Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Another interesting abduction case...

I found this story interesting especially since it highlights how child abduction is such a fast growing crime.

Also little warning to mothers of infants: if a mother doesn’t have legal custody of her children, one of these so-called parental abductions can result in a custody switch as the police do not always follow up if the abductor is a father, even a recreational sperm donor w/o his name on the child’s birth certificate. If he manages to get his name on the certificate in this interim period, he can race down to the courthouse with it and get himself named as the custodial parent.

One of the stats the FBI had released was that mothers keep their kids longer when they are abducted and I think the reason this happens is that men manipulate the system better and wind up becoming the custodial parent...so it's wiped off the record as an abduction...

Also once again we find some woman helping this jerk, his mother. Thank god she got jail time. Often these idiots get away with it…Imagine what kind of a life these girls would have had as they entered puberty living in a trailor in a place like Nicaragua. It remains me of these terrible people who are always abducting young girls to countries in the middle east. PS a horror!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/30/delaware.family.abductions/index.html

The untold tale of family abductions: 3 girls missing, an international hunt

By Stephanie Chen, CNN
December 9, 2009

Christine Belford was reunited with her three daughters, who were kidnapped by their father for 19 months.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• More than 200,000 incidents of family abductions occur in the U.S. each year
• Christine Belford's three daughters were kidnapped by their father in 2007
• Authorities launched a search that spanned at least four countries and several states
• The children were found in Nicaragua, living in a trailer with their father and grandmother

RELATED TOPICS
• Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Missing Children
• National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
• Delaware

(CNN) -- Christine Belford agreed to let her ex-husband take their three daughters to Disney World for a two-week vacation. In August 2007, the Delaware mother kissed her little blond girls goodbye.

Those two weeks were unsettling for Belford, then 34. The couple went through a bitter divorce in 2006 which resulted in joint custody of the children. Belford said when the girls were with their dad, they were always difficult to reach.

Two days into the trip, Belford connected by cell phone with her oldest daughter, Laura, then 5. Already homesick, chubby-faced Laura cried as her father checked them into a hotel room.

"I want to come home," Laura pleaded with her mother.

But Laura and her sisters wouldn't return to their Delaware home for 19 months.

Their father, David Matusiewicz, pleaded guilty to international parental kidnapping and bank fraud charges in September. He faces up to 30 years in prison and is scheduled to be sentenced on Thursday. CNN attempted to reach Matusiewichz in jail through his attorney, Heriberto "Eddie" Medrano, in Houston, Texas, but Medrano did not return the calls.

Kidnapping victims like Laura and her sisters -- Leigh, then 4, and Karen, then 2 -- often don't make national headlines the way victims of alleged abductions by strangers do, such as Jaycee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart. But each year, most child abductions are perpetrated by someone the victim knows.

The U.S. Department of Justice reports more than 200,000 children are victims of family abductions in the United States each year. Of that figure, about 56,500 cases are reported to local law enforcement authorities and require investigation, studies show. In comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reports an average of 115 stranger abductions a year.

Family abductions commonly involve children under 6, too young to comprehend that a crime is occurring, studies show.

Over the last few decades, high divorce rates have led to custody disputes and to kidnappings, experts say. Yet the public still perceives family abductions as a less serious crime because the victims are with a family member who is less likely to hurt them.

"The view is that this is not really a criminal problem," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. "[The view is] this is a civil problem and lawyers need to work it out."

There are 1,600 unsolved family abduction cases involving children who have been missing for more than six months, he said.

A puzzling escape

In 15 years on the police force, Cpl. Jeff Shriner of the New Castle, Delaware, Police Department said he found Matusiewicz's abduction of his children to be the most bizarre missing person case he'd encountered.

Normally, the perpetrator in a family abduction is located within hours or days. Sometimes, abductions occur because the parent is angry, Shriner said, but they usually change their minds within a few days.

But Matusiewicz "was a needle in a haystack and that needle was buried very deep," said Shriner, who was assigned as the lead detective on the case.

Shriner quickly determined the Disney World vacation never happened.
Sales records showed Matusiewicz's mother, Lenore, had purchased a 33-foot Winnebago mobile home weeks before the disappearance, according to court records. She also was missing.

That month, Matusiewicz had sold his optometry business to a partner, police said. He had also committed mortgage fraud by forging his wife's signature on a $249,000 loan from a bank in Delaware, police said.

The couple had met in 1993 when Belford worked as a receptionist at an eye doctor's office in Delaware. Matusiewicz worked as an optometrist there. They were married in October 2001.

The couple's union became problematic in 2003 when his parents moved in, Belford said. Matusiewicz was a loving father to his girls, but during the breakup, she said, the couple had problems.

Some parents say they take their children away to protect them from an abusive or unfit parent, said Liss Hart-Haviv, founding executive director of Take Root, a national organization that works with victims of family abduction. In other instances, Hart-Haviv said, parents may take children out of spite.

"The critical thing to remember," she said, "is there's not one face to family abduction. It's a multifaceted issue."

Abduction goes abroad

In most family abduction cases, studies show victims often remain within the country. But circumstances are changing. Easier access to foreign countries and a growing number of intercontinental marriages have made international hideouts more common, missing children experts said.

In October, Japanese authorities released an American man, Christopher Savoie, who was jailed for allegedly trying to take back his children from his estranged wife. His wife, Noriko Savoie, had fled with the children to Japan in August, authorities say. Japanese officials said the couple's U.S.-recognized divorce did not apply in Japan. Christopher Savoie, who was not charged, returned to the U.S. The children remained with their mother in Japan.

A multilateral treaty known as the Hague Convention was ratified in 1980. It provides member countries with rules on returning abducted children under the age of 16. Today, more than 80 countries have signed the treaty. But with countries that haven't, like Japan, determining what happens to the children is murky.

In Belford's case, local and federal agencies initially launched a search for the girls. They began in New Jersey, where Matusiewicz was raised. Then they combed through dozens of leads in Virginia and West Virginia. A tip led them to become suspicious the girls might be in Texas or Mexico.

By November 2007, authorities shifted their attention to Central America. They hunted for Matusiewicz in Panama and Costa Rica over the next year. Locating him was tricky, authorities say, because he relied on cash transactions and limited phone calls with his family in the United States.

"He was very smart and did a lot of things before leaving and during the time he was gone to cover his tracks," said Rick Long, chief deputy U.S. Marshal in Delaware, who helped with the search efforts.

It wasn't until March 2009 that a lead, on which authorities declined to elaborate, brought law enforcement officers to a town about 40 miles outside of the Managua, Nicaragua.

There, at the end of a 19-month search, authorities discovered the girls inside a messy Winnebago trailer, overfilled with items from their Delaware home, said a U.S. Marshal who arrived on the scene. Matusiewicz had less than $100.

Reunited at last

Christine Belford took the first flight she could to Nicaragua. Her girls were healthy, though disheveled. The eldest, Laura, now 7, told her mother about sleeping on the beach in Costa Rica. The once-plump girl had become thin. Her autistic daughter, Leigh, now 6, hadn't received treatment. When Leigh smiled, Belford noticed her teeth had rotted.

The most changed child was Karen, who left at age 2. She had transformed from a baby into a 4-year-old who could speak and run alongside her sisters.

Family abductions are less likely to result in death or sexual abuse than stranger abductions, but psychologists warn that the experience can still greatly impact a child's development. In three decades counseling family abduction victims, clinical psychologist Linda Gunsberg has seen children with trust, identity and attachment issues. The deceit and the abrupt changes in living conditions can cause a child to be confused, anxious and depressed.

"The younger girls say they miss Daddy," said Belford, now 37. "I tell them he's in time out right now." Laura, the oldest, is doing well in the second grade, but she continues to experience nightmares. During the time she was abducted, she was told her mother was dead, Belford said.

"She's in her angry phase," Belford said. "I tell her it's OK to love them and miss them because they are still your dad and grandma."

In September, the grandmother, Lenore Matusiewicz, 64, was sentenced to 1½ years in prison for her role in the abduction. She is being held in Baylor Women's Correctional Institution in Delaware.

"She is very sorry for her choice," said her attorney, Demetrio Duarte Jr., based at a Texas firm. "In life, it's not all black and all white. To be severed from mom wasn't the right thing to do. To be severed from grandma isn't the right thing to do. It's just tragic.

225 comments:

1 – 200 of 225   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

"men manipulate the system better and wind up becoming the custodial parent...so it's wiped off the record as an abduction..."

It's not "iped off the record." Custodial parents are often abductors. This guy was one, Noriko Savoie was another.

Richard

NYMOM said...

Didn't I clearly state that this situation was applicable to "infants" ONLY...Sometimes single mothers might not think it necessary to immediately establish custody since they are the only parent named on the birth certificate, but this is not always the case.

Many infants are abducted by fathers and held to manipulate custody...police don't even follow through on investigating these abductions of infants...or any young child really not in any court-ordered custody...

It's only considered an abduction if you have already established custody.

Read before commenting please, so you know what's going on...

NYMOM said...

I have numerous comments on this site from single mothers who lost custody of their children in that manner. With the length of time both of you have been on this site I'm sure you have seen many of them.

NYMOM said...

Both of you were given many warnings. I told you numerous times this was my site dedicated to mothers...

Thus, going forward any other comments either one of you post that I consider argumentative or disrespectful will be removed.

virago said...

NYMOM, this guy clearly abducted his kids. Noriko Savoie is a different case entirely. I went over this case in detail on that other post. Neither PK or Richard-especially Richard-said anything to refute it. For one thing, Christopher Savoie was an abusive asshole, and I made that clear. Christopher Savoie was also A JAPANESE CITIZEN. He gave up his U.S. citizenship when he became a JAPANESE CITIZEN because Japan DOESN'T RECOGNIZE DUAL CITIZENSHIP. He was trying to work the system in both countries so he could be with ANOTHER WOMAN. Christopher Savoie was seperated from Noriko Savoie for FOUR YEARS while he lived in Japan. Clearly, Noriko wasn't doing anything to keep him from seeing the kids during this time. OTOH, his SECOND WIFE, Amy Savoie was not free to live the U. S. with her kids, and Christopher Savoie rigged this whole American divorce thing so HE COULD BE WITH AMY. His kids spent THEIR ENTIRE LIVES in Japan. Uprooting both his kids and Noriko FROM THEIR NATIVE COUNTRY just so he could be with Amy was the height of selfishness. A woman who takes her kids and flees an abusive situation is not the same as some guy abducting his kids to get back at his ex-wife. That's what is really behind most of these father abductions. I'm with you NYMOM. A MOTHER DOESN'T ABDUCT HER OWN KIDS. As for Christopher Savoie, his case is where it belongs-IN JAPAN.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, I respect your right to remove comments FOR ANY REASON.

That said, I don't think most of my comments were disrespectful or off topic. I merely am unsure how some of your conclusions are supported by the article you are referring to. You can view it as disrespecful but also as a challenge to be met. I don't view challenges as argumentative, in a negative way.

Anonymous said...

Now what did I say that was so "disrespectful" that you would go back to erasing comments?

This is a simple matter of LAW.

R.

Anonymous said...

BTW, I haven't read your whole blog and I haven't seen ANY comments from anybody saying they lost custody without any notice or hearing. I've only seen you saying that they did.

R.

NYMOM said...

Well both of you have been disrespectful and off-topic for months now and I think I've given you numerous chances and warnings. Now this is my blog so what I say goes and what I'm telling you both is you are treading on thin ice and about to get permanently deleted if you continue...

Richard we've had this discussion numerous times so let me say this for the record for the last time: I don't give a damn about what the laws SAIDS.

Okay.

I have seen and heard too many women with stories of how men have worked the system and managed to negate the intent as well as the letter of the law. So don't bother telling me about the LAW...

Okay.

Additionally, I don't care if you believe me or not regarding this situation or if you wish to review five years of my posts to find the numerous comments on here from women who have lost their children through the method I just described. Do so if you wish.

However, this topic is closed as far as you and Polish Knight are concerned since any other comments you post arguing with me about this are going to be erased.

Get it.

If you don't like it start your own blogs.

NYMOM said...

"BTW, I haven't read your whole blog and I haven't seen ANY comments from anybody saying they lost custody without any notice or hearing. I've only seen you saying that they did."

R.

So what are you implying Richard then? That I'm making the whole thing up and you don't think that's disrespectful???

NYMOM said...

Virago: I remember that name and those comments you posted now. I didn't make the connection earlier.

But this is typical with the media btw regarding these situations. To always try to equate the many manipulative tricks men pull (using our courts) and then mention a women in the story to try to pull the wool over our eyes.

But you're right: the two stories are completely different.

Also did you notice how positive the spin was put on that abduction by the end of that story. There are women who have done far less then that character and his mother and NEVER been able to see their children again.

Actually, I can see that man using his mother all over again to get access to those kids. Maybe she'll even be bringing them to visit him in jail...

Worse case scenario he'll eventually morph into another Darren Mack. Mack had a lot of help from his mother, his second wife (before he married and eventually murdered her) and a supposedly 'feminist' attorney...

This guy has the potential to become another Mack and try one of these 'kills all three kids out of spite' situations that men love to terrorized women with...and then they'll all be sitting around holding him up as some kind of fathers rights martyr who did it out of frustration with a discriminatory system.

Bull!!!

11:05 PM

NYMOM said...

I don't remember if any of you remember a website called singlemomz...it was taken over my a man and his wife eventually but there used to be a non-custodial mother who either ran it or was a moderator on it. Anyway, I used to have so many arguments with that woman. Looking back I regret it now but I was relatively new to this situation then.

Anyway, one of the things she would always be telling these young single moms who posted there looking for advice was to go down to court to file legal papers immediately after their child was born. I used to argue with her all the time and say "why in the hell do you keeping sending these women down to court"?

On the one hand you are agreeing with me that the courts have become politically correct cesspools where it's now considered hip to give fathers custody. But on the other hand, you are rushing the mothers of infants down there to the potential loss of their child.

Then I started getting emails from young women who had loss their children by not having the proper paperwork filed...one woman's child was abducted by the alleged father (when he was home on leave). His name wasn't even on the birth certificate btw. They were not married and he was deployed at the time of the birth.

Anyway, he supposedly took the baby to visit his sister one day and disappeared for weeks with the child. The mother told me she called the local police, the FBI and even that Missing Children's group (I forget the name) and they wouldn't even file a report for her.

Fortunately this idiot finally returned the child as he had to go back to duty, but it was a lesson learned for her (and me). Actually it is not even considered an abduction if you do NOT have the legal paperwork in place establishing yourself as the custodial parent (even for single mothers)...

That business of single mothers having custody is complete bull.

It's just a legal fiction in the event the mother had to apply for a social security card for the baby, sign medical forms or register them in school at some point. But it is not really 'custody' in the way we think of it as custody...it's more of an administrative form of custody to facilitate these sorts of legal situations. So, at any time, any time, even years after the birth of your child and no contact whatsoever, a recreational sperm donor can come out of the blue and file paperwork to begin a custodial proceeding to take your child. Anytime...

All states require a substantial change in circumstances in the custodial parent's household to have taken place in order to even file; BUT, that is ONLY if you have established legal custody for yourself to begin with...Otherwise a single mother is always open to the possibility of an abduction of her child.

So that's a situation single mothers need to be made aware of and Richard and Polish Knight remember your probationary status...so watch your step here...This is not an argument or discussion about if this happens. It does and that's what this blog is about. Letting mothers know it does so they can prepare themselves...

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, I just said above that it's your blog and you have the right to remove comments for ANY reason. I have also had Glenn Sacks removed some of my comments from his blog. He even put me on probationary status. Literally. He required nearly all of my comments to be approved by him personally.

I thought it was nice because a lot of the times, he would email me back with thoughtful remarks on my comments despite him not rejecting a comment from me for about a year now.

I'll even go this far, NYMOM: if you don't want me here, I'll leave. I would implore you, though, to consider that a blog is made interesting by it's (respectful) dissenters.

Finally, it's ironic that V categorizes women such as my wife as submissive when the reality is that she regularly disagrees with me. Your goal of single mothers "preparing" themselves against men coming for their children sounds an awful lot like Ted Kaczinski.

Anonymous said...

NY said: "That I'm making the whole thing up and you don't think that's disrespectful???"

Not really. But you've been known to make claims that sounded extreme where further investigation revealed that you evidently misinterpreted a key figure or concept. Grandparent-headed households vs. custodial grandparents is the example that immediately comes to mind.

But hey, I'll scram too if you want. Preachitsister preachitsister preachitsister...

Richard

Anonymous said...

Oh and V, about PK and I not refuting your rant about Savoie, you seem to have the impression that a silence on our part indicates some kind of agreement or concession.

There are some issues here that interest me, and many more that do not. That determines whether I comment or not.

I'm not real interested in the Savoies or the Sheffields either and if I were, I still would not care to wade through one of your page-long rants about the details of the case and your amateur analysis of each of the idiots involved. It would be easier to buy a tabloid at the QT.

I wasn't interested in your house, either, though I offer my belated congratulations.

R.

PolishKnight said...

R, before we're asked to go, I can't help but add that our "probationary status" is an interesting metaphor for how V and NYMOM seem to view fathers in general.

Provided we bring home the bacon, and do at least 1/2 of housekeeping, then we might be allowed to hold the child from time to time, under supervision of course.

But if we get uppity and grow a pair, then we're shown the door. Well, not entirely, they might need us to still foot the bills or compensate the taxpayer if they go on welfare.

After all, we're power hungry, greedy, and don't share...

NYMOM said...

"Your goal of single mothers "preparing" themselves against men coming for their children sounds an awful lot like Ted Kaczinski."

AND you wonder why I think you and Richard are disrespectful. This comment was definitely a low blow on your part.

Ted Kaczinski was mentally ill and operated with no basis in reality...

The things I talk about here are very real although most people don't like to face them. It reminds me of a non-custodial mother telling me she felt like a burn victim. Everybody she told that she was a non-custodial mother wouldn't look into her face anymore...the way you turn away from looking at a severely burned and disfigured person.

Somehow the things I say are very threatening to people, so most turn away.

Some like you and Richard try to deny the reality by mocking the messenger...

What I'd like to have happen is to get a committed group of people to admit these things do go on and then brainstorm some ways to change the current situation...

NYMOM said...

Richard: I was not off-point about grandparent custody, you were. You just refuse to admit it and I got tired of arguing about it.

AND now you are starting the same thing again with this business about single mothers having automatic custody. It's simply not true and many father's right sites can attest to this. Actually the first thing they'll tell an unmarried father of a newborn to do is get the birth certificate with his name on it and go down to the court to file for custody immediately...

BUT I don't want to go into a long argument with you about this...

You've been involved in this situation through the internet ONLY and somehow you think it makes you an expert on all aspects of it.

NYMOM said...

"R, before we're asked to go, I can't help but add that our "probationary status" is an interesting metaphor for how V and NYMOM seem to view fathers in general."

Yes, it's an interesting metaphor when I do it; but, when Glenn Sacks does the same thing he get respectful acknowledgement...

How about admitting it takes quite a bit of effort to have a blog and it's an aggravation to say the least to have someone consistently trashing everything you say on it...

I have an idea why don't you or Richard actually do a blog of your own and then I'll comment on it...see how you like it when someone trashes all your efforts week after week...

Okay, how's that for a plan?

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, Glennsacks applies his rules equally, against friend and foe alike, and has them published clearly on his site. You complain about a double standard for you and Glenn yet you don't call out V for her juvenile taunts.

Regarding Ted Kaczinski. I regretted using that example the moment I posted it because I knew how touchy things are at this time here, but now that it's out there, let's go for it.

Kaczinski's methods and lifestyle was crazy, BUT his beliefs are very close to the green environmental movement that regards uncontrolled technology as destroying the planet and humanity. Sheryl Crow wants to limit our toilet paper use to 2 squares at a time. "Can you spare a square?"

Women still get custody the vast majority of the time unless they "default" and I was comparing that concern on your part to TK's paranoia. As I said, I regretted it the moment I wrote it. Sorry.

Finally, regarding your point about NCP mothers comparing themselves to burn victims. Now don't you think that is rather extreme and, in addition, selfish? It makes the motherhood sound more like a status symbol than a personal duty.

Anonymous said...

Re grandparent-headed households, I don't know why this is such a problem for you but all I can say is go back to AARP and reread your own material. And when you find a reference to "4 million CUSTODIAL grandparents" please do quote it.

Does it make sense to YOU for there to be four or five million "custodial GPs" when there are only a little over two million NC mothers?

Or does it make more sense to accept that AARP's "grandparent-headed households" usually contain custodial parents?

"Actually the first thing they'll tell an unmarried father of a newborn to do is get the birth certificate with his name on it and go down to the court to file for custody immediately..."

Under modern circumstances it makes perfect sense for a man to immediately go to the courthouse and file first for paternity, which is necessary to establish before anything else, and then for some form of custody.

He needs clearly-spelled visitation rights that are not merely a matter of the mother's whim (at least technically), and SOME assurance that she will not move the child too far away nor give it away to someone else against his objection.

But in all honesty, I've never seen FRA sites urging men to "take children away" from mothers. They just about universally advise them to seek joint custody.

Woman-firsters, on the other hand, well, we know what they demand.

R.

virago said...

NYMOM, did you ever see the movie, "The Duchess"? It's a true story set in the 18th century. Lady Georgiana Spencer married the Duke of Devonshire in an arranged marriage when she was 17. From the beginning, the Duke was having affairs with women from all classes. Georgiana didn't like this, but she couldn't do anything about it. Divorce wasn't an option except because only men could divorce their wives for adultery. One day, the Duke brought his illegitimate daughter into his house and told Georgiana that she had to raise her because the real mother died. Georgiana wasn't happy about this, but there wasn't anything she could do because she didn't have a choice. However, she eventually learned to love this child like she was her own. In the meantime, Georgiana gave birth to two healthy daughters, but suffered infertility, miscarriages, and stillborns in between. Of course, the Duke wasn't happy because he needed a son and heir. Georgiana went to Bath England to seek treatment for her "infertility", and she became friends with Lady Elizabeth. Elizabeth was a divorced woman who wasn't allowed to see her 3 sons by her ex-husband. In those days, MEN ALWAYS GOT CUSTODY. Georgiana felt sorry for Elizabeth, and she invited her back to the ducal estate as a guest. It wasn't long before Georgiana learned that the Duke was having an affair with Elizabeth. She ignored all his other affairs, but she was really upset because Elizabeth was her friend. OTOH, the Duke seduced Elizabeth by promising to use his power, wealth, and privilege to help her gain access to her children. He openly continued his affair with Elizabeth and forced both women to live under the same roof. Georgiana was upset and refused to sleep with the Duke aftreards. Of course, the Duke didn't have a male heir, and he raped Georgiana. The result-a male heir. After this, Georgiana had an affair with a commoner named Charles Grey. She fell in love with him and planned to leave the Duke for Charles. The Duke told Georgiana she "would never see her children again" if she continued the affair with Charles. Because she couldn't bear to give up her children, Georgiana broke off the affair with Charles Grey. Unfortunately, Georgiana was pregnant from Charles, and the Duke forced her to go into seclusion in France until the baby was born. The Duke forced Georgiana to give up her illegitimate daughter "Eliza" to Charles Grey's family. Eliza was raised by Charles' parents, and she thought Charles was her older "brother". Georgiana was allowed to visit Eliza on occasion, but Eliza never knew who Georgiana was until after Georgiana died when Eliza was a teenager. Being illegitimate, Eliza wasn't treated well by the Grey family. She wrote in her diary that the only one who was nice to her was that "nice duchess" who came to visit her. Eliza named her oldest daughter "Georgiana". The movie is somewhat different from the biography in some respects, but this is pretty much what happened. Anyway, the reason I brought this up is because I think this movie is a perfect illustration of what happened to women when it came to custody of their children and divorce. These circumstances that Georgiana lived under were the norm for women up until the 20th century. I have to laugh when FRAs complain that men have lost custody of their kids for the last few decades. So what! Most children still see their fathers unless dad doesn't want to see them. If dad has trouble visiting his kids, there's a good chance it's because of something HE DID. Yet, these guys still manage to get custody when they want it. Men have been wrongfully depriving women of custody for centuries in one form or another. And they still do it today. I really don't feel sorry for them.

virago said...

OH, something else interesting-Lady Georgiana was a great aunt of Princess Di and she was a great grandmother of Sarah Ferguson-The Duchess of York-through her illegitimate daughter Eliza. Charles Grey went on to become a prime minister of England. Also, Georgiana's legitimate son became the next Duke of Devonshire, but her son died without any children of his own. A cousin inherited the title next, and eventually the heirs of this cousin married the granddaughter of Georgiana's LEGITIMATE DAUGHTER. The irony is that Georgiana's husband didn't have any heirs through his son, but his daughter's children carried on the line eventually. So much for an heir. NYMOM,
don't you just love the irony?

PolishKnight said...

V, I'm reminded of my friend's used book store about 25 years ago. He laughed that 70% of the money he brought in was from the romance section (and the remaining 15/15% respectively from scifi and everything else.) The other sections existed lagely as cover for people to come in to browse for Shakespeare or Tolstoy and leave with Lord of the Rings or Busom Busting Romance novels.

Most of those romance novels were set in the same period that your heroine came from and the fantasy usually was that they wound up in a big dark castle with lots of servants and wealth and she would "change" him from a jerk into a true nobleman and go to parties happily ever after. (Simply marrying a nice rich guy makes for a boring film.)

This film probably played upon those same feminine yearnings.

My friend used to run a book discussion club and one of the discussions was the difference between women and men's fantasy books. Men tend to look to sci-fi and the future because this is a world that remains to be built while women yearned for the sexist and understandable past.

Yes, there were women who were stuck with adulterous jerks but, for the most part, noblewomen had it damn good and you know it.

virago said...

As usual, the point of my post is deliberately misunderstood. I said:

"Anyway, the reason I brought this up is because I think this movie is a perfect illustration of what happened to women when it came to custody of their children and divorce"

A peasant man had more rights to the custody of his children than some noblewoman. I don't care how "good" she had it otherwise.

PolishKnight said...

Question V: Why wasn't the film about some peasantwoman then? I'm sure the women in the audience (and their suffering boyfriends) would have loved to see the great period clothes of peasants and their luxurious kitchens, eh? :-)

The film was female romance porn which centered not so much on her suffering, blah blah blah, but rather on the love affair she had with the other guy.

And the peasant man had rights to his children but also Responsibilities (with a capital R). No welfare. No "child support".

Walk a mile in those shoes sometime and get back to us.

virago said...

"The film was female romance porn which centered not so much on her suffering, blah blah blah, but rather on the love affair she had with the other guy."

