I don't understand NOW, feminists or "reproductive rights."

I am re-posting this as after just re-reading it I realize that I am even more convinced that what NOW has become may be the single most insidious force in modern society actively working against American families. Originally posted in Feb 2006.

I have to admit - as much disgust as I feel at a legal system that appears to systemically award custody based on gender instead of equally or on merit- I am not one to completely discount "maternal instinct."

I do feel as though often parents offer different supports to their children. A lot of the times these differences lie in stereotypical traits - mothers are more empathetic and nurturing while fathers are more pragmatic, physical and better equipped to teach boundaries. NOT ALWAYS - but a lot of the time. This is not to say that either contribution is more important but that often parents help teach their kids differently.

I'll bite when a woman claims the bond between mother and child at childbirth is stronger. I understand that the intimacy of breastfeeding is not easily duplicated by a father. I believe that more often the mother stays home with the child(ren) and is therefore more demonstrably involved in the day to day activities. I'll even temporarily agree that a stay at home mom (or stay at home dad for that matter) should enjoy spousal support along with child support until that party is able find a position with which they can adequately support themselves - not just the first cashier position in the want ads. (Now this forces the question of what is adequate and just how long but I'm not writing legislation here so lets just use the term reasonable. I know this a cop out but I will never be convinced that every case can be handled with some "joint custody, no support" position. There are stay at home Parents and often this arrangement resulted as a joint decision based on the children's best interests - the parent at home should have a reasonable expectation of temporary support in this realignment of the family structure).

I don't understand, however, why women keep beating the "pay discrimination" horse when it is so clear that more women take time off work (and plan to take time off work) to care for children. Not just maternity leave time but often for the first few years of the child's life. Time off for maternity leave should not result in pay disparities but certainly a woman coming back to the workforce after SEVERAL YEARS can not honestly expect to make a salary comparable with the man who worked through her entire period off. Would that not be discriminatory?

NOW lists their "top priority issues" as: Abortion Rights/Reproductive Rights, Violence Against Women, Constitutional Equality, Promoting Diversity/Ending Racism, Lesbian Rights and Economic Justice.

On the NOW site they list the median salary for male registered nurses as $36,868 and female registered nurses as $35,360. So the woman makes 96% of the males salary... This is certainly not the .74¢ for every dollar they were talking about the paragraph earlier. Nor is a male teacher at $33,800 with a female at $32,292. Could these small disparities have anything to do with more women taking time off to care for children? I can't prove it but it seems a hell of a lot more reasonable than as a result of pervasive wage discrimination.

They do get to the .74¢ with their salary numbers for computer operators- but the final example of cashiers have women making 83.3% of the males salary. I can't begin to consider all of the variables that would have to be accounted for in order to fully compare salaries by gender but I can say that it seems irresponsible to continue to cry about .74¢ on the dollar and then only produce one example of such a disparity while completely ignoring the fiscal impact on mothers who ELECT to stay home either temporarily or permanently after their children are born.

I don't understand feminists who assert that they need an "Equal Rights Amendment" while simultaneously fighting against all legislative efforts to equalize parenting post divorce. I'm not talking about the cases in which the father/mother is a demonstrated abuser of any ilk - but the run of the mill divorce with two involved and caring parents.

I would think women would prefer such a system as if one begins to think logically about who should be preferred in a custody case (as though any parent should be instantly preferred without considering the case and facts) it would have to be men. At least from the speculative point of who is less likely to abuse their children (if we want to use the issue of who *may* be abusive) it seems women are more frequently the perpetrators of abuse or neglect of children.

It appears children in mother headed households are also more likely to be under the poverty line when compared with father headed households. The CRC has a wonderful chart but you can see the census info here. Now, one might say that this is a result of men not paying child support effectively forcing these women into poverty. I mean, come on, you have seen those "deadbeat dad" commercials. Except that actual "deadbeat dads" account for somewhere around 10% of those who have accrued arrearages in child support. In reality, far more non custodial mothers default on their support orders than fathers.

I can't imagine why men would be at all hesitant to pay - it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that some researchers are now claiming as many as 30% of "fathers" may not be biologically related to their children.

So NOW stands for equal rights - but not equal rights for men or children. Their rights come after our wonderful feminist population has been sufficiently (*equally*) served.

They also list "lesbian rights" as a top issue - listing Equal Marriage Now as a related issue. Not being particularly religious, I won't go into what a conflict this position could be for a religious woman - but honestly, how can you claim to desire "equal" marriage rights for gay women while publicly bashing the fatherhood movement?

In this link there is a heading titled "Relocation Laws Keep Women in Their Place." That is asinine - relocation laws keep children in their communities. Women can go wherever they want - they may just have to do so by voluntarily leaving their children. To in any way assert that women should be able to move at will with children (moving them away from their fathers and community) just because they are women may be the pinnacle of an outright discriminatory and inherently UNEQUAL position. This is a quote from the link above: "Feminists vow to educate legislators and judges that ex-husbands are sometimes more interested in exerting control over and making life difficult for their former wives than in maintaining beneficial relationships with their children and that the needs of the children and custodial parent must be given priority."

Absolutely no commentary on how children do better with meaningful contact from both parents. No mention of the hypocrisy of this position. No substantive mention of the welfare of the children - just a warning about "abusive or controlling ex-spouses and sexist judges" with no evidence to back up the claim that either of these alleged groups are conspiring to keep women in their geographical place.

And finally, "reproductive rights." I'm sorry but considering it takes both genders to "reproduce" should not reproductive rights be offered to both parents? Not in the cases where the mother is in danger but in truly elective abortion should not both parents have the opportunity to offer to raise the child? Is it fair to the child or to the father to let a woman unilaterally decide to abort a child just because it is "her body?"

