DOUBLE STANDARDS – Dishonest Objections to Mandatory DNA Testing for Paternity

Here’s someone else who thinks it’s her place to lecture men on how to be fathers, and to lecture us on wanting mandatory DNA testing to establish paternity. Same old tired BS. She even uses the same tired old tropes to defend her misandry. And it is misandry, since this is an issue that discriminates solely based on sex.

Bari Zell Weinberger practices law and has written an article in the Huffington Post about a bill in New jersey that would mandate paternity testing at birth. Ms. Weinberg drags out all the same invalid objections, but first she starts out:

“First, let’s talk about women…..”

No, Ms. Weinberg, let’s NOT first talk about women. Let’s not center women in this issue because they are not at the center of it, men are. The issue is a human right of parenting. It is about the right to choose when and whom to parent, basically the same right women claim in abortion, only in this case no one dies.  It is about the right of man to recourse when he is defrauded by his wife, if only to be relieved of a baseless obligation to support someone else’s child. A woman’s interest in this matter is at best tertiary – after the father, then after the child, then finally she is in line for consideration.

She moves on to centering women’s feelings over men’s rights.

“Yes, we know that sometimes women have multiple partners, even when they are married. However, assuming that you can’t trust any New Jersey mom to be honest about (or worse, to know!) who fathered her child seems like a giant step backwards, not to mention insulting.”

Well they’ll just have to roll with the insults, because there is a rather larger issue of someone’s rights here, and the part those insulted people may have in denying them.

Also – so it will “set women back” to hold them accountable, Ms. Weinberg? Misogynist much?

She continues with some very selective accountability:

“Is it now the state’s responsibility to let men know their wives have been unfaithful?”

Well yes it is, since the state will see itself as responsible to twist child support out of them if these wives decide to leave. That seems pretty obvious, obvious to the point of doubting the good faith of the question really. That should after all be pretty obvious to someone who practices family law.

Then she’s onto telling men how to father, with a not-so-subtle attempt at shaming.

“As for fathers, it’s a psychological fact that men do bond with their children, sometimes even before they are born. And that bond doesn’t require shared DNA. Even when they have suspicions that Mom isn’t being absolutely honest, many men won’t insist on a paternity test for one simple reason: because they want to be Dads.”

She however is quite shameless herself, when she presumes to shame some fathers into allowing themselves to be duped the way some others do. According to her apparently a real man mans up and just sucks it up and parents someone else’s child – and his consent or lack of it is irrelevant – and rewards the woman who cheated and continues to lie to him.  And Ms. Weinberg does mean duped:

“Blissful ignorance guarantees the ability to raise a child they may have loved from the very first ultrasound picture. “

And then she veers off into illogic:

“And contrary to what the bill’s sponsor may believe, men raising children fathered by someone else often do not feel any differently about the child once they learn that child isn’t their genetic offspring.”

Well yes, Ms. Weinberg, some do. And some rape victims fall in love with their rapists. So what are you saying, Ms. Weinberg, that the state should mandate that rape victims marry their rapists, just as you seem to think the state should mandate victims of fraud reward those who defraud them?

She is not above proposing all sorts of completely absurd hypotheticals, not absurd as situations, but absurd as relevant to this issue, because as someone who practices family law she knows perfectly well that there is law to cover every one of these situations. Here goes:

“The ramifications of this bill don’t even stop there. If it’s encoded into law that fatherhood equals shared DNA, where does that leave non-biologically based fathers — and more importantly, where does it leave their children?”

It’s called adoption. The market in private adoptions can be very lucrative, so feigning ignorance is not going to work.

“What does this bill mean for adoptive fathers and gay fathers?”

Where is there anything in that law that overturns adoptions? And please, spare us your crocodile tears and appropriation when it to comes to gay fathers.

 “This legislation flies in the face of adoptive parents and same-sex couples when one of the “parents” is clearly not biological.”

How so? See above.

 “What about fathers (and mothers) who don’t want testing done for any number of reasons, including religion or inability to make payment for the mandatory lab test?”

Why should these lab tests not be covered by the government the same way contraception supplies for women are? The tests won’t covered in New Jersey? Is there some kind of a War on Men in New Jersey?

“It’s hard to see who wins with this bill, except for perhaps the lab testing companies. “

Only if you insist on looking the wrong direction. It’s plain who wins with this bill. And it’s plain who stands to lose… but nothing they ever had any right to in the first place.

