February 12, 2005
Glenn Sacks had a good show this past weekend, probably one even better than when Hugo Schwyzer was on. Melanie Jacobs, a feminist shyster and pseudo-intellectual argued her case for Paternity Fraud, and the reason we have to let it slide.
I’d like people to listen, and I’d like those who call Glenn to remember to hammer home a couple of points:
First, Miz Jacobs is arguing that it is right, fair, and just to steal by deception.
Secondly, she will excuse it with the argument that the ends justify the means.
Now, sure as God made little green apples, Melanie Jacobs isn’t going to say this outright or in so many words. She will use doubletalk, deflection, weaselspeak, legalese, rationalizations, and excuses. But this is what she will be saying. You strip out the jargon and semantic masturbation, and this is what you will hear.
I may not be some silver-tongued devil, but I have a bullshit detector that is second to none. And I will be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that if she gets her ears pinned back, and her wiggle room removed, she will eventually admit this. But she will still insist she is right.
I say this because doubtless someone will want to call up, convinced of the rightness of their arguments (And yes your arguments are right – but irrelevant) and will want to convince and convert Miz Jacobs. My advice to you, if you are that person, is to spare yourself the migraine. Miz Jacobs is a lawyer. And while there are some decent lawyers running around, she will be arguing her case, and it is one where no compromise of her position is going to be allowed. Even if you get her to admit this, she will still insist that it is just, right, and fair, and fine and dandy with her. She will argue that she doesn’t have a dog, her dog doesn’t bite, and that it’s not her dog. Anything but give an inch.
The point, gentle readers, in calling and making such arguments to Miz Jacobs, is not to convert her, but to make her and her position look like an ass, and even better yet, not to do it with personal attacks, but to keep feeding her a rhetorical rope and letting her tie her own metaphorical noose and hang herself with it.
She’s going to be saying that if Henrietta Housewife decides to boink Eddie the Poolboy, (Adultery) and then pass that child off to her husband (Lie) as his, and pass of to the child that her husband is its father (Lie) and that if she divorces her husband(Abandonment), and denies him visitation (Child Abuse, Custodial Interference) and he finds out about it and resents being made a fool of, he’s a sonofabitch and she’s a victim. She’s going to be arguing that it is fine for her to lie to Eddie, too – or it’s fine for her, after a divorce, to tell the child that Eddie is the kid’s real father, but he’s a rat bastard if he does so, and deserves to lose custody and visitation because of it (but keep writing that check!).
This last is indeed a puzzle. There is a real life case where Morgan Wise, a father in Texas found out, told his sons, and lost visitation rights; where the real father is currently involved with the kids, but the selected Walking ATM is still making payments because he has… a… fatherly… relationship… - with kids he can’t see and be a father to. Including his real daughter. Yeah. A woman may argue since a man isn’t a blood relation to his putative child, he shouldn’t get custody or visitation, but needs to pay child support because of the important place he holds in that child’s life.
Well, it makes sense to misandric, feminazi lawyers, I suppose.
Yeppers. Somehow, even though a woman may be an adulterer, a liar several times over and living a lie, a woman who abandons her family, a child abuser, a kidnapper it is perfectly fine, and she is a fit parent. But if he objects to this, if he doesn’t put on the blinkers and ignore the evidence of him being victimized and taken advantage of, if he dares not join her in suppressing the truth he is a victimizer and an unfit parent.
Miz Jacobs, like most feminists, has a big problem with reality, and enjoys putting a spin on things so as to remove all responsibility from women to act like decent human beings, and to be honest, and to want to heap the blame on men who don’t want to be tricked into making women’s lives work for them through some piece of legalistic chicanery. I rather imagine some variation of the “Joseph raised a child who wasn’t his own. You may have heard of the kid – they called him Jesus.”
So true. And Joseph was a saint. And Joseph also knew beforehand too, Mary wasn’t laying a guilt trip on him or lying like a rug, assuring him that he was the father and nobody else.
