tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post5013561763408904790..comments2023-07-28T07:44:40.802-04:00Comments on Women as Mothers: Another Hostage Crisis for EnglandNYMOMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-17186743020861178142008-03-24T15:39:00.000-04:002008-03-24T15:39:00.000-04:00Now NY, you can't be serious. I ask if you have e...Now NY, you can't be serious. I ask if you have evidence for your beliefs about the harmlessness of single motherhood and you refer me to the freak show at Alas and tell me the issue is "settled?"<BR/><BR/>As if those losers could "settle" anything?<BR/><BR/>Where the issue is "settled" is within the field of child psychology and sociology. As I demonstrated in the link I provided, this issue has been studied extensively in Great Britain, Australia, and numerous European countries as well as America, and among all different ethnic and socioeconomic groups and the results are the same: <BR/><BR/>“We reject the claim that children raised by only one parent do just as well as children raised by both parents. We have been studying this question for ten years, and in our opinion the evidence is quite clear: Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents, regardless of the parents’ race or educational background, regardless of whether the parents are married when the child is born, and regardless of whether the resident parent remarries.”<BR/><BR/>There is little debate now on this issue among those who actually study it. The only "debate" remaining is the yammerings of feminuts on lefty blogs like Alas trying to paint single motherhood as some kind of noble alternative when anyone with the IQ of a trout can see that it's a triple-layer shit pie for kids and for our society and economy as a whole.<BR/><BR/>As a side note, when someone requests proof of an assertion, it is not a valid response to say "I had some but I can't find it right now. Look it up yourself." In the real world this amounts to a concession of the point.<BR/><BR/>As hot as you are for this issue, one would think you'd have some evidentiary support at your fingertips.<BR/><BR/>As far as Heather Mills goes, I heard they share joint custody. But whatever the exact details, she claims to be "very happy" with the ruling she got. (Duh!)<BR/><BR/>And on top of her child support award she also received coverage of the child's school expenses and nanny. Which tells me she has plenty of time in possession of the child otherwise she would not require a nanny on which to dump said child while she does... I'm not sure what. Perhaps searching for the next rich sucker if she can find one who'll touch her after this.<BR/><BR/>So I wouldn't worry too much about the rather despicable Ms. Mills. She's not grinning like a Chesire cat for nothing.<BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-65574329644711172692008-03-23T13:53:00.000-04:002008-03-23T13:53:00.000-04:00No Richard, the correct answer is look it up yours...No Richard, the correct answer is look it up yourself on my site and the sites of others who have already hashed this debate out over a year ago.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I'm still not certain of the outcome of the Mills/McCarthy custody case. I know the divorce is over and she got about 48 million which I'll agree was ridiculous for a marriage of less then 4 years. <BR/><BR/>Of course even in that situation the law was not followed, as the Judge gave Mills far less then the law entitled her to since they deliberately undervalued what McCarthy was worth. <BR/><BR/>A better result would be to change the law if it's unfair, not to keep your fingers crossed that the Judge will 'like' you better then your spouse and so distort the figures in your favor.<BR/><BR/>How many lesser men and women suffer because they have to depend on the good will of a stranger in the event of a dispute in the family courts?<BR/><BR/>Last but not least, from the amount of the child support she was awarded compared to awards of other similarly situated children, I am still not sure that Heather Mills retained custody of her child.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-50276510910211780322008-03-21T11:21:00.000-04:002008-03-21T11:21:00.000-04:00I guess the answer to the question is no.Just like...I guess the answer to the question is no.<BR/><BR/>Just like we all knew.<BR/><BR/>Moving on...<BR/><BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-45114199792034422442008-03-20T19:48:00.000-04:002008-03-20T19:48:00.000-04:00Again this business of the 'stolen statistics' was...Again this business of the 'stolen statistics' was all over the blogsphere last year. It was hashed out on dozens of blogs at that time including the one from Amp (I forgot it's name as I haven't read the blog in months) and the blog Creative Destruction. I posted on my blog about it as well, YET you waited until now to bring this up? Why??? IF you had legitimate questions why didn't you bring them up at the time this was an issue???? As you are always reading this blog although you pretend you don't.