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

Are single mothers the 'New American Family'?

Latest Glenn Sacks

Are single mothers the 'New American Family'?

Excerpts:

Last fall Stanford University Gender Scholar Peggy Drexler penned the highly-publicized book "Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men." This month Oxford Press released Wellesley College Women's Studies professor Rosanna Hertz's "Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice: How Women Are Choosing Parenthood Without Marriage and Creating the New American Family."

Drexler portrays father-absent homes – particularly "single mother by choice" and lesbian homes – as being the best environments for raising boys. Hertz interviewed 65 single mothers and concluded that "intimacy between husbands and wives [is] obsolete as the critical familial bond." Whereas a family was once defined as two parents and their children, Hertz asserts that today the "core of family life is the mother and her children." Fathers aren't necessary – "only the availability of both sets of gametes [egg and sperm] is essential." In fact, Hertz explains, "what men offer today is obsolete."

Our children would beg to differ. Studies of children of divorce confirm their powerful desire to retain strong connections to their fathers. For example, an Arizona State University study of college-age children of divorce found that the overwhelming majority believed that after a divorce "living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children."

Men are often stereotyped as fearing commitment, and it is they who are usually blamed for the divorce revolution. However, it is mothers, not fathers, who initiate most divorces involving children. In some cases, these mothers have ample justification. In others, however, they simply don't want to make the compromises and do the hard work required in any relationship, and can't or won't recognize that their children need their fathers. In fact, according to research conducted by Joan Berlin Kelly, author of "Surviving the Break-up," 50 percent of divorced mothers claim to "see no value in the father's continued contact with his children after a divorce."

Joint custody works, but it's not easy

Joint custody works, but it's not easy
By Kirsten Feldman

Excerpts:

My children's father and I separated and then divorced several years ago, when my son was in kindergarten. Next year he'll be starting middle school.

I certainly think my children have benefited from joint custody, in our case meaning that they might spend some nights at their father's house and some nights at ours in a given week, and we trade off for vacations and holidays.

Their father and I are amicable, and we have worked out the intricacies of having bicycles, and homework, and sports equipment in the right place at the right time. We attend teacher conferences together. We have resolved thorny issues involving religion and dentistry and Christmas dinner. I hope we are setting a good example for our children of how to relate to someone with whom you differ.

Custody rights bill for fathers dead in Assembly -NY

Custody rights bill for fathers dead in Assembly
Supporters say bill would balance system they say favors mothers

I don't know what to say.

Excerpts:

ALBANY -- An Assembly panel Tuesday killed for the year a proposal to give fathers greater custody rights in divorce proceedings.

By a 12-4 vote, the Assembly Children and Families Committee scuttled a contentious plan that would have made courts presume that shared parenting of children is the best arrangement for divorcing couples and their children, if there was no accusation that it would harm the children.

The bill's supporters say that courts now award custody to the mother in most cases, with fathers limited to occasional visits. They said 13 other states have adopted similar legislation to level the playing field for fathers.

But the majority of committee members were swayed by arguments that the bill would put the needs of the parents ahead of those of the children.

The committee vote means the measure won't advance to the floor to be considered by the full Assembly, effectively killing it for the year. The Senate wasn't expected to act on it until the Assembly made its decision.

Bill's Arena

It figures - as soon as I talk about scaling back I see something I just have to post.

Please stop by and show your support for Bill's Arena. The site is run by Bill, a 14 year old child of divorce. From the site:

Think about this. Imagine if you, the child of two divorced parents, had the the power to change something. What if you could see both of your parents equally? Well, such a thing exists, and it is known as "Presumption of Joint Physical Custody." That means both your parents have control over your skin! Just kidding, it means you see them equal amounts of time if they cannot agree on a visitation schedule. Right now you may be thinking, "Well, that makes sense. Why don't my parents do that concerning me?" Well, here is the truth. People just don't get along. There, I said it. People don't get along. It has gotten too easy to become divorced, I saw a billboard the other day that said that some attorney (or lawyer, depending on your preference) could divorce you from your spouse for only $500! Outrageous! Well, it gets easier. It has gotten to the point that whoever has more money can typically get the better attorney, so they can get all the belongings, and you too! It seems to me anymore like kids are treated like a stupid piece of junk belonging.

