Monterey mom charged with kidnapping

The Monterey Herald reports:

Ruiz-Gomez, a 38-year-old woman accused of kidnapping her child, whom she had sole custody of, and taking him to Mexico, has earned the sympathy of dozens of Peninsula residents who call themselves "Eva's Army." They lend their support by appearing with her at court hearings, writing letters on her behalf and helping her raise more than $5,000 to pay for her defense. ...

"How could this Kafkaesque nightmare happen to an innocent woman at this time, in 'progressive' California?" said Rose, a retired Pacific Grove teacher, in an email to The Herald. "I was formerly a completely naive believer in the criminal justice system, so this has been a brutal wake-up call for me."

So California is so "progressive" that it is acceptable for a mom to kidnap her boy to Mexico and block the boy from seeing his dad?

And this mom still wants to collect child support from the dad, of course.

Muñoz was recently ordered to pay more than $20,000 in past-due child support. He is fighting to have no penalties imposed. Ruiz-Gomez's supporters believe he has been pushing to get partial custody in order to avoid the payments.

These are some more "progressive" views I guess. The mom gets to collect child support from the dad, but prevent the dad from seeing the boy. When the dad tries to see the boy, he is accused of trying to avoid support payments.

Moms like Ruiz-Gomez are ruining America. She is teaching her son to hate his dad, and forcing the boy to grow up without a dad. She is a parasite and her boy will probably be a juvenile delinquent. It remains to be seen whether Monterey has the nerve to hold her accountable.

Sharing housework causes divorce

Here is a new study:

OSLO, Norway, Sept. 28 (UPI) -- A Norwegian study found that modern couples who share housework are more likely to divorce than couples where the woman does most of the chores.

The divorce rate among couples who shared housework equally was around 50 percent higher than among those where the woman did most of the work, The Daily Telegraph reported Thursday. ...

Norway has a long tradition of gender equality, however, when it comes to housework, women in Norway still do most of it in seven out of 10 couples.

It got reactions like this:

Whether those people are for or against its pronouncements, it seems to fly in the face of what we thought we knew about marriage, gender equality, and the way modern, successful relationships work.

No, this does not fly in the face of what we know. Gender equality may be a great liberal goal, but if a married couple applies it to housework, then it is a good bet that the wife has a bad attitude.

Women are hypergamous by nature. A wife will usually have no respect for a man who treats her as an equal. If a husband does half the housework and child-rearing, then the wife will probably be looking for another man.

After writing this, I see the Heartiste blog has similar comments:

File under: Don’t listen to what women say, watch what they do. ...

The sex’s division of labor evolved for a reason: it’s most compatible with the feminine and masculine sexual polarity. There are some pursuits and some kinds of work that are simply feminine in nature, and woe be the man who willingly takes up the woman’s work in an effort to appease her; he may as well grow a vagina, for that is how she will perceive his sexual attractiveness.

His blog is refreshing because he is not blinded by the silly things that feminists say.

Laura Wood adds:

This supports an observation I have made here many times, and that is, the feminist ideal of men and women doing equal amounts of housework makes neither men nor women happy, despite the stellar exceptions. Dividing the housework evenly involves a level of conscious management of daily life that is annoying and tedious. Things do not flow naturally. The idea that each person should do an equal amount of housework violates the spirit of interdependence that should exist in a home. Also, under the egalitarian model, men are more likely to end up being the inept servants of their wives, who almost always are more attuned to what needs to be done and much more finicky about how it is done. Women don’t like having husbands who are servile no matter how much feminists say they do.

Finally, one of the worst things about this approach is that it implies that housework is unpleasant. Compared to other forms of work, it is quite enjoyable.

Protecting child privacy

The NY Times reports:

Federal regulators are about to take the biggest steps in more than a decade to protect children online.

McDonald’s invites children who visit HappyMeal.com to upload their photos so they can make collages or videos.

The moves come at a time when major corporations, app developers and data miners appear to be collecting information about the online activities of millions of young Internet users without their parents’ awareness, children’s advocates say. Some sites and apps have also collected details like children’s photographs or locations of mobile devices; the concern is that the information could be used to identify or locate individual children. ....

The current federal rule, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, requires operators of children’s Web sites to obtain parental consent before they collect personal information like phone numbers or physical addresses from children under 13. But rapid advances in technology have overtaken the rules, privacy advocates say.

Advances in technology? Facebook just asks kids to check a box saying that they are over 13. Maybe all kids under 18 should be allowed to friend their parents.

This whole privacy thing is a joke. A lot of people are secretive about their phone numbers, Social Security numbers, home addresses, credit card numbers, birth date, credit score, etc. But all of this info is collected by data companies and sold to marketing companies every day. Most people have a whole lot less privacy than they think they have.

You might think that you can find the public info on yourself by googling your name. You cannot. The good databases are not free. Cheap enough to be bought and sold for marketing purposes, but not free.

