FOX Plans Reality-TV “Bad Dads†Colosseum "Lynching" of Poor Men
I was astonished to see that FOX Television, in its nauseating quest for ever tawdry reality-TV shows, plans to turn the problems of poor fathers into an extermination in the Fox Colosseum.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, Fox tagged Jim Durham, Director of the “National Child Support Centerâ€, as the leading lion of the event. Interestingly, this organization does not exist. The real name of the company Durham runs is named “National Child Support” (NCS). The NCS is not a national or official organization — it is a private for-profit fee-based collections agency located in Cincinnati, Ohio. Their website cannily does not identify Durham on its website, but Zoominfo tagged the truth.
Both Fox and Durham lied about the name of the company, appending “agency” to the name apparently to confer a false appearance of governmental authority upon Fox’s assault on poor or underemployed fathers. When folks start out lying about who they are, the future is predicable.
Private child support collections agencies are in trouble these days. Their fees are extremely high — 25% to 40% of the amount collected — with additional “administrative” fees often attached. Even women’s advocates do not want private agencies to have access to government records to prevent predation on custodial mothers. According to Reuters, Durham confesses to charging 34%. There are many documented abuses of custodial mothers by these “agencies”. Now FOX is paying one to pillory often-innocent men in the public arena.
For those unaware of the dynamics of the child support problem, understand the following truths now.
Approximately 80% to 85% of men behind on support are poor or involuntarily under-employed men unable to earn what some bureaucrat ordered them to earn. Court orders commonly include “imputed income†to reflect what a judge thinks the father should earn (which most often is equal to or more than what the State was giving her in welfare). Child support orders are rigid, and do not change with economic downturns.
In a 1999 study by the American Coalition for Fathers and Children of over 1,500 men in California who had suffered an employment setback, and who attempted to get a modification of child support, only 5% of them were able to get a modification. The other 95% of these men and their counterparts everywhere are the plebians that Fox intends to drag into its Colosseum for demolishment. In California, 80% of child support debtors are men earning poverty-level wages, and one-quarter of the “debt†is interest.
Read: perhaps three-quarters of child support debt is illegitimate to begin with. Fox has never done any investigative journalism about this, yet the knuckle-dragging neanderthals at Fox feel it is lovely to turn the horrid things government did to men and women into a gender war carnival.
The systemic problem is this: states hand out large sums of welfare entitlements under TANF and other programs. This stimulates women to have children out of wedlock or get a divorce because they think that government will be a better provider. Very quickly women find out that her “baby daddy” cannot support two households, and that she has to work full time and “do it all” on less money.
This is what the “women’s rights” movement inflicted on its own constituency — simply out of well-known feminist hate for men and marriage. America’s feminist-government-complex entitled serial polyandry, found that single-parent family economics are as impossible as granite blimps, and now Fox wants to destroy men who for the most part never had a chance to marry a woman, much less stay married.
The state then chases down the father, who in most cases did nothing wrong, and imputes a support order to match what the state was paying, so the state does not end up with a welfare problem in the future. These orders usually are not based on what the father can afford to pay. I have seen many cases where support is well over 100% of the fathers actual earnings.
Casual readers may not understand why this could be a problem. Imagine what would happen if the IRS imputed taxes based on what some bureaucrat think you should earn (but is really based on how much money the IRS wants). Do you think you could make ends meet if your taxes doubled or tripled, and remained static if you had a bad year or two?
In the final analysis: three quarters of the poverty problem would disappear immediately if single mothers simply married the fathers of their children. Marriage-absence is the greatest structural social problem we face. Two low-wage incomes can support one household. The welfare state, which has bought out the marriage market in the lower and middle classes, expects two low-wage incomes to support two households – an impossibility for most poor Americans and difficult for many middle-class Americans.
Read: Poverty is a crime if you are a poor man, and a cause célèbre for the State and imperialist feminists at Fox Television, who incessantly tout the claquish agenda of governmental and privatized interests who profit handsomely by destroying marriage (which may well include Rupert Murdoch).
This is what the “women’s rights” movement inflicted on its own constituency — simply out of feminist hate for men and marriage. America’s feminist-government-complex entitled serial polyandry, found out it does not work. Now Fox wants to destroy men who for the most part never had a chance to marry a woman, much less stay married.
