Tag Archives: mother’s rights

No, “We” Are Not Pregnant

First off I want to give a disclaimer that I’m not a doctor so use your brain and seek your own medical advice from an actual qualified medical professional. I’m giving my opinions and beliefs based on my long hours of research and personal experiences. Second this post has some sexual talk that isn’t completely PG-rated and isn’t normally something I go into, but I feel it is important so I’m going to “go there.” Just wanted to give a quick warning about that.

I came across some comments today regarding this “we are pregnant” nonsense that men today say (which I think is ridiculous) while surfing through NYMOM’s blog (I’m a big fan of her blog and occasionally check through her postings again to lift my spirits from this broken world we live in). Anyways, I thought they were pretty good and summed up some things that were have actually been on my mind here lately and I wanted to make a blog posting to put in my own two cents on the matter.

“We Are Not Pregnant
The glory of men and women lies in their unbridgeable differences.
Mark Galli | posted 7/12/2007 08:55AM

A male friend, married to a lovely women, comes up to me beaming and says, “We’re pregnant!”

“Wow!” I reply, with inappropriate sarcasm. “When I was a young man, only women could get pregnant.”

I’ve heard this phrase—”We’re pregnant”—too much recently, but it’s time to move beyond sarcasm. The intent is as understandable as the execution is absurd. It arises out of the noble desire of men (and future fathers) to participate fully in the childrearing. And I understand that for many men, it simply means, “My wife and I are expecting a baby.”

But the first dictionary meaning of pregnant remains, “Carrying developing offspring within the body.” Whenever a word is misused, it means the speaker is unaware of the word’s meaning, or that the cultural meaning of a word is shifting, or that some ideology is demanding obeisance. Probably all three are in play, but it’s the last reality that we should pay attention to. It is not an accident that this phrase, “We’re pregnant,” has arisen in a culture that in many quarters is ponderously egalitarian and tries to deny the fundamental differences of men and women.

This phrase is most unfortunate after conception because it is an inadvertent co-opting of women by men—men using language to suggest that they share equally in the burdens and joys of pregnancy. Instead, pregnancy is one time women should flaunt their womanhood, and one time men should acknowledge the superiority of women. Men may be able to run the mile in less than four minutes and open stuck pickle jars with a twist of the wrist, but for all our physical prowess, we cannot carry new life within us and bring it into the world. To suggest that we do is a slap in the face of women.”

Anonymous #1 says:

“…My partner too has experienced many emotions since finding out I am pregnant, and although both very happy I have been very poorly due to morning sickness and nausea. To which he can never really understand how much I have been ill, and although has an idea of how depressed at times I felt through being incapacitated by the nausea, he really does not have a clue as to the extent of my suffering.

This is of course not his fault. However he has experienced symptoms of what I would call womb envy. He often says he wishes HE was the pregnant one, and that I am experiencing the baby growing, and how HE wishes he could feel it move just as I can, and how HE would rather be the one pregnant, and how he would swap places with me in a second, just to experience what I am. This actually makes me feel guilty, as he actually gets quite bitter and at times moody over the whole thing…at least that’s how he comes across. I have really tried to be sensitive to his needs, during this time, and share every aspect of how I feel and how IT feels to be the pregnant one.

It has actually brought out some strange colours in him that I never knew were there. He gets angry that most pregnancy books are female focused, and that there are only small sections dedicated to the man, which he says he finds patronising and insults his intelligence. When I suggested finding a book specific for men in pregnancy, he said, “he should not have to”, and says we are EQUAL in this process, that he is just as important as I am.”

Anonymous #2 says:

“I am a 30-year-old European married to an American. I don not have any children. Lately I have decided that I do not want to have any children from my husband because I have come to regard pregnancy as the worst Ponzi scheme out there: You go through nine months of pregnancy, through labor, etc. and suddenly someone else can claim (at least equal) legal rights over the fruit of my labour (literally)!? Over the child I gave birth to! No, thank you! I am European and moving to the (very legalistic) United States has been a huge eye-opener for me: I once told an American fellow student that I would not want my husband to be present during the birth of my child (I see it as a very private moment, and I would like to be assisted by a doula or a trusted female friend) and he became very angry, claiming that it is a father’s right to be there and see the child exit the mother’s vagina (actually, he called it “witness the child’s first moments”)!!! I am a woman, a separate free individual, and NOT a mechanical child-bearing vessel / child-birthing machine. Therefore, I will not have any children, especially from my husband (I could always go to Denmark and undergo artificial insemination). I would love to have a child from my husband, but I am too afraid to do so in this upside-down world.

