Eric
old hand
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 807
Loc: USA
|
|
How "quaint." It rhymes... :)
Wendy writes to FIRM about Sperm & Best Interest of Child (BIC) below my signature...
Eric
FIRM@FIRMncp.com
IfeministNewsletter
Good day:
This week's FOXNews/ifeminists column, "Case Could Freeze Sperm Donations", is available for reposting. For newspaper reprints, please contact wendy [at] zetetics.com. Thank you for your interest in my work.
FOXNews URL: <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157553,00.html>
ifeminist URL:
<http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0525.html>
For those who prefer a cut-and-paste, one is attached below.
Best wishes,
Wendy McElroy
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is currently considering a http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:kxEQud-j5GIJ:www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a15043_04.pdf+McKiernan+Ivonne+Ferguson&hl=en&lr=lang_en
legal appeal that could set wide-reaching precedent for both child support policy and fertility clinics in the United States. As one report http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05140/507736.stm states, "sperm donors who thought they were getting $50 for their genetic material" -- a standard clinic fee -- and nothing more may be in for a real shock.
The case involves sperm donor Joel L. McKiernan and his lover Ivonne V. Ferguson. Ten years ago, they entered a verbal contract that a three-judge panel of the Superior Court said was valid "on its face." In exchange for McKiernan donating sperm that led to the birth of twins through in-vitro fertilization, Ferguson released him from any obligation toward offspring. (IVF involves fertilizing a woman's eggs with sperm in a lab dish and, then, placing the fertilized eggs back in the aspiring mother's uterus.)
Ferguson denies that an agreement to release McKiernan from responsibility ever existed. Nevertheless, she named her then-husband as 'father' on the birth certificate. Five years after the twins' birth and in the wake of divorce, she filed against McKiernan for child support.
The tangled personal circumstances of this situation constitute a legal nightmare and the sort of 'hard' case that makes bad law. And bad law is exactly what may result.
Both the trial court and the Superior Court
http://houstonvoice.com/print.cfm?content_id=1373 called Ferguson's actions "despicable" and expressed sympathy toward McKiernan. Yet both found him liable to pay over $1500 a month in child support plus arrearages to the now-divorced Ferguson. (McKiernan has married, moved, and now has two other children he is raising.)
Why was McKiernan considered liable? The original contract was deemed unenforceable due to "legal, equitable and moral principles." The main abrogating principle: biological parents cannot waive the interests of a child -- a third party -- who has an independent 'right' to support from each one of them.
It does not matter that a third party did not exist when the contract was forged and probably would have never existed without the contract. Nor does it matter that the law generally presumes a husband to be the father of any child born during the marriage. The donation of sperm alone makes McKiernan financially liable for the twins until they reach adulthood.
Or it will if he loses the Supreme Court appeal, which weighs the extent of a sperm donor's liability. Presumably, the ruling would equally impact women who donate eggs for another's fertility treatment.
Pennsylvania, like most states, has not adopted a version of the http://www.aaml.org/Articles/2000-11/UPA%20FINAL%20TEXT%20WITH%20COMMENTS%20.htm
Uniform Parentage Act, which protects sperm or egg donors from the responsibilities of parenthood. Many -- if not most -- donors merely presume that anonymity provides such protection.
In the case of Ferguson v. McKiernan, the identity of the sperm donor was always known. But the principle sustained by the courts could apply with equal force to anonymous donors.
Ferguson's attorney argued that her case did not threaten sperm banks or fertility clinics because such facilities had not been involved.
McKiernan's attorney noted that the contract in question was virtually identical to the ones they offer: namely, anonymity or non-involvement in exchange for a donation. If a mother or father cannot waive the 'right' of a potential child to support, then it is not clear how a fertility clinic could do so in its capacity as a broker-for-profit between the two 'parents'.
The danger this precedent would pose was http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/9228387.htm expressed by Arthur Caplan, a professor and medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania.
Caplan explained that anyone who donates genetic material on the basis of anonymity "ought to understand that their identity could be made known to any child that's produced and they could be seen by the courts as the best place to go to make sure the child has adequate financial support." The prospect become more likely if one parent is requesting support from a government agency.
Sperm banks are legally required to maintain a record of each donor's identity, often indefinitely.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court judge Ronald D. Castille was http://www.observer-reporter.com/296057286820119.bsp more blunt than Caplan in his assessment of the risk that donations would cease. "What man in their right mind would agree to that [sperm donation] if we decide this case in your favor? Nobody." What woman in her right mind would donate eggs?
