseylaw.com/clientserv2/famlawservices/temporders/tempcustodyvisit/tempcustodyvisit.html
Funny how the one limited exception allowing ex parte orders in certain rare circumstances is set up to favor WOMEN, not men.
More details from the website of the Sacramento Superior Court:
"To obtain a temporary order, you must give the other party notice that you are requesting an emergency temporary order(s). This notice must be given at least 24 hours before you file your documents with the court. You must tell the other party the date, time, and place... to appear if he/she wishes to object to the temporary order(s) you are requesting. This notice must be give in person or by telephone. If an attorney represents the other party, the notice must be given to that attorney.
The 24 hours notice must be given in all cases unless it is established that there will be an immediate threat of danger or harm if the notice is given. This can be established only in RARE cases. It is the general policy of family law courts that judges do NOT make temporary orders UNLESS BOTH SIDES HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD." [all emphasis mine]
http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/family/custody-visitation.aspx
You can look at the statutes of most other states and find much the same thing. They're all based on the same basic principles of fairness and due process.
However "invested" you may be in your elaborate theory about temporary custody (sorry, couldn't resist using that word), it just isn't valid and you can not use it to excuse modern women's embarrassing lack of a sense of commitment and responsibility to their families.
They simply tend to bail because they expect to walk out with most of the benefits of marriage and none of the duties. The system is set up to encourage this irresponsibility.
As always, more and more reason to end these grabbing games by adopting presumed shared parenting and getting people focused on fixing their families.
Richard
In spite of what you believe Richard I did not make up the term "recreational sperm donor"...it's used by international adoption agencies in order to assess and facilitate international adoptions...
So once again you are wrong...
AND regarding your two 'natural parents' comment: mothers are the only natural 'parents' in nature. Fatherhood is a total social construct established by human males. It doesn't exist in nature. Actually so-called 'fathers' in nature frequently eat their own offspring which is why mothers tend to keep their young away from them.
So it's total baloney to compare the mother/child bond with the non-existence one of a 'father'...I don't say that a father over time won't grow to love any children that were produced from his recreational sperm deposits...just as teachers and nannies and summer camp counselors can grow to care for the children in their care...
It does NOT equate or replace the mother/child bond however...
AND it's the jealousy and greed of men that won't allow them to accept this distinction.
Again, Richard, I don't care what the law SAYS...I care about what actually HAPPENS...and what actually happens is that the court DO ALLOW fathers to file for temporary custody with no notification to a child's mother...and you know this very well since I met you on a website that advocates for men to do this all the time...
It's considered a tactical advantage and any family law website will tell you this...
BTW, it's not women lack of commitment to their families that has led to our current state of affairs, but men's lack...the state finally got sick of it and enforced standardized and strictly enforced child support orders and that's what has caused our current predicament.
Talk about projection...
NYMOM, men often lack commitment to pay child-support but that's no surprise since non-custodial mothers as well don't enjoy paying it. See: http://tinyurl.com/nhz6cz
"About 30 percent of custodial mothers and over 40 percent of custodial fathers receive nothing"
You're comparing apples and oranges: non-custodial fathers' willingness (or not) to pay child-support for children that have been taken away from them versus women getting a divorce over such matters as the man not doing enough dishes or failing to earn as much money as her.
Indeed, the state has become more efficient at getting men and taxpayers to foot the bill for the single "independent" mother lifestyle and it's not worked out so well, has it?
NYMOM, it's not just fathers that harm their own offspring, but mothers as well:
http://tinyurl.com/hj5ju
"Pandas frequently give birth to twins, but they virtually never raise two babies," said Scott Forbes, a professor of biology at the University of Winnipeg. "This is the dark side of pandas, that they have two and throw one away."
"In the blockbuster movie "The March of the Penguins," the emperor penguins were portrayed as fairy parents, loving every egg they laid and mourning every egg that cracked before its time. Among the less storied royal penguins, a mother lays two eggs each breeding season, the second 60 percent larger than the first. Just before the second egg is laid, the mother unsentimentally rolls the first egg right out of the nest."
Regarding eating the young: "Unlike humans, Dr. Hrdy said, the apes never abandon or reject their young, no matter how diseased or crippled a baby may be. Yet because female chimpanzees live in troops with other nonrelated females, a ravenous, lactating mother feels little compunction about killing and eating the child of a group mate. "It's a good way to get lipids," Dr. Hrdy said."
