The National Fatherhood Initiative held a “media event” today at the National Press Club in Washington and released a survey called “Pop’s Culture: A National Survey on Dads’ Attitudes on Fathering.” A panel discussion followed with representatives from the media:
The topic was, “Does the Media Get it Right on Fatherhood?” The theme is ironic given that NFI’s extreme reluctance to examine the causes of the fatherhood crisis in family court abuses leads some to question whether the National Fatherhood Initiative itself entirely “Gets it Right on Fatherhood.” This is somewhat unfair. NFI deserves enormous credit for calling the nation’s attention to the crisis of fatherless children. Whether NFI can continue to be on the cutting edge of solutions to this crisis remains to be seen.
To its credit, NFI departed from the familiar themes about “good fathering” and “responsible fatherhood” and moved the discussion to the more contentious area of negative depictions of fathers in the media. After an hour, as the discussion was on the verge of becoming repetitious, panelist Stephen Perrine of Best Life, a magazine targeted at men, startlingly shifted the discussion by declaring that primary responsibility for the fatherhood crisis lay not with fathers nor with the media but with “the government.” He specifically criticized divorce courts for arbitrarily separating children from fit and loving fathers and challenged the myth that the crisis is caused by fathers “abandoning” their children.
Since the shift to audience questions was long overdue, I piped in at this point and asked about the “media blackout” on the problem of why loving and committed fathers who have not “abandoned” their children can be arrested for trying to see them, arrested for inability to pay extortionate child support, and arrested for mere allegations of domestic violence when not a shred of evidence is produced. I also asked why we have seen no media investigations of the courts in which this scandal is taking place. Soon after, David Levy of the Children’s Rights Council, pointed out that the District of Columbia in fact already has a shared parenting giving both parents equality in custody arrangements.
A father sitting to my right immediately informed me that everything I had mentioned had just happened to him and handed me a moving account of his efforts to reunite with his daughters. Another told me that the question was long overdue.
What is the moral of this event? Change the subject! We must be bold and not afraid to speak up at every opportunity. We have no right to criticize NFI for not bringing up these topics if we fear to do so. They are helping us by holding such events; it is our duty to take advantage of the opportunity. For too long we have sat in silence as others frame the terms of debate and set the agenda. We must take the initiative. We can be polite, but still firm and forceful. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
amfortas said,
It is interesting to see what is happening in various parts of the world. In the UK there is a watershed moment acoming. The labor Party under PM Blah is stepping up its plan to take over families altogether. Having got rid of fathers it is now targetting mothers and establishing a force of public servants (sic) to get down to such nitty gritty and essential issues as reading nursery rhymes to children, It seems that not only are fathers bad for children, but so are mothers! The Conservative Party is currently developing its Policy on families. Let us hope (against hope?) that they see the need for Two-Parent families, the support of marriage and the repeal of the destructive unilateral divorce laws. Pigs might fly yet.
December 7, 2006 at 2:47 am
mazza said,
Look at where family dissolution has been made a political effort; Scandinavia and the UK are the best examples. Marriage is dead in those countries and men are constantly demonized. It is happening here in the US and nothing will stop it.
As long as the current system fills the pockets of lawyers, it will continue. The lawyers will give political donations to leftists and new laws will come along making things worse and worse, yet enriching the lawyers and social engineers.
Look for things to get 100% worse for men by the time President Hillary is inaugurated.
December 7, 2006 at 7:07 am
DcFather said,
“It takes a man to be a dad.”
Right. It takes a man to stand up to the SWAT team standing between you and your children when you try to “visit” them. It takes a man to tell a judge to go to hell when the judge is more concerned about lawyers making money than he is about fundamental human rights. It takes a man to sit in prison for something he didn’t do because his ex-wife took her lawyer’s advice to make false allegations against him. It takes a man to fight a system that revolves around gender and money, when he is the wrong gender and all they want is his money. It takes a man to live in a dump when half his wages go to things like breast implants for the ex-wife. It takes a man accept that his children are being abused and molested and there is nothing he can do about it because the feminazis at Child Protective Services can’t tell the difference between facts and stereotypes.
NFI has been and continues to be part of the problem. They are nothing more than the PR wing of an anti-father government, giving lip service to the importance of fathers while undermining fatherhood.
How in the hell can an alleged pro-father group go along with using billions in federal tax dollars to bribe states into manufacturing as many fatherless children as possible? If the NFI actually gave a damn about children and fathers, they would put there resources towards ending the war against fathers. Instead, they put the onus on fathers, as if fathers should just accept more and more of the decades-long anti-father legislation, extortion, and racketeering.
