Some are more equal than others

[Angel Heart]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58038

Some are more equal than others

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 9, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Stephen Baskerville


The substitution of the re-titled "Women's Equality Amendment" (WEA) for the same old text of what was known in the 1970s as the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a real-life validation of George Orwell's fictional portrayal of the opportunism of extremist political movements and their tendency to turn high-minded ideals into the opposite of what they promise. In "Animal Farm," Orwell's allegory of the Soviet revolution, the pigs proclaim that "All animals are equal." Once they seize power, the pigs revise the principle: "But some animals are more equal than others."

Promoters of the WEA claim that it will prohibit discrimination against both men and women. But if so, why the name change? The entire U.S. Constitution has always been gender neutral, and without the help of feminists. The aim of the new sexual militants is not to ensure the "equal protection of the laws," but – precisely the opposite – to signal that only one sex is equal.

Whatever the situation 35 years ago, today's name change is a declaration not of weakness but of strength. Virtually all forms of "discrimination" against women have been proven to be false or eliminated. Warren Farrell has shown the fallacy of the "wage gap." Christina Hoff Sommers demonstrated that, far from being privileged, it is boys who are now struggling under feminist changes in public education.

In fact, if any group faces systematic discrimination today, it is males. And it is not trivial. Men routinely lose their children, along with everything else they possess (including their freedom), in divorce courts, because child custody is virtually automatic to mothers, even when the mother is the one breaking up the family. Feminists not only defend but celebrate this "divorce revolution" and resist shared parenting provisions that would allow children to have their fathers as well as mothers after divorce.

Much more is at work here than just than the principle that, all else being equal, young children need their mothers. Men lose their children even when they have given neither consent nor grounds to divorce and are legally faultless. Further, the legal innovation that opened the door to mass fatherlessness was itself the creation of organized feminism. As author Judy Parejko has shown, the National Association of Women Lawyers designed the "no-fault" divorce system as long ago as the 1940s.

So perhaps we need a resurrected ERA to protect men. I would be very skeptical. It is precisely to head off that possibility that feminists have changed the name to permit only feminist-approved definitions of equality.

Feminists and their judicial allies are very adept at redefining words to suit their interests. For example, laws already provide for gender equality in child custody. Feminists circumvent them by invoking different male and female roles ("primary caretaker") when it works to their advantage. These ensure that "the hand that rocks the cradle" is a feminist one.

Thus do feminists either ignore or invoke biological reality to suit their immediate interests and make up new rules as they go along. According to their most tortured definition of inequality, feminists argue that because only women have babies denying taxpayer funding for abortion is discrimination against women.

The opportunism is visible in existing feminist legislation. Promoters of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) claim it protects both men and women. Yet laws against violent assault already do that. VAWA, on the contrary, eliminates the gender-neutrality of criminal law by skewing it toward one group; as such, it is essentially a "hate crimes" law. And this clearly is the purpose, since otherwise why do feminists vehemently oppose changing the name of VAWA to one that is gender neutral? VAWA-funded programs specifically exclude male victims of domestic violence, though a virtually unanimous body of scholarly research demonstrates that men are equally likely to be assaulted.

Here too the consequences are far more serious than "discrimination." Patently trumped-up domestic violence accusations are likewise used in custody cases to break up families by ensuring not only that divorcing mothers get monopoly custody of children, but that the children will be excluded from contact with the "patriarchy" represented by their fathers. Further, fathers are criminalized not for physical assault but for domestic "violence" that has no precise definition and may be no more than verbal insults. The Orwellian irony is when "human rights" groups like Amnesty International promote the violation of human rights by VAWA in the name of women's equality.

"Power is the alpha and the omega of contemporary Communism," wrote Yugoslav dissident Milovan Djilas during the repression of the 1950s. "Ideas, philosophical principles, and moral considerations … all can be changed and sacrificed. But not power." Something similar can be said about today's feminism, an ideology with no fixed principles. At times gender differences are "social constructions"; at other times women have special "needs." Women are oppressed by gender roles, but those same roles make women more "compassionate" and "caring." Women and men must compete on equal terms, except when men must be excluded from certain competitions in order that women can win. Fathers should share equally in rearing children, but sole custody must always go to mothers, regardless of fault.