“As for the non-biological father, he gets the dubious pleasure of knowing he’s been cheated twice over — cheated financially out of money he paid to raise a child for whom he’s not responsible, and cheated emotionally of his status as a loving father.”

False. He can adopt. or if he is married to the mother, he can simply not contest paternity. since the writer did not bother to link to the text of the bill, we cannot tell what is actually in it, but it seems a stretch to expect it to forbid husabnds to assume paternity of whatever children their wives bear.

“As for the child, I can’t imagine that it’s anything but painful to learn that “Dad” isn’t your father — especially once you’re old enough to realize that Mom may have been hiding his “real” identity. And Mom herself? “

Here the cynical lawyer part of the writer drops the mask – for her it’s preferable to lie to the child. Exactly how long does a child have to go before he learns his father should never have trusted her, that she’s a fraud and a liar? When’s the best time to spill those beans?

“She gets to have her character called into question because she either didn’t know or didn’t say who her baby-daddy was.”

Not a too high price to pay to protect a person’s rights, is it?

“Basically, this law would be a lose-lose-lose-lose proposition for everyone involved.”

No. See above. Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.

“This law brings into question several interesting problems to consider. Is fatherhood really established at the moment of conception? Or is it a bigger and more complex role than DNA can determine? And are decisions about who gets to be part of a family — and who doesn’t — really the province of our political and legal system to determine?”

So many deflections and strawmen….where to start. Working backwards – the law definitely does say who cannot and cannot be parts of a family. I suppose polygamy is illegal in New Jersey? And as someone who cannot get my partner on my medical insurance, I know this, and a family practice lawyer has no excuse for not knowing it. Then there is the false choice in her questions about when fatherhood begins and how it is defined.  That’s a pretty dishonest distortion of the question.

The article she links to does in fact deal with legislation concerning paternity testing, but it doesn’t cite any part of the legislation that would deny anyone the right to raise a child he chooses to raise and call his child. So that was false too. The issue not defining who is not a father, just ensuring that no one is forced to parent someone else’s child through fraud.

And by the way, the measure she links to has nothing whatever to do with paternity testing of any kind. The bill she links to deals with rates for medical charges, at least in its text. So we can’t really tell what she is talking about, and it’s not. Oopsee. Oh, well; the article she linked to made the same mistake.

So this whole article is a hot mess of red herrings, deflections, mischaracterizations and shaming. Whoever else gets hurt in this, what is paramount for the writer is to minimize as much as possible any inconvenience to the one person in the situation who is committing a wrong. And it seems her commenters saw all this too.

What it all comes down to is quite simple. Only the man himself should decide whether he is going to take on the joyful burden of raising someone else’s child. It is his choice. And choice requires informed consent, and this law ensures that. It’s hard to see how there is any real basis for controversy with that.

39 thoughts on “DOUBLE STANDARDS – Dishonest Objections to Mandatory DNA Testing for Paternity

  1. Notice in many of these arguments the role and obligations of the extended family are never brought up. It will be interesting to see if a child that is produced from this deception would have the same rights to inheritance from an aunt, uncle, grandparents..etc. for example. and intern do they have any obligations to the child. It would be also interesting to which side of the family, or both,( the deceived fathers family, or the unknown fathers family) do these rights and responsibilities fall.

  2. In this part of the country, it will all be presented as a money issue and state power thing. Weinberger kind of implies that, but doesn’t meet that criticism head-on. But I can easily see where this would be considered (by the born again right wing crowd) as a violation. How dare you suggest something about THEIR SAINTLY WIVES????

    They will say, ohh, OTHER PEOPLE should be tested, but not MY kids, my kids are mine without question. They will see it as an encroachment on their property (i.e. their wives). It will never go over without a fight. As I said, they will be okay with enforcing it on people for welfare and/or child support, but they will raise hell over it for themselves.

    No objection from me, exception they should not make poor people pay for it. In fact, I would suggest men’s rights fellas start a fund for the poor men’s DNA tests, rich guys can pay for their own of course.

  3. As I said commented on the article itself, this is nothing more than a pretty pathetic attempt at emotional sleight of hand.

    All of her arguments are completely irrelevant. Gay and adoptive fathers? So what? They already know they aren’t their kids biological fathers.

    And most of the rest of her arguments concerning fathers seem to rely on this absurd idea that the bill doesn’t just give fathers this information, but dictates what they do with it. I’m pretty sure the bill doesn’t mandate divorce in the case of the kid and “father” not having the same genes.

