Tag Archives: Feminist

News

Feminist Melanie McDonagh says that paternity should not be checked

17 Comments

Check out this unbelievable article from the UK Spectator that ECM sent me. It’s written by a feminist. She is complaining about paternity tests. She thinks that women should be able to sleep with a lot of men and then arbitrarily name the richest one as the father to get the highest child support payments, and no fancy DNA test should be able to contradict her.  Oh, and it goes without saying that women should not be punished for committing paternity fraud. That would be mean.

Excerpt:

The subject has resurfaced lately, courtesy of a story in the Daily Mail, about a married television presenter who for years had been paying for the support of a child conceived, as he thought, as a result of his relationship with a writer. It seems that after meeting the child for the first time, he asked for a DNA test; it duly turned out that he was not, after all, the father. Poor child.

[…]Now I can see that some men might rather welcome an end to the old-fashioned scenario whereby they find themselves held to account for the paternity of children born to girls with whom they just happen to have had sex. The actor Jude Law recently found himself in just this position, and unhesitatingly and ungallantly demanded a DNA test.

By contrast, the old situation, in which women presented men with a child, and the man either did the decent thing and offered support, or made a run for it, allowed women a certain leeway. The courtesan in Balzac who, on becoming pregnant, unhesitatingly sought, and got, maintenance from two of her men friends, can’t have been the only one. Uncertainty allows mothers to select for their children the father who would be best for them.

The point is that paternity was ambiguous and it was effectively up to the mother to name her child’s father, or not. (That eminently sensible Jewish custom, whereby Jewishness is passed through the mother, was based on the fact that we only really knew who our mothers are.) Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter?

Hmmmn. I wonder how anyone could even prove that the woman actually slept with her victim? Maybe a woman can just pick out a man arbitrarily on the street, based on his nice suit or fancy car, and name him as the (involuntary) sperm-donor. He wouldn’t have any parental rights or authority, you understand.

Anyway, this shouldn’t affect me. I’m chaste. But maybe I could still be forced to pay single mothers that I haven’t even slept with just because I can afford to? Oh wait – that already happens. It’s called progressive taxation. Oh well. It’s not like I needed the money I earn for my own future wife and children…

Save us, Barbara Kay!

Here’s another article about child support from Barbara Kay about the child support bureaucracy in Ontario, Canada.

Excerpt:

Ontario’s Family Responsibility Office, which is responsible for ensuring that custodial parents don’t get stiffed for child support payments by the non-custodial parent, has a lot of power.

Starting Dec. 1, someone (read “father”) in arrears on their support payments can have their car impounded. That’s about the stupidest punishment for non-payment one can imagine, since most people need their cars in order to work.

[…]If you’re going for irrational responses to non-payment, why not just throw the guy in jail –– but oh wait, they already do that. They throw guys in jail for non-support all the time, and when they do, the guys serve the whole 30, 60 or 90-day sentence (the term keeps lengthening), even though cocaine dealers routinely get out of jail after serving half their time.

[…]Let’s look at the bigger picture, though. What is the guy paying child support for? Yeah yeah, to support his children. But that means they are, you know, sort of hischildren, right? Not necessarily. The custodial parent, almost always the ex-wife, although supposed to grant agreed-upon access rights to the children’s father, can arbitrarily decide she doesn’t want to allow access, and for any old reason — oh sorry, little Jimmy has a play date, oh sorry little Emma has too much homework, oh sorry, I just don’t want to — can deny the father access. And does she pay for that? No. Oh, she might get a scolding from the judge, but there is no downside for her. No custodial mom has ever spent a night in jail or had her licence suspended for refusing her children’s father legal access to them.

There’s more in the article. Sigh. At least Barbara Kay likes men enough to speak out to defend us. Sometimes I think that women who care that men are treated fairly are the only ones who should be able to get married. If only men weren’t so stupid that they judge women solely based on appearance. I guess we’ll have to learn the hard way!

Commentary

Barbara Kay explains the coming demographic crisis

9 Comments

Here’s Barbara Kay explaining the relationship between feminism and the coming demographic crisis. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

The causes for the coming demographic crisis are not in dispute: improved longevity, urbanization and rising female education. The United States’ total fertility rate is relatively high at 2.06, but when you break it down, the American women with the highest fertility rates are those who have no post-secondary education. The rule is unvarying: The more educated the woman, the fewer her offspring.

