From Ned Holstein on MLK Day—Do You Respect Yourself as a Father?
January 21st, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
From Ned Holstein, MD, MS, Executive Director of Fathers & Families:
Self-Respect, MLK, and Fathers — Do You Respect Yourself as a Father?
Boston, MA–I have a hunch that huge numbers of fathers in America do not respect themselves as fathers. They may respect themselves as employees, as churchgoers, as guitarists, tennis players or friends, but not as fathers.
If men truly respected themselves as fathers, why would so many meekly accept second-class parenthood after separation or divorce? Why would so many watch television shows and ads that insult fathers? Why would so many vote for candidates who insult fathers? Why would so many in intact relationships routinely defer to mom’s judgment about what is best for the kids? Why would so many have children out of marriage, denying them any meaningful legal rights to their children?
I don’t know how many fathers this affects, except that the number is large. And I believe this lack of self-respect is at the heart of why the fathers’ movement is still a marginal force in society.
It was not always so. When the feminists complain about a history of “patriarchy,” they are talking about an era when fathers made most of the decisions about children. And if the parents parted, the children stayed with dad.
Somehow, we have swung from one extreme to another, from patriarchy to matriarchy. We need to find the middle. (I most definitely am not calling for a return to patriarchy. Fathers & Families’ principles are clear: we believe in shared responsibility for children if both parents are fit.)
About two years ago, I gave a short speech at one of our General Membership Meetings, attended by the usual crowd of 90 or 100 people. The topic was “Shame.” I thought it was a topic of mild interest to our members, but worth thinking about. To my astonishment, it generated perhaps the strongest reaction of any talk I have given. Some people were tearful, and many emailed me the next day to tell me how powerfully my words had affected them personally.
I think there is a lot of shame among fathers. And I think it gets in the way of reclaiming our fatherhood. Thus, it causes us to shortchange our children.
This brings me around to Martin Luther King. He was shot in Memphis in 1968. He was in Memphis to support a strike by garbage collectors, who sought better wages. To this day, I remember the photographs of the picket lines: old, forlorn, beaten-down black men carrying signs.
Here is what struck me and has stayed with me. The signs did not say “Higher Wages.” They did not say “More Paid Holidays.”
They said, “I Am A Man.” The men holding these signs wore their Sunday best.
It was a statement of pride among men who were accustomed to shame and defeat.
Our movement today will succeed when men all over the country throw off shame and say with pride, “I Am A Father.”
"));
19 queries. 0.356 seconds.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
It was not always so. When the feminists complain about a history of “patriarchy,” they are talking about an era when fathers made most of the decisions about children. And if the parents parted, the children stayed with dad.
Not true, for most of history women have been the sole caretakers of children. As far back as Ancient Babylon this was the case.
Fathers were often responsible for the family as a whole, as the main breadwinner. However simply looking at it from a practical side. If the mother spends most of the day with the kids, dresses them, feeds them, clothes them, educates them, treats them and looks after them, how is it logical to say that father made most of the decisions?
January 21st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
The Ancient Babylon reference is referring to child custody in case of divorce. This is the same in Islamic law, although I can't find anything on Jewish or Biblical laws on custody, I presume they took the 'women gets custody route' considering how tied the three faiths are.
January 21st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
In my experience men always think it won't happen to them or if it does they won't be the loser. They always think they can "work an angle" and look at everyone else as losers. But then it happens to them so quick they don't know whats happened. Then they spend their time trying to work another angle. The shame they feel is "losing". Eventually they realization sets in they accept their fate .. and feel the shame for losing.
Fathers rights will only be a force when men understand that working an angle is a waste of time.
January 21st, 2008 at 3:13 pm
"I don’t know how many fathers this affects, except that the number is large. And I believe this lack of self-respect is at the heart of why the fathers’ movement is still a marginal force in society."-from article
Interesting article. However, I do have to say that I never really liked the phrase "father's movement." It seems to trivialize all of the other problems men face, such as suicide, homelessness, prison, domestic violence, sexism of chivalry, male disposability, and the spending gap. Fatherhood and custody are very important, mind you, but I prefer the phrase "men's movement." It covers many more issues and doesn't paint the implicit picture that custody is the only problem men face in society.