I'm not anti-abortion per se but I certainly think that provided a father willing to raise the child it is just insane to allow the woman to abort just because she wants to. How did women make unregulated fetus killing a primary position? Again, this also seems a very difficult position for a woman of a religious background. Apparently you cannot be religious and "dedicated to making legal, political, social and economic change in our society in order to achieve our goal, which is to eliminate sexism and end all oppression." (That is what NOW says it stands for anyway - can't say I'm convinced).

I find that I am not resolutely anything one way or another. There are tenets of all political parties that I agree with, there are self described feminists that can make a lot of sense as are there proponents of the fathers movement that are reasonable and dedicated to what I consider worthy and laudable goals.

But I'm sorry - most of what I see on the NOW site looks like crap. I simply cannot begin to comprehend an organization who purports to seek equality but uses the most unequal of methods.

And really, the thought that goes through my head every time I read feminist nonsense of this ilk - all of these efforts have and will visit themselves on the boys of this country. I'm quite sad for my 8 year old stepson - he has a long road ahead.

I found this quote today ~ apparently Ms. Lewis was an actress.

You don't have to be anti-man to be pro-woman. ~Jane Galvin Lewis

The Feminist Anti-Kid Crusade

New Carey Roberts article: The Feminist Anti-Kid Crusade

Feminists' Double Standards About Child Care

This is the latest article by Phyllis Schlafly. I tried to make some cuts to keep the post relatively brief - but this is in fact most of the article. Click on the article title to link to the source and read it in full.

Feminists' Double Standards About Child Care
by Phyllis Schlafly

Excerpts:

Feminist ideology taught that the duties of the housewife and mother were (in Friedan's words) "endless, monotonous, unrewarding" and "peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls." Society's expectation that a mother should care for her own children was cited as oppression of women by our male-dominated patriarchal society from which women must be liberated so they can achieve fulfillment in workforce careers just like men.

Demanding that husbands take on equal duties in child care, the National Organization for Women passed resolutions in the 1970s stating, "The father has equal responsibility with the mother for the child care role."

n 1972, "Ms." Magazine featured pre-marriage contracts declaring housewives independent from essential housework and babycare, and obliging the husband to do half the dishes and diapers.

Then-ACLU attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her 1977 book "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code" that "all legislation based on the breadwinning-husband, dependent-homemaking-wife pattern" must be eliminated "to reflect the equality principle" because "a scheme built upon the breadwinning husband [and] dependent homemaking wife concept inevitably treats the woman's efforts or aspirations in the economic sector as less important than the man's."

Feminist literature is filled with putdowns of the role of housewife and mother. This ideology led directly to feminist insistence that the taxpayers provide (in Ginsburg's words) "a comprehensive program of government-supported child care."

The icon of college women's studies courses, Simone de Beauvoir, opined that "marriage is an obscene bourgeois institution," and easy divorce became a primary goal of the feminist liberation movement. Three-fourths of divorces are now unilaterally initiated by wives without any requirement to allege fault on the part of the cast-off husband.

As divorces became easy to get, the feminists suddenly did a total about-face in their demand that fathers share equally in child care. Upon divorce, mothers demand total legal and physical custody and control of their children, arguing that only a mother is capable of providing their proper care and upbringing, and a father's only function is to provide a paycheck.

Gone are the demands that the father change diapers or tend to a sick child. Feminists want the father out of sight except maybe for a few hours a month of visitation at her discretion.

Suddenly, the ex-husband is targeted as a totally essential breadwinner, and the ex-wife is eager to proclaim her dependency. Feminists assert that, after divorce, child care should be almost solely the mother's job, dependency is desirable, and providing financial support should be almost solely the father's job.

It is settled law in the United States that parents (note the plural) have a fundamental right to the care, custody and control of the upbringing of their children. But feminists have persuaded the family courts, upon divorce, to acquiesce in feminist demands that the mother typically be given 80 to 100 percent of those fundamental rights that belonged to both parents before divorce.

What's behind this feminist reversal about motherhood? As Freud famously asked, "what does a woman want?"

The explanation appears to be the maxim, Follow the money. Beginning in the mid-1980s, the feminists used their political clout to get Congress to pass draconian post-divorce support-enforcement laws that use the full power of government to give the divorced mother cash income proportional to the percentage of custody time she persuades the court to award, but unrelated to what she spends for the children or to her willingness to allow the father to see his children.

Since the father typically has higher income than the mother, giving near-total custody to the mother enables the states to maximize transfer payments and thereby collect bigger cash bonuses from the federal government. When fathers appeal to the family courts for equal time with their children, they are opposed by a big industry of lawyers, psychologists, custody evaluators, domestic-violence agitators, and government bureaucrats who make their living out of denying fathers their fundamental rights.

It's time for a national debate and discussion of the taxpayer incentives that favor divorce, the anti-marriage feminists, and the resulting exclusion of fathers from the lives of their children.

What Have Feminists Done to America's Fathers?

What Have Feminists Done to America's Fathers?

by Phyllis Schlafly
Jun 10, 2005

On Father's Day, Americans should ponder the appalling fact that an estimated 40 percent of our nation's children are living in homes without their own father. Most of our social problems are caused by kids who grow up in homes without their own fathers: drug abuse, illicit sexual activity, unwed pregnancies, youth suicide, high school dropouts, runaways, and crime.

Where have all the fathers gone? Some men are irresponsible slobs, but no evidence exists that nearly half of American children were voluntarily abandoned by their own fathers; there must be other explanations.

For 30 years, feminist organizations and writers have propagated the myth that women are victims of an oppressive patriarchal society and that marriage is an inherently abusive institution that makes wives second-class citizens. Feminists made divorce a major component of women's liberation and their political freedom.

For three decades, feminists have toyed with the question that Maureen Dowd chose as the title of her forthcoming book, Are Men Necessary? That's just the latest version of Gloria Steinem's famous line, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."

