Monday, August 31, 2015

Another woman seeking the father of her baby UPDATE: Hoax!

UPDATE:  Turns out that the whole story was a hoax, with the pitiful apology that followed linked here.

Not that she's sorry "IF people were misled".  Of course they were misled, because she told them an outright lie.  Misleading someone is saying something ambiguous and letting them draw their own conclusions.  She (and her cohort) lied to people as a marketing ploy.  There's no way anyone watched her original video and thought anything other than what she put out there.

This is fast becoming the boy who cried wolf territory, in that people will be far less likely to want to help out the next time a woman comes forward, like actually happened in Perth a while ago.

The people of Mooloolaba have every right to be upset about the representation of their area as it suggests that the whole marketing aspect is one of "come to Mooloolaba and have easy one-night stands with even easier women!"  Tries to make the area sound like some kind of debauched getaway.


ORIGINAL POST (unedited):

So here we have another woman, French this time, trying desperately to find the Australian father of her child.

Ok, so is the guy wealthy or have a high-paying job by any chance?

If he was the love of her life, why didn't she at least grab his phone number or email address at the time?  If he was so amazing, then why did she go home to France and not just stay?

Perhaps the pregnancy hormones are kicking in and she's putting more emotion into what was otherwise just a one night stand.

Remember, once the guy comes forward she can backtrack on her "love story", hit the guy up for child support and head back to France knowing she's covered.  It sounds harsh, but it's the truth.

Just like all those people who claim "I don't want anything from him", with the statement meaning "I don't want anything from him... at the moment in my current circumstances, but my circumstances may change and I reserve the right to change my mind at any time".


Don't Waste Donate removes comments - EDIT

So, after over 6 months of no response to any of my questions, the Don't Waste Donate website has completely removed all comments from their FAQ section.

I notice now they've got various information about how the donor isn't legally the father, the woman's husband or partner is (unless he didn't consent to the procedure).


So, for any woman out there seeking to snag a man the old-fashioned way, don't be so sure.

Although, I highly doubt it would stand up in a court of law for the poor unsuspecting husband, as most governments only give 'fathers' 12 months to find out.  After that time the family courts usually take the view the the child has bonded with the 'father' and it's too late for him to walk away.

I wonder if we'll ever hear about any cases where that happens or, knowing the media's choice for biased reporting, whether they just brush stories like that under the carpet.

EDIT - re-reading the above, given that medical records are sealed, even from spouses (I know this from trying to get the results of a simple test on behalf of my wife!), how would a husband be able to confirm whether or not his wife had used a sperm donor without getting the courts involved?  It's one of those "you'll have to start WWIII to find that out" things, so even asking the question is a problem.

Don't Waste Donate removes comments - EDIT

So, after over 6 months of no response to any of my questions, the Don't Waste Donate website has completely removed all comments from their FAQ section.

I notice now they've got various information about how the donor isn't legally the father, the woman's husband or partner is (unless he didn't consent to the procedure).


So, for any woman out there seeking to snag a man the old-fashioned way, don't be so sure.

Although, I highly doubt it would stand up in a court of law for the poor unsuspecting husband, as most governments only give 'fathers' 12 months to find out.  After that time the family courts usually take the view the the child has bonded with the 'father' and it's too late for him to walk away.

I wonder if we'll ever hear about any cases where that happens or, knowing the media's choice for biased reporting, whether they just brush stories like that under the carpet.

EDIT - re-reading the above, given that medical records are sealed, even from spouses (I know this from trying to get the results of a simple test on behalf of my wife!), how would a husband be able to confirm whether or not his wife had used a sperm donor without getting the courts involved?  It's one of those "you'll have to start WWIII to find that out" things, so even asking the question is a problem.

Don't Waste Donate removes comments - EDIT

So, after over 6 months of no response to any of my questions, the Don't Waste Donate website has completely removed all comments from their FAQ section.

I notice now they've got various information about how the donor isn't legally the father, the woman's husband or partner is (unless he didn't consent to the procedure).


So, for any woman out there seeking to snag a man the old-fashioned way, don't be so sure.

Although, I highly doubt it would stand up in a court of law for the poor unsuspecting husband, as most governments only give 'fathers' 12 months to find out.  After that time the family courts usually take the view the the child has bonded with the 'father' and it's too late for him to walk away.

I wonder if we'll ever hear about any cases where that happens or, knowing the media's choice for biased reporting, whether they just brush stories like that under the carpet.