Well I had this smart idea. Lobby for Joint Physical Custody. Remember Martin Luther King Jr.? He had a very nonviolent protest idea that worked very well. Others have done that kind of thing with success, Gandhi (Sorry to any of those typo spotters. I can never spell his name right.) for instance. Well, what about this case? We have something in common, we want something. No, we need something. We need Joint Physical Custody. Let's walk, I say. I am going to have t-shirts made to give to anyone I know. When I am done I will post up a template for you to go to Kinko's or somewhere to have it made. Make signs up. Call anyone you know, no, call everyone you know. But don't start yet. We need to do it on one day, one day while the whole nation can sit and watch as their children march and fight fist less for something they want. I don't care where you live, ghetto, mansion. Shoot, if you have married parents, help us! You don't know what it is like! What if you had parents get divorced? Wouldn't you want to see both of them? Let's see if we can shoot for Spring Break 2007, the Georgia Legislature will be in session then.

Thank you to Disenfranchised Father via Broken Bread for this link.

Women Have a Choice--Men Should Too

Latest article from Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks

Excerpts:

One and a half million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year by adoption, abortion or abandonment, yet somehow nobody labels them “deadbeats” or “deserters.” In over 40 states a mother can return the baby to the hospital within a few weeks of birth--completely opting out of motherhood with less hassle than it takes to return a DVD to Best Buy. Yet if the mother decides she wants to keep the child, she can demand 18 (or in some states 21 or 23) years of child support from the father, and he has no choice in the matter.

Research shows that many men are unwillingly drafted into fatherhood, just as Dubay claims he was. The National Scruples and Lies Survey 2004 conducted in the United Kingdom found that 42% of the women in the survey said they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners. According to research conducted by Joyce Abma of the National Center for Health Statistics and Linda Piccinino of Cornell University, over a million American births each year result from pregnancies which men did not intend.

Women’s advocates correctly note that pregnant women often have legitimate reasons for not wanting to be mothers, including youth, finances and the lack of a suitable relationship or marriage. Yet all of these apply equally to men. Women have a choice--men should, too.

DIVORCE SUCKS

All of this discussion and cataloging of joint custody initiatives has resulted in *at times* forgetting my real position on divorce/custody. DIVORCE SUCKS even under the best, most amicable of circumstances.

Sure, I started this site because of my disgust at a legal system that appears to treat dads as little more than a source of funding. And I know that with no fault divorce - if this is the route your spouse wants to take you have few resources to impede the divorce.

I certainly would not advocate begging anyone to remain in their marriage - but then, who am I kidding? As a child of divorce between two parents with few differences other than conflicting outlooks - the kid left in me wants to scream stop it any way you can even if it means you have to drop to your knees and plead.

The adult in me is disgusted at that idea. I knew that my mother was cheating and I will be the first to publicly say that the best thing that ever happened to my father was their divorce. (The ensuing custody war is something else entirely). And yet, I still hear my seven year old voice wishing they "would get back together" and that things should just PLEASE go back to normal. During this period I loved and hated them both. I knew my mother had made the decision, I knew she had been cheating and I resented the almost instant presence of her new boyfriend in our home. But my dad had abandoned us (I can rationalize now that he obviously did not) but then I couldn't get my head around how he could leave OUR HOME and then let this new man show up, sleep in his bed, boss us around, etc....

Hmm, do I still have unresolved issues about my parents divorce? Absolutely.

The following is from an article printed earlier this month: Even 'good' divorces can make life highly stressful for children

Marquardt discovered that, even in "good" divorces where both parents worked together to make the situation as comfortable as possible for the children, 52 percent of those surveyed said that life was stressful, compared to 6 percent from happy marriages.