    Everything else centers on how women will feeeeel about this. And to be perfectly blunt, their feelings in this matter are exactly as relevent as a man’s feelings are about abortion. On a macro, societal, level they matter not a whit. On a personal level they matter only as much as their partner chooses to take them into account.

  4. If DNA is not so important then I guess she would not mind if the hospital switched her baby with another one.

  5. “I can easily see where this would be considered (by the born again right wing crowd) as a violation. How dare you suggest something about THEIR SAINTLY WIVES????”

    Bingo, Daisy – it’s all about chivalry.

    And this kind of retrograde, crypto-patriarchal mole is the kind of feminst that is trying to throw you out of the movement. I imagine she fancies herself a real advocate for women, but she’s just a patriarchal mole.

  6. @Paul
    “And most of the rest of her arguments concerning fathers seem to rely on this absurd idea that the bill doesn’t just give fathers this information, but dictates what they do with it. ”

    Yep. Just plain misrepresentation of the facts.

  7. @Daisy – missed this bit, which I concur with 100%
    “No objection from me, exception they should not make poor people pay for it. In fact, I would suggest men’s rights fellas start a fund for the poor men’s DNA tests, rich guys can pay for their own of course.”

    I tried to cover that with this snark:
    “Why should these lab tests not be covered by the government the same way contraception supplies for women are? The tests won’t covered in New Jersey? Is there some kind of a War on Men in New Jersey?”

  8. Lying to a child about his or her paternity is also lying about what kind of medical issues the child may have inherited. If the dad’s side of the kid’s family has a history of cancer or heart disease, that kind of information might be of interest.

    Such information might be of interest to someone who gives a damn about the so-called “best interests of the child”.

    But when it comes to, say, dad being late with the child support, everyone turns into Helen Lovejoy. “Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children?!”

  9. I’m confused. From the link to Bari’s article:
    The measure, New Jersey A2609, calls on obstetricians or midwives — or whoever delivers the baby — to be responsible for conducting cheek swab DNA tests at the expense of patients or their insurers.
    Here is a link to A2609 but I don’t see anything about paternity testing.

    In short (I may do my own post on it later) this is nothing but an attempt at painting women up as saints of parenthood that should never have their word questioned.

    No objection from me, exception they should not make poor people pay for it. In fact, I would suggest men’s rights fellas start a fund for the poor men’s DNA tests, rich guys can pay for their own of course.
    Sadly this might be a good idea. Its not like those poor men are women who apparently deserve to have everything ranging from abortions, to rape kits, to child support just handed to them because its their body their choice right?

    I really like this one comment though:
    Ok, then there’s no reason why mothers should get their biological babies either. Let’s shuffle babies like a deck of cards, and send them home with random mothers at the hospital.
    Because seriously for all this moaning I hear about how men shouldn’t get so wrapped up in DNA and that its about the parenting all I can do is smile a bit every time I hear about a couple that sues a hospital for millions when two babies are swapped for a few hours or days. Or is there something special about a uterus that warrants extra protections from deceptions should not be afforded to sperm generators (because that’s pretty much what men are being reduced to).

  10. Danny: all I can do is smile a bit every time I hear about a couple that sues a hospital for millions when two babies are swapped for a few hours or days. Or is there something special about a uterus that warrants extra protections from deceptions should not be afforded to sperm generators (because that’s pretty much what men are being reduced to).

    You’d think hypocrisy of this magnitude might raise a few eyebrows.

    But no. It’s beneath notice.

    Equality!

  11. Conspiracy hat mode on.

    I say no to mandatory giving my DNA sample to the state. A big fuck no.

  12. Normally I never debate in this particular manner, but this case is “special” in every sense of the word. When somebody comes out with so many obvious fallacies designed to protect cheating wives from the consequences of their actions, I cannot stop myself from suspecting that we’re dealing with someone who has made the personal political.

    I know that’s bad form but when somebody is so obviously not arguing in good faith, all bets are off. That’s why the rare occasions that I stop by manboobz, I just throw a whole load of insults at them and leave. You can’t fight irrationality.

    Another great smack down Ginkgo

  13. @Aych
    “Such information might be of interest to someone who gives a damn about the so-called “best interests of the child”.
    But when it comes to, say, dad being late with the child support, everyone turns into Helen Lovejoy. “Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children?!”

