Baby Veronica and the Fallacy of Gender Equality

Thanks to NYMOM for her input about this case. This is why I have pointed out many times that men should not be granted the same rights and responsibilities to illegitimate children as to legitimate children. It is not to punish women or children, but to protect them. The laws regarding Native American tribes are complex, but the real issue here was-is- that unwed fathers are granted the same legal status as married fathers and mothers. The child’s father broke up with the mother while she was pregnant, wanted to relinquish his rights, was not present during pregnancy/birth and had never supported the mother but, because of our modern-day gender neutral laws, he was nevertheless allowed to assert the same rights as a married father who makes an investment in the pregnancy and supports the mother. This child has known nothing but confusion and a broken family now since being first taken away from adoptive parents by a father she had never before met. Unfortunately this is very common. Men don’t want to take on the responsibilities of fatherhood yet they want the rights of fatherhood. Men’s rights groups and their gender-neutralized feminist allies do not work for the best interest of children nor families. Obviously, society is no longer structured around what is best for children. It’s all about one’s own selfish interests and political correctness. This is also why I am against any paternity testing unless it is by a married father who is divorcing his wife for adultery within a very strict time frame after a chid is born because it tears apart families and allows men to walk in or out of a child’s life at their own whim. This child had never even met her biological father (who was allowed to assert rights the same as a married father) until she was 27 months old. We must make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate births for the sake of family/societal stability and the sake of our children.

“I’ve been following this case for a few years and I hate to say it but the former adoptive parents of this little girl should just step back now and let the child remain with it’s father. Or should I say the father’s wife or his parents (whichever one he’s dumped her off with to return to his military career).

Unfortunately this is the inevitable result of allowing unmarried men to have the same legal rights as a child’s mother. Men contribute little or nothing to bringing children into this world and this particular recreational sperm donor contributed nothing long after the fact, Yet he was allowed to overrule the mother’s action in placing this little girl up for adoption and into a stable family home two years after she had been legally adopted.

Now everyone wants to play “let’s fix this after the fact” but it’s too little too late to do that. This child has now been living in whatever family arrangement her father has left her in since 2011, this is now 2013.

She should not have her life disrupted for the second time.

The father has been arrested for custodial interference and posted a $10,000 bond but the real person who should be under investigation and posting a bond is the original judge in South Caroline who overturned established legal precedent in order to give a recreational sperm donor rights to a child who was already legally adopted into a stable family unit.

This is another example of how mens’ rights advocates and gender neutralized feminists have invaded our legal system and made courts a dangerous place now for mothers and children and also goes to show how one person can totally ignore the law as well as the best interest of a child and get away with it. Time is on the side of the person who knows how to work the legal system…sad really.

Anyway, we are going to see fewer mothers placing their children into adoption and more abortions as they begin to realize that these recreational sperm donors can pop up years after the fact and overrule any decisions they have made in the best interest of their children.

The original adoption should not have been overturned but since it was and the child has now been another two years with a different family her life should not be disrupted a second time.

Very sorry for everyone involved in this case.”

Advertisements

Feminist Hypocrites II: Feminists Lie to Women, Mothers

Warning: Post contains some graphic material

Feminists have long been taking credit for things they never did for women. In fact, they have actually taken part in removing the very rights of women and mothers they claimed to have given them. They will never acknowledge this now, of course. Second and Third Wave feminists just love to jump on board and say they are an extension of “First Wave” feminism, but in fact they are not. But here is what it has done. Modern feminism has relieved fathers and husbands of their burdens and responsibilities. Loss of laws that protected and favored women gives men an unprecedented power to control women like never before.

“The feminist quest for female fungibility with males has led the women’s movement to support the invalidation of laws benefiting and protecting women. This was the thrust, for example, of litigation directed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was director of the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and , often using male plaintiffs, secured invalidation of laws that favored women…In the area of divorce reform, one of the benefits women have lost is the maternal preference which favored awarding custody to the mother. Almost all states now grant men and women a statutory equal right in custody… In order to secure custody, many women will drastically compromise their financial interests: ‘women who are scared to death of losing custody will trade away anything else- child support, property, alimony to keep it from happening.'”[i]

The main thrust of modern feminism has been to remove laws that protected and benefited wives and mothers in the name of equality. I have plenty of blogs posts about this that I have written. With the current fabrications father’s and men’s right groups like to come up with about women and our modern judicial system I’m sure this might be downright shocking and insulting (the truth usually is). But, I am not exactly known for mild, politically correct blog posts either. My views are generally shocking and insulting to both sides. I’m not interested in approval from anyone or a pat on the back for a job well done. The day approval is what I seek, is the day I should resign from writing as my mission means nothing any longer.