In the name of privacy, all 13-year-old girls get the right to free birth control pills under Obamacare, with no notification to parents. We had a voter initiative in California several years ago to require parental notification of abortion, and it was rejected. The initiative was just for parental notification, not consent. Kids still require parental consent for body piercings and tatoos.

When the FTC announces that it is protecting child privacy, it is really greenlighting some approved spying practices. Do you ever get a mailing with pages of fine print about how some bank or other company was revising its privacy. You can try to read those things, but it is useless. There is always some escape clause saying that they can sell your account info to affiliates, with no explanation of who those affiliates are.

The FTC is not going to protect your kids. Neither is anyone else. Not like parents. If they really wanted to protect kids, they would give parents more authority over them.

Demand to cease and desist

I filed a complaint against psychologist Ken Perlmutter last year, and now I get this:

Dear [AngryDad]:

I demand that you cease and desist writing about me on the blog, The Angry Dad. Furthermore, I demand that you correct previous misleading statements about me. I have retained legal counsel in this matter.

The final straw was your Sept. 22 posting comparing me to a child molester. I have never been convicted of a felony, and I do not have any administrative citations or disciplinary actions on record with the California Board of Psychology. Any suggestion to the contrary is libelous.

Professional ethics require that neither you nor I are permitted to comment on your case. It is not in the best interest of your children for you to be using the internet to argue for your so-called parental rights. Your inability to see that is further proof that you lack the necessary empathy to be a father.

Your anger is misplaced. I did not take your kids away. Before taking your case, I called Commissioner Irwin Joseph to clarify what he wanted me to do in the case. He explained that he had already taken your kids away, and that it was not my responsibility to second-guess what he had done. I was merely being asked to make recommendations pursuant his instructions.

I did not even recommend specific actions against you. I merely recommended that the existing orders be continued temporarily for another six months. You were free to come back to me after that to ask for an updated evaluation.

It is not true that I charged you $28,000 for the evaluation. That was the amount for the evaluation, report, and testimony. You case was complicated by the thousands of pages of documents that your ex-wife asked me to review. You blame me for misunderstanding the outcome of your 2005 child custody trial, the CPS allegations against you in 2007, and the nature of the temporary court orders against you. But would you have really wanted to pay me more money to read those documents more thoroughly?

Again, you fail to take responsibility for your own behavior. Had you not contested the allegations against you, there would not have been thousands of pages of court documents.

I would have done that updated evaluation for you after six months, but the hostility of your questions to me in court indicated that you had lost confidence in my professional judgment. A psychologist depends on the trust of the patient. If you truly trusted me, then you would not have asked me for published evidence supporting my recommendations. I recommend based on my professional opinion of the best interest of the children.

I resent your insinuation that my ethics and opinions are shaped by my non-Christian beliefs. You apparently inferred this from my lack of any citation to legal or psychological knowledge in my report. But as I explained to you, avoiding such citations is an accepted practice. In seminars on child custody evaluations, the point is commonly made that any specificity in the premises or reasoning only invites opposing lawyers to ask questions that can ultimately undermine the effectiveness of the evaluation.

At any rate, you do not have the credentials to question the upbringing of your children. You are not a psychologist. And you should not be using the internet to try to disrupt a process that has already been decided by professionals.

This letter is confidential and copyrighted, and you are forbidden to post it. Please inform me in writing that you will immediately correct your web site. I am also informing Bret Johnson and Faren Akins of your libel, so that they may also take action.

Sincerely,
Kenneth Permutter, PhD, Calif Psy #7053

Is this a joke? Yes, he told me that stuff, but he is not foolish enough to put it in writing.

Selfish wife wants suggestions.

Here is yesterday's bad newspaper advice:

Dear Annie: My husband enjoyed sex when we had it, but I initiated every session. After five years, I started to feel as if I was begging for it and asked him to take the lead some of the time. He didn't.

For three more years, I told him it would thrill me to be approached by him, treated to dinner or have a little gift placed on my pillow — the kind of things I did for him. I finally convinced him to go for counseling, but my husband wouldn't do any of the things the counselor suggested. In desperation, I told him that if he wanted sex, he would have to initiate it.

That was seven years ago, and we haven't been intimate since. I can't divorce him because of my own physical problems. He says he loves me, but he's not willing to do anything for me. Any suggestions? — Another Sad Wife

This self-centered wife is only concerned with her needs, and how she wants her husband to change to suit her. I bet that her selfishness is the real problem.

No one gives her the obvious adive:

Ask your husband what you can do to please him. Then do it.

I hate to bash American women, but this wife probably has no idea what is necessary for a happy marriage. No one ever told her, and no counselor will.

It is human nature that men are much easier to please than women. Once a wife figures out how to please her husbands, she usually gets rewards far beyond her effort. But a wife with an attitude like the above letter will never be happy.

The other letter is another sad wife:

Dear Annie: My parents divorced years ago. Dad waited patiently while Mom chose between him and another man. In the end, Mom chose the other guy, but it didn't work out. Neither have any of her other relationships. Meanwhile, my dad married a lovely, classy and extremely wealthy woman. They have found true happiness, while my mom has become bitter and jealous.