Estimates on infertility in the United States vary but the rate is http://www.fertilitysolution.com/chapter1.html often placed at about 15 percent, even without including gay and lesbian couples. That is, 15 percent of couples fail to conceive after one year of regular, unprotected intercourse. If miscarriages are factored in, the rate increases.
The use of donated sperm and eggs is a common solution to infertility. According to Dr. Cappy Rothman of the California http://www.cryobank.com/ Cryobank, an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 artificial inseminations occur every year in the U.S. And that is only one form of infertility treatment.
If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court finds the sperm-donor to be liable for child support, then many forms of infertility treatment in most states could become less available and more expensive. Those donors who step forward will want to be compensated for their increased legal risk.
The courts have pitted a child's "best interests" against the rights of biological parents to contract with each other on the terms of reproduction. They may have also opened a Pandora's box of complications involving a child's claim on a sperm donor's data and wealth.
But the worst consequence may be the denial of life itself to children who are desperately wanted by infertile couples. The law should not obstruct their chances of conceiving.
--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept
|
Shawn
recently joined
Reged: 05/20/05
Posts: 16
Loc: Omaha, NE
|
|
KOOK ALERT!!!!
|
Rah
member
Reged: 09/01/04
Posts: 102
|
|
Thank you Shawn! I see that you "Get It"!
--------------------
Rah
I calls 'em like I sees 'em!
|
Eric
old hand
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 807
Loc: USA
|
|
From:
http://www.dadi.org/whither.htm
Whither Manhood and Fatherhood;
It's Time To Yell 'Fire' In This Theater
Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.
March 25, 2002
The electronic conversation began this way. I asked my colleagues, "Why is it, do you think, that divorced dads have not yet stormed the 'castle' to demand that they be given back their parental rights?
I've been watching, listening and waiting for about ten years for men to finally become outraged, and act like it. I'm really beginning to wonder if they really want equal parenting, or even equitable child support.
This condition has me befuddled ten years later ... and don't tell me its because the media won't cover dad demonstrations - there just haven't been any of consequence since the PK (Promise Keepers) march."
Their replies suggested a sociological perspective that is alternately revealing, frustrating and frightening. Their paragraphic observations, and my interpretation of them, might be thumbnailed thusly:
The Feminihilists have propagated and saturated the American culture with the Big Lie (Men are worse than un-necessary!.. They must be watched, kept under control, and their families must be shielded lest the men perpetrate their inbred heritage of acting as patriarchal bullies, rapists, and molesters.).
The liberal socialist media, in pursuit of the ideal feminized commune, have sustained and augmented the Big Lie and have abridged the "good man."
Divorced dads have fought with all of their might to retain a place in their children's lives in individual court venues. But they have been pummeled by two intimidating, emasculating lessons: 1.) Men are criminally suspect in the eyes of the law in a feminized society. 2.) The power of the State to crush a man's will and future is unlimited and unconstrained once unleashed.
Men have adopted a feminized social persona as a self-defense measure in the PC milieu so as to not draw attention to themselves. Meanwhile, men remain individualized and competitive in their efforts to earn a living and meet their obligations.
Male legislators are even more than passive in their acquiescence to the Big Lie. They have learned that the Feminihilists will tar and feather them as harassers should they not toe the line. They've also learned that just one Feminihilist can crush them with the power of thousands, given carte blanche media access.
In combat, men are conjoined in the mission's objective. On the job, men in the protection professions are conjoined in the collective plebiscite. But in today's society, men's collective energies are fragmented. They have no positively defined cultural role in a PC society to collectively guide and enjoin their efforts. Instead of being the traditional familial source of protection and moral guidance and unity, men have been coerced into the disgraceful posture of defending against their perceived potential "dark side." Acting collectively can be as dangerous for the male group as for the individual legislator. When the Promise Keepers acted collectively in their march on Washington D.C., the cacophonous vilification by the Feminihilists and their media cohort was ear rending.
Men's individualism appears to be a virtual genetic marker, and they do not easily trust others to fight their battles for them. Consequently, "men's groups" and the "fatherhood movement" are typically regarded with reservation, if not outright suspicion, and go unfunded as a result. Consequently, the pro-male, pro-dad information vital to organizing and energizing those outside the www.world goes unpublished.
Ironically, the most visible response of the demonized male has not been one of angry defense, nor strident reprisals. Instead, we have witnessed the phenomenon of the "good but silent" man. Today's male has receded to the background, acquiescing to constitutional aberrations like sexual-harassment laws and the Violence Against Women Act.