If any. Voluntarily childless couples (oops, make that “child-free” couples), once uncomplaining outliers from the matrimonial mainstream, now confidently assert the superior moral standing of environmentally-friendly “hedonic” marriage, in which shared interests and pleasures rather than children form the relationship glue. Some exhibit overt disgust at “breeders” and “moomies” (nursing mothers).

These righteous depopulators are indifferent to the big picture. An article entitled “The Old World” in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine paints a grim demographic portrait of the developed and developing world’s future. By 2018 65-year-olds will outnumber those under five, “a historic first,” and by 2050 the median age–now 28–will be over 40.

Autocratic governments can make people have fewer children, but they can’t make people have more. Singapore tried. While modernizing in the 1960s after gaining independence from the British, Singapore’s newly minted Family Planning and Population Board launched a billboard campaign, messaging “Stop at Two” and “Small Families Brighter Future.” Abortion and sterilization were encouraged at the government’s expense. Maternity leave was denied after two children.

It worked. Singapore reached its fertility rate target of 2.1 in 1976, a 53% plunge over a decade. But it didn’t stop declining, as women’s education rates went up. A reverse strategy was implemented. Abortion wasn’t banned, but pre-op counselling is now required for women with three or fewer children. The billboard and media messaging was changed to “Have Three or More Children if you Can.” But no dice. Singapore’s fertility rate in 1960 was 5.45. Today it is 1.1.

I would like my wife to have advanced degrees to be able to write and speak so she can protect the family by advocating for good policies that will enable us to have autonomy from the government and taxes and politically correct fascism. I think getting an education is an excellent thing for a woman. And she can complete her education by the time she is 25. It’s having a job outside the home when there are young children that is problematic for me. A writing career is an excellent option since research and writing can be done from the home.

The real concern I have about this is children having a lower standard of living than we do. Because of these massive government pension programs (Social Security in the USA, Old Age Security in Canada), children will taxed at very high rates. Either these entitlement programs have to go, or children will be poor. These redistribution schemes cause people to depend too much on the government and not to plan ahead for their own needs (retirement, health care, etc.). It’s immature to expect other people’s children to pay for your health care and retirement. You have to pay – you have to earn and save your money to pay for what you need.

I was reading recently about how George W. Bush, a fine President and a good man, thought that his greatest success was keeping us safe (true) and his worst failure was the failure to privatize Social Security (also true).  It’s the Democrats who are telling us that Social Security doesn’t need reform, just like the Democrats told us that Fannie and Freddie did not need to be regulated and reformed. Until we get serious about keeping them out of power, it’s not really safe to marry and have children.

UPDATE: Alisha found this story about a woman who focused on her career and his now marrying HERSELF.

Podcasts

Jennifer Roback Morse debates feminism with abortion radical

2 Comments

She’s the William Lane Craig of domestic policy!

Here’s the main debate page.

Details:

Topic: Are We Getting It Right? The State of Women and Gender Studies

Jennifer Roback Morse
Senior Research Fellow, Acton Institute

Amy Richards
Author

University of Virginia, Newcomb Ballroom
3/14/2007

The video and audio are available on the debate page.

The MP3 file is here.

I have to admit, I skipped the silly feminist’s speeches – which is something I almost NEVER do, except for Dan Barker debates. But I listened to Dr. J’s speeches and they were awesome! I am telling all my male readers – listen: DOWNLOAD AND LISTEN TO THIS DEBATE. Jennifer Roback Morse is just awesome for men to listen to. Honestly, I think she’s even more fun to listen to than Michele Bachmann.

I did listen to both speakers during the Q&A.

About her opponent Amy Richards

Hey, look at this radically-leftist pro-abortion New York Times article about Dr. J’s opponent.

Excerpt:

My boyfriend, Peter, and I have been together three years.

[…]I found out I was having triplets when I went to my obstetrician.

[…]My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk-up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to?

I looked at Peter and asked the doctor: ”Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?” The obstetrician wasn’t an expert in selective reduction, but she knew that with a shot of potassium chloride you could eliminate one or more.

And I had this adverse reaction: ”This is why they say it’s the woman’s choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That’s easy for you to say, but I’d have to give up my life.” Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn’t be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It’s not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I’m going to have to move to Staten Island. I’ll never leave my house because I’ll have to care for these children. I’ll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise. Even in my moments of thinking about having three, I don’t think that deep down I was ever considering it.

Wow – hard-core feminist! But no match for Dr. J.