Unfortunately, also many formerly feminist European countries, such as Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia, are now starting to embrace this questionable gender neutrality… When the heck did we switch from “women’s rights” to “gender equality”? Sad!”

There is so much to comment on here. The first anonymous commenter has a “partner” (she doesn’t specifically state “husband” which is a problem in itself) who is jealous of her more important role in bringing a child into this world. I personally think it really pathetic of a man to be jealous of women’s roles in any area of life- whether in childbearing or in the traditional feminine sphere of caring for the home and children. Anonymous commenter #2 has a real problem with her husband or any man claiming the same legal rights as her to a child she has suffered and worked to give birth to and also a problem with her husband insisting to be there when she gives birth.

I have to say that these ladies are right. Their feelings on these issues are not unfounded. A man should not be jealous over the role his wife has in life. Men and women are not “equal.” A father can only be made equal by the society/law and what he brings to the mother and child (as opposed to what the mother does in childbearing). I understand there is a tendency in men (that they will never admit to, of course) to be afflicted with womb envy. That is why men should have other areas in life that are unique to their sex that they can achieve in (such as providing for families and being protectors). Yes, her role is more important in childbearing. In truth, the male role in childbearing is dispensable. Only a mother is necessary during childbirth, only her role is biological. She conceives, carries, bears and nurses the child from her own body. Her maternity is certain. Paternity, however, is never completely certain. The most intense scrutiny in the world can never completely assure a man of his paternity. He must trust in a third party (whether the mother or some anonymous person in a lab coat he’s never met and who is, after all, just a human who makes mistakes, not to mention that in a bureaucracy the right hand never knows what the left hand is doing) to assure him he is the father of a child.

I also agree completely with childbirth being a private event. My husband did not in any way participate in the birth of our child. Actually, nobody really did. Nobody- friends or family- was informed at all that I was in labor and I wouldn’t have had it any other way. The midwife was specifically informed that nobody at all was to be told that I was in labor and if anyone did show up to get rid of them. My midwife only checked on me midday to make sure I was ok then left me in peace until I needed her a couple of hours later. I can’t see what good spectators do in childbirth other than make labor longer and more difficult and painful for the mother by disallowing her privacy and peace of mind to let instinct take over and I’m sorry but I can’t see how it takes five people groping a woman’s privates for a child to be delivered safely. In all societies I’ve ever studied, until recently, men were barred from being present at childbirth and a mother would either give birth alone or have a woman (or women) with her (although they often did not touch her, but were only there for support and to give assistance if needed). Male doctors only started delivering babies in the 19th century for the money, whereas before if men attempted to sneak around to see a laboring women they were shooed away. There is no need to touch a woman when she is giving birth and touching or interfering or talking to a woman (when it is not an emergency of course) can actually cause her injury and make the process more difficult. After all, animals give birth alone. They know when birth is imminent and isolate themselves. I had a midwife but she was only there pretty much after birth to make sure we were doing fine and to run an herb bath for me and the baby. As a result of my husband making himself scarce and me having complete silence and privacy labor and birth was actually relatively easy and not very painful. Labor progressed quickly and naturally with no interventions. Nobody talked to me or touched me and, while listening to the horror stories of every other woman having a hospital or home birth with lots of family, friends as well as the father in attendance, I probably had one of the best births imaginable. I never took any medications at all while pregnant nor during birth- they weren’t necessary. My body was made for this. I felt instinctively that childbirth was sexual (yes, sexual) and an intimate event that was sacred. Somehow I felt connected to something greater. It’s a beautiful feeling of vulnerability and preciousness that is unique to women. Men should not seek to undermine this and it is preposterous to think men are just as good with care-taking as women when there is not a shred of evidence to suggest such a thing. Men should respect and honor women for what only we can do.

