Syndicated Columnist Kathleen Parker: Fox's 'Bad Dads' Is a Bad Idea
May 2nd, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post Writers Group--whose columns run in over 300 newspapers--just came out with a scathing piece criticizing Fox's Bad Dads and supporting our Campaign Protesting Fox's Reality Show Bad Dads. Parker writes:
"Of those everyone loves to hate, few can compete with the deadbeat dad for longevity.
"How much do we hate him? While we're counting the ways, Fox TV may try to help America organize its contempt and put a face on this loathsome character. Bad Dads, redundant in these male-bashing times, is the name of a new reality show Fox is considering. While the network reviews the pilot, outraged fathers' advocates are trying to nip this bad seed before it buds...
"Executive producer JD Roth describes his creation as 'justice.'
"'It's a show that depicts the sacrifice and heartache of incredibly brave women on behalf of their kids and then ends in the most gratifying way possible.' Really? How gratifying can it be for children watching television to see fathers humiliated in front of the world? Not much is an easy guess.
"For that reason, among others, fathers' advocates are justifiably outraged at this new exploration of human prurience. Glenn Sacks, a Los Angeles-based dad advocate and radio personality, along with Fathers & Families and the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, has launched a pre-emptive strike against Fox on his Web site (www.glennsacks.com/foxbaddads)...
"Bad Dads is just the latest insult to men and especially fathers who feel, appropriately, that they've been maligned and minimized through television programming and advertising. In sitcoms, men are typically buffoons. And fathers, if they exist, are inept and unreliable, while Mom is a paragon of virtue and competence...Bad Dads reinforces a stereotype that is neither accurate nor fair. The rich pig who leaves his wife and kids for a pole-dancing aerobics instructor -- or who enjoys extended martini lunches with his golf pals -- is far from the norm.
"The more accurate picture of a deadbeat dad is an unemployed or underemployed bloke who sees more jail cells than golf courses. A common sequence of events for the poorest deadbeat dads goes something like this: Fall behind in child support, get arrested and put in jail, lose your job, fall further behind in child support."
Parker's full column is "Bad Dads" a Bad Idea (5/2/08)
"));
19 queries. 0.425 seconds.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Good article.
I am really trying to grapple with why so many men don't see things like this as an assault on fatherhood -- and that's a serious question. I don't get it. Is it because males skew SO wide (much wider than females in terms of extreme behavior, both good and bad) that we think of such "deadbeats" as having nothing in common with us? We don't look at ourselves as belong to a male class? I really think that's it. I am at a loss to understand why men as a class are fair game.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Correction:
Good article.
I am really trying to grapple with why so many men don't see things like this as an assault on fatherhood -- and that's a serious question. I don't get it. Is it because males skew SO wide (much wider than females in terms of extreme behavior, both good and bad) that we think of such "deadbeats" as having nothing in common with us? We don't look at ourselves as belong to a male class? I really think that's it. I am at a loss to understand why men as a class ALLOW OURSELVES to be fair game. NO other class would stand for it -- and I REALLY don't think chivalry has anything to do with it. I just don't think we realize we're under assault.
How off base am I?
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
...as men we have been browbeaten to believe we as a gender deserve to be humiliated and chastised. Good by men is ignored, as are transgressions by women. Or, transgressions by women are blamed on men. It's the media's victim-oppressor template. Men-oppressor, women-victim. It's a simple formula to follow...
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
But do men really think of themselves as oppressor, or do we think we somehow deserve to be unfarily stereotyped? I honestly don't think that's true. I think that men don't realize they are being stereotyped.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Straight white men... SWM
Who ever told us it was a "good thing" to be a straight white man? How politically incorrect is it to raise a fist and say "White and proud!!"?
The problem is that SWM have been competing with each other for so long that we don't see ourselves as a group. There is a lack of solidarity. There is a lack of identification with "straight white male" that we don't see it. A black man, when asked who he is, will often identify part of his persona with being a black person. White people very rarely will (and when they do, they are often derided for it). Instead, a SWM will more often identify himself with his profession, or maybe even family line (German, Nordic, etc).
That is the difference. Insult women or insult minorities, and you insult a piece of their persona. The same would likely happen if you went and insulted Germanics or Nordics. But insult whites? It's not a part of one's persona. They're insulting the "other whites" rather than you.
With the concept of maleness, it lies with the differences between the sexes. Women tend much more towards a herd mentality while men tend more towards independent thinking. For a man, maleness does not encompass him, it is but one aspect of his being. He would be inclined to think that he is a man, but a man is not all he is. Women are much more likely to consider themselves encompassed by femininity. That is why to insult femininity is to insult women, but to insult masculinity is to only insult a small component of a man.
Men are not group thinkers. That's what it boils down to.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Wow, Demonspawn -- very well said. That rings completely true. And that's why Fox can't do a show like this about any other group and get away with it.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Excellent article....
"The more accurate picture of a deadbeat dad is an unemployed or underemployed bloke who sees more jail cells than golf courses. A common sequence of events for the poorest deadbeat dads goes something like this: Fall behind in child support, get arrested and put in jail, lose your job, fall further behind in child support."
Very, true...