Our grandmothers may have been shamed for having babies out of wedlock, but this shaming helped to ensure protection for all women. Women today are forced to become single mothers. They don’t want to be, but with promiscuity and the granting of rights to men over illegitimate children without them having to take traditional responsibilities causes these hardships. In the past, many women were pregnant on their wedding day. The social and legal pressures on both parties forced them to come together or pay the price. If the man wanted rights, he had to take on the responsibilities of marrying the mother and supporting her for life. If the woman wanted to keep her reputation and be supported she knew she too would have to marry. The widespread availability of birth control and abortion shifts the responsibility from men to women as now men can have easy sex because they know the woman is pumped full of hormones to keep her from ovulating (or trick her body into believing she is already pregnant) and if she should become pregnant, once again it is her responsibility as Planned Parenthood is right around the corner to perform the abortion (the man might pay for it or he might force that responsibility onto her but either way he knows it is not his problem as neither law or custom forces him to take responsibility).

“Our grandmothers might have led more sheltered sex lives, but they also controlled what amounted to a sexual cartel: setting a high price for sexual involvement and punishing both men and women if they broke the agreement (either by forcing them into marriage or by ostracizing them from respectable company). Sexual rules create sexual solidarity among women. If men feel they can flirt from woman to woman, they will. They will enjoy our ready availability and exploit it to their advantage. But if women as a group cease to be readily available- if they begin to demand commitment (and real commitment, as in marriage) in exchange for sex- market conditions will shift in favor of women. “[ii]

The feminist war against women has been a massive one that has wrecked the lives and shattered the very beings of millions of women and children everywhere. Feminists today lie. They say they “need” feminism because of the most absurd issues, such as society’s unwillingness to take rape seriously. Yet feminists have never taken rape nor women’s bodies seriously. Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself and others filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amici curiae in the case of Coker Vs Georgia (1977) to argue that rape of a grown woman was not worthy of the death penalty.[iii] Thirty years later we would see Ginsburg further degrade women as a Supreme Court Justice by joining the majority opinion in the case of Kennedy vs Louisiana in a case involving the rape of an eight year old girl where

“…An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that L. H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery.”[iv]

This is really not so surprising coming from a premier player in the women’s movement who believes that protecting any group of people creates “harmful stereotypes” and the courts now long-gone “paternalistic” treatment of women was subjecting women to “second-class” citizenship.[v]

Today women face hardships that would not have happened in the 1950s. Husbands held responsibilities for, and to an extent authority over, their wives. But lest he wish to support her for life while she continued to live in the house with the kids, he would not leave her. Until women’s liberation a man had to provide the needs of his wife by law. Although coverture was mostly abolished by the end of the 19th century many aspects still remained in law. “Married women’s ability to make purchases on credit in their own name was denied by coverture. [Yet the wife was permitted to be] economically active by pledging her husband’s credit for necessaries (food, clothing, lodgings and medicine).”[vi]

Feminists love to tell us about the terrible days where women were treated so badly and unwed fathers didn’t have to support their children. Yet, they never tell us about the other side of the story. If a man fathered illegitimate children he could claim no rights. Today’s men have rights without having to take on the responsibilities for women and children that come along with it. Few unwed fathers actually support their children (and the feminist movement fought fiercely, winning Supreme Court decisions such as Orr vs Orr that forced states to gender-neutralize family law thereby making the traditional burdens of fathers and husbands the burdens of mothers and wives as well) and the loss of the maternal preference is a wonderful technique used against women to get them to forgo child support altogether in order to hang onto their children.

“Also absent from the discussion was any notice that Steven was not married to the mother. As will be discussed in chapter 4, it has been little more than twenty years since the U.S. Supreme Court, in Stanley v. Illinois, recognized any custodial rights for unwed fathers, much less those equal to the mothers’. This case seems to have given Steven-who never lived with Jennifer and Maranda-the same rights as a recently divorced father who had always lived with them, or, for that matter, the same rights as Jennifer. And no one found this worthy of comment.”[vii]

“The tender years doctrine (or maternal presumption, as it was often called) was well established by the 1920s. By the 1950s in Michigan and all other states it was the law The rule of maternal presumption reflected a universally held belief in the early part of this century that mothers by nature were the more nurturing parent for very young children. In their drive for equal rights in the seventies, many feminists spurned this very assumption, believing it fixed women as second-class citizens in a patriarchal structure.”[viii]

But, not to worry, feminists are on the scene to help. They realize women’s newfound predicament and are seeking justice.