True Equality Network has a very thorough 4-part series on this problem, titled “How the Failures of Welfare Reform Created Our Lawless Courtsâ€. Dr. Stephen Baskerville documented these problems in consummate detail in his top-selling book “Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Familyâ€. Those who desire a full understanding of panjandrum political dynamics driving the so-called “deadbeat dads†problem should read these publications while not inhaling.
A Very Rude Response From Fox Television
I called Scott Grogin, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for Fox Television to let him know that Fox was headed for a public relations nightmare if they pursue torture as a form of entertainment. Grogin was quite aware of the show, chortling cavalier excitement about it. He was entirely unreceptive to any criticism of the concept, and went so far as to accuse me of using foul language and threatening him (which I did not do), as an excuse to hang up on me.
Grogin is begging for his walking papers. Senior Vice Presidents of Corporate Communications are supposed to handle issues and prevent public relations disasters for the business, not create them and the light fires under them.
Phone calls to Fox President of Alternative Entertainment Mike Darnell were poorly fenced by his assistant, who first said he was on a local shoot, and later said he was out of town all week.
Email messages to Grogin’s superiors at Fox Television and NewsCorp went unanswered.
I am informed by a knowledgeable source who wishes to remain anonymous that “there will be no stopping this show and they want to target leaders of the fathers movement”. This does appear likely given their attitude.
Fox is headed for a major legal and public relations disaster. According to Richar Farr of Krights radio, Fox stole the idea and is presently being sued over it.
A couple of years ago, a group working with a major Los Angeles studio conceived the idea, but later withdrew it after becoming acquainted with the dynamics of the child support problem. A January, 2007 Krights video posted on LiveLeak discusses their change of heart.
They, like the very large number of organizations I work with, all agree that this idea is barbaric, dangerously sexist, and unbalanced. Richar spoke with the individuals suing Fox today. They are very upset with FOX for pursuing a very cruel show concept and are adamantly committed to preventing Fox from proceeding.
Krights will be doing a show involving a panel of movement leaders, and Fox spokespeople if they are willing to debate the issue.
This movement will not stand for organized massacres of men, the majority of whom did nothing to deserve it.
We need an open and honest debate about how the child support system is destroying marriages and the futures of women, children, and men. We do not need programs that turn our national disgrace into hate programming directed at fathers. For example, Fox should be airing programs of real value, such as the superbly-done, riveting documentary “Support? System Down”, by Agileno Productions (Trailer 1) (Trailer 2) (Trailer 3).
In 1996, I organized the pro-marriage movement, subsequently forcing Universal Studios to cancel the sequel of movie “First Wives Clubâ€, which was (as I put it at the time), the “best documentary ever filmed about sexism in Americaâ€. Time Magazine found our position worthy of coverage. Newspapers for the most part agreed with us, as did many of the theater owners. Hard Copy flew a film crew to St. Louis and did a segment, which Universal killed minutes before airtime. The young lady who produced the segment was in tears. She said it was the best segment she had ever produced because it actually did something good.
We are a decade down the road. A lot of people know raw sexism when they see it without anyone explaining anything. The program director at our local FOX affiliate said immediately that she thought the show was an awful idea.
Fox will not do this show. This movement will rise to the occasion and apply public pressure the likes of which have not been seen ever before. Plans are already underway to go after major advertisers.
Presently, the best way you can help teach Fox a lesson is to send your “polite†comments here. If Fox does not relent promptly, we will have many more aggressive things for you to do later.
————————————————-
David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition
| More from David R. Usher
Stumble It!
April 25th, 2008 at 3:04 am
My Letter to FOX:
I have just seen a report on a new Fox reality show about dead beat
dads. This was on The Hollywood Reporter titled Fox zeroes in
on ‘Bad Dads’ by James Hibberd
While I applaud your efforts to make sure children are provided for,
I do want to point out that you have failed to do the needed research
in this area and you will do far more harm then good.
You see, there is a much larger percentage of dead beat moms then
there are dead beat dads. Most fathers are dead broke, not dead
beat. Many of our military dads will come back from Iraq and will
be automatic felons for not paying the child support ordered because
their income was cut but not their support demands.
I also want to point out that most dads who are allowed to see their
children do pay. Let look at some of the facts:
Information from multiple sources show that only 10% of all non
custodial fathers fit the “deadbeat dad” category:
90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the support due. Fathers
with visitation rights pay
79.1%; and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially
support their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23,
No. 173).