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Wouldn't it be a little ironic if some of the most effective mens rights activists turn out to be women???
It would be understandeable, since now the majority of males are so psychologically castrated that they need a women to tell them it's o.k. to stand up for mens rights, and protect themselves.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
demon spawn
"Men are not group thinkers. That's what it boils down to."
MCA, thats why men need to understand the phraze,
" The threads that hold us together, must be greater than the forces that are attempting to tear us apart"
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
"The more accurate picture of a deadbeat dad is an unemployed or underemployed bloke who sees more jail cells than golf courses. A common sequence of events for the poorest deadbeat dads goes something like this: Fall behind in child support, get arrested and put in jail, lose your job, fall further behind in child support."
We give away lots of these buttons. They say basically (with a photo added) what Kathleen is saying above:
http://tinyurl.com/2ukbyv
A press conference was recently held in downtown Los Angeles by a couple of politicians, declaring a crackdown on "deadbeat Dads." I'm sure one of the politicians is running for re-election in a few weeks. Fred of F4JLA made it on the local TV news and called the event "political grandstanding." At our rally last Sunday we boldly posted a public condemnation of the shameful practice of government vilification of Dads with the "deadbeat" label. Rock on F4JLA!
http://tinyurl.com/5uvzxs
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Men are also far too "visual," for their own good.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
"Four out of five network sitcom viewers are female."
So, that tells you that men are up against market forces with billions of dollars at stake, to keep pleasing women with female-centric programming!
I stopped watching television five years ago and so I have no idea what degree of misandry is on display.
But there is no way that the pervasive media narrative about "stupid incompetent men" could be targeted on African-Americans, Jews, Muslims, etc. It would be prosecuted as hate speech.
Men are the ONLY class you can discriminate against and not find yourself in court. (Unless you are a woman divorcing a man and seeking his assets. In which case, court is good.)
The much reviled Evil Patriarchy appears to be somewhat dysfunctional and ineffective.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Great article. I hope it reaches many readers. Tim Murray I agree with you completely. So many men are asleep at the wheel that they just let life and society blow them in whatever direction. I'm amazed that some men can find Bad Dad's harmless stuff. Apathy among the men is one of the main reasons why I'm so militant for the men's movement. We certainly can't count on women to get us out of this mess and we still have to deal with an army of half asleep men. I'm even more determined to fight for justice.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
pkj and Tim Murray, most men have simply been whipped. Look around you and you find all kinds of docile men ambling along aimlessly saying yes all day. I used to be one of them myself. Our society is aimed at emasculating men and men are eating it up right and left. Being a man is not doing what is expected of you. It's doing what needs to be done regardless of how unpopular it is. The MRM needs a pair of 'nads of the Marc Rudov, Bill Masterson, Steven Moxon variety so we will stand up and tell feminists and most women where to get off because most of them sure need telling. Just look at all the women leading men around by the nose. Well they won't take me alive. I have zero tolerance for feminists and fake women and so does my book.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
I wouldn't be too concerned about women being 4/5ths of the viewing audience. Women spend most of the money because men give it to them. We are giving our power away right and left. No wonder women have lost respect for so many of us. I like the idea of white men showing pride. Boy would that shake them up. If you want a revolution overnight let white men along start wielding their considerable power. Men, If you got it I suggest you use it because many people are eager to take your power away. Oh, that's already happened. My bad.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
When it comes to the subject of child support, there is no discussion... In the court of public opinion ALL men are either deadbeats or potential deadbeats....
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
BTW, if anyone comes up with a source for a bumper sticker/T-shirt that reads [MY EX-WIFE IS A DEADBEAT MOM] ... I'll buy several.
GR
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Hey Gunner, why don't you get them made and sell them instead? I figure it should not be that expensive
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Pankaj,
Minutes...
GR
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 pm
The female author had to get in her little piece of misinformation:
"women, who have had fewer opportunities historically.."
Fewer opportunities than whom? At what period in time? What kind of "opportunities"? Did they also have fewer obligations and/or burdens?
Maybe if the author is reading this, she can answer...
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:27 am
Wow, seeing a woman stand up for us like that is very uplifting.
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 am
This topic is being discussed elsewhere in the blogosphere, for example there's a ream of relevent and semi relevent (pertinent to Misandry in general) information up on Amys blog.
GR
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:12 am
"BTW, if anyone comes up with a source for a bumper sticker/T-shirt that reads [MY EX-WIFE IS A DEADBEAT MOM] ... I'll buy several.
GR
Make your own at makestickers.com. I've been doing it for years.
http://www.makestickers.com/
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:19 am
Saw this in the news today. Color me very surprised!
"Women busted in County's Deadbeat moms program"
http://www.presstelegram.com/breakingnews/ci_9130343
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:58 am
Kelly N,
Read the article.
The women were arrested for other infractions... not for being delinquent in child support.
GR
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:51 am
men need to complain more....women do it all the time and they get everything
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 am
Great coverage of this issue by Kathleen Parker. Hopefully everyone sent messages to Fox! We need to keep up the pressure.
Stephen said:
“Women spend most of the money because men give it to them. We are giving our power away right and left.”