    It’s axiomatic for people who can’t tell the difference between axioms and dogma that anything to do with mothers is just definitionally in the best interests of the child. This mentality is especially rank in state-level departments of health and human services, and the landscape is littered with dead, wounded and damaged children because of it.

    @debaser
    “Conspiracy hat mode on.
    I say no to mandatory giving my DNA sample to the state. A big fuck no.”

    Loud and clear, with you on that, debaser. OTOH I can’t decide who is the worse threat, the government or our thug-ass fellow citizens, and here I am specifically thinking of the religious right. Frankly in my darker moments I feel a lot safer with the entire staff of the Family Research Council on record in some DOJ database, children and grandchildren, and maybe the Southern Baptist Convention and the LDS too.

  14. Debaser71: “Conspiracy hat mode on.

    I say no to mandatory giving my DNA sample to the state. A big fuck no.”

    There are ways around this of course. You could anonymise the DNA sample, give the parents a number that’s attached to the sample that isn’t recorded by the gov’ment. Then they can log in to a site, enter the number and get the results. There would be no way to link those samples to the people.

    You could also make it legally mandatory to destroy all samples and records once the results are given, but that would require you to trust that they would do that. Which would be silly.

  15. Is there any doubt as to the real, underlying reason for this strident opposition? It’s the fear that a woman who cheated on her S.O. and lied about it will be caught and held accountable… including the possibility of losing the male’s unquestioning servitude–err, “support.”

    And in radical-feminist terms, that is unthinkable. No woman is ever to be held accountable for her actions, and anything that puts a woman at a disadvantage–regardless of circumstances–is an evil that must be fought.

  16. But is this the best way to go about defining who is — or isn’t — a father?

    I love that part. The truth, according to her, is a terrible way of determining who the true father is. Allowing men to define fatherhood for themselves is likewise a terrible idea.

    Family law practitioner, huh? Perhaps they should all be disbarred and we could start over.

  17. @Daisy – obviously, the main opponents to this law are men. Divorced fathers who are paying a lot of child support, even. Not cheating women or anything like that…

    But out of curiosity – why do you believe that men should pay for a paternity test, but not women? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Feminist organizations who support the practice of chasing down alleged fathers until on is found who might be forced to pay child support? Isn’t it in their best interest to pay for the tests, then?

    Fatherhood, like any other crime in this country, should be innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around, as is the sad state of affairs today. I think that a man should be able to walk away from children that have not been proven to be his via DNA testing and he should be under no obligation to continue supporting the mother until she gets pays for the tests herself.

  18. “And in radical-feminist terms, that is unthinkable. No woman is ever to be held accountable for her actions, and anything that puts a woman at a disadvantage–regardless of circumstances–is an evil that must be fought.’

    Copyleft, can you see any daylight between this position and the chivalrous attitudes Daisy refers to? Patriarchy = Radfemdom

    “I love that part. The truth, according to her, is a terrible way of determining who the true father is. Allowing men to define fatherhood for themselves is likewise a terrible idea.”

    That is the crux of the opposition. The opposition position is that parenthood is solely under the authority of women, both motherhood and fatherghood. the mother is She Who Must be Obeyed when it comes to how much access he has, how he parents and all the rest.

    “Family law practitioner, huh? Perhaps they should all be disbarred and we could start over.”

    Lawyers are not the problem, they are a symptom. The key is to find out from the honest ones who the bigoted judges, professional guardian ad litems and commisioners in the system are, and then to get those thrown out.

    First scrutinized – any male judge or female GAL or commissioner over 40. And I am not above using stress positions during the questioning.

  19. So if babies are the property of the mom, there is no problem when mom gives birth to babies who show symptoms of opiate withdrawl. They’re her property and she can do to them as she is wont to do. If a baby is born damaged, mom can simply give birth to a new one so no big deal. It’s not quite like our attitude towards people who injure innocent bystanders while driving vehicles under the influence of drugs, is it?

    http://news.yahoo.com/more-babies-born-painkiller-addicted-moms-202630999.html;_ylt=A2KJjan7r6BP_3kA_g3QtDMD

    Anyway, the real problem here is not the painkiller-addicted babies. It’s that drug-addicted moms might get unfairly ‘shamed’ and get their feelings hurt. Apart from that, there is no other harm to be discussed. What’s a few breathing problems and seizures here and there among infants, right? No biggie.

