The GOP’s Betrayal of the Pro-Family Agenda
I wish I had a dime in my pocket for every time I heard a Republican politician stand up and proclaim his support for “family values.â€
Â
When we survey the current state of the family, we see that Americans are half as likely to wed compared to a generation ago, mostly due to a growing shortage of marriage-minded men. [www.therealitycheck.org/StaffWriter/croberts112906.htm]
Â
How did all this happen?
Â
Over the past 40 years, the Sisters of Spinsterhood have cranked out the message that men are not needed or wanted. That message was eventually translated into a broad range of anti-family laws and policies.
Â
First, Great Society programs forced poor women to choose between a husband and a handout. Then divorce courts routinely took children away from their fathers. No-fault divorce laws meant mom could dispose of dad and claim the kids as ransom money.
Â
Next came the 1994 Violence Against Women Act that became a nightmare of false allegations and household evictions. The final blow was draconian enforcement by child support programs that began to stick low-income fathers in debtor’s prisons if they couldn’t pay.
Â
The resulting marginalization of husbands and fathers lies at the root of the melt-down of the American family. No wonder that 53% of America’s most eligible bachelors now say they are “not interested in getting married anytime soon,†and 22% foreswear any desire to get hitched, ever. [http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2004.htm]
Â
So what has the GOP’s family values agenda done to reverse the collapse of the family?
Â
Go to the website of the Republican National Committee and look at its list of Teams. Yep, we’ve got outreach efforts to Blacks, entrepreneurs, the faith community, Hispanics, seniors, youth, and women. [www.gop.com/Teams]
Â
Great, but why no Team for men?
Â
Mr. Mehlman, this is a slap in the face. As head of the Republican National Committee, you know that it was the male electorate that handed President Bush his margin of victory in both the 2000 and 2004 elections.
Â
Now let’s examine the Republican Platform: www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf . But wait, there’s a slight problem – the document was done in 2004. Good morning, GOP, it’s now 2006. Hasn’t anyone come up with any new ideas lately?
Â
And what does the Platform say about families? Promoting marriage, responsible fatherhood, the culture of life, and more. All the right buzz-words, but let’s take a closer look.
Â
“Responsible fatherhood.†Hmmm. There’s an unspoken message that lurks in that phrase, as if to say, fathers are not naturally responsible.
Â
Look at the litany of social welfare laws and programs that date from the Great Society, including no-fault divorce and the Violence Against Women Act. All these laws removed the father as the head of the family and replaced him with a government bureaucrat.
Â
And now you’re calling fathers irresponsible?
Â
What does “responsible fatherhood†mean in practice? The term was coined back in 2000 by President Bill Clinton who let it be known that responsible dads always make their child support payments. [www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=58649]
Â
So to the bean-counters at the federal Office for Child Support Enforcement, responsible fatherhood translates into one thing: send us your child support money. We don’t care if you’re laid-off, injured, sick, poor, homeless, lack marketable skills, the mother refuses to let you see your child, or even if you’re not the real father! We need to see that check, or else.
Â
That’s family values?
Â
And earlier this year, the bureaucrats came out against a proposed law in North Dakota that would help divorced fathers stay involved in their children’s lives. Why? Because it would cut into the state’s child support reimbursements. [www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.52]
Â
Shameful.
Â
Now think hard — can you name a single Republican lawmaker who has spoken out against the reckless intrusion of government drones into private family matters? Or has taken a principled stand against the rampant violations of persons’ civil rights? Or has sponsored a resolution decrying the plight of the American father?
Â
Me either.
Â
And what about the Federal Marriage Amendment, designed to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman? Despite its majority status, the Grand Old Party couldn’t get the bill through the House or Senate in either 2004 or 2006.
Â
Over the past 12 years, the Republican base rested on the dependable votes of men, conservatives, and pro-family advocates. But alas, the GOP took its base for granted, went on a taxpayer-funded spending spree, and failed miserably when it came time to deliver on its pro-family promises.
Â
And now that electoral block, disillusioned by years of fruitless happy-talk, has decided to take its business and go elsewhere.
| More from Carey Roberts
Stumble It!
December 6th, 2006 at 8:23 am
All the talk about marriage is merely a facade.
“Responsible Fatherhood” is a catch-all phrase permitting Republicans to irresponsibly take from men to support a 40-year old enterprise entitling single motherhood and the divorce state.
Republicans who support entitled spinsterhood, this cabal of predatory reproduction, are sick people. They are feminist socialists, not conservatives. And, they wiped out the Republican party in the last elections.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:33 am
The problem with paying child support is that it only encourages the continued breakdown of the family and of marriage as viable institutions.