To a significant degree you are right – the moment you enter into a domestic relationship your position (vis-à-vis power) is diluted – some relationships more so than others. I see this all the time. Men are all too happy to have the stay-at-home wife when things are going well but are shocked at how she, and the law, can be so unappreciative of his “generosity”, when she decides to leave and takes a large portion of what he has worked for with her. So not only does she spend his money when they are together, she will continue to do so when she is gone – it is called entitlement. Whose fault is that? It sure isn’t hers. If you set the ground rules, you should be prepared to live with the consequence.
My ex wanted me to be a stay at home mom – I said, “no thanks” because it wasn’t fair and I was brought up believing that EVERYONE who is capable should work and contribute. I have never understood why so many men want a “kept woman” – why do so many of you guys buy into this? It is so obvious that, in this situation, if and when the relationship fails, the man will be stunned at just how much his “generosity” has cost him and will continue to do so. In many cases it will ruin his life – but the mistake will continue to be made ad infinitum. Why is that?
As awful as this might sound, I suggest that until domestic relations laws (and practices) are changed, when it comes to money (and assets) men need to learn to treat the financial aspects of their domestic relationship no differently than a business relationship – in this manner individual men can retain (and men in society more broadly regain) some of the “power” they have earned. Put simply, if she isn’t happy with that, you should find someone who is - plenty of women are willing and even want to have equal partnerships.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 am
Menscollegeactivist – “Wouldn't it be a little ironic if some of the most effective mens rights activists turn out to be women???
It would be understandeable, since now the majority of males are so psychologically castrated that they need a women to tell them it's o.k. to stand up for mens rights, and protect themselves.”
IMHO, it would be foolish to discount the power of women in our cause. For all the feminist whining about how bad men are, they count on men to be a force for change and have been doing so for decades. Most MRA’s realize that men are some of the biggest feminists you’ll ever come across.
And if we really believe that women are not the enemy and recognize that feminism hurts women as well as men, we should not be surprised to find many women to be strong allies.
Their participation in the movement might be highly effective at demonstrating that the men’s rights movement is not the boogeyman that the extremists in the feminist movement try to portray us as.
Women’s power over how the next generation is raised is important also unless you want subsequent generations to believe all the feminist hysteria and propaganda. Kids are fed feminism from their moms and their dads and their schools from a very young age. That is why no one questions that notion that …..
“women had fewer opportunities historically”
It does not have to true to be believed. It merely has to be fed to people enough times at an early enough age and no one questions it.
roy - “So, that tells you that men are up against market forces with billions of dollars at stake, to keep pleasing women with female-centric programming!
I stopped watching television five years ago and so I have no idea what degree of misandry is on display.”
"Four out of five network sitcom viewers are female."
I have altered by tv watching as well. I have gone periods without watching it all and at other times I would watch it so I could document the issues (where I could stand the misandry and when I couldn’t I would have to turn it off).
Media conglomerates have responded to the fact that they have lost so much market share by creating shows that are more appealing to men (while still creating misandric fare in large measure). Besides various documentaries that I like, shows like ‘Deadliest Catch’, ‘Axe Men’, ‘Ice Road Truckers’ & ‘Dirty Jobs’ (my wife jokingly calls this show – ‘dirty white boy’ have been created recently and I have enjoyed them very much. I enjoy these shows cuz they depict the kinds of deadly/dangerous, jobs that women avoid generally at all costs while pretending to be doing work “equal’ to men.
Like I said, the misandric fare is still prevalent. Watching the show Supernatural - about two brothers who track down demons and slay them – is more like watching an episode of Will & Grace. One of the shows I found most disgusting was called ‘Medium’. The level of misandry on this show was so bad I couldn’t even watch it to document its level of misandry (of course, I think even women get bored with it t some point because not only is it hateful if only on a subconscious level for most, it has become formulaic and thus stale.
IMHO, the men’s rights movement is catching hold slowly….We are starting to speak up. I regularly email various media outlets and I am certainly not the only one. And that is where we derive our power, by speaking up – for every one person who takes the time to complain, it is understood that there are ten more who are upset, but simply changed the channel or turned the tv off. Even if women spend our money, they do not always do so without our consent.
Media execs are not so ignorant, hateful and lacking of greed that they would just write men off completely. Sure, 4 out of 5 prime time viewers are female (most of the men have been turned off already by the misandric fare. But, most of us turned off the tv and never spoke up to explain why (men have been conditioned not to complain – who would listen, right? Well, what has changed is that now many men ARE complaining. They are speaking up and expressing their displeasure. If there is anything you can count on from a media exec it is a desire to make money and by alienating its male viewers, it may also be do so with its female viewers. Like for instance, sometimes I ask my wife to stop watching certain misandric fare that is depressing or disturbing. I have done my best to educated her about misandry.
noncustodial mothers are 20 percent more likely to default on child support than noncustodial fathers
This is the notion we want to drive home (women can be bad, too, not just men). And that men get custody very infrequently. And when men do get custody, they get child support even less frequently.
Before I became a Muslim I had a woman tell me that Islam was the most sexist religion (she couldn’t prove it, but that is what she had been taught. She knew I was an ardent supporter of feminism (I was at the time and I still support women’s rights strongly, but I dare temper that with women’s responsibilities to match their rights.
