tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post6230992381607155247..comments2023-07-28T07:44:40.802-04:00Comments on Women as Mothers: Hitting the Lottery for 20 years or so...NYMOMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-49030516136050262772008-03-18T16:50:00.000-04:002008-03-18T16:50:00.000-04:00Ice cream and crimeSilverside attempts to handwave...<B>Ice cream and crime</B><BR/><BR/>Silverside attempts to handwave away the higher rates of criminality in the children of single parent homes by equating it to a causality versus correlation analogy of ice-cream and crime.<BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, she can't deny that "ice cream" isn't robbing and raping women walking home late at night. The children of single mother homes do.<BR/><BR/>If we blame the situation on the single women's poverty, then that shows that they are lousy providers. Hmmm, apparently women's ability to gestate children into poverty doesn't make them such great parents after all! <BR/><BR/>Even so, the welfare state and "child" support exists to offset this natural disadvantage (take it up with God). Google it up. 49% of single mothers receive "child" support and others receive welfare or other support from family and friends (such as this woman who is raising her daughter's child.) <BR/><BR/>And even then, they're still putting out the gang-bangers.<BR/><BR/>Hmm, maybe we should have ice cream raise children instead of snigle mothers. Maybe then our taxes would go down...PolishKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16740194441387995674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-2820338310992715172008-03-18T16:42:00.000-04:002008-03-18T16:42:00.000-04:00I read the comments and I don't see someone statin...I read the comments and I don't see someone stating the obvious: If this woman didn't want a bum in her life, why did she gestate his child and insist on getting support from him? <BR/><BR/>NYMOM projects the women's greed by saying the man wants custody of the child just to get out of support when the woman in this case (and her parents) put up with a jerk precisely because THEY want child-support from him.PolishKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16740194441387995674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-37028294514956626482007-11-18T09:00:00.000-05:002007-11-18T09:00:00.000-05:00Tina: I take back what I said. I returned to the...Tina: I take back what I said. I returned to the site and was able to read. Yet I didn't comment on the discussion as it had been over for weeks already and I didn't want to restart the issue.<BR/><BR/>Also you appeared to have let the entire conversation be taken over by a military man who managed to wrestle custody of his kids from their mother, even though he is frequently deployed overseas???? AND you allowed him to paint himself as a good man and father in spite of doing this with no one challenging him????<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry but I don't agree that managing to get custody of children today is an automatic indication of a man being a good person or father. Maybe 100 years ago it was, when it actually meant the difference between your children starving in the streets or not if their father didn't take them in. Today, it's frequently more of an indication that a man could be trying to get out of paying child support and/or get other financial benefits which a custodial parent is legally entitled to. As no children are allowed to starve in the streets here. Instead what happens is the state provides for them and then comes back and bills the non-custodial parent for it.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly enough back in the day when a fathers' movement could have done children some good, we never had one. ANYWHERE. Clearly, men were never interested enough in children to start one. Yet now when children, at least in the west, are already assured a minimal standard of care: food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education, etc., now all of these men are coming out of the woodwork with a 'fathers' movement to 'help' children. <BR/><BR/>Excuse me for seeing this as being somewhat self-serving since the laws today allows the custodial parent many financial benefits which supposedly are for the good of the child. <BR/><BR/>I'd be a little more accepting of the good will on the part of men here if these things had happened at a time when children really needed it. <BR/><BR/>Today it's almost a moot issue, at least here in the west. <BR/><BR/>I mean when did we ever have men fighting to give themselves rights to children before this. If you look at English Commonlaw, which much of American law has evolved from, most of the inpetus appears to be trying to FORCE men into accepting responsibility for children and that's when men were in charge of everything. Yet we needed laws affixing paternity. Clearly it wasn't because men were fighting to claim legal rights to children, just the opposite. They were trying to get out of having and rights or 'responsibility' as one follows the other.<BR/><BR/>So we can't disregard the actual historic record here and act like it doesn't tell us anything about the motivation of men. I would probably be a lot more accepting of a fathers' rights movement if it had started say right after the Civil War when there were probably thousands of former slaves' orphans roaming the streets. Where were the fathers of these children, former plantation owners, probably trying to disavow any knowledge of them...<BR/><BR/>That's the historic reality here with men and their children.