Paternity Rights: Losing Fatherhood

Saturday, November 21, 2009

I can’t believe how angry I am over this. Just finished an article in the NY Times magazine about cuckolded men raising children who are not their own. The article, Who Knew I Was Not the Father?, written by an adjunct professor at Columbia, is almost completely unsympathetic to the plight of men who have raised children to whom that have no genetic tie.

I am incensed. Livid. Apoplectic. The article cites several men who have sought to stop child support upon finding out only to be shot down by the courts in the interest of the child.

In the main case, the biological father is married (years later) to the mother and has no legal support obligations for his child. The cuckolded man does. It’s a bloody outrage.

Not once, in the entire article, does this hack take issue with the duplicity of the mother, the person solely responsible for the fraud, and the person (w/ the biological father) who should be entirely responsible for the financial support of the child. Where is that article? What kind of person does this to a man and, more importantly, to a child? Does this reflect upon her qualifications to be a parent? Shouldn’t these women be stripped of their children?

The answer, it seems, is no. Because it will upset the child. The author cites a lobbyist (now fighting against these women), who abandoned his child and won the right to have no financial obligations. She makes him sound like a monster. She quotes his young adult “daughter” as confused and damaged and mentions the suffering she endured because her “father” abandoned her.


She’s not even mentioned. And, one presumes, the daughter doesn’t blame her.

Some advocates now suggest that there be mandatory paternity tests for all fathers at birth to avoid this problem. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. The entire tone of the article suggests a kind of mystification as to why these men would be so upset about this.


I mean, really?

P.S. On a related note, as I have written before, men should have the right to opt out of financial support for a child during the same time period that a woman can choose to abort the fetus. Figure out for yourself why this is fair and just.


Link Rodeo

Friday, April 17, 2009

I apologize for posting so sporadically. Here’s some of what I’ve been reading lately:

Record unemployment in NC and California. Rising everywhere else. [Calculated Risk]

Bond market warning of worse to come. [WSJ via The Pragmatic Capitalist]

One month T-Bill at .01%. Hmmm? [Zero Hedge]

Gripping account of an effective U.S Army ambush of the Taliban in Afghanistan. [New York Times]

The anti-Goldman Sachs. This guys is being sued by GS and is counter suing. Juicy reading. []

What do women want? (This is a few weeks old now) [New York Times]

Pastor Rick Hearts Homosexuals

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Of course this is an unfortunate choice. The man in question, Rick Warren, is a charlatan and liar who trades in snake oil. Why gays would be upset that he has anti-homosexual views is beyond me. What would you expect?

His business is based on a mythology that is thousands of years old and reflects the primitive culture and beliefs of that time. Instead of worrying about changing an archaic system of lies, a better bet would be to ignore the system altogether. Jesus doesn’t love you because Jesus doesn’t exist.

Neither does the Hebrew God. Or the Virgin birth. Or literally anything of putative divinity found in the Bible. These are primitive beliefs and rituals for primitive people.

The bigger question for me is when will we have an inauguration that doesn’t require an invocation of sacred lies. On that day, it’s likely that homosexuals – along with everyone else – will have advanced beyond a level of atavism that will be worthy of admiration.

That is the day all of us should fight for.

Sarah Palin National Enquirer Scandal Update

Saturday, September 6, 2008

Update (9/24/08): As the McCain campaign spins insanely out-of-control, more news breaks from the Enquirer. Here’s the latest on Palin’s ten year-old affair with a guy named Mark Hanson. I’m already over it.

Update (9/13/08): Yes, I actually went out and bought the National Enquirer. Inside they detail the extensive hardcore drug use of Palin’s son Track, Levi Johnston’s resistance to actually marrying Palin’s daughter, and report on an alleged affair between Palin and a former partner of her husband. The affair, if it took place at all, happened 10 years ago. For me, this puts this story to bed. Night, night, everyone.

As a commenter points out, the Smoking Gun has reviewed Scott Richter’s (Todd Palin’s former business partner) motion to seal his divorce papers. The reason he gave for the motion was that he is being hounded by reporters and sought privacy. A very legit concern, I would say, and the Palins are not mentioned in the divorce papers. If this puts the affair rumor to rest, all the better. The salacious rumors are get in the way of the real story. She is incredibly unqualified to be a heart beat away from the presidency. Wouldn’t you love to hear her response to the Fannie/Freddie nationalization and Asif Ali Zardari being elected president of Pakistan? You won’t. Because she’s not talking to anyone. Just reading off of cue cards.