Which shows how much you know, and that's not much. Most of the film centers around the life of Georgiana and HER HUSBAND. Like I said, most of the film is historically accurate. I'll take the word of the british historians who actually worked on the film, wrote the biography (sold in the BIOGRAPHY SECTION of the bookstore), and the thousand and one websites that actually talk about the history of Georgiana and the entire british aritocracy. And as for female romance porn? I wouldn't know. I don't read them. Nice to know you do, I mean your "friend". And as for walking a mile in some peasant man's shoes? You walk a mile in some peasant woman's shoes. I can guarantee it's much worse. Now that we covered that, do you have anything intelligent to say for a change? All you want to do is blow smoke and mirrors around the fact that women have been wrongfully deprived of their children and basic human rights through most of history by men. It doesn't matter if they were noblewomen or peasant women. In every class, women were socially, legally, and economically subordinated to men. That's a historical fact. You can't get around it. Don't even bother trying with your stupid comments about romance novels. Your a total waste of space as far as I'm concerned.

virago said...

NYMOM, nice to know that congress wants to pass a bill putting sanctions on countries that don't abide by custody orders.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/nj_father_david_goldman_to_hel.html

Some father gets his kid abducted, and it's front page news with new legislation, etc. Yet, there have been several women who have asked the U.S. government for help FOR YEARS, and they barely get mentioned. As for the Goldman case? I love how Goldman is billed as some "stay-at-home-dad who worked part-time flexible hours". Yet, Bruna is slammed as some pampered rich girl. WTF? Goldman claimed that he didn't know something was wrong with his marriage. Bullshit! This wasn't some mutual working mother/stay-at-home-dad relationship. Bruna complained that she was tired of working extra hours to support the family. They said Bruna supported the family from her job as a high school teacher and with money from her parents. That doesn't make sense. What kind of pampered rich girl has to work extra hours to support the family if she was getting money from wealthy parents? Those wealthy parents probably didn't want to give their daughter money to support some guy who didn't want to pull his weight financially. This so-called stay-at-home-dad (read: underemployed lazy, bum) was refusing to work forcing Bruna to pick up the slack. Goldman worked "part-time flexbile hours" occasionally modeling or giving fishing tours. If the family was having financial troubles, he should've got off his lazy ass and got a job. I would say the same for any woman. What's really funny is that Bruna was a high school teacher. This is usually an ideal job to have a family because they work 8 hour days and summers off. Yet, she was working long hours tutoring students. Goldman claimed that Bruna was jealous of his relationship with his son. Maybe she was sick of supporting dad when she wanted to spend time with her kid. Unlike working fathers, most working mothers WANT to spend time with their kids. I love it that Goldman was billed as an "involved parent" because he spent one day a month helping out at Sean's nursery school (required by the nursery school-not because he wanted to) while Bruna worked. This nursery school was actually a DAYCARE CENTER. Must be nice to "stay-at-home" when the kid is in daycare. I'm a full-time working mom, and I'm still involved with PTA and all that stuff more than one day a month. I'm not required to do that. Funny. Goldman complained that Bruna hired the same nanny, she had as a child, for Sean when she went back to Brazil. So what? I had a great babysitter as a kid, and I would love to have her for my own if she was still available (she moved). Yet, it was okay for Sean to be in daycare when Goldman "stayed home". Pretty hypocritical. Despite being wealthy, Bruna still opened up her own shops in Brazil. Nice to know she has the good work ethic Goldman lacked.

virago said...

I wonder what kind of an "involved parent" Goldman was (when the kid wasn't in daycare). Did he play video games all day while leaving a messy house for Bruna to clean after working overtime? I wouldn't doubt it. Of course, he didn't "know" there was problems in the marriage. Right. Ordinarily, I would have probably said that Bruna should've stayed in this country. However, since more so-called stay-at-home-dads are getting custody, I don't blame her for going back to Brazil. I agree with you NYMOM that WOMEN DON'T ABDUCT THEIR OWN CHILDREN. Bruna literally risked her life to bring Sean into this world. The fact that she died from childbirth with her daughter tells me that she had a higher risk than most women. If she had complications that killed her in the second pregnancy, she most likely had some of those same complications with Sean as well. This wasn't a case of a woman dying from poor medical care in a third world country. Bruna was from a wealthy family, and she was married to a lawyer. They could afford the best medical care. And I love it when a bunch of stupid people (mainly men) say that Bruna deserved to die in childbirth for "what she did". Following that logic, there's a lot of abusive men who deserve to be hit by a mack track. Unfortunately, they live on to kill their entire families. Anyway, this case and the Savoie case disgust me along with the attention it's getting when we have cases like Sarah Saga. Sarah Saga was abducted by her Saudi father at the age of 6 and denied contact with her mother. The U.S. government gave a shit less when it came to helping Sarah's mother get her back. Of course, Sarah's father forced her to marry an older man in an arranged marriage when she was a teenager. This guy wouldn't let Sarah have contact with her mother either, but Sarah was smart enough to find her mother via the internet. After some communication with her mother, Sarah escaped to the American embassy with HER TWO YOUNG CHILDREN. The embassy said they would help Sarah to get back to America (after failing to strong arm her to return to her husband). Unfortunately, THEY REFUSED TO LET SARAH TAKE HER CHILDREN. Sarah was afraid to go back to her husband and father because she was afraid they would kill her. She was forced to leave her kids behind and return to America by herself. This case got a little blip in the new media, but you sure didn't hear anymore about it. This girl was abducted AS A CHILD, and she was further victimized by the U.S. Government. On one hand, she was lucky because the U.S. government might have refused to help her leave Saudi Arabia in the past even though she was an adult American citizen (born here) because they would've considered her a "Saudi". However, the fact that they made her leave her children just repeats the sins of the father on the next generation. Assholes. The worse thing is that if Sarah had been MALE she would've been free to leave Saudi Arabia WITH HER CHILDREN. After all, males are considered adults in Saudi Arabia while females are considered minors until they die. Yet, our government can give a shit less about women or girls. But hey, a guy has his kid taken and it's front page news. The government is rolling out the big guns. Yet, women are forced to spend thousands of dollars to hire people to "reabduct" their kids. Go figure.

NYMOM said...

"Women still get custody the vast majority of the time unless they "default" and I was comparing that concern on your part to TK's paranoia. As I said, I regretted it the moment I wrote it. Sorry."

Thank you.

Women get custody as a default.

This is the way it's always been historically, unless a child was worth something either an heir to an estate or title of some kind. Today, if and when men decide to go to court to fight for custody they frequently win since the courts are now politically correct and overrun by gender neutral feminists who consider it progressive to award custody to men...

When children were worth nothing the only person historically interested in them was their mothers, maybe their maternal grandmothers.

Yes I know men had all these legal options but few availed themselves of the opportunity since it was a financial burden that they were perfectly content to let women shoulder alone until western laws made child support impossible to evade. Suddenly they are all concerned dads now...I'd have a lot more faith in the fathers movement if there was any historical precedence for a fatherhood movement in the past when children really needed it. Like all of those kids fathered into slavery, where was the fatherhood movement then???



"Finally, regarding your point about NCP mothers comparing themselves to burn victims. Now don't you think that is rather extreme and, in addition, selfish? It makes the motherhood sound more like a status symbol than a personal duty."

She compared herself to a burn victim in the way people treated her, not wanting to look in her face when they spoke with her, avoiding eye contact, etc.,...

NYMOM said...

"Re grandparent-headed households, I don't know why this is such a problem for you but all I can say is go back to AARP and reread your own material. And when you find a reference to "4 million CUSTODIAL grandparents" please do quote it.

Does it make sense to YOU for there to be four or five million "custodial GPs" when there are only a little over two million NC mothers?

Or does it make more sense to accept that AARP's "grandparent-headed households" usually contain custodial parents?z'"

You are the one with the issue.

I think you just don't want to admit that most so-called 'single fathers' have dumped their responsibilities off on their mothers.

Anyway, since there are many more children in this country then the 2 million you claim are in the custody of their mothers then it must mean most children are in no legal custodial status as yet...at least since that census info was processed and I bet that will change after the next census which is beginning right now.

"But in all honesty, I've never seen FRA sites urging men to "take children away" from mothers. They just about universally advise them to seek joint custody."

My response: Baloney...

NYMOM said...

"Elizabeth was a divorced woman who wasn't allowed to see her 3 sons by her ex-husband. In those days, MEN ALWAYS GOT CUSTODY."

Yes, I understand that men always had that option. What I say is that few exercised it UNLESS there was an estate of some kind involved.

One thing interesting about that story is what they left out.

During the divorce, the Duke of Devonshire attempted to wrestle control of Georgiana's estate from her father (since she was an only child and a minor during their marriage being under the legal age of 25 I think). He failed in this because her father was still alive, so technically it was ruled she didn't have any 'estate' yet...and in spite of the romance of the movie version Georgianna did NOT see her children again until they were adults, one of her daughters refused to see her until she was on her deathbed...

YET this was a small class of men and women and we cannot apply what happened to them to ALL THE 99.9% of the rest of womankind...

Actually my life story was a more common one for women. My father abandoned my mother and EIGHT children and we never saw or heard from him again...every one of us was sent to live in a religiously run orphanage or with other families...

Lastly, accepting your premise as the historical reality for most women would mean I would have to accept the premise of the mens' rights movement: which is that mothers were allowed to have custody of their children only recently as a sort of 'gift' from patriarchal men. AND it was a gift women screwed up by raising a generation of misfits responsible for all the crime and the general decline of the nation.

Frankly, I don't accept that premise.

So your story about some noblewoman marrying an idiot and losing her children is sad, but ultimately meaningless for most mothers...

NYMOM said...

"NYMOM, Glennsacks applies his rules equally, against friend and foe alike, and has them published clearly on his site. You complain about a double standard for you and Glenn yet you don't call out V for her juvenile taunts."

First of all Virago is a mother, which is just what this site is supposed to be about.

Two, you often incite her with snide remarks.

Three, I have asked everyone to try to stay on topic

Lastly, mens' sites give special consideration to each other, so I'm not going to make this site gender neutral to please men...

Okay.

NYMOM said...

"This wasn't some mutual working mother/stay-at-home-dad relationship. Bruna complained that she was tired of working extra hours to support the family. They said Bruna supported the family from her job as a high school teacher and with money from her parents."

This is very true.

Many of these so called 'stay-at-home dads are nothing but layabouts using the time at home to loaf around in front of the tv or to pick up women they meet in the park and have affairs with them while the children nap. Or else following some hobby like sailing, fishing, playing farmer, etc., Things that are generally thought of as a hobby something you do on vacation, not a real job.

I was listening to one of these so-called stay at home dads the other day on TV admitting he cheated 97 times on his wife while she was at work...yet the host kept referring to him as a stay-at-home dad...

It's ridiculous.

Also your point about him volunteering at a daycare center for some period during the week is a good one as well. Men are held to a much lesser standard as fathers then women are held to as mothers.

BUT, I am not in favor of these marriages with foreigners for citizenships and this sounded like it could have been one of those scams that went wrong.

Additionally I am not in favor of giving step persons rights over parents, although it seemed the child was living with the maternal grandmother and not the step person.

I think this did have a financial component to it as well. Since if the boy living in Brazil had become a legalized arrangement, Goldman could have been hit up for child support through the international courts and it would have been enforced through the NJ courts where the child originally resided.

So I think we have to take this into account as well. The boy is 9 and Goldman, an unemployed loafer, would have had to pay child support until the kid was 21 years old (as per NJ law) and he would not have even had a relationship with him...

So worse case scenario we'll add another unemployed loafer to the dole, just what the US needs.

Sigh...

NYMOM said...

I think people have to understand the background of this Haque Convention situation. It came about due to the US military and was mainly applicable to friendly western countries that live by our same standards, although some other countries have signed onto it...

Many of these countries are western European countries with large US military bases stationed there.

What was happening is that our military men were fathering children (some good number with professional prostitutes) who were then turning around and applying for child support, medical benefits and even trying to get citizenship for themselves using the children as a bridge to the US.

NOW if they attempt this, they have to go through a full court hearing (in the country where they have established residency) and then get a DNA test proving who the father is BEFORE they can get any court orders for custody/child support, etc.,

AND of course, they risk losing custody of their children if they lose the court hearing...

So once again, it was men attempting to safeguard their financial assets and painting it as in the interest of children.

Once you understand the origins of these so-called safeguards, everything else becomes clear...

virago said...

"Additionally I am not in favor of giving step persons rights over parents, although it seemed the child was living with the maternal grandmother and not the step person."

True NYMOM, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that Goldman got custody over the stepdad now that Bruna is dead. However, I think Bruna would have lost custody in the states initially because Goldman would've claim he was a stay-at-home dad instead of the underemployed, lazy bum he really was. I don't blame her for going back to Brazil for that reason. Bruna was willing to give Goldman some kind of visitation rights initially, but he refused because of his lawyers. However, I do think Goldman is a more sympathetic character than that asshole Christopher Savoie, but I think Bruna was within her rights to want a divorce and move back to Brazil. In most cases like this where physical violence is absent, I think the foreign spouse should try to stay in the country where the kid lived most of his or her life. However, In Bruna's case, I doubt she would have won custody because of her situation. I don't blame her for going back to Brazil.

virago said...

"NYMOM, Glennsacks applies his rules equally, against friend and foe alike, and has them published clearly on his site. You complain about a double standard for you and Glenn yet you don't call out V for her juvenile taunts."

I guess I shouldn't bother engaging in a battle of wits with PK anymore. He's an unarmed person.:-)

NYMOM said...

"True NYMOM, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that Goldman got custody over the stepdad now that Bruna is dead. However, I think Bruna would have lost custody in the states initially because Goldman would've claim he was a stay-at-home dad instead of the underemployed, lazy bum he really was. I don't blame her for going back to Brazil for that reason."

You are probably correct, although more and more I'm hearing of judges who are seeing through these little charades with these underemployed layabouts...but the most I've heard of happening is some form of Joint Custody, with the mothers paying some form of child support simply because they work more.

So these loafers are still being rewarded for bad behavior.

Anyway I understand her reasoning, I just don't agree with it. Better to know the rules BEFORE an international marriage with these idiots. Actually many of these men who get involved in these international marriages DO lie about their income and economic positions in the States...



"Bruna was willing to give Goldman some kind of visitation rights initially, but he refused because of his lawyers."

Well he refused because once you accept a visitation plan, you're conceding the defacto custody arrangement and legalizing it.

Then Goldman could have been hit up with a child support order from a Brazilian court and enforced through the courts in New Jersey...and the same thing would have happened if he agreed to leave custody with her mother in Brazil.

Pretty much Goldman had no choice particularly since he is still underemployed, to say the least. What's his excuse now I wonder since he hasn't been a stay-at-home dad in years now????

Actually I predict Goldman won't even raise that kid as he already is making a stop at his sisters for them to spend the holidays with her family. Then it's probably either with her or his parents that he'll quickly dump the boy off and go back to being a layabout.

It's not the worse scenario I could imagine for the boy.

The real problem is the precedence that keep getting set by these cases, one at a time. They will undermine all mothers.

virago said...

"Anyway I understand her reasoning, I just don't agree with it. Better to know the rules BEFORE an international marriage with these idiots. Actually many of these men who get involved in these international marriages DO lie about their income and economic positions in the States..."

Yeah, that's why I could never marry and have kids with a foreign guy. I briefly dated a guy from Morocco when I was 19. He was very nice looking, charming. Anyway, I saw "Not Without My Daughter", and that was the end of that relationship. Btw, speaking of the Hague Convention, I find it ironic that Japan was criticized for NOT being part of the Hague Convention in the Savoie case. In the Goldman case, Brazil IS part of the Hague Convention, and it's begin criticized for going against it. The Hague Convention has done a lot of good for parents of abducted children WHEN THE COUNTRIES abide by it. In a lot of cases, most signatory countries DO NOT comply. The United States, on the other hand, almost always abides by the Hague Convention. In fact, there are many American women who are trying to escape abusive foreign spouses, but America sends the kids back anyway. Yet, the U.S. gave asylum to a french woman. Many countries in Europe won't send kids back to the U.S. if they think it's an abuse situation. In fact, that's why Japan won't sign the Hague Convention. Anyway, the Hague Convention is a mixed bag. I use to think it was a great idea, but now I'm not so sure.

Anonymous said...

"Anyway, since there are many more children in this country then the 2 million you claim are in the custody of their mothers then it must mean most children are in no legal custodial status as yet...at least since that census info was processed and I bet that will change after the next census which is beginning right now."

Do you read AARP and the census as carelessly as you read my comments? I said there are only a little over 2 million NONCUSTODIAl mothers.

While you're claiming 4 or 5 million custodial grandparents.

Impossible.

And the numbers of custodial mothers have not changed to any significant degree in the sixteen years between 1990 and 2006. I doubt that we'll see very much change when this year's stats are published. Will you be disappointed much?

Richard

Anonymous said...

This whole thread has deteriorated into a study in complete irrelevance.

It was clear from the very outset of this case that the Goldman kid had to go back to his remaining biological parent eventually. If anyone had been concerned about the "best interests" of the boy they would have made it as quick and painless as possible for him. That it was allowed to drag on for so long is a disgrace.

To me the whole episode smacks of an overbearing set of maternal relatives who convinced Bruna that she could do better than David Goldman. But all the "maybes" of the situation are of supreme insignificance.

So what if dad was "underemployed?" Acceptable employment and productivity were certainly not prerequisites for fundamental parental rights the last time I looked.

So what if this Bruna was tired of "supporting" her husband? Cry me a river. Lots of guys get tired of supporting wives who contribute nothing to the family enterprise except complaints and credit card bills but most of them suck it up in order to hold it together for the kids. In this lovely world of gender equality Bruna should have done the same damn thing.

I'm not glad she died but I have no sympathy either. She robbed her husband but she robbed her son of a lot more.

"The real problem is the precedence that keep getting set by these cases, one at a time. They will undermine all mothers."

I can't believe you don't see that what would undermine all mothers is if this kid HADN'T gone back to his father. The minute you replace the fundamental rights of biological parents with some fuzzy "best interests of the child" standard that could mean a hundred diffferent things to a hundred different people, then you issue an open invitation for your own asses to be bitten.

It is in the best interests of the vast majority of children to be in the care, custody and control of their own biological parents. Once you throw out that premise, look out.

V's right that there are mothers out there who deserve more help getting their kids back from abroad. But that doesn't mean justice wasn't done in this case. There's no question that it was.

"Many of these so called 'stay-at-home dads are nothing but layabouts using the time at home to loaf around in front of the tv or to pick up women they meet in the park and have affairs with them while the children nap."

You're funny, NY. Does watching soaps and having affairs disqualify women as stay-at-home mothers too?

I'd be interested to know, since most daytime TV is geared toward women at home and women admit to almost as much infidelity as men, much of which I would assume is conducted at home while dad is at work.

I recall a neighbor who had friend who was having an affair. She used to let her bring the kids over and use her house during the day to meet her boyfriend. There'd be a colored towel hanging in the front window, and the kids would play in the yard until the towel was removed as an all-clear signal.

Being that this was a daytime activity I gather the woman was an "unemployed layabout" as well.

Revolting as that was, I still wouldn't have wanted to see the husband drag the kids off to Timbuktu where they could never see their mom again.

But then again, I have a sense of justice. That's why we guys never get through to woman-firsters.

Richard

NYMOM said...

"Do you read AARP and the census as carelessly as you read my comments? I said there are only a little over 2 million NONCUSTODIAl mothers."

I'm not perfect I make mistakes. Sorry.

AARP claims there are about 4 to 5 million grandparents who have custody of their grandchildren and need medical coverage for them since Medicare only covers seniors...I belong to their email list and they sent the email out a few years ago.

Now one other comment: does that 2 million non-custodial mothers figure cover those mothers who have so-called Joint Custody. Since many non-custodial mothers that I know have what is called Joint Custody and it's only joint on paper. They see their children seldom or never, pay child support and have to get lawyers to enforce visitation just as if they had no custody whatsoever.

So many of the things you claim about the status of mothers are basically legal word games...

Anyway let's not start this argument about grandparent custody again. Let's see what the new figures say after the 2010 census is completed.

NYMOM said...

"This whole thread has deteriorated into a study in complete irrelevance.

It was clear from the very outset of this case that the Goldman kid had to go back to his remaining biological parent eventually."

Well the onset of the case was not the mother's death as this case was ongoing BEFORE that point.


"The real problem is the precedence that keep getting set by these cases, one at a time. They will undermine all mothers."

I can't believe you don't see that what would undermine all mothers is if this kid HADN'T gone back to his father."

Well you're assuming that the boy would NOT have been sent back to live with his father, even if his mother was still alive. That's what I'm talking about with this case undermining all mothers. Basically this man was holding custody of her child over this woman's head in order to force her back to the US...

Probably so he could live off her child support instead of getting a real job and supporting his own lazy a@@.

BTW, it does make a difference if you're underemployed when you bring a woman over here from another country posing as a successful businessman...I seriously doubt if this woman would have traveled here to make a new life for herself if she knew her new husband was a chronic layabout...Not that I'm a fan of this international marriage business, as they often do turn out badly...but if you're going to do it at least be honest about your financial status.


"You're funny, NY. Does watching soaps and having affairs disqualify women as stay-at-home mothers too?"

Well I'm sorry to tell you but many mothers do lose custody for 'moral issues' that Judges overlook when men do the same thing. The double standard does still exists for women.

Anonymous said...

AARP does not claim 4-5 million custodial GPs, NY. It claims 4-5 million grandparent-headed households. Completely different animal. Most of them contain custodial mothers and their children.

If there were 4-5 million custodial GPs there would have to be a whole lot more than 2.1 million NC mothers.

"Now one other comment: does that 2 million non-custodial mothers figure cover those mothers who have so-called Joint Custody."

I don't know how many times I have to explain this but the census does not deal in legal, joint, or any other custody terminology. Custodial means only one thing to the census bureau and that is having the kids more than 50% of the time.

In other words, there are only a little over 2 million single mothers who have less than half of their kids' time. Virtually unchanged from 1990 to 2006. A crisis it ain't.

What is so hard to understand here?

"Basically this man was holding custody of her child over this woman's head in order to force her back to the US..."

"This man" was doing nothing of the sort. He was a married man and a legal biological father who was abandoned by his wife and had his child stolen out from under him.

You've already claimed that you support MARRIED fathers having equal rights to their children. You call this equal? For some twit to be able to throw a stick at her obligations and go hunting a richer man in a foreign country and drag your kid off where you can never see him again?

Damn right, she needed a club to force her back here where that kid belonged. Or a cannon if necessary. Otherwise NOBODY's parental rights are worth a cup of warm spit.

"Well the onset of the case was not the mother's death as this case was ongoing BEFORE that point."

Makes no difference. The mother's death should have made the whole issue moot. Nobody in Brazil had a significant claim on the kid and he should have been on the next plane home to his dad.

Unless you also want foreign GPs and steps hanging on to a mother's abducted children on grounds that too much time has passed and it would be against their "best interests" to uproot them.

That's what I mean when I say you woman-firsters are so rabid for EVERY woman to get her way on EVERY issue that you'll thoughtlessly embrace principles that will hurt you in the long run.

"Probably so he could live off her child support instead of getting a real job and supporting his own lazy a@@."

Completely irrelevant and no different from what thousands of women have been doing ever since CS was made into law. If the prospect is unpleasant then it's simply one of many possibilities that should be weighed when you're considering crapping out on your marriage vows. We men know all about it. It's time you women understood it too.

"Well I'm sorry to tell you but many mothers do lose custody for 'moral issues' that Judges overlook when men do the same thing. The double standard does still exists for women."

That wasn't an answer to my question, NY. The question is do you think it SHOULD be a disqualifier?

Richard

virago said...

NYMOM, all this talk about soap operas and affairs misses the point as usual. In the majority of male breadwinner households, men come home to a clean house and dinner on the table. In the majority of female breadwinner households, women still do most of the housework and are the primary caregivers of the children when they get home. THIS IS WHAT DISQUALIFIES MEN AS STAY-AT-HOME DADS. Women get a raw deal no matter what. And as for the Goldman case? There's a huge difference between a MUTUAL stay-home-dad/working mother relationship and being forced to support some guy because he doesn't want to work. Even the Bring Sean Home Foundation website admits that Bruna complained because she had to work DOUBLE SHIFTS to pay the bills while Goldman only worked part-time. And Sean was in daycare for cripe's sake! And yes, NYMOM, Bruna would have lost custody to David Goldman if she filed for divorce here. Under these circumstances, I think Bruna had every right to go back to Brazil WITH SEAN. Originally, Goldman could have had visitation with Sean, but he is the one who resisted. Most mothers who have their kids abducted overseas don't get that option, and their parental rights aren't worth a cup of warm spit. After all, the U.S. only takes a club after mothers who "abduct" their kids even if it's an abuse situation. Fathers get away with it all the time. No one can tell me different because I've studied these cases FOR YEARS. The United States apologized-ACTUALLY FUCKING APOLOGIZED-to Jordan when an American mother (who the U.S. State Department refused to help) hired mercenaries to successfully reabduct her daughter after her Jordanian ex-husband kidnapped the kid. Along comes David Goldman, and the U.S. wants to legislate putting sanctions on countries who don't obey U.S. child custody orders. Where's the justice in that? There's a double standard all right, and it's not against fathers.

Anonymous said...

"In the majority of female breadwinner households, women still do most of the housework and are the primary caregivers of the children when they get home."

You've formulated a nice little rationalization for your own double standards, V.

A woman might come home and find that the house is not up to snuff in her book but that doesn't mean that the essentials haven't been done.

And no, you're not a primary caregiver "when you get home." Most small kids are in bed within a couple of hours of working parents' return home.

When my wife was at home she would pass the baby to me as soon as I walked in the door and go take a hot bath. I was responsible for evening activities, baths, and the bedtime routine. I didn't see it as a "second shift." It was a pleasure. But I would never have presumed to call myself the "primary caregiver" at that point in time OVER someone who had just put in a ten-hour day with the kids. That would have been an insult.

"There's a huge difference between a MUTUAL stay-home-dad/working mother relationship and being forced to support some guy because he doesn't want to work."

No there's not. Not when it's the mother who doesn't want to work. She just wants to "sacrifice" for her family and he's uncaring and insensitive if he objects. At least that's what she'll tell her girlfriends over cosmos while they tell her she shouldn't put up with that.

"Even the Bring Sean Home Foundation website admits that Bruna complained because she had to work DOUBLE SHIFTS to pay the bills while Goldman only worked part-time. And Sean was in daycare for cripe's sake!"