I love both of my parents, but it's difficult to be around my mother when she constantly whines and complains about Dad, saying he has money and she doesn't. ...

Child support laws are designed so that an ex-wife like this one can have a standard of living comparable to the man she left.

France bans the word father

The UK Telegraph reports:

The move, which has outraged Catholics, means only the word "parents" would be used in identical marriage ceremonies for all heterosexual and same-sex couples.

The draft law states that "marriage is a union of two people, of different or the same gender".

It says all references to "mothers and fathers" in the civil code – which enshrines French law – will be swapped for simply "parents".

The law would also give equal adoption rights to homosexual and heterosexual couples.

Justice Minister Christiane Taubira told France's Catholic newspaper La Croix: "Who is to say that a heterosexual couple will bring a child up better than a homosexual couple, that they will guarantee the best conditions for the child's development?"

Who is to say?! Is no one in France willing to defend fatherhood and motherhood?

I hate to say it, but the handwriting is on the wall. Soon the words "father" and "mother" will become hate speech.

A month ago, someone accused me of being a racist because I referred to a man as being "Chinese". My accuser said that he could have been Korean, and I should just say that he was "Asian". But he was not Korean, Russian, or Indian. He was Chinese.

Soon I will call someone a father, and some Frenchman will tell me that I should use the word "parent" instead.

"What is certain is that the interest of the child is a major preoccupation for the government."

The head of the French Catholic Church Cardinal Philippe Barbarin warned followers last week that gay marriage could lead to legalised incest and polygamy in society.

He told the Christian's RFC radio station: "Gay marriage would herald a complete breakdown in society.

"This could have innumerable consequences. Afterward they will want to create couples with three or four members. And after that, perhaps one day the taboo of incest will fall."

Leading French Catholics have also published a 'Prayer for France', which says: "Children should not be subjected to adults' desires and conflicts, so they can fully benefit from the love of their mother and father."

California already passing a law for 3 or 4 parents. Not mothers. Not fathers. Just parents. Are Catholics the only ones to stick up for fathers to be fathers? Next, the French will ban the word "couple" because kids could have several parents.

And Pope Benedict XVI invited 30 French bishops to Italy to urge them to fight against the new law.

He told them: "We have there a true challenge to take on.

"The family that is the foundation of social life is threatened in many places, following a concept of human nature that has proven defective."

President Francois Hollande pledged in his manifesto to legalise gay marriage. The draft law will be presented to his cabinet for approval on October 31.

The Pope is right. We have there a true challenge to take on.

Delaware outlaws spanking

A homeschooling site reports:

When Governor Jack Markell signed into law Senate Bill 234 on September 12, 2012, Delaware became the first state in the in the nation to effectively outlaw corporal discipline of children by their parents.

Sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Patricia M. Blevins (District 7), the legislation creates a definition of the term “physical injury” in the child abuse and neglect laws to include “pain.” Currently the law permits a parent to use force to punish a child for misconduct, but it prohibits any act that is likely to cause or does cause physical injury. By defining “physical injury” to include the infliction of pain on a child, spanking has become a crime in Delaware punishable by imprisonment.

Under the new law, a parent causing “physical injury” (e.g., pain) to a child under age 18 would be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and subject to one year in prison. A parent causing pain to a child who was 3 years of age or younger would be guilty of a class G felony and subject to two years in prison.

Home School Legal Defense Association opposed this bill as a violation of the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, including the long-recognized right to administer reasonable corporal discipline. HSLDA worked with the Delaware Home Education Association and the Delaware Family Policy Council in an effort to bring about a defeat of this legislation.

The European nanny state is spreading to the USA. Part of Germany has banned male circumcision.

Spanking by public schools is legal in many states, and may be coming back to Florida:

OCALA, Fla. -

The idea of corporal punishment in schools may seem like something out of another era, but school officials in Marion County may bring the practice of paddling back. ...

"It was very effective the way we implemented it. We only did it on very small occasions, but it was for children who were chronic [misbehavers]," Ely said.

During her experience as principal, Ely said she saw firsthand that paddling was more effective than other forms of punishment, like suspension.

Despite many attempts, no study has shown that spanking is harmful or that any other form of discipline works any better.

This law is a direct attack on family autonomy. Without some clear-cut demonstrable harm, the state has no business telling parents how to rear kids.

Furthermore, this law opens up parents to false accusations. In the old law, physical injury could be documented by objective medical evidence of broken bones, burns, welts, or whatever. Under the new law, a parent can goto prison for "causing pain". Someday Delaware will expand that to "causing physical, psychological, or emotional pain". The vagueness of the law will be justified by saying that authorities need maximum discoretion for child protection. These laws are going to cause a lot more harm than good. There is no evidence that European spanking laws have done any good at all.

