New Column: A Response to Father-Bashing Syndicated Columnist Leonard Pitts
March 10th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"There are cretins, there are cowards, there are rats that walk like men. And then there is Larry Patterson Jr...an officer tried to pull Patterson over last week...Patterson sped away...[and] crashed into another car. He did not hang around to exchange insurance information. Instead, he bailed.
"But he left something behind.
"Namely, his passenger. More to the point, his daughter. She was found wedged between the rear windshield and the deck behind the back seats. She is 5 months old...despite not being secured in a car seat, [she] came through the accident without injury.
"Her name is Larissa, perhaps in honor of her 19-year-old father. Speaking of that paragon of moral virtue, he was found four blocks away at a McDonald's, windshield glass still in his hair...It is incomprehensible that a man, even a 19-year-old man, could be so disconnected from his own humanity, so disconnected from the humanity of his infant daughter, that he would do what Patterson allegedly did.
"Yet, looked at another way, what happened on that Orlando street is unique only in degree.
"We've spent years bemoaning the cancer of father absence that corrodes our communities from within, years decrying the selfishness and the lack of social sanction that allow so many men to abandon their children, to harden themselves against their cries of need.
"So what Patterson (allegedly) did is only the thing writ large, only the thing exaggerated, only the thing made visceral and manifest in the hard reality of two cars tangled and mangled in the middle of the street and a baby, manhandled by the laws of physics, crying for the man whose job, whose prime directive in life, should have been to protect her. The man who ran instead.
"If Patterson did what they say, he is contemptible. But also contemptible is the man who abandons his child in less spectacular ways, who leaves his child not in imminent danger, but in ongoing danger, who doesn't flee an accident scene, but flees, nonetheless."--syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.
My new column Leonard Pitts’ Column Unfair to Black Fathers, Ignores Reasons for Father Absence (The Southern Illinoisan & others, 3/6/08) criticizes Pitts' (pictured) recent syndicated column Children bear the burden when fathers walk out, which I quoted above.
We argue that while some black fathers walk away, others have been driven out of their children's lives, and the family law system does little to protect their loving bonds with their children.
To write a Letter to the Editor about the piece and the issue, click here. To write to Leonard Pitts, click on lpitts@MiamiHerald.com.
The column, co-authored with family law attorney Jeffery M. Leving, is below.
Leonard Pitts’ Column Unfair to Black Fathers, Ignores Reasons for Father Absence
By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks
Leonard Pitts Jr.’s recent column Children bear the burden when fathers walk out excoriates “selfish” African American fathers who “abandon their children [and] harden themselves against their cries of need.” Pitts cites Larry Patterson, Jr., a 19-year-old black father who, after police tried to pull him over, allegedly sped away, smashed his car, and escaped, leaving his infant daughter in the backseat. Patterson is “unique only in degree,” Pitts writes--for black men today, it’s “Every man for himself.”
Pitts’ generalization is unfair. He is correct that some African-American fathers have behaved irresponsibly. However, he fails to see that many black fathers have been driven away by shortsighted, angry mothers and a family law system which does little to protect fathers' loving bonds with their children.
When citing the reasons for father absence, Pitts mentions “divorce” only in passing. Yet divorce and the breakups of unmarried couples are major causes of African-American fatherlessness.
Despite the stereotype of the feckless and irresponsible male, research shows that the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women, not by men. Even for unmarried couples, it’s doubtful that many dads wake up in the morning and say to themselves, “My child loves me and needs me, my girlfriend loves me and needs me—I’m outta here.” Yes, some mothers have good reasons for these breakups. Yet, as Jonetta Rose Barras, the African-American author of Whatever Happened to Daddy's Little Girl, explains, many black fathers are simply being “kicked to the curb.”
When a divorced or separated mother does not want her children’s father around anymore, she can usually push him out, particularly if the father does not earn enough money to pay for legal representation. Courts tilt heavily towards mothers in awarding custody, and enforce fathers’ visitation rights indifferently. In most states, mothers are free to move their children hundreds or thousands of miles away from their fathers, often permanently destroying the fathers’ bonds with their children.
The system which allows women to easily obtain domestic violence restraining/protection orders was set up to help battered women. However, many mothers instead employ them to get rid of inconvenient husbands or boyfriends. The Family Law Executive Committee of the California State Bar and family law professionals in various states have recently noted that these orders are often issued with little or no evidence or due process. Once in force, a father can be arrested and jailed for violating the order if he visits or even calls his kids. The orders begin as temporary, but are sometimes extended for years at a time.
With divorce or separation comes child support. The Urban League’s 2006 report on the state of black America concluded that the child support system and its abuses often drive African-American men out of their children’s lives, and either underground or into crime.
Half of uneducated African American men ages 25-34 are non-custodial fathers. Many of them are still a part of their children’s lives. Yet the child support they struggle to pay usually does not go to their children, but instead goes to the state to reimburse the cost of public assistance, including welfare, for the mother and children.
Some fathers even live with their children and their children’s mothers, yet their wages are still garnisheed to pay child support to the state, greatly contributing to the breakdown of these fragile families. Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently acknowledged this problem in her Youth Opportunity Agenda.
The benefits that involved black fathers—even divorced or separated ones—can provide their children are substantial. For example, a recent study of low-income African-American and Hispanic families by Boston College found that when nonresident fathers are involved in their adolescent children’s lives, the incidence of substance abuse, violence, crime, and truancy decreases markedly. The study's lead author, professor Rebekah Levine Coley, says the study found involved nonresident fathers to be “an important protective factor for adolescents."