Alison Jaggar, author of "Living With Contradictions," proclaims openly that feminists should insist on "having it both ways": "They should use the rhetoric of equality in situations where women's interests clearly are being damaged by being treated either differently from or identically with men." Her words are revealing. This "rhetoric of equality" is just that: rhetoric. As with Humpty Dumpty, words like "equality" change meanings as convenient; "interests" alone endure. But the bottom line is always power: to increase the power not so much of women, as of those women who claim to speak on behalf of the rest.

Those who want to know where the feminist revolution is now going may wish to read Orwell's account of how the pigs' revolution turned out.

 

[Larkinn]

Comparing it to Orwell's animal farm is naked opportunism which has no basis in reality. Women are discriminated against far more than men are. Look at this countries board rooms, executive directors, managers, politicians, none of them are anywhere near equal. Fascinating that they manage to bring in the other "boogeyman" of American politics, communism, into this argument as well.

As for this gem of a paragraph:

In fact, if any group faces systematic discrimination today, it is males. And it is not trivial. Men routinely lose their children, along with everything else they possess (including their freedom), in divorce courts, because child custody is virtually automatic to mothers, even when the mother is the one breaking up the family. Feminists not only defend but celebrate this "divorce revolution" and resist shared parenting provisions that would allow children to have their fathers as well as mothers after divorce.

Its telling that of all the "systematic discrimination" this is the best example they can come up with. There are a lot of reasons for this, none which have anything to do with discrimination. This differents from state to state and court to court, but generally courts try to act within the best interests of the child. Some reasons this causes the mom to have custody instead of dad:

1) Women tend to stay at home more then men...and hence have more of an attachment to the child. Courts take this into consideration.

2) Courts do not care which party is "breaking up the family". Not only is that an asinine thing to take into account, its quite offensive.

3) Usually courts, unless there is some reason not too, prefer to assign joint custody to both parents.

4) In abusive households it generally is the dad doing the abuse, not the mom.

In conclusion, what a stupid article.

 

[AllieBaba]

"The courts" as you refer to them, are made up of men and women with every prejudice and stupidity known to man. They are not exempt from error, from discriminatory behavior, or really bad rulings.

Joint custody is not the norm. Primary physical custody is almost always awarded to one parent, with in most cases a standard and generous visitation schedule allowed the other parent. Often it's absolutely the wrong parent, based upon nothing but the judge's prejudice against or for one or the other.

Courts, which are men and women who live in the communities where the families who come before them live as well, certainly DO care who is "breaking up the family" according to their own prejudices. Many states, however, have no-fault divorces, which means the courts do not officially recognize why the couple is divorcing, they simply try to make the best of the mess.

 

[jillian]

"The courts" as you refer to them, are made up of men and women with every prejudice and stupidity known to man. They are not exempt from error, from discriminatory behavior, or really bad rulings.

That would be the courts, not "the courts". But true that judges are imperfect creatures. Some are better than others. Most try to do the best they can to make the best decision possible. This, of course, does not always make them correct.

Joint custody is not the norm. Primary physical custody is almost always awarded to one parent, with in most cases a standard and generous visitation schedule allowed the other parent.

And?

Often it's absolutely the wrong parent, based upon nothing but the judge's prejudice against or for one or the other.

And you know this from all of your years of matrimonial practice?

Courts, which are men and women who live in the communities where the families who come before them live as well, certainly DO care who is "breaking up the family" according to their own prejudices. Many states, however, have no-fault divorces, which means the courts do not officially recognize why the couple is divorcing, they simply try to make the best of the mess.

Actually who "broke up the family" is relevant only as to which party is granted the divorce. It is irrelevant to distribution of property, child custody, visitation or support. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

No fault divorce is a different issue and exists by statute. It does not mean the courts don't "recognize" who caused the divorce. It means that there is no reason for the parties to plead fault and it is not considered. The plaintiff would automatically receive the divorce. Property, custody, etc., would all then be disposed of same as above.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, it would be "the courts".