And the situation tended to make them feel isolated from both parents. In response to the survey question, "In thinking back on your childhood, when you needed comfort, what did you do?", 69 percent of children in intact families said they went to a parent, but only 33 percent of children of divorce did.

This and other data led Marquardt to the conclusion that - although children are better off after divorce when there was abuse, serial infidelity and other serious problems - they are not better off when divorce ends a "low-conflict" marriage.

"The children of low-conflict couples fare worse after the divorce because the divorce marks their first exposure to a serious problem. One day, without much warning, their world just falls apart," she writes in her book Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce. Along with complete survey data and her analysis of it, the book also includes examples from her own life.

She describes a low-conflict marriage as one "in which parents divorce because they are unhappy or unfulfilled, or have other problems that are not seriously threatening." According to studies, she said, about two-thirds of marriages that end in divorce could be described as low-conflict.

She said she would not presume to tell people that they should stay together just for the sake of the children. What she would hope, she said, is that people who know that their spouse is a good person and a good parent will take her findings into account before going ahead with a divorce.

So what to do (if you are in what was described above as a low conflict marriage)? One of my first suggestions would be as soon as there is talk of divorce visit the uptoparents.com site and both go through the commitments. Try to aware your spouse of the research regarding children of divorce. Explore counseling/therapy to address issues within the marriage. And whatever happens - do not forget who will suffer the most and always keep the welfare of your children at the forefront of your mind.

Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.

Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.

Excerpts:

More than three years ago, a Maine district court judge ruled that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that wasn't his.

But that didn't stop the state from revoking Fisher's driver's license and coming after him for thousands of dollars it says he owes in back payments.

Last year, Maine sent Fisher, 35, a letter seeking $11,450 in child support, even though officials know that DNA tests proved he isn't the father of the child in question.

Fisher had a brief relationship with a woman eight years ago and when she got pregnant and told him he was the father, he believed her. He began paying child support but eventually fell behind.

In the summer of 2001, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services took him to court because of delinquent payments. The court ordered him to pay up, and the state had his license suspended under the "deadbeat dad" law.

That fall the girl, then 3, was placed in foster care. When Fisher pushed for custody, the state ordered a paternity test, which proved he wasn't the father.

At that point, one branch of the human services department told him he could no longer see the girl because he wasn't the father, while another said he owed $10,000 and couldn't have a driver's license because he was the father.

As the nation experiences an unprecedented increase in unwed motherhood, more men are finding themselves named as "fathers," for purposes of child support, simply because of their ability to pay, say several recent studies.

It's called "paternity fraud," and one state that examined the problem found as many as 30 percent of those paying child support were, indeed, not the biological fathers of the children being supported.

The most recent comprehensive study took place in New Hampshire under the auspices of the Commission on the Status of Men.

The commission found that even men who later were able to prove they were paying support for the children of other men were sometimes still forced by courts and state agencies to continue.

Like New Hampshire, California has also established a commission to explore the problem, based on reports that 14 percent are being misnamed as fathers. A report is expected later this year.

Florida is about to pass a new law that would end child support if a man proves he's not the father. Like most states, Florida currently requires that child support – once legally established – continue until the child's 18th birthday, regardless of who the real biological father is. Eleven states have changed similar laws since 1994.

A new state law took effect in Colorado this year that permits men, for the first time, to challenge his paternity of alleged offspring – at least during the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child-support action. However, once a final order is entered, the new law says, the man is barred from presenting evidence of non-paternity.

Phyllis Schlafly and Stephen Baskerville Interview

On February 14, 2006 Phyllis Schlafly and Stephen Baskerville joined together in a landmark interview about the "War Against The Family."

Click here to listen to the interview.

Sacks, Allred Debate New CA. Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

In relation to the post below, Glenn Sacks debated attorney Gloria Allred last Friday about this case and move away cases in general. What follows are verbatim excerpts from an email. You can visit GlennSacks.com or His Side with Glenn Sacks for more information or to sign up for email updates.