Following 9/11, several columnists have trumpeted the Return of the Guy!, or alternately, Suddenly, it's cool again to be a man.
Not true. What is cool is to be a fireman, policeman, or special ops soldier. Let's be clear, it's the job, not the man that's cool. The insufficient return of the "guy" is only in the use of the terms fireman (instead of firefighter) and policeman (instead of police officer). And that has most likely targeted these groups for a future smear campaign by the Feminihilists. Look for a proliferation of harassment, battering, and deadbeat stories involving these men.
The Big Lie has so contaminated the social perception of men, and so threatened the sexual relationship between men and women, that men have become emasculated. Lest they be called "Deadbeats", men pay usurious rates of child support that have been aptly termed de facto alimony. Lest they be called "batterers", men are cloaking themselves in the soft-spoken, milquetoast persona of the sensitive man. Lest they be called "homophobic", men are conceding their children to the sexual aberrations of the sodomy lobby. And lest they be called "patriarchal" men are collectively permitting "family" courts to rescind their constitutionally guaranteed parental rights, substituted with a court order redistributing their income to the person whose goal is to kidnap their children.
"Parental rights protect the interests of parents and children in a relationship that is natural and independent of the existence of a state; ...Critically for doctrinal purposes, this is the interpretation the Supreme Court appears to accept in holding that '[i]t is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.' ... These rights are typically and systematically suspended or denied in divorce proceedings." - Parental Rights and Due Process
Before you rush to the keyboard to send those flames and viruses condemning my racist ways, let me introduce my beautiful daughters. Understand that I am an associate member of the club, and claim the birthright to condemn bigotry in these terms.
There are two social prohibitions with which I am ordinarily in agreement. The first is the admonition that black people are the gatekeepers for the use of the word "nigger" in social intercourse. The second is that you don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. But there are exceptions.
In Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain uses the slang derivation of Negro to signify the racist dehumanization of black Americans by Southern whites. So it is when I use that term to signify the sexist criminalization of American males - mostly the white ones. The facts are these. Feminihilism has portrayed "man-as-nigger" in the same vituperative manner that racists portrayed (primarily male) blacks. When a feminist says "man", society hears "manigger."
Contemporary Feminihilist bigotry has appended to white men the kind of vicious, mindless bigotry that was once appended to pre/post-civil rights black men:
The classic antebellum racist myth, at times overt, and at other times as a whispering campaign, characterized black men as shiftless, sexually preoccupied rapists, lying in wait to attack white women.
In one of its most perverse anti-male jeremiads - just when the anti-racism civil rights campaign was building to a crescendo - the feminihilist propaganda arm was fabricating the sexist Big Lie. Remember the "date-rape" and "Super Bowl Sunday domestic violence" myths? Portraying fathers as shiftless deadbeats, and men in general as potential rapists and batterers led to the successful institutionalization of two constitutional aberrations - the VAWA and Child Support Enforcement rackets.
Prior to July 1868, and the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the southern states had restricted voting rights to blacks and relegated black men to the status of a 3/5ths person in determining congressional representation. Prior to that, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery or involuntary servitude, guaranteed due process, and prevented the denial of equal protection under the law. It was the cause of the civil rights movement of the sixties and beyond that blacks should realize the full rights and benefits of those amendments.
Simultaneously, the feminihilists succeeded in eliminating those same constitutional guarantees when dads are sued for no-fault divorce. Divorce courts have become "administrative" procedures, foregoing the due process clause. And when dads are stripped of their parenthood, they are clearly less than a 3/5ths person ... they are a 1/7th person, or less in standard visitation terms - something on the order of a distant cousin, or programmable toaster. In yet another flagrant constitutional abeyance, or "child support enforcement", these maniggers are reduced to involuntary servitude and threatened with debtor's prison should they fail to tote dat bale. Divorced dads have been made sharecropper parents.
Again, at the beginning of the civil rights movement, and in what some portrayed as a pseudo-reparations measure, the Great Society magnanimously extended AFDC (aid for dependent children) to impoverished black families. "Families", that is, until the USDHHS mandated that such aid was contingent upon the "no man in the house" rule. In the ensuing years illegitimate birth rates in the black community exploded, and the percentage of black children living in a two-parent family went from 67% to 33.3%. Paralleling the loss of fathers in the home, the population of imprisoned black men went from half that of white men in 1960, to 120% that of white men in the year 2000. While the number of white men imprisoned in 2000 jumped 330% from 1960, the number of black men leapt 720%.