Virgin births not rare

National Geographic News reports:

"Virgin birth" among animals may not be a rare, last-resort, save-the-species stopgap after all.

For the first time, animal mothers, specifically pit vipers, have been discovered spawning fatherless offspring in the wild. More to the point, the snakes did so even when perfectly good males were around.

(Related: "'Virgin Birth' Record Broken by Hotel Shark.")

Among vertebrate animals that normally reproduce sexually, virlgin birth, or parthenogenesis, had been observed in only captive female snakes, Komodo dragons, birds, and sharks.

Get used to it, guys. Evolution is at work. Men are not needed anymore. At least not to sharks, giant lizards, pit vipers, and other snakes.

People who are ruining America

A faithful reader sent me this. Did you ever see a better list of people who ought to repent? I especially enjoy its use of the grocers apostrophe. It nicely distinguishes them from the high fullutent grammar freaks.

I might have to expand my prejudices. What is a P.K? An Emo?

I cannot cope with all the evils being caused by these groups. This blog just focuses on govt officials who abuse the law to bust up families.

The Jews are conspicuously absent from this list. I suspect that the reason is a combination of (1) the sign-maker was worried that he would be called a bigot if he included Jews; (2) the Jews serve as great examples of sinners and they make some great Hollywood movies; and (3) we need the Jews to occupy Israel in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy for the 2nd Coming, according to Christian Zionism. But I could be wrong.

Local shrink gets busted

The Santa Cruz Sentinel reports:

CAPITOLA -- A 65-year-old psychologist was arrested Wednesday at his La Selva Beach home on suspicion of child sex abuse and child porn possession.

Capitola police received a report in January that Dr. John Visher possibly had committed lewd acts with a minor who was his client at the time. According to the criminal complaint, the incidents are alleged to have taken place sometime between September 2009 and December 2009, prosecutor Michael Gilman said.

The girl was 8 years old at the time.

During the course of the police investigation, a search warrant was executed at Visher's home and his office on Bay Avenue in Capitola.

Due to potential patient-therapist privilege issues, the court appointed a special investigator to review all items seized during the investigation. Members of the Sheriff's Office and the District Attorney's Office assisted.

Visher was arrested by Capitola police detectives Wednesday. He's charged with committing lewd acts with a child younger than 14, displaying harmful matter to a child and four counts of possession of child pornography.

I called Visher when I was looking for a psychologist for the court. I guess I dodged a bullet. His web site says:

Dr. Visher is retiring at the end of August 2012 after 3O years as a Licensed Clinical Psychologist. He wishes to thank all his former patients and professional associates for the most rewarding and meaningful career imaginable.

Amusingly, his page has a bad link to the APA code of ethics.

This story seems fishy to me. I don't believe that he suddenly became a child molester at age 62, and then was suddenly discovered 3 years later. Either he is being falsely accused, or his corrupt colleagues have been protecting him for years.

I wonder how psychologists like Bret Johnson, Ken Perlmutter, and Faren Akins continue to keep their licenses and testify in court, in spite of shortcomings that are obvious to everyone who deals with them. It is because the whole profession is corrupt. I really doubt that these shrinks are any better than Visher.

In research news:

Psychopaths have a remarkably poor sense of smell, according to a new study.

Researchers in Australia tested a theory that psychopathy - a severe personality disorder characterised by lack of empathy, antisocial behaviour and callousness - may be linked to impaired smell ability.

Both phenomena have been independently traced to dysfunction in part of the brain called the orbito-frontal complex (OFC).

Maybe the state should give olfactory tests with Sniffin Sticks before licensing psychologists and lawyers.

Toddler plays with gorrillas

How can a dad rear his daughter as he sees best with busybodies turning him into CPS? One strategy is to keep the videos secret for 20 years. Here is the gorilla story:

"I hope people who see this will ... take an interest in the work that we're doing at the Aspinall Foundation, and help gorillas in the wild," British animal park owner and conservationist Damian Aspinall intones over sun-flooded footage of his daughter Tansy -- a toddler at the time the video was shot -- interacting with gorillas in a straw-filled enclosure.

But much of the attention surrounding the 20-year-old video of Aspinall's daughter that was posted on YouTube last week has dealt, not with the lives of gorillas in the wild, but with the question of whether or not letting a child play with gorillas is safe.

ABC News reported that Aspinall "was afraid to release the video before for fear of backlash," and 85 percent of voters in a Today Show poll said they considered Aspinall's actions to be "irresponsible parenting."

The video does not look very safe to me, but I am not a gorilla expert and I do not believe the state should be micromanaging the judgment of fathers. He was wise to conceal the video for 20 years.

Parents get arrested for a lot less:

A Texas woman is suing an officer, a police department, and a neighbor after she was arrested for child endangerment, according to a Wednesday report.
Yahoo.com said Tammy Cooper was arrested and spent the night behind bars after a neighbor contacted police claiming her children were unsupervised while playing outside the house.