Seems to me there would at least be some truth in advertising if they changed their slogan to:
“It takes a vagina to be a dad.”
December 7, 2006 at 8:11 am
thurston861 said,
Public speech will make public awareness in 5 years.
If NFI had done its job we might have been there by now.
December 7, 2006 at 9:50 am
conservativation said,
Listening to a couple discuss friends divorce in the lobby of my church, using phrases and intonation as if the divorcing couple had just bought a vacation home, that was an apt metaphor for the condition of our blind society.
December 7, 2006 at 9:55 am
Roger Knight said,
Shhhhhh.
Never discuss the Antipeonage Act.
The Child Support Crusade depends on nobody realizing that it is a crime to enslave for debt.
December 7, 2006 at 10:45 am
John Dias said,
Download the study here.
The study also pointed out that children in the custody of fathers tend to have a better relationship with the mother, while this is not the case when mothers have custody.
These findings underscore the intense need children have for their fathers, but are denied this by a family court system slanted against them. Kudos to Dr. Baskerville for pointing out a forum in which these issues can be identified and addressed.
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
December 7, 2006 at 3:27 pm
mazza said,
It could be a direct transfer payment to women. On women’s paychecks, there would be a FVCA Disbursement line. Imagine all women getting paid directly from mens’ checks!
The tradeoff is no child support, no alimony, no VAWA and feminists must go to re-education camps.
December 7, 2006 at 5:54 pm
DadWithGirls said,
We live in a democracy.
Which is to say, you get the laws you pay for.
You get political representation you pay for.
You get the justice you can pay for.
Justice is a BUSINESS.
Like prostitution and religion and washing cars.
Men will get VAWA repealed when the politicians are afraid and paid…..
Until then…
Type away on the ‘Net and enjoy the tragedy.
December 7, 2006 at 6:50 pm
wls1 said,
Perrine is perhaps an interesting guy: the NY Times ran his almost unprecedented op-ed criticizing family court earlier this year. It seems because he’s a publisher and editor, although his magazine focuses on physical fitness, gives him an `in.’
December 8, 2006 at 6:00 am
Roger Knight said,
I would love to play the campaign contribution game, but I lack the resources to do so.
Those who have made such contributions, have been betrayed time and time again.
Kind of like the small government conservatives supporting Republicans who then go big government when in power.
If and when I have such money to spare, I will concentrate on the publicity angle first. We desperately need our fellow citizens to realize that this is something that cannot be tolerated.
Because we all know, that which drives some men to suicide will drive other men to war.
I wonder if they are investing in bullet proof glass at the Washoe County Courthouse in Reno, Nevada?
December 8, 2006 at 6:19 am
wheresmy40 said,
Of course they will install that very expensive glass…at taxpayer expense.
The line to get into the “Bend Over” court was laughable, as they were checking thoroughly each victim through the door for contraband.
The line next door at the criminal court, where bad guys and gals were happily showing up to answer charges for such offenses as robbery, gun possession, rape, burglary, car theft, and just plain old thugery, well folks, that line was breezing right through. Any right-minded criminal knows you cannot appear in court with ill intent if you want the judge to throw out the charges. Just behave and you’ll be back on the street in thirty minutes or so.
December 8, 2006 at 8:27 am
Roger Knight said,
Sounds like they are not 100% certain that Darren Mack is the one who shot the judge.
Or they know he ain’t the only one who wants to.
Here is the rub: criminal defendants are usually not angry with the judge, even when they are sentenced to a long stint in the pen. “Well, I committed the crime, or at least the jury thought so, can’t blame the judge for that.”
Well they can, as most judges are pro-prosecution.
But it is amazing how family court judges fear for their lives and the security for the family court is so strict compared with good ol’ criminal court or regular civil cases court.
When you are a tyrant, people will think “death to the tyrants”. The American revolutionaries did, including President John Adams, his brother Sam, and his son John Quincy.
The original Adams Family was SCARY, we need people like that again!
December 8, 2006 at 9:44 am
wheresmy40 said,
An e-mail I sent to NFI in May 2002 said,
“Ms. Degraffinreid, Can you explain to me why when I send a letter or e-mail asking a specific question, NFI refuses to answer. I believe I spoke to you on the phone some time ago and was under the impression that I would receive an acknowledgement (and possibly an answer) to my questions. Now I am under the impression that NFI isn’t interested in solving the fatherlessness dilemma, but instead has another agenda. Would you be kind enough to acknowledge this message and direct me to somebody that isn’t afraid to answer a question? Thank you”
Her response,
“Mr. ########,
NFI has responded to your inquiries via email and via U.S. Mail. The President of NFI has also responded to your inquiries directly”
The question I posed was what NFI proposes to do to alleviate the largest cause of fatherlessness in America, the family courts and their agenda. Both Ms. Degraffinreid and Mr. Roland Warren danced around the issue in letters and phone conversations.