USDHHS has magnanimously extending its assistance to white families in a de facto extension of the no man in the house rule for divorcing white women. CPS (Child Protective Services) has become the Gestapo arm of the women's movement. With its anti-male and anti-family agenda, CPS has become an out of control socialist agency dedicated to removing America's children to the foster-care commune where they may languish for years before being unleashed on society. If properly asked, and sometimes with the unwarranted insistence of the courts, DHHS and CPS will provide the divorcing mother an attorney, and if deemed necessary, a legion of social workers and psychologists to assist the mother in evicting dad ... and keeping him out. In 1960, the number of children involved in divorce was about 463 thousand. When the "women's movement" reached full acceleration by 1975 that number nearly tripled to 1.1 million. A recent news release announced that like the inner city ghettos, the city suburbs are now populated largely by singles and single-parent "families."
We are witnessing history rhyming with itself, except that just like 9/11, it is right here on our shores. Manigger passivity in response to these intimidation tactics may lend itself well to an individualistic attempt at self-preservation, but it is tantamount to societal suicide to remain AWOL in the uncivil culture wars.
The "Nihilist" revolution in 1860s Russia featured terrorism and assassination. The Feminihilist revolution in post-1960s America features sexual terrorism and male character assassination.
"Hitler's Special Children"
History Channel 10/00
The "Nazi" reign in Hitler's Germany featured the Hitler Youth. As reported on the History channel:
"With girls as with boys, Hitler exploited their generally unformed minds and their need for attention, companionship and adventure. 'The seducer,' notes the narrator, 'ignored their minds and played on their feelings.'
- 10/00 - Hitler's Special Children"
USA TODAY 03/14/02
The Socialist, Feminihilist reign in the U.S. features the U.S. Department of Education and the NEA (teacher's union). Boys are being placed in pharmacological straightjackets; there is zero tolerance for "sexual harassment" - in elementary schools for Pete's sake; "violent" playground games (dodgeball) are being eliminated; cops and robbers games are verboten; but the real outrage is that simultaneously our children are being inundated with sexual provocation and systematically propagandized into believing that homosexuality is as normal as mom and apple pie.
Yoh! Manigga. That "yas massa" passivity may temporarily avert a whippin', but in the long run it is just a big sign on your back that says, doormat - wipe your feet here. Is that the role model you wish to be for your kids - daddy doormat? Is that better than daddy deadbeat?
It's time to understand and recognize that the appropriate response to Socialist and Feminihilist intimidation and terror tactics is not passivity. It's time to recognize and understand that outrage and publicly visible demands and demonstrations, which demand reinstatement of the constitution, are patriotism, not patriarchy. Demanding that our children be protected from aberrant sexual deathstyles and sexual hedonism is neither homophobic nor Victorian; it is an appropriate exercise of parental responsibility and moral authority.
It's time to attack the forces that are trying to destroy the American culture. It's time for men to aggressively retake manhood and fatherhood from the usurpers. It's time to take your children back from the socialists, the sexual hedonists and the sodomy lobby. It's time to tell the Feminihilists to just shut up, and stop calling men vicious names. It's time to raise some legal hell that makes your voice heard.
It's time to yell fire in this overcrowded theater.
--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept
|
sugarb
enthusiast
Reged: 12/16/04
Posts: 375
Loc: In the Heartland on America
|
|
yawn....
|
Eric
old hand
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 807
Loc: USA
|
|
Men Step Aside, The Rad-Fems are Set to Win the Culture War
January 5, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Carey Roberts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to understand the Culture War, you need to appreciate the ideology, methods, and goals of radical feminism. And to understand feminism, you must understand Marxist philosophy and the history of the Soviet Union. On this last point, I recommend Joshua Muravchik’s highly-readable book, Heaven on Earth.
Future historians will note the Culture War took an important turn in the November 2 elections. Sensing their political standing was on the wane, the Leftists decided to pull out all the stops in a last-ditch effort to reverse the course of history. Of course they lost the gamble, and now the Leftists are seething with bitterness and rage.
But in another sense, the battle has only just begun. To this point in time, most Americans have been bystanders in the conflict, hoping the struggle for America’s soul would somehow leave their own lives unscathed.
There is more to the Culture War than radical feminism, of course. David Horowitz at the Center for the Study of Popular Culture has charted the broad outlines of that multi-faceted conflict. But probe the inner workings of the Leftist movement, and there you will find a feminist heartbeat, pumping hard and strong.
We have now passed the point of no return. Too many unborn children have been felled at the abortionist’s hand. Too many infants are warehoused in day care centers. Too many women have been ridiculed for heeding their maternal instincts. And too many men have been unfairly stereotyped and falsely accused.