Cooper said she was watching the 6 and 9-year-old children from a lawn chair, but police reportedly took the neighbor’s word and arrested Cooper.

Apparently the kids were playing on a scooter in a cul-de-sac.

No father daughter dances

The LA Times reports:

Father-daughter dances and mother-son ballgames -- those cherished hallmarks of Americana -- have been banned in a Rhode Island school district after they were targeted by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU, the self-proclaimed guardian of the nation's liberty, says such events violate the state's gender-discrimination law. The organization challenged their existence following a complaint from a single mom who said her daughter was prevented from attending a father-daughter dance in the Cranston Public Schools district. ...

For its part, the ACLU scoffed at the uproar, calling the change "old news" and defending its legal position in a statement laced with a touch of snark. Here it is, in part:

"... the school district recognized that in the 21st Century, public schools have no business fostering the notion that girls prefer to go to formal dances while boys prefer baseball games.

"This type of gender stereotyping only perpetuates outdated notions of 'girl' and 'boy' activities and is contrary to federal law.

"[Parent-teacher organizations] remain free to hold family dances and other events, but the time has long since passed for public school resources to encourage stereotyping from the days of Ozzie and Harriet.

There is a culture war against the Ozzie and Harriet family. The single moms, gays, atheist lawyers, etc. are winning.

Even the New Normal gay couple is too much like Ozzie and Harriet for some. That is the TV show about a gay couple where one man wears the pants and the other has uncontrollable urges to go shopping for baby clothes. The polyamorous bisexuals feel left out.

The San Fran. paper reports:

If one Pride celebration isn't enough for you, pack up your party hat and come to Berkeley.

Berkeley on Tuesday could become what appears to be the first city in the country to proclaim a Bisexual Pride Day, separate from the LGBT events that light up the calendar every June across the globe. ...

Bisexuals have complained for years that they're shunned by the LGBT mainstream, that they're considered fence-sitters or that they're not a legitimate part of the gay movement because they may occasionally be in relationships with the opposite sex.

"They think we have 'straight privilege,' and we hide in that," said Martin Rawlings-Fein, a director of the Bay Area Bisexual Network, a nonprofit educational and cultural group. "We get pushed to the side in the LGBT community and told we don't exist, that we're actually gay or lesbian and just not totally 'out.' "

In reality, more than 50 percent of the LGBT community considers itself bisexual to some degree, and sexuality for most people falls on a spectrum, Rawlings-Fein and others said.

Another myth is that bisexuals are polyamorous, he said. Just like people in any group, bisexuals can date many people or be in long-term monogamous relationships, he said.

The problem here is that the gay lobby has based their whole political strategy on convincing everyone that being gay is innate and not a choice. Their dirty little secret is that half of them are really bisexuals who insist that there preference is a choice.

Berkeley might seem very broadminded to have all these Pride celebrations, but they are not. They just canned their black school superintendent because they discovered that he once supported California Prop. 8, affirming marriage being between a man and a woman. Isn't he entitled to have his own personal views? He especially ought to be able to have a mainstream view that was in agreement with both the Republican and Democrat leaders at the time, including B. Obama and H. Clinton. I guess not. Everyone must be dedicated to destroying the Ozzie and Harriet family.

Reporting suspected abuse

Reuters reports:

United States speedskating coach Jae Su Chun has been placed on administrative leave after officials launched an investigation into his training methods following complaints from athletes.

Nineteen skaters, including five Olympic medalists, filed a grievance complaint about Chun, claiming verbal, physical and psychological abuse, U.S. media reported.

The complaints include accusations that he once slammed a skater against a wall and that he repeatedly insulted female skaters by telling them they were "fat" and that he also forced other skaters to train while they were recovering from injuries.

What did they expect when they hired a Korean skating coach? Was he supposed to immediately adopt American tolerance for fat girls?

Olympic athletes all train while recovering from injuries. Otherwise, injuries would set them back too much. You have to train continually to get to the Olympic level?

Maybe the coach has tyrannical methods that work better in Korea than here. But it is silly to complain about the verbal abuse of calling a female skater fat.

Reuters also reports:

The Boy Scouts of America could face a wave of bad publicity as decades of records of confirmed or alleged child molesters within the U.S. organization are expected to be released in coming weeks. ...

About 1,200 "ineligible volunteer" files dating from 1965 to 1985 are set to be publicly released under a June order by the Oregon Supreme Court, including some already reviewed by the newspaper. ...

The organization said it has maintained an internal "ineligible volunteer" file since at least 1919 to prevent suspected or confirmed child sex abusers from joining or re-entering its ranks. ...

The organization is facing more than 50 pending child sexual abuse cases in 18 states, according to Kelly Clark, another plaintiff attorney in the Oregon case.

The BSA is a private organization that has helped many millions of kids. It seems completely reasonable to me for them to keep their own secret scout blacklist, even if it meant discriminating against gays.

Greedy lawyers will try to squeeze millions of dollars out of the BSA by accusing it of a coverup, just as they have fleeced the Catholic Church and will fleece Penn State University. But the BSA has never stood in the way of anyone making a criminal complaint.

