Wednesday, January 09, 2013

Women Who Make the World Worse

Well  here's another old post I found while looking for something else.  I had totally forgotten about it but I think readers might find it interesting...


I was recently privileged to listen to Kate O’Beirne being interviewed on C-SPAN’s Booknotes for her recent work Women who make the World Worse and I must admit I was impressed with her. She answered all the questions put to her by the interviewer and was able to make a logical and coherent case for all of her views.

That’s pretty rare today.

She covered pretty much everything with one notable exception (which I will mention later) from single motherhood up to and including women in frontline combat in the military. She’s opposed to both, of course.

One unusual thing I found out about Kate O’Beirne’s background is that she was educated by nuns and feels this was very instrumental in her formative years. It’s interesting, as she mentions, how little attention is ever paid by feminists (or anybody really) to the basic ‘outside of the box thinking’ of nuns. They could really be seen as the first independent women of history, as they chose not to marry and instead dedicate themselves to education and serving their communities, long before this was a career choice for women btw.

Anyway she covered everything pretty much in the same vein as I might have with one exception which of course, is she ignored the whole issue of gender neutral custody and never even mentions that millions of fit, loving mothers that have lost custody of their children, many to never see them again. This is due in large part to these crazy gender-neutralized feminists and mens/fathers rights nuts. As those inherent differences she mentioned between men and women also involve women in their roles as mothers, not just the whole military and sports issues, which are minor blips on the radar to mothers compared to our children.


The current fashion today for mothers to lose custody stems from these crazy gender-neutralized feminist's ideas. It's actually seen as progressive today to give a father custody and ignore the mother/child bond. Even infants are at risk here of never having any contact with their mothers again, due to these feminazis social engineering of the court system. Kate O'Beirne admits the truth in this with some of her strongest arguments, even citing how various groups of gender-neutralized feminists heading professional and educational organizations have pathologized the mother/child bond. These unprincipled. gender-neutralized monsters have actually diagnosed a mother's attachment with her child as a sign of mental illness. Yet, she doesn't follow her own logical argument through to the most obvious conclusion and turns around and blames feminists for custody wars. When it should be obvious that it is not feminists at all who are encouraging these custody wars, as they have nothing to gain by mothers keeping custody of their children just the opposite from their point of view. Instead, it is ordinary women trying to keep custody of their own kids who are fighting these battles.

Mothers, properly, wish their children to be spending most of their lives with them, not involved in all kinds of nutty custody-sharing arrangements just to ensure fathers don’t have to pay too much child support. Feminists would LOVE for mothers just to turn their backs on their kids and walk away for some career. It’s ordinary mothers who aren't playing the game according to feminists' and fathers rights nuts' demented playbook.

So in this one area, I found Kate O’Beirne conclusions to be lacking...

Last point.

She does correctly identify men as the culprit behind the current explosion of single mothers. Men’s fixation on casual sex with many women, which was enabled by feminism, places many women today at an extreme disadvantage. As women appear to be still using the age-old strategy of sex as a way to build a relationship, with a pregnancy expected to close the deal via a marriage proposal. Unfortunately it’s not working that way anymore and the result is millions of women being left high and dry with a pregnancy that does not result in a marriage. Thus either an abortion or single motherhood follows.

Feminism appears to have lost women all their bargaining power in our society vis-à-vis male/female relationships. By convincing many young women that casual sex will ‘empower’ them, it has led to women who don’t buy into the ‘casual sex as empowerment’ party line to be operating from a strategic disadvantage on the dating scene. We even see this in the current proliferation of teenage girls giving oral sex to boys in school. These girls are obviously attempting to date boys in a climate where to refuse to have sex probably means a lot of Friday nights at home ALONE watching tv. This is the compromise they have come up with obviously, not having sex but some lesser version of it.

However, Kate O’Beirne seems to miss the point that this is not in the power of women, by ourselves, to change this situation so easily. For instance, her glib answer to what a disempowered single mother ought to do, for instance, “find a husband” doesn’t seem to realistically address the reality for most young women today who wish to be married and have families. Unfortunately men have changed their behavior, not women, so men are the ones who need to take the initiative in this area. Thus, she sidestepped this important social change that has left women scrambling along behind to pick up the pieces broken by the Hugh Hefnerization of our society.

It’s somewhat arrogant to assume that women can totally change this situation by themselves with no sincere wish to change it by the men who are advantaged by it. As I have often said, now that this genie is out of the bottle, most men would be very adverse to putting the cork back in and foregoing the casual sex on demand that is so common today. Anyway, I don't see it just happening because some group of women would like it to, that's for sure.

I mean there is a certain level of attention that a young girl receives for a good number of years as she acts out around men like a tramp or skank as they call it today. AND for many girls this appears to be enough. Thus, ordinary women have this as their competition as they continue trying to build a stable relationship during the years when young men appear more interested in casual sex, then making a serious commitment. BTW, I'm not talking about the competition as being prostitutes. Heck, prostitutes hate these skanks as much as ordinary women do, since they haven't been able to raise their prices since the 70s as so many of these skanks are giving it away for free over the last few decades.

So I think Kate O'Beirne is a little more optimistic then is warranted on the power of women to just turn this around now.