The second thing that anonymous commenter #2 talks about is giving fathers rights when they do not give birth. I certainly think our current legal system is disgusting and I feel her sentiment exactly. I would feel the same as her if I didn’t know history. Because only women can bear the babies our laws used to place the entire burden of financial support of a family on the husband/father. Women were not responsible for their husband’s support nor should a woman be. Husbands should be responsible for their wives, but wives should not be responsible for their husbands. Men today however seem to think they are entitled to support from the mother of their child and support from their wives as well as WIC benefits and a share in the mother’s maternity leave that were intended to benefit and help mothers and infants recover from the ordeal of pregnancy and childbirth. So a woman bears your child and she owes you? I don’t think so. If anything the father is indebted to the mother. In no other scenario is the one who does work for somebody supposed to pay the one who is receiving the benefits of their work. That would be a crime. And indeed it is a crime in my book for a man not to be fully financially responsible for his wife, the woman who has given him children. This works out for the best interests of the family overall anyways as the more the responsibility for support is placed on the wife/mother the worse family breakdown overall gets. A husband should have legal rights because he should be responsible for his family. He is responsible to provide for the children he fathers with his wife and he is responsible for how those children are raised and how they turn out. He should be responsible just the same for his wife. The obligation to see to their support and protection should rest on his shoulders, not hers. The day men suffer pain and the possibility for infection, sickness, injury, disfigurement , indignity and even death (and this isn’t even mentioning the emotional/psychological side effects of childbearing) to bring forth life into this world the same as women have always suffered since the beginning of time is the day they might be justified in asking the wife/mother to carry the burden of support as well. A man not married to his children’s mother shouldn’t get the same rights because his position is not the same. A man simply wanting rights to a child he’s fathered is not in any way an example of him being responsible. Him being married to the mother and providing for her and the child and being held responsible for them is him being responsible.

A husband should do what is in the best interests of his wife and children. In many cases, as heretical as this statement is today, it is in the best interests of both mother and child for him to not be present when she gives birth. He has the right to see to their safety, support and protection. It’s not about what he wants. He has no “right” to put his wants above their needs. He should be putting the needs of his wife and child above his own and if his wife is not comfortable with him being present he should wait somewhere nearby and stay out of the way. He should also protect her and make sure nobody else interferes to cause her distress or harm while she is in labor and vulnerable.

Anonymous commenter #2 also talks about artificial insemination. I am very much against this for many reasons and think it should be outlawed, along with surrogacy. I also don’t think a lot of women realize the stresses and harms these procedures often do to women. A lot of women suffer much physical pain and psychological distress and the procedures fail often. Apart from that, women should not be left on their own with children. I am very much for patriarchy, the way the West has practiced it for centuries, as it gives great status to women. I prefer to defer to my husband’s authority because it is the surest source of protection and support for a woman- because it makes me feel secure. The more divorce and out-of-wedlock births there are the less men invest in women and support and protect them.

On the other hand, we cannot exist with gender neutral laws without a complete societal collapse. It’s either matriarchy or patriarchy. I would prefer patriarchy in a heartbeat. I don’t want to have sex with any man (or multiple men) I choose without stigma and live with my extended matrilineal kin or other women and do all the work while the men lounge in hammocks all day and run around clubbing each other over the head! That is the greatest Ponzi scheme of all time if you ask me! Patriarchy is a marvelous invention that actually took that burden out of the hands of mothers and placed it on fathers and built up civilization and I don’t want to give that up! I’d much prefer to be taken care of by one man for my life. I have always liked the idea of carrying *his* (I’m talking about my husband here) child. It is a great feeling, wrapped in safety and love by one more powerful than I, for my intimate body to be filled and invaded. It’s spiritual and romantic. Our differences are what make us unique. I’m weaker and much more vulnerable while he is stronger and in charge. Egalitarianism and women being in charge takes the beauty and life out of everything. It dulls the senses. When we are in the roles we are made for it is a beautiful thing. A woman taking her husband’s last name is actually a remnant of coverture in our culture. She and her children have the husband’s name, as she was once a “covered woman” (before the so-called “advancement” of women’s rights) being under the protection of her husband.

Women are free under a true patriarchal system- under coverture. A woman is free from being ruled by men who have no responsibility for her. She is free to have her babies and care for them and keep them by her side while the father goes out and works. She is free from the drudgery of full-time work and is free from being harassed by other men and having to carry the weight of responsibilities that rightfully belong to men. No, “we” are not pregnant, and neither should “we” carry the same responsibilities because our roles are not the same. The same rules that apply to men do not apply to women and vice versa.