“There is a national crisis for women and their children in the family law courts of this country. Affirmed by experts and leaders in the women’s movement, the existence of this crisis is verified by women in every state who report injustice in their family law cases, especially battered mothers trying to protect their children from abusive fathers who aggressively litigate against them, using family court to stalk, harass, punish, and impoverish their former partners and children. NOW recognizes this crisis for women and their children and seeks to address discrimination against women in family courts.”[ix]

The new wave of feminists seek to carry on the legacy of their woman-hating older sisters still pining for the same “equality” and rejecting “the patriarchy,” yet seem to have developed a convenient case of amnesia. “Yet, having been taken seriously by every state legislature in the country…feminists seek to absolve themselves from the blame, as if society should have known better than to listen to them.”[x] They have contributed largely to many social ills and problems women face. Their support of no-fault divorce laws and abolition of hundreds of laws that protected women largely contribute to the widespread “feminization of poverty” and the way out, they suggest, is affirmative action and subsidized daycare. Never will you hear them admit that they had anything to do with the problem’s women face today.

“No longer concentrating on the oppressiveness of home and family for women, feminists argue instead that, unfortunately, married mothers must remain in the work force to protect themselves from the very likely possibility of becoming single-parents impoverished by divorce. This is a likelihood, they choose not to remember, their movement was highly instrumental in creating.”[xi]

“Enactment of no-fault divorce laws unambiguously warned women to adopt the feminist perspective and replace homemaking with full-time career. The ‘present legal system,’ concluded Lenore Weitzman, “makes it clear that instead of expecting to be supported, a woman is now expected to become self-sufficient…’Thus, as always, feminist ideology converged with the interests of men who would avoid the responsibility for women that traditional marriage entails.”[xii]

Notes:

[i] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p.295. Spence, 1998.
[ii] Crittendon,D. “What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us,” p.35. Touchstone,1999.
[iii] http://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=3131#AmiciCuriae
[iv] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-343.ZO.html
[v] Cushman,C. “Supreme Court Decisions and Women’s Rights” CQ Press, 2001.
[vi] http://economics.ouls.ox.ac.uk/13127/1/Item.pdf
[vii] http://www.law.berkeley.edu/3158.htm
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/family/
[x] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p.296. Spence, 1998.
[xi] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p.296. Spence, 1998.
[xii] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p.136-137. Spence, 1998.

 

© 2012 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

How the Feminist Movement Hurt Women

IT HAS RIPPED THE LAWS OFF THE BOOKS REQUIRING THAT A HUSBAND SUPPORT HIS WIFE AND PROVIDE HER WITH A HOME TO LIVE IN

IT HAS DESTROYED CHIVALRY IN MEN

IT HAS MADE FAMILY LAW SEX NEUTRAL WHICH MEANS WIVES AND MOTHERS NOW CAN BE LEGALLY FORCED TO CARRY THE TRADITIONAL BURDENS OF MEN

IT HAS MADE WOMEN EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE FAMILY AND THE DEBTS OF HER HUSBAND AS WELL AS HERSELF

ATTEMPTS AT DRAFTING WOMEN

CONSTANT PRESSURE TO PUSH WOMEN FURTHER INTO COMBAT AND MANY WOMEN ARE ALREADY SERVING IN COMBAT

NO-FAULT DIVORCE

NO FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR THE HOUSEWIFE

ABOLITION OF THE TENDER YEARS DOCTRINE

DEPRIVATION OF COMMON LAW RIGHTS TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR WRONGS SUCH AS BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY AND SEDUCTION

IT HAS TAKEN AWAY IMPORTANT EXEMPTIONS WOMEN USED TO HAVE UNDER THE LAW

SOCIETY SEES WOMEN AS FUNGIBLE WITH MEN

MEN VIEW WOMEN AS EQUALS AND NO LONGER SEE A NATURAL OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT AND PROTECT WOMEN

FEMINISM HAS MADE YOUNG WOMEN BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN HAVE EMOTION FREE SEX WITH NO CONSEQUENCE

GIRLS NO LONGER KNOW HOW TO SAY “NO” TO THEIR BOYFRIENDS

THE DEGRADATION OF THE HOUSEWIFE: HOUSEWIVES ARE “PARASITES” (De Beauvoir) THE HOUSE IS A “COMFORTABLE CONCENTRATION CAMP” (Friedan)