College textbooks portray marriage as especially bleak and dreary for women. Assigned readings are preoccupied with domestic violence, battering, abuse, marital rape, and divorce.
During the Clinton Administration, the feminists parlayed their hysteria that domestic violence is a national epidemic into the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This created a gigantic gravy train of taxpayers' money, known as feminist pork, that empowers pro-divorce, anti-male activism.

Not satisfied with several billions from the U.S. Treasury, 67 feminist and liberal organizations supported a lawsuit to try to get private allegations of domestic abuse heard in federal courts so they could collect civil damages against men and institutions with deep pockets. Fortunately, the Supreme Court, in Brzonkala v. Morrison (2000), declared unconstitutional VAWA's section that might have permitted that additional mischief.

However, VAWA's billions of dollars continue to finance the domestic-violence lobby, and there is a deafening silence from conservatives who pretend to be guardians against federal takeovers of problems that are none of the federal government's business. Local crimes and marital disputes should not be subjects of federal law or spending.

Billions of dollars have flowed from VAWA to the states to finance private victim-advocacy organizations, private domestic-violence coalitions, and the training of judges, prosecutors and police. This tax-funded network is, of course, staffed by radical feminists who teach the presumption of father guilt.

Legislating a special category of domestic violence is very much like legislating a special category of hate crimes. Both create a new level of crimes for which punishment is based on who you are rather than what acts you commit, and the "who" in the view of VAWA and the domestic-violence lobby is the husband and father.

A Justice Department-funded document published by the National Victim Assistance Academy established a widely accepted definition of "violence" that includes such non-criminal acts as "degradation and humiliation" and "name-calling and constant criticizing." The acts need not be illegal, physical, violent, or threatening; "domestic violence" becomes whatever the woman says it is.

The Final Report of the Child Custody and Visitation Focus Group of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges admitted that "usually judges are not required to make a finding of domestic violence in civil protection order cases." In other words, judges saddle fathers with restraining orders on the wife's say-so without any investigation as to whether it is true or false.

The late Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN), a big advocate of VAWA, admitted that "up to 75 percent of all domestic assaults reported to law enforcement agencies were inflicted after the separation of the couple." Most allegations of domestic violence are made for the purpose of taking the custody of children away from their fathers.

The June issue of the Illinois Bar Journal explains how women use court-issued restraining orders (which Illinois calls Orders of Protection) as a tool for the mother to get sole child custody and even bar the father from visitation. In big type, the magazine proclaims: "Orders of protection are designed to prevent domestic violence, but they can also become part of the gamesmanship of divorce."

The "game" is that mothers can assert falsehoods or trivial marital complaints and thereby get sole custody orders that deprive children of their fathers. This "game" is based on the presumption (popularized by VAWA and the domestic-violence lobby) that fathers are inherently guilty and dangerous.

Congress should not be spending taxpayers' money to deal with marital disputes, and courts should not deprive children of their fathers on a presumption that fathers are dangerous. Congress can help us celebrate Father's Day this year by refusing to reauthorize the costly VAWA boondoggle.

VAWA Law Polarizes the Sexes, Weakens the Family

RedState.org

Excerpts:

That process of family and social disintegration is spurred by the Violence Against Women Act - VAWA for short -- the $1 billion-dollar-a-year law that was passed five years ago at the behest of the radical feminists. VAWA comes up for renewal later this year in Congress.

When you look closely, it becomes clear that VAWA has an agenda that reaches far beyond the protection of women.

VAWA-funded educational programs push the time-worn storyline of the violent man and a brutalized woman. But that stereotype is false. The truth is, members of the fairer sex are just as likely to commit domestic violence as men. [www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm]

But once society comes to believe that members of the male sex are a menace to women, it becomes easy to enact laws that strip men of their Constitutional rights of due process and equal treatment under the law.

One of the tools promoted by VAWA is the use of restraining orders. At first blush, the idea sounds common-sensical: a woman who is being abused should be able to get her husband removed from the house.

But in many states, judges crank out restraining orders like Confederate one-dollar bills, not pausing to verify the woman's claims or even to hear the man's side of the story.

A 1995 Massachusetts study found that 60,000 restraining orders were issued each year. In fewer than half of those cases was there even an allegation of physical violence. In the other cases, the woman simply claimed she felt afraid, or maybe there had been a marital spat. [www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/10/25/restraining_orders/]

Recently the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court became concerned that this epidemic of restraining orders was fraying the fabric of judicial impartiality. The Court opined that judges must "resist a culture of summarily issuing and extending these orders."

Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, was even more candid: "Restraining orders are granted to virtually all who apply...In many [divorce] cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage."

Tactical advantage? Ms. Epstein was referring to the fact that while hubby is barred from the house, the wife quickly files for a divorce, and cleverly requests temporary custody of the kids. That paves the way for near-automatic award of sole custody once the divorce is finalized.

So last month, family advocates in California set out to challenge these perverse incentives by introducing the Shared Parenting Bill. Their aim was to encourage equal participation of fathers by granting them joint custody of their children in the event of divorce. [http://cspaonline.org/index.php]

Who could ever be against that?

The ladies from NOW, that's who. Their argument? Changing the practice of awarding sole custody to mothers would expose the kids to all manner of abusive dads.

That smear conveniently ignored an interesting fact: it's mothers, not fathers who are far more likely to abuse and neglect their children, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. [http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/cgi-bin/acfrightnow.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_fa qid=70&p_created=1001611491]

So two weeks ago, the California Assembly Judiciary Committee killed the Shared Parenting Bill. And divorced children were rendered fatherless by a spiteful gender stereotype.

It's all about revenge, not equality

I find it so refreshing to see other women identify the feminist movement for what it truly is....

The Winnepeg Sun

It's all about revenge, not equality
By Lydia Lovric

One of the biggest lies perpetuated by modern-day feminists is the contention that feminism is about equality. Feminists aren't interested in equality. What they want is revenge.