EDIT - re-reading the above, given that medical records are sealed, even from spouses (I know this from trying to get the results of a simple test on behalf of my wife!), how would a husband be able to confirm whether or not his wife had used a sperm donor without getting the courts involved?  It's one of those "you'll have to start WWIII to find that out" things, so even asking the question is a problem.

MaleLivesDontMatter

So a whistleblower has come out saying that the South Australian prisons are going to end up with deaths in custody due to a lack of training and equipment.

Remember, that's not to say the other state prisons are any better, just that someone has come forward about these ones.

Remember, as far as the general public is concerned, men who are guilty of anything deserve everything that happens to them in prison, whether they're serving time for fraud, rape or murder.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

A child is dead, two reporters are dead and the media is hiding details

So, here we have a media that has been running so many non-stories and one wonders why.

Well, it turns out that the two big stories at the moment (that they've NOT running) is that the father of the girl found dead in rural Victoria was seeking to get the children away from their mother for their safety and that the shooter of two people who was a gay, black man with a gun.

So now the media is focusing on gun control and only on gun control, not on the race element.

This despite all white people being made to feel responsible for any dead black man, but here's a black man who openly stated he was killing white people and the black community comment on him like he's a martyr to the race war.


Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Ms Gillard says gay marriage now ok

So, Australia's former Prime Minister (and super feminist) Julia Gillard, unshackled by possibly upsetting constituents, is free to promote gay marriage, an institution that she herself hasn't partaken in because she believes "marriage was a patriarchal institute".

This from a person who, as Prime Minister, has been rated dead last in out of an opinion poll for the best Government for the country.  Perhaps she didn't want to rattle too many cages at the time as she was so unpopular.  Must be the misogyny of 88% of the population (8% were undecided).

Sounds like Labor is desperately latching onto a single election issue.  The next election might not be until 2017 (or late 2016), but that's not going to stop the Labor party from laying the groundwork now.

I wonder if we'll see pro-gay marriage people abusing anyone who disagrees with them in Australia like they had in Ireland?

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Women stressed when working in male dominated offices

So, even more studies on how hard it is for women who work in offices dominated by men.

No studies done about the effects of men working in female dominated offices.  What should men who work in female workplaces do if they're stressed?  Suck it up.

Girl charged with manslaughter of guy's suicide, it's still the guy's fault

So here's a story about a girl who goaded a guy into committing suicide before running a fundraiser to raise money to help people who are contemplating suicide.

So, her lawyer is claiming that since the guy killed himself she remains completely blameless.  If the genders were reversed would that still apply?

I highly doubt it!

UPDATE:

So, after the whole trial and the judge declaring the girl guilty, she only get sentenced to 2.5 years jail, with a minimum sentence of 15 months.  That's right, she pushed a guy to commit suicide and was only sentenced to a minimum of 15 months jail.

One wonders how much of that time will be deemed "time served".  Will she actually be getting out of jail in a couple of months?

Absolutely disgusting.

Male-only chemical castration for child sex offenders

So, here's an article about the government planning on using chemical castration on (male only) child sex offenders after they're released from jail.

The article uses gender neutral language, but it's understood that female child sex offenders won't be on the list for the procedure because, well they're just misunderstood people who made bad choices.  Men are the real danger here!

Monday, August 24, 2015

Woman throws acid into ex-boyfriend's face, still the victim

So, here we have a case of a woman who was jailed for 14 years (!) for throwing acid into the face of her ex-boyfriend, but apparently she's still the victim because a mean man made her do it.

The media is clearly trying to minimize the fact that she was a willing participant in a crime that has resulted in a man being severely disfigured.  How disfigured?  Well, unlike stories where women are maimed, this article doesn't mention it, but in another article it says he received 3rd-degree burns and nearly lost his eye.

Talk about minimizing the crime!

This whole article is written to garner sympathy for the woman whose baby was taken away from her as soon as it was born in prison.

The media should be ashamed of itself.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Sperm Donors Anonymous documentary review

So I finally watched the Sperm Donors Anonymous documentary and I have to say that, whilst the overall documentary was pretty well edited, it was lacking in several parts.

Overview:

The documentary features the stories of several donor conceived children looking for their 'donor father' and a donor himself hoping for contact from his 'donor children'.  It also features the story of the (non-biological) father of a couple of donor conceived children telling what it was like for him also.

By the end of the documentary [SPOILER ALERT] we see that the female donor child has made contact with her donor father, who is now apart of her life, one of the two male donor children makes contact and meets (off camera) with his donor father and the second male donor child makes contact but, because he's leaving the country he'll catch up some time next year.