THE PRESSURE GIRLS GET FROM FAMILY AND SOCIETY TO BECOME CAREER WOMEN

MARRIAGE AND MOTHERHOOD IS NO LONGER A VALID CAREER OPTION FOR WOMEN

WOMEN NO LONGER VALUE THEIR FEMININITY INSTEAD THEY WANT TO BE MEN

THANKS TO FEMINISM IRRESPONSIBLE AND IMMORAL MEN NOW HAVE A FREE RIDE AT THE EXPENSE OF WOMEN

THERE IS NO LONGER A REQUIRED FAMILY WAGE WHICH IN THE PAST MADE IT EASIER FOR A WOMAN TO STAY HOME

IT IS NO LONGER SHAMEFUL FOR A MAN NOT TO SUPPORT HIS FAMILY

MEN ARE TAUGHT THAT WOMEN ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM THEM THEREFORE THIS CAUSES A LOT OF CONFLICT AND THE DIVORCE RATE IS SKYROCKETING

CHILDREN FROM SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLDS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BECOME CRIMINALS DUE TO THE LACK OF STRONG FATHER FIGURE:

SINGLE MOTHERS INSTEAD OF BEING MARRIED HAVE NOW TURNED TO THE GOVERNMENT: WHICH HAS BECOME A REPLACEMENT FOR A REAL FATHER

© 2012 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Feminist Hypocrites, Pt. I

Are feminists our true heroes? Or are they really hypocrites? Feminists have always seen any different treatment on account of sex (unless it is to advance women in the workplace, of course) as harmful to women and all the laws that protected us making us were simply making us inferior to men. Feminists of the 1970s went around campaigning and demonstrating (often resorting to very ugly measures) for complete equality.

The premier feminist lawyer in the 1970s, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then a professor at Columbia University Law School, argued that all such differences of treatment based on gender were sex discriminatory and should be abolished. She won several Supreme Court Cases on that theory. In state after state, as well as in Congress, feminist lawyers were able to persuade legislators to gender neutralize their laws.[1]

As I have written before, the main thing that feminism did was liberate men from responsibility. There are, of course, many honorable men who support their wives and children and protect them (such as my own husband <3). In the past both men’s groups and women’s groups ganged up together to attack the traditional woman. In reality their attack was on all women in general (the most blatant example being the 1981 Supreme Court case of Rostker vs Goldberg). The goal was a complete androgynous society where both law and custom was blind to one’s sex.

Feminists had not only been attacking women, particularly traditional women, in their literature (think Betty Friedan’s “The Feminie Mystique” where she calls housewives a “parasite”) but they set out, though a series of legislation, to force women out of the home. As Mrs. Chancey writes for Ladies against Feminism:

All of this would be bad enough by itself, but the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s did not stop at verbal attacks against wives, homemakers, and mothers. They pushed relentlessly to change laws which both protected wives and mothers and which encouraged men to provide for their own families. They did not rest until they had triumphed through the elimination of the “family wage,” the reduction of tax benefits for single-earner households, and the passage of “no-fault” divorce laws. Sociologist Jessie Bernard (quoted above), remarked that the “very deprivation of assured support as long as they live may be one of the best things that could happen to women” ( The Future of Marriage, 1982). In other words, if men can walk away from marriage easily, leaving women with no support, women will be forced to take up careers whether or not they desire to do so.[2]

This changing of traditional gender roles, sex-neutral laws and women joining the workforce in ever increasing numbers has led women to be deprived of the most precious rights a woman could ever have. Most notably, the right to not only keep her own children, but also the right to raise them. As I have often written, in the earliest days of American history women were not protected from their husbands abandoning them, garnishing their wages- if they did work for money- leaving them on the streets and taking custody of any children they had together. Many in our society still hold onto the belief that this is the way it was all the way up until the time of women’s liberation. Such a belief, however, is false. After the time of the Civil War, many things began to change for women. In the area of child custody, the Tender Years Doctrine was established to where mothers were always granted of custody of young children (save for certain circumstances). It was abolished however, with women’s liberation. It would seem that “in the best interests of the child” would be a victory all the way around. However, rarely is this reality. Taken from the National Organization of Women’s own website (for those that don’t know they were a feminist group established at the time of women’s liberation and fought fiercely for the Equal Rights Amendment as well as stripping women of many other protections and preferences they held under the law):

There is a national crisis for women and their children in the family law courts of this country. Affirmed by experts and leaders in the women’s movement, the existence of this crisis is verified by women in every state who report injustice in their family law cases, especially battered mothers trying to protect their children from abusive fathers who aggressively litigate against them, using family court to stalk, harass, punish, and impoverish their former partners and children. NOW recognizes this crisis for women and their children and seeks to address discrimination against women in family courts.[3]

Also, Phyllis Chesler (you guessed it, a feminist) just published edition number two of her book “Mother’s on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody;” a book which, in the first edition, Gloria Steinem herself proclaimed the book was “Sure to inspire anger, understanding and action.”