Apparently, breaking down barriers and smashing glass ceilings is laudable only when women are the beneficiaries. Equality is not a two-way street for these feminists. It's more of a one-way street with a dead end. That's why the movement is going nowhere in the eyes of many young women, including myself.

Recently, a group of women decided to file a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. They weren't too happy about the fact that an exclusive Vancouver golf club boasts a male-only lounge. They said it was sexist. And they're right. But that doesn't mean that this lounge should be forced to accept female members.

Equality is not about getting ovaries into any and every boys' club. Women in this country have the right to form their own clubs (whether it be co-ed or just for ladies) and that's what equality is about. The law should only provide opportunity. It's up to the individual to do the rest.

So if women in Vancouver want a posh place to eat meals and chat about golf, then they have every right to create their own establishment. They also have the option to bar men or admit them. And while feminists want the right to barge into all-male establishments, it seems that what's good for the goose is not so good for the gander.

When Ralph Gordon Stopps tried to take advantage of a free 10-day membership at a local gym club, he was denied entry. The basis for this rejection? Genitalia. It appears that Mr. Stopps has the wrong "parts" to become a member of "Just Ladies Fitness."

Where are the feminists now? Why aren't they standing up for Mr. Stopps and the outrageous discrimination he has faced based purely on sex? Why is it OK to have fitness clubs for women only, but a group of male golf buddies can't sit around and talk about how Tiger Woods' game has gone downhill ever since he tied the knot?

The truth is, feminists will never defend someone like Mr. Stopps. Feminists want to eat their cake while the men in the world dine on Timbits.

Don't believe me? Brigitte LeBlanc, a 14-year-old Moncton girl, wasn't satisfied playing hockey with the boys. She wanted more. So she petitioned the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission to grant her the right to use the boys' locker room. Astonishingly, she won.

Surely, there are a few 14-year-old boys out there who wouldn't mind gaining entry to the girls' locker room. But you can bet that day will never come. We have a greater chance of hearing Carolyn Parrish praise the Bush administration.

But I digress. Time and time again, we have women demanding access to boys' teams and boys' clubs.

Remember Robyn Waite? She's the Ontario high school girl who plays quarterback on the boys' football team. Before her, there was Justine Blainey and Hayley Wickenheiser, who fought for and won the right to skate with the boys. And the LPGA wasn't good enough for Annika Sorenstam, so she decided to tee off with the men during a 2003 PGA tournament.

It seems that every time a female voice challenges a male team, the guys are eventually forced to swing open their door and welcome the newest member. But the door doesn't swing both ways.

Female athletes continue to have the luxury of maintaining girls' teams and girls' clubs. Guys no longer have that right. And that's discrimination.

When Brian Kontak realized that he couldn't earn a living playing in the PGA, he wanted to try his luck with the LPGA. The women were not amused.

Now, there's a boy in Wisconsin who wants to compete on his high school's gymnastic team. Only problem is that his school doesn't have a team for boys. So, hoping to earn a scholarship in order to attend college, Keith Michael Bukowski wants the chance to spring vault and somersault with the ladies. Kudos to the young lad for making a point, but hopefully he's not holding his breath.

The truth is, equality isn't so important for feminists when the person seeking parity is a guy. Equal treatment only applies when it benefits women. And that's why feminism just doesn't add up.

Long Live The Matriarchy!

Pointing a finger at feminist hypocrisy: Long Live The Matriarchy!

Do fathers have the edge in divorce?

Another article by Cathy Young: Do fathers have the edge in divorce?

It is a common perception that while women may face bias in some areas, men are on the receiving end of discrimination when it comes to child custody - which goes to fathers, recent data show, only 16 percent of the time. Some feminists, like former National Organization for Women President Karen DeCrow, embrace equal rights for divorced dads. Yet many others have been loath to acknowledge that there is bias favoring women in anything.

Mostly, these feminists argue, fathers don't want custody - and when they do, they have the edge: Judges frown on working women who spend less time with the kids than did traditional moms, while working men who spend more time with the kids than did traditional fathers are hailed as great dads; non-working women may be denied custody because they can't support the children.

In the 1986 book Mothers on Trial, radical feminist psychologist Phyllis Chesler claimed that 70 percent of mothers in custody battles lost. This was based on a very non-random sample of 60 women, mostly referred by feminist lawyers or women's centers. While even sympathetic reviewers commented on the sloppiness of Chesler's research, her "finding" that fathers are likely to win contested custody cases was often presented as fact.

Similar numbers have cropped up again, most recently in Karen Winner's Divorced From Justice: "Contrary to public belief, 70 percent of all litigated custody trials rule in favor of the fathers," shouts the jacket (italics in the original). A national alert on father's rights groups issued by the National Organization for Women - urging members to combat proposed laws encouraging joint custody and mediation - also states that "many judges and attorneys are still biased against women. ..."

Where do these figures come from? One respectable source is the 1989 Gender Bias Study of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which reported that when fathers seek custody, they win primary or joint physical custody 70 percent of the time. In The Divorce Revolution, Lenore Weitzman reported two-thirds of fathers asking for custody in California succeeded.

Maybe, some fathers' advocates say, men only seek custody when they have a chance because there's something wrong with mom. Explaining why few non-custodial mothers pay child support, the Gender Bias Study notes "women who lose custody often [have] mental, physical, or emotional handicaps" that impair their earning ability.

That aside, the high success rate of men in custody battles is yet another contender for the Phony Statistics Hall of Fame. The figures do not refer to contested cases. Weitzman acknowledged that when fathers got sole custody, it was typically by mutual agreement; of cases that went to trial, two-thirds were won by women. The work from which the Gender Bias Study gathered its numbers did not separate contested and uncontested custody bids, but showed that mothers filing for sole custody received it 75 percent of the time (the rest usually received joint legal/primary physical custody), while the "success rate" for fathers was 44 percent.

