Kathleen Parker Lionizes Paternity Fraud

but I told you so. I suspect (eventually there should be a preponderance of evidence) that those such as Kathy P. write semi-pro-male articles not so much out of a concern for fairness, justice, or a sense of compassion, but more out of a sense of self-righteousness; a need to appear to be fair. Much like many of the males that have sold their brethren out over the last 40 years have done; going along with statements that weren't entirely true (or not true at all) in order to appear 'correct' in some sense.

Along those lines, why does Wendy Mac insist on being an 'x'feminist? If you really think that there are serious injustices against men, at this point in time, why does it make sense to be an 'oh-I'm-not-one-of-them'feminist. iFeminist? Maybe she's an iKKK too?

Does anybody else smell a rat?

You know the feminist cry that goes "If men gave birth instead of women, abortion would be immediately legal everywhere"?

Whenever I hear the "but what about the child?" get asked, when discussing paternity fraud, I like to respond with "if men gave birth instead of women, MAternity fraud would be immediately ILLEGAL everywhere."

It's always easy to pontificate when there's no chance it should happen to YOU.

Q: What did the blonde say when she found out she was pregnant?
A: Are you sure it's mine?!?

"The real loser, of course, is the child in whom no one is adequately invested."

Ms. Parker obviously hasn't read the U.S.Constitution lately, the part that says "equal justice for all." She obviously doesn't understand the constitutional concept of "equal protection under law," but then many gender feminist trained judges don't either.

In reality, the real loser in all the is poor Mr. White who isn't given the reproductive freedom to choose as women are. The poor victimized child is just and inevitable consequence of corrupt American law that unjustly allows women unequal rights, protections, and justice not afforded to males.

Rather than throwing the child out with justice for all men, Ms. Parker, why not fix the problem according to the U.S. Constitution and thrown out the criminal enterprise of gender feminism that has been institutionalized into american laws.

i didn't find her article that bad...one comment did stand out.."having a kid out of wedlock is the superwoman way in metropolis, as most places these days"..the writer could have meant that has a form of sarcasm, not supporting the idea, but rather exposing the destruction of the american family....

as for women not needing men, i disagree. many woman choose to have children out of wedlock simply because they can't find a man. they than decide to fufill their natural desire for child birth. and raise the child with out regard for that childs need for a father. many woman ask "there are no good men out there"....these same women never self examine what they might be doing to help destroy relationships. they also wont identify aspects of their personality that might have a large impact on their inability to find a man they desire. i guess its easier just to blame men.

If you reference Kathy's following article, I think you'll see the shell game that Kathy plays on a continuous basis. She starts off by snarking away at Katie Couric (and there's plenty to snark about, such as the time Katie stuffed us all up her *ss in one of the worst cases of valorization I've ever seen). Then, halfway through the article, she decides she really had better come clean about the fact that she wants Katie to win:

"To put an end to any speculation, I'm pulling for Katie. She's paid her dues and earned her place at the big table. The idea that a woman is somehow less acceptable in a "serious" role is silly on its face and otherwise is the stuff of Taliban fantasy."

Notice the thoroughly cheap non-sequitur about the Taliban. I personally don't think Katie has any credibility because she has, on a documented basis, been a biased, bigoted, vapid, empty-headed, leftist feminist. (e.g. see Bernard Goldberg's riff on Katie's 'wouldn't you just like to castrate him' schtick). That isn't a 'Taliban fantasy', it's documented fact.

Spas, Kathy is trying to have it both ways.

i read these articles too quickly....i usually pick out a few comments and offer an opinion......but your insight was outstanding....i enjoy this website, not only for posting info, but learning other people's perspectives....

thanks\

anthony

i'm being very silly with this post, but i cant resist..(i didn't see the movie)

richard white provides asthma medication to superman's kid??????

how could the offspring of superman have asthma...you would think his superior genetics would prevent such a disease, unless lois was smoking crack during the pregancy.....lol

Ms. Parker writes -- "Hence the insistence that commitment through marriage -- as preface, not postscript, to childbearing -- is the best insurance for all, but especially children."

