I wanted to say something about the current campaigns going on to select the candidates who will be running for President. There is a lot of hand-wringing going on in certain circles because what everyone assumed would be a sure win for Hillary Clinton now doesn’t look so sure.
Well I said it before and I’ll say it again, I don’t see this as such a big loss for mothers.
First, I know a number of mothers who wrote to Hillary Clinton when they had their children stolen from them by men who were trying to work the system and get out of paying child support or get some other financial benefit by becoming the legal custodial parent. Sadly, she never saw fit to even respond to them.
Second, I’ve never known Hillary Clinton to make a comment about the issues of fit mothers losing custody of their children. She’s ignored the issue for years like most feminists. Thus, she appears to fully support the gender-neutral policies of our family courts, which policies have cause millions of mothers to lose their children.
BTW, we’re not talking about abuse here. So nobody come up with this whole list of women shelters feminists have set up or policies helping abused women they helped establish, that’s a small percentage of the total. I’m happy feminists did it, thanks a million, but what about the millions of ordinary woman out there who are being held as virtual hostages through men manipulating the family court system?
More importantly, what about these crazy gender neutralized feminists judges they’ve helped unleash upon unsuspecting mothers? Like that venomous Judy Sheindlin of the “Judge Judy” TV show. Now I know she’s only a TV court judge, but the most horrifying thing I keep thinking everytime I see her going off on some unsuspecting non-custodial mother in her courtroom show is that this woman was a real family court judge in New York City for many years. Very similar to the female judge in the Bridget Marks case, that Arlene Goldberg and I can mention dozens more female judges with the exact same profile; all trying to build their gender-neutral “street creds” by going off on some poor mother who doesn’t know what hit her.
The bottom line is that most of these gender-neutralized feminists who we, ordinary women help get into power have the same unfortunate habit of suddenly going ‘gender neutral’ on us as soon as they get in a position where they can finally do women some good.
So I can practically guarantee that Hillary Clinton will do absolutely NOTHING of significance to help mothers once in office. Actually, Bill Clinton, her husband, when he was president passed a federal mandate that obligated all federal programs from Women, Infants, Children (WIC) to Section 8 housing vouchers to become aggressively gender neutral and come up with numbers showing exact 50/50 representation of men and women in every single program. Women are included in WIC, obviously, since they actually bear children and need extra nutrition before, during and after pregnancy to recover, as it is a strain on the body. Not to mention women might be breast feeding after birth. But can someone tell me ONE PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT OR STRAIN a man goes through before, during or after a woman gets pregnant that would cause a man to be entitled to extra food at taxpayer’s expense????
There isn’t one I can think of offhand.
This mandate was clearly another of the politically correct attempts to show everyone how gender-neutral Bill Clinton’s administration would be and Hillary Clinton went right along with it. Actually let’s be honest, she probably put Bill Clinton up to it. God only knows how many mothers lost their children to some lazy loafer looking to get free food and housing by being named custodial parent of some poor kid, who had the misfortune to be born during the Clinton years.
Do we really need a return to that?
Now, what will happen vis-à-vis these issues if she doesn’t get elected President? Probably nothing. Things will continue on just as they have been for the last decade or so, ever since the laws were changed making it profitable to gain custody of children. That’s won’t change under a man, but nothing would have changed under Hillary Clinton either. Actually things could get a lot worse under her then they are right now, far worse.
For instance, I could even see another Clinton presidency changing the way maternity leave is allocated following the reasoning of that, Linda Hirshman, who thinks woman ‘owe’ some kind of moral obligation to feminism and wants all mothers to rush right back to the work place after giving birth, so as not to squander the ‘legacy’ feminists supposedly left us.
Remember maternity leave, right now, is handled as a medical leave. So clearly a child’s mother is the one entitled to take it for three or six months depending upon the company’s insurance policy. Well what’s to stop a gender neutralized feminist in power who thinks women ‘owe’ feminists like her something, from making ‘maternity’ leave gender neutral? What if these crazy gender-neutralized feminists decided to move it out of the realm of insurance in order to force more women into remaining at work? They could even start penalizing men financially who didn’t take the leave. Then what? Some European countries are doing this right now.
Our future could include women being forced into court before our babies are even born, so a Judge can rule on who was legally entitled to ‘maternity’ leave and it could easily be some one-night-stand recreational sperm donor looking for a paid vacation. You, as the child’s mother, could be forced back to work. It would leave some layabout at home with your infant, while you are forced into paying him child support to be there. He’d probably be watching superbowl reruns all day and tossing your kid a stale potato chip every now and then, so he doesn’t have to move from the couch too often.
Remember, these policies are rarely restricted to just married men. They eventually include ALL MEN, from that great guy you’ve been married to for ten years to the one-night stand you picked up during Spring break (if you had a child from that relationship).
There is no limit on these sorts of policies.
So, back to my original premise, we gain NOTHING if Hillary Clinton gets in, actually we stand to lose. So I’ll shed no tears for her if she doesn’t get the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton and her ilk are just reaping what they’ve sown.