The upshot of these lawsuits is that no organization is going to be able to keep a private blacklist, and all suspicions will have to be reported to the govt. Govt agencies will keep their own blacklist of suspected abusers.

I think that the gay lobby ought to be in the forefront of complaining about these policies, because all gay men are (unfairly) suspected abusers.

I myself got put on one of these govt lists of suspected abusers. There is no due process. California does not even have any procedures for falsely accused men to be removed from the list. In the opinion of the bureaucrats who manage the list, it makes no sense to remove anyone from the list because it is just a list of suspected abusers. Thta is, if an innocent man is falsely accused of abuse, then he still belongs on the list of suspected abusers because the accusation made him a suspect.

State law requires teachers and medicos to report suspected abusers. In one case, a physician turned to an expert to evaluate whether a medical record was indicative of abuse, and the expert said no. The physician was criminally prosecuted for failing to report the suspected abuse. The DA said that he must have suspected abuse, or why else did he ask for expert opinion?

My opinions are in the minority here. This is another way in which the world has gone mad.

The new unfunny normal

I commented in July about a new TV sitcom called The New Normal. It is about a gay couple wanting a baby.

I was going to criticize it as anti-family, but the show is not worth it. It is stupid and not funny. It follows another equally stupid and unfunny sitcom called Go On.

The show does spend most of its time promoting gay male relationships, single motherhood, and interracial reproduction. The token conservative is repeatedly mocked. There is no real dad on the scene. But you cannot help feeling that they are embarking on a monstrous experiment that will turn out badly for everyone involved.

A famous gay actor says:

Gay actor Rupert Everett has caused an outcry with his comment that he "can't think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads". ...

Everett made the statement in an interview with Britain's Sunday Times Magazine, where he also pointed out the comment was "just my opinion", and suggested there were too many children on the planet anyway.

The gay couple wants a test-tube baby. Most people would probably be surprised that their foolish venture is even legal. Yes, it is legal. It is currently illegal in Costa Rica, but an international court is about to force them to legalize it.

The show is made by gays who say that they are educating the public about gays. The gay man who plays the role of the wife in the relationship is an actor who is gay in real life, and the role is that of a stereotypical effeminate gay man. I would expect the gays to complain about stereotyping. The actor's main claim to fame is that he starred in a role making fun of Mormons in a Broadway NY play.

One of the funnier jokes was that the bigoted grandma makes a wisecrack about what appears to be two gay men walking a baby. The enlightened single mom points out that it is a lesbian couple. The liberal lesson is that in the new normal families, you cannot tell who is a man or a woman anymore.

If you want to see it, watch it tonight. It may be canceled soon.

Another new TV sitcom, Guys with Kids, addresses fatherhood. One of the dads is sharing child custody with a crazy controlling ex-wife. The first episode did have some funny scenes.

End of Western Civilization

Reader Zorro writes:

1. The male of all higher species does not give birth.
2. The female of all higher species mates hypergamously.

These are the only two reasons patriarchies survive. Everything else is a variable.

This is not the end of men. This is the end of Western Civilization.

All matriarchies implode. Read a history book. Feminism is doing more to destroy Western Civilization than the Klan, skinheads, neo-Nazis, all the Mafias, street gangs, serial killers, COMBINED! The Klan does not sit on Senate subcommittees. Fembots do. The neo-Nazis are not invited to address Congress. Fembots are. The Sicilian Mafia does not have private meetings with the President. Feminists do.

People, we are going away. The future is not female. It's male, and his name is Abdullah.

I don't know about the Abdullah part, but he is onto something. Leftist-feminist-egalitarians are changing our society, but basic human nature is not changing. They are undermining Western Civilization as we know it. Most people will not see the damage until it is too late to do anything about it.

I am pessimistic about political change for the better. People will have to see by bitter experience that matriarchies do not work.

Essay on who needs men

A reader asks about this Greg Hampikian article in the NY Times a couple of weeks ago:

Women aren’t just becoming men’s equals. It’s increasingly clear that “mankind” itself is a gross misnomer: an uninterrupted, intimate and essential maternal connection defines our species. ...

With expanding reproductive choices, we can expect to see more women choose to reproduce without men entirely. Fortunately, the data for children raised by only females is encouraging. As the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan has shown, poverty is what hurts children, not the number or gender of parents.

That’s good, since women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither. ...

Greg Hampikian is a professor of biology and criminal justice at Boise State University and the director of the Idaho Innocence Project.

I did cite this article when I posted a letter by McLanahan denying that her work ever showed that fathers were unnecessary.

While these articles are annoying, I do think that there is something to what they say. Changes in laws, culture, and social policy are marginalizing boys and men.

I noticed this when my kids were in elementary school. Almost everything the school did was oriented for girls, not boys. I did not mind because I had girls. But our society needs men also.

