LOL!! - The 'Mom's Resource Web Ring' is discriminatory

[Brent]

Someone I know (not me) submitted this site to the "Moms Resource Ring" on Webring. This was the reply he got back.

The web site you submitted to Moms Resource Ring has been denied due to the reasons cited below by the RingMaster.

After examination of your site contents and links, I find that your site has a not-so-subtle bias against children and women, and intact families. Divorce isn't supposed to be easy. It is supposed to be a very last resort, and children are not political footballs or things you can carve up into pieces. The justice system is badly messed up and should be awarding sole custody on the basis of 1. who is at fault in destroying the marriage (has there been adultery?) and 2. who is the better and more protective parent, and who has been doing the physical caretaking (automatically to go to nursing mothers). Visitation is one thing; tugging on a child in custody proceedings is quite another. Joint custody is NOT in the best interests of the vast majority of children. Your site almost totally ignores the best interests of the child, and since those are paramount, this is unacceptable. On exploring your links, I found one to a fathers' rights organization that, among other things, advocates trying to coerce women into having abortions. It is seeking to remove responsibility from fathers for the decision to have sex outside of wedlock, leaving the woman with the sole responsibility. According to ethics and the law, a child is entitled to the support and protection of both parents, custodial or not. Furthermore, you have absolutely no apparent control over your link exchange program, and give no indication that you will screen sites you link to. A site such as yours, which in this political climate, will only work against the interests of mothers, is not appropriate in a ring to support mothers.

1) Needless to say, we don't try to "remove responsibility from fathers for the decision to have sex outside of wedlock, leaving the woman with the sole responsibility." That's pure idiocy and I don't see ANYTHING on this site that takes that stance.

2) We don't police the external links because we aren't the Internet Police.

3) In her mind, "breastfeeding = custody".

4) Joint custody is a good idea, not a secret plot to disenfranchise mothers.

5) This site "ignores the best interests of the child"???? Helloooooooo, that's basically the foundation for this site.

[MYSONSDAD]

The "Ringmaster", sounds like their running a circus.

"Breastfeeding", how many times has that become an issue to leave the father out. I think it has become popular again, just for that very purpose.

"support and protection from both parents, NCP or not", yeah right, then why are we paying support? No accounting that it is used on the child.

And the word "visitation", an alienating word.

I beleive they are better staying away from here, "Best interest of the child" is strongly supported and they would "feel out of place"

The "Ringmaster" did us a favor...

[wysiwyg]

Bet Glenn Sacks would tear that ringmaster up and spit em back out.

[dontunderstand]

Ignorance breeds ignorance...and so it goes.
Do you possibly think this is why we have such a hard time getting anywhere with the system???

[Anthony_ill]

I have heard comments about judges stateing to the fathers "You should have kept it in your pants" when trying to negoitate parenting issues.

Since I have several letters by the BM to her boyfriend declaring her wish to leave our marrige (and disclosing some intimate details of their encounters) While we have now been divorced (no fault) I would love for my current custody Judge (visitation interference by the BM)comment like that.  I wonder the response would be then.

and ...

3) In her mind, "breastfeeding = custody"

Humm, in my case, no breastfeeding occured with the children does this nullify this (and that they are in their early teens currently, I would hope that breast feeding is still not an issue).