There’s the thing; a woman does and will always know if there is a possibility that more than one man could be the father, and it should be up to her to disclose this. It’s one thing to disparage men who agree to be a father to a child that isn’t biologically theirs, and then back out of it. It’s another to hoodwink, cuckold, and swindle him into committing to it. In anything else this would be a crime. If I sold you a car and told a similar lie, I would be eligible for an all expense paid stay in the Crowbar Hotel. Of course, to feminists, holding women to any reasonable standard and expectation of behavior and honesty is patriarchal and sexist in the extreme.
Hey, what the hell, though. We’re only males. It’s not like we’re real people.
This doesn’t even figure in the damage done to the child. It’s long been an insult among many cultures to accuse someone of not knowing who their father is. I mean, seriously – what kind of person wants to put their child in the position where when they hear the schoolyard taunt of “Your mother is a slut!” they have no choice but to hang their head and say, “Yeah, you’re right.”
And let’s not forget the men who are the real fathers of these kids; the ones who have never had the chance to know their offspring, or have a legal right to be a part of their lives due to feminine duplicity. Or, if the feminazis prefer, what about the guys who “Play without paying?” Seriously, think about it. All the talk about “Keep it in your pants where it belongs” and you still get nailed at being a daddy not only against your will, but against fact.
Whom does it benefit? Well, gents, it sure as it rains in Indianapolis in the summertime, it isn’t us. It isn’t the kid, but like most things that come from the feminist cauldron, the good of the child is code for “what mommy wants.” It disenfranchises men to the right to be fathers of their own flesh and blood – if mommy wants to find her a richer sugar daddy to support her in the way she wants to become accustomed to. And if mommy can’t find that, well, as the biological father, she has a fallback position in case she can’t stick some rich sucker with the bill. It’s biology when it suits her – and “participation” when it suits her – or suits her pocketbook, if the truth be told. And either way, make so much as a peep, and watch your rights to be a father fly away out the window. Yeah, biological dad, check this out: If she never tells you she’s pregnant, and can’t get her sugar daddy, you get the bill, and since you’ve “Never been there for her or the baby” your rights to be in that baby’s life are zip and zilch.
Nice, huh? Boy, is that a hell of a racket or what?
A final thing that these kind of people always enjoy playing is the “But the Chiiiiiiiildren!” card. And they’re right. It’s a tragic disruption in a child’s life to have his or her world turned upside down, especially when it is because a scheming, conniving, lying slut of a mother couldn’t keep her legs together, and couldn’t speak the truth. But the hurt and pain isn’t caused by a man who is as much of a victim of such dishonesty as the child is – it’s caused by the dishonest woman who dares presume to title herself “Mother.”
Women who do this aren’t mothers. They’re walking incubators, using their reproductive system for profit, and I’d call them whores, but that would be an insult to whores everywhere.
You see, a whore is at least honest about it.
Short bits:
JEFF GANNON
Ever notice how the left is always preaching that “There is nothing wrong with being gay” but it’s always the first insult they throw at and the first thing they attempt to smear right wing people with?
This is the biggest non-issue I’ve ever seen.
V-DAY
Or “National Emotional Blackmail Day” as I like to call it, is fast approaching, guys.
I have no advice for you. I’m divorced twice. This is why I don’t run a relationship advice column. But you had better (And fess up – you ain’t got squat yet, do ya?) do something, or stash a blanket and pillow in the garage damn skippy.
Of course, the bitter and cynical Uncle Gonzman says that you should buy her a loose sweatsuit (Because you don’t want to objectify her) Sugar Free Candy (Because you are not trying to make her fat and unattractive because you fear the competition) a cactus (Flowers are dead), and tickets to the “Vagina Monologues.” Then tell her to thank the local Womyn’s Studies department for enlightening you.
But Bitter Gonzo is an evil SOB, and Good Gonzo asks “Pete, what did these guys ever do to you?”
So – if you want to be here next Tuesday, don’t listen to Bad Gonzo. Again, remember – I’ve been divorced twice. Jeez. Might as well take an ethics class from Bill Clinton.
HELP A BROTHER OUT, WILLYA?
Brad Camis needs a lawyer in the Chicago Area. See http://fathersdefensefund.com/ for more details.
