Miscreant Moms

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/04/04/miscreant-moms/

Miscreant Moms
April 04, 2006
by Marc Rudov
For the past two days, the San Jose Mercury News has been heralding the
efficacy and value of California's Safely Surrendered Baby Law (SSB). A
local mother, who decided not to be a mother, dropped off her unwanted
newborn baby at a San Jose fire station.

She is allowed to do this. The SSB law encourages her to do this. California
is one of at least 47 states to offer safe haven to "desperate mothers who
are unwilling or unable to keep their babies." California brags that, as of
January 1, 2006, 122 babies have been safely surrendered under this law.
Champagne, anyone?

For those of you unfamiliar with these "safe-haven" laws, depending on the
state, mothers have 72 hours after giving birth to return their unwanted
newborns to police stations, fire stations, or hospitals - no questions
asked. How nice. Oh, but wait, there's more. The hapless mommy can change
her mind (what's new?) within 14 days of discarding her little bundle to
reclaim it. Again, no questions asked.

Recently, the National Center for Men filed a landmark federal lawsuit on
behalf of Matt Dubay, called Roe v. Wade for Men, asking for dismissal of
his obligations to support a child he did not want. The mother of this child
told him, at the beginning of their relationship, that she is infertile and
also was taking birth-control pills. As expected, feminists, and many men,
impugned Matt Dubay as a deadbeat dad. If he wants out, he's a villain. If
she wants out, we say: "Poor baby, you have so much stress. We understand.
There, there."

Is it possible we have yet another double standard here? Let's see. Despite
a man's wishes, a woman can get an abortion. Or, she can deliver her child
and then collect child support from the father, who, according to Roe v.
Wade, was meaningless during the abortion decision. Or, she can deliver the
child, then decide she doesn't want it, then dump it off at the fire
station, thereby releasing herself and the father from parental obligations.
Or, she can go back to the fire station, 14 days after legally abandoning
her baby, to reclaim the abandoned child, thereby reobligating herself and
the father to support the child. Or, or, or, or, or, or. So many choices.
What's a woman to do? Alas, the man has to go along with whatever she
decides. Seems fair, right?

We, as a society, must start holding women to account. Such a move would be
a breakthrough, as women have far too many escape routes to avoid
responsibility. I suggest we use the term "miscreant mom" to describe a
woman who either: 1) shirks her responsibility for her child or 2) uses her
child to take financial advantage of a man.

Let's see if NOW (National Organization for Women) begins throwing around
the term "miscreant mom" as easily as it does deadbeat dad. Let's see.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/04/04/miscreant-moms/

Miscreant Moms
April 04, 2006
by Marc Rudov
For the past two days, the San Jose Mercury News has been heralding the
efficacy and value of California's Safely Surrendered Baby Law (SSB). A
local mother, who decided not to be a mother, dropped off her unwanted
newborn baby at a San Jose fire station.

She is allowed to do this. The SSB law encourages her to do this.
California
is one of at least 47 states to offer safe haven to "desperate mothers who
are unwilling or unable to keep their babies." California brags that, as
of
January 1, 2006, 122 babies have been safely surrendered under this law.
Champagne, anyone?

For those of you unfamiliar with these "safe-haven" laws, depending on the
state, mothers have 72 hours after giving birth to return their unwanted
newborns to police stations, fire stations, or hospitals - no questions
asked. How nice. Oh, but wait, there's more. The hapless mommy can change
her mind (what's new?) within 14 days of discarding her little bundle to
reclaim it. Again, no questions asked.

Recently, the National Center for Men filed a landmark federal lawsuit on
behalf of Matt Dubay, called Roe v. Wade for Men, asking for dismissal of
his obligations to support a child he did not want. The mother of this
child
told him, at the beginning of their relationship, that she is infertile
and
also was taking birth-control pills.