Recommended Articles:

Family and Medical Leave Act Seeks to Undermine Mother’s Rights

Why Men Should Never be Present at the Birth of Their Child

Undisturbed Birth is our Genetic Heritage

Advertisements

Coverture and the Criminalization of Pregnancy

“…You might think it would be hard to find someone who falls into the “pro-criminalizing pregnant women” camp. Sadly, you’d be wrong. A dangerous bill​ has wormed its way through the Tennessee legislature that would allow prosecutors to bring criminal assault charges against women who use drugs during pregnancy.

In all seriousness, it’s encouraging to see Cosmo publish a thorough take-down of this bill. It’s a sign that deep misgivings about the needless expansion of our criminal justice system are now so widely held that they’ve reached pop culture salience. For decades, this country has ratcheted up the number of crimes on the books and the length of time we lock people up, pushing the number of people under correctional control to about 7 million. Many of these people would be better served outside of the criminal justice system entirely.” (1)

“In the first legislative victory of its kind, the Tennessee Senate and House have now passed a measure that would allow criminal assault charges to be brought against Tennessee women who use drugs during their pregnancy. Now the legislation heads to Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam (R) for either his signature or his veto.

The bill allows women to avoid prosecution if they enroll in a rehab program and complete it, but critics say it could actually keep drug-addicted pregnant women from seeking the treatment they want and need. The law, if passed, would be the first of its kind in the nation.

“Women who are addicted will no longer go to their prenatal health appointments or if they do go, they won’t be honest with their doctors because they’re afraid to end up in jail,” Glass told Cosmopolitan.com. She also noted that the medical community has rejected this bill.

The American College of Obstetricians Gynecologists (ACOG) notes that criminalization has proved to be ineffective and it urges physicians to oppose legislation that punishes women for substance abuse during pregnancy. ACOG also decisively states that drug enforcement policies that deter women from seeking prenatal care are “contrary to the welfare of the mother and the fetus.”

This bill says nothing of fathers’ responsibility for fetal health, as this bill would only allow for punishment of the pregnant woman. The legal blame for NAS falls solely on the pregnant woman.” (2)

April 29: Tennessee governor sings SB 1391 despite widespread calls for a veto and objections from doctors.

It is an obvious fact of life that only women can get pregnant and everything the mother does and the environment she is in affects the fetus. The nine months spent in the womb affect us across our entire lifespans. Some women have problems and addictions that affect their pregnancy and unborn babies and now our government seeks to lay criminal penalties on the mother-and only the mother- for the result of her pregnancy.( And this is not the only case like this I have seen in the past few years such as punishing women for miscarriages if they act “irresponsible.”) Addiction during pregnancy is bad enough by itself but what I want to know is where is the father’s responsibility for fetal health if he wishes rights to the child the same as the mother? I believe we have a real and true problem of male irresponsibility in society today. In the past men were expected to be married to the mother in order to be legally recognized as the father of the child. As well, they were the guardians of their wives. This lessened after coverture was officially ended in the late 19th century but married women had many protections up until the 1970s and many aspects of coverture remained in law even holding the husband responsible for his wife’s actions to a certain extent.

Today there are no such protections. A sex-blind society is the rule today. But the only problem is that it is unrealistic. Men and women are not on equal terms no matter what crazy gender-neutralized laws we as a society can think up of. Now we are going to throw pregnant women in jail for being on drugs and giving birth to babies with NAS (neonatal abstinence syndrome). The responsibility for the outcome of a pregnancy falls entirely onto the woman as she is the only one who can become pregnant. Men may not get a say in abortion but they still get rights to the resulting children when they are born, even if illegitimate they are granted the same legal rights as the mother (a major historical shift of the past 40 years). (I would consider married men getting veto power in abortion if the marriage placed the wife under coverture where the husband was responsible for her as in the past). I can just see this now. Father isn’t in the picture, mother is drug-addicted. She gives birth and gets thrown in jail then daddy comes walking up playing dad of the year and takes full custody of the child while mom takes all the blame. And of course the GOP is right there saying “there’s no war on women.” But there is a war on women that’s been going on since coverture was repealed.