Pfft. Color me spectacularly unimpressed. You've just described the lives of millions of American families, but in reverse. And when those families break up 85% of the women will walk out with the kids and the marital assets and at the very least 20% of the proceeds from their husbands' double shifts because that's what he's demonstrated that he can earn. And the daycare costs added on top of that.

By your moral compass those shafted dads should have the "right" (LOL) to kidnap their kids to Brazil and try to get their mothers' names erased from the birth certificates. Maybe even find a wealthy mate along the way to enable them like Bruna did. Sounds tempting, admittedly, but a clear sense of justice says N-O every time.

"There's a double standard all right, and it's not against fathers."

Again, V, whether there is a double standard or not does not mean that justice was not done in this case. It was. And FWIW I'm all for the US putting the same sanctions on countries that harbor abducting fathers as well.

Richard

virago said...

Richard, I clearly remember reading that your wife didn't want you to do anything when you came home because you had the "harder job". Now, all of a sudden, your doing everything? Right.*roll eyes* Btw, I don't give a rat's ass about you, your opinions, your wife, or what does or doesn't go on in your household. I know what I've read and seen. Women get a raw deal no matter what we do. Period. That's the reality. Until that changes, I really don't care about a father's custody rights.

Anonymous said...

Hold your horses, V. My wife did not want me to do any HOUSEWORK while she was an at-homer. If there were dishes, cleaning, laundry or ironing still to be done in the evenings then she viewed that as her job.

However, we both understood that the kids were the responsibility of both of us. Which is why she had no qualms about leaving the kids to me in the evenings. And if I'd had any objections I'd have heard from her for sure.

"Women get a raw deal no matter what we do. Period. That's the reality. Until that changes, I really don't care about a father's custody rights."

It's changing all the time. Your complaints get more out of date every day. But no matter. If and when we finally reach full egalitarianism in family life, I predict you still won't care about anybody's rights except women's to do as they please.

Richard

virago said...

"Hold your horses, V. My wife did not want me to do any HOUSEWORK while she was an at-homer. If there were dishes, cleaning, laundry or ironing still to be done in the evenings then she viewed that as her job.

However, we both understood that the kids were the responsibility of both of us. Which is why she had no qualms about leaving the kids to me in the evenings. And if I'd had any objections I'd have heard from her for sure."

Yeah, and that's my whole point. Working mothers usually end up coming home to do HOUSEWORK and CHILCARE while daddy daycare takes the night off. Don't tell me it ain't so. I've read enough studies and articles on the subject to know that it is VERY MUCH SO. I've seen it in the so-called stay-at-home dad families that I know.

"If and when we finally reach full egalitarianism in family life, I predict you still won't care about anybody's rights except women's to do as they please."

We will all be dead before that happens. None of us will have to worry about it than.

PolishKnight said...

"We will all be dead before that happens. None of us will have to worry about it than."

Yikes! I agree with V!

Here's what's happening and will continue to happen until society can't prop it up anymore: Women who get high paying jobs will either gripe endlessly about "lazy" husbands who don't earn at least as much as they do AND do at least as much work at home OR wind up alone and as spinsters and gripe that the taxpayers should foot the bill (except for dads paying "child-support" to welfare mothers, because then these men would be "deadbeats".)

This line brought back a story my father told me: ""There's a huge difference between a MUTUAL stay-home-dad/working mother relationship and being forced to support some guy because he doesn't want to work.""

When my father was young, my grandfather had a stroke and half of his body was paralyzed. I guess the lazy slob didn't want to work and didn't do any housework! This was not an uncommon situation in my working class neighborhood with working class men dropping like flies due to working the anthracite mines and other fun activities we didn't "share" with women.

There's a great line by John Cleese about his ex wife who got more than 1/2 of his assets: "Imagine how much I would have had to pay her if she contributed something to the marriage!" Men, especially wealthy men, wind up all the time with lazy housewives with a bevy of servants who spend all day complaining about how tough they have it. The notion of being forced to support spouses who don't want to work is known as "alimony" to "maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed."

Women's griping and complaining (and then telling men and children to stop whining because it interferes with their cryfest) used to be a joke before political correctness. Is anyone here old enough to remember the program "Queen for a Day?"

PolishKnight said...

V says: "I've seen it in the so-called stay-at-home dad families that I know."

V, when I or Richard have our own anecdotal experiences and stories you blow them off. Why should we trust that your prejudiced and limited experiences proves anything about society?

Even if you were correct about your claim that non-working men were bums at home, we don't know if this is due simply to your friends having bad choices in men and self-fulfilling prophesies of them going for men for sexist reasons and then griping when they don't pick up a broom. If a man were to say that all women are golddiggers and wound up with a pretty but lazy wife, you'd have no problems figuring out he was at fault and this wasn't due to women.

Anonymous said...

V must have a pretty wide range of acquaintances to know all these SAHDs!

I only know one, a neighbor. As far as I can see his house and kids are just fine. The wife comes home at about 4:30 and plays outside with the kids or pulls them around in a wagon until he comes to the window to tell them dinner is ready.

More or less the same as what went on at our house when wifey was an at-homer.

If being pissed about your spouse not earning enough were a reasonable justification for uprooting your children and robbing them of one of their parents, you might just hear a "giant sucking sound" of all those fed-up dads and their children heading for Brazil.

Richard

virago said...

"V, when I or Richard have our own anecdotal experiences and stories you blow them off. Why should we trust that your prejudiced and limited experiences proves anything about society?"

I'm not here to validate your anecdotal experiences and stories. What you and Richard have to say is largely irrelevant to the purpose of this blog. Most of my comments are actually directed at NYMOM, and you guys are only along for the ride. That said. I'm not going to suck your dicks for you. You can go to Glenn Sacks or Stand Your Ground if you want that treatment.

Anonymous said...

Wow, V! So any kind of acknowledgement of our experiences or perspectives constitutes sucking our dicks?

If so, then decency prevents me from assigning any descriptive imagery to your own veneration of NY and her outlandish views.

PK, I used to think you were teasing V a bit too hard about her attentions toward you, but I'm starting to see your point. It's impossible not to notice how sexualized the dialogue gets whenever she addresses you. Must be your overt chauvinism. ;-)

Richard

PolishKnight said...

Oink Oink!

Richard, I find it's useful to look up words when they're used to describe me just to understand the context of how people think of them, and their classical meaning. (A senior boss called me a "malcontent" and I was flattered.)

Hmmm, "chauvanist." Here's dictionary.com:

"Exaggerated belief in the supremacy of one's nation, class, caste, or group."

"Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's own gender, group, or kind"

I think in modern post-1970's use people think of it as misogyny but I don't think that's case with me and the above definitions above don't apply either. I'm simply OBSERVING the things men are superior at and that women have conceded to post feminism. If someone is lousy at baseball, for example, is it "chauvanist" to observe so?

Actually, my wife says I'm too "sweet" and "soft" by Ukrainian standards.

After a lifetime of trying to treat women as equals, and them not making the grade, I'm merely accepting them as they are and appreciating their finer points rather than praying for equality to magically work. I think that's anything but prejudiced.

PolishKnight said...

HouseHusband Island!

"Da Plane Boss! Da Plane!"

Richard, I only know of "househusbands" through the web. I don't know a single one. I don't know that many housewives for that matter either and this includes through my wife. Most married women usually use a little daycare or shared babysitting to do some part-time work and go back to full time once the kids are in school.

I do know a few "housewives" through my wife and many of them are similar to V's description of lazy layabouts. (This is my wife's opinion, not mine.) She thinks that only when a woman has small kids is there an excuse for not working full time (not necessarily at equal pay, but just working and contributing what she can.) Her opinion isn't that work is to be "equal" and to empower women but rather for her to feel that she's helping the family as best as she can.

Oh, wait, I do know of one househusband indirectly: A commie actress friend of mine was married to a French chef and he cleaned the place and prepared gourmet meals for her when she came home from the studio. Why didn't the marriage last? Well, duh!

PolishKnight said...

Rules of Engagement

"That said. I'm not going to suck your dicks for you."

NYMOM, this is a perfect example of why Richard and I resented you telling us we were on probation and don't resent Glenn running a tight ship.

Glenn has very specific rules of posting and requires a general respect for the other posters and dignified language. He's knocked off posts from me, and rightly so, for going over the line but I knew he was doing this to everyone.

You and I disagree on a lot of things, but you appreciate the value of a good debate and discussion. I would suggest, humbly, that you maybe write up the ground rules for your forum just so we all know where the lines are. I can assure you that I will do my very best to respect them.

virago said...

"After a lifetime of trying to treat women as equals, and them not making the grade, I'm merely accepting them as they are and appreciating their finer points rather than praying for equality to magically work. I think that's anything but prejudiced."

This just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and the year just started.

PolishKnight said...

Virago, I would be quite intrigued to see you elaborate and justify that claim.

virago said...

What is there to elaborate? It's a dumb comment. You don't even make any sense. It's that simple!

NYMOM said...

"NYMOM, this is a perfect example of why Richard and I resented you telling us we were on probation and don't resent Glenn running a tight ship."

I told you the 'rules' before Polish Knight and while I don't particularly like that sort of vulgar language that Virago used, she (and others like here) is what this blog is about MOTHERS...

So you and Richard need to modify your tone to her and other mothers on this blog or not post here.

Richard was very disrespectful when he barged into our conversation about the Goldman case. Here was his opening comment:

"This whole thread has deteriorated into a study in complete irrelevance."

So after numerous remarks like that from both of you, Virago got fed up and responded in a vulgar manner.

Now both you and Richard know what this blog is about and if you can't handle it, then move on...and don't give me this Glenn Sacks crap as no mens rights site is gender neutral and I've been stopped from posting on many of them and all for similar reasons.

As their owners told me those sites were for men to vent, not for women to argue with them about every single comment they make.

AND that's the story here as well for mothers.

This site is for mothers to discuss and vent. AND for like-minded people to discuss public policy concerning child custody. If you two can't handle that w/o the continuing snide shots you both make, then don't comment anymore.

It's pretty simple.

NYMOM said...

"That said. I'm not going to suck your dicks for you."

I would appreciate no one using this language however.

Thanks all.

NYMOM said...

"V must have a pretty wide range of acquaintances to know all these SAHDs!"

Here's an example of another snide remark from either you or Richard aimed at Virago...

So knock off these sorts of shots as well whichever one of you is doing it...these are the sorts of continuous remarks imputting her honesty that incite her and lead to the vulgar comments.

Now tell me this: how long would a woman last on a mens site with this tone against a male poster?

virago said...

"I would appreciate no one using this language however.

Thanks all."

I apologize NYMOM to YOU.

NYMOM said...

This line brought back a story my father told me: ""There's a huge difference between a MUTUAL stay-home-dad/working mother relationship and being forced to support some guy because he doesn't want to work.""

Well if you accept this comment of your grandfather's as legitimate, then why do you keep arguing with Virago.

It's like I told you before. Whatever a woman on this site saids, even when she agrees with you, you then turn it around and disagree with her. As this point is exactly what Virago and I were discussing regarding the Goldman case. AND of course no one will ever really know that except the two participants; however, I want a mother to feel comfortable on a blog I am trying to dictate to them w/o either you or Richard constantly attacking them for voicing perfectly legitimate opinions.

NYMOM said...

"Women's griping and complaining (and then telling men and children to stop whining because it interferes with their cryfest) used to be a joke before political correctness. Is anyone here old enough to remember the program "Queen for a Day?""

Mothers won't feel comfortable coming here to discuss various issues if you continuously refer to every discussion as a cryfest...I don't consider a discussion about the Goldman case and whether or not he was a legitimate stay-at-home dad to be a 'cryfest'.

This is a legitimate issue for mothers to worry about whether or not some lazy loafer is going to refuse to work while trying to pass himself off as a concerned dad. Then try to hold custody of their child over their head if and when they try to take some action...

NYMOM said...

"I would appreciate no one using this language however.

Thanks all."

I apologize NYMOM to YOU."

Thank you.

I understand and appreciate your frustration with these constant attacks every time we attempt to hold a legitimate conversation.

I do like to have a variety of opinions on these issues but this is getting ridiculous...I can tell you right now they would never tolerate it on their own mens sites if some women were doing this...

NYMOM said...

"If being pissed about your spouse not earning enough were a reasonable justification for uprooting your children and robbing them of one of their parents, you might just hear a "giant sucking sound" of all those fed-up dads and their children heading for Brazil."

The situations are not comparable as you well know. Women have faced discrimination in many fields for years, we are just playing catch-up now for about two generations.

Not to mention that the ONLY thing men contribute to these relationships is economic support...so if they refuse to honor that commitment then what exactly is their unique contribution to the relationship???

Since I see Goldman is still living while his ex-wife is dead due to child birth-related complication...

So we are not equals here.

If you don't like it take it up with god, nature or evolution, whatever.

NYMOM said...

"Even the Bring Sean Home Foundation website admits that Bruna complained because she had to work DOUBLE SHIFTS to pay the bills while Goldman only worked part-time. And Sean was in daycare for cripe's sake!"

Pfft. Color me spectacularly unimpressed. You've just described the lives of millions of American families, but in reverse."

Soooo...

That's a situation created by men who put themselves into that position by hogging all the resources of the society for themselves. You collectively, kept all the good paying positions for men, even denying women the right to education in many Ivies which is why all of them created the so-called 'sister' schools...and this is a fact as I work right across the street from Columbia's sister school, Barnard College.

Okay.

AND that's just one example.

Men created this situation through their own collective greediness.

Just thought I'd give a little history here.

So don't get mad at us that your own collective selfishness has come back to bite you.

NYMOM said...

"Even the Bring Sean Home Foundation website admits that Bruna complained because she had to work DOUBLE SHIFTS to pay the bills while Goldman only worked part-time. And Sean was in daycare for cripe's sake!"

The saddest part about this is that this poor woman didn't have enough confidence in our court system to feel she would get justice if she filed for divorce here. It just goes to show what I've been saying all along. That these courts have become politically correct cesspools where women can not get justice. They risk losing their children if they enter them and are not very very careful and/or lucky...

virago said...

NYMOM, I do get fed up with it. I get disgusted with myself sometimes for being such a potty mouth, but I really think this is the only kind of language they really understand. You only have the two trolls, but on other women's rights, feminist blogs, these guys are CONSTANTLY interfering and trying to run the conversation. Most women on those blogs just say the heck with it and get real vulgar toward them. It's the only thing that really gets the point across, and the trolls absolutely HATE it. On this blog, I can see that with Polish Knight especially. Anyway, sometimes, old habits are hard to break. It's actually gotten so bad on some of the feminist websites, they don't even allow trolls like Richard and PK to post anymore. I'm not advocating that here necessarily. Sometimes, it livens up the conversations. However, it's nice to discuss with the other women and male feminists who actually get it without all these other jerks trying to overrun everything. PK and Richard make snide comments about me emasculating my husband (actually live-in ex husband), but in reality, I'm protecting myself from a repeat situation that I went through the first time. And no matter what these guys think, I'm in a vulnerable postition. If my husband wants to fight for custody, there's a very good chance he could get it just because he's THE FATHER. Yeah, he's really not interested in physical custody, and he believes children belong with the mother. I really don't think he'll try it even if things go sour between us again. But the threat is always there, and the courts are too biased against mothers. I just lucked out. For most mothers, it's not that simple.

NYMOM said...

"Again, V, whether there is a double standard or not does not mean that justice was not done in this case. It was. And FWIW I'm all for the US putting the same sanctions on countries that harbor abducting fathers as well."

Unfortunately it seems abducting fathers manage to 'forum shop' and get legal custody, so their status is changed. That's what happened in the Saudi case that Virago was talking about. I remember that case very well and the US did nothing btw...as happens very frequently when the abductor is a man.

That's another reason I'm against the west having courts that are gender neutral. Since the rest of the world is not gender neutral it gives men another advantage. AND trust me ALL of the legal system in South American, including Brazil, is favorable to men. So the US being gender neutral gave Goldman a decided advantage against this mother...

Frankly, I believe the outcome would have been the same whether or not she died.

So now even more women are intimidated after seeing this happen...

NYMOM said...

"...on other women's rights, feminist blogs, these guys are CONSTANTLY interfering and trying to run the conversation."

Yes, it's sad really.

I put it down to the nature of men to always want to dominate every situation. This is a good example.

I've had worse here before. I actually had to close my blog to comments for a while due to it...

I predict it will improve for a while and then slowly deteriorate again. The nature of man, I guess, and the price we pay for having a public blog.

virago said...

"I predict it will improve for a while and then slowly deteriorate again. The nature of man, I guess, and the price we pay for having a public blog."

Yeah, Silverside commented on this blog not too long ago. She addressed a comment I made, and of course, PK wanted to jump on the bandwagon. First, he was all ass-kissy nice trying to get her to agree with him, but of course, she didn't, and he got really nasty. Honestly, NYMOM, what do these guys think? I've read enough of your blog to know Silverside's history (and her blog too), and I'm sure PK knows it too since he was commenting on those posts. Does he really think Silversides going to agree with him after the courts gave her a bum deal with the ex? It takes a lot of guts for some guy who hates women and doesn't even have kids to expect that. Silversides knows what it's all about. She doesn't need to take that crap from PK.

virago said...

" I remember that case very well and the US did nothing btw...as happens very frequently when the abductor is a man."

True again. NYMOM, I don't like to see anyone lose their kids, but I'm going to give mothers the benefit of the doubt over the fathers. That's because there is so much abuse of women and children by men. I believe it when Phyllis Chesler said fathers abduct children for revenge while mothers abduct children to protect them. That may not be true in all cases, but I think it is for the majority. I also think men are more likely to make false allegations of abuse and PAS against women than the other way around. There have been studies that show that. Plus, I think women naturally have the right to custody unless unfit. We give birth. In most cases, we raise them even in the so-called stay-at-home dad homes. I'm sure that's going to go over real well with some folks, but I don't really care. It's the truth.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, you had expressed indignation that Richard and I didn't mind Glenn putting us on probation and I explained why: Because he doesn't have a double standard. He welcomes feminists and even hosts articles from them on his site.

For my wife and Richard's wife, part of being a mother is getting along with the father. In addition, you don't just talk about motherhood here but rather mostly about threats from us evil cootie covered men and fathers, yes? So if you don't want the opposite point of view, that's one thing but we're quite relevent.

I don't think Richard's remark that V must have a pretty wide range of acquaintences to know many SAHD's is "snide" but rather one that expresses incredulity. He doesn't know many SAHD's and neither do I. There simply aren't that many out there. Perhaps you're misinterpreting his remark to imply that V might have slept around or something? That's the only way I can find such a remark being offensive.

I hate to disgress but this reminds me of how women can jump to conclusions and be offended by little things especially (but not in this forum, of course) when a woman says them about each other. Women speak a kind of "code" to insult each other in subtle ways that other women are trained to pick up and so it's kind of like Corrleone, Italy where half the population has killed each other over duels. Us men are more blunt and simple and also clear in our communications. We think and look like jeeps.

I do not refer to every discussion by an opponent as a cryfest. Actually, V does that (double standard again) and when I don't respond, she claims that lack of response implies agreement.

Which again, talking about communication styles, perhaps if V and women like her weren't so self serving, then she wouldn't need to keep the men and boys in her life on a tight leash.

Regarding women being concerned about some lazy bum refusing to work and then using that to get custody: That was the way the law was written to favor women, such as women married to wealthy men with nannies to do all the mothering work, to collect alimony and get custody. This is known as a "backfire."

OK, enough for this comment. I want to address the othe comments on their own.

PolishKnight said...

World to end tomorrow. Women disproportionately affected

NYMOM, regarding your claim about women being discriminated against in certain fields and therefore this is why they should get victim entitlements. Here's my response to this claim:

1) The discrimination they "suffered" wasn't always negative. There were few if any feminists on the Titanic. Women (and then children) first was about protection, not oppression. This leads to:

2) This may amaze you to hear, but most men didn't have glamourous, comfy jobs. Most work was difficult, dangerous, and life shortening. They worked longer hours because they loved their spouses and children, not to oppress them.

3) If the "only" thing men contribute is financial support it is because sexist women choose such men and then often have the nerve to gripe he isn't treating her as an equal the rest of the time.

4) I love your "nature makes women different" to justify goodies for women but when men are better at something, say, because they don't need to gestate to reproduce and have the ability via greater strength to dominate women, you act like something is wrong. If mother nature didn't want us men to act like this, then why did she, and well, YOU raise us like that? Hmmm?

If you're not equals and never can be, then why should us men feel guilty for any inequality you suffered? Why should we feel guilty for the consequences of YOUR continued sexism?

The fact is that society has bent over backwards to help women be more "equal" while simultaneously giving mothers protection that men would be called bums if they were try to take advantage of and... more and more mothers can't even live up to those rather low standards.

For us men, growing up is something we're told to do whether or not it's fair or easy. That's REAL equality. The clock is ticking and not all men are like Richard and going to wait. Tick tock tick tock.

PolishKnight said...

Cognative dissonance collision! Did anyone get that car's number?

Er, NYMOM, women hardly would have created sister colleges if the men had hogged all the resources. Where did the women get the bricks, the land, and the workers (probably all male) to build such places? Hmmmm?

In the meantime, the biggest gripe of most young women isn't that they can't get equal admission to colleges (women now comprise a majority of college admissions) but rather that they can't find a traditional breadwinner with resources and willingness to support them if they want to quit their hobby job and raise babies at home full time!

Men, individually as husbands supporting their spouses and collectively have been "sharing" with you all along including with laws that excused female irresponsibility and now are coming back to bite THEM via women marrying good looking bums like men who make similar mistakes.

NYMOM, this really comes down to your interpretation of reality, an interpration supported by western men, colliding with the reality that there's only so much goodies we can give women while apologizing for oppressing them. You've bitten our hands so badly we can't even use the can opener anymore.

Your claim that women can't get justice in the court system anymore in the states is rediculous. (I want to say laughable, but that would be disrespectful). As Richard points out, women still get custody 80% of the time and the rest they release to men mostly for their own reasons (disability, etc.)

PolishKnight said...

Mothering by Example

"I get disgusted with myself sometimes for being such a potty mouth, but I really think this is the only kind of language they really understand."

I learned something on this forum from NYMOM: Most of those convicted of baby-shaking are men. There may be many reasons for that (misdiagnosis of SIDS and blaming the man) but it is possible that an ignorant man might shake a baby because he's run out of other options.

V's response reminds me of that. When her arguments fail her, she engages in gutter talk. The option of maybe simply saying: "We can agree to disagree" never occurred to her. It makes me wonder what kind of mother she is.

Regarding her emasculated live-in ex-husband. SHE claimed here to you that he said in open court that the children belongs with the mother and that the odds of him getting custody are low. But that does reveal why women's equality is so tenuous: If there's a small risk of something, you gals act like the world is coming to an end. Men live in, and deal with, a world of risk. Gold mines, for example, are risky places. Entrepreneurs and explorers do dangerous things where, gasp, something MIGHT happen!

It's the reason why most of the statues in town are of men. A woman hiding in a house with her children just is so hard to forge a cast of and put in the town square.

Regarding you "protecting yourself" from a situation you went through the first time. Lessee: He gave you custody and child support and you tossed him out. There is NO evidence from your personal experience you presented that you need "protection" from him! Even if what you claim is true about him being in the wrong in the past, you "protecting yourself" by keeping him on a leash isn't snide but rather a saavy observation of reality. If you want him on a leash, then he's "emasculated". Deal with it. If you to be a victim for all eternity and enjoy the benefits of sexism but the goodies of "equality", then you are not really equal and a victim of sexism.

And if you keep running to men as your protectors and providers then you aren't going to ever be free of our "oppression". Ever.

PolishKnight said...

Gender Neutral bad, and good, and bad

"That's another reason I'm against the west having courts that are gender neutral. Since the rest of the world is not gender neutral it gives men another advantage."

So if the courts are gender neutral, then they are in men's favor. But if they are not, then they are also in men's favor. So the courts should be anti-male, but even then they're in men's favor.

Sounds a lot like global warming: If it's colder, it's because of global warming. If it's moderate weather, it's global warming. And if it's warmer, then global warming...

FYI: Many countries especially those impacted by British and American military occupation are very pro-female in many ways. In Japan, the divorce courts almost always give custody to the woman and toss the man out of his own home. In India, if a woman is simply LIVING in a man's home for a period of time, even as a teenage daughter of a friend, then he will be obligated to pay alimony and support her. I'm sure that feminists and yourself will not be doing anything to correct these gender inequalities...

Regarding Saudi Arabia. Much of the reasons why we now treat these cultures with kid gloves is because of leftism allied with feminism that look the other way because of modern PC bashing white males as the source of all the world's woes. This means that in Northern Paris, France, women must wear veils lest mullahs beat them up and the police look the other way. Bite the hand that feeds you, and pretty soon you'll have nobody to run the can opener...

PolishKnight said...

V, you claim to have all these studies. Try posting a few. Studies I read show that 87.5% of such undocumented claims are totally made up.

I asked you to elaborate above about my observtion being "stupid" as an offer for you to express yourself and since you didn't have anything but potty mouth behavior, you declined.

Listen, if you gals want to talk amongst yourselves with comments like: "you're so right." "Yes, you are." "It's so hard because we're victims." "Yes, I'm caring like you are." "No, YOU are!"

Then fine. Enjoy. But that's about as interesting as a Lifetime TV festival on Mother's Day without any men in the programming. How long would THAT channel last without any evil men?

Anonymous said...

NY said: "Well if you accept this comment of your grandfather's as legitimate, then why do you keep arguing with Virago."

Um, go back and read PK's post again, NY.

"Now tell me this: how long would a woman last on a mens site with this tone against a male poster?"

I don't know about every MRA blog but Glenn has had a sort of resident feminist commenter on his blog for a couple of years now. The others rebut her of course but Glenn has always insisted that she has as much right there as anyone else and is entitled to courtesy at least. He doesn't give the guys a pass for being "incited."

There are a number of others that pop up from time to time depending on the subject matter. No problem at all.

I only remember him banning one feminist troll and that was because she persisted in posting some personal information about someone that violated the privacy rules.

That there aren't more feminist commenters probably has more to do with not wishing to defend their viewpoint than anything else.

A venting place is fine if that's what you're really aiming for, but those tend to be very boring places.

"The situations are not comparable as you well know. Women have faced discrimination in many fields for years, we are just playing catch-up now for about two generations."

Educated women already equal men in earning power, NY. A gap occurs BECAUSE so many of them choose to take time off for kids and whatnot. Now if they will be kind enough to continue to work and "hog those resources"

"That these courts have become politically correct cesspools where women can not get justice. They risk losing their children if they enter them and are not very very careful and/or lucky..."

Very few of them do, NY. But whether they do or not, again, presumed shared parenting. No one has to lose anything. Unless...what they really want isn't justice but complete freedom to do as they please, in which case they should never start families in the first place.

