Dying Shrill of the Femigarchs – same old tired arguments against Shared Parenting
Editorial Comment Re: The below article from Alabama, USA: The same old tired arguments against a child’s rights to a meaningful relationship with two parents, from the same old self-centred feminist advocates from across the globe.
Just read between the lines of this article and you come to the same conclusion. This writer believes that children’s rights should not take priority over the rights of women.
These perceived rights go hand in hand with the historical and out-dated community standard that has given complete and uncontested ownership of children to the mother. This sense of ownership is firmly rooted in many mother’s expectations, even before birth, with women (and only women) given the unique right in our society to legally kill an unborn child, without considering either the natural rights of the child, nor that of the father.
However in an era when women are tearing down every pre-conceived notion of femininity, even against that last bastion of masculinity, the military, shouldn’t we finally reject this pretence of moral outrage against shared parenting, and call it for what it is?
Nothing more than the dying shrill of the femi-garchs, a small, out-dated, non-representative self-interest group who are fighting the masses in order to hold on to their ill-gotten power.
Advertiser editorial: Custody bill bad for kids
Establishing custody following a divorce is too often contentious and almost always heart-rending. And noncustodial parents sometimes can make a case that their rights are shunted aside by the courts in such situations.
But don’t worry, the Alabama Legislature — that fount of wisdom regarding the rearing of children — is riding to the rescue. And yes, we’re being sarcastic.
Separate bills in the Senate and House would change dramatically the rules regarding child custody, shifting the decisions by family courts away from judges who are supposed to put the child’s best interests foremost and requiring instead in many cases more equal sharing of parental rights.
Except in cases where one parent was declared unfit by the court, the proposed law would require divorcing parents to create a parenting plan. If they could not agree, judges would have to order shared parenting arrangements.
Here’s where the bills get weird. In cases of disagreements, parents would alternate years when they would control major decisions. Fathers would decide the big issues in even-numbered years and mothers in odd-numbered years.
Before any legislator votes for this legislation, we suggest they reread (or read) 1 Kings in the Old Testament, specifically the story of the Judgment of Solomon. It’s difficult to read these bills without the story of splitting the baby in half coming to mind.
Under this rule, it’s easy to see situations where a child will be jerked from one home to another, one school to another, and perhaps one city to another, every other year. Children need two parents; there’s no denying that. But they also need stability. They do not need the rules to be changed every other year.
There probably are reforms that need to be made to custody law in Alabama, but these bills go too far in trying to protect parental rights when the real emphasis should be on protecting the rights of children.
We suggest that these bills be killed, and instead a study commission made up of family court judges and child welfare experts look at possible changes to the law to minimize inequities in parental rights and to promote both divorcing parents remaining active in a child’s life.
But the emphasis of any changes should remain on what is best for the child, not the parents.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110411/OPINION01/104100312/Advertiser-editorial-Custody-bill-bad-kids?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7COpinion%7Cp
- Excited
- Fascinated
- Amused
- Bored
- Sad
- Angry
