Embarassing feminist faux pas
By John Sample
In 1995 thirty years of feminism had trained an entire generation of women to think of themselves as the center of the universe.
Bias in the Court
1995 Seattle, WA - Marcia Clark, the lead prosecutor in the O.J. Simpson case made additional news this past month. Not just for her outstanding performance in the Simpson case. But for two items of interest to male rights advocates. First, for her absurd attempt to extract more money out of her ex-husband under the disguise of child support. And second, because of her ex-husband's attempt to win primary custody of the children while she is busy with the trial.
Men's rights organizations have said for years, that the present family law system favors women at the expense of men. It does not even come close to providing equal justice when it comes to family separations. This particular case of Marcia and Gordon Clark sheds light on this biased system. It also shows us how women have been trained to believe that they are entitled to virtually everything.
Let's take a little look. As the story goes, Marcia and her ex-husband Gordon, separated this past year after 13+ years of marriage. As is typical, Marcia got custody of the two male children, and Gordon got to pay child support to Marcia.
This probably would have been the way things remained if it weren't for the O.J. Simpson case. But because of this case, both Marcia and Gordon made petitions to family court.
Marcia, in her petition, requested that her "child support" should be increased. Citing increased demands of the job, she felt entitled to a greater amount of child support.
Gordon, in his petition, asked for primary custody of the children. He told the court that Marcia was too busy with the trial to properly care for the children. Her 18 hour days, and 7 day weeks, left no time to be with the kids.
Now when we try to sort these differences of opinion out, we must keep a couple of things in mind. When it comes to child support; in theory, it is supposed to be used by the custodial parent (Marcia) to pay for the real needs of the common children. When it comes to the issue of custody; if a custodial parent has no time for the kids, it makes little sense to keep the children away from the other parent who has adequate time.
So keeping these support and custody issues in mind, let's talk about Marcia's and Gordon's petitions.
Men Must Pay
Marcia's petition for more "support" money doesn't seem to make any sense. It's not as if she needed the additional funds for the kids. What she really needed was some additional cash to pay for new clothes she needed for the trial. She wanted to look good for the media. Because, of all reasons, "I am under constant scrutiny and on public display." And of course in true feminine logic, that means that her ex-husband ought to pay some more "child support."
Now a few women might side with Marcia's other claim that she needed more support to pay for additional day care. But from the male point of view, that too is just another ruse for more money. Her needs for more day care are only due to her increased work load that she chose. She did not have to take this 18 hour a day job. She chose to take it. She chose to take it in order to advance her career. The additional costs of day care should be paid for out of the extra money she should be making. It certainly isn't Gordon's responsibility to pay for choices that Marcia freely made. For crying out loud, if she took a job that required a new car, would she expect Gordon have to pay additional "child support" for that also?
Gordon's petition for primary custody, on the other hand, makes sense. To begin with, Gordon Clark has as much right to be the custodial parent of the those two boys as does Marcia. In addition, with Marcia working literally full time, the children are essentially without either parent. Are we to believe that the children are better of with no parent than being with their father? If the custodial mother (Marcia) has no time for the children, it makes little sense to keep them away from their father (Gordon) who has adequate time.
Twisted Feminist Logic
As I said earlier, this case illuminates how women have been trained to believe they are entitled to everything. Look at the absurdity of all of this. She makes more money than he does. She gets custody of the kids. He has to pay her child support. And she has the gall to ask for more money because she needs new clothes. Does this sound even close to fair? What in the world could go through Marcia's head? What would make her think she was entitled to more "child support" for what are clearly her own personal choices? What does she think child support is for? And about the issue of custody, how could she think that the children are better off with child care and baby sitters than with their father?
Thirty years of feminism have trained an entire generation of women to think of themselves as the center of the universe. Everything is supposed to go their way. Marcia Clark and her feminine supporters are drunk on the elixir of female invincibility. Give us a break.