Well, I have come to the think it may be possible that the religion most sexist towards men is Judaism (I could be wrong). In Israel, for example, men get custody of the kids less than 10% of the time. It’s like 6% or 7%.
Do not forget that while women may yield less power in the halls of government, they wield far more power in the minds of the youth (who later grow up and vote). Men’s power is obvious, women’s power is well hidden, but no less effective.
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 am
I'll tell you of another program that I'm starting to have trouble with in terms of misandry.
Chef Gordon Ramsey's "Hell's Kitchen", a reality game show where chefs compete for the prize of working as head chef at one of Ramsey's ritzy establishments in the United States. But they'd have to endure working in his "kitchen" and militant, extreme attitude towards perfection.
Since the third season (I'm not sure if this has been the case for the first two seasons. I missed them.), the producers have increasingly focused on having the two sexes of chefs form seperate teams. The females get the red side of the kitchen and the males blue.
But I've noticed now there is a creeping bias against the men permeating the air where they're presented as buffoons who can't communicate to each other or cook a decent meal, even though most are accomplished chefs in their own right, thanks to editing. While the women, although they face communication and attitude issues themselves, are presented as the perfect functional unit in the kitchen with a string of girl power celebration whenever they win.
I could tolerate Season Three since there were a few men who were good at what they did and presented themselves decently, avoiding the hazard of image manipulation at the hands of the producers. However, Season Four is an entirely different matter.
They seem to have dipped into the resevoir and pulled up the worst examples of men. And the episodes I've seen haven't depicted one decent fellow out of the bunch. One was an obvious misogynist and I was glad he got booted off. But it's no consolation as there remains the rest who are just clueless and whiny. Well, that's how the producers are presenting them now while the women are solid examples of a productive work ethic.
I cringe when I watch and am thinking of giving it up. The shows misandry has become too much for me to bare, especially last weeks episode where, you guessed it, the men are the ones refusing to get their act together while the women are always cohesive even under extreme duress. Wouldn't it kill them to try and show the men on equal footing as the women? No, I know the answer to this; Yes, it would. Makes for more exciting "Reality TV" when one sex is deified (women) and the other is demoralized (men).
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:32 am
Eagle,
You bring up an excellent point that Glenn opened my eyes to: misandry is misandry is misandry is misandry. In whatever guise or costume.
In the beginning I didn't care about television programming or commercials (I don't watch enough idiot box to say so, save 'The History Channel'). I as wall about child custody/support. Following Glenns newsletters I came to realize the problem is monumentally huger than that. It pervades every aspect of life in America and the civilized world, even in India which is only recently dragging itself out of abject Colonialism and fast becoming a presence in the worlds economy.
Now (with huge thanks to Glenn, Ned, Kathleen, Amy, etc, etc) I tackle misandry head on wherever/whenever I see it. I've posted reams of case summaries, academic and federal data and studies in Glenns comments here and on other sites and blogs. Feel free to use it as you wish, or feel free to email for more if you desire.
Gunner Retired
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Your efforts are appreciated Gunner Retired... This entire situation is HORRIFIC for all men.
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Celia, thank you for the quote. Men are caught in two different times. Historically women have stayed at home and handled the affairs while the man worked. This pattern has been ingrained in men. But times have changed and men haven't. You can have a working married couple and the man will still leave the finances and so much more to the woman. Men need to start taking housekeeping and financial management classes to balance things out a bit. In any case they should live like their marriage could fall apart at any minute.
I know a woman who had 1 daughter (the oldest) and seven sons. She taught all her sons to cook, clean, manage their finances and everything else they needed to become independent. The mother warned her sons never to become too dependent on a woman. After everyone grew up all her kids married, including the daughter. A couple of the men married manipulative women who would do the break up to make to up game in order to control the men. The wives always came back because they realized the men could do very without them and with kids too.
The manipulative wives piped down and started acting like real wives because they understood that they didn't hold all the cards simply because they were females. Out of 8 married kids there was only 1 divorce and that was the daughter who remarried.
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Celia says,
"not only does she spend his money when they are together, she will continue to do so when she is gone – it is called entitlement. Whose fault is that? It sure isn’t hers"
Sure it is. It's a false sense of entitlement.
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Stephen,
you made the mistake of opening a small door for Celia to jump in, take something way out of context, and extend it to the point of complete absurdity. Shame on ya!
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Celia your assessment of existing conditions is good.
But the problem you identify and your solution which you put forth have few major flaws. Here they are -
1. A relationship should be honest and people should treat marriages like contracts (remember, what happens when you break a contract in the business world?). If a man is considered bad for breaking a marriage vow "you and only you", shouldn't the person seeking divorce be considered bad for breaking "till death do us apart"?
2. You are assuming that all women are unappreciative of what men do for them (that means both of them).
3. If a person is prepared for the relationship to fail - maybe that person should not be in that relationship in the first place. Sometimes the preparation itself can contribute to failing of the relationship. I am a bit Napoleonic in terms of marriage - burn the bridges behind - you don't need them. But then, I see a lot of people getting married to the wrong people. Makes me wonder - "what are they thinking?".