<BR/><BR/>Clearly you waited until enough time had passed so that I would have to waste hours looking up blog posts both here and on other sites...<BR/><BR/>Sorry I'm not doing it. This issue was settled. Men rights groups lied about the stats. The groups that are facing most of these problems are Afr. Americans and Hispanics, many illegal aliens. <BR/><BR/>So the picture you have painted about 'single mothers' is false. It's really a picture about race in America and you are using it to conduct a smear campaign against women.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-71621603857263202952008-03-20T18:34:00.000-04:002008-03-20T18:34:00.000-04:00You ladies KILL me. Heather is a nut case. Besid...You ladies KILL me. Heather is a nut case. Besides... is it not Paul's child as well? Why is it bad for the man to have custody of the child that he helped create as well? Particularly since HE is the one who is best able to financially care for the child. This statement from you only goes to prove that you deserve whatever backlash you get from men.<BR/><BR/>But I’m curious to see if Paul McCartney wins in his attempts to steal Heather Mills's only child from her<BR/><BR/>heh heh... priceless. Apparently in your opinion she is the ONLY parent of the child. Feminism has failed miserably and the backlash is going to be horrific. I for one am glad. You all wanted equality then let's have it. Oh... I forgot feminism was never about equality but about being BETTER than men are. Ladies like you are completely insane.<BR/><BR/>If you all had ANY sense you'd follow the lead of the TRUE womens rights pioneers like the Susan B. Anthony's of the world and leave the feminist idiots like Gloria Steinem alone. But noooooooooo... you don't really want equality. <BR/><BR/>You want to discount the role of fathers in the lives of children despite all of the evidence that states that the greatest common denominator of ALL people in prison is fatherlessness. You want to discount the role of fathers in the lives of children in the face of ALL of the documentation that proves that women are the MOST abusive toward children.<BR/><BR/>WOW! Incredible. <BR/><BR/>Oh... and I stand by what I say. If any of you want to contact me and tell me how wrong I am... don't worry, i'll wait.<BR/><BR/>uncontainable_spirit@yahoo.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-89502264261786426622008-03-19T12:23:00.000-04:002008-03-19T12:23:00.000-04:00Since "common-sense" has been used to validate eve...Since "common-sense" has been used to validate everything from the flat-earth world view to slavery, I'd prefer a bit of solid evidence to go with it if you don't mind.<BR/><BR/>Got any evidence for that accusation you just made about Polish Knight "stealing the statistics of minorities in this country?"<BR/><BR/>"Even controlling for variations across groups in parent education, race and other child and family factors, 18- to 22-year-olds from disrupted families were twice as likely to have poor relationships with their mothers and fathers, to show high levels of emotional distress or problem behavior, [and] to have received psychological help." <BR/>Source: Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro, "Long Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment and Achievement in Young Adulthood", Journal of Family Psychology 7 (1993).<BR/><BR/>For a lot more details, see this summation of the relevant research from Australia's National Observer, containing the results of studies of fatherless children from numerous countries from Scandinavia to southern Africa:<BR/><BR/>http://www.nationalobserver.net/2002_winter_110.htm<BR/><BR/>They all find mostly the same thing. Kids from single-mother homes are consistently more hosed up than kids that live with both biological parents, regardless of socioeconomic status or race.<BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-71099493814801393762008-03-18T23:14:00.000-04:002008-03-18T23:14:00.000-04:00I have a questionYou wrote: "Also the other issue,...<B>I have a question</B><BR/><BR/>You wrote: "Also the other issue, how many women have winded up in court fights with donors trying to obtain legal rights to children AFTER the fact and how many jurisdictions are passing laws trying to give them rights both in the US and abroad."<BR/><BR/>Question: Could you answer that please? How many of these sperm donors are out there trying to do this? You asked the question but punctuated it as a statement making it rhetorical.