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-84485515010441045872007-11-18T08:07:00.000-05:002007-11-18T08:07:00.000-05:00I'd love to invite you to visit the forum at www.d...I'd love to invite you to visit the forum at www.dearblackman.com. We have a very interesting topic entitled "Where are The Fathers", your input would be a blessing.<BR/><BR/>tina<BR/><BR/>Just to let you know Tina, I went to the website. Unfortunately I found it very difficult to navigate???? <BR/><BR/>I couldn't even find the topic, probably I got over there too late and the discussion was over. But I thought I could at least read what had been said; however, you have set up your blog so that people have to register even to read anything. Personally I find that too limiting to internet interaction. I allow people to view whatever they want here, but comments I moderate and most get posted.<BR/><BR/>Anyway good luck with your site.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-78714484710339718572007-11-17T15:56:00.000-05:002007-11-17T15:56:00.000-05:00Most 'women' support Joint Custody until they unde...Most 'women' support Joint Custody until they understand what it means exactly. I did too at one time not understanding it's many negative implications for mothers and children. <BR/><BR/>First of all it even applies to newborns and it can mean a mother being forced to send her baby off for days or even weeks at a time and she's not even allowed to call or have any input into the person who the child's father dumps her baby off with... AND it is dumping these babies off, as few fathers bother taking care of their kids themselves, even though they will all routinely demand Joint Custody today. <BR/><BR/>Men will frequently dump their kids off on their own mothers (which isn't too bad but I would still object to it if the child's mother herself did) but they also have no problem dumping their kid off on their latest girlfriend and using her as an unpaid babysitter. Now I don't know any men who function in the capacity as unpaid babysitters for their girlfriends.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, the entire purpose of these situations is to keep the baby away from it's mother, so men can pay less child support. As the more days away from the mother, the less money has to exchange hands.<BR/><BR/>Additionally many mothers who are non-custodial are tricked into the so-called Joint Legal Custody arrangement. And unless they read the 'fine print' on the bottom of the paper, they can wind up rarely or never seeing their children again yet still being classified for statistical reporting purposes as being in a Joint Custody arrangement.<BR/><BR/>Actually most of the mothers I know who are non-custodial have so-called Joint Custody...depending upon the state, it can be only Joint Legal Custody (which basically means nothing as you even have to spend money to get a visitation plan in this Joint Legal. <BR/><BR/>Actually I know mothers who have spent thousands to get visitation plans and then still have to spend thousands more to get them enforced with Joint Legal...<BR/><BR/>It's all smoke and mirrors.<BR/><BR/>Again, regarding AARP...it's simply facts they state (just like the census data) the interpretation of which is up to the individual...<BR/><BR/>You have your opinion on what the numbers mean, I have mine; which is just as valid as yours. I gave you mine already, you gave me yours. We disagree. So be it.<BR/><BR/>Regarding family court officials remaining secretive about the data, again, my opinion is as valid as yours is. <BR/><BR/>Abduction of children by family members (frequently the mother, not that I recognize that as a legitimate crime btw) is one of the fastest growing crimes in the US. The FBI now has it's own website devoted to so-called 'child abductors'...Again not that I recognize that as a crime, since I don't recognize the rights of an entity (created solely by men to benefit themselves) to remove any child from its mother unless proven abuse or neglect is involved.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-32089486835250174072007-11-09T12:32:00.000-05:002007-11-09T12:32:00.000-05:00Look NY, everything that I put in quotes in my 12:...Look NY, everything that I put in quotes in my 12:06 post was taken directly from the AARP link that YOU told me to go look up. Those are their numbers of kids living at grandma's, their numbers of kids living there without parents, and their reasons why the kids are there.<BR/><BR/>Don't like their info, go bitch at them about it.<BR/><BR/>You may not like it personally, but most women as well as men do support presumed shared parenting. Polls show this every time. Hell, people know very well what's fair to kids. It's only when they're splitting up and caught up in their in their little personal grudges and pity-parties that they use whatever the legal establishment lets them use to get the best deal for themselves. That's just human nature. <BR/><BR/>The big question is why does the legal establishment keep allowing this against the wishes of the public at large who want shared parenting?<BR/><BR/>You're being extremely naive and giving the judges, lawyers and the whole legal circus out there a laughable amount of credit if you think they're "struggling" to hide any "realities" to spare anyone's feelings. I can't think of a group of bozos less concerned with people's feelings.<BR/><BR/>The state legislatures and the divorce industry in particular care about one thing and that's money. And this one interest of theirs is best served by favoring whatever arrangements keep money flowing from men to women via kids.<BR/><BR/>If so many people believe this to be true, then for crying out loud, maybe that's because it is. Keep calling it a lie if that's what rocks your world, but you haven't shown any evidence that it is.