Something is wrong here. A drug-addicted pregnant woman needs help. It should be the father’s responsibility to make sure that she gets the help that she needs and the woman’s responsibility to submit to being taken care of and taking care of her child. Since obviously men cannot get pregnant traditionally in order to be responsible for fetal health the father is held responsible for the well-being of the mother. Take care of the mother and you take care of the child as women and children are inseparable through the entire reproductive process. This also makes sure she can nurse the child as well. But today women must “stand on their own two feet” take all the responsibilities of citizenship and be treated as equal to men in our feminist and egalitarian world. It’s a nice fantasy but one that never quite pans out in reality. Men are not required to take appropriate responsibility for women and children and can leave them completely on their own with no concern for what conditions they are living in or if the mother even has food to eat or medical care.

Another thing is women who have their children taken from them at birth because they were drug addicted. Most are required to get off the drugs and to get a job to prove they are responsible. But how about get treatment, be married and stay home to care for the child? That seems like a much better and more logical solution but nobody cares about mothers actually caring for their children or ensuring their children are legitimate and look at the damage around us as a result. If she doesn’t marry the father he won’t grow up and learn responsibility. She and her child will probably never be stable and secure or ever get out of poverty or unsafe living conditions. Marriage must matter to us as a society and coverture is an important and long-forgotten aspect of it that places women under guardianship.

Another thing that bothers me is pregnant women in jail. If she is not violent and/or dangerous then where is the father to take responsibility for her? Dating back thousands of years and in numerous civilizations marriage erased a woman’s previous debts and obligations and she became the responsibility of her husband (but, of course, she was required to accept guardianship and her husband’s authority and sexual regulation). Women are not men and have special circumstances in life. Men’s duties must be to protect women. Women are becoming more masculine and more violent and aggressive and it showcases the need of men to intervene and be authoritative once again so that women must act appropriate as ladies and accept male guardianship to protect them and their families.

Related: “When Women Act Bad”

Father Custody Under Coverture Revisited

So why would I say such a thing? Why would I support automatic father custody under coverture? I think my reasoning behind my support of father custody deserves a closer examination.

First, I don’t believe coverture or father custody as a principle under coverture violates a woman’s or a mother’s rights in any way. If feminism has supposedly made such great strides for women then why is it that, apart from death, that there has never been a time when so many children were separated from their mothers? Children today are without mothers increasingly because of divorce, mothers of young children entering the workforce at record levels and because of families that failed to form in the first place. Again, I’m not talking about death or other life issues that interfere with the family. I’m just concentrating on gender relations here. If we look at the statistics well it would seem obvious that women were ultimately served much better under coverture than under current family arrangements and gender-neutral laws.

You see both sexes need a bargaining power for marriage to occur in the first place (the man obtaining paternal rights to offspring and the woman a higher social status, financial support and a home to raise her children in being those traditional bargaining powers that drove men and women to marry). Both sexes also need a bargaining power to stay in the marriage and also invest in it. Men are more unwilling than ever to invest financially in a woman and family because they have no security that the family won’t be broken apart and their investment taken from them. Women are more unwilling to invest in the marriage via their traditional roles because they have no security that the family won’t break apart and that they won’t be left financially devastated.

The traditional laws of marriage under coverture served the purpose of giving both men and women peace of mind to go ahead and invest themselves in the relationship. The husband had the security that his family wouldn’t be taken from him after he had dedicated years to slaving away at the factory to provide for his children and the mother of his children. The wife had the peace of mind that she could safely drop her status as an independent woman upon marriage and rely solely upon her husband because she had the security of lifetime financial support.

Today men and women have no such security. Either spouse can take off at any time with the money, the house and the kids and leave the other spouse destitute. There isn’t even a cultural expectation that marriages should last anymore. On the contrary, mainstream culture has leaned the direction of even seeing divorce as a good thing. So, obviously both men and women are hesitant to trust each other or invest fully in the marriage and rely on each other. How many times have I heard men or women say that they have too much to lose by marriage? How many men are paranoid about losing their lives savings by marrying an unfaithful woman? How many times have housewives been told to hang up their aprons and get a career before they are left financially destitute? And who ultimately pays the price for all of this if not all of us and our children?