The phrase "father's movement" also implicitly takes the attention away from the man and places it onto his children and family. This seems like a chivalrous move, as it moves "victimhood" away from the man. Yes children may need their father, but fathers also need their children. Men have feelings too. They are not disposable. The whole "protector/provider role" is so entrenched in the male psyche that it even seeps into the very men's movement itself and manifests into a new kind of chivalry.
Just thoughts.
Masculist XY
January 21st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
The way I argue it is that is threefold:
1. Child predators. The vast majority of child predators have no interests in having sex with children themselves. They 'only' want to exploit and maltreat them for their own benefit in terms of vengence, power, money, votes, etc. They are scapegoated just as the men and fathers are, just more subtlely through the State's role in family destruction on behalf of feminists, socialists, and castrated conservatives.
2. Misandry. We all know what it is and I couldn't travel twenty minutes home last night without hearing that I wasn't man enough to be a father (Tom Seleck on a PSA); children get lost (runaway) and exploited (but not by their mothers, the States, teachers unions, etc., only the implied male perves); etc. Every feminist alive ever over the age of 15 perhaps (due to artificial insemination) would not exist if they hadn't suffered what many if not most radical feminists would call rape. Misandry is all about socially, legally, and physically I suspect if they felt they could get away with it castrating males so they can function as mere drones and helots for the feminazi master gender. (Like I said before, my own wife has raised her right arm stiff and yell 'Seig Heil' on one occassion after a favorable vote to men at which she was the only woman who testified for the bill. Her other was a post-World War II Austrian immigrant as I understand it, and in any case was her view a Nazi herself pure and simple.)
3. Tyranny. Majority rule by democratic vote is nothing less than tyranny; period. We, as men and especially fathers represent a minority vote. Male politicians and judges are very aware that they can be relatively easily run out of office. The 495 to 0 vote regarding men being 95% responsible for domestic violence can be argued to compare unfavorably even against statements by the German Government under Hiter in regards to percentages of Jews who were medical doctors, university professiors, etc. The very fact that such a sexist vote took place in such a brazen and overt way speaks loudly about the thuggery of feminists and their socialist allies.
Mike
January 21st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Nice letter Ned!
I must admit that the majority of fights that I had with my ex were about fathering. I insisted on consistent rules, bedtimes, nutrition, and discipline rather than basing everything on how mad Mom was. Her ex was a defeated dad who just gave up and allowed himself to be driven away from his child. I was and am anything but defeated.
But the biased laws make it impossible to really do the fathering job I am instinctually driven to do.
About "I am a Father": At an F4J meeting last night, we were discussing slogans which succinctly state what we stand for. Arnold Swarzenegger asked one of our members what we stood for recently when seeing their Fathers For Justice shirt. I don't know exactly what the reply was.
I have been thinking of something along the lines of "Don't Tread On Me", perhaps reading "Don't Tread On My Family". This means that we want the courts out of our family life!
I was wondering if I could get Glenn to do a post, and look, here it is, without my asking.
Please include suggestions for what our Motto should be in your comments on this post!
Thanks again!
January 21st, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Still a powerful message, Ned. Thanks.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I enjoy reading study and devotional bibles. I own about a dozen. Yesterday I began to read “The Devotional Bible for Dads”, and could not stomach the anti-male approach of the authors of the articles within the text.
I compare ithis book to the scholarship of similiar books - Jewish Study Bible, Catholic, Reformation, and Leadership bibles - interms of insight and instruction.
It seemed like the Dad bible authors went out of their way to paint a negative image of men. It was awarward and obvious.
I expected to read instruction, examples, and wisdom about fatherhood. After all, the bible is written by men for men and boys (Proverbs). God is our Father and we are his children. This bible project for men ought to be a lay up of positive imagery, amoung other things.
I plan to write the authors.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310901340/sr=8-1/qid=1200948910/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1200948910&sr=8-1&seller=
I stand to helping create awareness that America's feminism dishonors men in family, legislation, academics, and media. I want our culture to honor men and fathers.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:55 pm
The problem with most men's groups, like the ones in Massachusetts, is that they are filled with meek "talkers." They are clueless when it comes to using mass media. It's not so much that women's groups are powerful; it's that men's groups are so willfully weak. Decades ago the head of the Bay State's judiciary committee (now Speaker of the House!) told men's groups they needed to appear regularly in media (whether given kudos or castigated) and show numbers via rallies, marches, etc. The men's groups refused to do either. Ergo, they remain small, disorganized, politically impotent entities. They are their own worst enemies, killing any initiative newbies bring. They are headed by meek men who let their kids be taken away. Such "leaders" want others to suffer the same fate, despite what they say.