<BR/><BR/>In answer to your claims about the high cost of sperm and medical procedures. Er, how is this men's problem again? Let's say a woman can knock out 4 kids in a grass hut somewhere without a problem while these women you refer to blow months and tens of thousands of dollars. Is the first woman (and men) supposed to feel guilty about their comparative ease of reproducing? <BR/><BR/>Yet, you like to then stick out your tongue and go nyah nyah nyah as if men are "jealous" of women. It doesn't make sense.PolishKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16740194441387995674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-41328319925930593682008-03-18T23:05:00.000-04:002008-03-18T23:05:00.000-04:00NYMOM proclaims: "It's something called 'common se...NYMOM proclaims: "It's something called 'common sense' to know that the male investment, which is nothing but a quick drop sperm deposit, = no investment in child."<BR/><BR/>Except that everyone in society knows that without mommy, er, I mean "child" support from "males" that children would starve to death (before growing up to become criminals in such households.) So much for the biological contribution of men being trivial.<BR/><BR/>NYMOM: "Well hold onto to your hat, as I'm about to do another blog post this week dealing with the Darren Mack murders which will really drive you up a tree."<BR/><BR/>I can hardly wait to see it. Apparently, that single mother isn't going to be cashing too many checks!PolishKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16740194441387995674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-17043449665255443922008-03-18T22:58:00.000-04:002008-03-18T22:58:00.000-04:00I think there are other valid points including and...I think there are other valid points including and especially that financial support from men and the state is necessary for children to literally eat. Hence, men are more than just "sperm donors". They are the financial and life support system for children outside of the womb!<BR/><BR/>In response to your counterpoint, I welcome your proof that I have "stolen" statistics (How does one do that anyway? "Hello police, I'd like to report a stolen statistic. It was blue!") <BR/><BR/>Seriously, what we (and EVERYONE else) knows for sure is that single mother run households put out more criminals. You have yet to show that non "minority" single mothers are statistically less likely to raise criminals than intact or father headed households non minorities with similar financials.<BR/><BR/>Here's one (granted, biased) web site I found with links but there are plenty of others if I wanted to put in the time. They refer to legitimate studies. But more importantly, as you know, most people don't need studies to tell them what they ALREADY know!<BR/><BR/>http://www.divorcereform.org/crime.html<BR/>Who got their data from:<BR/>http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.crimefamstructure.pdf<BR/><BR/>All but three of 23 recent studies found some family structure effect on<BR/>crime or delinquency. Seven of the eight studies that used nationally<BR/>representative data, for example, found that children in single-parent or<BR/>other non-intact family structures were at greater risk of committing criminal or<BR/>delinquent acts. For example: A study using Add-Health data found that even after controlling for<BR/>race, parents' education, and income, adolescents in single-parent families<BR/>were almost two times more likely to have pulled a knife or a gun on someone in<BR/>the past year. (Todd Michael Franke 2000)<BR/><BR/>Six of seven studies that looked at whether overall rates of single<BR/>parenthood affected average crime rates found that changes in family<BR/>structure were related to increases in crime. For example:<BR/>· A study that looked at the relation between divorce rates and out-of-wedlock birthrates and violent crime between 1973 and 1995 found that nearly 90% of the change in violent crime rates can be accounted for by the change in percentages of out-of-wedlock births. (Mackey and Coney 2000, p. 352)<BR/>· A study that looked at crime in rural counties in four states concluded,<BR/>"[A]n increase of 13% in female-headed households would produce a doubling<BR/>of the offense rate." (Osgood and Chambers 2000, p. 103)PolishKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16740194441387995674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-2430542770476801432008-03-18T20:06:00.000-04:002008-03-18T20:06:00.000-04:00Your point about the 500 lb gorilla of single moms...Your point about the 500 lb gorilla of single moms producing many juvenile delinquents is your only valid point, so I'll respond to it.<BR/><BR/>You have stolen the statistics of minorities in this country to make your case. It is a case built on twisted lies and half truths.<BR/><BR/>Okay.