The reality of the matter is that we can’t have it both ways as a society. There must be one dominant family arrangement that becomes law. This egalitarian era is a catastrophe. Not all family arrangements can be legally and culturally sanctioned. So we are left at the point where we much choose what arrangement is to be upheld under the law and as the social norm. All others must be frowned upon and given a lesser status socially and legally.

As a traditional woman I believe that financial support is something that a woman should be able to rely on in marriage. I believe in a woman becoming a covered woman under the law by her husband assuming responsibility for her. As such the husband must be in charge of things. I do not believe that fault between spouses should be used to determine a child’s fate (you cheated on me! I’m taking the kids b****!). As such authority must be delegated to someone to oversee the family and control the family. Will it be the mother? If it is the mother then we have matriarchy. If the women control the families then what incentive do men have to work hard everyday to provide for a family that they cannot lead and cannot control? Is it to be a handful of greedy lawyers or a judge that is to decide the fate of a child? It can also not make sense that a man is the head of the family during marriage and have that authority all of a sudden severed at divorce to allow someone else (a judge, the mother, etc.) control of the family just because the family is falling apart. If anything, a family that is falling apart needs the husband in control of it and responsible for it more than ever.

Enter the husband’s authority extending even to divorce. A man that has invested himself into his wife and children throughout marriage is the obvious best choice for deciding what is best for the family. Since he has the same liability no matter where his children live and no matter what his relationship with their mother he will obviously be less likely to separate them from their mother because then he would have to both fulfill his traditional obligations and the mother’s as well. On top of it all he would have to keep paying alimony to an ex-wife he no longer lives with. As for the woman, she would be less likely to initiate divorce because of the prospect of being without her kids and without her husband’s paycheck. Until recently divorce was a hush-hush thing that nobody talked about. Divorce was considered a disgrace to one’s entire family even.

As some have pointed out today’s men are not mature enough and are generally in no way capable of leading a family. But that is only because they weren’t raised in families under coverture but instead in a egalitarian society that shuns true manhood. In the past boys expected to grow up to be men who would provide for and lead their families. As such they followed their father’s examples and would even learn the role of being the head of a family by taking charge in their father’s absence. Girls, of course, were taught to be wives and mothers and fulfill their traditional roles by their mothers (and other female family members). Both sexes were taught how to invest in the marital relationship and were well learned in their traditional roles. If men cannot be trusted as heads of their families it is because there is no obligation upon them to be mature and take charge. It is because society no longer imposes such responsibility upon them.

There can never be a guarantee that men or women won’t get hurt. The laws of coverture could easily deal the husband an injustice just as easily as they could deal the wife an injustice. That is how life works. For every law there will be someone done wrong. But, laws are necessary for social order and the well-being of everyone. With strict laws protecting the sanctity of the family there will still be men and women who get hurt, but there numbers will be far fewer than they are today.

Coverture protects a mother’s rights more than any arrangement that has been conceived since coverture was repealed. Yes, it is possible that a husband could do his wife wrong and alienate her from her children, but given the social customs and laws stacked against him under coverture if he does his family wrong, it is unlikely that he would. Women would have security under coverture and be able to raise their own children and be financially supported. Both male and female investment in children and in the family would rise.

The traditional family and authority over the family belonging to the husband could stop the fighting, stop the gender wars and stop all of the harm done. If families could never be put back together and no distinctions ever made again between unwed father’s rights and married father’s rights and men do not ever assume once again their traditional responsibilities for women and children then I would support a law (such as the tender years doctrine) to give mothers child custody protections. But to me it isn’t the end goal. It’s not the best that could be offered up to women nor to children.

“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.”- Phyllis Schlafly, 1972

Related Articles:

Responding to the Rationale of Father Custody under Coverture

Sorry, I’m Not Buying the BS

My take? Men as a group have had everything handed to them because of feminism- BUT- there is always a price to pay for everything. Most men don’t have custody because they’ve never pursued it. Feminists hatred of men is definitely there but they have done more for men than any other movement ever has. Men no longer have to support a wife for life, there is no draft (and if there was they’d take young women too thanks to feminists), they’ve been given more rights to child custody now that women have abandoned their role as the caretakers to young children. Two incomes are common, they don’t have to shoulder the burden of support alone. They get free and easy sex and paternal rights to children without having to marry. And, if they live in New York, they don’t even have to pay a stripper anymore. What a paradise!