A Stanford study of more than 1,000 California couples divorced in the 1980s suggests conventional wisdom is right. If both parents requested sole custody when filing for divorce, it was awarded to mom in 45 percent and to dad in 11 percent of the cases, with joint physical custody for the rest. (When she asked for sole custody and he for joint custody, the odds were 2-1 in her favor.)

Most of the disputes were negotiated. Just five couples went to trial vying for sole custody - and one of these cases resulted in a victory for the father.

The answer is not to help fathers win more custody fights but to have fewer fights. In Michigan, the Legislature is considering a "shared parenting" or joint custody bill - the Senate substitution bill for House Bill 5636 - opposed by the state's NOW chapter. There's ample room for discussions of the best way to ensure children of divorce still have two parents. But disinformation shouldn't be part of the debate.

Cathy Young is vice-chair of the Women's Freedom Network.

Karen DeCrow

More info in reference to Karen DeCrow that comes with little tracking info. Click here for site.

Here's what former N.O.W. President Karen DeCrow said nearly a decade ago. The statistics are stale, but the insight is still valid. (Ms DeCrow joined what is now the National Congress for Men and Children in 1981):

IT'S IN MEN'S NATURE TO NURTURE, TOO. -- Karen DeCrow Women must join men in defeating the myth that only women can adequately nurture the young. As a feminist I have been strongly in support of joint, or shared custody since the early Seventies. It's clear that women will never have the opportunity for full participation in the world outside the home if they are designated as those solely responsible for the care of children --during an ongoing marriage or after divorce.

Researchers at the University of Illinois spent six years studying high school valedictorians, and found that the women were much more likely than the men to lower their career goals after college in order to pay "attention to families." Although 57.5% of the valedictorians were female, the women began to lower their career aspirations by the second year of college. Only 35 percent of these women who were first in their class plan to stayin the labor force full-time, while all of the men do.

Midway through college, the women studied also had lower levels of intellectual self-esteem. Dr. Joyce Van Tassel-Baska of Northwestern University, who reviewed the findings, writes: "It's a waste of an incredible talent pool." The waste of talent comes not from a mysterious disease which strikes female valedictorians at age 20. What strikes them down is the societal expectation -- reinforced by family, friends, the media, even their teachers-- that their main job in life is to have children, and anything else they do is secondary in importance. There's no place they can turn for a different message.

Do male valedictorians plan to be parents? Of course. But 100 percent of them plan to use their intellectual and creative abilities in their other sphere of "love" also: their work. Few women will have true equal opportunity if this role definition does not change. We must do two things to save female valedictorians.

First we must stop asking them when they are going to have children. (Surely brilliant young men are not often asked this question at cocktail parties.) And secondly, we must include fathers in matters of child rearing. No parental leave plan, no custody decision, no plan for child care facilities should be addressed to mothers alone. Providing shared responsibility for children, by law, is not only fair to men and more civilized for children, it's also to women's advantage.

Until women and men share parenting, there is little possibility they'll be able to share political, intellectual, economic and social goals. Because half of all marriages end in divorce, more than five million children now live with a divorced parent. Women receive child custody in nine out of 10 uncontested divorce cases. Support is awarded in only 59 percent of these cases. A recent study shows that two-thirds of non-custodial fathers stop making support payments after the first six months. The good news, however, is the same study shows that divorced fathers who have joint custody of their children make support payments promptly.

Under joint custody -- now legal in 38 states -- couples continue to share child-raising responsibilities after a divorce. They divorce each other, but neither of them divorces the children. Under joint custody, no parent has the humiliating experience of being a visitor in his own child's life. According to Webster's dictionary,"visitation" means an official visit, as for inspection, or special dispensation of divine favor or wrath. Why reasonable people would expect decades of financial cooperation from a parent awaiting special dispensation to take his own child to the zoo boggles the mind.

Twenty years ago, in the early days of the feminist movement, it was assumed that shared parenting must be the norm. In later years, responding to conditioning which has convinced many women their chief value is as mothers-- producers and tenders of children -- many in the feminist movement have, mysteriously to me, taken the position that it's to women's advantage to fight for sole custody of children. In this misdirected approach to family living, some women have resumed the attitude of possessiveness of children, attempting to eliminate fathers from the parenting role.

Early in the feminist movement, the anthropologists instructed that historically and traditionally women have been hobbled and enfeebled by sole responsibility for children. The attempt to fight against parenting by fathers is self-defeating for women. Winning sole custody and defeating the fathers movement's efforts to establish joint custody as the norm are Pyrrhic victories indeed. If men are talented enough to be doctors, lawyers, architects and college professors, let us give them the opportunity to be talented parents.

[Karen DeCrow was president of the National Organization for Women from 1974 - 1977. She is an attorney specializing in civil rights and resides in Syracuse, New York. This text downloadable as DECROW.INF from NCMC BBS]

Article by Cathy Young?

To see where I found this article click here. I was looking for info on Karen DeCrow, a former President of NOW, who is apparently for presumptive joint custody after divorce. The article is attributed to Cathy Young who currently writes for Reason Magazine. There was no title to the article and I will reprint it entirely below:

The often bitter debate over women, babies, and careers got a new twist last week when Michigan circuit court Judge Raymond Cashen gave custody of a 3-year-old named Maranda to her father, Steve Smith, in part because the mother, Jennifer Ireland, has placed the child in a day care center while she attends the University of Michigan. Smith also studies and works but his mother, who is not employed, is willing to help him care for the little girl at home. (Both mom and dad were 16 when Maranda was born.)

"Under the future plans of the mother, the minor child will be in essence raised and supervised a great deal of the time by strangers," Judge Cashen wrote. "Under the future plans of the father, the minor child will be raised and supervised by blood relatives."