It escapes me why it's relevant that she told him that she could not get
pregnant. A man can tell a woman that he's as fertile as a rabbit and STILL
she can decide that she will not be a parent. But a man has to have
deception as a reason for HIM to not become a parent? What's up with THAT?

As expected, feminists, and many men,
impugned Matt Dubay as a deadbeat dad. If he wants out, he's a villain. If
she wants out, we say: "Poor baby, you have so much stress. We understand.
There, there."

Is it possible we have yet another double standard here? Let's see.
Despite
a man's wishes, a woman can get an abortion. Or, she can deliver her child
and then collect child support from the father, who, according to Roe v.
Wade, was meaningless during the abortion decision. Or, she can deliver
the
child, then decide she doesn't want it, then dump it off at the fire
station, thereby releasing herself and the father from parental
obligations.
Or, she can go back to the fire station, 14 days after legally abandoning
her baby, to reclaim the abandoned child, thereby reobligating herself and
the father to support the child. Or, or, or, or, or, or. So many choices.
What's a woman to do? Alas, the man has to go along with whatever she
decides. Seems fair, right?

We, as a society, must start holding women to account. Such a move would
be
a breakthrough, as women have far too many escape routes to avoid
responsibility. I suggest we use the term "miscreant mom" to describe a
woman who either: 1) shirks her responsibility for her child or 2) uses
her
child to take financial advantage of a man.

Let's see if NOW (National Organization for Women) begins throwing around
the term "miscreant mom" as easily as it does deadbeat dad. Let's see.

wrote in

My own thoughts on all of this go back to the line of Keanu Reeves in
Parenthood. You need a license to drive a car, one to own a dog, but
any asshole can be (a father) parent.

It should read, but any asshole can be a politician too!

It's really scary when you think who is making the laws we all have to live
with?

wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm sorry guys... but once again this shows which head some (not all)
men think with... the one without a brain, of course.

Men and women in society as it is today are to be expected to lie as
natural behavior. In the experiences I've had in my life, I believe
everyone I've come in contact with, myself included have in some
instance lied and lied well to get what they want. It's the ultimate
tool of manipulation and one we are taught by our parents early on.
Heaven forbid we are from a divorced family... manipluation then
becomes a Masters course.

My own thoughts on all of this go back to the line of Keanu Reeves in
Parenthood. You need a license to drive a car, one to own a dog, but
any asshole can be (a father) parent. This goes for mothers and
fathers. Were I to take a test for parenting qualification, I would
probably have failed at the time I had my first and second sons. But
still... It would be a much better option than ruining the lives and
the emotional states of future generations as a whole.

For years men have blamed women as equally though not as publicly as
women have blamed men. Hello... we are each responsible for our own
actions as well as our own gullible moments that allow others to
'manipulate' us into doing what we want even though it may end in a
result we do not want.

If you scratch your car, you didn't want to do it, but you make the
best of it and do what you can to fix it and make it 'good'... It's no
ones fault but your own even though you didn't intend on it. What? The
dealer said the paint won't scratch for X-number of years? Go ahead
pass the buck... but in the end... you still did it.

So what exactly are you saying here? That women have the right to deceive
men and reap the benefits because everyone has lied some time in their
lives?



--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

Here! Here!

Laurie

Nothing like warping the words to create an alternate meaning.

No, it's not right... but men and women decieve... Hello! We as a
people are decieved by choice. Do you just take someones word for it
or do you take the extra measure to protect yourself? We all know the
odds of birthcontrol pills failing in their duties, we all know that
people lie and cannot always be trusted even if they have not given a
reason to doubt. If a person, man or woman, truely does not want to
risk conception there are more ways to protect against such a risk than
'taking someones word for it'. Since when is being gullible a reason
blame someone else.

Oh, she said she couldn't!

Yeah, how many men and women were transmitted a disease because their
significant other swore they hadn't been with someone else? The proof
is in the positive. We all have the option to take the added
precaution or to wing it on faith. If you choose to not protect
yourself from a 'situation' (be it any situation) it is the same as
choosing to create or allow the 'situation' to occur.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Nothing like warping the words to create an alternate meaning.