"Not to mention that the ONLY thing men contribute to these relationships is economic support...so if they refuse to honor that commitment then what exactly is their unique contribution to the relationship???"

She didn't have to marry down if she didn't want to. SHE committed to live with this man. The only commitment that wasn't honored was hers toward him. AND hers toward their son.

David Goldman is Sean's one legal, biological father. That's unique enough.

Richard

Anonymous said...

V said: "I believe it when Phyllis Chesler said fathers abduct children for revenge while mothers abduct children to protect them."

Phyllis Chesler's personal opinion counts for very little. But whether she's right or not, Bruna clearly didn't abduct Sean to protect him. There was not even a suggestion of anything of the kind.

It was simply easier for her to uproot her son from his father and primary caretaker that he LOVED and from all of his family, friends, language and culture to return to where she could have nannies and maids and high life again.

Her rationale was the same as that of any other card-carrying woman-firster. Not justice, not the best interests of the child certainly, but MEEEEEEEEEE!

Whatever pain Sean Goldman has gone through can be laid directly on Bruna's privileged grave. A superb legacy to be sure.

"Yeah, Silverside commented on this blog not too long ago. She addressed a comment I made, and of course, PK wanted to jump on the bandwagon. First, he was all ass-kissy nice trying to get her to agree with him, but of course, she didn't, and he got really nasty."

V, I have no idea what you're talking about here. You're painting layers of interpersonal manipulation on our exchanges that are beyond me and probably PK too. Neither of us gives a crap what you girls think of us or obviously we wouldn't be here. We're discussing legal and sociological issues and sometimes current events. Can we leave it at that?

Anonymous said...

NY said: "Richard was very disrespectful when he barged into our conversation about the Goldman case."

Well, sorry if I came on too strong for you ladies but all the David Goldman-bashing simply IS irrelevant.

No parent deserves to have his/her child stolen out of the country because of the level of his/her earnings or employment. A fact of which you all ought to be acutely aware since most underemployed parents are WOMEN.

What's more important, no CHILD deserves this either.

If you think what this "poor" woman did was OK, then contrary to what you've already said you do NOT support equal parental rights for married men.

In which case, what exactly should be the incentive for men to marry in your opinion?

Richard

PolishKnight said...

Resurrecting Silverside

Richard, one of the neat things about women compared to men is how they'll go back and resurrect an argument that happened months (even years ago) that they're still holding a grudge over but the man has let go because he's focused on the present.

A comedian even joked that this was evidence of women having a superior ability to remember more small facts and details than men (like the TV character Monk) but I think it's also part of selective memory (women will tell men who complain about past mistakes by her, even severe, as "being in the past and just drop it already" but they'll throw up at you the most trivial wrongdoing, in their opinion, from 10 years ago when you least expect it.

As I said, this is the kind of stuff that men need to be prepared for and call women on so they don't try it.

Anyways, back to silverside: I was hardly ass-kissy then nasty as V claims. I said I agreed with her on some things but not on others. That's hardly ass kissy. It's funny because that SAME response by me is then interpreted by V later to be "nasty." The good ol' double standard we are seeing V and yes, NYMOM, advocate.

As I observed sometime ago when we discussed a protationary status for you and I, this ties in neatly to their viewpoints on men: They want the right to toss us out at a moments notice if we get uppity or become bums and don't produce income but at the same time accuse us of being power freaks who hoarded everything. (They sure learned THOSE from us pretty well, didn't they? We must be great teachers!)

Your question, why should men marry under the these conditions, is a relevent one we need to ask broadly including to your daughter and other young women: Are they willing and able to deal with REAL equality or do they just want to play the lottery and hope to at least marry even some or a majority of the time and wind up spinsters the rest?

Hmmm, that brings up the interesting reactions V and NYMOM have to women losing custody about 10% of the time (and probably a fraction of that). Do women even think about the fact when they're young that they have a 50% chance or so of winding up divorced and/or unwed and even childless? For me, at the age of 19, I found that prospect terrifying and watched my step but many women seem to have the attitude that they are special and the odds don't apply to them. Then again, a lot of young men seem clueless too.

PolishKnight said...

Statistics

Richard writes: "Educated women already equal men in earning power, NY."

I saw a study (yeah, I know, such "studies are about as valuable as V's) that claimed that even back in 1960, unmarried women who hadn't married were earning as much as men in similar situations. When the women later married up and quit their jobs, their earnings went down but this wasn't due to sexist discrimination from men, of course. This still applies today.

Sexist discrimination against women in the workplace is actually somewhat recent. In the old days, it was market based and unregulated meaning that employers who tried to pay women less for the same work might lose workers to other employers. Socialists at the turn of the 20th century wanted to get working class families that were struggling with two wageearners and balancing family and career to have one stay at home and the other get paid more. And it worked! So many families were able to have a spouse stay at home with the kids that they took it for granted!

Now I hear many women gripe that their boyfriends and husbands are "unambitious" and "lazy" and aren't helping her make her "sacrifice" to stay at home. I remind them that's what equality is.

Anonymous said...

PK said: "Hmmm, that brings up the interesting reactions V and NYMOM have to women losing custody about 10% of the time (and probably a fraction of that). Do women even think about the fact when they're young that they have a 50% chance or so of winding up divorced and/or unwed and even childless?"

Their chances aren't actually 50% across the board. So probably higher class women think their chances of successful marriage are good enough, and they're far less likely to be frightened by the prospect of childlessness. Affluence considerably reduces the procreation fever, as we've seen in the West over the last generation.

While lower class women virtually accept that they'll be unmarried mothers. It's all they know. They fear childlessness more because they have nothing else to aspire to, and there's no incentive to wait till they're better prepared because they can count on subsidies from one source or another.

I'm continually puzzled by NY's absolute faith that women won't have kids if there's even the smallest risk of losing custody of them. All while underclass women are breeding like wildfire in the face of staggering odds that they will eventually lose those children to street and gang violence, drugs, and prison. Not to mention the "babysnatchers" (CPS).

Dads are so low on the list of risks that they don't even figure in most of those women's minds.

"Then again, a lot of young men seem clueless too."

I think the same thing whenever I see a young guy take up with a woman who has already crapped out on one marriage and performed a parentectomy. Does he think he's so special that she's going to grow a sense of responsibility in his honor?

Idiots come in all genders.

Richard

Anonymous said...

PK said: "but I think it's also part of selective memory"

It's more than just memory. It's projecting subtleties of intention and meaning that, hey I'm sorry, we just don't get.

If I agree with one of these faceless gals here on some point it's because I...agree. Not because I want any of them to like me. Seriously, what's up with that? That and a dime will buy me a gumball.

Maybe one reason patriarchy has been such an efficient driver of progress is that we don't have the time, interest or hard-wiring to figure out how everyone feeeeeels about everything we say and do.

Richard

virago said...

NYMOM, here's a new twist on parental abduction. Remember the Jaycee Dugard case? She was abducted in 1991 at the age of 11 and held captive in a back yard, raped, and forced to bear her abductor's two children, and developed a bad case of Stockholm Syndrome for 18 years. Well, obviously, this was a stranger abduction, but there are people (mostly men) on the blogs who are blaming Jaycee's mother for "kidnapping" her child as a baby. Why? Well, apparently, this guy named Ken Slayton came forward claiming to be bio-dad a couple of weeks after Jaycee's recovery. He said that in 1979, he met Jaycee's mom, Terry "Susan" Dugard Probyn on a camping trip. They had an affair that last approximately 1 month that resulted in Terry getting pregnant. Terry was 21, and Ken was 34. Anyway, Ken said Terry told him she was pregnant and "disappeared". Approximately, a year later, a "mutual friend" told him Terry gave birth to a baby girl (Jaycee), and didn't want Ken to have anything to do with her. Ken said he tried to look for Terry and Jaycee, but couldn't find them. However, in 1991, the FBI came to his door, told him about Jaycee's kidnapping, and said Terry identified him as the bio-dad. He was investigated and cleared, but he said he "vowed" that if Jaycee was ever recovered, he would seek her out for a "parent-child relationship".

virago said...

Now, that Jaycee and her daughters are recovered, that is exactly what he is trying to do. He wants to meet Jaycee and her daughters, and he wants to be a "strong male role model" since they lack one. He also wants to take a DNA test to confirm his paternity. He was supported by his current wife and two daughters that he raised, I guess, to show how great a dad he is. He said he didn't know how to reach Jaycee, and he hoped that going live on Tv would do the trick.

virago said...

NYMOM, what is this guy thinking? Jaycee is 29 years old! She needs time to heal from her ordeal and become reacquainted with the family she actually knew her first 11 years-HER MOTHER. What she does not need is some STRANGE MALE coming into her life and trying to dictate what HE thinks she needs for cripe's sake. And to top it off, this guy gets on national Tv and badmouths Jaycee's mother Terri. He claims that she just "disappeared", and he couldn't find her. Bullshit! Terry told him she was pregnant. More than likely, she "disappeared" after he flat out told her he didn't want anything to do with it. Jaycee suddenly gets kidnapped, and the guy has a guilt complex. The point is-we don't know what happened other than what this guy says. Jaycee's mother hasn't even bothered to respond to Ken Slayton's comments. In fact, neither has Jaycee. I don't blame them. Why should they? Jaycee doesn't know this guy, and it's probably not in her best interests to get to know him-at least not now. I find it incredibly insensitive of this guy to come out of the wood work now. He could at least waited a year or two and let Jaycee RECOVER FROM HER ORDEAL for cripe's sake.

virago said...

Another case of a guy who thinks because he is bio-dad, he should have all the rights. And yes, looking at Ken Slayton, I would say he is bio-dad. Jaycee looks exactly like him. Anyway, Terry NEVER ask for child support, and Jaycee had a step-father, Carl Probyn, for a male role model. In fact, Carl Probyn was the one who saw Jaycee get abducted from the bus stop in front of their house, and he is the one who unsuccessfully tried to rescue her. Carl has been looked at as a suspect for 18 years because he was the last to see her. Ken Slayton said that if he had been part of Jaycee's life during her first 11 years, he thought that maybe he could have prevented her kidnapping. I find those words extremely offensive toward the step-father, Carl Probyn, WHO REALLY WAS PART OF JAYCEE'S LIFE AND HAD ACTUALLY TRIED TO PREVENT HER KIDNAPPING. Anyway, Carl Probyn is VOLUNTARILY not trying to seek a reunion with Jaycee just yet because of the nature of her ordeal. Apparently, there are mental health professionals who think Jaycee and her daughters need time to reacquaint themselves with their new life and FEMALE RELATIVES FIRST. Yet, despite this, Jaycee has asked about her STEPFATHER, and CARL PROBYN keeps in contact with Jaycee's mother on a regular basis (even though they are now divorced). I ask- WHO IS THE REAL FATHER? It certainly isn't Ken Slayton. Maybe Ken Slayton has been a good father to his daughters with his current wife, but he is NOT acting in Jaycee's best interests by trying to push for a "reunion" now. And the fact that he even had the nerve to ask for a DNA test on top of this. It's, "I want to be your father Jaycee, but we have to find out right now if I am!" This guy has no business doing this stuff NOW. He didn't come forward to help with the search when Jaycee was first kidnapped, and his timing really sucks now. He didn't even give Jaycee and her daughters enough time to adjust to the situation before he's sticking his face in WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG. It's interesting-Ken Slayton had his daughters (from his current wife) as support, but he also barely mentioned that he had two older children from a previous marriage (before Jaycee). Why weren't they there to support dear old dad? What's their story? Maybe he was a shitty dad to them, and Jaycee's mother knew this. Maybe that's why she "disappeared" on him. Anyway, this whole situation really gripes my ass. What right does this guy have to do this NOW? If he wanted to come forward, he SHOULD HAVE WAITED, and to demand a DNA test-of all things-at such a time is in incredibly bad taste. Especially since, the mother never even asked him for child support or anything. Of course, there are people on the blogs (mainly men) who are sticking up for this sperm donor. The cries are all-it's his right as a FATHER to know Jaycee. Jaycee is 29 years old! She doesn't have to see him now or EVER. Of course, there are people badmouthing Jaycee's mom for "not telling him she was pregnant" (she did), and even were wondering who Jaycee's mom might have slept with, besides Ken Slayton, to make him ask for a DNA test. That's a new low right there when people think they have a right to know the SEXUAL HISTORY of a RAPE VICTIM'S MOTHER for cripe's sake. That's no ones business, and only Jaycee gets to decide if she wants to see Ken Slayton or not. As far as a DNA test, I hope she tells him to stick it. Jaycee's mother told Ken Slayton he was the father when she got pregnant, AND she identified Ken Slayton as the biological father to the FBI when Jaycee was kidnapped. Apparently, Jaycee's mother has never identified ANYONE ELSE. Ken Slayton should just accept that as is, or just get the hell out of Jaycee's life completely. After all, it's not Jaycee or her mother who started this circus for a "reunion". This guy is a jerk.

NYMOM said...

"NYMOM, you had expressed indignation that Richard and I didn't mind Glenn putting us on probation and I explained why: Because he doesn't have a double standard. He welcomes feminists and even hosts articles from them on his site."

Glenn Sacks host the kind of 'feminists' that women don't need.

Women like Cathy Young (who a few years back was trying to start a campaign to get more woman on death row in the name of gender equity).

AND that other ass, whose name escapes me now, a so-called 'feminist' attorney who worked very closely with Darren Mack and his second wife (the one he eventually murdered) to help him get custody of his first wife's kids...

So don't tell me about these so-called 'feminists' on Glenn Sacks website.

Mothers need them like a hole in the head.



"I don't think Richard's remark that V must have a pretty wide range of acquaintences to know many SAHD's is "snide" but rather one that expresses incredulity. He doesn't know many SAHD's and neither do I. There simply aren't that many out there. Perhaps you're misinterpreting his remark to imply that V might have slept around or something? That's the only way I can find such a remark being offensive."

Okay...

Now when you get cursed out again later tonight or tomorrow I don't want to hear anything else from you about it, as this remark falls definitely under the category of 'smart ass'...

NYMOM said...

"Er, NYMOM, women hardly would have created sister colleges if the men had hogged all the resources. Where did the women get the bricks, the land, and the workers (probably all male) to build such places? Hmmmm?"

They built the 'sister' schools to keep women out of their more prestigious colleges...if those sister schools turned out to pretty decent places for women to get an education it wasn't because men planned it that way.

Just like the historic black colleges came into being for the same reason.

So do men deserve a medal for these things?

I think not.

Some things should be obvious even to you.


"We're discussing legal and sociological issues and sometimes current events. Can we leave it at that?"

The problem is we can never discuss these issues w/o one of you two coming in and taking pot shots at us...this is what leads to the fighting and cursing at some point.

Anonymous said...

NY, check out Glenn's "Feminist Dissident" category sometime. It contains articles on a wide variety of gender and family subjects, many of them written by so-called feminists who are actually closer to woman-firsters like yourself. And in the comments you'll find many unabashed woman-firsters who are perfectly welcome and debated with courtesy.

R.

PolishKnight said...

Playing the race card

"Just like the historic black colleges came into being for the same reason."

Actually, since the so-called civil rights era, the incarceration rate for black men has soared.

Another thing you might want to keep in mind is that there are black people in other places BESIDES the United States! Also, slavery existed long before Christopher Columbus set sail.

If men wanted to keep women out of their more prestigious colleges, then they needn't have constructed women's only institutions. They had the option of simply not building them at all. Nonetheless, that's more than liberated women have done for men (besides giving us more sex before marriage, of course.)

virago said...

NYMOM, I saw Dateline last weekend. Of course, it showed David Goldman's reunion with his son, and lots of interviews with Goldman about the kid. This guy whines because the Brazilian family walked Sean through a bunch of news media to get into the U.S. consulate. I agree that this was wrong, but than what does Goldman do? He allows Dateline to film his reunion with Sean, their plane ride, their first days together at Disneyland, Sean's reunion with his paternal grandparents, aunts, and cousins, and the first time Sean walks into his house in 5 years. This was just as wrong. The kid is trying to acclimate to people he hasn't seen in 5 years. Not only that, he was leaving the only family he has known for all that time. The last thing he needed was a camera shoved in his face the entire time. I'm sure Goldman probably needed the money, but really, he was being a big hypocrite here. But hey, I saw this same kind of behavior before from him. In prior interviews, he and his friends and family were always putting down Bruna because she came from a privileged background, and her brother was a soap opera star in Brazil. It was, "Oh, Bruna was always hobnobbing with the celebrities in Brazil." and " Bruna had maids, butlers, and nannies to do everything for her when she was in Brazil." WTF? In between interviews with Goldman, his family and friends, they were always bragging ad nauseum about Goldman's good looks, his "international modeling career", and his modeling jobs with people like Claudia Schiffer and Kathy Ireland. Hypocrisy much? Kind of ironic that the spoiled rich Brazilian princess who had everything done for her had to work double shifts to support the family because Goldman's modeling career wasn't as successful as he aged, and he refused to get a full-time job. After all, the kid was in DAYCARE at least part of the week. I think the spoiled brat was Goldman. If this was a mother who lost her kid to a Brazilian husband, she still would be begging the state department to help her for cripe's sake. It doesn't matter if the mother is the "abductor" or the left behind parent. They still get thrown to the wolves while fathers who abduct get away with it and fathers who are left behind get first class service from capital hill and a private plane to Brazi courtesy of Dateline.

virago said...

NYMOM, I also find it funny that Bruna New Jersey divorce affidavit isn't online anywhere-or not that I could find. The Send Sean Home Foundation has a lot of legal documents online, but not this one. Of course, they paraphrase and than try to make Bruna look like some spoiled rich woman who missed the high-life. However, they never actually put it online for everyone to read. I can guess why. I'm sure that there is stuff in there that David Goldman probably doesn't want people to see. It reminds me of the Christopher Savoie case. Some website put a court document that had some Noriko Savoie's testimony on it. It was suppose to show what a liar Noriko was, blah, blah, blah. Yet, it was obvious that half this document was missing-Christopher Savoie's own testimony. Anyway, I found the other half of the document online, and I can see why it was excluded. Christopher Savoie's testimony showed that he was rude and arrogant. There was evidence that he verbally abused Noriko, threatened her by having her father jailed in Japan over the sale of a car (the same father-in-law who co-signed a student loan for this asshole). Savoie had to warned several times and threatened with jail because he kept interrupting the judge and the attorneys. He accused Noriko of violating their "parenting plan" while excusing the fact that he did the same thing. The parenting plan gave Noriko final say on certain decisions, and Savoie signed this document with those words in it. Yet, he tried to say that he didn't "know" that the parenting plan contained those words, blah, blah, blah. No wonder why Noriko took off with those kids to Japan. I would have too. Anyway, I don't really have any sympathy for Savoie. I think Goldman is a more sympathetic character, BUT I can understand why Bruna felt like she should go back to Brazil. She wasn't going to custody here because of the circumstances she was living under here. Anyway, the fact that that website supporting Goldman can't even put Bruna's affidavit online,but can paraphrase it, makes me suspicious. I don't think Goldman is what he claims to be, nor do I think Bruna is what HE claims she is. Anyway, I think Goldman should have custody now that Bruna is dead, but I think it was a whole 'nother ball game when she was alive.

Anonymous said...

"BUT I can understand why Bruna felt like she should go back to Brazil."

I can too. MEEEEEEEEEEEE!

"and he refused to get a full-time job. After all, the kid was in DAYCARE at least part of the week."

I'm not sure what your point about the daycare is, V. I understand that Goldman had a part-time job during which time the child was either in preschool or daycare. Should he have been at home full-time instead?

By this logic every guy who works long hours so his wife can work at a "pleasant little part-time job" and oversee playgroups the rest of the time and still have a nice house and comfortable lifestyle should uproot the kids and head for Brazil, kids' rights notwithstanding.

See Marty Nemko's excellent article "Men As Beasts of Burden" for a description of what these guys live with and why MRAs no longer want "traditional" wives.

But thank you for continuing to expose just what a scam the SAHM "sacrifice" actually is.

Anyway, for most people who don't have rich and controlling parents manipulating them from abroad, presumed shared parenting should take care of the concerns about loss of custody that Bruna purported to have.

"Kind of ironic that the spoiled rich Brazilian princess who had everything done for her had to work double shifts to support the family"

Very ironic. And completely unremarkable. You surprise me, V. Most liberals love to scream about "privilege" and see the wealthy and powerful reduced to living like everyone else.

Richard

PolishKnight said...

"[Abducting mothers] still get thrown to the wolves while fathers who abduct get away with it"

It appears in this particular case mentioned (the Brazilian mother), she _did_ get away with it and only after she died did the father get custody, yes? On the other hand, Clark Rockefeller abducted his daughter and went to the slammer for 5 years.

This is a good opportunity to observe that when you talk about "abusive" men getting custody, that probably means simply an accusation of abuse that you assume to be true or even just an ASSUMPTION that the man is an abuser.

Richard, I disagree with you that V's personal allegations against me are irrelevent. If she argues that my simply saying I married a foreign woman is proof that I'm abusing her then this helps to explain why, in her universe, women are surrounded by "abusers." It's a clear example of her prejudiced thinking.

Anonymous said...

Yet even if you were an "abuser," it wouldn't negate anything you've said. You might simply be an abusive person making excellent points or observations.

It's nothing but a distraction ploy and an excuse from defending indefensible positions. Which is why woman-firsters love it.

R.

NYMOM said...

"NYMOM, I saw Dateline last weekend. Of course, it showed David Goldman's reunion with his son, and lots of interviews with Goldman about the kid. This guy whines because the Brazilian family walked Sean through a bunch of news media to get into the U.S. consulate. I agree that this was wrong, but than what does Goldman do?"

Yes, I saw the same program...and did you hear the ending? Goldman's going to be suing the Brazilian family for his legal expenses which he claims are $500,000.

Sigh...but he's not interested in money much...

I'd like to know how an underemployed loafer managed to keep up a house in New Jersey PLUS pay $500,000 to attorneys to fight an international custody fight???

NYMOM said...

"Kind of ironic that the spoiled rich Brazilian princess who had everything done for her had to work double shifts to support the family"

"Very ironic. And completely unremarkable. You surprise me, V. Most liberals love to scream about "privilege" and see the wealthy and powerful reduced to living like everyone else."

It's unremarkable for an American born woman to expect to have to work after marriage and children, it's actually quite common as stay-at-home moms are rare today BUT was this understood when this woman from Brazil married Goldman OR did he lie about his financial situation and lead her to believe he was more financially stable then he actually was...

This is the issue for me...did he suddenly up and stop working shortly after the marriage???? Or after the birth of their son????? After all her parents couldn't have been too rich since they left her working double shifts for a few years here to support the entire family.

NYMOM said...

"[Abducting mothers] still get thrown to the wolves while fathers who abduct get away with it"

It appears in this particular case mentioned (the Brazilian mother), she _did_ get away with it and only after she died did the father get custody, yes?"


The case was ongoing when she died. I happen to believe the ending would have been exactly the same btw. I do not believe she would have been allowed to keep her son by Brazil since Brazil (like every other country in South America) has a court system weighted towards men. Which is why I mentioned I'm against western courts being gender neutral, especially in international custody cases...



"On the other hand, Clark Rockefeller abducted his daughter and went to the slammer for 5 years."

But wasn't this the guy who had committed numerous other crimes besides the abduction???? I think once they finally caught him it turned out he wasn't even a Rockefeller...even his name was a lie...and didn't he commit a murder to hide his initial identify????

Maybe he wasn't charged with it yet as the investigation is ongoing, but he's a poor example to use in this discussion.

NYMOM said...

"Makes no difference. The mother's death should have made the whole issue moot. Nobody in Brazil had a significant claim on the kid and he should have been on the next plane home to his dad.

Unless you also want foreign GPs and steps hanging on to a mother's abducted children on grounds that too much time has passed and it would be against their "best interests" to uproot them.

That's what I mean when I say you woman-firsters are so rabid for EVERY woman to get her way on EVERY issue that you'll thoughtlessly embrace principles that will hurt you in the long run."

The problem with your analysis Richard is that this exact thing happens to mothers ALL THE TIME...
with step persons granted equal or more rights to their children continuously.

This is the basis for a lot of grandparents getting custody by the way...the courts saying too much time has passed for them to alter the child's living arrangements.

So this goes on already.

Courts deciding to support father's rights has caused this, by the way. As men have undermined the natural biological mother/child bond to make the legal one a priority... and that's what has empowered all of these people to head to court for custody...

It's men for selfish gain who have unleashed this chaos...

NYMOM said...

"Ken Slayton should just accept that as is, or just get the hell out of Jaycee's life completely. After all, it's not Jaycee or her mother who started this circus for a "reunion". This guy is a jerk."

I think he's another example of how people want to get in the media spotlight more then anything else. The case was front page news for a few weeks and I guess he just couldn't resist the possibility of getting his name and picture in the news.

NYMOM said...

"PK said: "Hmmm, that brings up the interesting reactions V and NYMOM have to women losing custody about 10% of the time (and probably a fraction of that). Do women even think about the fact when they're young that they have a 50% chance or so of winding up divorced and/or unwed and even childless?"

Their chances aren't actually 50% across the board. So probably higher class women think their chances of successful marriage are good enough, and they're far less likely to be frightened by the prospect of childlessness. Affluence considerably reduces the procreation fever, as we've seen in the West over the last generation."

That's one interpretation of why women in the west have fewer children, another is all of this custody business men have incited as soon as they realized women could live very well independently from them...

After all, even your guy, Richard Gardner, admitted the tide was beginning to turn in custody cases against women beginning around the 80s or so...he claims that is when all these accusations of child sex abuse started. It's an attempt for women to try and keep custody of their children...

So if he's right that could be a strong motivator for women to stop having kids. As who the heck is going to take a chance like that especially with the divorce rate so high.

Only a man would think that a 50% chance of losing your children wouldn't play a role in women deciding not to have any children.

NYMOM said...

I couldn't find your comment Richard about whether or not moral behavior should play a role in custody decisions but I think I remember you making one.

So I'm going to say: IF all things are equal between the parties it probably shouldn't play any role, but it could act as a tie breaker perhaps.

The problem is women are held to a higher standard in the morals department then men are...that's the issue and why women resent the court system so much on these custody decisions.

virago said...