Excerpts:

California Supreme Court Rules Against Dad in New Move-Away Decision

From 1996 to 2004 move-away determinations were based on the Burgess decision, in which a custodial mother was allowed to move her two children 40 miles away from their father. Burgess was disastrous for children because it was interpreted by California courts to permit moves of hundreds or thousands of miles. In some cases, courts have even allowed children to be moved out of the country, as far away as Australia, New Zealand, and Zaire.

In 2004 the California Supreme Court decided the LaMusga case in favor of the father, Gary LaMusga, who sought to prevent his ex-wife from moving his two young boys from California to Ohio. LaMusga, who is unable to follow his children because he operates a small business and is tied down by weighty child support obligations, had fought the move for eight years. In siding with the father the court explained that "the likely impact of the proposed move on the noncustodial parent's relationship with the children is a relevant factor in determining whether the move would cause detriment to the children."

Soon afterwards a handful of extreme feminists prevailed upon former California Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) to introduce SB 730, which would have abrogated LaMusga and given custodial parents almost unlimited move-away privileges. We organized to fight the bill, and generated thousands of calls and letters in opposition, as well as a lot of media attention. To everybody's surprise, Burton withdrew SB 730, and LaMusga was preserved.

Fortunately the new decision in Brown vs. Yana will not have the impact of Burgess or LaMusga--it is more technical and limited in scope, and the father's underwhelming legal effort and behavior hurt him. To learn more about the new ruling, see Court Rules Parents With Custody Can Move (Los Angeles Times, 2/2/06).

To learn more about California move-aways and the LaMusga case, see my co-authored column Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and read my LaMusga radio commentary here. To read a feminist view of the move-away issue, see Allred's column "Moving Matters in Custody" (Los Angeles Daily Journal, 10/3/02).

I discussed how this issue would be viewed if we switched the genders in my column California NOW Takes Stand Against Working Mothers (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 2/23/04), and argued in favor of a current Wisconsin move-away bill in my co-authored piece AB 400 Will Help Wisconsin's Children of Divorce (Wisconsin State Journal, 12/3/05). I clashed with feminist law professor Carol Bruch, who authored the mother's brief in LaMusga, on PBS's Los Angeles affiliate KCET last year--to watch, click here.

Sacks, Allred Debate New California Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

For example, Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways unfairly restrict custodial moms from moving, while not restricting noncustodial fathers. I answer that in these cases both parents are free to move wherever they want--it is the children who may not be moved if a court determines that it is against their best interests.

Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways keep custodial parents "held hostage" in their neighborhoods, and that they should be able to "move on with their lives." I respond that both parents retain responsibilities to their children after divorce which are sometimes inconvenient or limiting, and ask "Would we argue that noncustodial parents' responsibility to pay child support holds them 'hostage?' Do we condone the behavior of divorced parents who decide to drop out of their children's lives or stop paying child support because they've decided to 'move on with their lives?'"

Another Bizarre Father Screwing

According to the article Not guilty, but not off the hook (2/6/06):

"A man who spent 13 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murder faces a debt of more than $38,000 in child-support payments that started accumulating while he was locked up...

"A federal judge released Souter last April 1.

"In 1987, before his conviction, [Larry] Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments suspended until 1995.

"Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support. As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed it to $38,082.25.

"Federal law prohibits judges from retroactively wiping out such debts...

"David Sarnacki, an attorney for Souter's ex-wife, wrote in a court filing that his client 'has endured the substantial burden of raising her two children without defendant's contribution of child support.'"

I love the quote from his ex-wife's attorney. Yes, he didn't pay child support because he was in prison framed on a murder charge. I guess we should be grateful the lawyer didn't refer to Souter as a "deadbeat dad." That'll probably be next. One would also think that after seeing her ex-husband rot in jail for 13 years for a crime he didn't commit, she would feel so damn sorry for the poor guy that she would back off. I guess not.

In the article Wrongly convicted man tries to move on after prison (Flint Journal, 1/7/06), Souter had discussed putting his life back together and his plans. Now he may be headed back on the road to jail.