No, it's not right... but men and women decieve... Hello! We as a
people are decieved by choice. Do you just take someones word for it
or do you take the extra measure to protect yourself? We all know the
odds of birthcontrol pills failing in their duties, we all know that
people lie and cannot always be trusted even if they have not given a
reason to doubt. If a person, man or woman, truely does not want to
risk conception there are more ways to protect against such a risk than
'taking someones word for it'. Since when is being gullible a reason
blame someone else.

Oh, she said she couldn't!

Yeah, how many men and women were transmitted a disease because their
significant other swore they hadn't been with someone else? The proof
is in the positive. We all have the option to take the added
precaution or to wing it on faith. If you choose to not protect
yourself from a 'situation' (be it any situation) it is the same as
choosing to create or allow the 'situation' to occur.

OK--so what are you trying to say? That the people involved with these
situations should just take their lumps and get on with life? That they
should fight against the lies? We all know that people lie. So what should
the people harmed by the lie do? Say "Oh, cr*p! She lied to me. Now I
gotta pay big bucks!"? Or stand up for oneself and challenge the liar, in
court or otherwise?



--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

Okay, first go take your bloodpressure medicine.

Now, I'm saying stop being the martyr. You obviously enjoy the martyr
role or you wouldn't be getting all wound up.

Face the fact that what you didn't want to happen did and then find out
what your rights really are and do what you can within the system...
working from the inside out to enforce your rights and not allow the
other person to take advantage further.

On the other hand, if you are one who likes to run off scott free, then
you can always do what my friends significant other did... sign off all
parental rights. Once that was done she got no where with the court
system and received no benefit other than through public aid. She too
tried to 'work the system', but because he pulled out completely her
hands were tied and she got stuck with what she tried to stick someone
else with. Unfortunately after some time he wonders about the child
whos quite a bit older now. He can wish all he wants, any relationship
that could have been has been erased.

There are rights, for men and women, no they aren't fair but if you get
into the system and learn it better than the one trying to use it
against you... you're not going to get as screwed as someone who sits
there and cries about it.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Okay, first go take your bloodpressure medicine.

Now, I'm saying stop being the martyr. You obviously enjoy the martyr
role or you wouldn't be getting all wound up.

Actually, I'm not at all wound up. I was just trying to figure out what
your message was. It was not really clear. And I'm not a martyr in any
sense of the word. I am, however, disgusted with a system that calls a
woman who has never worked a day in her life, who has a large number of
children by an equal nimber of men--who can't even tell you who the fathers
are for most of them--a "victim" who needs to be protected. Nonsense. When
will her children get the protection THEY need from a self-centered
alcoholic who lives on her children's child support?



Face the fact that what you didn't want to happen did and then find out
what your rights really are and do what you can within the system...
working from the inside out to enforce your rights and not allow the
other person to take advantage further.

What was it that you assume happened that I didn't want to happen? And,
just so you'll know, we have consistently kept on top of our rights in this
situation, even though our stae child support system tried to squeeze extra
$$$ out of my husband by not crediting monies paid to his account.


On the other hand, if you are one who likes to run off scott free, then
you can always do what my friends significant other did... sign off all
parental rights. Once that was done she got no where with the court
system and received no benefit other than through public aid. She too
tried to 'work the system', but because he pulled out completely her
hands were tied and she got stuck with what she tried to stick someone
else with. Unfortunately after some time he wonders about the child
whos quite a bit older now. He can wish all he wants, any relationship
that could have been has been erased.

I don't know where you live, but where we live, you can sign away your
rights, but you cannot sign away your responsibilities--especially child
support!


There are rights, for men and women, no they aren't fair but if you get
into the system and learn it better than the one trying to use it
against you... you're not going to get as screwed as someone who sits
there and cries about it.