Well, that may be so, but marriages fail 50% of the time, so if a coin flip is the "best insurance" a kid can expect, maybe they should call Geico?

As for Katie Couric,her latest perky pronouncement is that she believes the news is too "depressing," and she plans as the new anchorbabe to "find the positive side" of bad news.

Somehow I anticipate a special report about how the permanent war on terrorism has brought us all closer .... except when we're reporting on each other for suspicious activities.

Spas/Anthony,

Thanks very much for the compliment. My apologies if any of the above came across as unnecessarily harsh or argumentative. When I think about what's at stake in these issues, they keyboard may take a pounding.

BK

Before reading any of the article, all I had to do was look at her face to know that (a) she's not anywhere near "my side" about anything, and (b) I wouldn't want to be anywhere near her. It's the same smug, full-of-herself expression seen on all prominent American women these days: "Okay, you Y-chromosome oafs are so dumb you just can't Get It, so *sigh* I guess I'll just have to spell it out for you."

The truth is, none of us males are "much above pond scum in her eyes" -- or in the eyes of any prominent femagogue I've seen in the media or elsewhere. They not only want it all, they know it all, and we're lucky they're going to tell us all about it.

You know, I used to respect women. Honestly, I really did. Maybe it was because under the evil old "patriarchy" their true character was hidden from view -- except on extreme occasions, which were uncommon enough that those women who went hystero-ballistic could be seen as anomalies. But now that they have been "liberated", it seems the great majority of women really are smug, small-minded, mean-spirited, and -- frankly -- apparently not really bright enough to be aware of how they really look when they proudly parade their "superiority" before the world.

I'm beginning to feel that feminism is doing us all a great favor, by taking the mask off Woman, so her true character will show through, and burn away the "hormone-induced fog" (thanks, Warren Farrell, for this apt phrase) which has made men so naive about them, and so easily manipulated.

This woman is an idiot. Good-looking (at least by some standards -- though not mine, not any more), intelligent enough to string sentences together cleverly enough to be creatively sarcastic (it really does seem that sarcasm is the crowning glory of the female intellect -- note that all the uses of female power seem to be destructive: abortion, circumcision, etc.) -- but really, not very smart, and certainly not wise.

Wisdom would counsel that expressing continuous contempt for others will only render oneself contemptible -- but that is clearly something that none of these rapidly ageing harridans seem to "get".

Well, I'm only a man, what do I know?

Yeah, there's truly "no end of it" -- which is why, I'm coming to realize, wise men of the past just quit listening to the endless stream of caustic female babble.

You know, I used to respect women. Honestly, I really did. Maybe it was because under the evil old "patriarchy" their true character was hidden from view -- except on extreme occasions, which were uncommon enough that those women who went hystero-ballistic could be seen as anomalies. But now that they have been "liberated", it seems the great majority of women really are smug, small-minded, mean-spirited, and -- frankly -- apparently not really bright enough to be aware of how they really look when they proudly parade their "superiority" before the world.

I'm beginning to feel that feminism is doing us all a great favor, by taking the mask off Woman, so her true character will show through, and burn away the "hormone-induced fog" (thanks, Warren Farrell, for this apt phrase) which has made men so naive about them, and so easily manipulated.

I have believed all along that so-called "women's liberation" would end up liberating men far more than it would women. From classical mythology with stories of the Gorgons and Medusa, to Homer's Odyssey with the sirens whose goal in life was to lure sailors to their deaths, to comic strips such as the Katzenjammer Kids with obese overbearing "Mama" enforcing her will with the violence of a rolling pin, the darker side of women's personalities has always been common knowledge. Unfortunately, most men were trapped into the provider role by the time that "hormone-induced fog" cleared and they were able to see women for what they are, instead of through the rose colored glasses of "the fairer sex" and "women don't lie."

By "liberating" women from the need to pretend to be something a man might want to take care of, and by delaying marriage until women were beginning to lose their fertility-based attractiveness and men were beginning to grow out of their reproduction mania, many a man has been spared being trapped in the social institution of marriage to one of these harridans.

Thanks for the liberation girls! Feminism really screwed the pooch for you by duping you into throwing away the best deal any group of women has had in the history of the world.