<BR/><BR/>When and if women start out-earning men and become better pickings for the industry, then you'll see a different story in family court, and the industry will be no more concerned about women's "feelings" or "how they will react" then than they are now. Only dollars and cents.<BR/><BR/>Unless the states start listening to the people and implement presumed shared parenting first.<BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-67890187142664682242007-11-09T07:51:00.000-05:002007-11-09T07:51:00.000-05:00First of all I want to clear up two things.One AAR...First of all I want to clear up two things.<BR/><BR/>One AARP did NOT say all those things. That's your interpretation of AARP's numbers. <BR/><BR/>What AARP said was that a big unexpected issue for them has become the request by their members to lobby for some form of medical insurance for the grandchildren of their members. AARP actually never expected this to morph into an AARP issue, as all people over 62 are already covered by Medicare automatically...and who knew so many grandparents would get custody of their grandchildren? Most older people didn't want to raise children when they retire. <BR/><BR/>AND in spite of what you say, I do not personally believe that most of the grandchildren AARP is lobbying for are the ones whose parents are in jail or on drugs...AARP's membership is not composed of the lower-income strata of society or the higher income one. The former doesn't use their services as they don't have much discretionary income to travel or shop and they generally have Medicaid to cover any kids in their home; while the latter (higher income) doesn't need AARP to get any discounted services.<BR/><BR/>AARP is an organization targeted at the vast middle-class in our society...and those are the grandparents' issues that AARP is addressing.<BR/><BR/>Also I never banned anyone from this site just for disagreeing with me, although I have been banned from many site (including Gonzo) for that very reason...so don't come here trying to play the victim.<BR/><BR/>Okay.<BR/><BR/>Last point: you are sadly mistaken if you believe that any mother considers the custody of her child as a minor issue. Or that they will be okay with having their babies dragged back and forth between households (like an old football) just to save you men some money. I believe the courts know very well how most women would react to this and that's why they struggle so hard to hide the reality. Even this persistent lie both sides keep putting out: claiming fathers are discriminated against in family court. The persistence of this lie (even when all evidence points to the exact opposite) and how even people who know it's not true keep claiming it is (like custodial fathers and even some non-custodial mothers) well, this makes me think people simply want it to be true. <BR/><BR/>It comforts them or something to believe this, saids something good about their world to them.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately it's just not true and probably never was. <BR/><BR/>MOST people never went to court to litigate custody in our past either here or anywhere else. There was no need as most children were worth nothing to anyone except their mothers. In fact their care was a burden to everyone else around them. Something that only their mother would be interested in providing. It's just the way nature planned it, otherwise every living being would have gone extinct eons ago. As there is no logical reason for anyone to invest anything in raising a baby. Actually logic argues for just the oppposite reaction, abandonment. <BR/><BR/>Thus, it is only recently that all this litigation has started and it's all related to one issue: money...nothing else. <BR/><BR/>That's the reality...NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-40734600143644266652007-11-08T12:02:00.000-05:002007-11-08T12:02:00.000-05:00Well hell, NY, you brought up the AARP and I just ...Well hell, NY, you brought up the AARP and I just quoted them is all. I'm not trying to explain away their numbers. I told you how THEY explain them.<BR/><BR/>They know how many grandparents do and don't have the kids' parents living with them. They get that data from the Census. It ain't that hard to look up.<BR/><BR/>And no, I don't buy that grandparents are wrestling their kids for custody. It's one thing for parents to sue each other for custody, but it's like pulling teeth for grandparents to even get minimal visitation with grandkids against an unwilling parent, let alone custody. Laws just aren't set up that way.<BR/><BR/>I'm not getting this idea of yours that there's some conspiracy to keep family custody info secret because the public doesn't want to deal with it. There are a hell of a lot more troubling issues out there to deal with than this. Why bother to cover up what relatively few are interested in?<BR/><BR/>If anybody is "not dealing with reality" here, it's the state legislatures that refuse to implement presumed shared parenting despite the fact that a clear majority of the population wants it.<BR/><BR/>Why? Less money flowing thru the child support system, of course. Bad for the state coffers.<BR/><BR/>But anyway, it's been fun. You invited me over here from Gonzo's once, and since I heard you quit erasing people for disagreeing with you I decided to drop in and see what you're into these days.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I'll stop by again sometime.<BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-31819113826702707292007-11-08T07:14:00.000-05:002007-11-08T07:14:00.000-05:00Richard: You should have prefaced your remarks wi...Richard: <BR/><BR/>You should have prefaced your remarks with "In my opinion" as you don't know any more then I do about what AARP's numbers mean. OR whether or not these grandchildren referenced are in court-ordered legal custody arrangements or if the actual parents reside in the home with the grandchildren...<BR/><BR/>Actually I tend to think they are legal as AARP's main thrust was regarding health insurance for the kids since Americans over 62 are automatically eligible for Medicare but it doesn't include dependents. So you're not looking for health insurance to cover a child, if they and their parents are just staying with you for a brief period in order to save to buy a home or something. <BR/><BR/>Additionally very low-income families are eligible for Medicaid or Child Health Plus or something. Most of AARP's membership is not low-income. These are middle income people with pensions who use AARP to get discounts for travel, restaurants, prescription drugs, etc., <BR/><BR/>Of course, reading any data you have to draw some conclusions. So my conclusions that more grandparents are taking custody of children away from their mothers to help their sons get out of paying high child support is just as valid as your conclusion are...<BR/><BR/>Last point: by non-traditional I meant not going to any of NOW's or mens' rights sites for my info...as both sides distort stats quite frequently...Clearly you have to have some 'traditional' places to pull your info from as family courts are very secretive places with their numbers...and they aren't being secretive due to the best interest of children...<BR/><BR/>I understand that AARP pulls data from the census and other traditional sources. Well the info has to come from somewhere.<BR/><BR/>I use the census as well and draw my own conclusions from it just as you do.<BR/><BR/>Your guesses on what's going on are no more valid then mine are...<BR/><BR/>Also last point: I know that all grandparents do not try to get custody of their grandchildren just for reasons of money. I don't hate grandparents, I am one. However we have to look at the reality today of how high child support is driving most of these custody fights including the ones involving grandparents. <BR/><BR/>It's not a coincidence that changes in child support guidelines and tougher enforcement is driving up the numbers of men (or their parents) willing to fight for custody. I bet if we had the correct data and plotted a graft, we would see this quite clearly. Which is why it's so damn difficult to get the data since people obviously don't wish to deal with this reality.<BR/><BR/>That's why I created this blog in an attempt to cut through all the smoke and mirrors out there surrounding this issue. It is unique in this sense, which is why although it's just one person (a grandmother btw) writing only once a week it still gets far more attention then it should by internet standards. Even those ridiculous Worse Blog on the Internet awards. My competition was a feminist blog that has about five different bloggers on it. Some of them have written books and/or have been interviewed for TV and/or magazines...<BR/><BR/>So sorry Richard, I don't buy your attempts to explain away AARP's numbers so easily....but nice try anyway...NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-50673216621894903652007-11-05T12:06:00.000-05:002007-11-05T12:06:00.000-05:00OK NY, I see where the problem is now.http://marri...OK NY, I see where the problem is now.<BR/><BR/>http://marriage.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=marriage&cdn=people&tm=36&gps=160_345_871_555&f=00&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.aarp.org/<BR/><BR/>Several quotes from this AARP link:<BR/><BR/>"The 2000 U.S. Census reported 4.5 million children living in grandparent-headed homes (a 30% increase from 1990)."<BR/><BR/>You're confusing grandparent-headed with custodial. That's apples and oranges.<BR/><BR/>If you haven't noticed already, multigenerational households are making a big comeback for economic reasons. Just about everyone knows a grandparent who let a son or daughter and a grandkid or two move in to save them money. My own folks did this for my sister and her husband and kids when they were saving for a house. It has jack all to do with custody.<BR/><BR/>"The 2000 Census also counted, for the first time, the number of grandparents who say they are responsible for the basic needs of grandchildren living with them, with a reported 2.4 million grandparents falling into that category. About one-third of these heroic grandparents are stepping in to raise their grandchildren with NO PARENT PRESENT (emphasis mine) in the home."<BR/><BR/>Most of those 4.5 million grandparents have their kids at home along with the grandkids. Of the minority who don't, probably most of these aren't even formally custodial, just holding the fort.<BR/><BR/>And of the small percentage of formal custodial grandparents, I'll wager that 99% would love nothing more than for the parents to get their act together and come pick up their damn kids.<BR/><BR/>"Why are so many children in the U.S being raised by grandparents and other relatives? At the Grandparent Information Center, we hear the most that drugs and alcohol problems are causing parents to be unable to raise their children. Mental illness is also a strong contributor, as well as incarceration, death of a parent, poverty, divorce, child abuse and neglect, teen pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, or domestic violence. Military deployment is also a reason that grandparents are called to step in and raise their grandchildren while one or both parents are deployed in military service and unable to care for their children."