So perhaps we just have to bite the bullet and refuse to pay child support and scream for the enforcement of the Peonage Law. It is a Republican law, in that it was passed when the GOP really was the Party of Lincoln.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Democrats think terrorists are victims in need of protection from government, Republicans think they are enemies that should be killed. The list goes on and on, but one thing they both agree on is that fathers are the enemy.
In a sense they are right, because fathers usurp the need for massive government bureaucracy. Fathers cut into the power wielded by judges and politicians, so they treat fathers as the enemy, swaying women to “choose” government as husband and father. It has worked extremely well for them.
We now have a news report of a father waving hello to his daughter causing a huge “manhunt”, only to find out it was all a big mistake. The deciding factor? The mother said he was ok. Then, they claimed it was a sign that the system was working, when it really shows what an abysmal failure it all is.
While I could never vote for a Democrat, there aren’t any Republicans worth getting me to go to the voting booth. I see it as we’ll just continue to rot until somday somebody gets the gumption to wage a campaign whereby the role of husband and father is no longer a government role, and fathers are restored as the rightful protector of children, and that’s when I’ll bother to vote again.
Meanwhile, the Republicans can continue their losing battle to win the feminist vote.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Yes, it is shameful. And it is bleak.
The republicans do nothing, that is true.
And the democrats point directly at INCREASING the entitlement mentality. They don’t put up a facade. They ARE the feminists.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:43 am
I have heard George Bush tell us many times that he wants freedom for all. He wants us to bring freedom to the world so we can defeat our enemies. Well, I hold this truth to be self-evident, that all people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of virtue. Yes, virtue. John Adams meant virtue when he expressed the true meaning of freedom. And, can you think of anything more virtuous than to protect the basic human rights of children to be raised by both of their own parents. I can’t. I’d like to hear someone, with the fortitude of John Adams, talk freedom and mean it. Where the hell is that?
Richard Eichinger
Brookville, OH
December 6th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
I don’t know how many times I’ve doubted that personal experience is NEEDED to change minds and hearts, but this issue I believe, unfortunately is one of them. I was walking around completely oblivious to the plight of men and fathers in a “really knowing it” kind of way. Then I had a near miss with divorce, separated for 1.5 years, living under temporary orders and listening as my attorney would tell me to pretty much be resigned to what would happen. My wife was not particularly agressive, she didnt get restraining orders or allege violence, and as divorce goes it was amicable, and still I felt I was out of control. I obsessively researched and it was those sleepless nights and endless reading WHILE in the situation to potentially become a vistim that I opened my eyes for the first time. Ultimately we reconciled and my wife is indeed even a convert to seeing the family law world correctly. But even my close friends, those who stood by me and took “my side”, even they sort of glaze over when engaged on this topic, a touch of apathy and a touch of preconceived notions yields a VERY hard to educate public about this issue. They see it as not really affecting them, while the country spirals toward fatherless doom.
Baskerville, Usher and others are doing a fantastic job, and the passion of those here who post and share is obvious, but I wonder do you all experience that same lazy or dismissive response even from those close to you who know your nature not to sensationalize?
My conclusion is that, like many other issues, until this thing gets right in ones face, it is off the radar, so sadly more divorces etc., more fatherless kids and broken families. Even the church is glazed over not getting it and flowing right along w/ the system. Divorce is the most accepted “sin” in our society and leads to much of the social pathologies people do care about like substance abuse and suicide etc. Whats interesting is that becuase we don’t get mixed signals in daily life , we get virtually NO signals, children of divorce are no more likely, perhaps less likely, to see this problem then anyone else. I’m a child of 6 divorces (yea, s-i-x) and still didn’t see this matter clearly until it hit me in the head.
So, experts, we can talk about getting out the message, preaching to who will listen, organizing, whatever, but I submit that a gazillion father march or group leading the news daily for weeks would simply get glazed over reactions from the uninitiated public.
So what the hell to do?
December 6th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
What to do?
Men’s Studies courses.
They should be REQUIRED in high school and university, just as many universities require women to take ‘women’s studies’ courses.
We simply MUST get this information to young males BEFORE they consider a relationship or marriage to women.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
I agree Roger, though we’re talking about a whole generation before that filters through and has an impact. The other problem is a chicken and egg. The reason there are womens study courses is that they convinced the powers that be that women were being treatyed unfairly. We could never get mens study courses UNTIL there is success changing hearts and minds.
So I see your idea as step 2, and still, what is step 1?