You see, though, they are no longer the leaders of their families. They chose to flee from responsibility so now they have no patriarchal authority to keep their families together and they are paying the price (or, at least, sharing it with women). All of the men I’ve ever known who didn’t have custody of children when their wives left them were ones who never fought for it. I know more women than men who’ve lost custody. We lose 3-4 women from pregnancy and childbirth deaths every day in the United States (not to discount our troops and the wonderful job they do, but this is more women each year dying from what only a woman can die from than we’ve lost soldiers the entire decade we’ve been overseas) yet women are shouldering the burdens of support of a family. Even more women are having to raise and support children alone because the father is nowhere in sight and society blames them for being single mothers by saying they’re just out for the welfare money.The interesting thing is we all think that mothers always get custody (when we’re young and naive) but there have been several studies done looking for “sex discrimination” in the family courts that showed the father usually gets custody if he wants it, especially if he is abusive (I’m not linking an article because there are many legitimate resources out there, disbelievers can do their own research).

You see feminists never cared about mother’s custody rights. Nobody does. I dare someone to name the last time they saw a “mother’s rights organization” outside of feminists advocating for “mother’s rights” to breastfeed in public (which I actually agree with) or domestic violence issues (which is just a smokescreen for what’s really going on).

Yes, there are good men who have been done wrong. The appropriate response to injustices? Men need to accept their RESPONSIBILITY and assert their AUTHORITY. These issues wouldn’t be issues if men were being men in the first place. Suzanne Venker made the remark that “women just aren’t women anymore” in an article a few months back. Well, men aren’t “men anymore” either. She’s says there’s a “war on men” then says feminism serves men well in the same posting. Pretty typical of those who hold MRA views to have selective vision.

I may sound like a feminist sometimes or tout “feminist” viewpoints and there are definitely many times where I know that feminists point out real issues for women. However, I don’t agree with the feminist solution to all of this. To the feminist,women’s problems are just a bunch of evil men coming to “steal their equality once they’ve fiinallly achieved it after thouuusands of years”- seriously who would even believe a tale like that???) But those who are informed know what’s going on.

And for those who say feminists are for “separating children from fathers” all I can say is use your damned head already. Feminists have long encouraged women to dump children off on fathers so they can go pursue a career.

Men’s rights groups use feminism and feminist ideals that are now ingrained in mainstream culture to get out of responsibility. (Notice how none of them are touting women in combat, but, hey, if feminists are promoting it then they’ll seize the opportunity and force women to be drafted. Once again, feminists are on their side and feminism has benefited them.) Then they turn around and call themselves “anti-feminists” leading to more women thinking feminism actually has been about giving women a status as “human beings” and any anti-feminist is automatically grouped in with men’s groups and is perceived as anti-woman.

I do not consider a man a victim until he has accepted his rightful responsibilities. Sorry, you can’t sit there and support women being in the home and expect that it is their place to care for the children then all of a sudden wonder “hey, where’s my support at?” when it benefits you. Either take your responsibilities or be victims. I’m not going to feel sorry for men’s groups. The way I see it is this: equal pay laws have been on the books for 50 years now and most states abolished their tender years doctrines many years ago. It’s absurd to think that somehow women are still discriminated against in the workforce just the same as it is insane to think that somehow fathers are discriminated against in family courts. The evidence generally shows that the workforce favors women and the family courts actually favor fathers. Are there men who are victims? Yes. Are men, as a group, victims? No.

But, men and women can’t live without each other. We need to form healthy relationships. If men accepted their responsibilities and asserted rightful authority and were chivalrous to women we wouldn’t be in this mess and our children wouldn’t be so bad off today and coming from broken homes. So, are you going to whine and cry or are you going to be men? And women, are you going to force men to man up or are you going to keep letting them get away with exploiting you sexually and financially?

Don’t complain if you aren’t willing to stand up and do something. MRAs have no real solutions to offer men and feminists have no real solutions for women. They all just keep talking about things being “more fair” and “equal.” They tell lies and deceive the public and take advantage of men and women in vulnerable states. Don’t let them fool you.

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.”