Additionally, of those not paying support,
66% are not doing so because they lack the financial resources to pay
(Source: GAO report:GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).
The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security
Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.
Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%
Only 11% of mothers value their husband’s input when it comes to
handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and
close friends & relatives rated 16%
“40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-
custodial father’s visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the
ex-spouse.”
“The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more
frequent contact with the children.”
“A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time
with=their children.”
In a study: “Visitational Interference – A National Study” by Ms. J
Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that
77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to “visit” their children,
as ordered by the court, as a result of “visitation interference”
perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance
with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-
compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children
of divorce even more.
I contend that Fox would do better to do a program on why dads are
absent from their children’s lives after a divorce. It certainly is
not in the “best interest of the children” as often after a divorce,
these children are “given” to their abuse as we can see from the
following:
Mothers are more than twice as likely as fathers to kill their
children: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/figure4_2.htm
This shows that mothers alone are responsible for 27.5% of the deaths
of their children which is more then twice that of fathers (13.1%)
Mothers and others result in 11.5% of the childhood deaths while
fathers and others are responsible for only 1.5%
Mothers are more than twice as likely as fathers to abuse their
children: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/figure3_5.htm
For abuse only, 39.9 percent of child victims were maltreated by
their mothers acting alone; another 17.6 percent were maltreated by
their fathers acting alone; 17.8 percent were abused by both their
mother and father. Victims abused by a nonparental perpetrator
accounted for 10.0 percent. Mothers and other came in at 6.1% while
fathers and other were 1.0%
I must admit that if this show does air, I do plan on watching it
once or twice….to find out who the advertisers are.
Pastor Kenneth Deemer
Director Shattered Men
P.O. BOX 166
MARION INDIANA 46952-0166
Phone 765-981-4550
shatteredmen@…
JUNE is Domestic Violence Against Men Awareness Month
Web site: http://www.shatterdmen.com
Interactive Group: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Shatteredmen/
April 25th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Dear Ken,
I am well aware of all the information you cited. I have many other articles that discuss these facts. This piece is about what Fox is doing, and points readers to books and other articles that dig deeper into most of these facts.
I wanted this piece to be relatively brief and entirely on-topic. I did not want to get into a long winded recitation of data that is readily available elsewhere. Nonetheless, thanks for taking the time to add it. Some folks are too lazy to read books — they can get the 2000-foot view easily now.
As a member of the RADAR steering committee, I am patently aware of all aspects of social violence data. I have many articles about DV that have been very effective, for example in encouraging PBS to quietly walk away from their false documentary “Breaking the Silence” But, since the FOX show is not about DV, there is no reason to bring it up.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Might there be a choice?
- – champion the now popular chorus for staging spectacles of live “witch hunts;†or
- embrace an integrity within for contributing virtuous investigative reporting and journalism that lend respect to the dignity of humanity?
In my opinion, plenty of valuable programming can be found along axioms respectful to humanity, while cautioning against hate and discriminatory incitations.
For example, might not valuable programing be readily available by which to inform the public of certain addicts of the Federal Dole?
The sick addicts of appalling captivations and fixations upon the “Candy Mountain” of our social security trusts need to be revealed for their rampent appetites thereof. We might even further endeavor to caste light upon their deep co-dependent rapports with other “IV-mainliners” that appear to be sheltering within our “States.”
And by such, we might even find rewards in the discouragement of hate; for hate, discrimination and the invigoration of ill-will certainly should never be rewarded. Nor should it ever be further incited.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
We can always point out to FOX that whenever a legal process is commenced with the intent of coercing any person’s employment in liquidation of any debt or obligation, including child support, it is the CRIME of peonage, 18 U.S.C. §1581.
And such legal process is declared null and void by 42 U.S.C. §1994.
In 1867 Congress was fully aware of the concept of alimony and child support and made a deliberate decision not to exclude these from their Antipeonage Act.