NYMOM, I think you've made some good points. I wonder if Goldman also lied to Bruna about how much money he actually made. I made the statement that there's a huge difference between a mutual working mom/stay-at-home dad relationship and being forced to support someone who doesn't want to work. I stand by that statement. Obviously, this was not a family who could live on one income, and Goldman's part-time gigs weren't bringing in enough money if Bruna had to pick up extra shifts. Yes, Sean was in daycare, but this was DURING THE WEEK. Most of Goldman's part-time jobs were on the WEEKEND. In fact, Goldman frequently stopped into Sean's daycare to read the kids a book for cripe's sake. No, he was not always working while Sean was in daycare. He should've got off his ass and worked a FULL-TIME job. Btw, I made the comment before that I WOULD SAY THE SAME FOR ANY WOMAN. However, that conveniently gets ignored. Anyway, the kid would have been fine in full-time daycare. Btw, Clark Rockefeller was also charged and sentenced with 2-3 years for physically assaulting a social worker. And yes, they found his fingerprints were identical to that left on a cold case murder in California. A lot of these dads do get away with it-expecially the ones from the arab countries. No matter the circumstances in Brazil, DAvid Goldman didn't have to worry about Sean being married off at the age of 6 to someone who is an old man and his mother's first cousin. It happens a lot in the middle east (especially to girl children). Yet, it's not uncommon for the children of a woman fleeing an abuse situation to be sent back to that father. It happens all the time, and the good ole US OF A leads the pack. I agree with your other points as well.

virago said...

"The problem with your analysis Richard is that this exact thing happens to mothers ALL THE TIME...
with step persons granted equal or more rights to their children continuously."

Your right on the money there NYMOM. If a guy shows up in court with a stay-at-home stepmom, this will actually work in his favor as far as custody is concerned. It doesn't matter if the bio-mom was a stay-at-home mom herself, she most likely will have to find a job after the divorce, and the stay-at-home stepmom has been the favored ploy of dads seeking custody for years. They get custody and dump said kid on the second wife. There isn't anything new that hasn't been tried on moms before. However, it only gets noticed when it's a dad who is put through the wringer.

Anonymous said...

NY said: "Yes, I saw the same program...and did you hear the ending? Goldman's going to be suing the Brazilian family for his legal expenses which he claims are $500,000."

Good. It ought to be more.

"This is the issue for me...did he suddenly up and stop working shortly after the marriage???? Or after the birth of their son????? After all her parents couldn't have been too rich since they left her working double shifts for a few years here to support the entire family."

It's not an issue at all. Women pull this stunt on their husbands all the damn time. However dishonest it may be, it doesn't erase their parental rights. In fact, it usually enhances them.

It's known that Bruna's parents sent her money to supplement their income. Can't let Princess live like the common unwashed masses after all.

BTW, exactly how does one work "double shifts" as a high school teacher? Did princess do a little after hours tutoring and call it a "double shift?" Cry me a river. Welcome to the world we men have dealt with since the damned Industrial Revolution. Enjoy.

"Only a man would think that a 50% chance of losing your children wouldn't play a role in women deciding not to have any children."

That's a gross misrepresentation. Women don't have a 50% chance of losing their children. 85% of single mothers have the majority of their kids' time and that's only in the event of a breakup, most of which are instigated by women themselves and mostly for non-pressing reasons.

In any case fear of custody disputes has never figured significantly in any data collected about women who opt out of having children. The most common reason they give is not wanting their careers derailed.

"The problem with your analysis Richard is that this exact thing happens to mothers ALL THE TIME...
with step persons granted equal or more rights to their children continuously.

This is the basis for a lot of grandparents getting custody by the way...the courts saying too much time has passed for them to alter the child's living arrangements."

Apples and oranges, NY. Most grandparents with custody do not fight for it or even ask for it. They accept it to keep the kids out of foster care because the parents are unwilling, unable, or unavailable.

The ones who do fight for it usually do so because the parent(s) have voluntarily left the child in the GP's care for a certain amount of time (usually 6 to 12 months depending on the jurisdiction) which by law erases the parental preference and puts everyone on an equal footing in family court.

This was not the case in the Goldman situation. David Goldman never voluntarily relinquished his son. The child was wrongfully kept from him.

V said: "They get custody and dump said kid on the second wife. There isn't anything new that hasn't been tried on moms before. However, it only gets noticed when it's a dad who is put through the wringer."

Yet if dad dies stepmom isn't going to have a case for custody because she's not a parent. And neither were the Bianchis or Bruna's second husband. Apples and oranges again.

R.

NYMOM said...

"Only a man would think that a 50% chance of losing your children wouldn't play a role in women deciding not to have any children."

That's a gross misrepresentation. Women don't have a 50% chance of losing their children. 85% of single mothers have the majority of their kids' time and that's only in the event of a breakup, most of which are instigated by women themselves and mostly for non-pressing reasons."

We've already discussed why women file first as the 'first strike' in filing generally ensures temporary custody which morphs into permanent unless she is an ax murderer or something...

But you know Richard, I'm getting a little tired of having to go over these points with you over and over again.

Remember what I told you: this is my blog, my opinions. It's primary clients: Mothers...

So if you want to continue arguing over every single point I make over and over again, you should probably go elsewhere. A men's site would have banned a woman who did this months ago...

BTW, 50% of marriage, (or some comparable number) end in divorce so I guess it would have been more correct to say women have a 50% chance of having to engage in a custody fight if they have kids...

I believe that percentage does impact women's life choices whether or not you wish to acknowledge it.



"In any case fear of custody disputes has never figured significantly in any data collected about women who opt out of having children. The most common reason they give is not wanting their careers derailed."

Well I seriously doubt any women would respond to a study about losing custody of their kids by saying they would accuse the childrens' father of sexual abuse in order to derail his custody case. YET according to your guy Richard Gardner that's exactly what women started doing around the early 80s or so when men started working the system to get out of paying child support...so was Gardner wrong????

I told you before studies are of limited use regarding this issue...



"Welcome to the world we men have dealt with since the damned Industrial Revolution."

The Industrial Revolution had no impact on mothers raising their kids. Mothers always cared for their children before and after it. That's just some bs men and gender neutral feminists have come up with to justify removing children from the care of their mothers.

This custody business, mostly incited by men for financial gain, is really nothing but another one of the nutty social engineering experiments so dear to the hearts of radical feminists. I guess it embarrasses men to admit radical feminists are their partners in this, so you all keep bringing up this Industrial Revolution garbage like that was some kind of milestone for mothers or something.

It wasn't...

NYMOM said...

"Your right on the money there NYMOM. If a guy shows up in court with a stay-at-home stepmom, this will actually work in his favor as far as custody is concerned. It doesn't matter if the bio-mom was a stay-at-home mom herself, she most likely will have to find a job after the divorce, and the stay-at-home stepmom has been the favored ploy of dads seeking custody for years. They get custody and dump said kid on the second wife. There isn't anything new that hasn't been tried on moms before. However, it only gets noticed when it's a dad who is put through the wringer."

Well frankly, I don't think Goldman was put through the ringer. I think he was trying to take advantage of a woman who didn't understand our culture and it backfired on him...

The real irony is that it's the exactly opposite for mothers in custody cases when they try to bring a new man in the picture. Often an attorney will tell a dad, introduce your new g/f, wife, whatever. Let the courts see you'll have a women's influence in your home...

Whereas a woman is told: don't even mention a new boyfriend, no matter how great a guy he might be...

It's interesting this double standard again. It saids to me that people just don't trust men or their motivations...

NYMOM said...

Another point, which even our Supreme Court conceded recently is that a child generally follows the status of its mother.

Some soldiers tried to bring a case of discrimination against the US because they said the children of female soldiers (no matter the father's status) are automatically granted citizenship as their status is from the mother. Whereas male solider's children have to apply for citizenship and they aren't always granted it.

The Supreme Court ruled against them and that was the end of the matter.

Now in the US, a child is automatically a citizen if they are born here; but, every country doesn't follow those guidelines.

So this woman bringing her son back to her country of birth was following a long tradition of most societies which recognize that a mother invests more in her offspring then a man does...

Thus, traditionally children take their status from their mother unless their father wishes to contest it in court...that's why I say courts inherently favor males. The whole damn system was created to favor men and undermine womens' more natural (and logical) connection to their children and try to hand them over to men...

So I don't believe Goldman was being 'put through the ringer' as you said. If you were talking about him I mean...he made his own bed by trying to manipulate a foreign woman and her and her son paid the price...

AND now he's trying to get a $500,000 payoff from her family to boot...

NYMOM said...

Regarding that Rockefeller situation. I think the guy was suspected of murdering three people to hide his identity and stay in the US illegally. He was actually an exchange student from Germany who disappeared into the US...and ALL he got was five years?????

It figures the mens' movement would pick a jerk like that to support...

My question is how did he get ANY visitation whatsoever????

virago said...

"So I don't believe Goldman was being 'put through the ringer' as you said. If you were talking about him I mean...he made his own bed by trying to manipulate a foreign woman and her and her son paid the price..."

Actually, what I was referring to was that Goldman was complaining that the step-dad wanted to adopt Sean. It was all about bio-dad's rights should trump step-dad's rights. Yet, women have put up with this crap for years and than some. Bio-dad wants custody and he uses a stay-at-home step mom to get it. Forget the rights of the bio-mom (who formerly stayed home and now has to work) and the rights of the kids (to be raised by the parent who always raised them) because mom now has a job. Instead, bio-dad gets custody, doesn't have to pay child support, dumps kids on step-mom so he doesn't have to take care of them either, and the step-mom has more say over raising those kids than either bio-dad (because he leaves it all to step-mom) and bio-mom (because she no longer has custody). It happens been happening to women for years, and no one pays any attention until it happens to some guy! That was my point.

"Some soldiers tried to bring a case of discrimination against the US because they said the children of female soldiers (no matter the father's status) are automatically granted citizenship as their status is from the mother. Whereas male solider's children have to apply for citizenship and they aren't always granted it."

Yeah, I've noticed this. It's common sense that citizenship should be passed through the mother (unless an immigrant mother has her child here). After all, those female soldiers are U. S. citizens, and they are the obvious parent. Their children should automatically get citizenship. OTOH, it's not so obvious when it's dad who is a u.s. citizen. Any foreign woman can claim that her child is Joe Schmo American Soldiers kid in the hopes of getting citizenship. I don't have a problem with a dad passing on his u.s. citizenship to his kids (in the case of illegitimate kids not born in this country to a foreign mother), but there should be a dna test to make sure the kid is really his. I don't see anything wrong with that. Female u.s. soldiers have an advantage when giving birth in a foreign country when dad isn't an American. That isn't their fault, and why should their kids be denied u.s. citizenship just because some american male soldier has to go the extra mile to ensure his kid is really his kid. It wasn't always like that though. It use to be citizenship was only passed through the father, and that was way before dna tests.

virago said...

"It figures the mens' movement would pick a jerk like that to support..."

It doesn't surprise me. Remember Stephen Fagan, the American Rockefeller? I've seen him hailed as some kind of hero on FRA websites. This case was a domestic parental abduction case, but it has the same elements. Fagan lived a millionaire lifestyle without ever having any visible means of support-he never worked. His friends said they could never figure out where he got his money. Anyway, he was a pathological liar who made up all sorts of ludricous stories, and he was all about impressing people, etc. He married Barbara Kurth (who was little more than a teenager), and they had 2 daughters. He was very controlling and manipulating, and Kurth found out how he REALLY made his living-illegally selling stolen antiques and art forgery, insurance scams, etc. The guy was a big con artist. Anyway, Kurth left him and took her two daughters. Of course, Fagan tried to fight her for custody, but he ended up going belly up in court when Kurth's lawyer brought up all his illegal activities (he pleaded the 5th 14 times under oath-what does that tell you?). OF course, Kurth got custody, and Fagan tried to go the unfit mother route and claimed she was an alcoholic and drug addict who always passed out drunk in her living room while their two daughters (ages 2 and 5) wandered around unclothed and hungry. He even had affidavits from Kurth's neighbors supporting this.

virago said...

However, Kurth had a sleep disorder, known as narcolepsy, which can be mistaken for drunken behavior. She had been in treatment for narcolepsy for 8 years, and the symptoms can get worse when a person is under stress (like when you have a vindictive ex-husband who is constantly trying to take your kids away from you). Anyway, Kurth had other neighbors and friends who could prove the allegations were untrue, and Fagan shot himself in the foot by trying to deny any knowledge of Kurth's narcolepsy (she had medical records that proved he certainly did know about it).

virago said...

Long story short, Fagan was unable to get custody legally, and he kidnapped the kids. For 20 years, Kurth spent thousands of dollars on PI's trying to find her kids. The police told her it was a "domestic matter", and they wouldn't help. She had to pull teeth to get some kind of arrest warrant for him. A convicted murderer was even arrested with pictures of Kurth and her children in his wallet, and this guy confessed that Fagan had hired him to kill Kurth and her lawyer in 1979 when Fagan abducted the kids. In the mean time, Kurth didn't know where her kids were, or if they were dead or alive. Fast forward, 20 years, and Fagan is FINALLY turned in by a sympathetic relative. It turns out, that he had been living the millionaire lifestyle in Palm Beach, Florida under the alias Dr. William "Bill" Martin. He told his daughters their mother was dead, and he raised them under different names. Again, Fagan never had any visible means of support, and he told people that he was a lawyer, psychiatrist, Harvard law professor, CIA Agent, former advisor for Pres. Nixon, the list goes on. He also serially married two wealthy widows who footed most of the bill for his wealthy lifestyle. They paid for his daughters to be sent to the best schools, etc. Fagan was described as a "devoted parent" who was a (no-shit) stay-at-home dad (I guess illegally selling antigues gives you flexible hours and a great salary). His daughters excelled academically and in sports. In fact, his younger daughter Wendy (renamed "Lisa" by her father) was considered an olympic swimming hopeful until she hurt her shoulder. Anyway, Fagan was finally arrested, and he spewed the same lies he did 20 years before about the girls mother being unfit, and how people were against "single fathers" and "stay-at-home dads". He said he "had to hide" and change their identities to protect his daughters from an unfit mother. In the same breath, Fagan said that they were-honest- easy to find, and their mother must not care very much about them because she didn't look hard enough. Fagan's daughters, now grown, totally believed whatever their father said, and they absolutely refused to investigate the situation for themselves. They don't even remember their mother, nor do they recall her so-called "abuse" of them. The oldest daughter, Rachael, said she "never has to question anything her father says." Anyway, they said their dad was the greatest father, and they had a great childhood, blah, blah, blah. They won't even consider seeing or talking to their mother. I don't blame them because I think Fagan really did a job on these girls. Everyone who knew him before the kidnapping said he was a controlling, manipulating, vindictive asshole who was all about impressing people. The whole community of Palm Beach believed this guy. What chance did 2 little girls have? He was the only "parent" they've known since they were 2 and 5. I think these girls were nothing but trophy kids. Fagan wanted them to succeed to make HIM LOOK GOOD. Fagan pointed out what a great parent he was because these girls were great students and atheletes, but lifeguards at the Palm Beach Swim Club said Fagan pushed his daughters extremely hard. He would scream at his daughters during swim meets, and get right in their faces and make them cry if they didn't make their time. That's abuse. No wonder these girls "excelled". It was probably bring home straight As and athletic trophies or risk making daddy very unhappy. Who knew what else he did behind closed doors? I think these girls were brought up to make daddy happy instead of learning to think for themselves. Shunning their mother is just another way of getting daddy's approval. Anyway, Fagan got FIVE YEARS OF PROBATION and COMMUNITY SERVICE. That's all. And the mother was never reunited with her daughters. It's no surprise that the FRAs use this guy as a hero. He's living their wildest dreams.

Anonymous said...

NY said: "I told you before studies are of limited use regarding this issue..."

I don't believe in clairvoyance. Studies may not be perfect but I'm afraid I tend to trust the direct answers of a large sampling of voluntarily childless women more than one biased person's supposed divination of their "true" motives.

"Well I seriously doubt any women would respond to a study about losing custody of their kids by saying they would accuse the childrens' father of sexual abuse in order to derail his custody case. YET according to your guy Richard Gardner that's exactly what women started doing around the early 80s or so when men started working the system to get out of paying child support...so was Gardner wrong????"

I don't care if Gardner was wrong or not. Probably nobody's ever ASKED a large representative sample of women if they would do such a thing.

But they HAVE asked them if they've ever interfered with visitation out of spite and 40% have admitted that they have.

Another 20% over in the UK have admitted that a primary goal in their divorce processes is to make contact between the kids and the NC as unpleasant as possible. And that doesn't even include the ones who formulate that goal later on, such as when they find a new squeeze who'd like to take over Dad's place altogether.

All of which is in direct contradiction of most feminists and woman-firsters' firm belief that women DON'T do any of this.

They're no better at mind-reading than you are, evidently.

"Another point, which even our Supreme Court conceded recently is that a child generally follows the status of its mother."

If so, we would have no trouble whatsoever packing up all the anchor babies and sending them and their mothers back across the border at once. Sounds like a great idea.

But seriously, I don't care what Brazil's "tradition" was. Every Muslim man that returns to his homeland with his children is acting in accordance with his own culture's traditions. What matters is OUR laws. Come here to live, marry and breed, you deal with it.

"The Industrial Revolution had no impact on mothers raising their kids."

No, but it had an impact on MEN by taking them out of the home and sending them off to work long hours elsewhere and thus giving you girls the notion that the home was your own little fiefdom that you're entitled to be maintained in. Don't blame us if you bought a pig in a poke from feminism promising you that what we were doing was so much more fun. The pig is now yours.

"AND now he's trying to get a $500,000 payoff from her family to boot..."

More power to him! Why shouldn't he recover the costs of retrieving what was stolen from him? He should also be compensated for the pain he and his son were put through. Not just from the stepmonster but from the maternal grandma who I strongly suspect instigated the whole sorry mess to begin with.

You still haven't answered my question, NY. If what Princess Bruna did was OK by you, and you condone a natural legal married father's parental rights being utterly spit upon in this way, then what exactly should be a man's incentive to marry?

Richard

Anonymous said...

"BTW, 50% of marriage, (or some comparable number) end in divorce so I guess it would have been more correct to say women have a 50% chance of having to engage in a custody fight if they have kids..."

It's not more correct at all. Only a small minority of divorces involve a custody dispute. And it will be a minority of a minority when we eventually have presumed shared parenting.

Anyway, the situation in Japan directly contradicts most of your theory, as the whole country is headed into extinction with mothers in complete ownership of children. Woo hoo!

R.

virago said...

"Anyway, the situation in Japan directly contradicts most of your theory, as the whole country is headed into extinction with mothers in complete ownership of children. Woo hoo!"

Most Japanese women are CULTURALLY EXPECTED to stay home with their kids. When a woman does work, she finds it very difficult to combine motherhood with outside employment. Family policies and support for working mothers is abysmal compared to most Western nations. A lot of the reason there is a low birth rate is because marriage in Japan has a pretty heavy social responsibility on women, and they don't want to give up their independence to.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31709

virago said...

Like the birth rate, the divorce rate in Japan is pretty low compared to the U.S. It's also a lot harder to even get a divorce because there isn't any no-fault divorce. The majority of divorces (90%) in Japan are by MUTUAL CONSENT. In other words, if the parties can't agree, there isn't any divorce unless a judge agrees to oversee the divorce. In order for a judge to grant a divorce, very strict grounds have to be met: infidelity, malicious desertion, uncertainty if spouse is dead or alive, insanity, or a "grave reason" (ususally susceptible to the interpretation of a judge). Btw, domestic violence was mostly seen as a "private matter" and not the business of the police or the courts until very recently. And make no mistake, domestic violence in Japan is quite high. A lot of times, victims of domestic violence are blamed for "instigating a divorce". People who are seen to "instigate" a divorce are not allowed to file for one.

virago said...

Also, divorce is considered so shameful, a divorced couple is expected not to see each other or have any contact with each other after a divorce. This is what is behind the cultural expectation that a non-custodial parent should cut all ties with his or her children after a divorce. Yes, most women get custody of the children after a divorce, but most divorces (90%) are by MUTUAL AGREEMENT. In other words, the majority of Japanese fathers AGREE to allow their wives to have custody of the children KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE ANY CONTACT AFTERWARDS. In other words, if mom has "full ownership" of the kids, it's because dad AGREED TO IT. And in divorces where the father gets custody, the mothers are given the same treatment as the fathers. Case in point: Prime minister Junichio Koizumi divorced his wife Kayoko. Koizumi was given custody of his two older sons, and Kayoko was given custody of the youngest son (who she was pregnant with at the time). Commendably, Koizumi paid child support (which isn't mandatory), but Kayoko didn't see her sons for 19 years. Koizumi originally agreed to let Kayoko see her sons when they were in "junior high". However, Koizumi renenged on this promise. By contrast, the son raised by Kayoko (now an adult) has asked to see his father several times. The father refused (probably because of that shame thing again). Btw, the two sons that Koizumi had custody of were raised by HIS SISTER. Even if women are granted custody more often by a judge, this is why. Japanese men work long hours and typically don't get home until 11pm at night. Even if a Japanese man were to get custody, chances are the kids would be a female relative most of the time. Japanese women are correctly seen as the parent who has and will continue to spend the most time with the child. I don't agree with a system that doesn't allow the non-custodial parent visitation, but when it comes to Japan, it's understandable how this system came about. That said, I agree that Japan has a low birthrate due to the lack of support of working mothers. However, I strongly suspect that Japan has a low birth rate because OF THE LACK OF NO FAULT DIVORCE. A Japanese woman doesn't want to get married and have children if she's stuck in a marriage her spouse won't agree to. If he's abusive, she's screwed. Plus, there's the fact that most women are expected to give up their financial independence during marriage, and there's no guarantee of child support if hubby walks out the door. Japan is horribly expensive. I know because I lived there when the ex was stationed there in the military. A shabby 2 bedroom house (shabby by U.S. standards) would probably cost between 2-3 thousand a month. That same house would probably rent at $500.00 in the states, and that is no exaggeration. Anyway, everyone's whining about Japan not joining the Hague Convention because of that Savoie mess, and of course, there's all that crap about "mothers have all the rights in Japan". Bullshit! There are plenty of foreign mothers who lose their kids to Japanese fathers just like Savoie (you don't hear about that so much because no one cares when it's a mother). Japan says they won't sign the Hague Convention due to the fact that there are a lot of Japanese mothers fleeing from abusive foreign husbands. While I believe that to be true, I think Japan really isn't all that concerned about abuse of Japanese mothers by foreign husbands when they have little concern over domestic violence caused by Japanese husbands. If Japan signs the Hague Convention, they would have to agree to send back all the children abducted by Japanese parents. Japan has a low birth rate. Why should they send back the Savoie children when that's two more kids to populate their country with future offspring? I honestly believe that's the real reason that Japan won't sign the Hague Convention, and it has nothing to do with the rights of the parents-either Japanese or foreign.

Anonymous said...

"Plus, there's the fact that most women are expected to give up their financial independence during marriage, and there's no guarantee of child support if hubby walks out the door."

Well, there goes NY's faith that women will choose exclusive control of children over money...

"However, I strongly suspect that Japan has a low birth rate because OF THE LACK OF NO FAULT DIVORCE."

You can suspect that all you want, but again you're putting the words you want to hear in other women's mouths just like NY does.

Japan, looking for solutions, has conducted government polls to find out from the women themselves exactly why they do not marry. The reason that keeps appearing over and over is that they want "companionate" marriages where they don't have to surrender their financial independence to be the sole keeper of home and kids. It seems that Japanese men's expectations are behind the times.

What DO they want? Interestingly enough they say they want WESTERN men. You know, us greedy monsters who expect you gals to work at a job and share childrearing responsibilities with us. Imagine that!

The grass is always greener...

But in any case demographers note that Japanese women don't seem all that panicked about singlehood OR childlessness. Neither do the men these days, for that matter.

It's my own personal belief that the underlying theme is the same to one degree or another across the western world. For the first time in history we no longer have to have kids if we don't want to. And where people have money and alternatives, many of them just don't care to be bothered.

Richard

virago said...

"Well, there goes NY's faith that women will choose exclusive control of children over money..."

And your a big hypocrite! Your always griping about women having children they can't support, and now, your trying to make these women look greedy because they chose not to have children because it's too expensive. As usual, your deliberately twisting things around to suit your own view point. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

"You can suspect that all you want, but again you're putting the words you want to hear in other women's mouths just like NY does."

In other words, we're doing what you and PK do all the time. You always feel free to tell us "what women want", but in reality, you don't have a clue. NYMOM and I are far better qualified than either of you because WE ARE WOMEN. A fact that clearly disqualifies either one of you. And as women, we have a far better understanding of these women than either of you. So, from here on out, don't even bother anymore. We don't want to hear it.

"Japan, looking for solutions, has conducted government polls to find out from the women themselves exactly why they do not marry. The reason that keeps appearing over and over is that they want "companionate" marriages where they don't have to surrender their financial independence to be the sole keeper of home and kids. It seems that Japanese men's expectations are behind the times."

NO shit, Richard. That's pretty much the same damn thing that was pointed out in the article that I linked to.

virago said...

"What DO they want? Interestingly enough they say they want WESTERN men. You know, us greedy monsters who expect you gals to work at a job and share childrearing responsibilities with us. Imagine that!"

Yeah, and I've been over this before. These women only know so much about Western men, and they get most of their info. from TV. Yes, Japanese are more sexist than American men ON AVERAGE, but it's usually the SEXIST WESTERN MEN who marry them. These guys buy into the stereotype of the "submissive asian woman", and that's exactly what they're looking for when they marry an Asian woman. And of course, the Japanese women are looking for equality, so the two don't mix. You think I'm make this up! Ha! I lived in Japan on a military base. I've seen these kind of marriages again and again. Very few of this marriages actually work out. It was so well-known why these guys married Japanese women, that it became the butt of some sick jokes on base. My next door neighbor had a japanese wife, and he was always yelling and screaming at her. The words "stupid gook bitch" were frequently heard through the walls (they were tower apartments). I called the police more than once, but nothing was ever done because this guy was an officer. A sergeant, my husband worked with, had a Japanese wife, and he always claimed "she couldn't speak english"! Every time, you tried to talk to her, he would always interrupt and answer for her. He would go to the bathroom, and her english was a lot better than his. He was so controlling, the hospital staff kicked him out of the room when his wife gave birth. He would answer medical questions for her like, "How much pain are you in?" and "How far apart are your contractions?" So, Richard, I'm well aware of what kind of Western men marry Japanese women (and by extension-most foreign women).

"It's my own personal belief that the underlying theme is the same to one degree or another across the western world. For the first time in history we no longer have to have kids if we don't want to. And where people have money and alternatives, many of them just don't care to be bothered."

Well, great you have your own personal beliefs. It's my personal belief (based on personal experience living in Japan and my understanding of the Japanese culture) that the low birth rate is caused, in part, by the lack of no fault divorce. It's that simple.

virago said...