4. Distribution of labor - I do not consider not earning money as not working. Raising the children is the most important job in the world. And I am not talking about just feeding cleaning and clothing (daycare style) - but raising kids right.
Funny thing is feminists complain about the hardships of child care, yet they demean it as non-work, or non-valuable.
5. Personal choice - I am one of those guys who would - in spite of knowing the risk of being fleeced - would like a stay-at-home wife (if I ever find a good candidate). I see it as a completely valid viable way of life, but then again I am a whole lot careful crossing the bridge.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Correction second point was
2. You are assuming that all stay-at-home women are unappreciative .....them). And somehow fail to condemn the unappreciative woman's behavior and place the responsibility of being fleeced squarely on men. Do you notice you are giving the unappreciative women free permit for bad behavior by doing so? I am sure that was not your intent, just something that you may have missed in the perspective.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Celia,
one more thing
The problem for men is not the Surprise at not being appreciated (at least not the biggest one)- the problem is the denial of what is clearly just by a "justice system". It is the social and legal sanctioning (in some cases even rewarding) of such unappreciative behavior.
Also, the problem is multi-fold from my perspective. Wrong people getting together - still a big mystery to me. Why is it so hard for women and high-mate value men? The poor-mate value men - they do not have much choice - see they are the proverbial beggars of the dating market.
Then these married people fail to negotiate and accommodate each other and work the marriage. Marriage is not a effortless state to be in. It is contractual agreement and needs effort - anyone that says it is too much effort should not have been married in the first place.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
celia -- "plenty of women are willing and even want to have equal partnerships..."
Please define gender "equality."
Plenty of men are willing and even want .... blah, blah, blah..... etc.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Kathleen Parker and many of you bloggers have said it very well so I'm making my entry to be on this great team. A fight like this is going to require a good strategy; I think a good place to start is to deal with the brain washing that has allowed these conditions to prevail.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Stephen said:
“I know a woman who … taught all her sons everything . . . they needed to become independent. The mother warned her sons never to become too dependent on a woman.”
I have one son and one daughter. I do all I can to prepare them to be strong independent individuals. I warn my son about all the legal pitfalls commensurate with domestic relationships today and I warn my daughter not to buy into the “asset and child theft free-for-all” offered by family courts today – for two reasons – first of all because it is wrong and secondly because if she does she will be cutting her ties with me.
Norman said:
“Sure it is. It's a false sense of entitlement.”
It is obviously ethically wrong but if the law of the land sanctions it (in the guise of equity), how else can you see it other than an “entitlement” – it obviously isn’t equity.
Norman said:
“Stephen,
you made the mistake of opening a small door for Celia to jump in, take something way out of context, and extend it to the point of complete absurdity. Shame on ya!”
Sorry Norman (and others), maybe I shouldn’t have got off topic. I was simply agreeing with Stephen’s comment – not so much out of context, just off topic mia culpa.
Back on topic I have sent three letters to Fox outlining why they should rethink Bad Dads.
Off topic again –
Pankaj said:
“1. A relationship should be honest and people should treat marriages like contracts . . .”
Yep. That’s the point. Everyone should have a real (ie a legal) contract, that way the honesty comes out early and up front for all to see. Otherwise you are at the mercy of the state’s implied contract and the misery it almost inevitably brings.
“2. You are assuming that all stay-at-home women are unappreciative ... ”
No I’m not, many are genuinely appreciative and honorable but how do you know who will be? The law often says she has the right to continue to be “appreciative” long after she has ditched you. In line with Stephen’s thoughts, I’d call that a devolution of “power”.
“Do you notice you are giving the unappreciative women free permit for bad behavior by doing so?”
Not me, society, and individual men within it, give permission for this bad bahavior. I personally view it as tantamount to theft.
“4. Distribution of labor - I do not consider not earning money as not working. Raising the children is the most important job in the world. And I am not talking about just feeding cleaning and clothing (daycare style) - but raising kids right.”
I agree w/r to the importance of child raising. I have worked hard all my adult life both in my career and for the last 18 years raising my children. I can tell you that my career was (and still is) hard, competitive, often gruelling work. Raising my children on the other hand has sometimes been difficult but for the most part an absolute pleasure! I guess my comment to you is - don’t complain when the judge declares that the 12 hours per day you have put in (away from your kids) putting up with a job you don’t like (complete with a bad boss, bad clients, bad work-mates, unappreciative customers etc) has the same value as the pleasure your wife has had every day with YOUR kids, YOUR money and, if all goes well for her when she decides to leave you, YOUR house. That’s devolution of power.
“5. Personal choice - I am one of those guys who would - in spite of knowing the risk of being fleeced - would like a stay-at-home wife (if I ever find a good candidate). I see it as a completely valid viable way of life, but then again I am a whole lot careful crossing the bridge.”
So you, in effect, fall into the category of men to which Stephen refers and I guess that you won’t complain if/when it comes back to bit you.