Lack of conclusion:

I understand that all documentaries need to set an end-date to their coverage, but seriously, you follow the story of a guy who is looking for his donor father, finally finds him, makes contact but then leave it at "he's got rough plans to meet him some time next year next time he's in Australia".

The producers obviously edited the whole thing to make the viewer feel sympathetic to how desperately the donor children feel in needing to find their donor father only to have one of their subjects decide "I was desperate to find this guy, but it's a little inconvenient to do this any time this year so I'll get back to it some time next year".

How are we supposed to believe that it really meant anything significant to a guy that treats the whole thing like refilling a prescription.  "Yeah, I need this drug, but I'm a bit too busy this week so I'll just go next week".  This all playing out after following all of the supposed emotion of him wanting to meet his donor father.

Lack of balance in reporting:

Now, I never expect anything from the ABC to present everything that doesn't follow their agenda, but seriously, the closest we got to a balanced documentary on this was a single line from one of the donor fathers interviewed saying "we were promised anonymity".  That was in with all of the other stuff about how excited all of the donor fathers are to meet their 'children'.

Where are the blacked out faces of the guys who are saying they're angry that the government is retroactively removing their anonymity?  Where is the guy saying that he doesn't want to meet any 'children' and having the government force this on him is an invasion of his privacy?

The whole tone of the documentary was summed up when one of the other female donor children, who only has a couple of minutes featured, talked about how she tried contacting her donor father and how he must be some sort of coward for not wanting to meet with her.

That's right, it's the Left's favourite tactic of "you either agree with what we're trying to do or you're a heartless bastard and, if you happen to be a sperm donor and don't want contact with your 'children', you're a cowardly heartless bastard".

Overall, I guess I was expecting a bit better journalism from a government funded network showing a bit of balance, but I probably expected too much.

Watch it if you want, but I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.

Monday, August 17, 2015

So media is already pushing for yet more access!

So the bulk of vocal sperm donated children are getting what they want: access to their donor parent's details.

However, for children born to donors between 1988 and 1998 they'll have to follow a set of rules that states that they will comply with the contact preference (by phone, in person or not at all) or face a $8,856 fine.

So, if a donor who donated between those years who opts to not be contacted at all and the donor child does anyway, they get fined only $8,856.

Does the money paid in the fine go to the donor whose privacy been ignored?  No.

But the media, always on the side of the left, is already putting in a little dig to suggest that donor children who ignore a legal document should see no consequence with this line: "the move to impose fines on anyone who breaches a contract preference could also expose the government to claims of hypocrisy, given Labor is in the process of repealing similar fines put in place by the Coalition to protect adopted children from being contacted by their biological parents without full consent".

I guess that's the standard tactic of the left: promise those who are losing something (in this case their privacy) that if the people who don't agree to follow your preferred method of losing said something then they'll be fined.  Then after a period of time remove the fine altogether and it's open season on people taking things (like your privacy) from you.

Who in their right mind would sign up for sperm donation in the current climate?!?

Sure, you could have a fine upstanding citizen show up on your doorstep in 20 years time.  You could also wind up with an ICE addict looking for a place to crash because their 'real' parents have kicked them out.

Seriously, when are we going to see SOME measures put in place to protect at least the families of sperm donors.  How about at the very least raising the age they can access your details to 30 years old and only if you've got no criminal convictions.  If you have criminal convictions then it's for the donor whose details you want to access to decide if he's happy for you to still contact.

"Yes, I'm fine with son A contacting me because he's only been charged with shoplifting once, which was 5 years ago.  I'm NOT fine with son B contacting me because he was arrested for dealing ICE in night clubs last week and I've got children of my own who I don't want to expose them to that element."

It would be good to at least have that option, however I don't think we'll see that any time soon.  At least not as long as we keep seeing documentary after documentary about how all of these men who donated anonymously are just so excited to meet their children!

Sperm Donors Anonymous airs tonight

So the ABC (or as I sometimes call it Almost Basically Communism) has a documentary airing tonight about sperm donation called 'Sperm Donors Anonymous'.

I'll have to watch this show, but knowing what the ABC is like (and how the article telling about the show) it'll feature a whole heap of guys who were promised anonymity who are now "overjoyed with the thought of meeting their donor children".

On the other hand, the main guy who they seem to interview for the article does a bit of unintentional 'black-knighting' when he suggests that the freedom to contact should go both ways - ie that donors should be given their donor children's details as well.

I fully support this for a couple of reasons, one being that it'll make people realize that an adult turning up out of the blue and proclaiming you 'their biological father' can be stressful to many people.

But, we all know the freedom of information wouldn't happen both ways because you'd be potentially creating stress for women (single women or lesbian partnerships) and the government will do anything they can to minimize stress for women, but men can just suck it up.

Woman sets man's penis on fire, media plays it down

Here's a story about a woman who set her man's penis of fire because of his alleged cheating.

I think the last line of the article perfectly sums up the general attitude of the media's attitude of domestic violence towards men: "this can be a lesson to anyone weighing up the pros and cons of cheating".

Would they ever write that kind of ending to an article about a woman getting assaulted over alleged cheating?  I guess not.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

It takes a media five paragraphs to tell us when woman is at fault

So, here we have a story about a poor woman who is having to overcome severe trauma because of a (female) drunk driver who drove on the wrong side of the road.

Contrast that with this other story about a drunk driver where we knew it was a man from the first paragraph.

Equality for all (except when women commit crimes)!

Sunday, August 9, 2015

In other news, people whose livelihoods depend on agreement with the status quo actually agree

So here's we've got a completely one-sided anti-Trump article that doesn't even bother to investigate any of Trump's claims, just laugh them off.

So, apparently collecting a bunch of tweets from a person constitutes journalism now.

To response to the author's stupid link to 'explain why Trump is wrong':

Preamble - "Climate scientists say they are 95 percent certain that human influence has been the dominant cause of global warming".
My response - People whose careers and funding get better when they agree worse if they don't typically agree.  I will never see a hairdresser tell me I don't need a haircut, not even when I've just had one from a different guy down the road.

1.  That is true.  The biggest greenhouse gas is actually water vapour.  Any plans on banning water yet?

2.  So, doing to very straight-forward chemistry calculations means you get to ignore other variables?  Can we declare because of the last volcano eruption that the southern hemisphere isn't allowed to burn coal for the next 5 years?

3.  That may be happening, but we've not yet seen conclusive proof that humans are the primary cause.  Remember, scientific consensus by a group of people who'll get millions in grant money if they say yes, IS NOT PROOF.  Again, getting three hairdressers together to ask them all if you need a haircut and you'll still get a yes BECAUSE THEY ALL KNOW THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THEM WILL GET MONEY FROM THE ANSWER IF YOU FOLLOW!

4.  Data that shows what we want it to show that only dates back 60 years (while ignoring temperature data from the last 2000 years) will only focus on relative increases in our current time frame because apparently it doesn't fit with the narrative.

5.  Those two graphs on that website only very loosely line up.  Notice how the dark lines represent a line of best fit yet if you look really closely at the thinner lines, the sharp rises and falls barely match.  Solar activity is a contributing factor, but let's remember that it's a complicated equation not: it's all coals fault, stop burning coal.  If we did, we'd spend the next 100 years being told what the next thing we're not allowed to do is.

6.  Declaration of impossible from person who then tells you what you MUST do to make it possible.  Can this person then explain why the medieval warming period happen?  Oh, must have been the pre-medieval industrial age they had stupid!

Summary:  In summary, an intergovernmental group (who were made up of very well paid people pushing an agenda) all agreed (there's that consensus again!) that humans are the cause.

Seriously, is this what passes as journalism?

Six months since Don't Waste Donate received my questions

Update about the Don't Waste Donate website.

So it's now been SIX months since I posted my harmless questions about the risks and obligations of sperm donors that have gone unanswered and I was beginning to think that the website had in fact become inactive.



My money is on the latter.  Either way, the site is NOT inactive.

Apparently you can't mention "blood" to any woman

So Trump is in the news again, this time about supposedly misogynist claims after he said to Megyn Kelly "you can see there was blood coming out of her eyes, coming out of her whatever".

Ok, so if he'd actually said "you can see there was blood coming out of her eyes, ears, nose and mouth" they'd turn that into a domestic violence against woman issue.

I wonder if the media will ever get around to properly reporting on Hilary and all of her career fails.  Probably not until she's done running for office.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

Why get involved?

It never ceases to amaze me that women still think that men should step in and risk being assaulted to stand up for people who don't stand up for themselves.

Ok, so "where are the real men"?  The first thing we learn is that, if there's no violence happening (only words) then what's the point in escalating anything?  Why should I step in and argue with the guy when all it's going to do is probably anger him.

Would I step in if he was assaulting people?  Possibly.  Would I step in just because he's saying a few bad things?  Not unless I really felt I could handle the situation.

Notice how it's "where are the real men" when there's potentially violence, but it's "women are every bit as capable as men at everything" every other minute of the day.