There are many reasons why some black fathers aren’t there for their kids. Sadly, there's nothing we can do to make the Larry Pattersons of the world into good fathers. But there's a lot we can do to help keep many decent, loving African-American dads in their children’s lives.
This article first appeared in The Southern Illinoisan (3/6/08).
Jeffery M. Leving is one of America's most prominent family law attorneys and the author of the book Divorce Wars. His website is www.dadsrights.com.
Glenn Sacks’ columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United States. He invites readers to visit his website at www.GlennSacks.com.
"));
19 queries. 0.430 seconds.
March 10th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Men who 'abandon' their children are opting out of parenthood in the same way as women do when they abort a child. Just with men we call it 'abandonment', and with women 'choice'. Only women have the right to do it legally.
I wonder if the number of abortions and the number of 'deadbeat' dads are comparible.
March 10th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Seriously, how many of the men who 'abandon' their children do these people think are men who were in a loving relationship, where both partners wanted to have a child, and as soon as a child was born the man ran off? That's true abandonment.
Does it happen?
March 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Seriously, how many of the men who 'abandon' their children do these people think are men who were in a loving relationship, where both partners wanted to have a child, and as soon as a child was born the man ran off? That's true abandonment.
Does it happen?
Nowhere near as common as you think.
These days abandonment is defined as any situation that results in the father no longer being in the picture. Think about it like how people try to broaden the scope of rape far beyond what it really means.
March 10th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I wonder if the number of abortions and the number of 'deadbeat' dads are comparible.
Not even close.
45 MILLION abortions since 1973.
Considering the population of the US, the number of "deadbeat" dads can't match half of that.
March 10th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
"We've spent years bemoaning the cancer of father absence that corrodes our communities from within, years decrying the selfishness and the lack of social sanction that allow so many men to abandon their children, to harden themselves against their cries of need."
The feminists say that poverty, not father absence, creates problems for children.
If your wife tells you that she wants a separation or she'll "find some lawyer to make something up," I advise you not to go to family court. I advise negotiating for custody two weekends out of three, and I advise negotiating for a maximum 15-mile move-away radius. Most of all, I advise enjoying your time with your children. This last part only applies, of course, if you are allowed to by the mother - state.
Exercise and eat right (the vegan diet is best). Get enough sleep, if possible. Try melatonin, if necessary.
When your wife has a child with another man, I advise you to drive her to the hospital. I also advise you to call a social worker to contest paternity. As a result of this, your wife may have issues with the child's birth certificate. If your wife holds you responsible for this, I advise you to just listen.
When your wife's boyfriend moves in with her, I advise you to enjoy your time with your children...if the mother - state allows you.
If you are lucky, eventually, you may be able to live with your children.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Danny, that's exactly what I mean. Hardly any man actually abandons his family. What does happen is that men are reluctant to take care of children that they didn't want to have. This is understandable, surely. (Not mentionning the cases where the man is forced out.)
Would women be stoked to contribute financially to the upbringing of children they don't want, and whom they hardly even see?
So then Demonspawn, it seems as if women are opting out of parenthood in much greater numbers than men. I'm not making a comment on how many men would opt out if they had the legal right -- likely the numbers would be comparable in that case -- but the disparity tells us how many men are actually 'manning up' to use a horrible expression, into a role they do not want, which has killed their dreams and is slowly killing them.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
This is from another post, but it helps to explain father absence:
"Moreover, the judge stated during the onset of my hearing that he was a “SEXIST” and ruled that all visits must be supervised by and "ADULT FEMALE" one with some “domestic skills”, and that shall accompany the father at all times, including the 1,080 mile commute for pickup and delivery of the minor child every other weekend starting at 9:00 a.m. on Friday through Sunday at 6:00 p.m. The judge would not allow the plaintiff (the father) to utter a word temp hearing. Judge also; threaten to fine the father $10 or $20 for referring to his son as “My Son”. "
(The judge shall exercise declarations of sexism if an observing feminist social worker is present. It is a self-preservation technique associated with the judges recognition that he must be reelected and that the feminist social worker will report her findings back to the hive mind.)
"Some fathers even live with their children and their children’s mothers, yet their wages are still garnisheed to pay child support to the state, greatly contributing to the breakdown of these fragile families. Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently acknowledged this problem in her Youth Opportunity Agenda."
Former President, William Clinton, passed welfare reform that helped exacerbate this problem.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Blaming men for the growing problem of fatherlessness is a bit like blaming the dodo for becoming extinct.
The growing marginalisation of fathers is a result of a combination of economic, biological, and legal factors that have combined to exclude larger numbers of men. The economic factor is that as women have gained more opportunities compared to men, but are still less willing to trade down, you have a situation where a growing number of poorer men are no longer viable for marriage. Add to that reproductive technologies that allow more women to have children on their own, and greater social acceptance of single parenthood. Also there is a family law system that favours women, and other government policies that favour single parents. How are any of these things the fault of absent fathers?
For the most part, men have not abandoned families. Men have been driven away or excluded.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
"Blaming men for the growing problem of fatherlessness is a bit like blaming the dodo for becoming extinct."
That is such a great quote.
Well, 50 million abortions since Roe vs Wade in the US. The US has a population of around 300 million. Assuming that under twenties are mostly not fathers, and that the average life expectancy is roughly 80 for the whole population; that would mean that roughly 115 million fathers had abandoned their kids in the last 30 years. I realise that my calculations are extremely rough, but I'm pretty sure that the figure isn't that high.
So much for deadbeat dads.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
In this article the author basically takes one case where a father failed to take care of his child and uses that as evidence as to why fathers in general are irresponsible. If a story surfaced about a mother abandoning her newborn child, would any journalist then use this as evidence that mothers are irresponsible parents and cannot be trusted?