As for a movement slogan, how about: "Don't Tread on Men!" ?
Then again, that might seem to bold for men's groups who let feminists snip their testicles off.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Masculinst, same here!
I mean, affirmative action, industrial deaths, sentencing discount, conscription, being left behind in education and healthcare and being routinely mocked and denigrated in the media doesn't happen to dads, it happens to men.
I think that it is more that men aren't used to seeing themselves as a group. It only happens when men are torn from their kids that they realise what they're up against.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:08 pm
It is hard to generate self respect when you live steeped in a society that tells you, every day and in a thousand ways, that you are disrespected, regarded with suspicion, and worst, are superfluous and unnecesssary.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:11 pm
As for organizing, a group of angry women is "empowering." A group of angry men is a dangerous conspiracy.
January 21st, 2008 at 6:08 pm
What a great and significant topic.
I definitely agree that this is the root cause of most fathers turning a blind eye to society's denigration of his natural role as a parent. I'll even go a bit further and say that it's a masculinity crisis too. A lot of men seem to be at a lost as to how they should be a man. There are so many antidotes of how who and what a "real" man is ... all defined by the morally enlightened feminists. Dance to your own beat and you're labelled as selfish, an object of pity, a misogynist, if it's bad ... you're simply it. Jesus, sometimes even I get confused ... and I'm not a man!
Therefore, if one can't identify one's masculinity, then naturally that person becomes out of touch with being a parent. I mean what can you really teach your child(ren) if you're still struggling with your own sense of self? My perception is that men today are symbolic of mental slavery. Born as servant to everyone but themselves, and if it so happens that you go against the current, you're good for nothing, a deviant that should be firmly handled. Of late I've found myself having great respect for men who have chosen to forego marriage and children. They're taking a stand and that's the only way this BS will get the attention it needs, and hopefully, eventually ends. Until drastic measures are taken and women begin to realise that this is not a joke, you want to be treated with the respect you deserve as a decent human being despite the fact that (cringe) you have a penis ... nothing will change. Women have to be made to realise that there are consequences for their behaviours. They had to do it with men to make them realise their worth. Now men have to do the same. It is human nature to walk on those who've chosen to become doorman.
It's laughable really when feminists try to tell me they're about human rights. That men were and still are the only ones who create problems in society. Overt crimes (robbery, murder etc) yes, maybe, but what about covert crimes (moral deceit, PAS, the oversexing of our youth and a ton of others I'm too annoyed to think of right now) which leads to a more systematic destruction of the fabric of society? I believe women bear an equal amount of that burden. What with their total lack of acknowledgement of anything that is outside of their own interests it's appalling.
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we seek to deceive.
American society has never enjoyed more dysfunction that it does today. One of the many bitter fruits of modern feminism.
It's hard for me to think that this is what our world has become, Jay R. Even if we disregard history with the argument that any accomplishments men made toward society should be disqualified due to severe imbalance in gender and race relations, even taking that into account ... men were the ones who carried the feminist movement. Women complained (like we always do) and the men responded. Men were and remain today some of the most staunch supporters of a movement that has become entirely warped. In fact more women than men I've come across are sympathetic to the men's movement and its cause, I'm saddened to say. I struggle to get my own sons to listen and be more aware about issues like false rape claims, paternity fraud and the like.
Men never get it until they've been bitten soundly on the a$$, when it's all too late, when they're already nabbed for all they were good for, dead or imprisoned. Sometimes I don't know what frustrates me more, that .... or that our society today constantly tries to convince me that I am, and forever will be, a victim.
January 21st, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Just a few corrections of the errors I could find....the above statements should read:
Born as SERVANTS to everyone but themselves, and if it so happens that you go against the current, you're good for nothing, a deviant that should be firmly handled.
It is human nature to walk on those who've chosen to become DOORMAT.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Ned, I must say, I'm impressed by the amount of noise you guys seem to be making down there. Although I'm not a father, I definatelly have gotten an earfull over the last year around Glenns blog, of the struggle fathers face trying to be a healthy influence in their childs life.
I plan on showing my vote in the form of a few bucks donated to you're organization. I'm very practical, and give my donation to the organization that i feel is making the most progress. Keep up the good work!!
January 21st, 2008 at 10:58 pm
This:
"Fathers were often responsible for the family as a whole, as the main breadwinner. However simply looking at it from a practical side. If the mother spends most of the day with the kids, dresses them, feeds them, clothes them, educates them, treats them and looks after them, how is it logical to say that father made most of the decisions?" sparked an interesting thought...
Wouldn't it make sense that, if there were no such thing as public education or even professional educators, men would prefer smarter women over prettier? This would assume an odd juxtaposition of a technological society with no professional education system, but it's kinda fun to think about....
January 21st, 2008 at 11:21 pm
"Why would so many have children out of marriage, denying them any meaningful legal rights to their children?"
Sorry, but I think it's ridiculous to deny men the same rights that unmarried mothers have without marriage. It's the terrible law denying them legal rights by using a marriage license to dictate whether or not he matters. Are men's rights all tied to his connection to the mother. Dads connection to mom doesn't work against mom and dads connection to the child doesn't matter? I'm not opposed to marriage, I just find that saying this means its an acceptable way to rule out fathers.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Sounds like there's a little bit of shaming going on here...(by Holstein). Are you guys sure he's an MRA?? I wouldn't want him on my side.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Ah, check out Holstein's site, Fathers and Families.
This IS a guy we want on our side!
I re-read the letter and I don't see how it tries to shame men. It's supposed be be encouraging and challenging us to fully embrace and fight for our status as fathers.
Men are fighters. That, we can do.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Obviously having sex can produce a child, however we don't know that these men choose to have a child out of marriage just because they have one. Narrow-minded assumptions cause enough problems especially when they are imposed regardless of actual intent. All we do know is that they had sex. We don't know if some of these men have made a marriage proposal and been refused "denying them any meaningful legal rights to their children?" Children need fathers and we should not allow them to be without one because of legalities that have nothing to do with parental fitness. This should not be a consequence to parents or children. Parent's (plural) - since they are both unmarried, shouldn't regard this as an acceptable way to determine the 'fate' of parent and child. If a mother doesn't chose marriage then why isn't she denied meaningful legal right?
While having a partner to commit to is the ideal, not committing to one (namely, the mother) should not be the legal equivalent of not committing to ones own child. Mom and child are separate beings.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
For the record I'm pleased to see Fathers and Families involvement. This particular comment, however, only attaches marriage to the status of a father. Its not right. A lot of unmarried men are wonderful fathers. Lets not accept the "follow these social rules or you are less worthy." BS
January 24th, 2008 at 12:19 am
I had previously looked at Holsteins website, and in fact that was the first indication I got that he is a zealot. On the site (I looked at it several months ago), he had posted at that time a big rant, basically stating that the men's movement will never go anywhere unless Republicans have the upper hand in our political system.
That's pessimistic and also wrong. Now, I get tired of left-wingers because so many of them support feminism. But more importantly, I get tired of right-wing MRAs, because so many of the big name ones insert their personal politics into the mens rights issues. Besides Holstein, another place that does this is the True Equality Network.
I really have to grit my teeth, when trying to extract something valuable for the men's movement, when reading these authors. It really serves no purpose to alienate MRA's who are lefties.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Norman L wrote, "On the site (I looked at it several months ago), he had posted at that time a big rant, basically stating that the men's movement will never go anywhere unless Republicans have the upper hand in our political system."
I have no idea what Norman is referring to. Our organization and I personally are zealously non-partisan. I have never written such a thing as you describe, and I have never allowed such sentiments by anyone else to go out as the position of Fathers & Families. As I scratch my head trying to figure out where Norman got this, the only thing I can think of is the section of our website titled "Links." Here one can link to thousands of pages written by all sorts of people, but the opinions in those writings are those of the authors alone. I have not taken the time to search those pages to see what Norman is referring to, if anything, so Norman, if you want to direct me to the offending language, please do so.
Norman earlier wrote, "Sounds like there's a little bit of shaming going on here...(by Holstein). Are you guys sure he's an MRA?? I wouldn't want him on my side." Norman, maybe you have a knack for misunderstanding what other people find to be pretty clear. I really can't figure out how you interpreted my brief post, which called for men to take pride in themselves as fathers, as the opposite, when all the other readers understood the meaning clearly.