<BR/><BR/>Julie up there is pretty much spot on. Grandparents aren't wrestling their kids for custody. It's getting dropped in their laps.<BR/><BR/>Is this AARP what you consider a non-traditional source? They openly use ordinary traditional sources for all their info.<BR/><BR/>I don't believe in conspiracy theories in family court. <BR/><BR/>The legal establishment doesn't care about what the public thinks of its doings. They care about their income, which at the present time is best served by keeping money flowing from men to women via kids.<BR/><BR/>When there's as much money to be made off women as off men, and we're headed there fast, perhaps things will change.<BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-46565568450569440502007-11-04T09:23:00.000-05:002007-11-04T09:23:00.000-05:00Additionally Silverside: I have an interesting ar...Additionally Silverside: I have an interesting article posted further back in my blog. Actually I think I'll re-post it today since we're on the topic: it shows how the whole idea of child support actually evolved from the racists in the Johnson administration back in the 60s. <BR/><BR/>They were trying to assign 'blame' for the condition of the Afr. American population in this country. Instead of blaming centuries old racism, history of slavery, non-compliance with economic agreements made to freed slaves after the civil war, segregation limiting economic opportunity afterwards, etc., in short blame themselves. Instead, they came up with the centuries-old excuse: blaming women for everything bad that ever happened...<BR/><BR/>From bad weather patterns to riots in the cities (mostly launched by men) there is never any event that happens which the minds of men cannot somehow link to the idea that women have done something wrong. It's never ceases to amaze me...<BR/><BR/>Anyhoo....<BR/><BR/>That was the entire motivation behind child support initially. <BR/><BR/>It was to collect reimbursement from parents whose kids were receiving any form of public benefit, as well as to control population numbers by instituting a pay-as-you-go system. <BR/><BR/>Basically, if you couldn't afford to pay the reimbursement rates or 'child support' as we know it now, you were sent to jail. I also believe many felt black people were having too many children. <BR/><BR/>So the initial premise behind child support was also the idea of a self-policing population cap through enforcement of strict economic sanctions on any family that had too many children and needed any public assistance raising them...<BR/><BR/>I mean I've heard of mothers now who will not apply for any assistance, even if they need it for their kids. As they know as soon as they do and the agencies start hunting down the fathers for child support, a custody battle will ensue. So rather then chance that, they forego assistance.<BR/><BR/>Actually Washington DC NOW chapter has started advising women NOT to pursue back child support. As this action appears to frequently launch a custody fight. So they advise just to forget about it... <BR/><BR/>Anyway, the idea of the government enforcing child support collection was originally limited to the Afr. American population, then it spread to include the middle class in the collection efforts. Today the money collected from the middle class now provided the majority of funds that states collect. They then get matching funds from the federal government for collection. The matching funds are then used to provide more goods and services to the poor. <BR/><BR/>At this point, the whole thing is mostly a huge jobs-sustaining mechanism for the public sector...<BR/><BR/>So that's another issue often (or always) left out of most of the historic analysis...<BR/><BR/>That's another reason I object to the 'golden-age' or that 'tender-years doctrine' crap. It leaves out too much of the actual history here.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-28918954191666668332007-11-04T08:45:00.000-05:002007-11-04T08:45:00.000-05:00Silverside: again you are talking about a totally...Silverside: again you are talking about a totally different populutaion of 'children'...and many of the children you are talking about were orphans. It was very common for people to take older orphans in as help around the house or farm. Actually you were ofttimes doing the kid a favor if you gave them more to eat and better clothing then the orphanage did. OR not if they were overworked or abused by you. <BR/><BR/>Again a tossup...<BR/><BR/>AND this so-called golden age that came about due to the tender-years doctrine only existed in the minds of researchers...<BR/><BR/>Historically speaking mothers always existed in a golden age if you are referencing mothers raising our childen, as MOST kids were not in an legally designated custodial arrangement...until recently.<BR/><BR/>NO COURTS ever decided the majority of living-arrangements for most kids until TODAY...<BR/><BR/>I have two daughters, 11 years apart...the oldest 34 now was NEVER in mine or anyone else's 'custody' ever. Yet she lived with me most of her life until she finally got her own place well into her 20s (thank God, I thought she'd be home forever LOL)...the youngest 23 now was in my sole custody from the time she was a year old (stipulated to by my ex, he filed all the paperwork for our divorce/custody, etc., I never went to court as this happened before high child support became commonplace. Today would be a custody fight as he'd never stipulated custody to me and pay over $1,000 a month in child support). <BR/><BR/>Divorce probably became more common during that period you mentioned and men probably didn't bother asking for custody, since it cost them nothing NOT to bother. But mothers always raised the children here and in every other place on the planet...this was not a gift we received from men or the courts of men in some mythical "golden age" for mothers...