Feminist philosophy now envelopes the mainstream media and the academy. The divisive voice of the Sisterhood can be heard as well in our workplaces, schools, and even in our homes.
Not even our religious beliefs are immune. Feminists view religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as hopelessly patriarchal. So they have sought to marginalize religion, forcing persons to think twice before they exclaim, “Merry Christmas!”
There is little about contemporary feminism that can legitimately be viewed as promoting gender equality. Now, the quest for equality has been replaced by neo-Marxist rhetoric of female “liberation” and “empowerment.”
Last week columnist Lyndia Lovric at the Winnipeg Sun launched this salvo: “One of the biggest lies perpetuated by modern-day feminists is the contention that feminism is about equality. Feminists aren't interested in equality. What they want is revenge.”
Visit the websites of the National Organization for Women [www.now.org] or the Feminist Majority [www.feminist.org], and you will see the feminist utopia will not be a world that takes kindly to men.
What worries me most is the feminist hegemony at the United Nations. There, feminists rely on a “top-down” strategy to impose their ideology on countries throughout the world. It began with CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Now fem-socialist ideology permeates many of the UN agencies.
To put this in historical perspective, a mere 20 years ago, 70 countries around the world considered themselves to be Communist, socialist, or social democratic. Then in 1991 the Soviet Empire imploded. Now socialism is receding in all corners of the globe.
But I predict the struggle to counter feminism will be more difficult than the fight against Communism. Why? Because while socialism relied on political, economic, and military tactics, feminism targets the chinks in persons’ emotional armor. It preys on women’s sense of fear and anger, and on men’s feelings of guilt and shame.
Have you ever wondered why the Leftists are so intent on enacting speech codes and so-called “hate speech” laws? Because freedom of speech poses the most formidable obstacle to the continued metastasis of Political Correctness. And therein lies the secret to winning the Culture War.
So here’s a New Year’s Resolution for all of us. I admit, it’s deceptively simple:
Speak out. Call your elected officials. Write a letter to the editor. Sound off. Complain. Be heard. Talk to your friends and neighbors. Exercise your First Amendment rights.
Our consciences are insisting that we cannot afford to remain as silent onlookers while the Culture War continues to rage. Me? I’m doing this for the sake of my kids and grandchildren.
Carey Roberts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carey Roberts is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream media.
--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept
Edited by Eric (05/26/05 08:33 AM)
|
Shawn
recently joined
Reged: 05/20/05
Posts: 16
Loc: Omaha, NE
|
|
Rah,
Yes I get it. I posted a response to Eric about the
website he claims he has and a mailing address, but
he has YET to produced either one. No mailing address
to FIRM or even a valid website URL...
WHAT A KOOK!!!!
|
Eric
old hand
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 807
Loc: USA
|
|
The Rise of Big Sister-ism
April 3, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Carey Roberts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen their shell-shocked eyes and unbelieving expressions.
Men saddled with crushing child support obligations, forced to live on scraps or else fall into a desperate sea of mounting debt. A few of them are white-collar guys who once held respectable jobs and lived in comfortable houses.
Time marches forward, and the cases only become more bizarre.
Steve Barreras paid $20,000 to support his daughter, a girl he had never met. In fact, she didn’t even exist. His ex-wife Viola Trevino took another family’s daughter to court and claimed the child as hers. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson has now ordered an investigation.
In Michigan, Terrace Hale had $300 garnished from each paycheck for three years. The money went to support a woman he's never met to raise a child he's never fathered. Now, Marilyn Stephen, director of the Michigan Office of Child Support, refuses to give Mr. Hale’s money back.
Then there are those cases of adolescent boys who were victimized twice. First by their adult female rapists, and then by an inflexible child support system that came knocking when their perpetrators carried the baby to term.
The voice of justice and outrage asks, How could this happen in America?
The answer can be found in our nation’s 30-year crusade to extract child support payments from mostly minority, low-income fathers, men who now bear the contemptuous epithet, “Deadbeat Dads.”
Last year professor Stephen Baskerville of Howard University probed the allegations that have been leveled against these “deadbeats.” His must-read article, “Is There Really a Fatherhood Crisis?,” reached some surprising conclusions [www.independent.org/tii/ media/pdf/tir_08_4_baskerville.pdf]:
Charge #1: Most marriages break up because fathers “have chosen to abandon their children,” as president Bill Clinton once put it.
Not true. Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen found that women file for divorce in 70% of cases. Likewise, Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver reports in his book Divorced Dads that two out of three divorces are initiated by women.