Here is a current example of parents being punished for letting boys be boys:

A Virginia mother was recently interrogated four times by police, and visited twice by social services, after neighbors spotted the mother's children playing in their own yard unsupervised, and decided to report the non-incident to local authorities. ...

Just a few days ago, for instance, Tammy Cooper of La Porte, Texas, was actually handcuffed and arrested for allowing her children to play outside on their motorized scooters in the family's cul-de-sac. Cooper was forced to spend the night in jail for this non-crime, despite the fact that she had been outside with her two children watching them the entire time.

While most new technologies do favor women, not all do. DNA paternity testing means that moms can no longer lie about who the dad is. Drug testing can be used against women who damage their babies by taking drugs during pregnancy. Other technologies like birth control and abortion favor women, but they also favor men by allowing more sexual relations without consequences.

To show how far we've come, the Democrat Convention had a 30yo privileged single woman whining about she wanted someone else to pay for her birth control pills, and praising Pres. Obama for sticking up for her when people made fun of her. We have a whole political party oriented towards feminist goals.

The Atlantic magazine, publisher of that end-of-men article below, has this followup article:

There are lots of statistics you could break out to illustrate the growing power of women in the economy. But if numbers don't do it for you, then just look at what's going on at Hooters.

After five years of falling sales, the restaurant chain is trying to revamp its fortunes by easing up on its unreconstructed frat-boy image and appealing more to female customers, all without ditching the waitresses parading around in skimpy t-shirts and shorts. Sound like a tough sell? I think so.

But according to Bloomberg Businessweek, CEO Terry Marks believes that by tweaking the menu with more salads and fresher ingredients, lightening up the beach shack decor, and adding space for a bit of nightlife, the company can at least make its franchises an acceptable destination for more wives and girlfriends. As of now, about two-thirds of their patrons are guys.

Not sure whether to laugh or to cry.

The End of Men

NY Times columnist (and Obama supporter) David Brooks writes Why Men Fail

Over the years, many of us have embraced a certain theory to explain men’s economic decline. It is that the information-age economy rewards traits that, for neurological and cultural reasons, women are more likely to possess.

To succeed today, you have to be able to sit still and focus attention in school at an early age. You have to be emotionally sensitive and aware of context. You have to communicate smoothly. For genetic and cultural reasons, many men stink at these tasks. ...

There’s even evidence that women are better able to adjust to divorce. Today, more women than men see their incomes rise by 25 percent after a marital breakup.

He refers to a Hanna Rosin article:

What if that era has now come to an end? More to the point, what if the economics of the new era are better suited to women?

Once you open your eyes to this possibility, the evidence is all around you. It can be found, most immediately, in the wreckage of the Great Recession, in which three-quarters of the 8 million jobs lost were lost by men. ...

It may be happening slowly and unevenly, but it’s unmistakably happening: in the long view, the modern economy is becoming a place where women hold the cards.

I commented on the article back in 2010, and you can also watch her TED talk on the subject. Her article has now been expanded to a book, and reviewed:

But Rosin’s real focus is the United States, and here she delivers a blizzard of numbers, studies, statistics. Consider: By 2009 there were as many women as men in the work force, and today the average wife contributes some 42.2 percent of her family’s income — up sharply from the 2 percent to 6 percent that women contributed in 1970. The future, Rosin says, looks brighter for women still. For every two men who will get a bachelor’s degree this year, there will be three women graduates. And even if they remain underrepresented at the top of just about everything, they have “started to dominate” in lower-profile professions like accounting, financial management, optometry, dermatology, forensic pathology and veterinary practices, among “hundreds of others.” ...

And so, a new matriarchy is emerging, run by young, ambitious, capable women who — faced with men who can’t or won’t be full partners — are taking matters into their own hands. For the poor, things are especially tough. One single mother Rosin interviewed fell asleep standing in the elevator of the community college where she was studying to get her degree — between caring for three children and working a night job. No wonder these women don’t want to get or stay married: unless a man can pull his weight, he is just another mouth to feed. But as Rosin herself points out, the new matriarchy is no feminist paradise. To the contrary: we have been here before with African-American women, and it is not a happy story.

Someday girls will be asking why their feminist grandmothers destroyed marriage as it had been known for generations.

California law on multiple mommies

I posted below about a new California law with Heather will soon have 5 mommies and How lesbians cheat dads. Jennifer Roback Morse writes:

A California bill allowing children to have three legal parents will not help children, but instead will unnecessarily complicate their lives. The supposed need for California’s SB 1476 flowed directly from the drive to normalize same sex parenting and recognize same sex unions. ...

It all sounds very nice and agreeable to allow people to make any parenting agreements they want on the front end of their relationships. But when a relationship breaks down, the long arm of the law will end up involved in the life of the family, on the back end, to resolve disputes. We are replacing the natural pre-political concept of biological parenthood with an artificial, government-created concept of parenthood that is entirely socially constructed. Instead of the government simply recognizing and recording the pre-political reality of biological parenthood, we are giving agents of the state the authority to construct parenthood, all in the best interests of the child, of course. ...