Sure they responded, but THEY NEVER ANSWERED MY QUESTION. I was professional and repectful but still no answer.
Perhaps maybe, just maybe they are willing to acknowledge the MAIN cause of fatherlessness and the host of social problems with which it is associated, the destructive family law policies.
The arrogant attitude and (non)response to my query indicated to me that NFI had no interest in any substantive efforts at solving a problem for which their organization was created (supposedly). Maybe they see the light. Maybe.
December 8, 2006 at 2:39 pm
wls1 said,
The past and I believe founding president of NFI, Wade Horn, was appointed at the beginning of the Bush administration to head the Administration for Children and Families within the department of Health and Human Services, and has done little but steer it toward an increased emphasis on child support enforcement.
December 9, 2006 at 12:25 am
wheresmy40 said,
“Their organization was not even `supposedly’ created to address the problem of divorced fathers or fathers who aren’t going to marry their children’s mother.”
You are right, my bad. Their pitch has changed slightly over the years. According to their website, “One of NFI’s goals is to spread the message of the importance of involved, responsible, and committed fatherhood to all sectors of society.” Yep, spreading a message that everybody should already know is not the same as identifying a main cause of father absence from the lives of their children, family law and the anti-father(male) policies emanating there from.
NFI also says, “Therefore, in cooperation with the Ad Council, NFI produces Public Service Announcements (PSAs) that appear in national media across the country. The PSAs are aimed at informing the public of the negative consequences of father absence, and, conversely, the positive impact of father involvement.” BUT, these ads fail to identify a main reason for father absence, the anti-father(male) family law policies. AND, they are demeaning to fathers.
NFI adds, “They (the PSAs)seek to educate and inspire men to be involved in their children’s lives, and for others to support the father’s role as an involved and responsible parent.” NO, these ads are meant to shame men into handing over cash that in many cases does not go to the care of children. No consideration is given for the men who cannot pay the exorbitant, unrealistic, court-ordered amounts. No mention that these amounts paid through the state machinery produces a windfall for a host of leeches.
Men learn how to be good fathers from watching good fathering, usually from their dad. When the state removes this good example, the chain is broken.
December 9, 2006 at 8:46 am
kenrosebriar said,
wheresmy40: Let me ask you somewhat of a rhetorical question… Assuming that the state you live in has laws mandating the use of seatbelts in motor-vehicles, or mandating the use of a helmet while operating a motorcycle - do you know why/how those laws came to exist today? Quick answer: Federal funding.
When the feds provide funding for things and tie that funding to certain requirements - the states do whatever it takes to meet those requirements.
So it goes with seatbelt and motorcycle-helmet laws… Feds provide funding for roads to states who have these laws on their books - so states do whatever it takes to enact and enforce these laws. While states like Florida and Ohio have told the feds to shove their funding — and have figured out how to fund the operation of their infrastructure sans federal assistance — all the other states rely on it like a baby relies on milk.
The same goes for child support enforcement funding… The feds pay the states BILLIONS of $$$ to enforce state-court orders for child support through Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (42 USC 651 et seq).
So this begs yet another somewhat rhetorical question: When/where can the state create an order for child support so they can enforce it and get paid with federal IV-D dollars? Quick answer: During a custody dispute in any state’s family court…
Ya see, you got it all wrong… Each state’s family courts and family laws are not the real problem. They were merely created to satisfy the requirements necessary to receive federal child support enforcement funding.
Blaming the family courts or the states’ laws is like shooting the messenger. It’s not the state’s fault that legislators passed a law requiring you to wear a seatbelt - they only did it to get the associated federal funding. And it’s certainly not the state’s fault that they get paid by the feds to destroy families in crisis.
Heck, people get paid to mass-produce things all of the time… That’s how you got the clothes you wear and the food you eat. And right now, the state is getting paid to destroy the next family that comes into one of their “family” courts for help.
If you want to stop how the states are destroying families in crisis - then you have to stop paying them to do it…
NFI is really nothing than a federal mouthpiece that gives lip-service to promoting fatherhood - but they too only get paid when fatherless children exist in the first place… Family courts that only get paid when families are destroyed = job security at NFI.
With sympathy and regret,
Ken Rosebriar
kenrosebriar@comcast.net
July 28, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Thomas said,
July 28, 2007 at 6:42 pm