Yes, I do know this from all my years in family practice.

This is funny:

"No fault divorce is a different issue and exists by statute. It does not mean the courts don't "recognize" who caused the divorce. It means that there is no reason for the parties to plead fault and it is not considered."

No kidding? Well, then, that would mean "the courts" don't recognize there's fault, wouldn't it? Why yes, it would.

Tell me you're not an attorney. I could tear you apart in court and I'm just an ex-legal secretary.

 

[Larkinn]

"The courts" as you refer to them, are made up of men and women with every prejudice and stupidity known to man. They are not exempt from error, from discriminatory behavior, or really bad rulings.

Which is relevant how exactly?

Joint custody is not the norm. Primary physical custody is almost always awarded to one parent, with in most cases a standard and generous visitation schedule allowed the other parent.

Depends on the state and the reason for the divorce. But generally, unless there is a reason not to do so, a court will give joint custody. There are LOTS of reasons not to...but that is the preferred outcome.

Often it's absolutely the wrong parent, based upon nothing but the judge's prejudice against or for one or the other.

And you base this on what exactly?

Courts, which are men and women who live in the communities where the families who come before them live as well, certainly DO care who is "breaking up the family" according to their own prejudices.

And you base this on what exactly? Generally courts are very good at making good law since when they don't they get overturned by individuals who aren't "in the communities".

Many states, however, have no-fault divorces, which means the courts do not officially recognize why the couple is divorcing, they simply try to make the best of the mess.

The reason of the divorce has nothing to do with who gets the kids.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, it would be "the courts".

Yes, I do know this from all my years in family practice.

This is funny:

"No fault divorce is a different issue and exists by statute. It does not mean the courts don't "recognize" who caused the divorce. It means that there is no reason for the parties to plead fault and it is not considered."

No kidding? Well, then, that would mean "the courts" don't recognize there's fault, wouldn't it? Why yes, it would.

Tell me you're not an attorney. I could tear you apart in court and I'm just an ex-legal secretary.

She is a Lawyer and sometimes I wonder where she got the degree from and how she passed the Bar. Just recently she asserted that Congress had no limits on laws except what the Constitution specifically forbade them to do. She has made other amazing comments about our legal system as well.

 

[jillian]

No, it would be "the courts".

Yes, I do know this from all my years in family practice.

This is funny:

"No fault divorce is a different issue and exists by statute. It does not mean the courts don't "recognize" who caused the divorce. It means that there is no reason for the parties to plead fault and it is not considered."

No kidding? Well, then, that would mean "the courts" don't recognize there's fault, wouldn't it? Why yes, it would.

Tell me you're not an attorney. I could tear you apart in court and I'm just an ex-legal secretary.

Uh...sweetie, no offense, but I knew you were a legal secretary when you talked about preparing judgments for court

And no, you couldn't. You can't even tear me apart on a messageboard. Your logic is flawed. You misrepresent sources. You don't understand how a decision is arrived at or the role of the courts.

I certainly know legal secretaries who are as smart as their bosses and who run the show for them. I am also hesitant to disparage staff because I know too many really top-notch legal secretaries and paralegals. But your clear lack of respect for the courts and your lack of understanding make it clear you were not one of those.

 

[AllieBaba]

Wow, you're such a brilliant star!

And I could tear you apart in court if you're as short on logic in there as you are here. I haven't seen many who can compare to you in saying one thing, then turning around in the same sentence and saying the exact opposite.

That doesn't convince a jury, it just annoys them. As does the condescending attitude. Though I suppose that's to be expected from a liberal elitist who thinks her values aren't relative, and who has never regretted anything she's done.

You aren't all that. Believe me. And once you get your chops you'll know it. If you are, in fact, an attorney.

 

[Larkinn]

Wow, you're such a brilliant star!

She was talking about you, not her.

And I could tear you apart in court if you're as short on logic in there as you are here. I haven't seen many who can compare to you in saying one thing, then turning around in the same sentence and saying the exact opposite.