Predictably, this has sparked an outcry from feminists who see a backlash against mothers who do not fit the 1950s mold. "A kind of Donna Reed cultural terrorism," columnist Anna Quindlen called the decision.

But others argue that 69-year-old Judge Cashen is no enemy of working women: his own wife taught at a community college most of her life and some of their children were in day care. Moreover, the decision was influenced by other factors: the judge felt that the child would generally have a more stable environment with her father. "Under the mother's plan, the child will not have a specific residence, being moved periodically between the University of Michigan and the maternal grandmother's home," he wrote. "Under the father's plan, the child will reside at the paternal grandparents' home for an indefinite period." (This reasoning should not endear him to fathers' rights groups that favor joint custody arrangements under which the child lives with each parent part of the time.)

Michigan attorney Kay Schwarzberg, who handles many divorce and custody cases, believes that concerns about the possible negative impact of day care on very young children can't be dismissed as mere backlash. But mainly, Schwarzberg is amused that there should be such outrage over Judge Cashen's reference to day care vs. home care in giving custody to the father, when for decades judges cited that issue in awarding custody to moms: "No one got excited about all the wonderful men who couldn't have custody because they were working and had to put their children in day care."

This theme is echoed by Al Lebow, founder of the Michigan- based Fathers for Equal Rights of America, one of nearly 300 fathers' rights groups across the country: "The real crux of this issue is that if the situation were reversed, there would be nobody from the media making inquiries." There are, he says, "thousands upon thousands of horror stories" of men denied not only custody but any meaningful access to their children. Though custody laws are now gender-neutral on the surface, fathers' advocates -- and most family law attorneys -- contend that a double standard lingers: a father has to show that he is a better parent (sometimes, a much better parent) to get the kids; a mother has only to show she's not a bad parent. Women are still presumed, particularly by older, traditional members of the bench such as Judge Cashen, to be naturally possessed of superior parenting skills.

Fathers' rights activists claim that just five percent of divorced dads get custody. The figure may be too low; since there is no system of tracking custody decisions, precise numbers are hard to come by. (According to the Census Bureau, 13 percent of children in single-parent families now live with their dads.) Some feminists claim that fathers win two-thirds of all contested custody cases, due to their greater resources and male bias in courts. But they apparently get that figure by counting joint- custody decisions as unilateral male victories. And some divorced fathers' advocates say that men rarely ask for custody unless they feel they have a very compelling case (and can afford huge legal fees), because they believe the deck is stack against them.

Indeed, the motives of fathers who seek sole or joint custody are often treated as suspect. Quindlen transparently insinuated, as did a New York Times editorial, that Smith had no interest in his child and started the custody fight to avoid paying Ireland $8 a week in child support -- as if anyone could think that $8 a week was worth the inconvenience of having an unwanted child in the house, not to mention the expense of raising her! (Some activists in the battered women's movement promote the even more sinister notion that most dads who fight for custody are abusers who want to use the children to continue controlling the mother.)

Those who are up in arms about Jennifer Ireland losing her child should ask themselves if they would have been as upset if Jennifer had been James. According to Lynne Hecht Schafran, an attorney with the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, "Women should not be penalized for working outside the home." True. But if taking a child away from a parent is a penalty, are good fathers who lose custody of their children penalized for being male?

"We don't understand why, in this day and age, the women's movement is not interested in equality," says Lebow. Supporters of broader custody rights for fathers include former NOW president Karen DeCrow. Yet pro-maternal custody feminists argue that the child should live with the mother because she is usually the "primary caretaker." Day care clearly seems to undermine this argument: as DeCrow once quipped, if this standard were consistently applied, the children of women lawyers would be living in the Caribbean with their nannies.

Perhaps the only way to avoid biased and arbitrary decisions, and the destructive win-lose mentality of custody battles, is to institute the presumption of joint custody as the norm. No fit parent should be penalized -- whether for his gender or for her career -- by being reduced to the status of a visitor in his or her child's life.

I'm A Woman And I Think NOW Sucks

I just visited this NOW site and I have a couple things to say. Why do you have to be a Democrat to believe in women's rights? I believe women should receive equal pay, be free from sex discrimination and harassment - but I'm an independent. I think we should all be Independents as you should vote based on your feelings of the positions of each candidate. Neither of the two main parties provide platforms that I unilaterally agree with.

Does this make me a bad woman?

Moreover, I am staunchly opposed to NOW's general take on custody cases. On this site there is a page called: Demand Justice for Mother's & Children. (You can get to it from the home page under DEMAND JUSTICE, right column, towards the bottom of the page) My favorite parts from this page are the following:

As many as 50% of divorces involve family violence--and 70% of the men who abuse women abuse their children as well.

Furthermore, the vast majority of fathers who contest custody rulings are men who are abusive.

Umm, bull shit. Just so you know the first statistic came from: An analysis of the Canadian Violence Against Women (1) survey. The citation at the end lists no date. Who did they survey - only victims of abuse, reported victims of abuse, or did they cold call women? And I'm not sure who did the analysis - if it was NOW that definitely seems like a conflict of interests. Further, the statistic says 50% of divorce involves family violence - it does not qualify which party was violent. There is no direct link to back up the other two claims so...

I LOVED THIS:

What does all that mean exactly?

The most frightening of the Father's Rights groups are not content with returning to an era when it was believed that "father knows best." Rather, they seek to turn the clock back on women's rights, including their reproductive freedom, rescind the Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which grants women the right to vote, and force women to return to a subservient role in the family. Janet Normalvanbreucher

Rescind the 19th amendment!! Did you all hear that - I am doing this because I no longer wish to have the right to vote and I want to stay home, make cookies and rub my husbands feet while he watches the news after dinner. Damn it - they figured me out!