Charge #2: When women do leave the marriage, it’s to escape domestic violence and abuse.
False. The number one reason cited by divorcing moms, according to Braver, is “not feeling loved or appreciated,” and not anything to do with violence.
Charge #3: Dads don't pay their child support because they don't care about their kids.
Absurd. A 1998 Rutgers and University of Texas study concluded: “many of the absent fathers who state leaders want to track down and force to pay child support are so destitute that their lives focus on finding the next job, next meal, or next night’s shelter.” The problem is not dads who are dead-beats, the problem is men who are dead-broke.
Charge #4: Kids don’t really need their dads, anyway.
Absolutely false. This is the most scurrilous myth of all, because the truth is the polar opposite, and the harmful effects on children are so great. “Virtually every major social pathology has been linked to fatherless children: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, unwed pregnancy, suicide, and psychological disorders,” notes Baskerville.
It is no coincidence that all four of these myths place fathers in a bad light. And that suits the Divorce Industry – that veritable army of lawyers, family court judges, custody evaluators, and child support enforcers -- just fine.
These myths have become so ingrained in our thinking that basic Constitutional protections are being casually tossed aside. One brief on child support from the Left-leaning National Conference of State Legislatures made this stunning recommendation: “The burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant,” which of course means, “Fathers can be assumed to be guilty until proven innocent.”
Of course, it’s divorce that triggers the monstrous child support machinery to lurch into motion. The rise of no-fault, unilateral divorce does not trouble the Sisterhood. In fact, they welcome it.
Over the past 50 years, the National Association of Women Lawyers has spearheaded the adoption of no-fault divorce legislation throughout the country, laws that made marital dissolution that much easier. The NAWL now notes with satisfaction, “the ideal of no-fault divorce became the guiding principle for reform of divorce laws in the majority of states.”
A growing divorce rate. Disenfranchised dads. Children lacking paternal guidance and protection. An ever-expanding child support apparatus. Careless disregard of Constitutional protections. A growing totalitarian mindset.
That’s the Matriarchy at work.
Carey Roberts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carey Roberts is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream media.
--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept
|
Rah
member
Reged: 09/01/04
Posts: 102
|
|
Shawn,
I see that you get it! Yeah, this NUT has been around for years with the same old tirade. It's sad really.
--------------------
Rah
I calls 'em like I sees 'em!
|
Eric
old hand
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 807
Loc: USA
|
|
Posted by:
Eric Ericson,
Founder of,
Fathers' Integrity & Rights Movement (FIRM)
Contact(s):
FIRM@FIRMncp.com (has always worked contrary to what the feminazi PIGS lie about)
Eric@FIRMncp.com (has always worked contrary to what the feminazi PIGS lie about)
www.FIRMncp.com (has always worked contrary to what the feminazi PIGS lie about)
Unconstitutional VAWA Law Upheld By A Propaganda Ploy
April 13, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Carey Roberts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you get when you mix equal parts of gender myth, a casual disregard of Constitutional protections, and old fashioned political pork? VAWA – the Violence Against Women Act -- that’s what.
For the past decade, Americans have been subjected to the relentless message, There’s no excuse for domestic violence against a woman.
OK, but what about Piper Rountree who was convicted six weeks ago for the ambush-slaying of her former husband, University of Richmond professor Frederic Jablin? Are cases of female-on-male violence so rare as to be an amusing oddity in the newspaper obituary columns?
Here’s the shocker: Women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violence against their intimate partners.
Chances are you’ve been heard the Urban Legend that follows the predictable line, male = abuser, female = victim. So I’m going to repeat my statement, this time with emphasis: Research shows that women are equally likely to commit partner aggression against their boyfriends, husbands, and ex-husbands.
We’re not talking about a handful of studies. Over 100 research reports have shown this to be true -- you can see for yourself by visiting this website: www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Here’s how attorney Linda Kelly recently put it: “men and women commit violence at similar rates.”
Psychologist John Archer reached an even stronger conclusion in his article in the Psychological Bulletin: “Women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression.”
It’s not a casual toss of a pillow or a playful jab at the chops. According to Dr. Archer, 38% of all persons who suffer domestic violence injuries are male.
So why don’t we read about these cases of female-on-male violence more often in the newspapers? Because men are far less likely to report the incident to the police – nine times less likely, according to one landmark study. [www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-22.htm#pgfId-1378765]
To understand the DV urban legend, we need to go back to 1991, when senator Joe Biden of Delaware introduced VAWA for the first time. [ww.vawnet.org/SexualViolence/PublicPolicy/VAWA-SVPubPol.pdf] But many in Congress were opposed to Biden’s bill because it ignored key provisions of the United States Constitution.