I wrote about California legislation designed to deal with the problem of ex-offenders and child support in my co-authored column Schwarzenegger Should Sign Bill to Reduce Prisoner Recidivism (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 9/21/05). The Bradley Amendment, under which child support arrearages cannot be retroactively forgiven, is the cause of countless bizarre injustices, and often hurts deployed military personnel. In my co-authored column Laws must protect the rights of military dads (Army Times, Marine Corps Times, 3/28/05) family law attorney Jeff Leving and I wrote:

"[Child] support orders are based on civilian pay, which is generally higher than active duty pay. When reservists are called up to active duty they sometimes pay an impossibly high percentage of their income in child support.

"For example, a California naval reservist who has three children and who takes home $4,000 a month in his civilian job would have a child support obligation of about $1,600 a month. If this father is a petty officer second class (E5) who has been in the reserves for six or seven years--a middle-ranked reservist--his active-duty pay would only be $2,205 before taxes, in addition to a housing allowance. Under current California child support guidelines, the reservist's child support obligation should be $550 a month, not $1,600."

A reasonable reader unfamiliar with the wonders of the child support system would probably think 'OK, but the courts would just straighten it out when the reservist gets back--certainly they wouldn't punish him for something that happened because he was serving.' However, the federal Bradley Amendment prohibits judges from retroactively modifying child support beyond the date which an obligor has applied for a modification. Reservists can be mobilized with as little as one day's notice. If a reservist didn't have time or didn't know he had to file for a downward modification, the arrearages stay, along with the interest and penalties charged on them.

"When the arrearage reaches $5,000--a common occurrence during long deployments--the father can become a felon who can be incarcerated or subject to a barrage of harsh civil penalties, including seizure of driver's licenses, business licenses and passports."

This is a particularly long newsletter so I am going to cut the excerpts here. However, Glenn also discusses child abduction, the campaign against PBS "documentary" Breaking the Silence, Newsweek coverage of The Trouble With Boys, domestic violence laws, Italian custody laws, and female inmates - amongst other topics. Visit his site to read the newsletter here.

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.

Sharing the kids can be painful this time of year

Sharing the kids can be painful this time of year
Rachel Bryant

This is an article along the lines of my post Happy or not - the Holidays are here.
Excerpts:

1.) Don't forget that your relationship with your children will always be more important to them than where they spent the 25th of December in 2005. Long after the holidays are over, it is the loving bond between parents and their children that sustain them and provide a model for the kind of parent that they will one day want to be.

3.) Focus on what you can do, rather than what outside interference has taken away. What do you want your children to take away from this season? Is it the family time together, the joy of opening presents Christmas morning, or the spiritual message of the season that is important to give your children this time of year. All three of these can be accomplished regardless of visitation schedules. Again, it may not be your first choice, but if the message vs. having it your way is the priority for your children, than all can still be accomplished.

As for spending time together, use the time you have to make holiday moments with your children. Kids' memories of what Mom or Dad did for the holidays are not bound by a date. Special decorations, traditional songs, shopping sprees, family recipes, or new traditions are still all yours for the making.

4.) Take special care of yourself this season. While we all can get exhausted with work, family, holiday demands, etc., the parent who is struggling with the painful reality of family separation has an immeasurable additional burden. One of the best ways you can help your kids to get through this change, even if it is not the first year, is to let them see you take care of yourself. Use your family, friends, prayer, hobbies, therapy, exercise, work, a massage, a manicure, or all of the above, to bring yourself moments of comfort, sustenance, and peace. You have a right to your deep feelings and reactions to what has happened, and you need to take care of them.

And remember, it is ultimately your love, and with that love your lessons for your children, that they will take with them forever.

Happy Or Not- The Holidays Are Here

Just wanted to take the time to say Happy Holidays to everyone! This can be a very difficult time of year for divorced parents. So here are my things to remember:

1. Generally, the states provide non custodial parents half of their child's time off for Winter Break. If you are like my parents who live in different states - one year my father has the first week of vacation (including Christmas Day) and then the kids fly out on the 26th to spend a week with my mother. The following year the reverse - my mother has the first week with Christmas Day and the kids fly home on the 26th. To that end, whichever parent does not have the children over Christmas Day gets to have them over Thanksgiving. So for example, this past Thanksgiving my mother flew my younger siblings to her home, next year they will stay home with my dad but fly out the first (or second) day of winter break.