Other than this misreading of the casual sex business and the total ignoring of the custody issue for mothers, however, the interview was good, very thought-provoking. Thus, I look forward to more writing from Kate O'Beirne.
posted by NYMOM | Sunday, February 05, 2006
Blogger Sir Jessy of Anti said...
"Mothers, properly, wish their children to be spending most of their lives with them, not involved in all kinds of nutty custody-sharing arrangements just to ensure fathers don’t have to pay too much child support"

So the only reason fathers want custody is so they can avoid CS? You really have a demented opinion of men Maggie.
Blogger NYMOM said...
As you have a demented opinion of women...
Anonymous ginmar said...
NyMOM you are about as wrong as you can be about why fathers get custody. Fathers get custody because they have more money, more privilege, and face a court system made up of men.

O'Beirne herself uses the same crap all these feminist bashers use: statistics, anecdotes, biased sources and so forth. Frankly, if you're this off base, I'd rather you stop commenting on my blog.
Blogger NYMOM said...
Well I wasn't going to comment for long.

As you know I'm not a feminist and we disagree on just about everything anyway...

I just commented due to the ONE issue we agreed on...but I'm fine with not going back...

However to your point of the court system being made up of men and thinking that's why so many mothers lose custody...on that issue you are mistaken. The court system is mostly made up of men at the upper levels, but the officers of the courts: lawyers, law guardians, evaluators, etc., many of THEM are women...and Judges make their ruling 90% of the time mirroring an Evaluator's recommendations, as few Judges have the time to research a custody case themselves.

AND even when we do get a female Judge, they are MORE vicious to mothers then a man could ever be...Look at that Arlene Goldberg with the Bridget Marks case, even OJ Simpson in California got custody of his kids from a female Judge...


I too initially wanted to believe that men were the source of these unfair custody rulings. Actually, I did believe it for a long time; until I actually got involved with the issue and spoke to many non-custodial mothers and guess what, it's not the fault of men that mothers lose's frequently the fault of other women.

Many of these mothers became non-custodial due to a vicious feminist Evaluator or GAL handing in a recommendation to a Judge who them ruled against them based upon it...


I didn't want to believe it either as it was soooo much easier for me to just blame men...

Easy, but not correct.

But I won't post on your blog again...

Good luck in your life anyway.

Friday, January 04, 2013

Shortcuts lead to a messy outcome in these situations

I don't see this as evidence of any bias against lesbians but just the usual hunt for someone to pay child support when a parent attempts to collect benefits for their children from the state...

The only way to protect yourself and your children in these situations is to use a licensed physician who provides the anonymous donor sperm from a sperm bank.

Now these women have put their children in a bad situation as well, since this man or any of his family members, grandparents, sister, etc.,  can now turn right around and file a custody case against them.

You cannot take short cuts with these issues as you leave both yourself and your children open to years of litigation and stress in a long drawn-out  custody war...

Mother lied about knowing sperm donor, agency says in demanding donor pay
Published January 03, 2013

Days after a sperm donor in Kansas was ordered to pay child support for the baby he helped a lesbian couple conceive, the state agency seeking payments says one of the women may have deceived the department.

In a court filing Wednesday, the Kansas Department for Children and Families questioned the validity of the sperm donor contract between William Marotta and the couple, Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer.

Marotta's lawyer dismissed the state's claims, calling the filing "offensive."

According to The Topeka Capital-Journal documents show Schreiner did not indicate she knew the name or any other information about the sperm donor in her application for child support.

William Marotta told earlier this week he might never have agreed to provide sperm to the couple had he known the legal morass that awaited him after responding to the women’s Craigslist ad for a donor in March 2009, and he suggested he might be a victim of bias against same-sex parenting.

“I have a hunch part of the reason this is going this way is because of people’s feelings toward same-sex couples,” Marotta told

The 46-year-old machinist said he received notice in late October that he was being targeted by state officials to pay child support after the couple -- who parted ways in 2010 but still co-parent their eight children ranging in age from 3 months to 25 years -- were ordered by DCF officials to provide the sperm donor’s name. State officials argued that if the women did not identify the donor, the agency would deny health benefits due to withheld information.

The state seeks to have Marotta named the child's father so he can be held accountable for a $6,000 payment the state had provided in public assistance, as well as future child support payments.

The state agency claims it has several conflicting donor contracts on file -- including a copy that doesn't have dates or signatures. The contract "may be invalid on its face," the filing suggests.

But Benoit Swinnen, an attorney for Marotta, said to The Tokepa Capital-Journal on Thursday, "the insinuation is offensive, and we are responding vigorously to that. We stand by our story."

Swinnen said his client had never had a personal relationship with the couple.

The court filing argues the sperm donor contract overlooks a "well-established law in this state that a person cannot contract away his or her obligations to support their child," adding that the right for support doesn't belong to the parents, but rather to the child. And only when semen is provided to a licensed physician does a donor have protection from a paternity test.

Schreiner answered a question about who the father is with "no idea -- sperm donor" on an application for child support dated Jan. 5, 2012, The Topeka Capital-Journal notes

The filing called the applications "very troubling because [Schreiner] clearly deceived DCF on her first application. She knew the name of the respondent because of the purported 'sperm donor contract.'" Adding that it is "implausible to think" Marotta didn't know a licensed physician wasn't performing the procedure when he took the sperm to the couple's house.

Bauer, 40, and Schreiner, 34, had been together for eight years and previously adopted other children when Marotta responded to their ad and later provided sperm used to artificially inseminate Schreiner.

Marotta's attorney said the DCF’s filing failed to address what he identified as gaps in its original petition case -- asking for DNA testing.

A hearing on the matter is expected to be held next week.

Fox News' Joshua Rhett Miller and the Associated Press contributed to this report.