Case in point: Richard Heene and the balloon boy hoax. Mayumi Heene is Japanese. Richard's reason for marrying her:

"Another former family friend and business partner, Scott Stevens, echoed Slusser's assessment of the dynamics in the Heene household.

"It's a cultural thing, and he leveraged that knowledge," Stevens said. "He believed that Asian women can be subservient, and that's what he wanted."

How was Mayumi treated?

"The couple married on Oct. 12, 1997, in Nevada, and, according to Slusser, from that day on, Richard controlled her life. Slusser said Mayumi Heene confided in her when Richard wasn't around
"She so needed a friend," she said. "He kept her isolated and separated from everyone else. She honestly asked me one time, 'Is there something wrong with way we live?' She wasn't sure that American women lived this way with her husbands"

Ah, those wonderful Western men!

Anonymous said...

V said: "And your a big hypocrite! Your always griping about women having children they can't support, and now, your trying to make these women look greedy because they chose not to have children because it's too expensive."

I didn't say I thought women were greedy for not having kids they can't support. I think it's very sensible. I just think NY's belief is mistaken. You're not going to raise birth or marriage rates by giving women complete ownership of children. Japanese women are over there virtually screaming that they don't want it!

"You always feel free to tell us "what women want", but in reality, you don't have a clue. NYMOM and I are far better qualified than either of you because WE ARE WOMEN."

This is priceless! All while you gals are on your soapboxes daily telling us what WE think about women, why WE want our children with us, why WE marry or don't marry, why WE say or do this that or the whatever the fuck, what the conditions of our homes and families are and how we don't understand our own psyches but of course you do.

And you haven't hit one nail on the head yet! Know why? Quite simply because you continually project typically female crap onto us, which doesn't work because, you know, we're guys and we have our own style of crap.

Simplified intro lesson on the males psyche, point 1: We're not interested in "attention," (this from Miss "WhyHaven'tYouCommentedOnMyComment?"). Particularly not yours. PK and I came here to talk about stuff with NY, who at least knows what a paragraph is and isn't prone to temper tantrums, but usually all we get is you.

Point 2: We don't care if any of you LIKE us or not. This ain't the 7th grade girls' lunchtable.

Point 3: We're not impressed by the age-old feminist shaming tools, especially now that you've run through the whole repetoire as expected and we've all had a good laugh over it.

Point 4: We're not trying to make you "go away." I for one am tickled when you come on here spewing and bringing to life every feminist joke known to man. I don't want you to stop at all. But saving it for lulls in the real discussion would be ideal.

Point 5: I don't know about PK, but I'm completely underwhelmed by your middle school potty mouth. So spare yourself the exertion.

Hope I covered everything.

And BTW, I wasn't telling you what women think. I was telling you what representative samples of women have actually SAID. I have more faith in this than in your POV because I don't think you're representative. I think you and NY are outliers.

R.

PolishKnight said...

Richard, I've long observed that most women probably would NOT go along with NYMOM's proposition to give up child-support benefits in order to eliminate the small possibility of men getting custody of their children in a court battle.

We're living in an interesting, post feminist era where women really can be "independent" of us sloppy couch potato men and live on their own and not have children if they don't want to! Woo hoo! Unfortunately, too many of them are finding that is also the default.

For most men, life is not a happy playtime. They have to answer to a boss, deal with economic uncertainty, and, yes, their personal life may not be ideal either. We've been living with that reality for the past million years or so. In the states in the last century women got this idea that if they weren't having fun all the time and perfect fairness (when it suited them, of course), then they were victims of horrific injustice.

I'll concede to NYMOM that many men probably do seek primary custody to avoid paying child-support BUT this is also offset by many women fighting against shared custody because they want to cash such checks so any moral high ground is moot. When a child is transformed into a trophy, it will be treated as such by everyone of both genders.

That said, with that out of the equation, most men would probably want shared parenting anyway not to undermine the mother but simply because they love their kids and want to be there. Growing up, I remember many families having squabbles between mothers and fathers but they eventually got worked out.

This all leads to the premise of this blog: "women as mothers" which begs the question as to the purpose of parenthood: Is it to get a title, rights, and powers or it is mostly a responsibility? For responsible parents, mothers and father's both, it's mostly about simply being an ADULT: Earning a living, being a decent spouse, a good citizen. That comprises about 90% of what a good parent, male or female, does. The other 10%: making dinner, changing diapers, even gestating is just a small fraction of what comprises a good parent both in time and energy.

I don't take V's outbursts personally. We're just the messengers. She's confused and angry that simply waking up and willing to squeeze out a baby doesn't get her a nobel prize and angrily demanding that men fix it is how she sees the world. It's all she knows AND it's an alluring view of the world and far more desirable than Real Life.

Anonymous said...

PK said: "Richard, I've long observed that most women probably would NOT go along with NYMOM's proposition to give up child-support benefits in order to eliminate the small possibility of men getting custody of their children in a court battle."

Of course not. We've got grassroots movements demanding every crazy thing under the sun but nobody's yet handed me a petition demanding the return of family rights to families and the assumption of full parental responsibility for illegitimate children by their mothers.

I think this little corner table is the only place anyone's even talking about it. Another mocha, please.

"In the states in the last century women got this idea that if they weren't having fun all the time and perfect fairness (when it suited them, of course), then they were victims of horrific injustice."

The "personal fulfillment" gospel. Wherever that baloney came from, somehow we never got the message. It doesn't occur to most guys to bail because they're not fulfilled and the ones who do are still just bastards like they always were.

"I'll concede to NYMOM that many men probably do seek primary custody to avoid paying child-support BUT this is also offset by many women fighting against shared custody because they want to cash such checks so any moral high ground is moot."

Very possibly true. This whole issue rings no bell with me at all because parents are simply not answerable to outsiders for why they want their own children. Whatever their precise motivations might be they will generally do more for their kids and care for them better than anyone else will.

That's why there's such a thing as parental rights and why they were deemed "fundamental" long before feminists opened up the door for the state to become in effect the primary custodian of children.

R.

PolishKnight said...

Richard, I failed to respond to this claim: "You always feel free to tell us "what women want", but in reality, you don't have a clue. NYMOM and I are far better qualified than either of you because WE ARE WOMEN."

As you observed, NYMOM often makes the negative claim for why men want custody of their children (money) BUT states this claim in a vacuum without addressing women's motivations implying that the women's motivations are somehow more noble. Yet, society clearly sees that millions of women are filing palimony suits and child-support liens as compared to men trying to get sole custody. It's usually women chasing down absent fathers for support, not the other way around!

Richard says: "This whole issue rings no bell with me at all because parents are simply not answerable to outsiders for why they want their own children. Whatever their precise motivations might be they will generally do more for their kids and care for them better than anyone else will."

Excellent point. Actually, it would be a wonderful world if society did hold people more accountable for why they wanted children BUT, as both of us know, this would backfire in women's faces as society came to ask why women were having children they couldn't afford to support. If society held women accountable in the same way they hold men, we would have eliminated poverty some time ago. Instead, the welfare state has rewarded irresponsible parenting which has created this elephant-in-the-room situation where everyone notices that single motherhood is a social menace and gradually saying so outright.

virago said...

Nice rant Richard! Would you like some cheese with that whine?:-)

Anonymous said...

You're SOOOO original, V.

No thanks, but I WOULD like a little pertinent discussion if you can scrape up any.

R.

Anonymous said...

PK said: "As you observed, NYMOM often makes the negative claim for why men want custody of their children (money) BUT states this claim in a vacuum without addressing women's motivations implying that the women's motivations are somehow more noble."

V can be our exhibit A here. She has vividly demonstrated for us a number of times how these gals project their own motivations and thought processes onto us, usually with hilarious results. So when they scream at us for wanting custody for financial reasons, well...that's a giveaway if there ever was one.

R.

NYMOM said...

"It wasn't always like that though. It use to be citizenship was only passed through the father, and that was way before dna tests."

Many ancient societies and some western ones such as the Germanic countries recognized the blood lines through the mother, which makes more sense then through the father's line exactly for the reason you mentioned DNA. Who knows how many children inherited who weren't even related to their fathers line...

Actually England and Scotland, because they were so stupid and would not recognize a mother's bloodline, winded up with their royal lines dying off a number of times and having to import their kings and queens from Germany or the Netherlands. That's why the so-called House of Windsor is really German...they changed their name to appear more British when WWII started. But they were close relatives of the Kaiser...

I think most ancient societies recognized the blood lines of the mother for a child's status BUT that changed when real property started becoming tied to a child's birth. It's just like child support today, it's made every child an heir or heiress as long as the mother has a job or some property...

NYMOM said...

"And the mother was never reunited with her daughters."

One of them finally came around, so she is in touch with her mother. I'm not sure if it was the youngest or the oldest daughter...

This story is pretty typical though and who helped this guy, his parents and his sister, all who lived down there where he relocated. Clearly that's why he relocated there...

As I often like to say behind everyone of these a@@holes is some dumb idiot WOMAN helping them.

It's sad really, but oftentimes true. Women are often our own worse enemy.

Recently I was happy to hear that Ellen Barkin was getting shafted by Ron Perelman in their divorce. Barkin actually helped him get custody of a five year old from her mother, Patricia Duff, (it totally destroyed Duff's life losing her daughter) just so he could pay less child support. Now 10 years later he dumps Barkin and doesn't honor their pre-nup...

I say good, it's a darn good lesson for her for helping this idiot...

NYMOM said...

"You still haven't answered my question, NY. If what Princess Bruna did was OK by you, and you condone a natural legal married father's parental rights being utterly spit upon in this way, then what exactly should be a man's incentive to marry?"

Well you have so many questions, it's hard to keep up with them all.

But didn't I say right in the beginning that I supported the rights of the father over the step- person after the child's mother died??? I think I already said this...

That doesn't mean he wasn't an unemployed layabout trying to take advance of a foreigner who didn't know as much as she thought about he US...

NYMOM said...

"Yes, most women get custody of the children after a divorce, but most divorces (90%) are by MUTUAL AGREEMENT. In other words, the majority of Japanese fathers AGREE to allow their wives to have custody of the children KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE ANY CONTACT AFTERWARDS. In other words, if mom has "full ownership" of the kids, it's because dad AGREED TO IT."

Yes that is true, their system is similar to what ours used to be until the adoption of stricter child support guidelines...and now their system is changing as well since they have started adopting our guidelines.

So every divorce involving children is turning into a long drawn out custody battle...just like in the west.

Why???

Because of the money involved if you lose custody...because when men in Japan gave custody to women, they paid little or no child support...so just like our men they were fine with doing it.

Now that's changing.

I think I posted an article here about that issue.

NYMOM said...

"I'll concede to NYMOM that many men probably do seek primary custody to avoid paying child-support."

Well you've finally come to your senses and admitted I'm right. That only took what: three years or so I think we've been on various sites blogging and you finally admitted my basic premise is correct.

Thanks.

virago said...

"Many ancient societies and some western ones such as the Germanic countries recognized the blood lines through the mother, which makes more sense then through the father's line exactly for the reason you mentioned DNA. Who knows how many children inherited who weren't even related to their fathers line..."

I know. Women's bloodlines were usually followed amongst ancient people. However, I was actually thinking of the United States prior to the 1930s. Citizenship was always through the father. That said, I agree with the current process of giving automatic citizenship to any child born to a U. S. citizen mother (married or single) born abroad, OR to a child born in the United States by an immigrant mother. However, I think the child, born abroad of an american father and a foreign mother, should not have citizenship unless there is a dna test. I don't think it should matter if their married or not. That way some foreign woman pregnant by someone else can't claim citizenship for her kid just by marrying an american.

"One of them finally came around, so she is in touch with her mother. I'm not sure if it was the youngest or the oldest daughter..."

Really? That's something new I haven't heard, and I've done enough research on that case. That would be great. It's probably the oldest girl (Rachael)who came around. She was 5 years old at the time of the kidnapping, and she only claimed to have "fuzzy memories" of her mother when her father was arrested. What those memories were, I don't know, but the girl never claimed her memories were bad. Rachael also did a 20/20 interview where she said she had some "sympathy" for her mother. The other girl Wendy "Lisa" (who was 2 when kidnapped) was the one who said she didn't have any sympathy for her mother at all and supported her father all the way. I always felt it would be Rachael who would be the first to see her mother. It would be nice to know.

And yuor right that it was women who helped Fagan. He was very close to his own mother, his sister already lived in Palm Beach, and he even had a girlfriend (some law student) try to help him kidnap the girls once before he was able to actually pull it off. Do you want to know what's funny? When Fagan was finally arrested, he was married to wealthy wife #2 Harriat Goldberg. Despite all the lies and con jobs this guy pulled off, Goldberg decided to stand by him. Goldberg controlled a lot of wealth and foundations that she received from her dead husband. Now, her son is sueing her to get that wealth out of her hands. I don't blame him. His stepfather Fagan is a big time con-artist. The last thing he wants is for that guy to get any of his dad's money. I hope he wins his lawsuit.

virago said...

"One of them finally came around, so she is in touch with her mother. I'm not sure if it was the youngest or the oldest daughter..."

NYMOM, out of curiosity, where did you hear this info.? I've tried googling it, but nothing comes up. I was just wondering.

Anonymous said...

"But didn't I say right in the beginning that I supported the rights of the father over the step- person after the child's mother died??? I think I already said this..."

Of course there's no question that the father's rights trump a stepfather's. That's not what I'm asking. Do you think Bruna Bianchi had the right to completely eviscerate a legal, biological, married father's right to a meaningful relationship with his child by removing that child to another country?

If you do, then you do not support equal parental rights for married fathers as you previously claimed.

"That doesn't mean he wasn't an unemployed layabout trying to take advance of a foreigner who didn't know as much as she thought about he US..."

NY, you're grasping at straws here trying to excuse this woman's despicable conduct. There's no indication that David Goldman sought to take advantage of anybody. If anyone was taking advantage it was Bruna, who probably went ahead with her selfish abduction scheme thinking that Goldman could never stand a chance against her family's wealth and privilege.

In any case your argument makes about as much sense as saying that American women who marry Muslim men here and end up with abducted children were "taking advantage" of these poor foreign guys who came from a different culture and "tradition." How could they have known that in our country they would be expected to lick their wives' shoes (all 187 pairs of them) if necessary to keep them happy, and might not be free to take their children back to their homeland with them?

Please. We know you cheer for the woman no matter what, but let's employ at least a little reason and fairness here.

R.

NYMOM said...

"Well, there goes NY's faith that women will choose exclusive control of children over money..."

"And your a big hypocrite! Your always griping about women having children they can't support, and now, your trying to make these women look greedy because they chose not to have children because it's too expensive. As usual, your deliberately twisting things around to suit your own view point. Sorry, you can't have it both ways."

This is typical of both Richard and Polish Knight. I think I've commented on it before. Every time you find something you can agree on with them, they twist it around so they can disagree with you about it.

It's like that little kid's game of saying the opposite of whatever the other one saids...

I'm actually waiting for Polish Knight to now disagree with me after he claimed he agreed with me about men fighting for custody because child support is too high...that's the entire premise of this blog, he's been debating with me about this for years btw, here and on other sites before I got banned from them...

NYMOM said...

"One of them finally came around, so she is in touch with her mother. I'm not sure if it was the youngest or the oldest daughter..."

NYMOM, out of curiosity, where did you hear this info.? I've tried googling it, but nothing comes up. I was just wondering.

I actually saw it on tv, on one of those crimes news shows.

It's the same place I heard that Darren Mack's mother tried to get custody of his daughter (after he murdered her mother) but the child's maternal grandmother was awarded custody of the little girl. He used his mother, btw, to help him get custody of his first wife's kids and even had one of them testifying at his sentencing hearing for him to try and get a shorter sentence.

He would have had that kid growing up visiting him in prison and his family lying about her mother's death...right up to his sentence they were still lying to the little girl saying her mother was a tramp who some boyfriend probably killed.

I meant to post that little story on here but forgot...I had mentioned in my blog post about Darren Mack that I hoped his mother would not get custody of the little girl and thank god that stupid enabler didn't...she's been covering up for Mack for years, probably why he's such an idiot.

NYMOM said...

Sorry I was sidetracked but the commentator of the show (Diane Sawyer I think) mentioned it. She was very easy, btw, on the abductor of those two little girls.

She might have just thrown that comment out there towards the end of the show to try and establish some warped view of justice in her audience's mind...after he got off with no jail time...

NYMOM said...

"NY, you're grasping at straws here trying to excuse this woman's despicable conduct. There's no indication that David Goldman sought to take advantage of anybody. If anyone was taking advantage it was Bruna, who probably went ahead with her selfish abduction scheme thinking that Goldman could never stand a chance against her family's wealth and privilege."

Goldman's american citizenship trumped her parent's wealth and connections in Brazil. Isn't that obvious? I already said I believe the result would have been exactly the same whether or not she died. Her son would have been returned here.

AND yes, it is taking advantage of someone to marry them here (where they cannot get an American citizenship themselves for five years into the marriage or longer) and then quit your job so they are stuck supporting you. What was she supposed to do? Go back to Brazil (where she had a guaranteed standard of living for herself) and leave a four year old here with an underemployed layabout???

She shouldn't have had her son so early into the relationship, but maybe Goldman wouldn't have quit his job until he had her trapped.

Regarding women marrying men from Islamic countries I think I said already I don't approve of these marriages with people from other cultures...they rarely work out and everyone else is stuck with the fallout from them. Actually I under Saudi Arabia has been conducting an informational campaign against them now as the western women who come there don't fit in and it gives them a bad reputation as well to have all these stories in the international press about them...

I can understand why they want to marry foreign women since they probably murdered most of their own by either selective abortion or abandonment of girl babies, but that's their problem...

Anonymous said...

"Every time you find something you can agree on with them, they twist it around so they can disagree with you about it."

Go back and reread my response to V.

"I'm actually waiting for Polish Knight to now disagree with me after he claimed he agreed with me about men fighting for custody because child support is too high...that's the entire premise of this blog, he's been debating with me about this for years btw, here and on other sites before I got banned from them..."

I hope your blog has more of a premise then that. Since no parent of either sex is answerable to any of us for why they want their own kids.

"Goldman's american citizenship trumped her parent's wealth and connections in Brazil. Isn't that obvious?"

No is isn't obvious. They were able to get away with this crap for FIVE YEARS when it should have all been summarily settled within a few weeks.

"She shouldn't have had her son so early into the relationship, but maybe Goldman wouldn't have quit his job until he had her trapped."

She didn't have her son early on in the relationship. I understand they had a long-distance relationship for some time and his modeling career was already well on the decline because of his age. Again, she didn't have to marry down if she didn't want to. Her choice, her responsibility.

"AND yes, it is taking advantage of someone to marry them here (where they cannot get an American citizenship themselves for five years into the marriage or longer) and then quit your job so they are stuck supporting you. What was she supposed to do?"

NY, the only word for this is priceless! This is a stunt that women pull on their husbands every damn day of the world and usually get rewarded for it in the end.

What she was "supposed to do" is suck it up and honor her commitments JUST LIKE WE DO. Poor princess didn't like being a high school teacher? My wife is in academia and has taught both HS and college and she says it ain't exactly the salt mines. At least there's job security and lots of time off.

Her "guaranteed standard of living" in Brazil counts for crap against her son's relationship with his father.

She was selfish and wrong. "End of story."

R.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM: "I'm actually waiting for Polish Knight to now disagree with me after he claimed he agreed with me about men fighting for custody because child support is too high...that's the entire premise of this blog, he's been debating with me about this for years btw, here and on other sites before I got banned from them..."

I objected to your wording for two reasons: You only talked about men's financial motivations thereby making a one-sided implication that only men had this motivation AND you generalized about all men seeking custody. I don't doubt that many, perhaps even most men seeking custody have financial motivations but it's clear that the legal bills many such men rack up would make it easier to just pay CS in the first place.

I don't debate on too many blogs. There's glennsacks, mensnewsdaily, american spectator, and usenet:soc.men and here, of course. I can't speak for you getting kicked off of other blogs, but from what I know I haven't seen you kicked off of any of the above places.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM pontificates: "AND yes, it is taking advantage of someone to marry them here (where they cannot get an American citizenship themselves for five years into the marriage or longer) and then quit your job so they are stuck supporting you. What was she supposed to do? Go back to Brazil (where she had a guaranteed standard of living for herself) and leave a four year old here with an underemployed layabout???"

As Richard pointed out, welcome to the world of men, NYMOM! I remember an interview with a social worker on TV who said outright that a "person's" fiscal responsibilities wasn't considered in custody decisions because, she added, the court could just transfer money from one parent to the other.

There's plenty of options: He could go on welfare like millions of other mothers do. (And using your proposition of welfare paid via child-support, just have the state send the mother the bill in Brazil. If she comes back to the states to visit her child, then she could either fork up the money go to jail for contempt of court. Once again, welcome to the world of men!) Or, theoretically, if he had simply "quit" his job then he could go back to work. I suggest that ALL THE TIME to people who argue that alimony is necessary to keep former housewives from starving to death. Apparently, the notion of getting a job, even a rotten one, never occurred to them.

I remember on the First Wives' Club there was a portrayal of Bette Midler's poor, suffering, martyred character whose husband left her for a younger woman and left her starving in a rat filled apartment with their son. She whined: "I have to work at McDonald's to feed my son!"

Yet... it just occurred to me, right now, that we never saw in the film Bette Midler's character actually, er, WORKING. She was always hanging out with her buddies griping and scheming.

In conclusion, this case seems to have backfired on you. Rather than portraying women as victims in this single case, it only illustrates how men are treated a majority of the time.

Anonymous said...

"As Richard pointed out, welcome to the world of men, NYMOM!"

Glenn posted an article about this just last week. CBS News has a piece out there about how more moms are "bringing home the bacon" as the primary wage-earner than ever before, but neglected to mention that a whopping 96% of "unemployed layabouts" are mothers.

The article didn't address it directly, but we know from the census bureau's data that even employed mothers are much less likely than fathers to be employed full-time, which means that they also account for the majority of UNDERemployed layabouts as well.

Beware when predicating parental rights upon earnings, ladies!

But this whole thread has been very telling of how woman-firsters, who squawk about the best interests of children, are surprisingly quick to condone utter heartlessness toward children who stand in the way of women's desires.

Imagine what this kid went through. One day Dad was there taking care of him every day, the next Dad and home and everything he knew was gone, and he was trapped among strangers in an alien language and culture.

I wonder what Bruna told him. That dad didn't want him anymore? We know she told David he'd never see his son again unless he signed away his parental rights, so I bet she planned to eliminate dad completely so she could tell Sean he died.

How cruel is all that, to a four-year-old kid? And all so princess didn't have to teach high school anymore. Even if grandma was pulling the strings, as I suspect, that doesn't excuse princess for not showing more character.

I would never do such a thing to my kids and I'm confident you wouldn't either, PK. That these ladies OK it in the interest of a "guaranteed standard of (privileged) living" says volumes.

R.

virago said...

"AND yes, it is taking advantage of someone to marry them here (where they cannot get an American citizenship themselves for five years into the marriage or longer) and then quit your job so they are stuck supporting you. What was she supposed to do? Go back to Brazil (where she had a guaranteed standard of living for herself) and leave a four year old here with an underemployed layabout???"

NYMOM, I really like it when people make comments stating that Bruna should've "known" that Goldman's career was declining due to his age. How the hell was she suppose to know that? Goldman met Bruna in Milan, Italy in 1998 a few months after he was dubbed "Mr. November 1997" by Cosmo magazine. She became pregnant with Sean a year later in 1999. During most of this time, they did have a long distance relationship of sorts because Goldman traveled a lot due to his international modeling career. Sure looks like he was a successful international model to me. I'm sure Bruna would've thought the same, and if Goldman had any career troubles, he very well may not have told her. OTOH, in this internview by NBC news, it says:

"David Goldman: "I wanted to dedicate my life to my wife and child."

To do that, David stopped traveling and stuck to local modeling gigs. He started selling real estate on the side, and when Bruna took a teaching job, his more flexible hours allowed him to take on the role of "Mr. Mom.""

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28878143/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/

Read between the lines: Goldman DELIBERATELY gave up a successful international modeling career AFTER Sean was born, and Bruna didn't start work as a teacher until AFTER Goldman gave up his career. In other words, she took that job to pay the bills because he refused to get a steady full-time job. After all, Bruna came to this country, a foreign pregnant woman (not very employable,) probably with the understanding that Goldman would continue his international modeling career while she stayed home. Than Goldman decided to change the rules and take advantage of a foreign woman and her wealthy parents. Goldman didn't want to travel or work full-time? Too bad. He should've thought of that before conning this woman into coming to this country to live. His choice. His responsiblity.

VIRAGO said...

NYMOM, remember when we discussed the Haileigh Cumming's case. Her mother was able to regain full custody of Haileigh's little brother after Haieligh's dad Ronald Cummings was arrested on drug charges with Misty croslin. Kind of funny, since, Haileigh's mom, Crystal Sheffield, lost custody originally because Ronald "claimed" her abuse allegations were fault. She even was denied custody of her son right after Haileigh disappeared. It takes a drug arrest for her to ger it back. Too bad Haileigh's still missing. I hope they find her alive so she can go back to where she belongs-WITH HER MOTHER.

Anonymous said...

All irrelevant, V. How many guys have thought they were marrying an independent, ambitious woman who could pull her own weight in the family only to have her change the rules up later on and decide she wants to make the "sacrifice" of being an underemployed layabout?

While he quietly takes on even more work and forgoes time with his children to keep her in the same lifestyle she's used to.

It's such an old story that it's a cliche. And yet unlike you all WE don't usually flip off our commitments and break our kids' hearts over it. But maybe we should, since we never realized just how big a scam the SAH thing was until you all showed us.

To Brazil, fed up and overworked dads and kids!

PK, you remember that case a few years back in Wisconsin where they even allowed a woman to pull this stunt AFTER a divorce? The parents were both doctors earning almost the same income, they agreed to equal joint physical custody and no support orders, all the kids were in school full-time and Mom had gotten a million dollar lump sum in the divorce.

A couple of years after the divorce she decides she wants to be a SAHM and goes back to court whining for child support...I am not making this up!...and the court LETS HER DO IT and orders dad to fork over $4000 a month to finance it.

All this so she could supposedly take full-time care of kids who were at school all day and lived at dad's house every other week. Which is all very well for a married couple if this is what they BOTH decide they want, but the divorce process is supposed to put an end to people's duties to each other and allow each to get on with their lives INDEPENDENTLY.

The day a family court lets a MAN pull THAT one, I'll concede you might have something to whine about.