If you are like my husband and your ex lives in the same town (or general area) regardless of what custody arrangement you have (unless restricted to supervised or something of that ilk) the law generally provides you split all holidays. This can mean a literal split - 12 hours with each on each holiday or it can be split each year. My husband and his ex wife are on a one week/one week schedule. Halloween almost always falls into his week while New Years Eve almost always falls into her week. Instead of switching half way through the day (especially since the "fun" parts of Halloween and New Years are at specific times) or trading off each year - they have just declared Halloween his and New Years Eve hers. This prevents a lot of scheduling conflicts, questions, etc as everyone is fully aware of the schedule. This would also be an example of "splitting" the holidays. However, this is possible because they agreed - if the court had been forced to decide a half day split would have likely been ordered on both days.

For Christmas, one year one parent has the child Christmas Eve and overnight until midday Christmas Day - the next year they switch. Again, it is easy and something they agreed to without court assistance.

I am just providing all of this so you realize splitting the holidays does not have to mean at 12:00 pm one party turns the children over to the other party. Try to work with each other and around the traditions of the other.

But most important - WORK IT OUT FAR IN ADVANCE OF THE HOLIDAYS! Something about the holidays seems to bring out raw emotions in everyone, particularly if this is your first after the divorce. Come to an agreement, put it in writing and have it filed - and then adhere to it! It will make it a lot easier on everyone - particularly your kids.

2. Your children did not want you to divorce. They ALSO do not want to see you continue to fight or degrade the other. It doesn't matter whose fault anything is - they love you both - RESPECT THAT. Children see themselves as half mom - half dad. If you make negative comments about mom or dad in front of them - they see themselves negatively. The holidays are for them - this is harder for them to understand and get over than it is for you - make every effort to make this a painless and enjoyable holiday for them no matter how lousy or angry you are feeling.

3. Someday this will end. I know it is hard to imagine a life in which your everyday is not colored by a "custody arrangement" - wondering if you got all the school paperwork, find homework, trying to balance who will purchase clothes (will you share a winter coat or each have your own?), who will schedule (and remember) dentist, doctor, tryouts... Is your support paid- why is the support late.... Whatever your daily issues may be - they will end.

My parents oldest and youngest child are 13 years apart. That definitely prolongs the experience - but even for them (I keep telling them) someday it will end.

Where will you be when it does? Do you really want to spend the next 1 -20 years constantly battling with someone else? Do you want to spend those years internalizing your bitterness? Even if that is what your ex chooses to do? Would that be a productive use of your time?

Eventually your child(ren) will reach the age of 21 or graduate college - generally when agreements disappear. At that point you will have an adult child who will still need/want to spend the holidays with someone - but there will be no more description of how they will be spent. A good previous relationship with your ex about the holidays will be conducive to a good subsequent relationship. Now you will just have the added stress of what your child(ren) and potentially their new family will be able to manage.

Make decisions with your children as your first factor to consider - but don't live for your children. In this I mean, (as an example) abstain from remarrying a new spouse until your children are out of the home, but don't abstain from dating or having a life outside of your children. Eventually your children will have their own lives. If you have spent the previous time obsessing over them and every punctuation mark in your custody decree - you will probably be in very bad shape when that decree ceases to exist and your children go off on their own.

If you are paying child support - and you believe it to be an inordinate amount - make sure you place your anger in the right place. Although it is unfortunate that your ex cannot see the benefit to having a financially sound co parent - the courts and the government dictate child support levels. Get mad at them if you need to be mad. Get mad at the broken system we call family law. Get involved in a group attempting to change that system. (But if you do this do not let it overtake you. Everything in moderation - don't forget to enjoy the blessings in your life - your kids). Regardless of your levels of child support, find a way to save. You may have to reduce your standard of living - but eventually you may find yourself needing to pay for college and you WILL want to retire. Don't let the courts prevent you from fulfilling the dreams you have - just change the manner in which you achieve those dreams and be realistic about what is attainable considering the current system you are under. I know this is all easy to say and I know that some of you have horrific stories where you are ordered to pay more than you actually make, plus your ex's attorney fees, etc... If you are in that kind of situation I encourage you to continue to petition the court for relief - try doing it pro se, there is help out there for people who want to represent themselves.