This is the guy (his name is Mark Hanson) rumored to be talking to the National Enquirer (a different former partner).

Joe Conason on Bristol and Levi

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Conason makes a good point about the two teenage expectant parents. It’s one thing to be supportive and loving, it’s quite another to bring them up on stage together in celebration of their impending shotgun nuptials.

What is the message conveyed to teenagers here? From the piece:

With all due respect to this young woman, her future husband and the rest of the family — and best wishes to all of them for a successful birth — let us first stop pretending that this is good news. There are excellent reasons why we discourage teenage pregnancy and motherhood, and none of them have disappeared simply because the Republicans are about to put Sarah Palin on their ticket.

Adolescents are rarely prepared to take on the challenges of raising a child. Often they drop out of school as a result, and usually become dependent on their own parents for support (which may be complicated for a family whose mom is running for vice president). Pregnancies in adolescence are high-risk, and the babies born to teenage mothers tend to have more illnesses during their first year of life. Teenage marriages — whether or not they occur because of an unplanned pregnancy — have a tendency to work out poorly, too. (“I don’t want to have kids,” noted Bristol Palin’s prospective husband Levi Johnston, 18, on his MySpace page, according to the New York Post, and at his age, why would he?)

Is this the party of family values?

It isn’t hard to imagine a teenage girl fantasizing a scenario just like Bristol Palin’s: the loving boyfriend who will marry them and hold their hand in front of everyone. The problem is that only one girl’s mom is running for Vice President. The rest of them are living just like us. In the real world.

If You Can’t Stand the Heat, Get Into the Kitchen?

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Mark Halperin reports:

Carly Fiorina offers a harsh statement Tuesday afternoon in response to Democrats’ criticism of the Alaska Governor’s experience.

“Because of Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the Presidency and the treatment she received, American women are more highly tuned than ever to recognize and decry sexism in all its forms. They will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin.”

Which is more sexist: to ask questions about someone’s experience or to hide behind your gender to avoid them?

P.S. When is Palin going to come out of study hall to face the press? How about just one journalist (not from Fox News)?

Save the Males

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Here is an excerpt from Kathleen Parker’s new book, Save the Males, from the Times Online (UK). The book is a plea to recognize that feminism has, in a sense, neutered men in an effort to redress past grievances. Part of this excerpt deals with the availability of pornography and how that has changed the sexual culture, particularly among the young.

From the book:

The casual sex culture prevalent on university campuses – and even in schools – has produced fresh vocabulary to accommodate new ways of relating: “friends with benefits” and “booty call”.

FWB I get, but “booty call”? I had to ask a young friend, who explained: “Oh, that’s when a guy calls you up and just needs you to come over and have sex with him and then go home.”

Why, I asked, would a girl do such a thing? Why would she service a man for nothing – no relationship, no affection, no emotional intimacy?

She pointed out that, well, they are friends. With benefits! But no obligations! Cool. When I persisted in demanding an answer to “why”, she finally shrugged and said: “I have no idea. It’s dumb.”

Guys also have no idea why a girl would do that, but they’re not complaining…

I am an almost free speech absolutist, but one area that I do think Congress should restrict is the online availability of pornography. As a teenager (my teenage years were in the 80s), I got my hands, by luck, and sometimes guile, on a few dirty magazines and porn videotapes. These were treasured possessions that, however misleading, provided a reference point for human sexuality. They did no harm, mainly, I think, because coming into possession of such artifacts was rare. With Internet pornography, the hardest of the hardcore is available at the click of a mouse, at length, and in abundance. If you understand male sexuality – and any average man does – then you know that this is not a good thing. Boys internalize what they see, become obsessed with sex, and seek fantastic and ever more unrealistic modes of sexual expression with girls, who, though they may be exposed, are not prepared.

My point? This stuff is for grown-ups (who have their own problems with it). It is not for the warping of 14 year-old minds. We used to have some standards of decency in this country. If Americans will not voluntarily embrace them, then Congress must act. Doing so will benefit boys and girls, men and women.