<BR/><BR/>Women have to get away from this sort of framing of our history. <BR/><BR/>It's almost an acceptance of the facts, as painted by men and the legal establishment, like they gave us a gift which we messed up or something, so now they are taking it back. <BR/><BR/>No. <BR/><BR/>Women are not mothers because men have allowed us to be mothers. <BR/><BR/>Actually, it has nothing to do with them. Evolution, God, nature whatever you want to call it has designated women in that role. It's not men who have the right to either give it to us or take it away. It's womens' role, rights, decision and we cannot allow courts, men, some misreading of history, etc., to decide to usurp the natural rights of women or children. Because I consider it a usurption of the rights of children to attempt to remove them from their natural and best guardian, their mothers.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-88938682323462859412007-11-04T08:22:00.000-05:002007-11-04T08:22:00.000-05:00Richard: go to any AARP link...American Associati...Richard: go to any AARP link...<BR/><BR/>American Association for Retired Persons...<BR/><BR/>They say one big issue for their members now is medical insurance, not for themselves (as everyone over 62 is covered by Medicare) but for their grandchildren, who they have custody of but don't work anymore so have no medical...<BR/><BR/>I use stats gained from non-traditional sources now, as I don't trust any of the more tradition ones' stats anymore and family courts are very secretive with their data. Even these so-called 'Joint Custody' rulings are frequently a cover-up for mothers losing custody. Rarely does a mother complerely lose custody of her kids (at least on paper)...its usually covered up by the term Joint Custody. <BR/><BR/>I believe most of the legal establishment understands how replused ordinary people would be to know what is going on. Most normal people would have an instinctual adversion to a mother losing her child, especially an infant, w/o good cause. So it's covered up in the stats and by the legal establishment, who still parrot the crap about mothers' getting preference in court and how a mother will rarely lose custody. This is not true and I don't think it ever was true, but since few people went to court in the past over custody, we'll never know if things were really different then...<BR/><BR/>AND I have to check this gamet theory of yours, however, I'm not up to it these days...but I will post something here about it at some point in the future...<BR/><BR/>Also back in my archives is an AARP reference to custodial grandparents.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-82075470770284888652007-11-03T22:18:00.000-04:002007-11-03T22:18:00.000-04:00What I think is new is this emphasis on fathers as...What I think is new is this emphasis on fathers as nurturing "primary" parents--a role they have very seldom (if ever) played, either historically or across culture. That, I think, is brand new. <BR/><BR/>But the historical evidence does show women's rights to their own children has usually been problematic in western culture. And children were apprenticed to various households all the time in colonial America--it's not unusual to read the census from 1810 or so and see that the household also included a servant girl or boy farmhand who lived on the premises. A young apprentice who lived at the shoemaker's place. Mothers were not legally entitled to "bound" a child out--only fathers were. In reality, fathers never demonstrated much sentimental attachment to raising the kids at home--not when they could be earning wages somewhere else that the father was 100% entitled to. <BR/><BR/>The "golden age" for mothers receiving custody was from maybe 1920 to 1960. That's when "maternal preference" and "tender years" doctrine was at it height. It was also when children became "valueless" as economic commodities to fathers, which I find very interesting. Child labor was being abolished state by state (it was abolished nationally by FDR in 1938). And child support laws were virtually unenforceable--all a father had to do was move out of the jurisdiction, and poof! It couldn't be enforced. And wasn't.<BR/><BR/>I find it very interesting that the resurgence of fathers rights activity DID NOT follow in the early 20th century with the institutionalization of "tender years" doctrine. Virtually no historic response at all. It followed renewed legislative efforts at the FEDERAL LEVEL to collect child support. Then all the sudden we get all gooey eyed about how daddies love their kids, and need more time? Please. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I've been doing a lot of reading on this (writing a paper on the subject, actually), and this is the pattern that's seeming to fall into place right now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-60547405562474806932007-11-03T09:34:00.000-04:002007-11-03T09:34:00.000-04:00Silverside:Few families could afford servants and ...Silverside:<BR/><BR/>Few families could afford servants and families were larger then. <BR/><BR/>So there is no way that the few families who could afford to house and feed servants (as yes even housing and feeding kids is a burden) would be able to absorb all of the lower and working class's children. The working poor (including slaves or servants) have ALWAYS outnumbered the servant-owning class in every society. Actually these jobs of servants in good homes were even reserved for the children of the rich and propertied few...Quite a few kings and other nobility were sent as pages to live with other families of their class...