This is the kind of crap I hate. Dads want to be dads to their kids - they have no interest in any of those other things, but in order to get women riled up we have to scare them that unless they resist these groups they stand to lose all of their rights and return to a barefoot and pregnant state. Many people want to overturn Roe v. Wade - they include men and women, Republicans and Democrats. Some people think abortion is murder - that is their position - and it is not because of a genetic predisposition.

Finally - and this may be the most atrocious, scrolling at the top of this site are articles like this: Man Gets 3 1/2 Years for Rape of Girl, 12. I've got a news flash for NOW - people suck! This is not gender specific either! There are bad people of every gender, race and creed.

I could use this blog to highlight all the horrific things mothers have done to their children. In fact, just looking through today's news I could cite the following:

Children starved in home filled with food - Room littered with beer cans; Kent woman had blood-alcohol concentration of 0.40 percent

Mom charged with failing to protect boy

Mom pleads guilty to caging twin sons

Teen 'divorces' mom after being sold for sex (since they cited Canada, I figure I can use Australia)

Mom gets life for starving girl

All of these articles were published in the last 24 hours.

So, I could make this blog a vendetta against women and try to utilize stats and news articles to show how cold, selfish and horrible they can be. But I don't because sadly enough there are members of both genders that could be described in that manner. I am not trying to eviscerate women - I am woman!

I am a woman from a divorced family and married to a divorced man. My own experience with my father is more than enough to show me how important a dad is - I simply cannot imagine my life without seeing my dad regularly and eventually moving in with him - as did my siblings. Witnessing what my husband has had to go through in the custody battle for his child just reinforced this for me. I don't know why this has to be a gender war. Women should have equal rights - AND SO SHOULD MEN.

NOW in New York (Or Now in New York further utilizes unsubstantiated and detrimental opinions proffered as fact)

This article is about accepting press releases and the like from advocacy groups, but it centers on a specific NOW-NY press release. Facts or Propaganda? Deconstructing Advocacy

Feminist Agenda

This is an article that was adapted from a book published in 1994. That is my caveat - this is an old article. Nonetheless, it is an interesting look at some of the ways feminist organizations and causes have used "statistics." The New Mythology - Figuring Out Feminism

Michigan NOW Against Proposed Joint Custody Legislation...(Big Surprise)

Okay, this is an article from the Liberation Journal and penned by Gregory Flanagan (who apparently is the only writer for the Liberation Journal, as of yet I can find no other authors on the site...links to other sites, but no other articles written for this particular site by another author...please update me if I am incorrect)

To start, I found this article suspect since it was written by a man. Granted, there has often been cross-over in many civil rights issues in our history- men supported the women's movement, whites supported civil rights, (and the most obvious) women support men's right to equal custody. However, a man outwardly supporting NOW in a blanket fashion did seem suspect to me. So I decided to do a little research on the Liberation Journal and Mr. Flanagan.

From the little I have found, this site appears to be hosted by a Canadian ISP. I'm not sure if that is relevant. I did find a site in which Mr. Flanagan was commenting on content of his site about homosexuals being pedophiles and concerning some type of action by the Canadian government... but not enough to have a cohesive summation.

I can't find much else, except other articles written by Mr. Flanagan, all of which seem to be written on hot button topics. Maybe he is simply fishing for notoriety.

Anyway, I wonder, if he is a Canadian citizen, why the apparent interest in Michigan custody legislation? Or the myriad of other US issues he takes up...

I have to say that I am surprised at the lack of biographical or contrary literature available on Mr. Flanagan. He certainly takes positions on very strongly felt issues; maybe I am the only one stupid enough to give this guy the time of day. (Also, I have on no way reviewed his positions in their entirety, he may very well agree with me on other points)

On to the article... for your reading pleasure I will provide some direct quotes, but first I should give some type of summary. He does cite some sources, primarily NOW. However, at least his first paragraph is startling lacking in support. It seems obvious to me that Mr. Flanagan believes: 1) That mothers are rightly given physical custody in the majority of cases, 2) That fathers are generally happy with their visitation schedule, 3) That mothers and children have a bond not matched by fathers and children and 4) A presumption of joint custody is not inherently in the best interests of the child and any judge who rules as such is ignoring the welfare of the child.

My favorite quotes:

"To make any other decision, a judge must find reasons why joint custody is not in the children's "best interest." This is an ambiguously high legal standard that makes it very difficult for judges to award sole-custody. It is a departure from the traditionally accepted standards determining what's in the best interest of the child based on the biological bond of mother and child and the fact that in the vast majority of cases, the mother is the primary child care provider." (More ambiguous than finding what is in the child's best interest, which this author argues is the "biological" bond between mother and child. Excuse me, but I took biology at some point, and I'm pretty sure there is a "biological" bond between father and child too! Unless we are talking about immaculate conception, maybe Canada has more going on up there than we thought.)

"Most child custody cases are settled through mutual agreement, sometimes aided by mediation, and the overwhelming majority of the time the mother gets custody with the father getting visitation in a way that satisfies both of them." (This is just ridiculous. If the majority of cases were settled through mutual agreement and there were smiles all around, what in the hell would all joint custody legislation be about? Obviously, there is a problem felt by enough to warrant a myriad of father's rights groups, new legislation, etc... We all know these statistics are often used by NOW and are categorically incorrect. Through my first search I found this: This study, conducted in Arizona, showed what the wishes of each parent was, and what the resulting custody decision was:

Fathers Wishes.

Joint Custody: 74%
Paternal Sole Custody: 15%
Maternal Sole Custody: 11%

Mother's wishes.

Maternal Sole Custody: 70%
Joint Custody: 30%

For the conflicting families (Father wanted joint custody, mother wanted sole custody).
Maternal Sole Custody awarded: 77%
Joint Custody awarded: 23%

(Source: Determining the Impact of Joint Custody on Divorcing Families, Sanford Braver, associate professor at the Arizona State University)

"The decrees overwhelmingly favored the mother's custody wishes: 67% of mothers obtained both the legal and residential custody arrangements they desired compared with only 15% of fathers; meanwhile, only 8% of mothers (vs 37% of fathers) found neither stipulation to correspond to their preference."