Roy said:
“Please define gender "equality." “ . . . blah, blah, blah etc “
Hi Roy, pretty sure I didn’t say anything about “gender equality”
My reference was to an “equal partnership” – different animal.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Celia,
You missed the point - instead of punishing the thief you are saying no one should trust anyone. Point in case is how do you know which person is going to be honest - trust me it is not that hard to find out. All you need is 15 minutes of interaction with them.
"my comment to you is - don’t complain when the judge declares that the 12 hours per day you have put in (away from your kids) putting up with a job you don’t like (complete with a bad boss, bad clients, bad work-mates, unappreciative customers etc) has the same value as the pleasure your wife has had every day with YOUR kids, YOUR money and, if all goes well for her when she decides to leave you, YOUR house"
I won't - because that will not happen. Unfortunately, I see a lot of young men not raised to implicitly trust women at face value. Trust should be gradually developed, however there are always clear indicators of who can and cannot be trusted. But then again - when they are told to be responsible for everything bad - it is hardly a surprise the trust the "good" gender. There are a few others who know the real nature of women - exactly same as humans - and know that they can cheat, lie and defraud. Some are all too burned out to invest in a relationship - others use it to their advantage becoming the so-called playas. Others like me have to try hard to shun chivalry and any notions of "love", its hard, but not possible.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Celia,
when I say it's a false sense of entitlement, I mean the mother doesn't deserve it, since she's not the one who worked for it.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Chuck, welcome!!
We need all the support we can get.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Norman said:
“Celia,
when I say it's a false sense of entitlement, I mean the mother doesn't deserve it, since she's not the one who worked for it.”
I’m glad you think so. I agree with you entirely – as I said earlier, I think it is theft and claims of “equity” in the absence of contribution in this age of equality is, in my view, immoral.
Pankaj said:
“Celia, You missed the point - instead of punishing the thief you are saying no one should trust anyone.”
Not true Pankiaj – people who can be trusted will be very happy to express their trustworthyness in writing. If everyone is up front and agrees to have a contract when they decide to pair off, then neither partner has to doubt their trust of each other because you have legally declared it. It would be simple and routine in order to help let each other know what the other’s expectations are. Why would anyone with good, honest intentions not want to put it in writing?
Pankaj said:
“Unfortunately, I see a lot of young men not raised to implicitly trust women at face value.”
I wonder why that is? Look around at what has happened to a lot of the guys who blog here – they put their trust (and large portions of their lives, including emotional and financial) in their partners (and in the laws society has put in place to “protect” its citizens) and look what happened to them.
My view is that there should be no shame in putting your intentions in writing (it is about as honest as you can get) – it avoids the “he said she said” thing. If someone "really" loves you for who you are and NOT what you can provide - let them declare it in writing.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Celia,
Nothing has happened to me.. Just that I was observant of what is happening around me. If writing would mean anything, there would be no divorces because marriage is a legal contract. Writing does not mean anything - no one respects it if it gets in the middle of bashing a man to appease a woman. Eg. Constitution of the USA vs VAWA.
There is a better way though - Be careful. And learn from the mistakes you see around you - and if you don't see them, well start looking. This way you control what happens to you, not what someone else decides for you (e.g. the court system). You seem to miss the point that the women that rob their husbands after divorce through alimony and child support - are not the problem. The court system bias is. Because the woman has 2 hands to do her bidding - the court has the hands, feet and pockets of millions - which means it can do anything to you - anything it wants.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:36 am
"People who can be trusted will be very happy to express their trustworthiness in writing."
Actually, no, people who can be trusted can be trusted. The writing has nothing to do with it. Besides, haven't you heard that pre-nups are quite often invalidated when taken to court. So much for the written agreement. If a person decides to cheat you and knows he/she is going to get away with it - in spite of written agreement - heck, she can even make you look even more bad, OPPRESSIVE, because you demand that she signs an agreement. And if you think men should be completely professional - look at the dating market/world.
I will agree that women do not know what they can get away with - or actually do not get away with - when I see enough young women asking men out - paying for the date and not expecting sex in return - and then risking being charged with rape when they do have sex. It simply will not work in today's world - because this is not an equal AND SAME world - never has been, never will be. The difference is theory vs practice.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Correction -
"I will agree that women do..."
was meant to be
"I will agree with what you are saying WHEN - women do ..."
Before feminism, most women did not know and some of those who tried did not (some did) get away with ruining a man's life. Today, almost all women assume getting away with it - to be the way things SHOULD BE.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:26 am
So Celia --- explain "equal partnership" OK?
Educate us all/
May 5th, 2008 at 2:18 am
I think the only circumstances under which a man owes a woman "alimony", is if it could be determined at time of settlement that the woman, by being married and staying at home raising a child, put off bettering herself in some way which would have enabled her to earn a more lucrative salary, that that which she will otherwise earn after the divorce. That would go hand-in-hand with joint custody, since the woman should have to work at least part-time, if she is able, while raising the child after divorce. This woud also essentially do away with alimony awards after short marriages, since the woman would not have had sufficient time to better herself while unmarried. (Of course there would have to be some quasi-formal definition for what qualifies as "bettering oneself").
May 5th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Of course it also depends on which partner filed for divorce, and their reason(s) for doing so.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Pankaj said:
“Writing does not mean anything.”