March 10th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
A recent news report on the percentage of kids growing up in a two-parent home broke the numbers down by race. I don't recall the numbers for all races but the highest and lowest had the digits exactly reversed:
Asian 83%
Black 38%
Measuring 13 areas of adolescent behavior, there was a 100% correlationship between problem kids and single-parent homes.
I believe it was Glenn who stated that within a few weeks of a new school year, he could tell which homes had the presence of a father and which did not.
DanH
March 11th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Hmm... anybody got a recent dumpster story where mom left the kid to die? Maybe send that on to him?
March 11th, 2008 at 3:07 am
The comments by George and Danny are very accurate and underline the real problem here that repeatedly (and deliberately) gets overlooked: the fact that there are so many men out there who carry the label "fathers" but who are either not actually the biological father, or are the biological father but never wanted to be.
For the life of me I cannot understand why any man who wanted a child, and successfully fathered that child by a woman he wanted to be the mother, would then fail to establish any loving bond with the child and would just walk out on it or display callous indifference to it. That is simply not how men are made, despite all the nasty attempts by feminists and the likes of Leonard Pitts to try to persuade us otherwise. So when a man displays that callous indifference, I would wager it is because there is some other very big factor that is being ignored. And the commonest factors will be either that it is not his child at all, and he knows it; or that it is, but he never wanted it and has been duped or coerced into being a father.
This in turn points to where the problem really lies: the ability that has been given to women to make men fathers against their will. If a woman can get hold of a man's sperm, by any means available, honest or dishonest, and use it to make a baby, the law then impales that man on the hook of "fatherhood" with all its legal and financial responsibilities, without giving him any further say in the matter; and certainly without giving him any help or listening to any objections he may have. It even impales men whose sperm has not been used by the woman at all, but who are claimed by the woman to be the father.
It's like owning a car which somebody steals and uses to crash into an innocent pedestrian; and you, as the car owner. are held legally liable for damages to both the pedestrian and the thief. It can be even worse, in that the thief can steal somebody else's car and still get you blamed and held accountable for the whole mess.
And don't give me any hogwash about a man signalling that he intends to be a father by the mere act of having sex with a woman; that fails to recognise the very real difference between recreational and procreational sex. Accidents happen but can be rectified; but if only the woman is allowed to rectify them, then men are held hostage to a woman's whim. That is not healthy for any ensuing baby, for men, or for society as a whole. If you want proof, open your eyes and look around.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:09 am
Yes there may well have been other factors not having to do with fatherhood that influenced the running behavior of this young black male being pursued by the police. Maybe he knew about the racist police state which lives in our urban areas. Maybe he was afraid of dying. Maybe Leonard Pitts was never put thru the system for being a young black male.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:49 am
There is another problem with this thing besides it being anti-male. It is evident in the quote, "Yet, looked at another way, what happened on that Orlando street is unique only in degree"
Reporters do this all the time when they are trying to create news..they take one dramatic isolated incident, and based on that say, "this is indicative of something (a mentality, a prejudice, or whatever) that is widespread, a societal problem we must all confront".
March 11th, 2008 at 9:21 am
This is a comment on the white establishment preventing millions of child of their fathers.
For a father to have a significant role in his child's life when the "anti father, anti male establishment" even touches a child's life, it takes almost insurmountable effort, and resources to maintain a significant role in your child' s life. It happened to me - I am educated, as with all my family and friends - had money and influence. It did not matter. Still took 2.5 years, $100K and almost my life. Things have a way of coming around - the judge was finally bounce on his butt: Google Restaino - :0) ha ha. Father need to focus their efforts on the establishment. THAT IS WHAT GLENN IS DOING! Three cheers for Glenn - lets stop blaming men and fathers - I think that is what we all are already doing.
Steve
March 11th, 2008 at 9:57 am
I have a few time in the past responded to Pits about his editorials and one or 2 were published I will see if I can find them and if they apply to this site.
b
March 11th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Am I being dense here or is something being overlooked? I don't agree with the author basically saying that this kind of thing happens all the time, but this young man had a 5 month old infant in the car, unrestrained. What kept the infant from slamming into - or through - that back windshield? After reading the above posts, my initial reaction is that this is basically perceived as a situation where the harm this father posed to his infant is overlooked, and the focus instead is on how men/fathers have been discriminated against. While I strongly advocate for mens/fathers rights in my line of practice, I would never take it so far as to overlook abuse, neglect, and other types of endangerment. There just seems to be attention paid only to the vicitmization against males - what about what this particular male did? Does no one have a comment directly related to that? I know that no one has said this directly, but disregarding that little bit of info makes it seem like this father is being hailed for having his child with him nonetheless and what a great dad for taking his kid out for a drive. I recognize the 'anti-male industry', I haven't read anything else from Mr. Pitts, and I am seeing this from a woman's perspective - I still find it rather odd that even in Glenn's response, this act wasn't mentioned. Instead the focus was about divorce, restraining orders, the plight of black males and reasons why fathers are "absent" from their children's lives.
Wasn't Pitts article also about the infant?
March 11th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Delaney--I think you need to read the whole blog post--nothing I said was in defense of Patterson, who they could hang for all I care. The point of my article was criticizing Pitts for saying that this creep is somehow representative of black fathers in general.--GS
March 11th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Norman, I agree that the media sensationalizes and really, is either misreporting or not even telling anyone anything, and then calls it "news." However, what this young man did wasn't a reporter's attempt to "create news." Everyday on the news I hear about a child killed by the parents - every day. I know things like this get sensationalized, people are fascinated by it, and claims are made to spring into action and "do something" about it. But whoever it is - be it the impoverished, a minority group, the uneducated, or the filfthy rich - they are accountable for their actions no matter what discrimination they faced. Am I reading this wrong, maybe overreacting, in perceiving some of you as excusing this young man by overlooking what he did because you perceive the issue to have been blown out of proportion, overgeneralized, and discriminatory towards fathers?