Just my two cents worth.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
wife gets a new boyfriend, files for divorce (as they do in 80% of divorces)
automatically gets sole custody based entirely on her gender
she also gets awarded (automatically) the house, car, bank account balances,
furniture, lawyers paid for by him, his retirement, child support and alimony based on his “imputed” income , w/ CS not taxable to her (but taken out of his check after taxes).
necessary medical testing (paid for by him (X)) later shows the kids are not really his, but her boyfriends’. X is still by law required to pay for them. he gets depressed and loses his job. he is immediately hit w/ outrageous fees and interest by the state for money the state never paid out. she then turns the kids against him & cuts off his access to them. she starts running around, doing drugs and fears for losing custody so she falsely accuses X of child molestation, child rape, spousal DV or just rape. he automatically goes to prison. lawyers and judge know he is innocent but X has no proof of his innocence or funds to secure proper counsel. besides, he’s just a “deadbeat dad”.
all or parts of this scenario can and do happen on a daily basis to thousands/millions of men. guess that too was men’s fault for believing in the american system of marriage and justice. won’t happen again.
a new Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) is born.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
What Fox is this on all of us, the only trouble is people are smarter than that! Anyone who has had the unfortunate experience of dealing with the ” child support racket” knows that the whole thing is a fraud and the people who need to be ashamed are not the noncustodial parents , but the custodial parents and the government terrorist who have backed their “little act of rebellion”
Mr Knight is correct, child support is peonage and those that run it and benefit from it need , not to be petted on the head and rewarded, but prosecuted, convicted and put into prison. We need to go back to common law, ie a system of law based on the concept of right and wrong, you do right you are protected, you do wrong .you are punished, no matter how ” pretty and politically correct” what you did was! NO excuses!
When someone wrecks a marriage and wants to ” judicially kidnap” the children, that person is breaking a contract, a solemn contract, they need to be punished and if we punish them, sooner or later they will get the message,” it is wrong to wreck marriages and steal children”
Once we put the child support terrorist on a leash and hold women to the same standard as men, then a lot of things will change. Oh they are not going to like it and they will whine and complain, but it will be fair and in time the terrorist will go away and the women will have to grow up socially,legally and morally.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
The connection with the peonage act 18 U.S.C. §1581 is correct, and has been discussed and pointed out many times. There is also a law that makes it a crime to use criminal law to force a civil benefit (I do not recall the section of code).
Where child support is clearly not connected in any way with actual earnings, but is an imputed fixed levy where the obligor has not be found to have committed a wrong in the first place, and where the obligor is forced to support individuals who have no reciprocal responsibilities and for which the obligor receives nothing in return, it can also be considered slavery under U.N. Conventions.
America has long criticized the Soviet Union and other governments who create “status crimes” to oppress particular classes. Child support and the “deadbeat dad” ruse is also a status crime — government puts men into a position they (in the great majority of cases) did not assume themselves. Because of that status, penalties are levied, placing the individual in a position where the relief they need is denied to them, thus solidifying the status of the individual.
In 1996, PROWA found excuses to use the status crime to pumcture fundamental constitutional rights such as owning a gun (on the excuse that it is an unnecessary luxury). Of course this is immediately and unconstitutional infringement.
The status crime also became the basis for removing non-fundamental but necessary common privileges (needed to earn a living in the majority of cases) such as having a driver’s license, a business license, and a passport. This is not legal because the punishment is not connected with the status crime. It is also illegal because it has the direct effect of making it difficult or impossible for the individual to earn the income necessary to alleviate the status crime. Many state and federal courts have held, in many different kinds of cases, that it is cruel and unusual punishment (and therefore unconstitutional) for government to levy any penalty that has the effect of putting the individual in a state of perpetual noncompliance.
Stephen Baskerville illuminates these issues brilliantly in “Taken Into Custody”.
April 26th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Another pathetic attack on the American family, from a “conservative” news organization.
April 27th, 2008 at 4:39 am
Just how far, up to and not beyond, do you want to go David?
Emails, cogent arguement backed with sound information, ‘discussion’ with anti-men media terrorists, letters to Editors of local and national newspapers, Ray Blomhorst style Utes with signs parked outside studios, Marc Rudov seducing Professor McKinnon and giving her a good smile-winning rogering on prime time TV?
All but the last has been conducted with other outrages with only marginal results and we have watched as the whole situation simply gets worse by the week. It wasn’t long ago that PBS was sent packing, after the event, leaving unfulfilled promises to be nice and do a counter program setting the record straight. Hah ! My beard has grown longer and more splendid and that is all.
Have we not learned that we are dealing with Gender Terrorists and any negotiation is bound to fail?
These thugs in suits and pant-suits are without honour. They lie. They terrorise. They are making War on men and fathers and they have no intention of letting up. Men die, David. Good men.