As it is, enjoy the perks and double standards while they last. As PK pointed out some time ago, when the last of the chivalrous patriarchs die off and the world is run by the up and coming generation of guys who see nothing in women that merits any special treatment, and women who've busted their asses to get somewhere and see no reason why you shouldn't too, then that's the end of female privilege.

You'll have no one to whine to, either, because this is the generation that feminism nursed.

R.

PolishKnight said...

That's like dog years!

I'm chuckling about NYMOM remarks about the guy quitting a modeling career after having kids. Modeling is a career that's notoriously for the young.

My wife and I were watching Project Runway and Heidi commented to a designer: "Your outfit aged her by 10 years! That's like DOG YEARS in the modeling world!"

Richard, I remember in my dating years that women could be just as shallow about looks as men except that they were a lot more grouchy about the consequences. When a man gets a pretty woman who wants to be a SAH housewife, even one who doesn't cook or clean, he counts himself LUCKY. I remember living in Newport Beach and it was full of kitch stores, cafes, and spas where idle, aging housewives would blow their time (and money) impressing each other. Supporting a lout sitting at home drinking beer and watching TV is cheap by comparison!

One of feminism's promised benefits to women was the notion that they wouldn't have to marry for financial support to evil patriarchal overlords. That they could "love" him for who he was, which really meant, that she could be as shallow about looks as men. OK. Fine. But there's a cost to that.

News flash, ladies: Models are not notoriously known for having a great work ethic.

virago said...

"PK, you remember that case a few years back in Wisconsin where they even allowed a woman to pull this stunt AFTER a divorce? The parents were both doctors earning almost the same income, they agreed to equal joint physical custody and no support orders, all the kids were in school full-time and Mom had gotten a million dollar lump sum in the divorce."

Chen v. Warner. Dr. Jane Chen wanted to go part-time after her divorce so that she could spend more time with her kids. Unfortunately, her employer, the Marshfield Clinic, didn't agree with this. Chen consulted a financial advisor to see if she could afford to stay home, and she didn't ask for child support. Her ex-husband, Dr. John Warner, AGREED with this:

"The father testified at the child support modification hearing that, when possible, it was important to have a parent at home full time with the children rather than have someone else care for the children."

http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18061

During the time Dr. Chen stayed home, Dr. Warner's earnings as a doctor DOUBLED while Dr. Chen's finances were hard hit during the stockmarket decline in 2001. This is when Dr. Chen decided to ask for child support. All of a sudden, Dr. Warner claimed that Dr. Chen was "shirking" her responsibility in supporting her children. In the court documents, there's one thing that stands out:

"Not working outside the home full time has enabled the mother to spend significantly more time with the children. This increased time with the children also includes periods during the weeks when the father has placement of the children."

http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18061

Yeah, that's it in a nutshell. This guy was all fine and dandy with this arrangement because he was benefitting from the childcare provided by the mother DURING HIS WEEK. He didn't have to worry about a fucking babysitter. Sorry, but 50/50 custody isn't suppose to work that way. Now, when the mother wants child support, he decides he's not happy with it. Ha! I don't think this ruling is unfair. In fact, if there had been any real justice, the mother would've gotten full custody, and he could pay for that.

virago said...

Thanks Richard for mentioning this case. See, I live in Wisconsin, and I can tell you how it REALLY is. We have presumed joint legal custody here, but mothers usually have primary physical placement. However, 50/50 legal and physical custody is not uncommon here. Sometimes, it's even awarded against one parent's wishes. Case in point: My friend Heather. She had 50/50 with her ex even though she wanted primary physical custody. Before she knew it, the school was calling her and demanding to know why her daughter was missing so much school. Sure enough. All those missing days were on the weeks her ex has her daughter. It turns out that the ex's live-in-girlfriend got a job where she had to be at work at 5 a.m., and she couldn't get the daughter off to school. Where's the father? Sleeping in because he's too lazy to get up and take his damn kid to school. The kid was even showing up at school in dirty, mismatched clothes, without any lunch money. Telling her ex to clean up his act didn't improve the situation either. Heather actually had to go over to his apartment and get her daughter ready for school. The court turned a deaf ear, and Heather had to put up with this quite a while. However, Heather got lucky. Her ex decided he wanted to move to Florida with his girlfriend, and he gave her full custody. Heather's case isn't unusual either. It's a common complaint that the fathers aren't doing their share in 50/50 custody (or in any kind of custody for that matter). A lot of times, these guys come up with all sorts of excuses why they can't take the kids their week, or they dump said kids of on girlfriend, grandma, or even the bio-mom like this doctor. Dr. Warner isn't any better than Heather's husband as far as I'm concerned. They want 50/50 custody, but at the drop of a hat, they are more than happy to utilize bio-mom (or some other woman) for free childcare. Yet, come mom's week, all she sees is dad's dust going down the road after dropping off the kids. In Heather's case, the father got away with it. In Dr. Chen's case, the father didn't, and I say it's about fucking time. I'm so glad that my ex didn't want physical custody, and I didn't have to put up with this shit.

virago said...

"News flash, ladies: Models are not notoriously known for having a great work ethic"

How would you know? I did some part-time local modeling when I lived in Japan, and some of those models were booked back-to-back without any breaks. And contrary to what people think, modeling isn't just looking pretty while someone takes your picture. It's not unusual to do a summer shoot outside in the middle of winter, or vice versa. Try spending all day in the cold in a bikini trying to look like your having fun. I'll never forget that, and it's even worse in the big international modeling careers. OH, well, it made a great bill board in downtown Tokyo. Mostly white women with blonde hair are in big demand, but as a natural redhead, I didn't do too bad. The money was good too.

Anonymous said...

What Dr. Warner actually "agreed" at trial was "that if a family unit "can do it," that is, if it is feasible, it is preferable for the children to be with a parent rather than with someone else and that it is preferable to have a parent available as a full-time at-home child care provider rather than have one parent or both parents as part-time at-home child care providers."

The operative word there is "family unit." Dr. Warner and Dr. Chen were no longer a family unit. The divorce was supposed to have made them independent individuals, legal strangers really, with their own separate responsibilities for themselves and for their children.

As long as Dr. Chen was doing her part in supporting her kids after the divorce it was her own business whether she worked or not or what she did with her time, and her ex's "agreement" on the matter didn't make a crap's worth of difference. It became his business only when she came begging to him for money.

Remember your "continuity of care" schtick, V. The kids were already being adequately supported and were doing just fine. Nobody showed any evidence that the at-home scam had actually benefitted anybody except Dr. Chen herself. What the court awarded was support for mom. That's a MARITAL duty that is supposed to end with divorce.

What the majority's decision ultimately amounted to was "Daddy's got some money and Mommy wants it, so let's just take some and give it to her." I'm not surprised you think that was fair. That's female reasoning at its finest. Bleeding-heart liberalism, too.

I WOULD like to know if NY also thinks it was fair. I actually think she sort of gets what PK and I are saying, although she hates it.

Again, I want to see a case where a MAN was allowed to pull this.

Not that it matters. You won't see a lot of cases like this in the future. Our future supreme court justices see no reason to even buy a "strong independent" woman's dinner, let alone award her a free ride on someone else's tab.

What "strong, independent" people do when they've got kids to support and their investments tank is to GET A JOB. Vagina notwithstanding.

R.

PolishKnight said...

V, I would know because I lived in Orange and Los Angeles County and worked in the fashion industry myself and have friends who are models and designers. I used to set up computer networks for their offices, helped with photoshop and macromedia, and managed their mailing lists.

Your description of modeling hardships sounds like something gleaned out of Cosmo (and not in depth even by THOSE standards) and even so, laughably contrived: back-to-back bookings without breaks? So you wore the same outfit, makeup, and hair to multiple, different shoots? Yeah, sure V. (wink). OH, and you (said) you had to look like you were having fun. Oh, my god! That's amateur acting! So much skill! I never imagined... Hahahaha!

PolishKnight said...

V says: "This guy was all fine and dandy with this arrangement because he was benefitting from the childcare provided by the mother DURING HIS WEEK."

Er, from what I read that wasn't what the father said. That was the COURT justifying it's decision. This "childcare" included: "does volunteer work at the school, communicates more with their teachers" Note, plenty of full time working parents can do that as well including: "transports the children to their various extracurricular activities (tae kwon do, ballet, knitting, dancing, piano lessons), and monitors their participation in all their endeavors."

Hilarious! She both transported the children to these activities and "monitored" them as well! (I guess she made sure they arrived at piano lessons while driving them. Such a multitasker there! Can she walk and chew gum at the same time too?)

Let's examine carefully the wording of V's cite: ""The father testified at the child support modification hearing that, when possible, it was important to have a parent at home full time with the children rather than have someone else care for the children.""

Note that isn't a direct quote from the father but rather the court's interpretation. The court probably asked the father if he thought whether parents who chose to stay at home were performing an "important" job rather than sending kids to daycare and he may have agreed with that.

So what?

On the other hand, neither you or NYMOM seem to think such parenting is important when a father does it. He's just a bum. Maybe the father should have had you two testify at the hearing. :-) It's another example of you having a double standard.

More from the ruling: "By all accounts, the children were doing well and their needs were met before the mother left employment at the Marshfield Clinic, and they have continued to do well thereafter."

This begs the question: If the children were doing fine before then there was no NEED for the mother to quit her job. Sure, piano lessons are great but should the court order the mother maybe to give up all of her jewelry to buy the kids educational trips to Europe? How far should this go? (Sounds like a Solomon style ruling. "Which of you mothers would cut off your arms to buy your child a brand new violin rather than that 2 month old one? Neither of you? You're so selfish!)

Another begged question then: When no sugar daddy is around to pay for luxurious SAH mothering... that implies that stressed single mothers are rotten mothers who barely get their kids through high school much less ferry them to piano lessons. Oh, wait, society already is figuring that out!

Finally, this opens up a rather intersting Pandora's box: Richard, this means that divorced fathers of career women with shared custody will have the option to pre-emptively make this move themselves: Attend PTA meetings, take kids to piano lessons, etc. (while working FT) and then, after setting up a higher standard than the lazy, unloving single career mother is doing, declare that he's going to engage in this parenting full time! He's the "primary" caregiver and now liberated mommy pays the bills!

It's a "model" idea, don't you think? Tee hee! What's good for the goose...

PolishKnight said...

Richard, this case illustrates that your contention that career women aren't as irresponsible as lower class needs to be balanced by the fact that it's all relative. Women from higher class families are LESS stupid than lower class baby rabies welfare recipients, but it's only a matter of degree. Even a $200K a year hobby job is still just a hobby job...

Anonymous said...

A "model" idea, you betcha. Too bad he doesn't have wealthy parents in Brazil so he could just pack up his kids and skip off down there where he wouldn't have to work double shifts to support an unemployed layabout while the kids are in school full-time, for cripe's sake!

You're right about the relativity, of course. Dr. Chen is something of a rarity within her class but her career DID turn out to be just a hobby after all and a bunch of black-robed dinosaurs gave her a June Cleaver pass. I just hope I live to see what the generation now completing school and starting their careers are going to ultimately do. The ones who've grown up with no concept of chivalry or female moral superiority whatsoever.

Fascinating times we live in.

"On the other hand, neither you or NYMOM seem to think such parenting is important when a father does it. He's just a bum."

V and NY could save a lot of bandwidth by just admitting straight up that they believe being an un- or under-employed layabout is OK for women but not for men and simply owning the irrationality of the proposition. They're sure not getting anywhere trying to justify it logically, although it's fun to watch.

R.

PolishKnight said...

Don't you know, Richard, the mother is "busy" "talking" to the teachers while the kids are in school and "monitoring" them at school events! (Even during the week when her ex-husband has custody!) (snicker.) Maybe she also watches grass grow and paint dry in what little spare time she has...

About hoping to live to see what the generation completing school does. You sound like such a fuddy duddy for saying that! _WE_ are the generation that our parents expected to deal with the problem. It's the foundation of the social security system to pass problems onto the next generation... For the next generation to deal with it, they will need to think very differently than you. You can't expect them to agree with you about women's equality AND somehow get a different result than our generation. Yes? Even if the yen does this and the dollar does that (to paraphrase Danny DeVito), women have shown over the past 3 generations that they will never give up sexism even as they proclaim how oppressed are by it. 10,000 years won't make a difference. You can't force equality onto women who don't want it!

To V's and NYMOM's credit, I don't think they've denied that they have a double standard. They've come right out and said that SAH dads are worthless because all of them are bums because they don't do housework or childcare and they have these "studies" and personal anecdotes to prove it and don't care to believe or even listen to any evidence otherwise.

I've heard this kind of thinking before from such women who push all the responsibility for their problems onto men and then gripe that men are not "sharing" with them. Men are lazy bums who don't do housework so that makes it ok for women to engage in sexism they claim otherwise oppresses them to seek out breadwinners and THEN such women gripe endlessly that men are "sexist" and don't do housework! Get it? Oh, and women should take their time, 10,000 years or so, to figure out how to behave like an adult while men should all be perfect overnight. Because we're selfish and irresponsible compared to them, see?

And YOU continue to think that they deserve legal and workplace equality...

NYMOM said...

"Not working outside the home full time has enabled the mother to spend significantly more time with the children. This increased time with the children also includes periods during the weeks when the father has placement of the children."

http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18061

"Yeah, that's it in a nutshell. This guy was all fine and dandy with this arrangement because he was benefitting from the childcare provided by the mother DURING HIS WEEK. He didn't have to worry about a fucking babysitter. Sorry, but 50/50 custody isn't suppose to work that way. Now, when the mother wants child support, he decides he's not happy with it. Ha! I don't think this ruling is unfair. In fact, if there had been any real justice, the mother would've gotten full custody, and he could pay for that."

I second the emotion here.

You've got it 100% correct.

He went along with this because basically it wasn't costing him anything and he was benefitting from the free childcare on his week.

AND the only reason he would rather pay a stranger now to take care of his kids, rather then their mother, is that child support is higher then child care probably where he lives...

Otherwise if she hadn't asked for child support, this arrangement would have been in place until they were teenagers. Then, he himself, might have challenged her for custody claiming he could provide more financial stability for the children since his career had taken off and HERS DID NOT...

This is also the kind of asshole who would pull a moveaway...to Hawaii or Europe, something like that...

Last comment, doctors work long hours so with both parents being doctors these kids would have been spending their entire lives being raised by strangers if this woman hadn't done this...

I understand exactly where she came from...

NYMOM said...

AND yes, it is taking advantage of someone to marry them here (where they cannot get an American citizenship themselves for five years into the marriage or longer) and then quit your job so they are stuck supporting you. What was she supposed to do?"

"NY, the only word for this is priceless! This is a stunt that women pull on their husbands every damn day of the world and usually get rewarded for it in the end."

You know I missed this before but the entire premise of you and Polish Knight seems to be what Goldman did was wrong but it's okay because women are always doing this to men...but you agree what he did was wrong...

So just admit the guy was a hustler and move on from defending him already...

I went through the same issue with Bridget Marks...She wasn't my cup of tea but she got her twins back and I think that was the right decision...

I was happy about it. Yet I didn't go on my blog ranting and raving about what a fantastic person she was as she had many issues YET she still deserved her children...

Now, Goldman has his son, it was the correct decision, everyone here agrees.

So let's move on already...quit trying to paint him as the last boy scout as he was a hustler, plain and simple.

virago said...

"The operative word there is "family unit." Dr. Warner and Dr. Chen were no longer a family unit. The divorce was supposed to have made them independent individuals, legal strangers really, with their own separate responsibilities for themselves and for their children."

That's right. This was suppose to be 50/50 custody. Dr. Warner should've been doing all those things with the kids his own damn self, or hired a babysitter instead of relying on their mother.

"Remember your "continuity of care" schtick, V. The kids were already being adequately supported and were doing just fine. Nobody showed any evidence that the at-home scam had actually benefitted anybody except Dr. Chen herself. What the court awarded was support for mom. That's a MARITAL duty that is supposed to end with divorce."

Again, if the "continuity of care" of the children being taken care of by someone other than a parent was so important to Dr. Warner, HE WOULD'VE HIRED A BABYSITTER INSTEAD OF RELYING ON THEIR MOTHER. That fatherly irresponsibility of dad to expect mom to do all the childcare IS SUPPOSE TO END AT DIVORCE.

"This "childcare" included: "does volunteer work at the school, communicates more with their teachers" Note, plenty of full time working parents can do that as well including: "transports the children to their various extracurricular activities (tae kwon do, ballet, knitting, dancing, piano lessons), and monitors their participation in all their endeavors."

Again, this was during HIS WEEK. It was his own "seperate responsiblity" to do it himself, or get a babysitter. Why the hell was he relying on the MOTHER to do this stuff? She should've only had to worry about this stuff DURING HER OWN WEEK. You guys are the big advocates for that 50/50 custody "shared parenting" crap. Since when is shared parenting having mom do all the work her week AND taking care of a lot of DAD'S RESPONSIBLITY during HIS WEEK? This woman has THREE KIDS. Look at all the shit they were involved in-tae kwon do, ballet, knitting, dancing, piano lessons. That's a lot of shit when you've got three kids. I know BECAUSE I HAVE THREE KIDS. That's a hell of a lot of chauffering around WHEN IT ISN'T EVEN HER WEEK TO DO IT. Add all the other shit like parent-teacher conferences, etc, and it also said "monitoring them on all their endeavors." In other words, she did a hell of a lot more than what was listed, and what was listed was quite a lot when IT WASN'T EVEN THE MOTHER'S WEEK. Like most doctors, Dr. Warner probably worked 80 hour weeks (if he was lucky). He sure as hell couldn't have been around very much. If Dr. Warner was happy letting a babysitter do all this stuff during the marriage, than he shouldn't have relied on the mother so much just so he could get A FREE RIDE during HIS WEEK. Do you guys get that? Do I have to fucking sky write it for you? Repeate after me: FIFTY/FIFTY PHYSICAL CUSTODY IS NOT RELYING ON YOUR EX-WIFE TO TAKE CARE OF MOST OF YOUR PARENTING RESPONSIBILITIES WHEN IT'S YOUR WEEK TO HAVE THE KIDS. Get it now!

virago said...

Richard:"I WOULD like to know if NY also thinks it was fair. I actually think she sort of gets what PK and I are saying"

NYMOM: "I second the motion here.
You've got it 100% correct.
He went along with this because basically it wasn't costing him anything and he was benefitting from the free childcare on his week."

Yes, NYMOM, you really do get it. Spot on.

virago said...

"To V's and NYMOM's credit, I don't think they've denied that they have a double standard. They've come right out and said that SAH dads are worthless because all of them are bums because they don't do housework or childcare and they have these "studies" and personal anecdotes to prove it and don't care to believe or even listen to any evidence otherwise."

Why should I believe or listen to ANYTHING you and Richard have to say? You don't know any stay-at-home dads. Richard knows one. I know 4. I know what I've seen, and it's more than the wife pulling a kid in a wagon after work while waiting for the husband to call them into dinner. I've actually been in their homes more than once, and I've interacted with both husband and wife. When I see a stay-at-home husband (a former neighbor) flatly refuse to do laundry or cook-forget it. When I see a working wife (who has to get up at 5 am) staying up all night with a sick kid because her stay-at-home husband (a friend's husband) doesn't want to clean up vomit-forget it. When I see a stay-at-home husband (my husband's pool partner) griping to an entire pool league that his wife (who was at home doing dishes) was being a bitch because he hadn't done the dishes all week-forget it. When a working wife (my divorce attorney) works out of her home 2 days a week, and her stay-at-home husband lets the kids come in and bother her repeatedly while she's with a client (me), and he's no where to be found when she goes looking for him-forget it. These weren't the only things I've seen either. And I've done my own research. I consistently keep reading things like what this article says:

"Women who work full-time while their husbands stay home commonly take on a lot of household and parenting responsibilities in the evenings, such as putting their kids to bed (Frank and other researchers all found this too)."

or this:

"Stereotyping also persists when it comes to household responsibilities. At-home dads, FRANK AND OTHER RESEARCHERS HAVE FOUND, are far less likely than at-home moms to do laundry or housecleaning."

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/33/tschwartz.html?page=0%2C0

Like I said before, the stay-at-home dads spend most of their time with their kids WHEN MOM IS AT WORK. By contrast, the working mother spends most of her NON-WORKING HOURS with the kids. All those hours she puts in with her kids at night and on weekends can quickly exceed the amount of time her husband spends with them when she's at work. Add on the housework he DIDN'T do during the day AND the fact that she's the sole breadwinner. Her contributions FAR OUTWEIGH his or any working dad with a stay-at-home wife. And these guys think they should have custody over their working wives? Bullshit! My views aren't due to a "double standard". My views are based on what I've seen, and what I've CONSISTENTLY READ ABOUT THE RESEARCH. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, IT'S A FUCKING DUCK. That's it in a nutshell.

virago said...

"All irrelevant, V. How many guys have thought they were marrying an independent, ambitious woman who could pull her own weight in the family only to have her change the rules up later on and decide she wants to make the "sacrifice" of being an underemployed layabout?"

All irrelevant. Most of these guys have a clean house and well-cared for kids to come home to. They also aren't burdened with domestic duties that a working wife and mother usually is burdened with. They can work as many hours as they want to further their careers without being penalized for it. They also have a wife who can social network and host company dinners to further their client base. They don't have most of their earnings eaten up by the cost of childcare, or have to pay higher taxes because they are the lower earning spouse. They don't have to worry about the glass ceiling because they're male. In contrast, most women don't get all that support or goodies from their husbands-even a stay-at-home one. Don't tell me different. In addition to this, most of these guys aren't foreigners who are giving up their entire country and culture to marry someone who decides to take advantage of them. That's a huge fucking difference between Bruna and most American men who's wife decides to stay home. That said. Even in Chen v. Warner, I would pretty much bet that even when both parties were married and working long hours, IT WAS THE MOTHER WHO SPENT MOST OF THE TIME WITH THE KIDS OR DOING HOUSEWORK. And it was something that dad wanted to take advantage of after the divorce. See, that's what you guys don't get. You want to think that everything like this should be absolute equality between the man and woman, BUT WOMEN AREN'T PLAYING ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD TO BEGIN. You guys want to throw roadblocks in our way, and when we don't reach equality, you want to blame us. At the same time, when you trip over your own roadblocks and it bites you in the ass, you still want to blame us. That's really what the problem is. Dr. Warner has to pay child support so his ex-wife can continue to stay home. Wah! Maybe men will think about it before they decide to dump all their parental responsibilities off on their ex-wives. So, Bruna took off to Brazil with the kid! Cry me a river! Goldman should've thought about that before he conned her into thinking he was some well-off supermodel who used her to support him once she got here. I'm more concerned about those ADULT WOMEN (and their own children) who can't leave Saudi Arabia because their abusive asshole fathers kidnapped them as children decades ago. No one gives a shit about that! So, I'm not sympathetic when some guy who wants his cake and eats it too gets slapped down.

PolishKnight said...

V asks: "Again, this was during HIS WEEK. It was his own "seperate responsiblity" to do it himself, or get a babysitter. Why the hell was he relying on the MOTHER to do this stuff? She should've only had to worry about this stuff DURING HER OWN WEEK."

V, that's the point: She didn't have to worry about them AT ALL. Volunteering at school was HER personal choice. This is a perfect example of women making unilateral choices as to what childcare should be, demanding the man pay for and do 1/2 of it, and then griping that men are "power hungry" and "don't share." Ultra hypocrisy and projection.

As I said, two could play at this game. He could take the kids out to the Opera for, say, $500 each during his week and then declare that half of that should come out of her "child" support! Tee hee!

This is a classic example of post-divorce parents using the children's affections as a proxy for their own battles and spoiling them rotten.

Anonymous said...

I see. So, NY and V, you would agree that while Dr. Chen was not working but still holding up her end of the support agreement (none of which was within Dr. Warner's power to "agree" to), and she wanted to take over some of the "nanny duties" during his week since she had the time, he should have flatly refused her request and insisted on using the nanny instead?

PK, I think you and I both know what a woman-firster's reaction to that would be. "He's a controlling asshole who's trying to interfere with the mother-child bond and replace mom with a nanny!"

This gets funnier all the time.

I don't care WHAT Dr. Warner's reasons for not wanting to support the layabout were. It's not RELEVANT. You're divorced, you have equal earning power, you take care of your own sorry ass instead of whining for someone to underwrite an early retirement for you. If you're a full adult equal to us. Definitely if you're a "strong warrior woman." LMAO!

NY said: "This is also the kind of asshole who would pull a moveaway...to Hawaii or Europe, something like that..."

Or Brazil.

V said: "Even in Chen v. Warner, I would pretty much bet that even when both parties were married and working long hours, IT WAS THE MOTHER WHO SPENT MOST OF THE TIME WITH THE KIDS OR DOING HOUSEWORK."

Ha! I bet she didn't spend ANY. I bet they had illegal maids and nannies out the wazoo. But if it was good enough when the kids were infants and preschoolers, it's more than good enough now. Dr. Princess should get her butt to work.

"Most of these guys have a clean house and well-cared for kids to come home to. They also aren't burdened with domestic duties that a working wife and mother usually is burdened with....[blah blah blah]"

All irrelevant if none of this is what a man wanted or agreed to when signing on with the future layabout. Like you already said, there's a big difference when a layabout spouse is something they both want and agree to, and when it's something that's forced on one by the other. Only problem with your statement is that you only meant MALE layabout spouses. I mean both.

"Otherwise if she hadn't asked for child support, this arrangement would have been in place until they were teenagers. Then, he himself, might have challenged her for custody claiming he could provide more financial stability for the children since his career had taken off and HERS DID NOT..."

Everyone agrees they were already doing fine, so what would have been the problem with the arrangement staying in place? And if men only want custody to avoid CS, why would he have bothered asking for custody when he wasn't paying any? And by the teen years kids can decide where they want to live anyway.

If Dr. Chen really thought those kids needed full-time care she should have done something about it while they were small and not in school. IF her husband agreed. What she did was nothing but apply for a free ride for herself. And you won't see shit like this anymore after the demise of all the patriarchs who coddled and excused you gals to your hearts' content but also thought your place was in the kitchen.

"I'm more concerned about those ADULT WOMEN (and their own children) who can't leave Saudi Arabia because their abusive asshole fathers kidnapped them as children decades ago. No one gives a shit about that!"

Well I guess I can stop being concerned about them now. Now that I understand how their mothers took advantage of all those poor Arab guys from a different culture who just didn't understand western goddess-worship and probably didn't want to support a layabout either...

In the words of V in response to the 4-year-old Goldman boy having his world pulled out from under him, too bad.

R.

PolishKnight said...

The bus is here

NYMOM, we never said it was "ok because that's what women did to men", we were instead pointing out your and V's hypocrisy and double standards of acting like it's the end of the world when a single man does it but excuse and ignore the millions of cases of women doing the same thing daily.