First, the proposed law flaunted the intent of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. Knowing that men are equally likely to be victims of domestic violence, how could anyone in good conscience propose a law that would confer greater protections and services, but only for women?
Second, Biden’s proposed bill violated the principle of federalism enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, and thus infringed on state sovereignty.
Not surprisingly, Biden’s bill was soon relegated to the legislative deep-freeze. That didn’t please the rad-fems. So someone came up with the idea of a publicity stunt.
In January 1993, a daring group of women called a press conference in Pasadena, California. Sheila Kuhn of the California Women’s Law Center made the statement that would provide the boost the feminists were desperately looking for: Super Bowl Sunday was the “biggest day of the year for violence against women.”
That stunning claim quickly appeared on Good Morning America, in the Boston Globe, and elsewhere. The Oakland Tribune would report the Super Bowl causes men to “explode like mad linemen, leaving girlfriends, wives, and children beaten.”
How’s that for dispassionate news reporting?
Some remained unconvinced, however, including reporter Ken Ringle of the Washington Post. In his article “Debunking the 'Day of Dread' for Women,” Ringle showed the feminist claim was a preposterous fraud. [www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp] But Ringle’s expose’ came too late -- the genie was out of the bottle.
The Super Bowl Hoax, as it was later dubbed, no doubt will become a classic in the propaganda textbooks. And it clearly did succeed in triggering a surge of letters and phone calls to Congress. The following year the Violence Against Women Act was signed into law by President Clinton.
Less than five months from now on September 30, VAWA is set to expire. That means the Sisterhood’s billion-dollar-a-year gravy-train will dry up. Renewal legislation has not yet been introduced, apparently because the Republican majority hasn’t warmed up to the idea of dishing out mega-bucks to the GOP’s avowed political foes.
As the clock ticks down to September 30, the rad-fems are beginning to panic. Armageddon-Day strategy memos are circulating on the Internet. Decisive action soon will be needed to galvanize public support.
Get ready for a reprise of the Super Bowl Hoax.
Carey Roberts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carey Roberts is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream media.
--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept
Edited by Eric (05/26/05 11:09 AM)
|
Shawn
recently joined
Reged: 05/20/05
Posts: 16
Loc: Omaha, NE
|
|
Here he goes again posting another invalid post with bogus
URL.. Anybody can see if you click on Eric's posted URL in
his messages: http://www.FIRMncp.com it redirects you to a
msn forum!!! He must have herd what I said and begged it
to get back on. Still if it was a valid organization then
you would have a mailing address and an official website
intead of using some group forum on msn with and OLD post
as the home page and NO messages in the group. WHAT A
FRAUD!!!!
KOOK ALERT!!!!
|
Rah
member
Reged: 09/01/04
Posts: 102
|
|
YEPPERS!
--------------------
Rah
I calls 'em like I sees 'em!
|
Eric
old hand
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 807
Loc: USA
|
|
Support Solution: What does it solve?
May 25, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Roger F. Gay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier this month, an article was published announcing; Child Support Guideline Problem Solved. It reported that Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology (PICSLT) has presented a formula that was derived by focusing first on the logic of child support decisions rather than gross statistics. The article link was posted in several discussion forums where people with interest in the issue were able to comment.
The first concern voiced by readers is that the article did not provide details about the solution. I recommend The Alimony Hidden in Child Support as the next step toward understanding the solution.
Those who are in a hurry to delve into greater detail can do so by reading the articles in the list at the end of this article. If you passed high school algebra, you have the tools to understand the derivation of the formula. But you should plan more than an hour of study, especially if your life experience with mathematics is very limited. Of course, it is easy to understand once you understand it.
My suggestion to anyone who gets into the math is to leave your preconceptions behind. Current guideline technology has been promoted and discussed for the past 20 years, leaving many people with a strong (and strange) indoctrination. It should be easier if you can clear your mind and start fresh. That is something I would recommend in any case, since it has been shown (again and again) that current guidelines are based on an arbitrary premise and constructed through incoherent reasoning. The current guidelines are the result of politics (and corruption) - not science. Finding the right answer requires an entirely different approach.