<BR/><BR/>This removing children from their mothers' care is entirely new, something unique to the west and directly related to the implementation of stricter child support guidelines and allocation of non-cash benefits according to custodial status. Actually I have a few articles further back in my blog discussing how Japan and even some of the middle-eastern countries are now starting to see some of the same things happen there now as what we have going on here. This is since they have begun importing western legal concepts and systems into their societies. <BR/><BR/>This is not a return to normal historic patterns and even if I were to accept that children after 10 were not living at home in colonial America and I'm not sure that I do accept it...we are NOT talking about children after 10 years old here as even historical Islam recognized that mothers and childre should be together until at least the age of 9 or 10...<BR/><BR/>It's the idiots in the west we are talking about who don't accept this premise. <BR/><BR/>I, personally, would be very open to accepting a compromise that mothers had inalienable rights to thier children up until the age of 10 years of age or so...and that unless abuse or neglect were demonstrated no family court litigation to remove custody from a mother could be permitted until that age. <BR/><BR/>To me that would be an acceptable resolution to the current situation. <BR/><BR/>That is NOT what we have now however, now we have mothers and children being forcibly separated from birth here by court order...not being given consideration until children are 10 or so...<BR/><BR/>So children old enough to be apprentices are not the population we are talking about...you are trying to compare apples and oranges. Again, that's if I even accept that premise of Mary Ann Mason's book, which I don't know that I do. <BR/><BR/>Remember many gender neutralized feminists and others are very invested in digging up small bits of historic evidence and pockets of deviance in western civilization to try and paint a distorted picture of our history.<BR/><BR/>So everything must be carefully examined before accepting any so-called evidence...NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-23482024382678505992007-10-31T15:32:00.000-04:002007-10-31T15:32:00.000-04:00NY, I already explained to you in detail that a ma...NY, I already explained to you in detail that a maternal grandmother's DNA link is not the same as a father's. It can never be more than 25% vs dad's 50%. <BR/><BR/>What you're talking about is manufacturing of gametes, something totally different, which also leaves mom out of the genetic loop altogether if you're consistent about it.<BR/><BR/>I'm no fan of K-Fed either, but he's the legal father of those kids and he shouldn't have to put on a case for his parental fitness for any outsider, including a grandparent. <BR/><BR/>That would fly in the face of everything that traditional marriage is about. Any kids born into a legal and freely-contracted union belong to those two parties and no one else unless they're abandoned or in danger.<BR/><BR/>And whoa! Five million custodial grandparents? That's impossible. Provide a cite for that figure, if you please.<BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-52968332936931192492007-10-31T14:52:00.000-04:002007-10-31T14:52:00.000-04:00Actually, in the 18 and 19c, kids were economic as...Actually, in the 18 and 19c, kids were economic assets (first as indentured servants/apprentices later as factory hands)and all that money LEGALLY went back to their fathers. Notice that mothers started to actually solidify custody rights in the early 20 century, as child labor laws were enacted. So moms started getting custody then, but...no child support (hmm). 18th Century and 19c fathers as the legal parent were happy to ship the kid away--apparently they didn't have much sentimental attachment. So in colonial America, for example, most kids didn't live with their parents after the age of 10. Their fathers sent them away as indentured servants/apprentices so they could make money off of them. Mothers had no legal say-so in the matter one way or another. I've been reading Mary Ann Mason's book on the subject, and it's absolutely fascinating.<BR/><BR/>So while you're right, in that fathers as a group have never shown any interest in raising and nurturing children, they have had the right (which they have exercised), at least in western-influenced cultures, to take children away from mothers and have others take on their care, especially when such an arrangement made money for them. <BR/><BR/>Shades of this can be seen today among the "custodial" fathers who dump the day to day care of the kids on nannies, girlfriends, the paternal grandmother, or new wife. While they collect the child support from the mom, who makes less than he does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-6118478242518017502007-10-31T02:39:00.000-04:002007-10-31T02:39:00.000-04:00My point is that if we are going to revert to a st...My point is that if we are going to revert to a strictly DNA defined notion of fatherhood, then we need to redefine the rights of the maternal grandmother as her DNA link is exactly the same as a child's biological father. We cannot have recreational sperm donors, who invest nothing in a child, suddenly showing up after birth expecting a payday by leeching off some poor kid.