December 6th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Step one has already been completed. It is the collection of data. It is the consolidation of the copious reports on domestic violence, paternity fraud, reports of false rape, violence by women, reproductive rape, ‘no-fault’ divorce, the data on performance of single parent children, reports on male suicide at various ages, etc.
This information needs to be rolled up and summarized to our legislators until the picture is clear. Something like this was done in NH resulting in the New Hampshire Commision on the Status of Men http://www.nh.gov/csm/. This commission is an admission that there is a problem.
This needs to be done in every state.
And men should DEMAND that Men’s Studies courses are available to young men in high school and college….particularly since more and more boys are being raised by single mothers who have no clue about raising boys.
December 6th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
The breakdown of our society, as we slide into despair, will be the most well documented event in the history of the world, and nobody will ever care enough to read about it.
December 6th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Chas is right, the level of both ignorance and apathy abounds, and though yes Roger this data is available, I suggest again that until people care outside our little cirlce of those in the know, the chances of getting mens studies courses are slim to none. The legislature won’t budge until the level of public angst reaches critical mass, and we are nowhere close. So, we have the data, how do we get people to give a rats back side?
December 6th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
“Baskerville, Usher and others are doing a fantastic job, and the passion of those here who post and share is obvious, but I wonder do you all experience that same lazy or dismissive response even from those close to you who know your nature not to sensationalize?”
Absolutely, Conservativation. Married guys usually respond with that smile that says “Dude, don’t you think you’re going overboard?” Often they’ll even say it out loud. But when their marriage starts circling the rim, who do they seek out…? Guys like me. But I was much the same way, I didn’t know the MRM even existed. I’m making damn sure my sons know about it.
It all comes down to our individual circles of influence.
December 6th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
“Baskerville, Usher and others are doing a fantastic job…”
What are they doing, emarel?
Have any laws been passed beside trying to placate and pacify others such as changing the wording of existing statutory law to gender neutral to make the rebuttable presumption of Equal Shared Parenting (ESP)the law of the land not only in the USA, but in Canada, Europe, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia and etc.?
Let me answer that for you… Nopers.
So, since EVERYONE knows how unjust the “system” is as evidenced by the laughter when a comedian “discusses” the subject, obviously, nothing has changed except that some have written about the problem (Baskerville, Usher and ESPECIALLY Sanford Braver, Leving, Farrel and etc.), what has changed in the last 50-100 years?
Let me answer that for you, too. Nothing.
Oh? The “Tender Years doctrine” “outlaws” bias against men? Yeah! Make me laugh more!
No. Nothing.
Nothing, nada, change and etc. will happen until ONE THING. Just what is that?
Let me answer that again.
Men grow a “set” and start being men again. Y’know… Not afraid of the repercushions when they know that they are right. Not caring about what a “judge” will say. Going out and demonstrating their discontent. Refusing to play “their game.”
It really is simple. If you, you and you, decide that enough is enough, things will change. Until then? Each generation gets weaker because they have become indoctrinated within the system’s indoctrination centers commonly called “public schools.”
Want more? Want proof? I can and am able to give it to you. What you have to do? Promise to act and do what is necessary at the sacrifice of yourself in order to benefit your children. Not ready to do that? Then, don’t e-mail me at FIRM@FIRMncp.com or Eric87443@hotmail.com
Fun stuff, eh?
Eric
December 6th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Carey-
excellent column. I’m forwarding this to the RNC. Not that it will necessary achieve anything. I am so god damned sick of seeing the kool aid drinking hacks that yack yack yack the GOP talking points here and delude themselves into believing they are MNDs answer to the Pulitzer Prize. Same with the DNC hacks that comment here.
I’ve torn up my RNC Life Membership for good. Neither party is ANY good for men and fathers. I’ve been a libertarian at heart all my life but made the mistake of believing that the only way to achieve change is within the system and get one party to see the light. Both parties need to get a lot of abuse by men and fathers. The only good scenario until a third party emerges is divided government. The election achieved that I believe.
This site can become THE focal point for the rights of men and fathers if all the eyeballs out there give their attention to columns such as Carey’s and not to the two-bit hacks on both the left and right that have nothing new to say.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
Denis?
Would you please nominate me for a pulitzer prize?
Thanks in advance,
Eric
December 6th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Eric-
Done.
But you got stiff competition.