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-44502591921828394362008-03-18T20:01:00.000-04:002008-03-18T20:01:00.000-04:00As I told you before Polish Knight I do not intend...As I told you before Polish Knight I do not intend to spend all of my time here constantly arguing with you or anyone else. I have articles posted on my blog alluding to the expense of getting artificially inseminated. If you had questions about the price, procedures, insurance coverage, etc., you should have posted them at the time I posted the articles.<BR/><BR/>As usual, you wait and then come up with some phony trick like separating out the cost of purchasing sperm from the entire price of artificial insemination. It comes as a package deal as you well know. <BR/><BR/>A woman has to pay for an intensive examination before she is artificially inseminated and many places have laws against single women doing it. Plus it doesn't always result in a pregnancy the first time and ofttimes has to be performed multiple times at a doctor's office with no insurance coverage available. <BR/><BR/>I have numerous articles on my website about this issue.<BR/><BR/>Also the other issue, how many women have winded up in court fights with donors trying to obtain legal rights to children AFTER the fact and how many jurisdictions are passing laws trying to give them rights both in the US and abroad.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, if you had all these doubts and questions, why didn't you ask them when I posted these articles? Instead you expect me to research this entire blog for you and come up with this information now? <BR/><BR/>Additionally there are no statistics that will show you a mother is the most invested in any child she produces. It's something called 'common sense' to know that the male investment, which is nothing but a quick drop sperm deposit, = no investment in child. Get it...Men didn't even know if one of their random deposits even resulted in a child until a few years ago when DNA tests were invented.<BR/><BR/>But I see from your barely concealed rage, that I'm not sinking into irrevelancy as you claimed last week...<BR/><BR/>Well hold onto to your hat, as I'm about to do another blog post this week dealing with the Darren Mack murders which will really drive you up a tree.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-36706281213748108862008-03-18T16:30:00.000-04:002008-03-18T16:30:00.000-04:00The interests of the childrenFinally, I want to ad...<B>The interests of the children</B><BR/><BR/>Finally, I want to address you claim that 99.99% of the time the most invested person in a child is the mother.<BR/><BR/>Single mothers didn't get a bad rap because of men's rights activists. I wish they did but we're just not that politically significant yet. They got a bad rap because so many are on welfare or in need of state muscle to get a man to support them. Even the feminist friendly media can't cover up the fact that single mother households produce a majority of the criminals. Sometimes, "investment" isn't necessarily a good thing by default. Look at the housing market!<BR/><BR/>Seriously, as you pointed out in another thread on sperm donors, the state itself is leery of single women having children without a named father lest it become a ward of the state. You even agree with this sentiment. Damn men! They contribute nothing to the child's interests (oh, except financially providing food and shelter.) So this is a valid reason for sperm banks denying services to single women (assuming that happens so uniformly that costs shoot up as you claim.)<BR/><BR/>And that, NYMOM, is a pretty big deal. That's the 500 lb Gorilla on the coffee table. Yes, maybe you were more independent but, say, 99.99% of the rest (to pick a number) aren't.PolishKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16740194441387995674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-38471507507597156142008-03-18T16:11:00.000-04:002008-03-18T16:11:00.000-04:00The family courts: Women stay away!NYMOM wrote: "A...<B>The family courts: Women stay away!</B><BR/><BR/>NYMOM wrote: <I>"AND regarding mothers and family courts, it's not true what you say about men being discriminated against. Actually it's just the opposite and maybe it always was. But we'll never know since most children never had custody decided by the courts. Most children, before child support became an issue, (sometimes around the early 80s or so) were in the custody of their mother by default."</I><BR/><BR/>And this proves, what, exactly? Most children are still in custody of their mother by default along with the support so it's rather difficult to make a case that they're being discriminated against. As I said, I don't think you seriously believe the family court system is biased against women. If you really cared about the mothers, you wouldn't be making such a claim unless you (and they) both knew it was bogus.