Triple-parenting and genderless marriage are destructive policies. They must be stopped. SB 1476 has passed both houses of the California Assembly. Governor Brown has the power to veto or to sign this ill-conceived law. He must decide, one way or the other, by September 30.

She is right. Brown is likely to sign this disaster.

A lot of people are under the mistaken impression that the gay lobby is pushing for some sort of libertarian movement to keep govt busybodies out of the bedroom. If that were true, they would not get any opposition from me. It is not.

They gay lobby is bringing us one of the most anti-libertarian anti-family laws California has ever passed. This law gives judges the power to redefine families as they see fit. Not even the Commies attempted anything like this.

Judge takes joint custody seriously

A Hollywood TV actress got mad at her German husband, refused to put his name on their second kid's birth certificate, filed for divorce, and schemed to get him deported so that she would not have to share joint custody with him. So now the LA family court judge ruled for joint custody anyway. ABC News reports:

Enter Judge Theresa Beaudet of California Superior Court, Los Angeles County who, as it turns out, presided over a similar type of case before. Judge Beaudet was left to determine with which parent the children should reside. Custody would be “joint,” but that’s somewhat moot when one parent lives across the Atlantic.

In all custody cases, the court must look to what is in the “best interest” of the children, a squishy standard that dictates that the children’s welfare must come first. There was no suggestion that Giersch was a better parent, just an exiled one. The two choices before the court: New York, where the kids had lived for much of their lives, made friends and had doctors, or the small town of Mougins, France, where Giersch’s mother apparently has a home.

Put aside the fact that neither of the parents are French citizens, both of these children were born and raised in the United States. Amazingly, the legal question was whether the children of a loving American mother should be forced to live in a country where neither parent has citizenship because their father had done something that made him illegible to remain in the United States. Not surprisingly, an independent lawyer retained to represent the children’s interests sided with Rutherford, arguing that the best interest of the children would be served by remaining in New York.

However, Judge Beaudet disagreed and ordered the move: “The best interests of the children will be served because the relocation plan for France is the only plan that offers the possibility of nearly equal parenting time while Giersch can not return to the U.S.”

Lockyer in drug trouble again

The LA Times reports:

Nadia Lockyer, the former Bay Area supervisor and estranged wife of California's state treasurer, will be allowed to visit her 9-year-old following her drug arrest in Orange County last month.

An Orange County Superior Court judge granted Lockyer visitation rights following a brief court hearing Monday.

Lockyer, a former Alameda County supervisor, was arrested by Orange police on Aug. 28 after a tipster told authorities that the 41-year-old woman was in possession of drugs, prosecutors said.

At the time, Lockyer was living with her son at a relative’s home in Orange. When police arrived, they found drug paraphernalia and observed that Lockyer appeared to be under the influence of methamphetamine, prosecutors said.

On Monday, a judge granted a modified protective order allowing Lockyer to call her son and also to visit with him as long as the boy’s father is present, said deputy district attorney Andrew Katz.

Bill Lockyer is the Democrat California state Treasurer, and former state attorney general. I posted on them back in Feb. and March, when Mrs. Lockyer ran off with a meth addict, made sex tapes with him, and then accused him of beating her up.

Nadia Lockyer is also a Democrat, lawyer, and feminist. She accused her husband of setting her up on the drug charges, but withdrew the accusation.

The Santa Cruz Sentinel reports:

Bill Lockyer filed for divorce in July, citing "irreconcilable differences" and seeking joint physical and legal custody of their son. His spokesman, Tom Dresslar, last week said that "Bill hopes Nadia has a successful recovery, and he also wants to make clear that Diego is living with him in the Bay Area and he's safe and sound."

Dresslar said Monday that Bill Lockyer agrees with the court's decision allowing his estranged wife to talk to and see their son.

He seems quite tolerant of the woman who betrayed him over and over again.

I not posting this just because it is a scandal. These are politicians who helped bring us the screwed up anti-family policies California has. Here is a 2010 story:

Alameda County Board of Supervisors District 2 candidate Nadia Lockyer today announced she has the endorsement of Deborah Roderick Stark, whom she described as “a nationally recognized expert in child and family policy” and a First Five Alameda County Commission member.

“As a mother, former adult caregiver, and someone who deals with families everyday as the Executive Director of the Alameda County Family Justice Center, Nadia understands the needs of families and what it takes to keep communities healthy. Nadia Lockyer will be a voice for the children and families of Alameda County when she will serve on the Board of Supervisors, representing the people of District 2,” Stark said in the news release.

The news release delves deeper into both women’s professional bona fides, but doesn’t mention that Lockyer, 38, is the wife of state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, 68, or that Stark, 43, is the wife of Rep. Pete Stark, 78.

So Mrs. Lockyer was running a "Family Justice Center" where she helped women make phony domestic violence accusations in order to win child custody. These people are evil.