I have one more tip on understanding the derivation. If you conclude that the model only considers what custodial parents might spend on children, it will be obvious that you did not go through the math. The formula is derived from principles that allow a standard of living increase for children based on their parents' ability to support. Finding a valid formula for child support that includes this standard of living adjustment was the key unsolved problem. It is this problem that has been solved in the PICSLT derivation. The presentation of the child support formula is even supplemented (in the same paper) by an equation for producing the proper balance between child and spousal support to reach a target standard of living for a custodial household.
The decision principles that provide the basis for the formula were established in traditional child support law prior to the federal reforms that require presumptive use of guidelines in all child support cases. They are discussed in a lengthy paper entitled; On Developing Child Support Decision Theory: Principles. The principles are:
Purpose Principle: Child support is for the care and maintenance of children.
Relationship (equal duty) Principle: Both parents have an equal duty to support their children.
Context Principle: All relevant circumstantial information may effect the amount of the award.
The derivation begins by considering the standard of living of the custodial household, which is the controlling factor in the standard of living of the children of that household. The solution is found by considering the income of both parents to determine the standard of living increase that is consistent with the first two principles. Formulae have also been derived for accounting for visitation and shared parenting arrangements. (See below.)
It has also become clear in PICSLT research that dealing with the third principle is much simpler than expected. It is not important whether there might be countless reasons for adjusting awards due to special circumstances - extraordinarily high medical bills for example, or sharing day-care costs. The variations in the mathematics of accounting for special circumstances are extremely limited. It is rather obvious that if a family is spending $250 per month on day-care for example, that they will have $250 per month less to spend on other things. Income must be adjusted by that amount before applying the standard formula. As with any part of the solution, this conclusion is based directly on basic economics.
A second wave of concern expressed by readers involved the use of guidelines generally and extended to opposition to child support orders. In the 1980s, Congress passed a law requiring statewide guidelines as a condition for receiving federal funding. They then passed a law requiring state courts to presume that the amounts determined by the formulae are the correct amounts to be awarded in every case. In 1993, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals consented to presumptive use of child support guidelines even though they produced arbitrary results. (P.O.P.S. v. GARDNER, 998 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993)) This changed family law in a fundamental way because child support ceased to be a private issue and became a public (politically controllable) issue. This decision fundamentally changed the relationship between the individual and the state, knocking constitutional rights and separation of powers out of the picture.
We need to be cautious when attempting to tie a valid mathematical derivation to politics. When first approaching the derivation, I recommend complete separation from any political issue. The mathematics does not itself care how it is applied, or whether it is applied. The standard of living adjustment problem was well defined prior to the federal reforms and is in no way dependent on those reforms for its existence. No solution had been found to this problem prior to the introduction of the guidelines that are currently in use. Technically speaking, that is why guidelines that give arbitrarily high results came to be accepted. For those who oppose child support awards completely, I can as a mathematician respond immediately. If no child support is to be awarded, the answer is zero.
In a more advanced look at the guideline problem, I would tie a formal solution to the standard of living adjustment problem to an extremely important political issue. It is a strong counter to the movement to eliminate constitutional rights and due process. That movement thrives on the presumption that there are no concrete answers to many questions dealt with by the courts. They contend that it is more efficient to force arbitrary standards than to deal with individual cases. The counter is that problems can be solved and the solution to this problem demonstrates that traditional due process worked extremely well after all, even when a complete theoretical solution did not exist.
But I will leave that to an advanced discussion. One must look very carefully at such an important issue. We should not be left with the sense that we must solve every theoretical problem that has not yet been solved in order to secure fundamental rights. Certainly it is instead entirely illogical to enforce "standards" that have not been properly developed from complete and valid theory and in any use of state power against individuals, the state should remain liable for its decisions in individual cases. If the state contends that this is too complicated, then they should retreat.
References:
The Alimony Hidden in Child Support
A Further Look at Child Support Guidelines, PS: Political Science and Politics, American Political Science Association.
On Developing Child Support Decision Theory: Principles
New Equations for Calculating Child Support and Spousal Maintenance With Discussion on Child Support Guidelines
Accounting for Visitation and Shared Parenting
Developing the Numeric Table for Child Support Award Calculations
Roger F. Gay
DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE FORUM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger F. Gay is a professional analyst, international correspondent and regular contributor to MensNewsDaily.com, as well as a contributing editor for Fathering Magazine.
--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept
|
Shawn
recently joined
Reged: 05/20/05
Posts: 16
Loc: Omaha, NE
|
|
KOOK ALERT!!!! DON'T BELIEVE ANYHING THIS GUY HAS TO SAY!!!!
|
Eric
old hand
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 807
Loc: USA
|
|
http://www.angelfire.com/home/sufferingpatriarchy/index2.html
--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