You want me to push Goldman under a bus? No problemo. I don't think ANYONE should be able to use laziness as a tool to require a spouse to support them forever. But he better be chained at the waist to all of your women buddies. Kapish?

Anonymous said...

V, that's the point: She didn't have to worry about them AT ALL. PK said: "Volunteering at school was HER personal choice. This is a perfect example of women making unilateral choices as to what childcare should be, demanding the man pay for and do 1/2 of it, and then griping that men are "power hungry" and "don't share." Ultra hypocrisy and projection."

We cross-posted again, PK, with the identical point!

PolishKnight said...

Showdown at the OK Corral
(Tie with "Atlas Shrugs")

"That's right. This was suppose to be 50/50 custody. Dr. Warner should've been doing all those things with the kids his own damn self, or hired a babysitter instead of relying on their mother."

Hahahahaha!

Sure, if Dr. Warner really was to do all those things then he'd have to quit his job and then who would pay all the bills for the housewife and Richie Rich life for the kids?

Indeed, if I was Dr. Warner, I would have called the court's bluff and asked that if this work was so valuable, why couldn't he do it? Then go on extended leave, unpaid of course, and "look" for a part-time job (yeah, like McD's isn't hiring... :-) Only $200K jobs need qualify...) and then let the courts, and the mother, see how long this fantasy of the liberated, equal, but dependent housewife can survive. It's known as The Poison Pill.

V claims: "Again, this was during HIS WEEK. It was his own "seperate responsiblity" to do it himself, or get a babysitter. "

I read the paragraph you referred to and saw nothing about him using the mother as a babysitter during her precious week. SHE enrolled the kids in certain activities and "monitored" them. If SHE wanted to let activities SHE chose for them slack off during his week, then that was an option she could have taken advantage of.

Tee hee, using this logic, Goldman could argue that the Brazilian wife was slacking off because she didn't share babysitting duties with him 50/50. It's "equal" parenting after all! And honey, you pay all the bills! Tee hee!

Like a glass of cold lemonade
I will do the laundry if you pay all the bills
CHORUS:
Where is my John Wayne
Where is my prairie son
Where is my happy ending
Where have all the cowboys gone

PolishKnight said...

Children as fashion accessory

Richard observes: "If Dr. Chen really thought those kids needed full-time care she should have done something about it while they were small and not in school. IF her husband agreed. What she did was nothing but apply for a free ride for herself."

PK disagrees: Richard, it's weird that she really didn't get a truly "free" ride. She did give up a very cushy $200K a year hobby job. That money buys a lot of cab rides to piano and karate class or, hell, a $50K a year nanny.

Let's consider V's point that the hubby should hire a babysitter even as, you observe, she bashes such men as having someone else do their childcare for them. That little taunt is probably why such women as Dr. Chen feel guilty as Bad Mothers for using daycare or nannies when they go to PTA meetings and hear SAH mothers chuckle behind their backs:

"Poor gal. Her husband doesn't want to support her like WE enjoy. She probably had to buy her own ring! Tee hee!"

Are you a fan of King of the Hill? Remember when Peggy Hill hung out with the soccer moms and they were sniping at each other over Peggy not having a sweater tied around her waist? Meow!

You asked before about what young men think about such women. A good looking co-worker of mine in his early 20's was being chased by a well-to-do baby rabies career woman in her late 20's who wanted to quit her job and become a housewife.

He ran for the hills.

PolishKnight said...

Damsel in distress!

V rattles on about the "glass ceiling", etc. which is summed up(upper case literally): "BUT WOMEN AREN'T PLAYING ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD TO BEGIN You guys want to throw roadblocks in our way, and when we don't reach equality, you want to blame us."

Er, V, you gals didn't get roadblocks, you had knights in shining armor helping you. As the saying goes, there were no feminists on the Titanic. Perhaps you might earn more money in the workplace if you weren't at home with the children so much. Blame mother nature and your own choices and sexism for that!

Many upper class women get affirmative action on top of chivalrous patronage and even with all of that, they STILL can't handle all the responsibilities most men endure. Consider the $200K female doctor. Nobody put a gun to her head to make her run away from her job. No glass ceiling there!

Finally, and this is most important, you should know that life is not fair. That the world doesn't revolve around pleasing you. Most men have disadvantages in life and they get by them.

PolishKnight said...

Marie Antoinette -- Saint

V tells us how women eat cake: "They also have a wife who can social network and host company dinners to further their client base. They don't have most of their earnings eaten up by the cost of childcare, or have to pay higher taxes because they are the lower earning spouse."

Richard, didja ever see "The Real Housewives" series? It's about pampered housewives who spend their time hanging out with each other and planning parties. In most cases, the parties do NOT help their husbands' businesses and actually are just excuses for their wives to show off $10,000 designer dresses and send money to charity to sooth their guilty liberal consciences.

And even when business clients and partners are invited, the housewives usually spend their time HAPPILY ordering servants around and spending money to buy stuff she wants to make the place look better. I know this PERSONALLY because I used to "dumpster dive" in those neighborhoods in OC and answer Craigslist ads. I would get 2 year old furniture for almost nothing that these poor, oppressed princesses were dumping to buy something new. I could literally just drive along the cul-de-sacs and pick up barely used bedroom sets in front of their homes!

I laughed my head off when V claimed that such women were saving their husband's money. Hahahahaha! ANYONE who watches these programs sees the women blowing the GDP of a small third world country daily at spas, botox, fru-fru restaurants, etc.

Yeah yeah yeah, women have it so hard! The western Patriarchy: Can't live with the horrid oppression, wind up starving in seconds in a burka without it!

Anonymous said...

"Remember when Peggy Hill hung out with the soccer moms and they were sniping at each other over Peggy not having a sweater tied around her waist? Meow!"

A sweater tied around the waist neatly conceals a butt enlarged from too much sitting thereon.

"A good looking co-worker of mine in his early 20's was being chased by a well-to-do baby rabies career woman in her late 20's who wanted to quit her job and become a housewife. He ran for the hills."

Smart guy. Maybe he also fed her a little BS about how "it's not you, it's me," so her feelings wouldn't be hurt and she could tell all her girlfriends about how afraid we all are of "strong women." LOL

I love that "roadblock" nonsense too! Hell, this couple in Wisconsin had reached equality! They evidently had built their whole lives upon it. They were equal upon divorce too, nobody demanding anything of anybody, and everything was perking along fine until Dr. Princess decided to put up her feet and appealed to a bunch of graybeards who probably thought privately that a woman had no business being in the professional world in the first place. Do I blame her? Well, duh! It never ceases to amaze me what women will sell for an entitlement check. Liberty, equality, justice, morality, self-respect, and of course their children's best interests.

Speaking of which, NY and V ought to check out Glenn's site when they have a minute, where he posts about a disturbing little trend starting to surface in the UK. Now that women have made the state the ultimate arbiter of children's best interests in order to collect checks and dispose of inconvenient dads, the state is now starting to use that authority to remove kids from MOMS on flimsy grounds and shuttle them into the adoption system. All in their "best interests," of course.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

I can't stomach the "Real Housewives" series. All the bling and peroxide hurts my eyes. But even if the layabouts WERE performing something of value it's still crap if the husbands never wanted it or agreed to it but simply had it run over them.

But seriously, PK, I think maybe we've gone about as far as we can with this thread. The girls have utterly failed to make their case. Every statement they make promptly bites their butts the moment they turn around. And I remember NY saying a few threads ago that that this blog is not about fairness anyway.

If we don't have fairness as a starting point, then we're simply floating around in the ever-changing wind of what woman-firsters want. And of course they'll always want to do as they please and collect checks from men at every opportunity and see other women do the same for as long as society lets them. Why wouldn't they?

So is there anything left to discuss?

R.

virago said...

Remember that show, "Married With Children"? That show was full of false sexist stereotypes about women. However, even in a show like that, art can imitate life. Al Bundy's MRA group "NO MA'AM" is a classic example of a group of angry, fat, bald, middle-aged losers who blamed all their problems on women because they weren't successful in life. OH, and let's not forget Jefferson Darcy- the good-looking former spy turned "lazy house husband" (Goldman probably got the idea from here). Yeah, the only two stereotypes on the show that were true to life! LOL

Anonymous said...

Never watched the show, but they couldn't possibly have featured more sexist stereotypes about women then the ones you've brought to life for our viewing pleasure right here, V. I doubt that you even realize what a show you've put on, but we appreciate it anyway.

Al's MRA's sound a lot like the flip side of the woman-firsters. Would be nice if we could just feed all you nuts to each other while the rest of us get on with the business of raising responsible sons and daughters with too much self-respect to beg borrow or steal a living off the unwilling via innocent kids.

R.

virago said...

"I read the paragraph you referred to and saw nothing about him using the mother as a babysitter during her precious week. SHE enrolled the kids in certain activities and "monitored" them. If SHE wanted to let activities SHE chose for them slack off during his week, then that was an option she could have taken advantage of."

You didn't read it good enough. No where does it say that SHE enrolled these kids in these activities. For all we know, the father may very well have wanted them enrolled in these activities as well. In fact, the mother quit working full-time because the kids were disappointed because she was missing their events. These "events" could've been dance recitals, karate tournaments, etc. More than likely, these kids were enrolled in various activities when both parents were working and using a nanny. It's not unusual when both parents work long hours. So, don't give me that shit that somehow she alone was responsible for all their activities. That's a crock of shit.

"I see. So, NY and V, you would agree that while Dr. Chen was not working but still holding up her end of the support agreement (none of which was within Dr. Warner's power to "agree" to), and she wanted to take over some of the "nanny duties" during his week since she had the time, he should have flatly refused her request and insisted on using the nanny instead?"

Again, this is 50/50 physical custody. He didn't have to let her do anything. AS LONG AS HIS KIDS WERE BEING WELL TAKEN CARE OF, she didn't have any say over what was going on in his house. OTOH, do you really think she "requested" this arrangement. I highly doubt it. It's not hard to figure out how this came about. The mother didn't quit working full-time until a year after the divorce. Prior to this, both parents worked full-time, and a full-time nanny was probably taking the kids to their activities or whatever. I wouldn't doubt it if they shared a full-time nanny who rotated between their houses. When mom quit work, she didn't need this nanny, but dad sure did. He probably thought he could save a few bucks by asking the mother to do things with the kids instead of the nanny. Or maybe his nanny quit (they do quite frequently), and he thought he would ask her to help him out because she wasn't working, and it involved into her taking care of the kids quite a bit. Whatever, the reason, I highly doubt it was all due to a "request" by mom. After all, she's not the one who needed the nanny. THAT WAS DAD. Anyway, it doesn't matter. He was benefitting from that arrangement big time, and more than likely, he initiated the whole thing.

"Well I guess I can stop being concerned about them now. Now that I understand how their mothers took advantage of all those poor Arab guys from a different culture who just didn't understand western goddess-worship and probably didn't want to support a layabout either..."

Ha! The Arab guys marrying American women aren't any different than the American men who marry foreign women. Both groups of men tend to be wife beaters.

NYMOM said...

You want me to push Goldman under a bus? No problemo. I don't think ANYONE should be able to use laziness as a tool to require a spouse to support them forever. But he better be chained at the waist to all of your women buddies. Kapish?

No, because the history for the two groups is different.

Just like two men in the US, both the same age and education but different races. Supposedly they should have equal financial resources at a certain age or point in time. Well they did a study in Congress that showed African-American reps had a significant difference in wealth compared to their white counterparts.

Why?

Probably family inheritances built up over time accounts for it...A few generations of inheriting grandfather's business assets or grandmother's house and so on and so forth tends to accumulate.

Actually I think overall they found African American families tend to have less wealth accumulated then their white counterparts in the US.

So history does make a difference even generations after the fact...and US slavery only last two hundred years.

Now I know you will counter with women inherit a lot of wealth and in the top 5% or so of wealthy families this is probably correct. But by wealth we must also include knowledge and information that is passed down through the generations and this is what is lacking in many instances.

Women have been bred for eons to do nothing else but cultivate their beauty to attract men. Even in the most successful of women you see how hard this is for them to give up as they still parade around in inappropriate short skirts and dyed hair (even at work)...

This is no accident as this is women's 'heritage', our inheritance and we're still living off the proceeds of it. AND as I said before it took eons to instill these traits in women and it's not going to be so easy to turn the tide.

Actually I read that what we call clinical depresssion used to be considered very normal behavior for women. Crying a lot, not wishing to leave their home, being upset over relatively minor setbacks, fainting at various times. This used to be considered very feminine behavior.

Probably women who were not like this either never married and passed their genes along to their female children or were just killed at an early age for transgressing some society's laws for women...

Again these things are not going to be changed overnight...maybe they never will be...

So when talking about Goldman versus women who do not work we are talking about two very different creatures here: apples and oranges as Richard said...Goldman went against the historic norm of men deliberately, which is why he probably married someone he thought was rich (as I don't even know how rich that family was) hoping to be taken care of. He wasn't bred for centuries to look beautiful in order to be fed and given a roof over his head.

So he was definitely an outlier in men (or a hustler as I call it) whereas women who do this, I might not like what they do, but I understand the history behind it. Goldman had no history, he was just a jerk.

Anonymous said...

Excuses excuses, NY. But even if you were right, all the more reason to stop coddling this irresponsible trait in women and get them out there acting like responsible adults. Just like kids often need a kick in the pants to get them out and self-supporting.

After all, it sure didn't take generations to reverse the sexual modesty and discretion that had been conditioned into women for thousands of years, now did it?

As for you, V, I seriously doubt that you've "figured out" what went on between Chen and Warner any better than you've figured out what's gone on in my family or PK's.

Do I think she "requested" the arrangement they found themselves in? Damn right! Why wouldn't she want to spend the extra time with her kids after she had supposedly quit work for this purpose? Doesn't NY pontificate a lot here about how painful it is for a mother to be separated from her children (violins playing)...?

But whether you "figured it out" or not, again, NONE of it is relevant. NOt even remotely. Kids being disappointed, mom wanting more time with kids, dad benefitting or not benefitting, none of it justifies forcing a LEGAL STRANGER to finance your early retirement. If you can't stomach true independence then that's something you should weigh when making the decision to divorce.

"I WANNA" doesn't cut it in our world, missy, and it doesn't cut it in your world either at least in a logical sense. Whenever it does work for you it's just a patronizing handout from the "oppressive" patriarchy that you hate so much.

You woman-firsters need to pee or get off the pot. Do you want to be fully responsible and equal adults or do you want continued infantilization?

On second thought, I guess you don't need to decide after all. The decision has already been made and society is moving in the direction of forcing you gals into accountable adulthood whether you want it or not. Sorry.

R.

NYMOM said...

"On second thought, I guess you don't need to decide after all. The decision has already been made and society is moving in the direction of forcing you gals into accountable adulthood whether you want it or not. Sorry."

The problem is that men pay 'lip service' to wanting women to be fully working responsible peers. But in fact they reward women far more for being beautiful then they do for being bright and well-educated...

Actually I work in academia and see many bright, smart but lonely women with no husbands or children...male nerds get rewarded when they become adults and start making money or showing how smart they are by writing books or something, but not their female counterparts...

I know you have a daughter so this issue should concern you.

We need to show young girls lives that include being rewarded for smarts as well as beauty...a Brittany Spears gets more attention from the media when she speaks then a Condi Rice and this is a big problems leading to girls being more concerned about being beautiful to latch onto a man then in preparing for a real job...

That's why I liked that "Take Your Daughter to Work' Day. It showed young girls that they have to spend most of their lives working a real job not hunting around for Prince Charming...but the whole thing went down the tubes because they insisted on including boys in it and turning it into career day...

Boys don't need to be told they have to work (with some rare exceptions like Goldman). They don't work if they can't find jobs not because they are expecting to marry a Prince and live happily ever after running his castle...

So there is a difference here as much as you might hate to admit it...

NYMOM said...

"Kids being disappointed, mom wanting more time with kids, dad benefitting or not benefitting, none of it justifies forcing a LEGAL STRANGER to finance your early retirement. If you can't stomach true independence then that's something you should weigh when making the decision to divorce."

I don't know the details of the case and who filed for divorce but who said she's retiring??? She's spending a few years with their kids (while they are in their formative years) and then probably heading right back to work.

Sorry but the real world for mothers mean these sorts of interruptions in their work life happen ALL THE TIME...it doesn't mean they are on the way to retirement...

I've actually been a stay-at-home mother a few times, each time I had another child I stayed home for a few years...Since my kids were 11 years apart I was home for four years then worked two jobs for about six years then had another child and was home this time for only two years then right back to work.

The woman is a doctor, she'll be back at work in a few years...

I guess men don't understand the real life schedule of women when they become mothers. Just because we are out of work a few years doesn't mean we are retiring...

NYMOM said...

"After all, it sure didn't take generations to reverse the sexual modesty and discretion that had been conditioned into women for thousands of years, now did it?"

No you're right but men let that genie out of the bottle by continuing to reward the women who parade around in this manner since if we know anything it's that most young women will do just about anything to please men.

How long would it take for this to stop if men would simply stop drooling over women who dress like this????

Or quit patronizing strippers or 14 year old hookers, etc., etc., etc.,

Look to your brothers to answer these questions.

Anonymous said...

"Just because we are out of work a few years doesn't mean we are retiring..."

I wouldn't bet on her returning to work. By the time the kids are in college she'll be a dinosaur. But irregardless, it's equally correct to say that nothing here justifies drafting an unwilling legal stranger to finance a long, long, long vacation for you, either.

"No you're right but men let that genie out of the bottle by continuing to reward the women who parade around in this manner..."

It doesn't matter who let the genie out. The point is that the reversal came in one generation. Self-sufficiency can come just as quickly with an end to outmoded patriarchal coddling and excuse-making.

Women will be amply "rewarded" for self-sufficiency by not starving when chivalry is dead and buried and the free rides end.

R.

virago said...

NYMOM, again I agree with you 100%.

virago said...

"As for you, V, I seriously doubt that you've "figured out" what went on between Chen and Warner any better than you've figured out what's gone on in my family or PK's.

Do I think she "requested" the arrangement they found themselves in? Damn right! Why wouldn't she want to spend the extra time with her kids after she had supposedly quit work for this purpose?"

If you can say that the mother requested it, I can say that the father initiated the whole thing to save a few bucks on a nanny. If you think for one minute that this guy wasn't asking the mother for help on a regular basis, your living in fairyland. After all, the mother wasn't working. He was going to take advantage of that to the hilt, and he did.

virago said...

"Would be nice if we could just feed all you nuts to each other while the rest of us get on with the business of raising responsible sons and daughters with too much self-respect to beg borrow or steal a living off the unwilling via innocent kids."

Well, St. Richard, not all of us mere mortals are perfect and pure like you and your Holy Offspring. The rest of us live in the REAL WORLD. If you have a problem with that, you can always off yourselves. I sincerely doubt anyone is going to miss you.

Anonymous said...

"If you can say that the mother requested it, I can say that the father initiated the whole thing to save a few bucks on a nanny."

And I can say yet again, who cares? Even if the mother WAS being taken advantage of the obvious solution was for her to stop volunteering. Not to demand a free ride.

If my wife and I had a doormat neighbor who let us dump our kids on her all the time for babysitting, that wouldn't entitle her to sue us for a living so she could continue it. She could simply stop doing it and get a damn job.

Dr. Warner had no more duty to Dr. Chen than we would have to a volunteer babysitter. That's what divorce is all about.

Bad law, a mere excuse to give a woman some money and increase the amount of federal dollars flowing to the state.

"The rest of us live in the REAL WORLD."

The REAL WORLD is the classic excuse for consistently low standards, low expectations, and the repudiation of inconvenient personal obligations. You can HAVE that world, missy. And finance it, too.

R.

NYMOM said...

"It doesn't matter who let the genie out. The point is that the reversal came in one generation."

It does matter.

It demonstrates that women are willing to go along with anything to get along with men...

If men wish women to cover themselves in burkas so other men can't see them, women will do that.

If men wish women to run around naked in public, like Spartan women were expected to do exercising in public naked, women will do that as well...

I mean women aren't covering themselves in burkas or wearing a bikini to get the attention of other women.

Right.

So I don't see this current overexposure of women as being a fundamental change in their psyche so much as you paint it.

It's more of this constant catering to the latest whims of man...

NYMOM said...

Actually it's one of the main reasons that I'm pretty impressed with the women who have gone against the legal system and abducted their children (again, not that I recognize that as a crime for a mother to so-called abduct her own children).

Once in a while you get a crazy in the mix, I'll admit that...But for the most part, it's ordinary women doing this, almost an underground railroad sort of response of civil disobedience to unjust laws.

AND it's quite unusual for women to respond in this manner...

Men, of course, are always breaking the rule here and in other societies, but it's rare for women to do this. Usually they just cave in; but thousands of them are defying the courts now and entirely on their own...it's quite unusual really...

I'm sure many are quite surprised about this response...

Anonymous said...

All right, NY. We'll concede all that. Now most guys want women who can contribute fully to the family, and support themselves if they crap out on the family. This is not a whim, BTW. It's a direct result of women's insistence on equal education and job opportunities that watered down the job market and wages and pushed up the cost of living the middle-class lifestyle.

If we get rid of the incentives to the contrary maybe women can reach self-sufficiency as rapidly as they reached sexual liberation.

OK?

R.

NYMOM said...

"Self-sufficiency can come just as quickly with an end to outmoded patriarchal coddling and excuse-making."

No, because self-sufficiency is a long process which begins at a young age and means a lot less focus on the boys and more on your studies...So in essence you are asking young girls to reject every message that the media, her peers and most of the adults around her (except for a few stoogy unmarried women) are sending her.

And what young girl is going to buy into that????

"Women will be amply "rewarded" for self-sufficiency by not starving when chivalry is dead and buried and the free rides end."

How will they be amply rewarded by never having a family????

Being called a spinster or an old mail???

What's the reward for women who follow the same school success and career path of men???

One of the things I would like to see happen is not for women to imitate men but for women to forge new paths which might include part-time work when their children are young (yes, even for doctors), single motherhood (yes, sorry Richard and PK, but single mothers can and do raise fine children) and other new paths of living.

I know it will kill gender neutral feminists to hear this, but yes women are different from men and must follow different pathsways.

Anonymous said...

Well right off the bat, NY, you're undercutting your own credibility by proposing that women can reach equality in every other respect...except self-sufficiency.

"...self-sufficiency is a long process which begins at a young age and means a lot less focus on the boys and more on your studies"

NY, girls aren't any less focused on their studies than boys are. So schoolgirls like to attract boys. Schoolboys like to blow a lot of time on video games. Neither means that they can't achieve self-sufficiency after they GROW UP.

"So in essence you are asking young girls to reject every message that the media, her peers and most of the adults around her (except for a few stoogy unmarried women) are sending her."

Who is sending this message? The media is trying so hard to portray women as equal to men that they overcompensate in the other direction. Middle class parents save for girls' educations as much as or more than boys' and have every expectation that they will succeed, and keep them increasingly scheduled in sports and service and enrichment activities so that they do not have time to lie around waiting to catch a boy between their legs.

I'll admit that my wife and the women of her generation grew up with lots of old-school moms whispering in their ears about how it's as easy to love a rich man as a poor one and to have a baby when you're ready to quit working but the new crop of young people seem to know little about such things.

"How will they be amply rewarded by never having a family????...Being called a spinster or an old mail??? ...What's the reward for women who follow the same school success and career path of men???"

There is no contradiction between self-sufficiency and family!

At the risk of setting PK off again, young women who follow the "same school success and career path of men" now actually have a BETTER chance of achieving a marriage and a successful family than women who don't.

"One of the things I would like to see happen is not for women to imitate men but for women to forge new paths"

As always, the problem is that if women are not "ready" for self-sufficiency" then they are also not ready to forge any "new paths."

Men are not going to argue with your "new paths." We don't even argue with them now, really. We're just not going to volunteer to pay for them. The legal equality you've won removed any strictly legal obligation that we had to underwrite you, and the chivalry that demanded that we do it anyway is being repudiated by the up and coming generation.

You'll HAVE to be self-sufficient and/or be satisfied with less for yourselves and your children, if you decide to forgo family. Weigh the choices, deal with the fallout. That's being a full adult.

R.

PolishKnight said...

Richard plays with grenades: "There is no contradiction between self-sufficiency and family!
At the risk of setting PK off again, young women who follow the "same school success and career path of men" now actually have a BETTER chance of achieving a marriage and a successful family than women who don't."

As I observed, Richard, many women still get MRS degrees such as in women's studies or Classical Literature. (we used to joke about it in college and call it "CLIT") This shows that such women marry due to CLASS rather than "self sufficiency."

One such women I know from our social circle got a $10 an hour job as a copy editor at a guidebook publisher and still needed a man to pay the bills and lived with her father until she found her college sweetheart to marry (I told him to run for the hills. He didn't listen to me...)

You're buying into a paradigm by V and NYMOM that unless women all get cushy jobs handed to them, then they shouldn't even start thinking about equal responsibility. The fact is that most men lead incredibly unfair lives and just deal with it. That's why we're the ones out there blazing the trails and not at home safe making babies...

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM dreams: "One of the things I would like to see happen is not for women to imitate men but for women to forge new paths which might include part-time work when their children are young (yes, even for doctors), single motherhood (yes, sorry Richard and PK, but single mothers can and do raise fine children) and other new paths of living."

Who says the Miss America pageant is unrealistic?

Why, women can do anything provided, of course, that pageant committee (or taxpayers or very generous men) foot all the bills. Single mothers should be able to come and go as they please provided men aren't "greedy" and hand out checks without any conditions other than her being happy (which is what the mother decides is what the children, whatever she wants to do...)

This works great in the short term, or at least for a few women who get a crown and walk up and down the aisle with theme music in the background. The rest of the time though, not so good.

No need to be sorry, NYMOM. Good luck with that vision. When you can find a way to wish up blocks of solid gold, let me know.

PolishKnight said...

Richard suggests: "If we get rid of the incentives to the contrary maybe women can reach self-sufficiency as rapidly as they reached sexual liberation."

This may amaze you to hear, Richard, but men didn't always have "equality" either and guarantees of high paying jobs. In The Real World (tm), plenty of poor working class men supported families. If women wanted to work as, say, seamstresses at wages higher than many other men, they could and, oftentimes, did. In many ways, women of the past "oppressive" days outshone modern Victims.

If a man was to cry and say that his ancestors were victims and that women should support him, these women wouldn't hesitate to tell him to stop goldbricking. Their "equality" is totally dependent upon chivalrous patronage. Always has been. Always will be. Some things will never change...

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 225   Newer› Newest»