  20. But out of curiosity – why do you believe that men should pay for a paternity test, but not women?

    Same reason women are forced to pay for their own rape kits in Texas. If you want it, the govt will make you pay for it.

    I agree with Gingko that if the govt wants it, they should pay to enforce it.

    I think that a man should be able to walk away from children that have not been proven to be his via DNA testing and he should be under no obligation to continue supporting the mother until she gets pays for the tests herself.

    I think most already do, don’t they? In private divorce/child support cases and such, it is an accepted part of the legal fees.

    It is the govt that demands DNA tests — IF you are on welfare or if there is an adoption/foster care case … govt cannot legally give food stamps and WIC to a child (speaking of USA here) unless the mother names the father. If she says “dunno”–govt will try to hunt him down themselves, even if she does not want to hold him financially accountable. This is where debaser has a point. They have been known to go after guys already in their database.

  21. Same reason women are forced to pay for their own rape kits in Texas. If you want it, the govt will make you pay for it.

    Right. As Texas goes, so must the nation… it’s funny because you’re being sarcastic, but then you’re not. You’re dead serious when it comes to men.

    I think most already do, don’t they? In private divorce/child support cases and such, it is an accepted part of the legal fees.

    What you really mean to say is that in the few instances where paternity hasn’t already been established.

  22. “I think most already do, don’t they? In private divorce/child support cases and such, it is an accepted part of the legal fees. ”

    Daisy, actually no. California is an egregious exampel of wehat cna happen. The state asks the mother for the father’s name. Then the state googles the name and sends out a notification and the addresses has 30 days to repsond, whether or not he – or she! – even gets the thing. After that they garnish wages and go after bank acocunts. They make no effort to determine paternity or even the rela identity of the person named, and I wasn’t joking – the name can easily come back to a woman, especially these days.

    The same can happnen to men in states with debtor’s prisons for CS. there are cases of non-fathers getting jailed, and as you would expect, these fathers skew a certain way on the economic scale.

  23. Dungone, please stop attacking me and telling me what I “really” mean. This is against the moderation policy. I am really tired of being singled out by you. Please stop. I have asked you several times to stop bullying me in every single thread.

    I guess the purpose of you and Clarence’s behavior is to just keep at it until I stop posting here? I can think of no other reason.

  24. debaser: If the government wants your DNA, they can get it obliquely any time you enter a cooperating doctor’s office (and basically anyime else as well).

    Hospitals will not keep DNA on file from a paternity test, unless they break the law. Nor does a paternity test itself reveal anything of significance about the father or child’s genes.

    Sure, you must trust them (and the government) to not break the law, but if you think they will, you should be more worried that the needles they stick in you are clean – it would be the simplest thing in the world for them to give you a nasty disease.

    Yes, limiting government power is important. But trying to do it at this end is hopelessly inefficient. If you have the kind of government that will break their own laws to do bad things to you, making more laws for them to ignore won’t help. In fact, they’ll probably gladly give you such laws to pacify you, knowing they don’t matter anyway. The Soviet union had, and China has, lots and lots of high-minded laws about citizen’s rights, on all levels.

  25. The links about this proposed law say nothing about what this thread and the OP discuss so I’m going in here blind.

    I’m hairy and I shed. I leave a trail of DNA wherever I go. What I don’t need is the fucking SWAT team busting down my door because they happen to find one of my hundred million chest hairs at the scene of a crime.

    Once I was reading an article about a man who was jailed because his wife accused him of molesting their daughter. The nail in the coffin as far as evidence goes was that they found a pubic hair in the girl’s bed. After all how else can a father’s pube get into his daughter’s bed if he’s not raping her? Duh!

    So let the government have to go through doctors to get my DNA but fuck the idea of them having my DNA on record already. I don’t want to be accused of some crime that took place at some hotel or in a bathroom of some place that I just happened to visit a few nights before. If the government has to go through a doctor then I would have to be a suspect in the first place. Instead of, “oh we found these hairs, let’s find out who they belong to.”

    For me, if a paternity test is government mandated then the government will also mandate (in law or just as a matter of procedure) unfettered access to this database of matching DNA to individual men.