My mother is the type who lives through her children and sticking my father at every opportunity. She has had a series of failed marriages and relationships - something I attribute mainly to the extent of her anger at.... Everything - stemming from the courts mandating her to "share" the custody of her children with their father. She has spent thousands and thousands of dollars (requiring my father to spend the equivalent) battling over the most petty of issues in a courtroom. Now that she is the one paying support she withholds it at regular intervals. At the risk of delving too deep into this - I will say I am certain that when my youngest sister (now 16) is finally free of a court ordered custody arrangement, my mother will surely fall apart. She has no other focus in her life than to control us and her partners - who all quickly leave her after witnessing the depths of her anger - furthering her need to "punish" my father for this life he forced her into by impregnating her.

Ask yourself how you envision your life once your children have graduated college or gone out on their own - and then make the necessary choices to get there. While having children and an ex spouse may encompass your entire life today - you will likely have quite a number of years where this will not be the case. Don't forget to plan for this time too and don't let yourself become so bitter and directed that you don't know how to do anything except stew about how badly you got screwed.

4. I can't remember the exact verbiage - but I was told once by a mediator that in 18 years parents will make close to a half a million decisions about their children. This will be everything from what to eat for breakfast to what time to set curfew. Some decisions are more important than others. Ask yourself what you are arguing about in court? Is the money you are expending on your attorney, evaluator, etc... plus the tension you are breeding with your ex worth the decision of whether your ex feeds your child too many fish sticks? If you consider roughly 70 decisions are made a day, you could be in court for the rest of your life... is it worth it? Add up what you spend on your attorneys in a month and then figure out what that would be invested for the next 15 years - you might find you just wasted a year of college for your child...

To that end, cooperative parents try to identify the positives about the other and let slide some of their more lacking attributes. Come on, you married the person - you know that he/she is not such a great cook, terribly organized, timely, athletic, whatever.... Keep in mind that while at the others house the kids may eat more fish sticks but they will also have the advantage of accessing all of those wonderful things about your ex. And there are wonderful things - remember, you used to think so too! No one ever died from eating fish sticks!

Truthfully I have never heard of a case with fish sticks but I have heard about a couple who spent around $20,000 arguing about whether one fed the children too much macaroni. Seems pretty ridiculous, right? Ask yourself if any of your issues are equally ridiculous.

5. Finally, whatever scenario you have with your ex, remember this - YOU WILL NEVER GET THIS DAY BACK WITH YOUR CHILDREN. There will never be another Christmas 2005. So whether you see your kids for a day a month or half the month - TAKE ADVANTAGE. There will come a day when your children get to decide for themselves where they go - and they will remember if you spent the past years degrading their other parent, being mad about the arrangement - or if you cherished every second you had with them. And those decision's will come back to you once the court can no longer control your family. Make the right ones!!

Make this holiday as wonderful as you can - don't dwell on what your don't have - focus on what you do...

Report: Men need some help - NH

Concord Monitor

Report: Men need some help
Trouble areas: health, schools, legal system

Excerpts:

In the group's first report, New Hampshire's Commission on the Status of Men recommends that the state devote more resources to correcting the gender biases men face in divorce and domestic violence cases, as well as promoting the role of fathers in families.

The commission, the first of its kind in the country, was established in 2002 as a counterpart to the state-funded women's commission. Most of its seven members have some background in social welfare, mental health or family law.

Much of the report is concerned with what commission members describe as the biases leveled against men in divorces, child support arrangements and custody disputes. In research and in meetings held over the last year, the commission found that many fathers feel they are treated unfairly in family court disputes. Many complained of judges who automatically side with mothers, child support guidelines that leave the father with little income, and a general lack of understanding of the benefits of a father-child relationship.

Citing numerous studies that show children who spend time with their fathers are better-adjusted, the report recommends that the state provide funding to the men's commission so it can launch a public awareness campaign to support bringing fathers and children together. The commission does not receive any public money.

The report also discusses domestic violence. Men told the commission that some women accuse men of assault so that the judge will award the woman custody of the couple's children. Judges tend to take the woman's side, the report states, which can make it difficult for the man to dispute the charges later.

The commission also studied the traditional assumption that all domestic violence is caused by men, and it found studies suggesting that women assault men just as often. Domestic violence education and advocate training programs tend to compound the bias by referring to perpetrators of violence in male terms.

"Efforts to get relief from the domestic violence problem have been unduly influenced by special interests who have successfully sold the problem as solely a responsibility of males over the years," the report states. "The whole truth on this emotionally charged dichotomy isn't being fully revealed."

Messy or not, divorce is hard on kids, survey finds

Messy or not, divorce is hard on kids, survey finds

Excepts:

Even in a so-called good divorce, in which parents amicably minimize their conflicts, children inhabit a more difficult emotional landscape than those who grow up with married parents, according to a new survey of 1,500 adults ages 18-35.

"All the happy talk about divorce is designed to reassure parents," said Elizabeth Margaret, author of the study, which is described in her new book, "Between Two Worlds." "But it's not the truth for children. Even a good divorce restructures children's childhoods and leaves them traveling between two distinct worlds. It becomes their job, not their parents', to make sense of those two worlds."

"The key is to separate pain from pathology," said Robert Emery, director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law at the University of Virginia. "While a great many young people from divorced families report painful memories and ongoing troubles regarding family relationships, the majority are psychologically normal," Emery said.

Men of character, boys of fortune

Men of character, boys of fortune
by Rebecca Hagelin

Excerpts:

I'm the mother of two teenage boys, and believe me, I am well acquainted with the behaviors that have led to the popular phrase "boys will be boys." But I am also blessed to know what it means to my sons' development and character for them to have a father who holds them accountable, is engaged in their lives, and is intimately familiar with their strengths, weaknesses, personalities and individual needs.

Social science research, statistics and real life unequivocally tell us that the safest, healthiest, most nurturing place for children is in a home with a mother and father who are married to each other. Yet, according to the National Fatherhood Initiative, some 24 million children live in homes where fathers are absent, meaning one in three children "go to sleep in a home in which their father doesn't live." Fatherlessness is the great American tragedy of modern times.

Flip on the television and watch for just one evening. You'll find that virtually every commercial and sitcom portrays fathers as either wimpy or ignorant. The message to our kids is pretty clear: Dads are losers.

What does that say to our children about the value of their own fathers? To young boys about their own possible futures as fathers? To young girls about what to look for in a future husband? To the men who are already dads?

The media must be crazy. But I ain't crazy – either as a columnist or a wife. So as just one small voice in today's mass media, I'm going to do my part to say to all the great dads out there, "Thank you. We need you."

Mom's Make Lousy Dads

Mensnewsdaily

Mom's Make Lousy Dads
by Burt Prelutsky

Divorcing parents should consider their kids, teen says

DenverPost.com

Dear Amy: I am a 13-year-old girl, but I think I've got some valuable advice for an adult who wrote to you recently.

I read the letter from "Good Mom but Tired of Being a Wife," who wanted a divorce because she and her husband were "drifting." My parents are going through the same thing.

It hurts worse than anything I've ever gone through. It's an awful blow, especially when my parents seemed completely happy before, and then all of a sudden my dad is moving out.

Guess what, if you are not a happy person, moving out isn't going to magically make you happy. In fact, it will make you more lonely and sad. It will make everyone sad.

This lady needs to work on the problem instead of blowing up her kids' lives. It is her job to take care of them. Their trust for her is on the line.

- Feeling Sad and Betrayed