|
The ultimate goal of feminists
is to protect the "MAN
PAYS" racket Where to begin with the lies and distortions in the following two articles by Leslie Cannold. Here's just a few thoughts. Firstly, feminist and misandrist Leslie Cannold, who purports to be an "ethicist" (but is in fact just another taxpayer-funded man-hating 'academic' feminist), uses Turney's feminist advocacy 'research' to DIMINISH (minimise) and DISMISS the issues, concerns and rights of fathers (as men and because they are men ... and are expected by society, media, government, law, education/schooling, etc to "be a man and just wear it") in relation to paternity issues and being defrauded over years. I say "uses", and not "misuses" because Cannold has quickly - and correctly - cottoned on to Turney's motivation for her 'research' as a justification for women to cheat, lie, defraud and steal and get away with it. And Cannold is only too willing to take and use that 'research', as she knows the sisterhood would have her, to further the cause of the feminism: female advantage at the expense of men and boys. Secondly note the use of weasel words (euphemistic cover words) such as "misattributed paternity" and "paternal discrepancy" to try and hide the reality of women's fraud against men: paternity fraud. Then note minimising article title: "Paternity Fraud or Paternal Discrepancy?" The ultimate goal of feminists is to protect the "MAN PAYS" racket so that women can continue to trick men into having children then denying those men the rights of fatherhood while demanding they PAY for women's rights to choose to live how they want. Achievement of this is being sought by seeking to turn the focus of fatherhood and paternity away from NATURE (heredity/DNA) and toward NURTURE ('social' fatherhood) and seeking to have the 'social' 'father' (not the real father) pay the mother for her cheating and fraud: Quote #1: The solution seems clear: support laws need to be rewritten to allocate parental rights and responsibilities to men on the basis of their paternal commitment and behaviour, not pedigree. Sure, taxpayers may be up for slightly higher costs, because, while every child has a biological father, they don't all have social ones. But the protection of the father-child relationship that such a change could offer is clearly worth it. And note how this is justified MISUSING (again/still) the notion of the so-called "child's best interests": Quote #2: For children, it is a loving and consistent relationship with a male parent that is primarily of interest, and in their best interest. Thirdly, note that in Cannold's feminist world, where women are good and men are bad, it is of course men who are the mean, nasty villians who don't care about children... Quote #3: While Fathers’ Rights activists insist on assigning mendacious motives to single women who ‘out’ the child’s biological father to the Child Support Agency - leaving him with the obligation to either disprove biological paternity or pay up - such women have no choice. The federal government is determined to recoup as much of the money it invests in single-parent payments as possible, and if a mother fails to identify her inseminator, she'll lose her benefit. Quote #4: What men incensed about paternity fraud seem to focus on is the woman’s failure to have sex exclusively with their partner and thus ensure he is their child’s only possible genetic father. But this overlooks the significant fact that women do choose their partners to be their companions through life and to be the men who parent their children. My research suggests that, for women at least, this latter choice is by far the weightiest one, with numerous women I've interviewed over the years preferring to terminate a wanted pregnancy rather than continue one to a man who wants to parent, but with whom they cannot bear the thought of an ongoing relationship. Cannold seeks to move the focus away from a fraud committed on and against men to the views and feelings of women, and in the process she tries to make men appear like self-interested controlling monsters compared to the supposedly thinking/thoughful and caring women (who see and care about the bigger picture). It is nonsense and rubbish for Cannold to propose noble motives to these women: many women have a child and then dump the man AND aggressively use the child as a means to collect housing, income and other benefits for many subsequent years. It is absolutely criminal how many such women misuse children for personal reasons. NB. Cannold has also published a feminist self-justification book, "The Abortion Myth", which she claims "forges a new women-centred abortion ethic capable of preserving a woman's right to control her body and her freedom to choose or reject motherhood". -------------------------------------------- http://www.cannold.com/articles/2005-11-27-a/ Paternity Fraud or Paternal Discrepancy? 27 Nov 2005 [Originally published in The Age (Melbourne), 26 November 2005] "Paternity Fraud" implies deceptive women cuckholding men into believing children are biologically theirs. But the truth is more complex, and more human.
|