On other hand, as evident in the film "March of the Penguins", fatherhood is not a mere human social contruct. In the March, it's clear that fathers are equal parters in the nurture and raising of their young.
There's nothing more artificial, though, than the concept of "child support" and a parent being forced to pay for children that have been taken away from them. The welfare state is also incredibly artificial as California is quickly discovering.
I wrote: "Sperm donors, especially if they go through legal channels, have little rights to their offspring in this situation."
Virago/Kimberly responded: "Not necessarily. Sperm purchased from an unknown sperm donor from a sperm bank and is inseminated in a doctor's office is a situation where a sperm donor doesn't have any rights. However, a sperm donor, who is known to the mother, may have an agreement with said mother not to have any legal rights to the kid can still sue for them later on."
Er, I said "ESPECIALLY" through legal channels and not "absolutely" and wrote "has little rights", not none.
I could have been clearer by emphasizing that sperm donors usually have no rights if they go via a licensed sperm bank, but you still chose to bark up the wrong tree. Bow wow!
Polish Knight, I understand that mothers as well as fathers can harm their offspring; but in nature it is generally a sick or inexperience young mother who will abandon or harm their offspring. Unlike the males of any species who do it as a matter of policy or should I say a matter of lunch...
Regarding penguins, clown fish, sea horses or other fringe species I don't accept that maybe 1% of all species on the planet can dictate the nature of all of the other 99% of the rest of us...
Sorry...
I know men and gender neutral feminsts are very excited about discovering these rare species where males play some role in childrearing that doesn't involve just a sperm donation; however, these are unusual creatures who live on the fringes of habitable lands in harsh environments.
I don't accept the premise that they tell us anything about ordinary life on this planet...and, once again, this is ORDINARY men and women we are talking about here, the ones in the vast middle of the bell shaped curve. NOT those who reside at either end as they are outliers not representative of all the rest of us...
Again, sorry...
"In spite of what you believe Richard I did not make up the term "recreational sperm donor"...it's used by international adoption agencies"
No matter. It's still just another construct.
"Fatherhood is a total social construct established by human males. It doesn't exist in nature."
It exists in nature all right. HUMAN nature, which is the only kind of nature that matters for us. We're the highest mammalian form and have evolved to require the investment of two parents for optimal development of our young and have developed hormonal responses that facilitate this.
I don't care about the "nature" of lower animals. Their needs and the behaviors they've evolved are different.
And this "nature" that you keep harping about is a shithole anyway. Watch an unrelated male barge into your home, destroy all your existing children and put you to work bearing and raising his own young and you'd probably agree.
Nature's version of "social fathers."
"Again, Richard, I don't care what the law SAYS...I care about what actually HAPPENS...and what actually happens is that the court DO ALLOW fathers to file for temporary custody with no notification to a child's mother..."
In other words, la la la, can't hear you. Well, OK.
"...and you know this very well since I met you on a website that advocates for men to do this all the time..."
I met you at Gonz'. I don't recall him ever advocating any of this.
The only advice I've ever seen on any MRA site on this subject is to not let wifey order you out of the home thus setting up a status quo that the judge will follow. And to not agree to sole temporary custody to mom in hopes of changing it later, but to always insist on 50/50 from the outset.
If you've seen something different I'd take it with a grain of salt. Most MRA sites are run by lay persons and they're just as likely to contain misinformation as yours is.
"BTW, it's not women lack of commitment to their families that has led to our current state of affairs, but men's lack..."
Child support is a mere band-aid on the festering sore of divorce and illegitimacy, and a spectacularly ineffective one at that. It was rarely needed when women in general formed families properly and honored their commitments.
Richard
Just to clarify something else: it is ONLY anonymous sperm donors who go through the proper donation channels who don't have rights to their children.
It's up in the air for the everyone else...
Actually if Octomom didn't go through the proper channels with her donor, he can have legal rights especially if she tries to go on welfare with those kids.
A parent cannot sign away their legal rights unless someone else is willing to step in for them via adoption...that's why Debby Rowe got her parental rights restored in 2006...although she was really little more then an egg donor who married Jackson to help him avoid the state's legal adoption process.
Probably he thought he couldn't pass the investigation.
Anyway you can ONLY sign away your rights if another person assumes them...and only anonymous egg/sperm donors are exempt from this...
AND btw, many doctors won't inseminate single women with an anonymous donor's sperm...they'll only do it for couples including lesbian couples. Single women have a hard time finding a doctor who will do this for them...
