Glenn Discusses Batista Divorce Controversy on Fox & Friends
January 12th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
I discussed the Batista divorce controversy on Fox & Friends on Friday. This is the case where Dr. Richard Batista, a prominent New York surgeon, donated a kidney to save his wife's life back in 2001 and is now asking for compensation for the kidney as part of their divorce settlement. He claims she cheated on him after the donation.
I told Fox host Steve Doocy that, assuming Batista is telling the truth, I support him. On one hand, I hate to see even more divorce-related rancor. However, according to Batista, his ex-wife has been preventing him from exercising his agreed-upon visitation with the couple's three children. Batista says he is making the kidney demand as a way to get publicity and force his ex to allow him back into his children's lives. I made the point that interference with parenting time (aka "visitation") is a major problem for divorced fathers.
Beyond the issue with Batista's children, it seems fair enough to me that if they are going to be dividing up property in a divorce, his gift of a kidney to her, valued at around $1.5 million, should be considered in the settlement.
While I was in the Fox Green room waiting to go on, I heard Ducey mention that later on they were going to have an interview with Batista's former sister-in-law. I assume the interview would consist of denying Batista's claims and vilifying Batista, with little or no attention paid to the fact that Batista saved his wife's life. I'd be happy to be wrong -- if anyone was watching Fox on Friday and knows what the sister-in-law said, please let me know.
Some of the ex-wife's defenders have been saying that Batista doesn't need two kidneys anyway and that the transplant was minor surgery. I'm no medical expert, but I'm not sure I agree. One, you never know when in Batista's life he might need the kidney. Two, my general opinion of "minor surgery" is that of oft-injured former NBA basketball player Bill Walton -- "minor surgery is when they do it on someone else."
From Estranged husband wants his donated kidney back (Newsday, 1/8/09):
When Dr. Richard Batista's wife needed a kidney, he gave her one of his. And now that Dawnell Batista has filed for a divorce, he says he wants it back.
He knows he won't get the kidney, but his attorney, Dominic Barbara of Garden City, said yesterday that his client would take $1.5 million - which, he said, reflects in part the value of the kidney transplant.
Richard Batista is seeking the kidney because he claimed he later found his wife was having an affair.
Dawnell Batista's attorney, Douglas Rothkopf of Garden City, would not address specifics, saying only, "The facts will speak for themselves and they're not as represented by Dr. Batista"...
Barbara said his client isn't really looking for Dawnell Batista to give back her kidney. "Does he really want the kidney back? Of course not," he said. Batista said his aim instead was to draw attention to her not allowing him agreed-upon visitation with the couple's three children, ages 14, 11 and 8.
Batista, 49, of Ronkonkoma, said he donated his kidney to his wife in June 2001, after she had undergone two other failed transplants when her kidneys ceased working.
"My first priority was to save her life," Batista said at a news conference in Garden City. "The second bonus was to turn the marriage around."
Batista, a surgeon at Nassau University Medical Center since 1992, said the marriage had been shaky because of his wife's illness.
Initially, Batista said he was happy with his gift of life: "I was walking on a cloud. I did the right thing for her and to this day I would do it again."
Dawnell Batista, a nurse, filed for divorce in July 2005, and her husband countersued that same year. The grounds for the divorce were unclear yesterday. The demand for the kidney was introduced yesterday, Barbara said.
Barbara said the $1.5 million his client feels he's entitled to reflects damages. "A price can't be placed on a human organ but it does have value," he said.
Caplan disagreed. "There's nothing later [you can get] in terms of compensation if you regret your gift," he said.
See Dawnell Batista's response here.
"));
19 queries. 0.485 seconds.
January 12th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Legally, I doubt he has a claim. He donated it, another way of saying he gave it as a gift. The likely fact that she appreciated it no more than she did isn't germane.
However, as an attempt to bring her machinations to estrange him from his children into public view, he should go for it.
January 12th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I'd have to agree that he doesn't get anything from the kidney. It's a gift, not a gift in contemplation of ____________. Such as an engagement ring. It's given in contemplation of marriage, so if the marriage doesn't take place, the right is returned. Other gifts, in order to have them returned, or the value of must include a contractual agreement.
This is a large item, but the same legal authority is connected to gifts as a case I saw. It made me laugh, but for those getting divorced emotions are running higher. In this case the female spouse was attempting to be reimbursed for every penny she spent on him, even as small as a soda. And she came to court with a box which included all the receipts.
January 12th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Kidney transplants are major surgery. The two kidneys and the filtration system for a person's blood and thus have the same circulation as the heart - every drop goes through them approximately every 3 minutes. To say that you get a "bleeder" if you make a mistake in a kidney transplant is like saying that Mt. St. Helens went "bang."
The guy seriously risked his life for his (then) wife and she treats him this way? What a pig.
January 12th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Rev. Richard - “I'd have to agree that he doesn't get anything from the kidney. It's a gift, not a gift in contemplation of…”
While this is true of the conventional wisdom, what Dr. Richard Batista and his attorney are trying to do is to challenge that conventional wisdom.
As a matter of legal theory, I think they have an intriguing case to make.
As I see it, they’re best bet would be to use the same “but for” notions of why a woman is entitled to spousal support to make their arguments.
Typically, when a woman is going after alimony from a wealthy man, the argument that but for her giving up her own career goals in order for him to further his (yes, yes, I know how ridiculous it seems, but that is the argument that’s been made time and time again). Therefore, since she has “sacrificed” her own earning potential (either via prolonged absence from the work pool, or supposed “lesser” employment than she would otherwise have achieved) she is now entitled to some of his.
Note – I don’t know the details of her demands, but given that Dr. Batista is a prominent and wealthy surgeon, I have little doubt that she is demanding to be “kept in the lifestyle that she has become accustomed to”.
Thus, to counter her arguments that she has sacrificed her potential earning ability, Dr. Batista should counter that but for his donation to her of his kidney, her earning potential would be zero. Even if he cannot get the full $1.5 million of valuation of the kidney assessed against her in the splitting of the marital assets, he should certainly try to nullify her spousal support demands by what his “gift” to her has inarguably meant to her future earning potential. Basically, his sacrifice was of far greater value than any sacrifice on her part. What ever damage to her income potential one might be able to stretch out will certainly be more than offset by a gift which allows her to have any potential (earning or otherwise) at all.
She’ll just have to do with her half of the marital assets plus whatever her boyfriend can bring in. No alimony for her!
January 12th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
"Through sickness and health ...". The simple reality is that marriage traditionally was a bond or contract that was never meant to be broken. The same can be said for "for richer and poorer ...". Once that bond or contract is broken the whole contract should be null and void.
It is clear that we need some type of new marriage agreement. My favorite would be to make Pre-nups manditory or already built into a marriage contract. Things such as alimony, and child custody where the state has a compelling interest to constantly get involved in a private affair should not be worked out before hand, not after. Not only is it in the states best interest but the childrens as well. In fact the only person who does not benefit is the spouse that married for money, which if anybody, is typically the wife.
January 12th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Kidney donations and Alimony
If a housewife "gives" a husband the "best years of her life" and "free" cleaning services and income for him to go through school, blah blah blah, then isn't the kidney also joint marital property that needs to be "divided up?"
Giving up a kidney doubles the amount of work on the remaining kidney. Alimony's main purpose wasn't to keep wealthy doctor's ex-wives in luxury but to help support disabled people during marriage after divorce. This man faces the prospect of SERIOUS medical problems down the road. If a woman had worked long hours and damaged her health during the marriage for his benefit, nobody would have a problem with alimony and a payout.
Engagement rings are another matter since they happen BEFORE the marriage but they are a form of a contract. Also, there are cases of women suing men for marriage expenses if he backs out at the last minute and she's stuck with a $50K bridal wedding bill...
January 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Remember when women were looking for men with commitment. She owes him her life. This a feminist heroine, an example for all other women.
January 12th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I heard Dominic Barbara (his lawyer) on Howard the other day and the guy makes a valid point. The wife is asking for alimony to be determined based on his earning potential and his earning potential has been dramatically decreased by his donating the kidneys which can cause premature death, usually by ten years or so.
Also, he didn't donate blindly, he donated it to his wife so that the two of them could spend more time together, and if she chooses to decline that option, than why shouldn't he be compensated? Isn't it a "gift in anticipation of a lifetime together" similar to a "gift in anticipation of marriage"
January 12th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I hope he gets the money he's asking for. Lord knows she's probably trying to take him to the cleaners and turnabout is fair play.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Pound of flesh?
January 12th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Putting a monetary value on visitation is a smart move. The courts really only understand money.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
PolishKnight wrote: Giving up a kidney doubles the amount of work on the remaining kidney. Alimony's main purpose wasn't to keep wealthy doctor's ex-wives in luxury but to help support disabled people during marriage after divorce. This man faces the prospect of SERIOUS medical problems down the road. If a woman had worked long hours and damaged her health during the marriage for his benefit, nobody would have a problem with alimony and a payout.
Be careful with that argument... it could be used against a father in court to justify sole/primary custody to the mother!
January 12th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Sonja - ”I hope he gets the money he's asking for. Lord knows she's probably trying to take him to the cleaners and turnabout is fair play.”
On another forum, I had read through the comments of many (presumably more feminist-minded) individuals who seemed to be entirely incapable of (or simply unwilling to) grasping what he was actually trying to do.
They called him every manner of lowly vile creature for being so heartless. And/or, they ridiculed him for being “not man enough” to keep her, and just trying to get back at her for his own failure in making her want to stay with him.
I could only imagine that these same commentators would have been incensed at anyone attempting to “slut-shame” her for her actions, yet they seem to have no problem what-so-ever “cuckold-shaming” him.
For both philosophical (legal) and emotional reasons, I too certainly hope that he prevails (at least to some extent).
January 12th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
slwerner:
On another forum, I had read through the comments of many (presumably more feminist-minded) individuals who seemed to be entirely incapable of (or simply unwilling to) grasping what he was actually trying to do.
They called him every manner of lowly vile creature for being so heartless. And/or, they ridiculed him for being “not man enough” to keep her, and just trying to get back at her for his own failure in making her want to stay with him.
I could only imagine that these same commentators would have been incensed at anyone attempting to “slut-shame” her for her actions, yet they seem to have no problem what-so-ever “cuckold-shaming” him.
Of course not. To some of them the only suffering that matters (on the occasion they will admit that men actually suffer) is female suffering. Swap the genders and this story would have been the feminist hot topic of the moment.
I have to admit I'm curious about this other forum you speak of so I can see the comments for myself.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
A person who would deny visitation to the spouse who provided them a kidney should not be allowed to see the kids. Wasn't that in the ten commandments.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
How could she cheat on him? I mean seriously, after going though all that surgery together, after he SAVED her life, how incomprehensible is it that she could fall for some other guy?!?
Look I've been divorced, twice, and both times they cheated on me. I know, I know, it happens! But my God! Doesn't anyone else share my outrage at this? I mean, what's a guy gotta do?
Marriage in this light... not worth it ladies.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Danny - " have to admit I'm curious about this other forum you speak of so I can see the comments for myself."
Danny,
I would have been more accurate had I written instead on other forums, since the derogatory comments regarding this poor guy were actually spread out over several - some of which, I "clicked to" to from other sites, and don't remember just what they were (never intended to return to those vile places, and my browser history only runs three days).
But, I do remember one being over at Amy Alkon's Advice Godess site (although, it was considerably tamer than others) http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/08/who_loses_here.html
It was the one site where I thought it even relavent to comment on this topic.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I'll take your kidney, I'll cheat on you, I'll take a million dollars from you, but I won't let you see your kids.
These are the women we talk about daily on this blog.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
What sort of lowlife cheats on someone who gave them a kidney???? I mean, geez, if you fall out of love with the guy, you could at least end the relationship gently, then get another man.
I hope Mr Batista gets his money, and visitation,and if the former Mrs Batista wants someone who believes in redistribution of internal organs next time she should marry a Castro, not a Batista.
And aint it funny how what looked rather like a mere "grudge suit" has turned out to be yet another man trying to see his kids? Whats that thing we're always saying around here? Do.Not.Get.Married.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Legally, a human organ cannot have a price. And I don't think any judge wants to set the precedent that someone who donates an organ can sue for loss of earning potential. So from a legal standpoint, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
I think he's just grabbing all the publicity he can get which seems kind of shady to me. For no other reason than public attention isn't more likely to give him more time with his kids.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
I saw the interview with Batista's ex- sister-in-law. I don't remember most of it, but I do remember hearing that the wife also suffered from breast cancer. The reasons aren't stated, but I wouldn't be surprised if all this illness put a serious strain on the marriage and led to its demise. I don't know either party, and so unlike Glenn, I can't take sides, because I don't know the whole story, inside and out.
I can say that while I support Batista's efforts to secure a fair settlement and shared custody of his kids, as an M.D. he is quite aware that the legal document he signed upon donating his kidney assured that he gave up any and all rights, forever, to said kidney. Of course, he is doing this for publicity. But, he runs the risk of pissing off the courts by bringing a frivolous law suit against his ex-wife, especially since he already knows he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. That is not going to help him win his case.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Scott,
You can't purchase an organ as it is illegal, but yes, you can put a cost on the earning potential he loses because he gave up an organ. Now, if you gave that organ to someone with the expectation, and ONLY because you wanted to so you can grow old together, than why SHOULDN'T that factor into the equation? It's a gift in anticipation of a lifetime together.
Putting a price tag on earning potential/property for divorce purposes is not the same as putting a price tag on it for sale. Nothing shadyhere, he makes a valid argument that at least should be explored by the courts
January 12th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Rebekah,
Again, he is NOT looking to get the kidney back, but wants a value on it factored into the divorce proceedings. It was the newspapers who made it seem as though he wants it nback without presenting the argument, all for ratings. Read deeper to understand the reasons WHY there should be a value placed on it.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
He has a legal and moral leg to stand on. His wife accepted the kidney knowing that it was given as a part of an agreement to mutual love until death. She violated the convent/agreement by seeking divorce and other benefits. The agreement between them when the kidney was transferred is knowledgeable to all decent persons. Agreements whether oral or jointly acknowledged are valid without any thing in writing. When you ask the butcher for twenty pounds of steaks and take the steaks you owe the money, even though no verbal agreement was made, nor was there any written agreement. This is understood by all. Try keeping the steaks without paying and present this as your legal argument.
Return the kidney or pay for it.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
That kind of stuff happening to fathers is really common. Tlk about no sense of honor the man gave a kidney to save her life. And the selfish person is being typical with the keeping the kids away from the father crap. The courts should give her her half including the family debt. The kids should be awarded to the father and she should then get the male patriarchy priviledges. Like some ncp cs and maybe some of that order of protection. And a little serving of unenforced visitation.
That guy is one of those guys that wants his wife to be proud of him. He is a super acheiver and has given her children a wealthy life style. All the while he kept thinking if he could give her the next gift she would love him. That worthless human being is showing how worthy she is of human compassion by keeping the kids from him.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
its great to see glenn on tv
January 12th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
I bet she's asking for her time as a mother to be priced, so why shouldn't he put a price on saving her life?
January 12th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
The guy sounds like a moron to me.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
mike lordi said: Again, he is NOT looking to get the kidney back, but wants a value on it factored into the divorce proceedings. It was the newspapers who made it seem as though he wants it nback without presenting the argument, all for ratings. Read deeper to understand the reasons WHY there should be a value placed on it.
Rebekah said: Perhaps I should have stated my point more clearly. The legal document one signs upon donating an organ indemnifies the recipient against any future loss, including FINANCIAL loss. The person who donates agrees to give up any and all legal claim to said organ, and that includes any and all attached monetary worth. Do not take my word for it; look it up. FOX News had a medical attorney on just the other night explaining this very thing, that Dr. Batista has no legal claim to the kidney, because he in essence surrendered any and all rights to it, and its value, when he signed the legal release.
As an M.D., Batista is, of course, aware of this, and why he has admitted, point blank, that this is a calculated publicity stunt. He KNOWS he is not entitled to either the kidney or its monetary value. So, the value of the kidney, itself is MOOT. He cannot reclaim what he legally signed away, and he cannot recoup his loss financially either.
The danger is that, because he has said he is doing this to get attention, he may have eliminated any chance of having his **legitimate** complaints about his kids taken seriously, because he deliberately wasted the courts' time and money on a frivolous lawsuit.
January 12th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
"The guy sounds like a moron to me."
I'm forced to agree. I mean, why the hell would he donate his kidney to this woman? If he were smart, he wouldn't have gotten married in the first place so that he wouldn't be in this situation. Since he made the mistake of loving a woman and getting THAT attached to her, he'll have to live with the consequences of his choices.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:03 am
See the Video of this Store http://newshunters.org/blog/?p=16
January 13th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Some have posted that they feel his attempt at publicity is wrong. I would almost agree, if we lived in a world where family courts doled out fair and equal justice to the best of their ability. But we all know they don’t. The courts are biased as they have a vested interest.
Therefore the only way this guy has a shot at getting fair and equitable time with his children, which is what he wants, is to get media attention to shame his soon to be ex into cooling her heels a bit and to have the court of public opinion on his side.
She had the affair, she broke the marriage contract. He did what he could to salvage the marriage including major surgery and a gift that is priceless.
Why should he just stand by and let the courts ‘grant’ him the ‘standard’ visitation, or less, unreasonable CS payments and alimony? From what the media has reported it seems to me that he is the more moral, honorable parent and the courts should be leaning heavily in his direction when deciding child custody. It is supposed to be decided in the best interest of the children, right?
January 13th, 2009 at 1:32 am
Kim said: Some have posted that they feel his attempt at publicity is wrong.
Rebekah: I think you may have misunderstood my post. I have not said anywhere that Dr. Batista's play for publicity was, in any sense, a moral "wrong." I have only tried to point out, that given the court's bias, and its decided lack of patience for what it deems a waste of time and money, that Batista's ploy may backfire on him. Especially if when the ex-wife decides to make her story public, the general public turns sympathetic to her. Remember, we have so far only heard one side of this story. I am NOT excusing her, or her actions; I am merely pointing out that this could all hurt him in the end, and cost him any chance at all of maintaining his right to shared custody.
If the court hears that he brought a frivolous suit against his ex- because he was mad at her, they won't care that he was cut off from his kids. They will perceive him as merely using the legal system to exact revenge, and to throw a big tantrum at their expense. She will come out looking like the reasonable spouse, whom everyone suddenly sympathizes with, and totally understands why she would seek comfort in another man's arms, when she has this ranting, bombastic, vindictive man as her husband trying to sue her for a kidney.
That is not my judgment of the man; but it is how I suspect that the PUBLIC will judge him. Unless he's got a mighty slick and fantastically lucky attorney.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:09 am
This guys kidney is a contribution that he has made to the marriage. This fact should be taken into consideration when dividing up community property. Fair is fair.
And let's be reasonable here: the guy stuck with his wife through thick and thin, suffered through surgery and gave up part of his body for her sake and she wont even let him see his children!?!?!?!? whiskey tango foxtrot?
January 13th, 2009 at 5:51 am
It is our family court system that forced this guy into this situation. Cases like this are needed to show how biased the system is. I first heard this story on a radio playing at work as an odd news story. maybe more people will learn something about their country. I don't think the guy is a moron. But it does show how bad things are when that can be said by someone about a man in his position. He is purely a victum of a vindictive wife inabled by a sexist family court he just has a unique situation in this case.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:31 am
If the operation is a simple one, then it should be simple to get the kidney back or at least have it removed form the ungrateful one who denied him the right to see his kids....
If the operation is not a simple one, then it should be recognized how vital his contribution was.......
Ain't it interesting that men being denied the right to see kids they pay for does NOT make the news.
I recall when I was a kid, the newscasters/journalists back then were SMART (smarter than most of us) and how different that is from today (todays journalists/newscasters are dumber than average and that seems to be the way most of us like it).....
Long live the matriarchy!
January 13th, 2009 at 7:37 am
35
greyghost Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 5:51 am
It is our family court system that forced this guy into this situation.
Exactly! And I'm sure the court is going to be angry about his stunt. And as Rebekah has said:
33
Rebekah Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 1:32 am
Kim said: Some have posted that they feel his attempt at publicity is wrong.
Rebekah: I think you may have misunderstood my post. I have not said anywhere that Dr. Batista's play for publicity was, in any sense, a moral "wrong." I have only tried to point out, that given the court's bias, and its decided lack of patience for what it deems a waste of time and money, that Batista's ploy may backfire on him.
So again I say, hopefully the court of public opinion puts pressure on the courts to do the right thing in this case. Of course the right thing will most likely not be in the courts financial best interest, but isn't that what justice is supposed to do? Serve the people, not the court?
Rebekah, I did not say nor mean to imply any moral standing on your post. I agree this action may indeed hurt Mr. Batista in the court, therefore possibly a ‘wrong’ move on his part. If it does indeed anger/shame the court, when the courts have all along allowed women to pull all kinds of stunts and ploys to enlist the courts willing complicity in keeping children away from their fathers, then I hope public pressure helps do him justice.
On the Newsday posting there is a poll, in true biased fashion, trying to create erroneous and false hysteria.
Vote: Fair?
Is it fair for the husband to demand a donated kidney from his wife?
No, and it's unethical. Don't toy with human life.
No, it's vindictive. People fall out of love.
Yes, but maybe just to prove a point.
Yes, he's totally right.
When in their article they write:
Barbara said his client isn't really looking for Dawnell Batista to give back her kidney. "Does he really want the kidney back? Of course not," he said.
Batista said his aim instead was to draw attention to her not allowing him agreed-upon visitation with the couple's three children, ages 14, 11 and 8.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Clearly this man’s man heart was on the right side, unfortunately his kidney ended on the wrong side in the marriage, a kidney that really was a gift of life.
This woman should be eternally grateful to this man who gave her life! The fact that meant nothing to her and she would without conscience go and deceive her husband shows how incredibly selfish and worthless she really is.
The husband showed his earnest benevolence and true love for his wife only to be taken advantage of. Had the man been of a selfish nature and not saved his wife’s life or hoping to save the marriage then today he would have both kidneys, all three children and he would be sad that his wife died and not sad that his wife incredulously took advantage of a clearly good husband. He would have also avoided the very traumatic and biassed Family Court system driven by the wants and needs of feminists and not forgetting the trauma caused to the children who are being deprived of their father.
Not only do I think the husband is entitled to the value of the kidney he is further entitled to be compensated for the benefit and gain enjoyed by the wife for every day she is able to live. The husband provided that benefit to her.
Sadly this is not how a family should be or behave. Unfortunately we men must learn to fight fire with fire! Otherwise we will continue to be burned to the bone every time at the hands of callous women who see men as worthless pieces of garbage. This is the effect of selfish rotten radical feminists upon our nation and our families with the legal system and women being the benefactors at the expense of our children, our future! The effect is clearly destroying a nation and will not change until both men and women realize we need each other!
Attila
January 13th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Kim, that poll IS biased and unfair. Notice how it specifically asks if it's fair for a husband to take a kidney back from a wife. Aha, thinks the reader, that's an easy answer. Guys are always jerks, and girls are always the victim, so of course it's unfair (or so the reasoning goes).
Why not ask, "Is it fair for a person to demand a donated organ back from his or her spouse?" That question is much more neutral, and forces the person to consider the reverse: can a wife demand it from her husband?
I do hope Dr. Batista gets his day in court, and a fair trial.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:06 am
i hate to advocate selfishness or condemn generosity, but if Dr. Batista had said no to the kidney donation, his cheating wife would be gone, he'd be able to see his kids every day and he'd have all his money plus whatever life insurance he had on her. instead he risks his life to save hers, she cheats on him and divorces him, then she takes most of his hard earned money and refuses to let him see the kids. in this current anti-male environment, where some women aren't even grateful if you save their life, is selfishness the only rational way for men to behave?
January 13th, 2009 at 11:52 am
"in this current anti-male environment, where some women aren't even grateful if you save their life, is selfishness the only rational way for men to behave?"
YES!!!!!
January 13th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
This is abnother reason for men to have kids with no wife. It looks like he had the means too. You all are right he would have been better off in this world if he had of let his wife die. But as a good man he did what a husband would do for his family. This is not supposed to happen to men that do that for their families. I hope as many people as possible see what is happening to this guy.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I have to say, I hope he loses. Anyone so selfish as to put a price tag on an organ used to save one’s loved one is a jerk. How much, do you think, she should charge him for giving birth to his kids? Way more than a million. Put a price tag on his kids’ lives and the time she spent housing them in her uterus. And it is so shameful that any of you even suggest that he should have let her die. Especially after all the crying in another thread about the female singer who was singing about killing men. Oh wait, I forgot; it’s only bad when you want to kill ALL women. Killing one or two is acceptable to MRAs. My bad.
And out of curiosity, how come none of you ever ask WHY a woman won’t let her husband see the kids? There could be a very, very good reason.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
I have to say, I hope he loses.
No shock there.
Anyone so selfish as to put a price tag on an organ used to save one’s loved one is a jerk.
As opposed to receiving said organ from someone who loved you SO MUCH that they would literally give a part of himself so that she could live....to which she shows her gratitude by screwing around on him. No, I suppose that's just fine.
How much, do you think, she should charge him for giving birth to his kids? Way more than a million. Put a price tag on his kids’ lives and the time she spent housing them in her uterus.
Price tag on his kids....I'm sure he knows what that price tag is and is paying it every month. Child Support anyone? Though, to be fair, I'd guess that's the price tag the Family Court system set.
And it is so shameful that any of you even suggest that he should have let her die. Especially after all the crying in another thread about the female singer who was singing about killing men. Oh wait, I forgot; it’s only bad when you want to kill ALL women. Killing one or two is acceptable to MRAs. My bad.
Dr. Batista wouldn't have actively killed anyone, which was what that singer advocated for all men. And yes, apparently he should have let her die. It would have save him the nightmare he and his children are going through now because of her SHAMEFUL and SELFISH actions. But I know, since women are all perfect, nothing she did contributed to this situation. Right?
And out of curiosity, how come none of you ever ask WHY a woman won’t let her husband see the kids? There could be a very, very good reason.
Of course there was a reason. Dr. Batista is a MAN. I know for you and those with your mindset, that's reason enough.
Oh, I know...He was an evil, abusive bastard and she had to keep the children from him to protect them. After all, he was SO abusive and oppressive to her, when she was going to escape his horrid maleness in death due to kidney failure, he gave her one of his own kidneys just so he could continue his abuse.
But what can I say? I'm sure when it all comes down to it, he will lose. Society has Jeana's mindset that women can do no wrong and men can do nothing but wrong. It's a wonder why men continue getting entangled with women.
All in all, the moral of the story is "Just say no to marriage/relationships".
January 14th, 2009 at 12:22 am
Jeana wrote:
"And out of curiosity, how come none of you ever ask WHY a woman won’t let her husband see the kids? There could be a very, very good reason."
and "good reasons" include:
1. because she can.
2. because it gives her leverage.
3. leverage gives her $$$$.
4. out of spite.
of course, in all cases of parental alienation against fathers and their children, feminists like jeana will always drag out the "abuse" bogeyman. the four reasons i listed above are far more common than abuse.
as for saying "he should have let her die", i merely pointed out that if someone is incapable of displaying normal gratitude for you saving their life and they will cheat on you, divorce you, steal your kids and all your money, then maybe being kind and caring=being a sap. for men in america today, selfishness may be the only rational course of action. it's a sad state of affairs, i agree, but when even saving a woman's life counts for nothing, you have to wonder if men should bury chivalry for good, just take care of themselves, and let the womenfolk fend for themselves. maybe after a few decades of that, women will learn to appreciate and respect men again.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:32 am
"How much, do you think, she should charge him for giving birth to his kids?"
She IS charging him - no doubt she'll ask for their house and a heck of a lot of his salary in child support, at least half his superannuation...
January 14th, 2009 at 1:18 am
I note, however, you don't "have" to say much about anyone so selfish as to deny a father access to his children. Nor do you "have" to say much about someone who accepts the gift of a body part then cheats on the person who gave the gift. Strange.
You compare apples and oranges. he donated a body part to her benefit and to his detriment. She gave birth to the benefit of both parties. As in, to her own benefit as well as his.
Again you compare apples and oranges. That you cannot see any difference between refusing to sacrifice a body part to an ungrateful and unfaithful spouse and the act of murdering men speaks volumes about how much you value (or not) male lives.
And there might not be any reason at all. We have seen time and again that a mother does not need a reason to deny a father access to her children. Simply being a father seems reason enough to many mothers.
As for me, until evidence is presented that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that this mans right to raise his own children should be stripped from him, I am going to assume that it should not be stripped from him.
That you feel we should presume he is guilty runs counter to the very bedrock principles of civilized justice. That family courts often actually function in this fashion is profoundly uncivilized.
January 14th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Can anyone say GIFT!! Who in the world would be so crazy as to ask for repayment for a gift of a kidney? How stupid and a waste of money for laywers and the courts time.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Well . . . I don't know. I watched the clip, I listened to the doctor, and . . . it sounds like a lot of the same of what I've heard from women who claim value for what we call in Maryland, "non-monetary" services. You know the ones. They live in multiple million dollar homes in Potomac or Chevy Chase or Bethesda or North West D.C., they "devote their lives" to their spouses by entertaining, supervising the staff, taking care of the children by being sure they always have a good nanny and lots of activities to attend, and giving up a career, yada, yada, yada. And then they want a chunk of change because they are really mad at husband for walking out with the nurse, the receptionist, the secretary or the lobbyist. Don't get me wrong, I realize that you can't compare the gift Dr. Batista gave his wife to the "services" of a privileged wife (although I expect there are some lawyers would try). The point is the motivation. When I interview potential clients I listen very carefully to the substance of their "story" about their breakup. If the content of the discussion is largely, "that b@#!&," "How could she do this to ME?" etc., I am very cautious about taking the case. The best clients can't stop talking about their kids. Their emphasis is on what can be done to ease the children through the conflict between the parents. These are the guys who spend most of their time with me talking about their experience as engaged fathers, their commitment to their children, and their willingness to do whatever it takes to sustain their relationship with their children. I know you can't judge whether or not that's true of Dr. Batista in a little news clip, but if I was a betting woman, I'd bet the doctor's lawyer doesn't hear much of that from his client.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Under the law in new jersey, a gift given during a marriage is the property of the recipient and not subject to equitable distribution or setoffs. There have been many cases where the husband wants the engagement ring back or other jewelry, furs, etc., and it is always denied. It's a slam dunk in NJ, at least, that a "gift" is not even the subject of discussion. I understand the husband is angry at being duped, allegedly, by his wife, but that's just the typical "get even" and "revenge" mentality of divorcing couples. The husband should get over it and move on with life. He certainly has a right to parenting time and should concentrate on what's really important here, his relationship with his children.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:22 am
lyn, it does seem that men and women are given different advice. women should "get what they deserve" from the exes, but men should "get over it". i think this woman is the epitome of ingratitude. your spouse saves your life and you cheat on him, divorce him, and try to steal his kids from him? can it get any worse than that? he's fighting for time with his children, he should use whatever method works. if shaming this ungrateful, horror of a woman in public is what's gonna to allow him to be a parent to his kids, then it's the right thing to do.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Scott,
“That you feel we should presume he is guilty runs counter to the very bedrock principles of civilized justice.”
And yet it is perfectly ok to assume that the female is guilty. That she is purely selfish. No one ever here assumes that the male is anything but wonderful. I wonder about both of them. Not just about one.
“That you cannot see any difference between refusing to sacrifice a body part to an ungrateful and unfaithful spouse and the act of murdering men speaks volumes about how much you value (or not) male lives.”
No, it just shows how hypocritical you guys are. And this little nugget from DwS further confirms my suspicions: “And yes, apparently he should have let her die.”
I wonder what the MRA reaction would be to a man who demanded a kidney back from a woman or even her implants that he paid for. I bet each and every one of you would support him. So I can’t really get myself to worked up over this guy.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:34 am
And when I say that there might be a good reason that the woman might not want the guy to have the kids, I wasn’t talking about abuse or molestation, although of course that could be a reason. What if he has guns and keeps them around the house and loaded? What if he lets them run around wild going to the store or park by themselves when you would never let them do that for safety reasons? What if he’s a drug addict or alcoholic who uses while the kids are there? What if his friends are drug addicts or alcoholics? There are a lot of reasons.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Men and Fathers allways get the short end of the stick, due to gender discrimination. period.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:50 am
sure jeana, a successful surgeon is hanging around with drug addicts and letting his kids play with loaded guns. happens every day. LOL.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Lori Wright – “Can anyone say GIFT!! Who in the world would be so crazy as to ask for repayment for a gift of a kidney? How stupid and a waste of money for laywers and the courts time.”
While I do acknowledge the merit of your point here, the fact remains that his actions are largely a PR stunt (he so much as says so) do draw attention to the shabby treatment he has received – both in being cheated on and dumped by his wife, and for her preventing him from time with his children.
What is plainly obvious to men here is that, if the genders were reversed, women would overwhelmingly line-up in support of HER. Her plight would be national news, and she’d certainly be turning up on Oprah to tell about the awful man who took her kidney, then dumped her. And women would not only be screaming for the return of her kidney, but for his castration as well. I think that you are well aware of this too.
And, I think it is quite telling that most women are not condemning this woman for her actions. In my mind, it’s a tacit approval of what she has done.
Lori, do you personally believe she should not be condemned? Do you believe that the man here has not been done a serious wrong?
January 14th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Jimbo - "sure jeana, a successful surgeon is hanging around with drug addicts and letting his kids play with loaded guns. happens every day. LOL."
Jimbo,
Again, as I noted, Jeana is not interested in advancing reasonable observations with the honest intention of moving the discussion forward, she merely seeks to interfere. Every now and then, she’ll be able to make a valid point, but as you can see, if she has no valid point to make, she’ll just throw in some random BS. Nonsensical comments are all too common from her anymore.
Please don't feed the troll.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:20 am
slwerner, i agree with your assessment of jeana, not sure why she's on a men's rights board, she doesn't believe in equality for men or men's rights at all. i guess it's attention seeking behavior. so we should ignore her, but every once in a while she says something so priceless that i have to respond.
back to the topic: it is clear that if the genders were reversed all feminists would be on the wife's side and would be using the ungrateful kidney-taking husband as a prime example of male perfidy. but i've learned to expect double standards from feminists. it's what they do.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Hey Jimbo and Slwerner—you’ve never heard of doctors who were drug addicts? That is actually a huge problem. You guys need to get out more.
And it was one of you geniuses—I believe Jimbo—who laughed and said it was silly to ensure that the female you intended to have sex with actually wanted you. That did SO much to advance the discussion about teaching idiot females just want “consent” meant. I’m the troll? You amuse me.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:55 am
And actually, why is it not a reasonable observation that there could indeed be a man might not be a good father? Or that a frivolous lawsuit trying to get back a kidney might not be a good thing? Or that saying that a man should have let his wife die [regardless of the reason]? Is it not reasonable because it is not the MRA point of view?
Why do I post here? Because most of you are of one, very anti-female mind. You don’t ever want to consider the other side. You only want the MRA version of things. But by ignoring the anti-MRA side, you mistakenly believe a lot of craziness. You don’t have to believe me. You can believe I hate men and don’t believe in equality if you choose.
And I realize that very few of you are actually interested in men's rights. Mostly it's just an excuse to bash women. And to take whatever you can, regardless of the outcome or cost.
Incidentally, I would never say that a man should die because he was a jerk to his spouse or ungrateful because of something she did for him.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Jimbo – “it is clear that if the genders were reversed all feminists would be on the wife's side and would be using the ungrateful kidney-taking husband as a prime example of male perfidy. but i've learned to expect double standards from feminists. it's what they do.”
I have seen that a few women have rightly called Dawnell Batista on her horrid behavior, but very few. Most women seem to want to pretend that she did nothing at all to provoke such a response. Others, like one who shall remain nameless here, go a step further and, totally lacking any evidence whatsoever, try to pretend that there must be some perfectly good and logical reason for this women’s abdominal treatment of a man.
It fits perfectly into the slanted world view that men are bad and women are good. Whatever a woman might do, it must be based on good motivations, owing to her unassailable “virtue” of being a woman. Therefore, they happily serve as apologists for all manner of questionable behaviors - Hell, they'll even try to throw in that all we really want to do is bash women.
On another note, I wonder if that Lori Wright poster will come back and answer my little challenge to her to clearly state her position regarding this woman’s behaviors. Personally, I doubt she will. Women who swallow the feminist line usually find it quite difficult to make negative comments about such things, unless they can do it in some vague, general way - “sometimes woman do bad things”; you’ll seldom see where they will say “this particular woman did something bad”.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
It’s kind of interesting that I think the same thing about you MRAs. There is extreme reluctance to ever, ever think that any male ever can be a bad guy or do anything wrong. You will give lip service to certain things (i.e. you will acknowledge that a violent rape is wrong—big of you) but you do not have the ability to say that a guy could have any other motives but the purest ones in each and every story. You can magically turn all situations into ones that show the female to be bad. And of course, virtually all stories posted here are chosen because of some bad female. However, you extrapolate them into a much more broad philosophy that somehow, all women are bad and out to get men.
You MRAs are absolutely no different from the feminists you despise. Maybe you should get married.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
[i]jeana Says: And out of curiosity, how come none of you ever ask WHY a woman won’t let her husband see the kids? There could be a very, very good reason.[/i]
I very much doubt, you or any other feminist that thinks they are above another human being, can even understand what this man is trying to do, for his children. You are hung up on the fairytale that woman are better than men. He has more than shown his love for his family.
Where is the outrage over woman that wrong their husbands & children. Or are you still living in the fairytale that men do wrong all the time?
You are assuming he is a bad father. I have seen nothing written about him being a bad father. BUT, I have seen it written where she is a bad mother. In the fact that she thinks she has a right to keep him away from his children, thus causing great harm to the children's stability.
You should hang your head in shame, for standing behind any parent that would harm their child in this manner. Just on the simple fact that she is the mother.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
[i]jeana Says: jeana Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
It’s kind of interesting that I think the same thing about you MRAs. There is extreme reluctance to ever, ever think that any male ever can be a bad guy or do anything wrong. You will give lip service to certain things (i.e. you will acknowledge that a violent rape is wrong—big of you) but you do not have the ability to say that a guy could have any other motives but the purest ones in each and every story. You can magically turn all situations into ones that show the female to be bad. And of course, virtually all stories posted here are chosen because of some bad female. However, you extrapolate them into a much more broad philosophy that somehow, all women are bad and out to get men. [/i]
[b]BIG OF YOU ALSO, you and your female friends have the audacity to say that a woman, could have any other motives, other than the purest ones in each and every story.
You can likewise "MAGICALLY" turn all situations into ones that show that men are always bad. [/b]
January 14th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Jeana – “ It’s kind of interesting that I think the same thing about you MRAs”
Well, I am surprised. An actual point. Been kinda slim pickin’s from you of late.
While I cannot speak for all men here, nor all MRA’s, I personally have no reluctance what so ever to call men on bad behaviors. Frankly, as my wife is a prosecutor, I get detailed information on many, many cases of men doing very bad things. I’d never think to argue that they probably had some good reason. You see, I am fully aware that human being are, unfortunately, capable of doing some pretty terrible thing to one another. While the majority of criminal cases are against men, women too can do some pretty horrific things as well. Bad behaviors on the part of either gender are just that.
Now, you point out that “all stories posted here are chosen because of some bad female.”
Yes, this is true. It is likely why you seldom see men being taken to task for bad behaviors – they’re stories aren’t posted here. That doesn’t mean that any MRA does not fully understand that there are plenty of men doing bad things all the time. They’re simply not proffered as the subject for discussion. Glenn picks stories for a purpose, which you seem to misunderstand when you say, “
However, you extrapolate them into a much more broad philosophy that somehow, all women are bad and out to get men.”.
Actually, individual stories of injustice against men are not being extrapolated to larger meaning, rather, when present together, in a cohesive manner, they paint a picture of the general injustice men face in the world today. They constitute a growing body of evidence.
While the particular matters of a story will be extensively discussed, very few, if any, MRA’s will claim that a given woman’s actions are indicative of all women. What you will actually find is that what MRA’s will consistently point out are the responses to what women do. Inequitable divorce decree’s, the “rubber stamping” of protective orders, lack of authorities stepping in to ensure visitation rights, Female sentencing discounts, men forced to pay in spite of paternity fraud, the horrors men suffer from false rape accusations vs. the light treatment of admitted false accusers – these are just a sampling of the broader issues typically discussed here. I’m sure you must recognize some of them.
Individual stories merely serve to establish observable trends. And, those trends make the case that men are not being treated fairly in today’s world. Women are not blamed exclusively. Courts, judges, chivalry, you name it... blame is widely placed.
Pick any story from the headlines where a man has done wrong, and I would gladly give you my take on him. How about Bernie Matoff? I’d like to see this guy not only in prison for the rest of his life, but all of his earthly possessions confiscated to reimburse his victims. You pick some, I’ll be glad to say straight-up that any man behaving badly should be punished and/or made to suffer for his wrong doing. I don’t make up silly excuses for them.
Yet, in this thread, we have a clear example of you inventing possible reasons for this wealthy and pampered woman hooking up with her personal trainer, refusing to go to marriage counseling, filing for divorce, and withholding the children from the man who’s done nothing but provide for her.
MRA’s don’t need to spin such a story, the facts as written in news accounts tell us basically what we need to know. As you point out, Glenn picks stories in which women are known to be bad actors. Again, here, woman has done a man wrong. His actions in response are being debated – men and women for and against his tactics.
But, you’d like to take the discussion an entirely different direction and make a (very flimsy) case that she is the victim here, and he has been nothing but a bad actor in the whole affair.
I’m just wondering what it would ever take for you to say a woman like Dawnell Batista has done something reprehensible? You seem to do little more here than take the position that, since she’s a women, whatever she’s done must be good.
Is that really the best you’re capable of?
January 14th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
As opposed to your instant assumption that his right to raise his children ought to be terminated in the absense of even the accusation of wrongdoing?
January 14th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
"It’s kind of interesting that I think the same thing about you MRAs. There is extreme reluctance to ever, ever think that any male ever can be a bad guy or do anything wrong. "
as opposed to feminists, who simply think that women are angels and men are devils who deserve every piece of Parental Alienation they get? Who believe that ALL men are rapists, ALL men are sexist? Who believe that no man can have ANYTHING to say that is at all worth listening to?
"You will give lip service to certain things (i.e. you will acknowledge that a violent rape is wrong—big of you) but you do not have the ability to say that a guy could have any other motives but the purest ones in each and every story. "
Are we just supposed to take the woman's word for his supposed ill motives? In this particular case, what possible ill motives could he have for pushing through with a DNA test in spite of it being made difficult for him? What bad motive does he have for wanting custody of his biological daughter?
"You can magically turn all situations into ones that show the female to be bad. And of course, virtually all stories posted here are chosen because of some bad female."
Right, because NO feminist EVER does the same about a man? Have a read of this: http://allecto.wordpress.com/ then tell me she doesn't lambaste EVERY man for the actions of the few.
At least the MRAs are able to recognise the difference between hating all women and hating the perpetrators of ills against men.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Slwerner,
I see time and time again MRAs making excuses for men who behave badly. They come up with excuse after excuse. So I feel that I can do the same thing. And I never said she was a victim. But I think the whole kidney thing is stupid. Lame and stupid. Period. And I think saying that she should have been left to die is intolerable. That is my opinion.
But trying to convince those who always think negatively about women is a losing battle. It’s getting to be quite absurd. Woman always is bad. Always does bad things. Even if a victim, probably did something to deserve it. Man—angelic. Never, never can a man do anything bad.
And I disagree when you say that MRAs don’t see any negative story about a woman as indicative of what all women do or would do if given the chance. I will continue to point it out, though. I know it enrages people, but it’s how I see it. You are all quick to scream, “Feminists do it! Feminists blame men!” You guys do exactly what you claim feminists do. And you don’t like to be called on it. I don’t think I said anything out of line in this thread. Or really anything that any rational person could get enraged at. Let her die! He’s a wonderful doctor—no chance he could do anything bad! It’s all her (even tho’ we have no proof)—how dare anyone suggest otherwise!
January 14th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Sonya,
“At least the MRAs are able to recognise the difference between hating all women and hating the perpetrators of ills against men.”
If only that were so. Most MRAs have no such ability. Because they think that the perpetrators of ills against men are WOMEN, esp. feminists. Never, ever do they consider the actions of men against men, when it is actually MEN who are the primary perpetrators of ills against men.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
You're lacking proof again, jeana... All you have there is words, to actual facts at all. Start with references.
You DO know what a reference is, don't you?
January 14th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
It is so very amusing that whenever I say something one of you doesn’t like, you demand references. Oh god. Please, Sonja, are you actually implying that it is women who are the primary cause of men’s troubles? Not repressive male-dominated governments, not regressive tax systems that reward the wealthy, not conservative politics that work to take away what meager savings and protections under the law that people have, not companies that take men’s jobs and send them to China—but women?
January 14th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
i don't have any problem in blaming men when they are wrong. i think most MRA's agree with that. but i have visited feminist websites and they will not hold women accountable for anything. even when a women murders someone, they find a man to blame it on (remember andrea yates, drowned all 5 of her children? it was her husband's fault according to N.O.W., he was at work when she did it). there was story recently about high school girls in Mass. who made a pact to all get pregnant and raise their children together. over on feministing they said that the girls were not to blame, "patriarchy" made them act stupid. i am not making this up. and the Troll Who Shall Remain Nameless (TWSRN) is the exact same, she never expects ANYTHING of women. women aren't even required to tell a man that they don't want to have sex with him. according to the TWSRN , they should stare into space and say nothing. then if they feel bad the next day they should cry rape and ruin the guy's life. how about USING YOUR WORDS like a grown up and avoiding problems in the first place. The TWSRN also gives Mrs. Batista a free pass, she shouldn't even be expected to show gratitude to the man who saved her life by donating a vital organ from his own body. i mean, what has he done for her LATELY? The feminist formula is expect nothing from women, demand everything from men. It's great deal until enough men catch on and refuse to play at all.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Jimbo,
You act as if I am Voldemort. I wish I was. Then I would vanquish all of you.
1) “i don't have any problem in blaming men when they are wrong.” But you guys are never wrong, are you Jimbo?
2) Andrea Yates had post-partum psychosis. A mental illness. I remember reading about a man who murdered his 3 kids in a bathtub not that many months ago. I bet he also had a mental illness. Or maybe, as some do, killed them out of vindictiveness to punish his wife or just because he didn’t want to pay CS.
3) I can’t speak for anything said on Feministing, but girls don’t get pregnant by themselves, do they?
4) You mischaracterize what I say about women, sex, and rape. You, who said my suggestion that if you guys want to protect yourselves, must ensure that you obtain consent for sex, was silly. It is completely up to the female to USE THEIR WORDS to ensure that the braindead male understand clearly that he is not to rape her. The braindead male (braindead because he apparently thinks sex is his for the taking and cannot ever tell whether a female wants him or not) is not under any obligation to ask for sex. USE YOUR WORDS, Jimbo.
5) Did I ever once say Batista shouldn’t show gratitude for the organ? Or just that her husband is a moron for filing the suit because he wants the organ back? Which is it?
January 14th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
gosh, this is like shooting fish in barrel...one by one...
"1) “i don't have any problem in blaming men when they are wrong.” But you guys are never wrong, are you Jimbo?"
i guess this is a rhetorical question.
"2) Andrea Yates had post-partum psychosis. A mental illness. I remember reading about a man who murdered his 3 kids in a bathtub not that many months ago. I bet he also had a mental illness. Or maybe, as some do, killed them out of vindictiveness to punish his wife or just because he didn’t want to pay CS."
did anyone blame his wife for the murders?
3) I can’t speak for anything said on Feministing, but girls don’t get pregnant by themselves, do they?
the girls hatched the plan, the boys didn't know what was going on. they told the boys that they were on birth control (oh, women don't lie! LOL).
4) You mischaracterize what I say about women, sex, and rape...
no i didn't. you refuse to expect anything from women. if there's two adults in a room, they should BOTH behave responsibly, men aren't the only grownups.
5) Did I ever once say Batista shouldn’t show gratitude for the organ? Or just that her husband is a moron for filing the suit because he wants the organ back? Which is it?
he doesn't want it back (no chance of that anyway). he wants compensation for his sacrifice, and he wants attention for his grievances. how many times have we heard SAH Moms go on about how much they "sacrificed" while their husband was working his tail off to support them? isn't a vital organ a bit more of a sacrifice than being forced to watch daytime TV and wander the local mall for a few years? and finally, cheating on your spouse, divorcing him, and keeping his kids from him don't really count as "gratitude."
January 14th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
jeana: It never ceases to amuse me that all your claims are utterly baseless and you CANNOT back them up with ANY kind of fact other than what you believe in your sick and twisted view of the world.
The reason we demand references is for that little thing we call "PROOF". A lot of people won't believe a religion because there's insufficient proof that the diety exists. Meanwhile, the Big Bang theory has basis in fact and proof through science.
But you are just like some of the extremists in religion who refuse to acknowledge proven things. You cling to your beliefs and deny any questioning of them with unproven statements.
On this blog, you will NEVER sway the people's thoughts with a statement you cannot back up with references. You expect us to take your word as gospel truth and convert to your ideals. If you REALLY wanted to sway us, you would back up your words. Since you are incapable of doing so, I suggest you stop posting and walk away. You have absolutely no credibility and even less respect from me.
"repressive, male-dominated governments"
Well, yes. My government IS male-dominated. But since Kevin Rudd's rise to power, we have seen our first female as Deputy Prime Minister. Our first female Governor-General.
But you know, my government is NOT repressive. They're not saints (look at the filtering they want to do on the internet here), but I wouldn't say they're repressing anyone. Neither is the US government (from an outside perspective).
Since WHEN have I EVER implied that women are the cause of all mens ills? Show me. Give me that thing you never can - Proof.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Sonja,
You are as extremist as anyone here. It is interesting that you demand proof from me for everything I say and yet you provide nothing in return. Proof, references, whatever. As “proof”, you people include a random story or anecdote. Give me a break. You are a woman-hater, which is odd, considering that you are a woman. Unless you’re really a guy pretending to be a female. Which is probably the case.
I don’t care what you think of me. I really don’t. When one of you shows an ounce of sanity, I will respect you. I spoke with one guy today (who hates feminists) but who was actually nice. Unlike all of you. Your hatred of feminists makes you bitter and spiteful. I’m so glad I don’t hate any group of people. I would really hate to wind up like any of you.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:58 am
You won't end up like any of the gentlemen on this blog Jenna. You're a female, And what ever you do in life, you will get the female discount.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:39 am
This selfish wench saw the kidney as a new lease on life, too. She went back to school, earn a master's degree in nursing, and took up karate. She injured herself trying to earn her black belt. She began physical therapy - which evolved into an affair with her therapist. I hope this therpist sees exactly what type of woman she is, before it is too late for him.
His actions are a result of her behavior. She has kept the children from him for months. She doesn't OWN the children. She has NOT right to use the children. She has NO right to deny him. Unless there is neglect. Nothing has been mentioned about neglect. To the contrary his actions appear to be just the opposite. He has every right to see his children, and the children have every right to see their father.
He may not be entitled to the kidney or money since it was a gift. But, he does deserves a true woman, not the selfish wench he has right now.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:01 am
Jeana,
A few points regarding your comments to Sonja and Jimbo.
"It is so very amusing that whenever I say something one of you doesn’t like, you demand references."
The reason people here would demand references for what you say is because you have been exposed on multiple occasions as a habitual liar who both distorts the truth and states things as fact that you simply "feel" is accurate.
The funny thing about "feeling" something is true and presenting it as fact is that everyone else can "feel" something different and simply contradict your "facts" with their own "emotional facts".
The only way you even get to act as if your "feeling facts" trump other peoples "feeling facts" is if you function under the premise that your feelings are more important than everyone else's feelings.
People who behave that way are called narcissists.
If you had a history of presenting facts in a honest and legitimate manner no one would demand proof from you constantly because you would have established something we like to call credability. You don't have any of that by virtue of your own habit of constantly lying about what people say and believe.
Furthermore, when in the past you have provided references for statements you have made, upon closer inspection it becomes obvious that the cited material is worthless because the data backing it up was presented in the 1980's or earlier. In those situations I don't exactly blame you for not knowing any better as most people probably don't know how to check citations properly and look to see if more recent data is available.
However, in each and every case the more recent data has contradacted your statements... you desperately cling to a past when your beliefs would have been supported by the scientific evidence. In the year 2008 your belief system is as antiquated as classical mechanics is with respect to quantum systems.
You can keep trying to explain the world around you using information that doesn't actually comport with reality, but ultimately you will just end up describing a world that doesn't really exist. To describe the real world one must use accurate and modern data.
I've suggested to you on multiple occasions modern references you might read to catch you up to date on these issues... each time I have done so you have responded by making fun of me for reading peer reviewed literature, as if trying to poke fun of someone for reading invalidates the facts being presented (not that I've ever understood why any adult would think it was humerous that another adult tried to remain well educated on the issues... but whatever).
"When one of you shows an ounce of sanity, I will respect you."
You have no respect for men Jeana... NONE, and it is not predicated upon "sanity" or any other quality.
You have outright stated that you think men are beasts and that women are the tamers of the beasts... and have also stated that you believe women are more intelligent than men.
How can you show ANY respect for ANY man when you basically think of men as stupid animals?
Men aren't people to you, you talk about men the same way I imagine a slave owner would talk about their slaves.
Only when viewed in that context do any of your comments make any sense at all. It is amazing to me that as soon as I realized that you simply think men are an inferior form of human life compared to women that everything you have ever said on this blog made perfect sense. Nothing you have ever stated here is rational if one functions under the supposition that men and women have equivilant moral standing and both are equally deserving of life.
As such your claim that any man can somehow "earn" your respect is ridiculous... even your husband doesn't really have your respect as on multiple occasions you have badmouthed him on this blog to total strangers. When you respect someone you don't do that to them... if you have noticed any time I have ever spoken about any woman in my life that I care about here it has ALWAYS been in positive terms. I talk the women I care about up... you talk the men you supposedly care about down. Need I post quotes proving my contention?... if so I'd be happy to get them since I know exactly where they are.
Needless to say, that isn't how you show respect for someone.
"You act as if I am Voldemort. I wish I was. Then I would vanquish all of you."
For someone who keeps claiming how anti-violence she is and how peace loving women are you sure jumped to the threat of killing everyone on this blog if you had the power very quickly now didn't you?
As far as I can recall, no matter what you have said to anyone (and often times what you say is rather disgusting to people) no one has ever suggested that if they could they would kill you.
Yet we are all the ones who are "insane" and are "extremists"... I beg to differ.
Just like a slaver owner who discovers that their "beasts" aren't behaving properly... you'd happily "vanquish" each and every one of us who doesn't see things how you do.
I anxiously await the day when you refer to me as "uppity"... it actually would give me something to chuckle about.
And now for your final comment to Sonja which really drives home a few points:
"You are a woman-hater, which is odd, considering that you are a woman. Unless you’re really a guy pretending to be a female. Which is probably the case."
You feel completely justified to levy criticisms of others who have shown no propensity to hate anyone and lable them as being filled with hatred simply because you don't like them.
Furthermore, your sexism comes through once more as you suggest that Sonja couldn't possibly be a woman because in your eyes a woman would simply have to see things the way you do.
You don't even acknowledge the possibility that any woman anywhere could have a view point so divergent from your own... and even if they do see something differently, you imply that they are somehow "broken". She isn't a woman to you... she's just a man inside a womans body at best... or a man faking to be a woman at worst.
I've exposed you for the female supremacist that you are time and time again... which is of course why you dislike me so much.
All I can say is that some of us slaves are just a little less obedient than the rest... I see nothing wrong with asserting my humanity and I honestly do not care if you somehow think that because you have two x chromosomes and I have an x and a y that this somehow makes you better than me.
To paraphrase MLK... people should be judged by the content of their character and not the contents of their pants.
And to Sonja... don't let her insults get you down, if anything being insulted by Jeana is kind of like a compliment.
January 15th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Dawn Elaine Bowie Esq says,
"If the content of the discussion is largely, "that b@#!&," "How could she do this to ME?" etc., I am very cautious about taking the case. "
I wouldn't think that such statements made by the client, initially, speak only to a general idea of what "category" he fits into. People have different temperaments. I wouldn't think it's etched in stone that a guy who's pissed off isn't primarily concerned with his children..expecially if the divorce has happened relatively recently, or if he's had to go to court one hundred times already, or if his ex called him the previous day and threatened him...there are any number of reasons someone would make such statements.
January 16th, 2009 at 3:04 am
"Andrea Yates had post-partum psychosis. A mental illness"
really? you won't find it in the DSM (I checked).
January 16th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Jason--
One comment for you: if you want me to read anything you write, make it under 2,000 words. I have been skipping over everything you write because it's too wordy. Not that I really want to read it in the first place. But if you're going to put the time and effort into writing, then edit a little.
You can just as easily rant or whine in a couple paragraphs. Time is money, Jason.
January 16th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
If only that were so. Most MRAs have no such ability. Because they think that the perpetrators of ills against men are WOMEN, esp. feminists. Never, ever do they consider the actions of men against men, when it is actually MEN who are the primary perpetrators of ills against men.
Of course, this is false. MRA's do speak of the ills men do to men all the time (and the term "feminists" can also apply to men as well). In fact, the term that I personally despise "mangina" is an insult directed at men who help in propping up women at the expense of men to, ostensibly make themselves look good, enlightened, or "not like those evil 'typical' men over there!".
"Andrea Yates had post-partum psychosis. A mental illness"
really? you won't find it in the DSM (I checked).
Interesting...I thought the whole flap about Parental Alienation was that it didn't appear in the DSM. If we are to accept one, why shouldn't we accept the other?
January 16th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Jeana,
"One comment for you: if you want me to read anything you write, make it under 2,000 words. I have been skipping over everything you write because it's too wordy. But if you're going to put the time and effort into writing, then edit a little."
Oh please.
I'll make sure in the future to use big font and small words and maybe pictures since you aren't ready for the grown up books yet.
Nothing I compose is a "rant" as if you actually took the time to read it you would note that none of it is repetitive. It covers one point at a time and moves smoothly from one idea to the next.
I will quote something however as you pretty much just proved my point:
"I've suggested to you on multiple occasions modern references you might read to catch you up to date on these issues... each time I have done so you have responded by making fun of me for reading peer reviewed literature"
All of that peer reviewed literature is over 2000 words as well which explains why you can't be bothered to educate yourself.
You are willfully ignorant... it is actually kind of sad.
Now feel free to imagine a picture of a giant bunny here since I know you hate words so much.
January 16th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Oh, one further point, I decided to toss my post into MS word to see exactly how long it was. It was only 1200 words... so I guess you better get to reading it since it makes it under your 2000 word criteria by a HUGE margin.
The least you could do is be honest. Whether or not you read a post has absolutely nothing to do with how long it is. It has to do with whether or not you think you have a snow balls chance in hell of somehow twisting someone else's words to promote your own agenda.
Since your most recent attempts to do that with me have resulted in a phenomenal failure that exposed your own sexist leanings you avoid what I have to say like the plague. Interestingly enough that is fine by me, I'd be perfectly happy if I just got to comment on this blog and you didn't bother to respond.
I'm interested in sharing opinions and ideas with other people here... any comments from you simply distract from that primary goal.
January 16th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
My only comments which require any kind of proof is my original ones about the case and what Dawnell is demanding in the divorce.
"Dawnell Batista is seeing another man, and is living in the million-dollar waterfront Massapequa home he bought, while he's renting in Ronkonkoma and sending support checks. He's got to be bitter. He's got to want to hold onto part of his surgeon's paycheck, if nothing else."
from: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/01/13/2009-01-13_couples_kids_are_real_victims_in_kidney_.html
Hmm, so SHE gets the million-dollar home while he gets to rent. Nevermind that it was probably only HIS money that paid for the home (read the bits about her health).
"You are a woman-hater, which is odd, considering that you are a woman. Unless you’re really a guy pretending to be a female. Which is probably the case."
Really? If that's so, then why do I have a very healthy relationship with my mother and sister? How come I work at a community organisation which is largely staffed with women whom I get along with?
As to casting doubts on my gender, here's a few of my websites for you:
My photos - http://picasaweb.google.com/Sonja.Newcombe (pay close attention to the album titled "Wedding Photos)
My LiveJournal - http://sonja-newcombe.livejournal.com/
My Facebook page - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=828698837
My Userfriendly diary - http://ars.userfriendly.org/users/diary.cgi?id=sonja
The only women I hate, jeana, are women like yourself. Women so full of hatred for men that they can't put together a coherent argument to back themselves up. Women like Allecto, whom I linked you to earlier in the thread.
January 19th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Divorce in America has become a one-sided, winner-take-all affair. All men everywhere should applaud this poor guy for taking a stand, and bringing to light the ugly thing the divorce machine has become. He gives her his kidney, which put his own life in jeopardy, she commits adultery and files for divorce, knowing that in “The Land of the Freeloaders” she’s guaranteed to win the lottery and the kids, too! It’s time we all wake up to the injustice called “family” court. May history show them to be monsters. Sadly, ladies, in your passion to better yourselves you have unleashed a new kind of slavery that denies fathers the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You tread on sacred ground when you deprive a man of his children. Women do not own children, God does, and He has commanded that fathers be honored, not hounded to their graves by a corrupt machine. Once this machine has consumed all the fathers, it will go after mothers next– until the State “owns” the children and freedom dies in its sleep.
February 7th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Another man who was victim of a wife's parents who deny that all of their family has been treated for mental illness for most of their adult lives. Now, they want me to support her and allow her to raise my children in their dysfunctional dangerous environs. When will the courts and the rest of society step up and say enough? I love her and want to take care of her and make sure my children are raised with a chance to overcome their inherited genetic risk for mental illness. Instead, I have to pay and stand aside and watch my children live in a house of insanity. Do I have to wait until my children are like the Yates' children or are missing with a mother who refuses to answer questions or when she does it's obvious it's lies like Caylee Anthony? How many times do the police have to see my wife acting like Britney Spears before someone says, it's not right for her to take my money and for the system to let her have the kids to raise in that atmosphere of risk with my money. I need that money to provide a safe happy life for my children. I will take care of my wife too if the courts would tell her parents to get out of our lives.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
This is completely my own opinion. I'll bet if DNA testing were done on the three children 1 or more would not be his.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Frankie only finishes his stuff since he has to build it. ,