You don't even know basic logic, I wouldn't be criticizing others logic.

That doesn't convince a jury, it just annoys them. As does the condescending attitude. Though I suppose that's to be expected from a liberal elitist who thinks her values aren't relative, and who has never regretted anything she's done.

Curious...have you ever been before a jury?
[/QUOTE]

 

[AllieBaba]

I've been before a grand jury myself, on my own.

I've been in the courtroom before juries, judges, you name it. On cases which run from criminal to competency hearings and everything in between.

 

[jillian]

Wow, you're such a brilliant star!

And I could tear you apart in court if you're as short on logic in there as you are here. I haven't seen many who can compare to you in saying one thing, then turning around in the same sentence and saying the exact opposite.

That doesn't convince a jury, it just annoys them. As does the condescending attitude. Though I suppose that's to be expected from a liberal elitist who thinks her values aren't relative, and who has never regretted anything she's done.

You aren't all that. Believe me. And once you get your chops you'll know it. If you are, in fact, an attorney.

A brilliant star? Well, I certainly don't need validation from you if that's what you mean.

But thanks for the advice. lol...

 

[AllieBaba]

And, let me add, my logic is good enough that I was responsible for preparing cases for court...including the pleadings and all witness interviews, and preparing cross examination (including evidence) during trial.

So you can poke fun at my logic and my "understanding" all you like. It doesn't make a difference. I know my strengths because I've actually had them tested...and they tested well.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And, let me add, my logic is good enough that I was responsible for preparing cases for court...including the pleadings and all witness interviews, and preparing cross examination (including evidence) during trial.

So you can poke fun at my logic and my "understanding" all you like. It doesn't make a difference. I know my strengths because I've actually had them tested...and they tested well.

Careful now or Mr. Mensa will be trying to bet you a thousand bucks he is smarter then you.

 

[Larkinn]

And, let me add, my logic is good enough that I was responsible for preparing cases for court...including the pleadings and all witness interviews, and preparing cross examination (including evidence) during trial.

Since we are boasting about personal achievements...I teach logic, as well as the LSAT. Perhaps your logic in other areas is great, but the logic you showed in the homosexuality thread is just awful. But I have the feeling you know that since you were dodging pretty constantly. So I guess its likely that either your logic is shitty, or you were trying really hard to justify something pretty unjustifiable in the other thread.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Since we are boasting about personal achievements...I teach logic, as well as the LSAT. Perhaps your logic in other areas is great, but the logic you showed in the homosexuality thread is just awful. But I have the feeling you know that since you were dodging pretty constantly. So I guess its likely that either your logic is shitty, or you were trying really hard to justify something pretty unjustifiable in the other thread.

You teach the LSAT and want to use it as a basis for claiming your smarter than others? What a dodge. You are a hypocrite.

 

[AllieBaba]

OMG, please. The fact that our teachers represent the dumbest, most bigoted and closed minded percentage of the population is a completely different topic.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

OMG, please. The fact that our teachers represent the dumbest, most bigoted and closed minded percentage of the population is a completely different topic.

You have missed the best part of this, in numerous threads he insists he is smarter than a lot of people here, when called on to take a proctored IQ test his response is " No take the LSAT and we will compare scores" What a surprise now that he admits he TEACHES the TEST.

 

[AllieBaba]

I generally get a good indication of how clueless people are by the number of times they refer to my ignorance, lack of logic, etc. and so forth, rather than actually addressing the issue.

 

[Larkinn]

You teach the LSAT and want to use it as a basis for claiming your smarter than others? What a dodge. You are a hypocrite.

You have missed the best part of this, in numerous threads he insists he is smarter than a lot of people here, when called on to take a proctored IQ test his response is " No take the LSAT and we will compare scores" What a surprise now that he admits he TEACHES the TEST.

I teach it because...wait for it now...wait for it...I did so well on it. My score is what I got before I started teaching it, obviously. This was 2 years ago...now I could probably get a 180 on it. But regardless, its not a test about knowledge its a test about intellect.