Of course, they are not wrong in their assessments. But, then again, didn’t the feminists go around campaigning for easy divorces and abolition of all the laws that protect women? Quoting Graglia:

“Yet, having been taken seriously by every state legislature in the country and with the divorce revolution accomplished, feminists seek to absolve themselves from the blame, as if society should have known better than to listen to them.”[4]

And once again, Graglia:

The feminist quest for female fungibility with males has led the women’s movement to support the invalidation of laws benefiting and protecting women. This was the thrust, for example, of litigation directed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was director of the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and , often using male plaintiffs, secured invalidation of laws that favored women. The theory was that obliteration of all legal sex distinctions would ultimately be in the best interests of working women; those women, including homemakers, who wished to retain the benefits of protective legislation were never the women with whose rights the Project was concerned. In the area of divorce reform, one of the benefits women have lost is the maternal preference which favored awarding custody to the mother. Almost all states now grant men and women a statutory equal right in custody… In order to secure custody, many women will drastically compromise their financial interests: ‘women who are scared to death of losing custody will trade away anything else- child support, property, alimony to keep it from happening.’[5]

“Among the greatest harms done by contemporary feminism has been its support of no-fault divorce laws that enable men to abandon wives and children with minimum guilt and little monetary compensation. It may seem ironic that through its divorce policy a movement supposedly devoted to women’s interests disadvantages women who are homemakers and favors the interests of males who abjure responsibility for wives and children.”[6]

Of course, when women become the breadwinners for the family men almost always use it to their advantage. For decades now, the more a woman makes compared to her husband, the higher the likelihood they will divorce -although currently only 19% of women make more money than their husbands (up from 4% in the 1970s). Many women not only feel the maternal bond pulling her away from the workforce, but many women breadwinners find that they also end up losing complete custody of their children:

… Julie Michaud, who ran her own business, which supported her family, while her unemployed husband cared for the couple’s 7-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter. As Abrahms writes:

Julie sat helpless as Mark’s lawyer argued that he was the one who arranged the playdates, took the kids to the pediatrician and volunteered at their schools. Affidavits from teachers and neighbors attested to his hands-on involvement in their daily lives. Meanwhile, Julie’s long hours at work meant that people in the community didn’t witness just how much parenting she did out of view. No one saw the lunches she packed every morning, the all-nighters she pulled when the kids were sick. “If I could have done things differently,” Julie says today, “I would have made myself supervisible.”[7]

This story is all too common today. More and more mothers are losing custody of their children and forced to take up the traditional male role of supporting their families (which, before women’s liberation was a burden that only men would bear until feminists, as stated above, went state by state to gender neutralize laws and won Supreme Court cases such as Orr vs Orr to make the rest of the states, who hadn’t already conformed, to do so). Women’s liberation has allowed men to have rights with little to no responsibility. As we have gone over in our blogs and book reviews before, 82% of unwed mothers receive no financial support from the father at all.[8] Most unwed fathers never even marry the mother of their child and never take responsibility until it is convenient for them to do so. Feminism has led women to be used and exploited and taught them that careers are the only source of fulfillment and more every day, our society even sees marriage itself as pointless.

“Our Judeo-Christian civilization has developed the law and custom that, since women bear the physical consequences of the sex act, men must be required to pay in other ways. These laws and customs decree that a man must carry his share by physical protection and financial support of his children and of the woman that bears his children, and also by a code of behavior that benefits and protects both the woman and the children.

This is accomplished by the institution of the family. Our respect for the family as the basic unit of society, which is ingrained in the laws and customs of our Judeo-Christian civilization, is the greatest single achievement in the history of women’s rights. It assures a woman the most precious and important right of all- the right to keep her own baby and to be supported and protected in the enjoyment of watching her baby grow and develop.”[9]

 

Notes:

1. Schlafly, P., Feminist Fantasies. Spence, 2003.
2. http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/You_Don_t_Know_Feminism_744_printer.shtml
3. http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/family/
4. Graglia, C.F., Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism. Spence, 1998.
5. ibid.
6. ibid.
7. http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/more-fathers-getting-custody-in-divorce/
8. http://www.hausvater.org/book-reviews/153-darwinism-contraception-and-the-decline-of-manhood.html
9.Schlafly, P., Feminist Fantasies. Spence, 2003.

 

© 2012 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.