And you are of the opinion that learning about the system will prevent the
courts from getting their entire pound of flesh?


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

I am, however, disgusted with a system that calls a
woman who has never worked a day in her life, who has a large number of
children by an equal nimber of men--who can't even tell you who the fathers
are for most of them--a "victim" who needs to be protected. Nonsense. When
will her children get the protection THEY need from a self-centered
alcoholic who lives on her children's child support?

Okay, we are on the same page here.

What was it that you assume happened that I didn't want to happen?

This goes back to the first posts in this string. The thing that
'happened' being a pregnancy in this instance.

Recently, the National Center for Men filed a landmark federal lawsuit on
behalf of Matt Dubay, called Roe v. Wade for Men, asking for dismissal of
his obligations to support a child he [did not want]. The mother of this child
told him, at the beginning of their relationship, that she is infertile and
also was taking birth-control pills. As expected, feminists, and many men,
impugned Matt Dubay as a deadbeat dad. If he wants out, he's a villain. If
she wants out, we say: "Poor baby, you have so much stress. We understand.
There, there."

Yes its completely unfair that our society bids sympathy and support to
a woman with an unwanted pregnancy and punishes the men for such a
incident as if they were the only guilty party. But in the statements
above it sounds as if the man is pleading 'poor me' just as the woman
is, though completely ignored. The woman can give up a pregnancy or
infant without just cause or question, but a man cannot. There
shouldn't be blame put either way in regard to 'she made me get her
pregnant' or 'he was the dastardly one who enticed me into it'. If
both sides do what is in their best interest in regard to protection,
then there is a reduced chance for one or the other to manipulate the
situation in order to trap the other into an 18 yr sentance.

And, just so you'll know, we have consistently kept on top of our rights in this
situation, even though our stae child support system tried to squeeze extra
$$$ out of my husband by not crediting monies paid to his account.

Good, very, very good. Right now, my husband is paying for things that
are no longer a real expense... but until we can get back into court
(which won't be for a while with how things are going) we're stuck
paying it. We are hoping to have this latest issue with the medical
premiums finished by the end of the year. Then we shouldn't be
supporting her new husband as well. As it stands my income is all that
is supporting us and our household. She (his ex) has successfully lied
and manipulated the courts and filed false reports, claimed we moved
when we didn't so orders to go to court went to a different address,
even though we are the ones who are supposed to be the only ones who
can change our address. It's been a mess but for each stunt pulled, we
learn something new and move on from there.

On the other hand, if you are one who likes to run off scott free, then
you can always do what my friends significant other did... sign off all
parental rights. Once that was done she got no where with the court
system and received no benefit other than through public aid. She too
tried to 'work the system', but because he pulled out completely her
hands were tied and she got stuck with what she tried to stick someone
else with. Unfortunately after some time he wonders about the child
whos quite a bit older now. He can wish all he wants, any relationship
that could have been has been erased.

We are in Illinois, and know a few people who have had rights signed
away to release them from all responsibility. However they can no
longer have any contact with the children and when they have attempted
it they were arrested. My brother on the other hand lives in another
state and is paying for a child who he's not sure is his and lives in a
completely different state. Not much he can do unless he pays for the
paternity test, and then she has to agree to it, which she doesn't.
That's a whole other mess.

And you are of the opinion that learning about the system will prevent the
courts from getting their entire pound of flesh?

No, I know they'll hack it off with a dirty knife if they have to...
but the more we know, the better chance we have at showing that we (the
ones being accused) are not the ones at fault. For example... yeah,
we've paid out a lot to this manipulative one... but we also have
enough proof to request that money to be repaid or deducted from the
total balance. We may not get it all... but something is better than
nothing and will stand to show the next unlucky one that there is a
case, there is something to fight for and one proven example can lead
to another one and another one until the example becomes the standard.

I hope we understand each other. From you're comments it sounds as
though we may be in similar situations with our husbands being the ones
who are getting screwed.