<BR/><BR/>So how do you think that's going to fool us? Sheesh!PolishKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16740194441387995674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-35645339254887408662008-03-18T16:02:00.000-04:002008-03-18T16:02:00.000-04:00Older women having childrenNow it's time for the l...<B>Older women having children</B><BR/><BR/>Now it's time for the logic. You had just made a smug suggestion to me to take up any complaints about the shortcomings of men with God and then, in the next comment, bemoan the natural deficiencies of career women who wait too long to have children. Hey, I'm 42 and I don't have any problems! Tee hee! Perhaps these women should just ask God to give them testes instead of ovum. They last longer...PolishKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16740194441387995674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-66037398133532983152008-03-18T16:00:00.000-04:002008-03-18T16:00:00.000-04:00Liars and statisticsHello NYMOM,I checked and most...<B>Liars and statistics</B><BR/><BR/>Hello NYMOM,<BR/><BR/>I checked and most pages agree that sperm can be procured cheaply through the mail. Here's one link: http://www.spermcenter.com/sperm-cost.htm<BR/><BR/>I don't believe your claims that sperm banks are getting away with charging $10G's to single women with no other alternatives available. <BR/><BR/>You accuse me of distortions but come up with some incredible, unsupported stats including the claim that 99.99% of " who is the most invested person in a child's welfare " is the mother.<BR/><BR/>Hmmm, wait a minute. Are 99.99% of mothers even still alive and don't use adoption services? What about all the children in social services? What about all the children raised by grandparents?<BR/><BR/>That's just your statistics I'm calling into question. I'm not even going after the logic yet. That's next.PolishKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16740194441387995674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-13460259648189410712008-03-15T16:35:00.000-04:002008-03-15T16:35:00.000-04:00I forgot to respond to that buying of sperm commen...I forgot to respond to that buying of sperm comment. It might cost $260 to buy sperm for a sperm bank or a doctor, but when a woman tries to 'buy' it on her own, she rarely can. That website "Man not Included" was one of the first I even heard of that allowed women to do that and I hear they are being shut down. An individual woman trying to get pregnant must go to a doctor or clinic and pay all the fees herself for buying, testing and insemination. Average cost about $10,000, nothing covered by insurance and that's only if she becomes pregnant after one or two tries. <BR/><BR/>As was demonstrated in that book by Sylvia Ann Hewitt "Creating a Life...Professional Women and the Quest for Children" most women wait too long to go that route so wind up spending far more and have a far more difficult and expensive process to go through before they can have children. IF they can do it at all.<BR/><BR/>I guess few women want to face their family and friends and admit they had a child in this manner. Actually they had some survey on the news recently which stated this was one of the top ten things women would lie about, having to have a child in this manner.<BR/><BR/>So once again another distortion of the truth from you Polish Knight. You are very invested in sweeping the truth under the rug.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-85996900003863300472008-03-15T16:25:00.000-04:002008-03-15T16:25:00.000-04:00First of all, I'm not dropping out incrementallly....First of all, I'm not dropping out incrementallly. I'm actually dropping back in incrementally, as I was ill for a while and I'm just getting back up to speed with blogging again. I consider my blog to be informational only, not out here to argue with people who disagree with me.<BR/><BR/>I don't post on other sites anymore because frankly many of the relevant sites for my issue are either fathers rights nuts or crazed gender neutralized feminist's ones. <BR/><BR/>The fathers rights ones just spend all their time either arguing with or threatening to find out where I live or work and kill me. While the feminists ones were using me to help score points through the woman as politically correct victims game, since they love to get 'points' for playing the women as victim cards. Even though they do absolutely nothing to help their sisters when they truly are victims and oftentimes participate in crafting public policy to ensure women's continued victimization. <BR/><BR/>So bottom line I gain nothing by posting on either of these sites and who else is interested in these issues?