March 11th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Glenn, I did reread and I think my brain has shrunken and I am stuck in the mindset of my above posts. Obviously my mind cannot be that open right now as I am distracted by what happened to this infant. I apologize - but this one just rubbed me the wrong way.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Delaney--What happened to the infant certainly is terrible--that's daddy's girl and it's his responsibility to protect her no matter what. You can excuse some things because of his youth but there's no excusing this. Let's hope the girl's mom isn't a loser like this guy.--GS
March 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Obviously there are huge differences between males, boys and men. People are born either male or female. Males are helpless and need to be taught how to become boys. When males grow into boys, they begin to learn how to take care of themselves and learn about good and bad consequences. Boys also learn how to play games (positive and negative). When boys advance to become men, they accept responsibility for their actions;real men take care of themselves as well as their dependents (i.e. wives, children, older parents, people in their communities, etc). The causes of why there are numerous males and boys in our society but very few men can be debated to infinity, but one thing is clear: if we as men don't do everything we can (including working with our women and children in specific activities), our society won't survive. This may be an extreme view, but I believe it is an accurate picture of what will happen if we collectively don't solve these challenges.
Part of the solution is learning lessons from successful role models (men who either stay with their families, as well as men who leave due to divorce, but still maintain positive relationships with their children and exes). Why do we continue to focus on the dysfunctional individuals? I'm not saying there are perfect people in the world because there are not, but what I am saying is that there are individuals who are overcoming the odds of separation/divorce/death/abuse and we can apply those lessons to our own unique circumstances to save our families and society.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:48 am
"Yet the child support they struggle to pay usually does not go to their children, but instead goes to the state to reimburse the cost of public assistance, including welfare, for the mother and children."
This line caught my eye. Well, yeah the tax payers were paying to support his kid while he was off doing God knows what. This opens up a whole new issue of illegals in this country. This burns me up, you sure do not see them being held accountable for collecting those benefits. I realize we are referring to citizens that are in the system here, not those that get a pass for dropping a kid on our soil and then abandoning them. Discrimination towards fathers?? Hows abouts discrimination towards tax payers. I work in family law - 11 years now. Black males fathering children out of wed lock with several women is through the roof. The more Mothers involved, the lower the percentage of child support for those kids. The irresponsibility is rampant, and starts at the top - our federal government. Abortion? This planet is turning into dung, one big power trip for those in power. We need less people, not more. So, enough whining about killing unborn fetuses, you take care of those kids, and leave me out. I owe nothing to anyone, except my immediate family.
Gwen
March 11th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
George Says:
March 10th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I wonder if the number of abortions and the number of 'deadbeat' dads are comparible.
= = =
I understand you point but it is misguided because that comparison is not fair ethically or statistically, a man cannot be a deadbeat unless the child is born (whereas in your scenario any woman that was ever pregnant is a deadbeat because of the unfortunate choice that she made [but may have not made it alone]) and regardless of the law I am sure that there are many couples out there that make the decision together thus rendering the man half responsible.
b
March 11th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
James D. Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Hmm... anybody got a recent dumpster story where mom left the kid to die? Maybe send that on to him?
= = =
Sent him this one I am do not think it made it, but the search is not always accurate . . .
b
http://www.click2houston.com/news/15271917/detail.html
March 11th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Pitts is a sad self-hater, who is doing society's bidding. We men must be taught to hate ourselves, but to love women, so we are ready to sacrifice ourselves for their benefit whenever necessary. In the old days, at least we got a little respect for being so readily disposable.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Patterson is a lousy dad. I think everybody gets that. But one point everybody has missed so far is this: he wasn't an absent father, that we know of. His daughter was WITH HIM. He may suck royally as a father, and I wouldn't trust him with my children for a second, but he did have his daughter with him. And men aren't the only irresponsible parents as far as cars go. Britney Spears, anyone? TWICE caught with her son unrestrained in her car while she was driving.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Second Wife said: "...But one point everybody has missed so far is this: he wasn't an absent father, that we know of. His daughter was WITH HIM."
I reiterate what I wrote in my previous post. I'm astounded that anyone would think that having his daughter with him was somehow a validation of anything, given the circumstances in which he had her. What kind of recognition is that? If you applied that same kind of mentality to everyone who endangered their kids, would it diminish that they endangered their kids??? That's like saying, "Well, she let them suffocate and dehydrate in a hot car for 8 hours while she was at work, but at least she has a job and was trying to support them!"
Second, two wrongs don't make a right, so comparing Patterson with someone who has alledgedly behaved much worse in no way minimizes what he did.
Please, if I have misunderstood your point, please clarify.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Delaney,
It is clear from what Second Wife says that she is in no way justifying Patterson. She makes it clear that he is obviously a lousy father. She is simply making the point that he is not an absent father, therefore you cannot draw a direct comparison between this incident and broader societal problems of absent fathers.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Gwen,
I think the debate about whether the taxpayer or separated fathers should support mothers and children actually misses the point. Women themselves should be held more financially responsible, given that women today have far more control over reproduction as well as more opportunities in areas like education, employment etc. The idea that mothers today should still be lumped in with children as dependents who can't be expected to support themselves is ludicrous.