<BR/><BR/>Like what happened with Anna Nicole Smith's baby. Totally ridiculous that some recreational sperm donor and irresponsible idiot like Larry Birkhead, along with Smith's attorney, should now be in charge of that kid's life especially when she has a living grandmother who would have been very happy to take her. <BR/><BR/>Ultimately she would have been better off as with the exception of Anna Nicole Smith all of Virgie Arthur's other children seemed to turn out well. <BR/><BR/>Of course I have nothing against marriage but I think a good case could also be made against K-fed having custody of Brittany Spear's babies as well. They should go to another family member from the maternal side of the family. <BR/><BR/>Men using kids to generate income for themselves has to be discouraged.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-69120934959381866882007-10-31T02:27:00.000-04:002007-10-31T02:27:00.000-04:00Silverside: Yes, those were laws on the books, ra...Silverside: <BR/><BR/>Yes, those were laws on the books, rarely enforced however, as most kids were worth NOTHING...so few people ever went to court or bothered fighting for custody. <BR/><BR/>Responsibility of children was a burden, not something something would fight with a mother over unless a child had an estate or something. Then being a guardian or conservator was a valuable commodity. You can see an echo of this in Texas, where to this day, the person who is deemed custodial of a child is termed the child's<BR/>'conservator' as in an estate.<BR/><BR/>It's incorrect to apply the lifestyle of the propertied few to the vast majority of people in the west and make these grand pronouncements that most mothers never had the right to their children. Mothers have always been the ones to raise the children of the world and removing children from their mothers (like what we are doing today) is something new and horrible...A new social engineering experiment thought up by the greed of western man...not a re-occurring historic pattern. <BR/><BR/>That is what men and gender neutralized feminists would have us believe. But it is not a true representation of history: Mothers have always raised their children.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-51844294149003842092007-10-31T02:16:00.000-04:002007-10-31T02:16:00.000-04:00"We all need to change our attitudes to suit the m..."We all need to change our attitudes to suit the modern"...<BR/><BR/>Well I'll tell you what Julie: I'll change my attitude the moment men bear the same burden as women in getting children here...until that happens I don't want to hear anymore crap about equality...since the burden is not borne equally and obviously never can be.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-74896548937337205402007-10-31T02:07:00.000-04:002007-10-31T02:07:00.000-04:00Silverside:Right as usual. People continue to tak...Silverside:<BR/><BR/>Right as usual. <BR/><BR/>People continue to take the statistics of mostly Afr. Amer. men and try to make a case against mothers using them...<BR/><BR/>I've said it before and I'll say it again: Black men in this country are not in trouble because of their mothers.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-62434719000799378782007-10-31T02:05:00.000-04:002007-10-31T02:05:00.000-04:00Tina:I'll try to visit your website this week. I'...Tina:<BR/><BR/>I'll try to visit your website this week. I'm just recovering from being sick and not on the internet as much. But I'll take a look at your site in a day or so.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-5385466198978975992007-10-31T02:02:00.000-04:002007-10-31T02:02:00.000-04:00Julie, we can't know all the reasons behind the in...Julie, we can't know all the reasons behind the increase in grandparents getting custody of children. I think I read as high as five million custodial grandparents (figures from AARP) whereas I think there are less then 1 million drug addicts in the entire country, most of them men btw...as most anti-social behaviors are exhibited by men...<BR/><BR/>Like I said before I have nothing against grandparents, I am one. But their role (in most cases) should be limited to whatever is voluntarily agreed to by a child's mother. Who should be first amongst equals in all things concerning her child.NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-68728261417552045952007-10-30T15:58:00.000-04:002007-10-30T15:58:00.000-04:00So what's your point, NY? That because paternal a...So what's your point, NY? That because paternal abandonment used to be more common than it is now that we should put grandparents ahead of a kid's natural and legal father in family court?<BR/><BR/>You must know that something like that would never get anything close to popular support.<BR/><BR/>Plus it's a huge slap in the face of marriage, as if marriage needed yet another one of those.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-8177179763960866482007-10-28T21:49:00.000-04:002007-10-28T21:49:00.000-04:00Actually, given that I have been doing a lot of re...Actually, given that I have been doing a lot of research on custody, the fact is that it was only in the 20th century (roughly 1920 - 1960) that more or less decent moms were assured of getting their children. Up until the 19c, at least in western cultures, moms didn't have any legal rights to their own children. Not even when their husbands died. Under English common law, a father could leave his kids to someone else. And even if moms got physical placement, it was very common for control of the children's estate to be assigned to a male relative, effectively impoverishing the mother. Mothers of illegitimate children typically lost their kids after weaning, when they were "bound out" by the authorities. And of course slave mothers had no rights either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com