It does, in most jurisdictions, provided it is well drafted – ie, it is not in contravention of any statutes nor unconscionable. A judge is actually bound to consider the intentions as well as the actions of the parties. In the absence of a contract, judges fall back on the implied contract – something that varies between courts and which is moulded by jurisdictional statutes and court practice. This is the biggest problem, judges can more or less do what ever they please – unless they are bound either by contract or statute.
Pankaj said:
“There is a better way though - Be careful.
Of course. The only problem is that individuals who are newly “in love” never have the opportunity to observe each other’s behavior in “hate mode”. People change, contracts don’t.
Pankaj said:
“You seem to miss the point that the women that rob their husbands after divorce through alimony and child support - are not the problem. The court system bias is.”
No I don’t, both are problems, although the courts are the ultimate adjudicators. The courts could change their bahavior to reflect society’s purported gender equality but they probably won’t unless they are forced to do so. Why should they? – business is good.
Pankaj said:
“Actually, no, people who can be trusted can be trusted. The writing has nothing to do with it.”
In essence, I agree. The big problem, however, is that with 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce, it might be dangerous to place ultimate faith in “trust” that is assessed during the glow of a new, or even relatively new, conflict-free relationship. I worry about my son, for example, placing his entire existence in the hands of someone whom society has given the power to devastate his life virtually on a whim. As I said before, people change, contracts don’t.
Pankaj said:
“I will agree . . when I see enough young women asking men out - paying for the date and not expecting sex in return . . . “
Whose problem is this? It is men who foster this behavior and perpetuate it between generations. We should teach all our children to PAY THEIR OWN WAY – both before during and after marriage. If men “offer” to pay, a court of equity will determine this to have been the basis of the relationship – see the problem? If you have “bought” love, respect and loyalty from your partner then don’t be surprised when the monster that YOU have created comes back to maul you. EVERYONE should pay their way.
Pankaj said:
“It simply will not work in today's world - because this is not an equal AND SAME world - never has been, never will be. The difference is theory vs practice.”
No, the difference is ENTIRELY in practice. We embrace bad practice. We need to start from the moment of birth and treat our children exactly the same regardless of gender otherwise we will perpetuate the ingrained “entitlement” system that, strangely, a lot of men seem to want – at least up to the point that it turns on them
May 5th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Roy said:
“So Celia --- explain "equal partnership" OK?”
The reference was w/r to contribution to the assets of marriage but I’ll have a go at it anyway. Rather that waxing lyrical, I’ll simply sum up as follows – independent individuals form a relationship based upon “wanting to be with each other” – give it any label you want - I’d say you should be together because you love each other but the desire to be together is good enough for me. This is a “domestic” relationship, not a business relationship. Back when men “supported” women as part of the “deal” there was an unwritten but well-entrenched understanding of the quid pro quo basis of the relationship. No one would have said that “sweeping the house” was equal to the “risk of death in the quarry” but that was part and parcel of the unwritten deal. AND of course, women didn’t have the same ability to make a living as men so, in earlier times, part of the deal was the dowry paid by the woman’s family to secure the care and attention of the future husband for her – thus was formed a basis for claims in equity if the man abandoned the woman – her family had paid for a service that was ultimately denied (material breach of contract). It had a “built-in” equality based upon societal conditions. It isn’t that way now, society has changed materially, so why not make the relationship “equal” in the sense that each person’s non-emotional input has an agreed upon value rather than have everything nebulous – until it gets to court – where “equity” can be anything a judge (whom I dare say had never worked in a quarry) can determine it to be.
So, I guess I am saying throw “entitlement” and “equity” out of the equation and in doing so, when anything other than “caring” enters the equation, acknowledge it. For example, if there is to be complete or partial “dependency” make it a matter of record and acknowledge it as such – give it a vale so to speak. For example, if a man supported me and I wanted that, I would be happy to acknowledge his sacrifice and give him real (not tacit) credit for it – although I would never EXPECT him to do it (as an aside, I actually earned more than my ex and more than my current partner now), I’d sure acknowledge and appreciate it. In this setting someone, such as me for example, wouldn’t be able to say to a judge, “I want more than I have actually put in” because the judge is bound by actual as opposed to claims of equity contribution.
So in that sense the relationship is equal, no one is buying someone’s love and affection and no one can take someone’s hard work (nor life) away from them by default.
I have always thought that everyone should work. I believe that it sets a bad example for kids to see a society in which a substantial number of people aren’t making an overt contribution. It also allows some courts of equity to determine that staying home enjoying time with the kids has the same value as brain surgery – it’s like rewarding someone for enjoying a privilege and punishing someone for the sacrifice they have made in order to provide it. One is doubly punished and the other doubly rewarded – it is a matter of “adding up” – some people can’t do it and some just don’t want to.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Norman said:
“I think the only circumstances under which a man owes a woman "alimony", is if it could be determined at time of settlement that the woman, by being married and staying at home raising a child, put off bettering herself in some way which would have enabled her to earn a more lucrative salary,”
Alimony is an anachronism – it needs to join the dinosaurs. No one is forced to stay home, or to NOT get an education or to not have a job or not to pursue a career. The moment you open the “equity” door even slightly Pandora’s relentless demons are at your throat. If you buy into this in even the most miniscule manner, you are asking for never ending argument – legal and otherwise. We are equal now, so marriage is no excuse for dependency, the break up of marriage is even less so.