I agree that large welfare handouts for single moms are a bad thing, and invariably create the wrong incentives and worse social outcomes. But it is not fair to suggest that feckless men are mainly to blame for this. Do you really think the majority of men have been demanding to be rendered irrelevant in family life through having the state take control of everything? Please Uncle Sam. Tax me more. Give more to women, so they can then tell me to go to hell.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Nick, I agree that one cannot make a direct comparison between the actions of one person to society at large. I realize that an individual is not a microcosm of society, and it is apparent that Pitt's is perceived to have characterized Patterson in this manner, from what I have read of previous posts. However, I didn't perceive Second Wife's comments in the way you have, in that I'm not reading her make the point in which you illustrated in your post. To say he's not an "absent father" because his infant was with him at the time he nearly killed her is a mute point and seems to be an attempt to minimize what he did - even if the intent was only to point out the above: that an individual's actions are not necessarily indicative of greater society.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Delaney says "However, I didn't perceive Second Wife's comments in the way you have, in that I'm not reading her make the point in which you illustrated in your post."
Second Wife said "He may suck royally as a father, and I wouldn't trust him with my children for a second, but he did have his daughter with him.", which I interpreted as "It is clear from what Second Wife says that she is in no way justifying Patterson. She makes it clear that he is obviously a lousy father. She is simply making the point that he is not an absent father". What is not clear about this?
The point is clear. This guy is not an absent father, period. He may be a lousy father. But, by defnintion he is not an absent father. Therefore, there is no way you can use his actions as an example of the behaviour of absent fathers.
"I agree that one cannot make a direct comparison between the actions of one person to society at large. I realize that an individual is not a microcosm of society"
Absolutely. Especially when the person you are citing as evidence is not actually a member of the group you are stereotyping!
March 12th, 2008 at 10:39 am
How does anyone know Patterson's involvement with his child prior to this accident? I didn't read anything about his involvement with his child prior to the accident, so did I miss something?
Second, I perceived Second Wife's comments differently - the way I perceived it was clear to me, but different than you. What I 'heard' her point out was that, b/c his infant was with him when the motorcrash occurred, this ruled him out as an absent father. It also seemed to minimize his actions by focusing on that, even if that wasn't the intent. I'm obviously just on a different page.
Third, I NEVER compared his actions to any of those committed by an "absent father" which is a point I have not even focused on. I'm not talking about absent fathers - I'm talking about the actions of an individual human being, who happens to be the father of the infant in the car nearly killed when he acted recklessly. To me, that has nothing to do with whether he is or was an absent father!
So, how have I stereotyped "absent fathers" when my focus has been on Patterson's actions as a father, period? I have been commenting on the actions of an individual - I haven't focused on whether he's an absent father or not, b/c that has nothing to do with his actions during this incident. He could have been Jesus Christ, and still I would focus on his actions.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
My point was simple. His actions in abandoning his daughter after a car accident were absolutely reprehensible, and I would say he's probably not a very good father in general based on those actions. However, since we have no information as to his actions as a father prior to this incident we cannot use him as an example of a lousy "absent" father who abandoned his child in general. The two are not necessarily linked. The child was unrestrained in the car. Poor parenting. He left the child to whatever fate she may face after an accident. Poor parenting. But we don't know what his other involvement with her was. Did he live in the home with the child and mother? Did he work and provide financial support to his child? We don't know. Just because you have poor parenting skills doesn't make you "absent" or even a "deadbeat", it may just make you a poor parent. I'm not holding this man up as a good example. Just saying you can't compare apples to oranges.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
And while Delaney may not have focused on whether he's an absent father or not, Pitts made the broader comparison, essentially saying the two are the same. A one-time incident is not the same as all-out abandonment.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Nick S.:
On the subject of Mothers:
I agree, the first question women ask me is how much spousal support can I get on top of child support. My questions to them is how much education do you have, and how will you support your kids, or your self when and if child support is no longer an option? We have a severe problem with society as a whole. The family courts maintain "the best interest of the children". These courts are jammed with post divorce cases as well as out of wedlock boo boos. An attorney ad litem for the kids is automatically appointed now. We have these foo foo women that want to maintain the lifestyle they are accustom to with a father exhausted of funds, women that keep spitting out babies with no plans to stop until they quit ovulating, all the while collecting another check from the state. Personally, I think Norplant should be mandatory if you are living off the tax payers. Yeah, men are creating these babies, but gotta start somewhere. By the way, Montgomery county here in Texas is getting it's own sex offender court, another offspring of this mess. Go to familywatchdog.us. Talk about abandonment to the extreme. Kids left with nannies, neighbors, relatives of all kinds, and alone. I hear the falling of America.
Gwen
Gwen
March 14th, 2008 at 11:13 am
"Nick S
Blaming men for the growing problem of fatherlessness is a bit like blaming the dodo for becoming extinct.
The growing marginalization of fathers is a result of a combination of economic, biological, and legal factors that have combined to exclude larger numbers of men. The economic factor is that as women have gained more opportunities compared to men, but are still less willing to trade down, you have a situation where a growing number of poorer men are no longer viable for marriage...Also there is a family law system that favors women”
For the most part, men have not abandoned families. Men have been driven away or excluded."
And do not forget a criminal justice system that enables women to have their men locked in jail for mere allegations of abuse (proof is optional-so much for the criminal injustice system)...
Women can say to their men...."do as I tell you or I will call the police and say that you hit me (the police will not care about the lack of evidence of abuse and arrest the man in most cases)....the man may have trouble ever getting a good job again and he will be even less desirable as a mate......
What we have here are the trappings of Matriarchy. (Strong women combined with weak men). I have always wondered why are supposedly strong women so afraid of strong men? Strong women seem to prefer weak men that they can manipulate (the strong women are attracted to strong men, but they cannot deal with them on equal terms so they usually discard them in favor of weak men or no men).