Just for those who are interested.
Richard, I understand we are the highest order of mammals on the planet YET we still have much in common with our animal relatives and cannot deny our evolutionary history which has much in common with them...
This denial is the basis of the destruction of our planet (and ultimately everything on it) today...we are an interconnected web of living beings that have evolved on this planet...in some senses no different from our other relatives who share the planet with us...
Men playing God once again...
Isn't it funny, PK, how great "nature" is when it justifies giving woman-firsters complete ownership of children, but it's not nearly so great anymore when it justifies letting said women and children starve or be preyed upon by renegades in the absence of a male protector/provider?
The day I see any lower male mammal compelled by ANYONE to hand over 20-40% of its kill/forage to a female is the day I MIGHT be impressed by our "interconnectedness."
As it is, I'd say that anyone who can't see how vastly different we are from even our nearest lower relatives simply doesn't want to see it for unknown personal reason.
Richard
Well Richard, larger, stronger males of just about every species allow females of their pride, herd, pod, etc., to eat in their territories and protect them from other males...obviously they could kill the females, but generally don't...
Otherwise they would be extinct...
So our lower cousins do (on a much lesser scale of course) operate similarly to human society...they don't have condos or huge bank accounts to leave but they do have good hunting or grazing territories that are probably just as valuable in their world as luxury condos are in ours.
Thus, they are not so different.
It's just a question of degree.
Regarding strange males killing their females and young, if you look at what goes on today in our world I'd say the same principles also apply there as well...
"Regarding strange males killing their females and young, if you look at what goes on today in our world I'd say the same principles also apply there as well..."
That's not exactly what I said. I spoke of males killing unrelated young, not females.
But obviously the difference is that in nature it's business as usual. In civilization it is not.
Since we're really not so different, I guess you wouldn't recommend any consequences for killing one's stepchildren to make way for one's own biological children?
Richard
"Regarding strange males killing their females and young, if you look at what goes on today in our world I'd say the same principles also apply there as well..."
NYMOM,
I notice that it's always brought up that children are more in danger from unrelated males in the household(step-fathers/mom's boyfriends). Biological fathers are more likely to get remarried or have a live-in-girlfriend after a divorce, and they are more likely to be living with said wife's/girlfriend's kids. Stepfathers/boyfriends who kill their wife's/girlfriend's kids usually have a history of domestic violence, and at least half of these guys are biological fathers themselves. In fact, their history of domestic violence is more than likely the reason that they aren't living with their own biological children to begin with. Basically, when MRAs/FRAs like to spout the statistics about bio-dad vs. step-dad, they are USUALLY TALKING ABOUT THE SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE. Just because a step dad abuses and/ or kills his step child doesn't make him safe to be around his own bio-kid. In fact, the only reason he probably didn't kill his own bio-kid is because HE WAS DRIVEN AWAY BY A PROTECTIVE MOTHER.
Well I see we've strayed once again from the main purpose of this blog...
Remember people most men and women DO NOT ABUSE or KILL THEIR KIDS OR ANYONE ELSE'S...so these are RARE CASES we are talking about. A man or woman probably will put more time, money, attention, etc., into their own kids rather then someone else's...but that's a little different then say murdering a kid because you are not the mother or father...
I return to the central premise of this blog to alert mothers to teh current situation where our court system is allowing men, who are little more then recreational sperm donors, to work the system and get custody of children from good, loving mothers...It's all an attempt to get either money or benefits from the state or the child's estate, mother, etc., and this must come to an end.
It's about common greed.
I guess what I'm saying is that greed is ordinary and common whereas murdering children is not...so we have to try to keep that in mind here.
NYMOM says: "Well Richard, larger, stronger males of just about every species allow females of their pride, herd, pod, etc., to eat in their territories and protect them from other males...obviously they could kill the females, but generally don't..."
That's a pretty big generalization: "just about every species". It's really just the opposite: In the ocean and for most land based species as well, males and females largely compete with each other for the same resources most of the time and don't hang out with each other outside of mating. Females the rest of the time are usually treated as chattel and property by a dominant male. After all, why would a lion put himself at risk defending a lionesse and injure himself and give up his status?
Once again, NYMOM, you're projecting western chivalrous values (chivalry as it has existed for the past few centuries, not originally) only nature itself.
NYMOM refers to mother Earth: "This denial is the basis of the destruction of our planet (and ultimately everything on it) today...we are an interconnected web of living beings that have evolved on this planet...in some senses no different from our other relatives who share the planet with us...