This latest outrageous plan is well underway. There will be more and worse. Political action will not change a thing. Being a nice Gentleman will not change the downward slide into the Abyss.
It is high time we took the War to them. It is high time that we let loose the Dogs and War and wreaked havok in their terriory; lay waste; have the bad do the dying.
What is your limit?
April 27th, 2008 at 7:47 am
There’s no point to violence. That would just hurt the MRA community.
April 27th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Lieweary, so true. Peace-loving people never go to war, no matter what the provocation, the indignities and the carnage inflicted upon them. And we don’t want to have our community hurt. Oh deary me no.
Please, no violence anyone. We meek who are left will inherit the earth one day.
April 27th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Feminists didn’t get to where they are through violence, and MRAs will never accomplish anything through violence, either. We need strong arguments and relentless commitment to change. We need to reach out to the men who’ve been screwed and convince them to spend the rest of their lives supporting other men across a wide range of issues.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
David, You said: “But, since the FOX show is not about DV, there is no reason to bring it up”
I contend that DV has a lot to do with it. First of all, with the VAWA, women are often assured they will get full custody along with a hefty child support award once the alleged domestic violence. Because of this, many more women sue for divorce then would otherwise. We see this in areas where presumed equal custody is the norm. There are far fewer divorces in those locations.
I am sure you also are aware that there are a great many men who are denied access to their children even when court orders allow them to be “visitors” As a result many men may try to avoid paying support as they feel they are no longer a part of their lives much like we may refuse to pay for a car that turns out to be a lemon. Both courses of course would come with penalties that we would not like but with child support, one would end up being…a dead beat dad.
Terri Lynn Tersak also must feel it plays an important part as she included this in her e-mail to Mike Darnell
“You have more than likely received countless email and phone calls telling you how false claims of domestic violence are the root cause of the failure of our child support system. This is absolutely true and is covered in great detail in the reports referenced in this email.”
April 30th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Thoughts relative the string, including of Usher, Knight and Stevens, could it be that some of the basic tenants of heritage are again being compromised as some ancient tombs are being dusted-off?
In other words, some of the compromises of the very initial chartering of our founding (at least relative to the US) are again being given new breadth as some of the early administrators of slavery grasp again for the mint Julep days of fodder?
Consider that at least some of the former “lawyers” of the early “states” were quite accomplished in carrying forward certain provisions of the law of their day: including that of clause three, section two of Article IV of the Constitution provided for such as a part of the “Agreement” to disagree within the colonial states for purposes of congealing the “masses” for purposes of obtaining independence from the “throne.” Even then, the agreement to disagree and avoid lending voice regarding the “white elephant” was deemed to have been of an embarrassing blemish to the up-bringing of a democratic “civil” society.
So too today, some of the old-books that are being dusted represent merely of those for enabling Mint Julep types an opportunity to re-introduce concepts of indentured servitude. “on claim of [another] to whom services or labour . . . ” may be due.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Update: US News picked this story up:
See:
‘Bad Dads’ Reality TV Show Stirs Controversy
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-men/2008/05/02/bad-dads-reality-tv-show-stirs-controversy.html
February 5th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
AS A SINGLE MOTHER I HAVE READ THIS ARTICLE AND AM TOTALLY DISGUSTED. EVERYONE IS JUST THINKING ABOUT THE PERSON HAVING TO PAY THE CHILD SUPPORT. NOT THINKING ABOUT THE NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN!!! YES BOTH PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT CHILD. JUST BECAUSE A PARENT IS HAVING A HARD TIME FINANCIALLY THEN THAT PARENT SHOULD TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY PHYSICALLY. EXAMPLE TAKING THE CHILD TO SCHOOL, PICKING UP THE CHILD FROM SCHOOL, BIRTHDAY PARTIES, ACTIVITIES,HOMEWORK, DOCTOR APPT. DENTIST APPT., MOVIES, CHURCH, SHOPPING FOR WHAT THE CHILD NEEDS,ETC… NOT JUST BE GRANTED A MODIFICATION AND NOT HANDLE THE LEG/LABOR WORK. IF A PARENT REQUEST A MODIFICATION THEN BE READY TO BE YOUR CHILDS NANNY, COOK, HOUSEKEEPER, PRIVATE TUTOR, & DRIVER.