I’ve also nominated Baskerville, Usher, and
LaSalle.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Sorry Denis…
I just don’t see the competition…
LOL
C’mon Stephen, David, Mike and et all… Join this and have fun as I am…
Eric
December 6th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
People, I’m going to release some information pretty soon that is going to be super valuable to the Men’s Rights Movement. It will be a compendium of research originally compiled by Dr. Martin S. Fiebert of the Dept. of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach. This research has long been cited by MRAs but when you see it, your eyes glaze over because it’s not distilled into any organized format (and it’s very dry and academic). I’m taking all 168 of the studies and putting them into a single Excel spreadsheet, sortable by author, year, title, subject matter, whether DV was equal, whether DV was higher for women, whether the Conflict Tactics Scales were used, sample size of men and/or women, and links to the actual studies where available. The beauty of it all will be that it is sortable.
In my estimation, the reason why the Men’s Movement hasn’t gotten anywhere is that women have perpetrated the notion that their sex is composed of victims (”survivors”) and men are aggressors or potential aggressors. When this research gets out, for the first time you’ll be able to sort it, compute totals on any numerical columns, and draw overall conclusions from it. The data comes from studies spanning four decades, since the 1960s. It is powerful, and it will be easy to see and make sense of.
Stay tuned; we’re looking as soon as the end of next week.
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
December 7th, 2006 at 12:37 am
John, I’d love to get my hands on the data, the dryer the better.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:05 am
Divorce and its consequences is the elephant in the living room – every one sees it, but no one is willing to acknowledge it.
I sense that many single people 40 and younger are having too much fun with disposable income and casual sex to make a sober judgement.
For example, a 30 year old friend’s parents separated – his solution – hoped each parent would date as many people, to have fun.
He is a college professor (read: a liberal).
Though my friend has a graduate and an undergraduate degree, he did not sound smart. I supposed that this is why each of us need to study the bible, to learn how to live life.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:31 am
jjtaup wrote:
What I meant by the research being dry is that the way it has been presented thus far is dry, academic, and hard to read. And you couldn’t group anything together; it was just an incredibly long Web page. But by the end of next week, you’ll see all of the information at the above link distilled into a single spreadsheet. It will be much easier to read. You’ll be able to quote facts and figures as fast as you can sort Excel columns, and you’ll be able to do so rapidly. Imagine calling a talk radio show with this in front of your eyes. I can’t count the number of times that it has been conceded that men abuse more often than women do; even men buy this line. It’s bunk. And it’s about to be de-bunked.
John Dias
December 7th, 2006 at 6:16 am
Eric said
(when) Men grow a “set†and start being men again. Y’know… Not afraid of the repercushions when they know that they are right. Not caring about what a “judge†will say. Going out and demonstrating their discontent. Refusing to play “their game.â€
I’ve been saying this all along. Yes, the system is now stacked against us, and yes life’s a bitch. Now get off your lazy butt and be men. The world will give way to real men.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:13 am
Emarel:
Because you seemed to get what I was saying about people glazing over, and reading further here about data and classes and activism in general, I’ve reached another conclusion. I believe there are many many well intentioned members of the MRM who have fallen into a pattern that is to be so convinced of one’s position (and rightly so I add) and so involved in studying it, proving it, and “getting the word out” that many have failed to realize that what is obvious to you and me and us is nowhere near obvious to everyone…case in point the glazed over reaction. It reminds me of Christians arguing with athiests using scriture as the basis for the argument. If the person on the other side has no perspective from which the scripture, or in our case the “data” is meaningful, then its folly to harp about it.
I sound like the guy who is all problem and no solution but folks, people untouched by this are completely ambivalent about it.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
“people untouched by this are completely ambivalent about it.”
One of the ways I tried to get through to the “masses”, because of course the MSM is practicing the cone of silence treatment and none of us are willing to commit mass murder and terrorism, is to place my war posters, please see
http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/warposters.htm
on lamp posts on the approaches to Safeco Field before Mariners baseball games, which are also the approaches to Seahawk Stadium (QWEST Field) before Seahawks games.
Thousands of people walk by these posters on their way to and from the games.
A few might look at the website.
I tried this on the Fourth of July along the Seattle waterfront. I’ve tried this during Hempfest Week.
A larger hit count boost seems to happen, if only because on Independence Day, people are thinking a little more about rights and freedoms.
It seems that most people just don’t give a flying fcuk.
If they would react angrily the way Marc Rudov does, that would be better!
Now Rush Limbaugh recently told us he is optimistic, because new generations sometimes rebel against the attitudes of their parents. How this can work is that if our children are constantly exposed to an ultra left wing view of the world in their schools and their parents are too busy to worry about it, not even to demand letter grades on the report cards so they can tell how they are doing, the teenage rebellion is going to be in a conservative, basic values, fundamental freedoms direction.