Men playing God once again..."
NYMOM, if men play God, it's because human women (and often in nature as well) evovled the males to be stronger and faster to display themselves as desirable mating stock. We're what you made of us. As I love to remind you, most criminals come from unwed mother homes.
If you want to get back to nature, consider moving to Africa or South America or much of Asia. They are really into nature and know how to treat women. Be sure to avoid places overly tainted by western colonialism with such unnatural things as women's rights and equality...
NYMOM claims: "A parent cannot sign away their legal rights unless someone else is willing to step in for them via adoption..."
Two words: Safe Havens.
"That's a pretty big generalization: "just about every species"."
I think NY is also mistakenly analogizing these prides or herds with society in general. These are FAMILY groups. Of course a male will defend the females and young of his own family group.
One thing you WON'T see is a lioness taking her cubs and going off with some other male while expecting some continuing service or defense from the cubs' father.
Outside of the family, those cubs won't last till the water gets hot.
If we're going to hold the "nature" of lower mammals up as a model, then females and young who exist outside of a male-headed home should be allowed to sink or swim.
NY used to talk about lions a lot over a Gonz' and how human mothers should be like lionesses and what all, but it beats me why it's so idyllic to live in a harem waiting for over half of your young to either die of starvation or be killed by the next male to take over the family.
Stable marriage within a civilized society sounds better to me for some odd reason, but what else can you expect from some greedy Western male trying to play God?
;-)
Richard
I'm also chuckling about the "Men trying to play God" comment in light of religious arguments against in-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood and other technologies designed to help older, childless women unable to find a traditional breadwinner cheat mother nature.
Our nature-cheating ways are an incredibly fragile thing. NYMOM probably has never set foot outside of the American continent much less into more "natural" cultures where evil oppressive chivalry doesn't apply.
Funny story: Recently the lights went out and my wife said she wanted to eat. I suggested warming up soup and she replied: "How can we do that if the microwave doesn't work?" Yep, she's been Americanized all right!!!
Richard, have you ever seen the film "Swept Away" (the original Italian, not the awful Madonna remake.) It was meant as a allegory between proletariat and the bourgeois but turned out to be a commentary about the fragility of feminist independence.
Once again Polish Knight you have confused chivalry with males of every species who treat females well in order to have sex...
Men did not create that behavior, God, nature or evolution (take your pick) did...
It looks like your knighthood is about to be revoked...
"Two words: Safe Havens"
Again we cannot extrapolate from that rare group of mothers who use those and draw any conclusions about all the rest of us...
The law for everyone else is you cannot sign away your legal rights UNLESS someone else is ready to pick them up...The state doesn't want burdens whenever people wish to terminate their parental rights willy nilly...
NYMOM, the safe haven law can be used by ANY mother even if only a small percentage take advantage of it. Either the law applies to EVERYONE, or it doesn't. It's like being a little bit pregnant.
And safe havens were designed to be used by MOTHERS. The "rest of us", those who can't abandon their children or parental responsibilities on a whim to the state, are men.
Your claim that the state doesn't want burdens flies in the face of your "it never rains but it pours" article arguing for EXPANDING the welfare state since you realize that it's harder for women to get the 1950's breadwinners they need and crave.
Other than ALL women having use of safe havens to walk away from their babies, or welfare, or demanding the state hunt down men to pay "child" support, they're totally independent and don't need men around. I think you've got your work cut out for you.
NYMOM claims: "Once again Polish Knight you have confused chivalry with males of every species who treat females well in order to have sex..."
NYMOM, have you ever left the United States? Traditionalist cultures either have "arranged marriages" or legalized prostitution. Er, I know this personally. I didn't have to be chivalrous to have sex with a legal prostitute anymore than you are chivalrous with the grocery store clerk to bag your food. Such women either provide a service or they do what they have to do as part of the culture.
NYMOM claims: "Men did not create that behavior, God, nature or evolution (take your pick) did..."
You probably also think that God and nature created McDonalds, Starbucks, Fish and Chips, and Blockbuster video.
NYMOM says: "It looks like your knighthood is about to be revoked..."
It's rather funny that you say that because the women in my life laugh that I remind them of the men in stories of 15th century Eastern Europe when Slavic knights clearly were NOT chivalrous as people today associate with the term.
And they like it. They regard American and English men as wimps. If you want to learn a naughly slavic word to shock Russians and Poles in your area, call a wimp a "sookah". But be prepared for them to be shocked!
Richard claims: "I think NY is also mistakenly analogizing these prides or herds with society in general. These are FAMILY groups. Of course a male will defend the females and young of his own family group."
But, wait, Richard! It gets BETTER than that! Much of the time, these males don't protect their family groups but rather their TERRITORY or RIGHTS to the females. The females in a pride are expected to hunt, defend their young, and share the proceeds with the dominant male. (Much like aging career women who pay taxes for rich white male politicians to slush the money to his supporters...)
The lion sits around on his butt most of the time and only wakes up when bachelor lions wander into the area or when a lionesse gets uppity.
In theory, the lionesses (plural?) could gang up on the dominant male and tell him to eff off and choose their mates based upon their dishwashing skills and sensitivity, but they seem to like the arrangement of being dominated. Hmmmm.....
NYMOM, you're applying a double standard. Here's what you say about the prupose of this blog:
"I return to the central premise of this blog to alert mothers to teh current situation where our court system is allowing men, who are little more then recreational sperm donors, to work the system and get custody of children from good, loving mothers...It's all an attempt to get either money or benefits from the state or the child's estate, mother, etc., and this must come to an end.
It's about common greed."
By your definition, if a few men are "allowed" to "game the system" as recreational sperm donors and get children and, gasp, _money_ from women, then it's "common greed".
But on the other hand, when ALL women have access to "safe havens" to abandon their babies you argue that, hey, it's just a few women doing that so who cares.
It's pretty obvious that if it was only or mostly MEN doing such a thing, you'd be going for the torches and pitchforks. You're just making a goodie grab for mothers. And hey, that's ok. I'm amused that you're doing so in a chivalrous society created by white males that empowers you to even consider doing so in the first place.
You remind me of my wife's black cat, Marisia, who is sweet and nice and purrs when she wants food but the rest of the time, if you try to hold her, she hisses and bites and scratches you. I personally would have taken her to the pound but my wife thinks she's cute.
Let's hope for your sake that chivalrous males continue to think such behavior is "cute."
Unfortunately it's not just a few males 'gaming' the system now but everyone and his grandmother has gotten into the act...
You cannot compare the few mothers who abandon babies in safe havens to the numbers of men who fight for custody to get out of child support or get some other benefits attached to custody...
It's growing like a fungus throughout our society...
NYMOM, I love how you imply that the men only want custody to get out of paying child-support while lauding mothers who demand it. I don't know whether you're referring to "recreational sperm donors" as men who father children via one night stands, but the law holds them responsible financially. It's hardly "recreational" if he's paying for parenthood.
Yes, it sounds petty to argue over dollars and cents but the difference between a parent in the west whose children are well fed and clothed and the mothers and their children on late-night TV starving in Africa is clear: breadwinning fathers are useful to have around.
You are attempting to sweep legal infant abandonment under the rug by proclaiming that few women use it. That doesn't change the fact that is an option that ALL mothers have that few men are able to take advantage of. You want a society where women have all rights and goodies and few responsibilities an the reverse for men and that men are "greedy" for actually thinking we deserve something better than that.
It's no wonder, then, when so many women with this world-owes-me-a-living attitude wind up with bad boys and fakes who told them everything they wanted to hear. "Boo hoo! Life is so unfair! I didn't get everything and he got something! Waaah!"
In the meantime, us men who have that one thing women never throw into a trash dumpster: money, have time to go into our 30's and pick and choose among women with sensible attitudes and thinking. We, and our wives and children, get to live in nice places while the welfare state collapses around us (check out California.) I am keeping my passport up-to-date in case that syndrome spreads to my area. It reminds me of Hurricain Katrina where all the two parent families left the area and the welfare recipients were covered with mosquitos on the rooftops. Single motherhood: Starving and suffering on a TV set near you!
PK said: "By your definition, if a few men are "allowed" to "game the system" as recreational sperm donors and get children and, gasp, _money_ from women, then it's "common greed"."
And it really is a few. 85% of single mothers have their children with them the majority of the time. And the majority collect child support.
Of the remaining 15%, fathers who have the kids most of the time, the vast majority have this arrangement with the consent of the mother.
Of the remaining fathers, chances are that at least some, perhaps many, of them are in joint custody arrangements with the mother having a substantial amount of time with the kids although this is only a guess.
And when we finally get down to the tiny group of fathers who have obtained sole custody through the courts, only about a third of them have any support order AT ALL. And the number of them who actually receive the payments ordered is smaller still.
This "fungus" looks a lot more like a paper tiger to me.
Richard.
NY said: "I return to the central premise of this blog to alert mothers to teh current situation where our court system is allowing men, who are little more then recreational sperm donors, to work the system and get custody of children from good, loving mothers...It's all an attempt to get either money or benefits from the state or the child's estate, mother, etc., and this must come to an end."
I submit that women themselves could easily end it tomorrow.
Simply stop producing babies for "recreational sperm donors."
Insist on marriage instead.
Richard
Richard, your statistics are old...and many many mothers don't have their children but get Joint Legal instead...which as you should know, means nothing. So on paper it looks like everything is fine, the reality is quite different.
PLUS you have not counted the many grandparents who have custody in that 85% number, many of them parental grandparents which means these mothers also rarely if ever see their children.
AARP estimates it to be about 5 million, so a big problem for them is getting medical insurance for their members which includes their grandchildren since Medicare only covers seniors.
It is not the small problem that you imply...but a growing one for women and children...being used for money.
As usual, Polish Knight, using the worse case scenario to prove a point. AND there are plenty of bread-winning fathers in Africa...the West has no monopoly on that...
Last point Polish Knight.
Women are the only ones who get pregnant and bear children which is why the safe haven laws ONLY apply to them.
Of course that should have been obvious to anyone of average intelligence.
Next you'll be telling me men want to get prenatal care, vitamins and other things when their wives/girlfriends get pregnant.
Oh, wait a minute you all have already done that by insisting all Federal programs be gender neutral including WIC...
No common sense...
Richard, Glenn Sacks recently posed a challenge to feminists to actually show a SINGLE CASE where a mother lost her child to a documented abusive father due to claims of Parental Alienation Syndrome and the children were later found harmed by him.
They couldn't come up with a SINGLE ONE.
On the other hand, there are numerous cases of mommy dearests making allegations of abuse against the father and later winding up abusing the child themselves. Such as this case:
http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/?p=781
"Domestic Violence is a destroyer. It is believed that Gilberta Estrada hanged herself-after hanging her four young daughters first. A police investigation hopes to confirm the tragic facts of this case. An already confirmed fact is that Estrada was a victim of domestic violence. The Associated Press reports that she had previously obtained a restraining order against the father of one or more of her children. Can we rule out the possibility that domestic violence, or the threat of continued domestic violence, was a contributing factor to the depression Estrada was reported to be experiencing and the decision to end her life and the lives of her children?"
(Note: The above father was only ACCUSED of abuse and a restraining order taken out against him by a mother who murdered her own children.)
Here's a case of a father who fought for custody but mother preference prevailed. She murdered her son after abusing him:
http://tinyurl.com/9rok6q
"Sekulski, 30, who allegedly admitted to repeatedly beating her son with a belt and stuffing him with junk food until his weight ballooned to 250 pounds, is accused of delivering the death blow to her child on Dec. 26, when she slammed his head into a wall. "
And this case of a custodial mother's criminal neglect where a father now has custody:
http://tinyurl.com/na5xl6
"MESA, AZ - Family members say two toddlers left home alone on Sunday in deplorable conditions are now happy, clean and safe.
"When I grabbed him in my arms it was a big sigh of relief," said William Schiminski, the father of both boys, who now has custody.
Their mother was arrested on child endangerment and neglect charges after police say she left the 2 and 3-year-old children in the home with little food, and “feces and urine stains all over the floor in the children’s bedroom.”
"We are grateful to the Mesa Police Department and CPS Case workers that responded to the scene on Sunday morning and protected our babies until our family could arrive to take them finally home," said Alishia Wenzell, the children's aunt.
[...]
The responding officer said after arriving into the house, the 2-year-old boy went directly to the pantry and began eating dog food."
NYMOM, women being the ones who bear children doesn't change the fact that they can LEGALLY abandon children. You want to deny that women have this right because so few of them exercise it even as you take the freak cases of men's violence to catigate all men.
Yet even with welfare, legal infant abandonment, "child" support, reverse discrimination, the little ladies still can't help but put more and more children into poverty, have children with bad boys, and toss babies into trash dumpsters.
And yes, there are breadwinning men in Africa. We just don't see them on late night TV with starving kids because when the children in their custody, they don't need it. Thanks for pointing that out.
Richard/NYMOM, I like the term "recreational sperm donors" to put down men (presumably men who have casual unprotected sex, but I wonder if NYMOM is applying this to all men)
Yet, what about recreational baby makers? Women who squeeze out babies into poverty as a lifestyle? Hey, I'll be the first to say that recreational sperm donors are acting recklessly but they're just enjoying sex. On the other hand, what kind of person enjoys making unsupported babies for fun?
My wife whose new to this whole concept of welfare was shocked. "Why would someone have a baby if they couldn't afford it?" she wondered. She was shocked at the large families she sees because people who are budgeting have smaller ones there. I told her that in our affluent suburban neighborhood (where we can afford to live because of me), people are able to afford to responsibly do this. But she couldn't imagine having a child in squalor as a career choice. "Why not go to school and first get settled or find a decent man?" she asked. How naive she is...
In addition, it shocks people over there that so many babies are found in trash dumpsters here. When someone like that happens over there, it reaches national news and the police engage in a man,er, womanhunt. Here, it's not big deal.
Yeah, it's men's fault that women as mothers here are getting a bad reputation...
NY, the 85/15 breakdown isn't old and it's composed of parents only. GP's don't enter into the equation.
If those 85% of single mothers didn't actually have their kids the greater part of the time they wouldn't be counted as custodial. Government statistics don't deal in "custody" in a legal sense (like fem stats do) but in who has the kids the greater part of the time.
And I think I pointed out in an earlier thread that there are between 4 and 5 million grandparent-headed households, not custodial grandparents. Most (about three quarters) of those grandparent-headed households contain custodial parents.
Six years ago my parents would have been included in that 5-4 million. Because my sister, her husband, and their child lived in their household at the time.
Still a paper tiger. Talk about using a worst case scenario to prove a point...
Richard
Yes, Richard you did point it out in an earlier thread which was ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO...
PLUS that 85/15 number men have been using for propoganda purposes for the last TEN YEARS or so now trying to act like they are being discriminated against in family courts when it's actually just the opposite...people (especially gender neutral feminists which have overrun our legal system) bend over backwards to give men custody. It's considered progressive and trendy for this to happen today...
So knock it off with the phoney talking points.
Wow...I really believe you now Polish Knight especially since you pointed out to me that people in Africa are sooooo shocked at the numbers of abandoned babies we have her in the US...
You're really credible with that comment...
BTW, ONLY a man could compare recreational sperm donation with something he calls "recreational' babymaking since there is no such thing...every mother goes through the same bloody painful mess whatever her reason for having a child...
It's the great equalizer amongst women...
NYMOM, I didn't say people in Africa were shocked. I said people "there", where my wife is from, are shocked. She is from Eastern Europe. I realize I didn't make this absolutely clear, but I didn't mention Africa anywhere in that comment while I talked about my wife.
Regarding your dramatics about the pain and "bloody mess" of childbirth, we've already called that bluff. If women don't want kids, then they needn't pay for fertility clinics, sperm banks, and they have options such as tubal litigation and various methods of birth control in addition to abortion and adoption. I love this notion you're trying to perpetuate that women's childbirth pains should be treated similar to a national sacrifice and funded by the taxpayer like we pay for ICBM's but, on the other hand, it's HER BODY and HER CHOICE and the taxpayer shouldn't have a say. If this is so essential to national security and survival, all women should have their mating choices dictated by the government like men who register for selective service. Kapish?
Most women in the west have babies because they want to. Period. I feel sorry for the pain of these women about as much as someone who gets tennis elbow. If a woman doesn't want to have children, that's her personal choice and the world goes on. Deal with it.
Finally, your claim that there are feminists and progressives giving custody to men all over the place as a fad is total conjecture. Richard at least came up with statistics even if they may be a bit old. From anecdotes of people I know, women who have lost custody were usually so negligent that even the courts couldn't ignore it or the couples got shared custody but, gasp, she lost her "child" support and, gasp, had to get a JOB. EEEK! That's what this is all about: You accusing men of being "greedy" and wanting to keep their child-support even as you praise women who exploiting their children as chattel like a farmer who raises sheep.
Yeah, the stats are from 2000 but they're as up-to-date as anything else we have until they collect the new data next year.
And those stats were a lot more current when you started this blog in what, 2004? Beating the drum even then about some phony epidemic of mothers everywhere "losing" custody when the official data showed no such thing.
"BTW, ONLY a man could compare recreational sperm donation with something he calls "recreational' babymaking since there is no such thing..."
Not me. I call it stupid babymaking.
Richard
My point Polish Knight was not whether or not women voluntarily chose to have children but that a man being a recreational sperm donor is totally different from a woman deciding to have a baby (even if you make the case she made an irresponsible decision)...she is STILL going to pay the price that a recreational sperm donor will not...so there is no equivalency between these two groups.
GET IT...
AND Richard, I started the blog in 2004 but I was involved with the issue and communicating with mothers who had lost their children long before then...I had a few other options besides this blog, but decided on the blog for a number of reasons...
Anyway my point is that this blog was the end of a long process, not the first step as you imply...I thought a lot about it and discussed it with others before I decided to start a blog versus other options...
It might not be much but it's a LOT more then mothers had before I started it.
I noticed I'm even listed in that Wikipedia and I've had people contact me to appear on their radio shows, nothing on tv but radio or print media have asked if I wanted to interview...
So far I've turned them down but who knows about the future...
Richard, it's funny the way many people are slaves to their hormones. Yes, men are often fools for sleeping around without a condom or throwing money at women to try to impress them into the sack. (The latter is happening less and less as women now are often throwing themselves at men to get "free" sperm. See this cute article: http://tinyurl.com/nbygmo )
"Getting men to co-operate — even if traditional methods are employed — is not always straightforward, of course. One woman, who did not want to be named, said she found that 21st century metro-man is now frustratingly aware of “shared responsibility” when it comes to sexual encounters, and her attempts at impregnation became farcical as she attempted to find a man who would mate au naturel."
Another recent trend has been for increasingly lonely young career women to buy homes to meet their nesting urge ("everything old is new again!..." http://tinyurl.com/mm5hu
"For those buyers who had dreamed of quick riches, the change in the market has come as a sobering lesson. A little over a year ago, Shabana Qureshi, a 26-year-old engineer, put deposits down on two condos in Arlington. "My friends were making hundreds of thousands of dollars off of properties," Ms. Qureshi said. "I just thought I'll take this risk now and not think about it too much, and once the time comes I can either sell it or use it depending on my needs."
She moved into a one-bedroom condo at Clarendon 1021 with hardwood floors, granite kitchen countertops and a heated pool on the roof. But having taken a pay cut with a new job, she can no longer afford the mortgage and maintenance fees, which are almost $3,000 a month."
In the bad old days, divorce was rare, most middle class women had a home in the suburbs, and a diamond ring on their finger and free meals on dates (not just hook ups for DVD's). The last hope is to get Obama to spend a few billion on freebies for unwed mothers. Yeah, just as soon as he gives it all to the rich white male bankers. Tee hee!
NYMOM, as I said, I don't understand precisely by what you mean by the term "recreational sperm donor". If you mean an anonymous guy the mother never sees again, he doesn't "pay" anything. But if he's not anonymous, and is expected to pay "child" support, then he's paying far more than she did.
I had a girlfriend that used to be a property manager for section 8 housing and she told me it was common for the welfare queens to have more children at specific times to get around the work requirements (if they have a child under 6, they get to stay on longer.) They also referred to the first Monday of the month as "Mothers' Day" because that's when the welfare checks arrived.
The pain of giving birth in leau of earning a living is a pretty sweet deal. In addition, this is something to remember: It's HER CHOICE!!! Just like tennis elbow. "Get it?"
"Richard, Glenn Sacks recently posed a challenge to feminists to actually show a SINGLE CASE where a mother lost her child to a documented abusive father due to claims of Parental Alienation Syndrome and the children were later found harmed by him."
That's a crock!
http://americanchildrenunderground.blogspot.com/2009/09/domestic-violence-by-proxy-clarity-on.html
These kids are now adults, and they have clear memories of what their father did to them after he won custody by using PAS. But, I suppose their lying now, huh?
I will say one thing to Glenn Sacks's challenge: Darren Mack.
I rest my case...
Polish Knight: didn't we already put that lie to rest that women have kids just to get benefits? Or weren't you paying attention again???
Didn't I just post a study that showed in states with higher collection rates for child support the birth rates dropped by 20% for single moms (your definition of 'welfare queens').
Wake up already!!! I feel like in every other post I'm covering the same ground with you that was just covered...how old are you anyway????
NYMOM, as I sit here reading your comments, I'm listening to a report coming out of Illinois about an entire family that was just murdered, and the number one suspect is a former son-in-law who was married to one of the daughters! But hey, it's ALWAYS the wife who is to blame. God!
Post a Comment