(Source: Gender Differences in Satisfaction with Divorce Decrees, Sheets & Braver, 1993)

There are also other statistics available ON THIS SITE countering this faulty claim repeatedly made by NOW.)

"Imposed joint custody is "unworkable for uncooperative parents; it is dangerous for women and their children who are trying to leave or have left violent husbands/fathers; it ignores the diverse, complicated needs of divorced families; and it is likely to have serious, unintended consequences on child support." Says NOW." (What precisely would be the unintended consequences in child support? Mothers would no longer get de-facto alimony titled as "support" in the name of the children? Mothers might be expected to support themselves and 50% of their children's needs on their own? My heavens! Whatever will we do with this unintended accountability!)

"NOW warns that, "Forced joint custody is also a top legislative priority of fringe fathers' rights groups nationwide. These groups argue that courts are biased and sole custody awards to mothers deny fathers their right to parent. They allege that, in most cases, mothers are awarded sole custody, with fathers granted visitation rights. The men cite this as proof of bias against fathers."

"The truth is that in 90 percent of custody decisions it is mutually agreed that the mother would be sole custodian. According to several studies, when there is a custody dispute, fathers win custody in the majority of disputed cases." According to NOW." (Here it is again, mutual agreement, fathers win a majority of custody disputes... Notice NOW only cites several studies, no study titles authors, or dates. Must have slipped their mind. I mean, come on, the findings are so prominent how could you not know this stuff! Women always get screwed, men are oppressors, we (women) are so weak and delicate and intelligence challenged that the courts must be biased in our favor in order for there to be a level playing field. Oh, but BTW, we still want you to "help our children" in the form of cold hard cash. Don't forget to sign the check!! This is a an article on the effects of joint custody and the need for fathers: SPARC)

"NOW says, "The legislature's determination to impose joint custody on parents in conflict is a frightening proposition for many women and places them and their children in harm's way. There is documented proof that forced joint custody hurts children." "In the majority of cases in which there's no desire to cooperate, joint custody creates a battleground on which to carry on the fight," one researcher reported in the legal magazine, The Los Angeles Daily Journal (December 1988)." (I'm not even sure what to say here, NOW speaks more crap... What documented proof? Provide some sources... There is documented proof joint custody is beneficial (see SPARC above), that is the beauty of statistics, you can almost always find some to support your point. The difference is here I'll provide mine, NOW just uses "one researcher" who reported in The Los Angeles Daily Journal. I don't know, but I gotta think that if you go to the card catalog of your library and look up one researcher and the magazine title, you are going to come up with... squat. But then who knows...)

"In "Ongoing Postdivorce Conflict: Effects on Children of Joint Custody and Frequent Access," Janet Johnson and her colleagues compared children in court-ordered joint custody with children in sole-custody homes. In both situations, the parents were in "entrenched conflict." This study showed that under these circumstances frequent shuttling between both parents in joint custody "is linked to more troubled emotional problems" in children than the sole-custody arrangement." They reported." (I just love the "They reported." Anyway, the problem here is that the article says there were conflicts in both scenarios and while they may have been aggravated by joint custody, isn't the real problem the parents? Should we punish, or keep the children from having meaningful and regular contact with one parent because the parents (note the plural) are too stupid to act like adults around each other? That doesn't necessarily negate their ability to properly parent their children and if it did it would require the law to remove the child from the care of both parents, not just one.)

"Imposed joint custody is particularly dangerous to battered women and their children. As the director of the Michigan Domestic Violence and Treatment Board said in her testimony opposing this bill, "...the exchange of children during visitation can be the most dangerous time for the [domestic violence survivor] and her children." (This is a legitimate concern but a ridiculous point. As even the article itself notes, the judge can demonstrate why joint custody is not in the best interests of the child and order sole custody. I'm reaching here, but I think documented abuse would warrant such a decision...)

"My experience with presumptive joint custody as a domestic relations lawyer in Louisiana was almost uniformly negative," said NOW Executive Vice President Kim Gandy. "It creates an unparalleled opportunity for belligerent former spouses to carry on their personal agendas or vendettas through the children -- and with the blessing of the courts."
"Attorneys often referred to it jokingly as the `lawyer protection act' because repeated trips to court over minor issues kept the fees rolling in, and the mothers were more likely to suffer," Gandy said." (Well everybody clap for NOW since they seem to be the only ones worth quoting. As if a lawyer who also happens to be the NOW Executive Vice President wouldn't have an agenda or possibly a differing opinion from your run of the mill divorce attorney. But everyone listen to Kim --mothers are more likely to suffer. Now let's bow down and kiss the feet of this impartial, benevolent pedagogue. What on earth would we do without her to suffer for all the meek, half-witted victims (oops, I meant women). God bless the predominately male judiciary who will save them all from having to share their children with the person who shared the responsibility in their creation and pay their own way.)

Oh crap, there is a link to another article by this Flanagan fellow... Guess what!! It is just as moronic and misrepresented. Thankfully I have very little to do at work today...

Link to the first article here: Mother's Rights and Children's Welfare Threatened by Forced Joint Custody (from the Liberation Journal)

...

I just read an article by Gloria Woods, President of Michigan NOW, a woman's advocacy group. You can read the article here. I have a lot of problems with this article as well as with NOW in general, however, I do see some merit in the argument that joint custody can be detrimental if the parents are absolutely unable to work together. That goes back to my repeated pleas that you remain civil and productive with your ex, it is important for so many reasons, but mostly for your children's well being. Divorce is extremely difficult and devastating but does not give you an excuse to stop acting like an adult.