<BR/><BR/>AND regarding mothers and family courts, it's not true what you say about men being discriminated against. Actually it's just the opposite and maybe it always was. But we'll never know since most children never had custody decided by the courts. Most children, before child support became an issue, (sometimes around the early 80s or so) were in the custody of their mother by default. <BR/><BR/>Today just about every child has custody decided by the courts...so it's impossible for us to ever know if there was ever truly a 'mother' bias in the courts. Which to be honest, I wouldn't call it a mother bias even if it could be proven, but a simple common sense acknowledgement of who is the most invested person in a child's welfare and that's 99.99% of the time a child's mother.<BR/><BR/>Sorry Polish Knight...if you can't accept it, it's just too bad.<BR/><BR/>As I've said many times before, take your complaints to God, nature or evolution.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-33698566124314055812008-03-15T09:43:00.000-04:002008-03-15T09:43:00.000-04:00Hello ladies,I wandered in here out of curiosity t...Hello ladies,<BR/><BR/>I wandered in here out of curiosity to see if NYMOM was still around. I don't think she's as active as before and I don't know if anyone will read this comment (or if she'll delete it) but here goes.<BR/><BR/>If you're, pardon my bluntness here, NUTS enough to think that the court system and especially family (liars) court is biased against women and avoid it, then you're a fool or you're just posturing here. We all know that women still get custody and "child" support most of the time. Celebrities are a special case since these men have millions of dollars to spend to get a fair shake in court and even then, these women including the poor golddigger Heather Mills still came out pretty good with a settlements a lottery winner would be jealous of. <BR/><BR/>AskYahoo claims it costs about $260 to buy sperm. Even if it's 4 times that, the question becomes that if a woman can't afford this then how can she afford to raise the child on the her own? Of course, in most cases, she'll need "child" support or welfare. So much for women "raising" children all by themselves!<BR/><BR/>And you know this NYMOM which is probably why you're dropping out incrementally. That's ok. Lots of people who don't want to abandon their faith stop proclaiming it's wonders in public and do so privately (and unchallenged) until they (and their faith) dies with them.PolishKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16740194441387995674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-55024318104191870822008-03-14T16:02:00.000-04:002008-03-14T16:02:00.000-04:00"Anyway, in New York State you are not supposed to..."Anyway, in New York State you are not supposed to be able to switch custody like that w/o a 'substantial change of circumstances' taking place in the CUSTODIAL PARENT's household."<BR/><BR/>Earth to NY: Those kids were being put through psychological abuse by being made to accuse their father of molestation.<BR/><BR/>That's the reason the old man filed for custody to begin with, and while psychological child abuse may not seem like a substantial change of circumstances to you, it does to most normal people.<BR/><BR/>Even the appellate court who reversed the decision saw this monster for what she was. If the old bastard had given any indication that he intended to cut back on his jetting around and actually raise those kids, the decision probably would have stood on appeal, too.<BR/><BR/>So go on defending abusers like Bridget Marks. You set your cause back a mile every time you do.<BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-83541270191401446532008-03-14T13:27:00.000-04:002008-03-14T13:27:00.000-04:00"They don't make special dispensations for mothers..."They don't make special dispensations for mothers who are 'good girls'"<BR/>Amen to that -- great points NYMom!Valhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03152215204773184788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-21180202193558915962008-03-13T20:46:00.000-04:002008-03-13T20:46:00.000-04:00Well, I'd rather not use these celebrity cases eit...Well, I'd rather not use these celebrity cases either, especially if they are too unusual. The problem now, however, is that a lot of these celebrity cases are just the tip of the iceberg and there are millions of ordinary women underneath that iceberg going through the exact same scenario.<BR/><BR/>It used to be that you could never judge ordinary women by what happened to the rich and famous. We could just sit back and watch the horror show unfolding like some tv soap opera and think, "Wow thank God I'm not married to some rich monster". But with custody of children worth so much today, custody fights have simply become too common to turn our heads away and act like it's a rare event any more.<BR/><BR/>For every one Brittany Spears or Silda Spitzer there are thousands of more ordinary women, many of them are our family, friends, and neighbors. So we can't just ignore these celebrity cases.