Men seem to be happy with seeing themselves as a “provider” but being hurt when it isn’t appreciated and angry when it becomes court-enforced. The old adage that you appreciate most that for which you worked hardest is a wise one. I say cut the bull crap, adults are responsible for themselves and any children that they bring into the world end of story. Generosity, is, of course, a different matter, one of a higher order.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Celia --" I’d say you should be together because you love each other but the desire to be together is good enough for me."
So, you are a romantic?
It is nice to know that women like you still exist.
What do do think about the current state of gender relations between women and men?
May 5th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Hi Roy,
I’m not really a romantic but I feel strongly about the nature of personal/domestic relations – they should be about caring not dependency. Although, I probably have one or two romantic bones in my body - putting it simply, it I’d say it is romance highly tempered by reality. I think in many circumstances, the false promise offered by “romance” can totally screw up a great relationship – it is a double-edged sword.
Roy said:
“It is nice to know that women like you still exist.”
Thanks Roy.
Roy asked:
“What do you think about the current state of gender relations between women and men?”
I think they are terrible – and something to which both men and women have contributed but alas, I fear that certain shrill women and a bunch of people who have no idea where “wealth” comes from have more to answer for than most others.
I’m off for a while – keep up the good work.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I did post a comment but I want to personally thank you for your time and effort in this article. I predict bad coming from this show.
Like I said in the comment I'm a child survivor of parental alienation with that comes a ball and chain around my ankle. I can also see the statistics rising in parental alienation with this show. Not only the one parent brainwashing the child, but now the whole world
I would like to thank Kathleen and Glenn ( posting) for this article. I realize that when you write or talk about a subject of this standard. You will have citizens who agree and disagree.
I agree. I'm grateful for your interest in the children, yes I think this show is bias it should be dead beat parents. In my own oppinion I would even speak up about that show.
To make a long story short, I'm a survivor of parental alienation as a child. It is a long and tough road to deal with. It is cruel and abusive to a child. People don't know what goes on behind closed doors in a family. To expose fathers in this nature might seem to gratify the other parent but in the long run, it will damage the child. The children at school, neighbors,teacher,people in the supermarket, etc.. While the mom is getting a pat on the back from everyone the child is either hating the father or in emotinal destruction.
I know I will get heat for this comment but as a family unit here we pay child support on time yet my children suffer because we have a hard time feeding our own. With our court system at times I feel we fall short of the phrase in the best interest of the child/children.
Anyway, Thank you kathleen for making it not only a issue against dads but children as well.
www.splitintwo.com
May 6th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Remember the sexual harrasment suit against Bill O'Reilly evaporating? This was probably the deal. I wouldn't expect it to go away as there is probably a contractual obligation.
-tom
Child Support: money I give mom so she can afford to keep the kids from me.
Child Support: mom doesn't want to pay it, so don't expect to have your kids live with you.
Child Support: money mom uses to sue me to raise her child support.
Child Support: I pay it but she gets the tax deduction, isn't that backwards?
Child Support: calculated on how much they can get from you, not how much it costs to support the child.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
The TAG had my child support accounting wrong from 2001 until october 2008. The TAG constanly harassed me and kept asking me to pay money I did not owe. I had to get a county court to issue an order to make them stop and to get it right. Even then it was the threat of an enforcement lawsuit to get them to stop.
Currently the TAG requires me to pay child support for my daughter who is 18 and lives with me. Do the math. I believe if private organizations operated the same way, organized crime charges would apply.
Say what you will, but the current child support laws are not fair. As example, let one side issue the orders and the other side pick which side tof the order hey want to take.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Kathleen Parker said-
"The more accurate picture of a deadbeat dad is an unemployed or underemployed bloke who sees more jail cells than golf courses. A common sequence of events for the poorest deadbeat dads goes something like this: Fall behind in child support, get arrested and put in jail, lose your job, fall further behind in child support."
Very true, but I'd like to add that there are also fathers who refuse to pay child support in protest for other good reasons:
like impossible amounts assessed, being constantly refused their visitation with their child, the child's not even theirs or because the child lives with them full time but the mother's still collecting... and brainwashed judges usually refuse to remedy these situations when brought before them. Men are always put between a rock and a hard place, with no recourse in a system that rarely considers their rights.
The show someone should do is one about the anti-male justice and family court system. Make public all the (proven) false accusations made that so easily destroy men/fathers lives, including the thousands of frivolous protective orders handed out that are usually the start of permanent removal of a father from his home and children. Once an order like that has been filed, even if the accusations are totally false and dropped later, the Family court continues to use that accusation to remove the father from his child's life. That order is forever on his record as if it's proven fact. There's never any prosecution of the lying accuser, who continues to be treated as a victim and rewarded for their lies.
If the Family court system were fair and balanced there wouldn't be nearly as many children growing up without a father in their lives. It's easy for society to lay all the blame on fathers, as they're easy targets. