Prejudice of Mass. Courts Revealed by Globe’s Eileen McNamara

Sidebar:
Prejudice of Mass. Courts Revealed by Globe’s Eileen McNamara

February 2001

The prejudice of the Massachusetts courts was inadvertently made clear by the Boston Globe’s feminist columnist, Eileen McNamara, who weighed in heavily against the Newbury father.

McNamara empathized with the mother who has obvious problems and then asked, “Who…could stand up to the kind of scrutiny that pronounces anything less than perfection as ‘unfit.’”

But we don’t automatically give the custody of children to the mother unless she’s “unfit.” We give custody to the better parent.

At least that’s what we’re supposed to do. McNamara revealed inadvertently what actually happens in the courts of Massachusetts.

We don’t know what they did in the New York courts fourteen years ago to the children of unwed parents. But what occurs in the courts in Massachusetts today does not follow our state’s law. Our judges are either afraid to enforce the law because of the tremendous influence of the feminist-dominated media or else they are feminists themselves.

Women Favored In 1830s
Until the 1830s, the father always received custody of his child. At that point, most of the states changed their laws to require that custody would be given to the better parent. But the judges were lazy even then and did not want to listen to the wrangling and quarreling of unhappy husbands and wives. So they made a presumption that the mother was always the best parent for young children. That made it easier for the judges.

That was unfair but it didn’t impact too many people until the 1960s when divorce became more common and the feminists began their drive to end the institution of marriage. Then in the 1970s and 1980s, as many women began to jump from bed to bed on a casual basis, they began to experience serious problems when they would sleep with men they didn’t even know. As a result, the restraining order was introduced to protect women from those few strangers with whom they slept who were violent. This quickly became an enormously powerful weapon to use against any man, whether he was violent or not.

Self-Interested Adults
McNamara says this boy was merely a “pawn” at the mercy of “self-interested adults.” How does she possibly know that the father is a “self-interested adult?” Does she have divine revelation?

No. It’s just that the feminists who control this state do not like men, and their entire worldview originates from that.

No one knows all of the answers to this case but that doesn’t stop Eileen.

Oh, Come On, Eileen
The tears really start to flow at the end of McNamara’s column.

“Sixteen might be too young for [this sixteen-year-old] to calculate what his mother has lost. When she last tucked him into bed or held him in her arms, he was just 2, that magical age when a toddler can manage to pull away and cling to you at the very same time. She never saw her son learn to read or ride a bike or catch his first pop fly. She never got the chance to cheer at ringside when he learned to box so well. She never got to hang his artwork or his spelling tests on the refrigerator door. She has no file of homemade Mother’s Day cards.”

Does McNamara think that fathers don’t have feelings like that? We could introduce her to many fathers in Massachusetts who have suffered terribly at the hands of the courts.

One has to wonder whether McNamara ever had a father, brother, husband or boyfriends. Why does she dislike men so intensely?