We demand that men be more sensitive and yet we refuse to acknowledge what the men are saying about their feelings (who is willing to talk about roe v wade for men without ridicule besides GS).....Just cuz some women share the abortion decision does not take us away from the dilemma that the vast majority of men have no choice whatsoever (Roe v Wade for men...parental responsibilities without parental rights is a volatile mixture, folks, we know it and yet few talk about it).
I had a difficult childhood. one father, one stepfather, two live in boyfriends and then later a live-in lesbian mother to accompany my later radical feminist lesbian mother and ya know what I learned (this was essential)....the kids do not belong to him (they belong to her)......your job is to pay and pay and you have no say......so why should men be in a hurry to be parents if they know how few rights they have.....If society wants to bestow all the parental rights on the women, then let the women have the kids by themselves........men have parental responsibilities enforced by law (presuming wrongly that men do not want to be responsible-we have not listened to men, our viewpoint is that of women and most always women), while women have parental rights enforced by law.
Patriarchy is the system under which civilizations are created and developed while matriarchy is the system under which civilizations mature and decay until its eventual demise. Look how bad society presumably is and look who is in charge. "I believe the children are our future"...true true, but "Let them lead the way" and what you will have is a "Lord of the Flies" society....dysfunctional .......kids will not recreate society or find alternative energy systems or set up viable system of justice.....kids need leadership of those with wisdom (and we value youth a little too much for our own good)....if parents live in fear of disciplining their children (which we do to a degree), either out of guilt or fear of state intervention, then the decline has begun....
We have all kinds of conspiracy theories about oil (this is the primary energy source of our modern society) and no one knows that oil was an alternative fuel not more than 100 years ago (before that we used more coal and whale oil).......anyone want to go back to whale oil to keep their lights on?.....before the use of oil, there was far more wind energy being used, after oil is no longer cheap, we'll just go back to wind energy (no big whoop). and if you think that oil is bad for global warming and air pollution, check out the pictures of london when the city was run on wood or coal (who wants to go back to coal).......the planet has its problems (it always has and always will)....new technologies create new opportunities for more and more people until resources become scarce and soon we have a need for new technologies or a die back in population (most biological systems have fluctuations in populations with the decreases involving significant death of the population-except in humans - we get all surprised that the same biological mechanisms that happened over the course of time actually can happen today, to us-gasp-we aren't special beyond the rules of nature).
http://www.eih.uh.edu/outreach/tfors/history.htm
http://www.californialung.org/spotlight/cleanair03_milestones.html
http://www.mothersforcleanair.org/aqinfo/basics/history.htm
Air pollution is not a new phenomenon. In fact it has been a problem since 900 BC (or even earlier in unrecorded history) when Hit, a town located West of Babylon, was the center of asphalt mining. King Tukulti, an Egyptian king, visited the town and reported a strange smell in the air generated by the ulmeta rocks.
Centuries later in 1157, Eleanor, Henry II's wife, left her home in Nottingham, England because the pollution caused by burning wood was "unbearable." In the 1300s England began to use coal instead of wood for heat, causing major air pollution problems. To clean up London's air, King Edward I, outlawed coal burning exclaiming, "…whosoever shall be found guilty of burning coal shall suffer the loss of his head."
1892 1,000 Londoners die in smog incident.
1939 St. Louis smog episode. Smog is so thick that lanterns are needed during daylight hours for a week.
1953 New York smog incident kills between 170 and 260 people.
1952 Sulfur-laden smog covers London and is responsible for 4,000 deaths over a two-week period.
we live in the best of times (we live in the worst of times).......In many ways, we live in cleaner air than we have in quite a long time and yet we complain more than we ever have. I am no advocate of dirty air, I am just realistic about how much better it is today than ever before (in industrialized societies)
http://www.amazon.com/What-Know-That-Women-Dont/dp/1589390393
What Men Know That Women Don't: How to Love Women Without Losing Your Soul
Zubaty is a radical and I wouldn't believe everything in his book, but he asks a lot of questions that need thinking about........
If patriarchy is bad, then so is matriarchy. In fact, I would dare to suggest that both patriarchy and matriarchy have their good points and their bad points. Ironically, matriarchy sets itself up to look as much like patriarchy as possible (so it can blame patriarchy if anything goes wrong and so it can claim to not exist in the first place.....camouflaging itself to look like patriarchy.....Matriarchy can hide in plain sight without fear of attack since it designs itself to look like patriarchy (thus disarming its foe before the kill)......
Women claim to want to be equals to men, so let em. Being an equal to men, women ought to be more willing to be financially responsible for their families. Why should men kill themselves for their families if they get so little respect in their families and communities and society. We tell men we want them to express their feelings and quickly reject the men as soon as they express their feelings (sorry babe, you cannot have it both ways). How did these women ever get rights without responsibilities (we felt bad for them and they demanded that it be that way). With rights come responsibilities (how could it be any other way?).
March 14th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Here is the hypocrisy of Matriarchy.
It takes a entire village to raise a child (and yet the single mother gets to say she did it all by herself).
From my father, my mother took the kids, from my stepfather she took the car, from the two live in boyfriends she took free frent from the first one and the house from the scond (with permission) and from the lesbian live-in girlfriend (she took much of her savings)......and now that we the kids are all grown up, my ma gets to pretend she raised us kids all by herself (and my sister can say what arseholes all the men & women who helped raise us were)......
March 14th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
With men being pushed out of children's lives in ever growing numbers, and women becoming ever more hostile and deceitful towards men, there's no reason for men to become parents under any circumstances. As for the state's involvement, the destruction of the family is a planned event that's been in motion for decades. The banking and corporate elite, who also occupy key positions in the government as well, want non-existent families for the purpose of causing global depopulation. A secondary goal is to make the population more easily controlled and less likely to resist violently. If you cannot trust your own relatives, the chances of the population resisting is zero. In Nazi Germany and the Former Soviet Union, the family was destroyed as we understand it and the state assumed full control over children, not the parents. That was why these evil empires existed with at best ineffectual opposition from their own populations. That is the case here in the U.S., and given the hostility of women and the state towards men and their relationships with their children, I don't see anything getting better anytime soon, short of the country collapsing and two or more rising out of the ashes of the late, great Un-United States.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
My response to Mr Pitts (which I did not receive any reply):
Dear Mr. Pitts,
Cretins? Cowards? Rats? Your writing is very powerful, but sadly you have used your bully-pulpit to bang the mindless gong of "fathers who do not live with their children are bad men" instead of looking at the reality of fathers being stripped from their children's lives by draconian laws that support and promote single motherhood. Look at modern media, you see it everywhere, what a great job single mothers are doing raising their children. Look at Barrack Obama, he was raised by a single mother. Where are the fathers?
Well Mr. Pitts the other side of the story, and the real fact is that American lifestyle is toxic to families. I am sure that you do not have a problem believing that, but another real fact is that men in our society have gotten a bad rap because they are not SuperMan and the divorce court finds repeatedly that they are at fault for all the woes of their spouses/ ex-spouses/ ex-sexual partners lives and after they have provided sperm, their only responsibility is to provide cash for their children. If the men were SuperMen, then they would still be married, right? They would have at their disposal all the cash to support their prior partners, and themselves. How many average people do you know can support two households? Well another thing, explain no-fault divorce where no cause is needed to file for divorce. Often when divorce happens, the majority of divorce proceedings are initiated by mothers, but in a divorce both parents and children loose, but that isn't anybody's fault? Congress decreed this in the 1998 Welfare Reform Act, thus it must be true. Ask the Billary, when the Clintons were in the White House, they brought this law to fruition to save all American children by creating a Child Support Industry, even if this industry cost American children their relationship with their fathers, and cost non-custodial parents (the majority who are men) their livelihoods, their liberty and most grievously their ability to have a relationship with their children. Look up Parental Alienation Syndrome. Family courts do not have the same checks and balances as criminal courts, so there is little ability to navigate these courts without costly attorney fees, and when you can't pay child support, how can you pay attorney fees? America is putting people in jail for being broke, just like debtor's prison of old. Who benefits in these cases? The Child Support Industry that obtains federal dollars for their actions, and no, there is not a benefit to children. The fat of the land is going into the pockets of courts, prosecutors and judges by employing them to persecute those who can not pay, without any objective entity judging if the amount demanded or actions they take are reasonable. The Social Security taxes are paying for the Child Support Industry, which is costing all Americans their futures.
I could go on and on, but I prefer to give you some URL's that will give you a glimpse into the reality that fathers find themselves in this modern world where the children are the currency for courts, prosecutors, and ex-spouses and just like in Vegas, everybody looses. You say that kids"are growing up in fatherless homes, heir to all the struggle and dysfunction that condition portends." I hope you have enough of an interest to really look at the issue, instead of pound out a quick "gotcha" story about the unfortunate Mr. Larry Patterson, Jr. Who at 19 yrs old, I think is a child himself, but at least he did have his daughter in the car with him. His actions were stupid and detrimental to his child in the car, but obviously he is struggling with life from the rest of the information you provide about him. You do realize that he is a person, right, even if he is male? Where was the child's mother? Are both these teen-age parents the product of the 1998 Welfare Reform Act, and raise by single mothers? Oh, that part didn't make good copy huh?
Please read and view the following, Mr. Pitts, and hopefully you will find much to write about.
Thank you,
Dorothy M. Snyder, Roseland, Indiana
Its about the kids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZBMi9AjP_8
Glenn Sacks - Anti-male stereotypes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XBqhPU0UaE
Corruption in family court system:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XBqhPU0UaE
Minnesota law takes out the profit of being the custodial parent:
http://wcco.com/local/minnesota.divorce.custody.2.657771.html
Message to family court victims:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEGnweYCadg
Best Parents are both parents:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2d-q-5kS98&feature=related
Divorce is an ugly business
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWGVSTvgAN0
War is pure hell, but child support doesn't need to be:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQEFMXns758
March 16th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Dorothy Snyder said, "I hope you have enough of an interest to really look at the issue, instead of pound out a quick "gotcha" story about the unfortunate Mr. Larry Patterson, Jr. who at 19 yrs old, I think is a child himself, but at least he did have his daughter in the car with him. His actions were stupid and detrimental to his child in the car, but obviously he is struggling with life from the rest of the information you provide about him."
WHAT? Is this the "blame it on a bad childhood" defense? I have met men and women who didn't even have a car to speed away in struggle more than most people can realize, yet they didn't act in the manner that Mr. Patterson did. If this is about a bad childhood and a lack of opportunity motivating choices and behaviors, then I could one up Mr. Patterson and rationalize serial killing with better excuses. People have choices, people are responsible for those choices. Why? People are competent human beings, whether they make good choices or practice poor judgement.
Okay, I will grant that the story of Mr. Patterson was fodder for interesting, eye-catching news. However, the logic applied here, yet again, is contradictory. To take a tragedy and view it from a strengths-based perspective inevitably minimizes the harm or crime committed. You identify the act of Mr. Patterson having his infant daughter with him in the car as though it's a good thing ("at least he did have his daughter in the car with him"). You then follow this up with the potentially fatal consequences derived from that very act ("His actions were stupid and detrimental to his child in the car..."). This latter statement cancels the former statement, and holds no logic, only a rationalization.
Mr. Patterson did not have the infant securely restrained in a car seat. Mr. Patterson was speeding. Mr. Patterson ran from the police, not only endangering the infant, but anyone else in the vicinity: people in other vehicles driving by, maybe a child crossing the street on their bicycle, a person stepping out of a parked vehicle, etc. That could have been you, or say, your child or grandchild - how would you feel about Mr. Patterson then? Would your opinion of him change if it was YOUR child he endangered? If so, then I beg all of you to reexamine your line of thinking. Mr. Patterson may be young (19 yrs. old) but he certainly should know by now the difference between right and wrong. I'm skeptical to believe Mr. Patterson didn't know what he was doing, and was somehow under the influence of adolescent ignorance. Was the college freshman from Indiana who drowned her newborn in the toilet responsible? Did she have choices?
While I'm not here to debate what Mr. Pitts may or may not have insinuated, I'm also not a radical supporter of father's rights such that I will look for any minute trace of good in any action that endangered a child. This is the mentality of the people who do not view children as having any worth. To say Mr. Patterson did something right based on him having his infant daughter in his vehicle is pathetic. People use seat belts for their dogs, because they know that in an accident (swerving to avoid hitting a squirrel, perhaps) the dog could be thrown from the vehicle through an open window or be slammed into the dash. Dogs have worth to these people. The young twentyish mother who was out drinking with her girlfriend on a freezing winter night leaves her infant son bound in a blanket in the back seat of a car while she is in the bar drinking. How many options did this girl have to assure the safety of that infant? No less than Mr. Patterson. The Mexican couple who left their toddler(just released from the hospital after illness) in their vehicle (in the winter) as they went into Marsh's to get some groceries and a prescription also had options - they both didn't have to go into the grocery. To say, "well, at least they cared enough to get some medicine" does not justify leaving the baby in the car. Likewise, Mr. Patterson having his daughter with him does not speak, in any way whatsoever, to how much that infant meant to him. Instead, looking at his actions that the infant was unrestrained, he was speeding, he then ran from the police, he then left the infant in the vehicle as he fled without even the slightest concern for that infant. Mr. Patterson had one thing on his mind - doing what he wanted to do and getting away with it regardless of the consequences to anyone - even to his own infant daughter. It's not about being down on your luck or having hard times, or not having the same opportunites as more 'fortunate' folks. Life is what you make it, and Mr. Patterson consciously chose his actions that day.
Being empathic does not require turning a blind eye to the reality of responsibility. I will never become so calloused that a person's lack of accountability will cease to shock me, along with the opinions of those who seek to defend it with a rationalization that simply scares the hell out of me.
Dorothy, this isn't all directed towards you. I recognize your passion in what you wrote. This is my way of venting the injustice I see, as well.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:35 am
How can one even talk about this stuff without someone saying your a sexist? It seems to me that just trying to discuss this stuff politly gets name calling going. Not sure how you guys do it.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
"http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=AA663008E1079775131F2C0FC0EA6B48?contentId=5772579&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1"
Delaney, you make some good points, but you must admit that you inflated the matter for your argument, just as much as I minimized it to get to the matter of "Dad Bashing." Please read Leonard Pitts and see that his column was really about the absent fathers issue. I don't know anything about Mr. Patterson other than what has been put out regarding this story, and WE ALL KNOW YOU CAN NOT BELIEVE WHAT YOU READ IN THE MEDIA!
Hope the Easter Bunny is good to you, and Mr. Patterson's little girl too.
Dorothy
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 am
Jeffery and Glenn, good article.
I still refuse to ever see "The Colour Purple" due to its relentlessly negative portrayal of black men.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 am
"There are many reasons why some black fathers aren’t there for their kids."
Let me add another: Black men who are forced to become fathers before they are ready - forced by an irresponsible female who wishes to use the child as a toy or attention device or meal ticket, and by a feminist society which provides the means for such females to force unwanted fatherhood on the male.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 am
gwen said: "I work in family law - 11 years now. Black males fathering children out of wed lock with several women is through the roof."
You seem to have MS-ed the part where WOMEN have ALL the post-coital rights to decide for themselves, whether or not they will become a parent, and whether or not they will then MAKE some guy they slept with a parent.
Your comment about black males fathering children out of wedlock would only work if black women were NOT sentient beings. Was it your intention to call black women unthinking animals ?
The point is that, with the laws and choices being what they are now, 100% in the hands of women, to blame men for what the women choose to do is pure misandrous sexism.
"Her body, her Choice... HER *responsibility*."
December 16th, 2008 at 2:27 am
I would bet that there is more to this story. Why did Larry Patterson Jr. try to flee when an officer tried to pull him over? I bet it was because he fell behind in his child support so the State suspended his vehicle license. Here in California when you drive on a suspended license, unless you can cough up $500 you lose the vehicle. I have personally experienced getting pulled over while my license was suspended for falling behind in payments. What I experienced was desperation because i was living in my vehicle. I felt like speeding off recklessly with the goal of either escaping or death. I did the right thing and pulled over, watching as tow truck hauled not only my vehicle off but my means of getting to work, getting to see my child, and my very home was hauled off.
Some might argue that I should not have been driving. I was trying to pull myself up from homelessness and being able to drive was a huge tool for achieving that goal.
Suspending the vehicle license of non custodial parents who fall behind on payments unfairly punishes the poor.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:44 am
Sometimes people run from the police even when they haven't done anything. Not smart, I know, but it does happen, particularly in communities where the police are feared.