The Army is meeting its recruiting goals again.
I am also getting feedback from my sons’ generation, it is anecdotal, that they are furious with the family law system and what it has done to their own families, to themselves, and to American Freedoms.
We can only hope that most of them have the clue our generation seems to be missing.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Eric,
In case you havent noticed, neither I, Baskerville, Braver, or anybody else here is a Senator or a state Rep. I have a number of great laws passed in MO, including the first law protecting reservists from child support abuses, and the toughest moveaway law in the country.
But where Congress is bought and paid for on K street by the Bar and feminists, we don’t stand a chance. They simply refuse to listen, and they refuse to let us testify too.
I have been pushing Republicans to the limit for as long as I can remember. Now, we will take it to the next level. They deserved their losses, and they need to understand they won’t ever win again unless they bring us into the tent.
In the meantime, since you feel quite confident about your ability to pass laws, please go get some passed, or work with those who do to push for it. We need hundreds of Baskervilles and Ushers and everyone else to win. We get the government we deserve.
December 8th, 2006 at 6:28 am
David Usher, we love you. Please go easy on Eric, he has had it rough as we all have.
We need to pass good laws, and we need to repeal bad laws. The problem is, if we don’t “Stalin purge” the bad judges, it will not matter what laws we pass.
That is why I suggest we scream for the enforcement of the Peonage Law, (already passed, I might remind you, by a Republican majority that really was the Party of Lincoln) so that it is not a secret to the public from which FEDERAL GRAND JURIES ARE DRAWN.
Get it?
In addition to everything else we are doing, of course!
December 8th, 2006 at 8:41 am
A seat at the Table:
Human beings know that there is safety and strength in numbers. We have formed villages and societies for just that reason. When a person is a member of the village, they know they are when they are invited to have a seat at the Table and share in the benefits derived through the strength achieved by having a large number of people working together.
But, Now we are presented with two tables. One table has few chairs and only the very wealthy are allowed to sit at that table. If you are not wealthy, you are not a member of their village. The other table is more friendly and they invite everyone to have a seat at that table but only if they agree to share everything equally, so many people choose to not sit at that table either. So table two does not have enough members to achieve strength through numbers. Those in the seats at table two know that they are weak and think about how they can get more people to sit at their table. The realize that fear will bring people to the table so they can feel safe. So, table two invents a threat, an enemy that will force the people to the table. The enemy has to be strong enough to be seen as having enough strength to really be a threat. Unfortunately, the only group that fits the having enough strength to really be a threat is: men. And so men are the invented enemy. And now, men are not allowed to sit at table two and are under constant attack from those seated at table two. The men go to table one and ask for a seat and protection, but table one says “You are not wealthy and we have no need for you. We don’t want to burdoned with you because you will dilute our wealth. We don’t share”.
Poor men, the have no seat at any table. So they look about for another table where men can have a seat and they find such a table. But, to be a member of that table, they have to convert to that tables religiuous beliefs. The men don’t want to but they know if they don’t table two will surely destroy them. Now, table one realizes that if the men join table three, table three will be very powerful and might threaten table one and table three will surely attack table two because now the men are strong and the men want to feel safe from table two. To feel safe from table two, table three attacks table two. Seeing this, table one joins with table two because if they join together they will be stronger. so, now the tables are at war. Who will win? It is not known yet. However, table three appears to be getting stronger and stronger as more and more men come to their table.
Who is table one? They are the Republicans.
Who is table two? They are the Democrats
Who is table three? Who are the only people who will still allow men to have a seat at the table? It is Islam.
And now you know why One and Two are at war with Islam.
If all men go to table three, then Islam will win. But, the men don’t want really want to members of table three, the want to be members of their old village, table two or even table one if they become wealty. But if two never realizes that men are not their enemies, they will surely be destroyed by table three. And if table one refuses to share with the men, then they will surely be destroyed by table three.
So, table one and two, please let the men sit with you for the men are really your people. To not do so will surely result in the destruction of the village of the the men. The village that they once protected, but now feel threatened by.
One and Two, please wake up! Time is running out….
December 8th, 2006 at 9:06 am
The bureaucrats this, the bureaucrats that. I don’t know about America but here in Oz the Public Service, as we call it, is staffed predominantly by women. I am talking a ratio of 3:1. It is the biggest source of women’s employment. The same in the UK. There, fully 27% of the population work for the Government and the ratio is 3:1 as well. These people are going to vote for whoever pays them! Hardly suprising that men don’t get a look in.