<BR/><BR/>Another thing I often point out to people is that a lot of bad precedence is set when these cases go in front of these crazy gender neutralized judges. <BR/><BR/>For instance, I don't know how many other women were impacted when Bridget Marks' boyfriend got custody switched to him after she had her kids with her for three and 1/2 years and he never said a word about it. Even though her boyfriend John Aylsworth (and his wife) were at the hospital when the twins were born. <BR/><BR/>Aylsworth never signed their birth certificate, never filed for a visitation plan or custody. Never paid child support as far as we know. Actually never took an interest in his children, only stopping off to see them whenever he was passing through New York to shack up with their mother.<BR/><BR/>Bridget Marks was just signing the girls up for 1/2 day kindergarten when he hit her with the custody lawsuit. Probably figured she might hit him up with the tuition bill. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, in New York State you are not supposed to be able to switch custody like that w/o a 'substantial change of circumstances' taking place in the CUSTODIAL PARENT's household. Single mothers in New York are automatically considered custodial so they can register their kids for school, take them to the doctor, etc., so Bridget Marks was the custodial parent from the moment the kids were born under NY law. <BR/><BR/>The courts accepting that case acted like the twins were three days old not three years old and totally disregarded the defacto custody already established with Bridget Marks. If that decision had been allowed to stand, it could have impacted hundreds of thousands of ordinary women just like Bridget Marks, where some recreational sperm donor can show up at anytime, anytime and just file a custody case against you...<BR/><BR/>Clearly Bridget Marks was no saint. Yet we have to defend women like her, as they are us. What happens to them can happen to any one of the rest of us. They don't make special dispensations for mothers who are 'good girls'. So this Silda Spitzer is as vulnerable to losing her kids as Bridget Marks or any of the rest of us. No difference.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-59156554676246350222008-03-13T10:55:00.000-04:002008-03-13T10:55:00.000-04:00That's funny, Anon 4, the same thought occurred to...That's funny, Anon 4, the same thought occurred to me! (actually it was more along the lines of how much custody Spitzer will fight for -- I don't even know how old his daughters are, but they look like "big" teenagers -- or will he just slink shamefacedly away?) The photos of Silda just struck straight to my heart w/her expression of exhausted, bemused contempt for this a**hole...I'm tempted to blog about it tho' I never blog politics/celebrity stuff!Valhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03152215204773184788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-79925699432513279662008-03-12T18:56:00.000-04:002008-03-12T18:56:00.000-04:00I was actually just thinking the same thing myself...I was actually just thinking the same thing myself last night. Who's to say it will even be Joint Custody??? As there is nothing that could stop him from filing for and winning full legal custody for himself. <BR/><BR/>The Governor of New Jersey, Jim McGreevey, is STILL abusing his wife by using the courts as a club against her. <BR/><BR/>Their custody case is ongoing for THREE YEARS NOW.<BR/><BR/>The trial will take place this May. He has a new motion against his wife every few months (they're not even divorced, yet never mind custody being settled). Can you imagine the stress this woman is under, her kid is 6 now, she was 3 when this started?<BR/><BR/>I can see our NY Governor doing the same thing to his wife, if she tries to divorce him. <BR/><BR/>This is all thanks to these crazed gender neturalized feminists, btw, which is why I have scant sympathy for the likes of Hillary Clinton...NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-68810366524344901652008-03-12T04:40:00.000-04:002008-03-12T04:40:00.000-04:00I wonder if Silda Spitzer leaves "dear" Eliot if h...I wonder if Silda Spitzer leaves "dear" Eliot if he'll get joint custody? Of course, if the kids get a little pissed reading about how dad is into leather or "choking," it must be all mom's fault right? Certainly not daddy's. He apparently has no responsibility to keep his pants zipped or keep away from prostitutes or embarrassing his wife and children. Arghh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-10630878747558578132008-02-24T18:08:00.000-05:002008-02-24T18:08:00.000-05:00In my state, it's fairly easy to get an anonymous ...In my state, it's fairly easy to get an anonymous sperm donor. I plan to act quick before the patriarchy laws set in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com