On the Need for Patriarchy: Another Case Against Unwed Fathers

Here we go again. Oh, yes, that’s right MRAs, “women have all the rights and men have all the responsibilities”- or not. Another case that caught my attention earlier. Here we are again, this shows our desperate need for patriarchy and stable family units. Men being allowed to claim paternal rights to children whose mothers they were never legally married to is a terrible thing and has caused the destruction of many intact families as well as forcing women to be single mothers or go into hiding to protect themselves and their children. I say patriarchy because patriarchy is male responsibility and men caring for and protecting women and children. It is power into the hands of a married father to prevent the destruction of his family and prevent another man from interfering no matter the genetic relationship. This is why marriage is important and why the traditional family matters. No woman should have to share her reproductive life with a man who refuses to accept responsibility for her and create a real and true family with her. Yet that is exactly what is happening to women today. Through our view of “equal rights” the sexes must be treated the same no matter how illogical. And since the 1970s unwed fathers have been allowed to walk into children’s lives without having to offer marriage and financial support to the mother in return when she becomes pregnant. Now not only do men get the rights that once belonged exclusively to married men without having to take the same responsibilities, denying responsibility now comes with a whole host of legal and economic benefits for them. Until we realize that feminism doesn’t work and the traditional family is the only sure protection for women and children (and men too), these problems will continue to occur. The media, however, doesn’t want to report on this because it would mean backtracking and “setting the women’s movement back.” Setting the women’s movement back, however, is exactly what is needed.

Pregnant Women Baby-Factories First, Humans Never

“Sara McKenna briefly dated Olympic skier Bode Miller in California in 2012 and became pregnant. Miller rejected McKenna’s requests for his involvement as a father. When McKenna asked Miller to go to an ultrasound with her, he refused and told her via text, “U made this choice against my wish.” It’s hard to interpret this statement as anything other than Miller wanting McKenna to get an abortion.

Seven months pregnant, McKenna decided to go to college and moved to New York. This didn’t sit well with Miller, who began legal action to declare his paternity and gain custody of the child. After he’d refused to support McKenna through the pregnancy and be an active father, he turned around and demanded custody.

When McKenna had her child, a boy she named Samuel Bode Miller-McKenna, she filed for custody in New York. But in May, the family court rejected her claim, accused her of “unjustifiable conduct,” and bounced the custody case back to California. This is highly unusual given that the baby was born and lived in New York.

In September, Miller and his wife came to McKenna’s home and took Sam away. Thankfully, the New York appeals panel has overturned the family court ruling, and the custody battle will be decided in New York.

The family court ruled that McKenna “did not ‘abduct’ the child,” which really shouldn’t have to be stated at all. Of course she didn’t abduct Sam—he’s her own son, and at the time, he was living in her uterus and not exactly easily removed. But the court insisted, “her appropriation of the child while in utero was irresponsible, reprehensible.”’

Advertisements