Reverse Sexism?
Posted
November 27, 2007 at
4:05 pm by
Jessica
Although this ruling was made in England, I have to believe U.S. courts would take a similar position. Here’s the question: if a woman gets pregnant, does she have the right to withhold that information from the father and her family and put the baby up for adoption? I know this probably happens every day, but is it right?
The woman then took the case to the Court of Appeal, where the judges ruled that no steps should be taken to identify the father or tell him about the child, now 19 weeks old.
There was also an order barring the authority from introducing the baby to any of the mother’s family to assess them as potential carers.
They had learned about the child only when the local authority made inquiries.
Lady Justice Arden, sitting with Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Lawrence Collins, said this was not a violation of the father’s rights to family life under the Human Rights Act because he had no rights to be violated.
Woman have spent years and years trying to bridge the social gap between the sexes, disseminating any preconceived differences, yet in this case, the woman clearly has more rights to a child than the biological father. Why? Isn’t the child just as much his as it is hers? Does one sex automatically mean “ownership” of a child? What if that “ownership” isn’t in their best interest? Is it better for a baby to be adopted out, rather than custody be given to the father?
Isn’t making that automatic assumption sexism in reverse??
Tags: adoption, British-courts, keeping-baby-a-secret, non-notification, notification, sexism, Social Issues |
3 Responses to “Reverse Sexism?”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately in an effort to remove commercial messages, irrelevancies, excessive foul language, racist/sexist/hateful comments, spoofed/cloaked IPs and/or personal attacks and will be edited/deleted at our discretion. Thank you for your patience.
1. Rita said:
November 27, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Yeah, I don’t understand that. If she were aborting it, then I’d support her in not telling the father (I don’t believe that a woman should be forced into carrying a child by anyone). But, if she’s going to carry it, labor, give birth to it and then hand it off to someone else anyway, then why not the father?
Unless there’s something fishy with the whole situation, like the father is a relative or married friend of the family or something and she doesn’t want the whole thing revealed. Maybe just taking one look at the child would be a dead give away–Hey, this kid’s got flaming red hair just like adopted uncle Joe!–or–Hey, this kid has the Dumbo ears and black skin like our neighbor Bart, you know, Mary’s husband?
I don’t know…
2. Art said:
January 17, 2008 @ 10:57 am
Gee, can a man weigh in here?
The pregnancy came as the result of the rape of a woman by a man, and that man should be accorded any sort of parental rights?? No way, Jose, IMO!
I can think of all kinds of scenarios that according a rapist such rights to any children resulting from that act, and none of them are very pleasant to contemplate. There is a principle in our laws in the US (and they are largely derived from English Law,BTW) that no one be allowed to profit from crimes committed, and I believe that principle should be inviolate, regardless, period.
Now, child support by reason of paternity, yes and I say that absolutely! But parental rights of any sort, absolutely not, in fact the rapist birth father should be forbidden any and all contact with the mother, the child, and any adoptive parents as well.
Anything less than such a response to me simply slaps an already abused person, the victim, in the face directly, and where is the justice in that, pray tell?
3. Jessica said:
January 17, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
Art, hold the fort.
Nobody, well at least speaking for myself on this one, is condoning extending parental rights to rapists.
Get a grip.