  26. “I’m hairy and I shed. I leave a trail of DNA wherever I go. What I don’t need is the fucking SWAT team busting down my door because they happen to find one of my hundred million chest hairs at the scene of a crime. ”

    This is the real problem, and it is distinct from DNA in databases. When some local PD shot a 90 year-old woman in HER HOUSE a few years ago in Georgia, that raid was not predicated on DNA but on a faulty warrant – just administrative sloppiness. Adminstrative is bad but it takes SWAT tactics to make it deadly.The issue isn’t who has what information, it’s how the information is misused.

  27. Misuse and outright against the law use is rampant. But moving on…I am against any sort of mandatory medical procedures/treatments in the first place. My exceptions to this is in the case of contagious diseases. So, for example, to refuse vaccination for your kids puts other people in danger. If you have a contagious and dangerous disease then you must undergo treatment or be quarantines, etc, because it affects others.

    And what if it really was the law to have mandatory DNA tests and I refused, Would I get arrested? Would I not be allowed to be on the birth certificate? Would I be kicked out of the hospital during the birth? Or is being a father now a “privilege” like driving rather than a right I simply have? Sure I can refuse a breathalyzer but then my privilege of driving is revoked (among other tings iirc). Again, I did not see any link that actually talks about this proposed law. The linked article actually states that it has not been made public…huh?…and links to some insurance bill from 2008.

    What I would be in favor of is a state funded paternity test that is recommended but not mandatory. This would imo save the state money in terms of paying a few dollars now to prevent long court hearings and such later.

    Anyway, and stepping back a bit, for me it’s not WHAT one believes, it’s WHY one believes it. So, to me, the OP and linked article is a WHY thing, not a WHAT thing. I don’t think my WHY is dishonest like that Huffington Post write up is, even though my WHAT might be the same.

  28. “What I would be in favor of is a state funded paternity test that is recommended but not mandatory.”

    I favor this too. The only advantage of making the test mandatory is to forestall all the “what, you don’t trust me” crap that wives might launch. and I think there are beter rememedies than mandatory anything for that.

    “I don’t think my WHY is dishonest like that Huffington Post write up is, even though my WHAT might be the same.”

    Well, yes. Your objection was principled and beyond that, the principle was sound. Big difference. Moreover, your “what” is not identical to the HuffPo contributor’s. I have no doubt she would also find objections to voluntary but legally binding testing, judging from the objections she has already brought .

  29. When my wife was pregnant the doctor offered us “genetic counseling” which basically means checking to see if there might be any genetic defects or potential inherited diseases in the fetus. They get my DNA, my wifes DNA, and the fetus’s DNA and go through the gene map. (One of my daughters actually has a transposed gene, not a medical issue but just sort of neat to know). If the doctor or midwife phrased it in a medical fashion I think a wife/mother would be hard pressed not to simply allow it. And if they don’t then the onus is on them, “what did you cheat? is that why you don’t want the test? It’s for the benefit if the BABY! What are you afraid of?” Rather than have the husband sort of demand it.

  30. Now that is the elegant solution. And to be perfectly fank, I can see of course how it could be really insultuing to a woman depending completley on how it’s presented. Of course that sense of insult ranks below just about every other consideration, in this kind of situation, but that dosen’t mean it shouldn’t be considered too.

  31. MaMu1977, welcome to the blog! It’s great to see you over here. Let me go look at that link.

  32. This is how all this twisted mess got started. You really need to read it and check it all out for yourself. Facts are Facts !!

    Willi Münzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: – ‘We will make the West – so corrupt – that it stinks.’

    These twisted and demented ideas didn’t just die or vanish. Via their power, money and influence, they moved them into the schools, universities, collages, books, newspapers, music, radio, tv, internet, msm .. etc. All to create the stinking cesspool of filth and immorality we see all around us today.

  33. Heya i’m for the first time here. I found this board and I find It truly useful & it helped me out much.
    I hope to give something back and aid others like you aided me.

  34. Reading things like this makes me want to bang my head against the wall until it cracks. When did I fall down the rabbit hole?

  35. “Feminist groups state that if shared parenting were ordered, fathers would not provide their share of the daily care for the children.”

    Translation, their share of the daily care for the children while in the custody of the mother. It seems women don’t quite understand what “custody” means. It means you are the one responsible for putting food on the table. I know women that receive “child support” and proceed to abuse the child and spend the money on crap. The system is fucked up.

  36. Hi there, I do think your web site could possibly be having web browser
    compatibility issues. When I look at your site in Safari, it looks fine however when opening in IE,
    it has some overlapping issues. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up!
    Other than that, excellent blog!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>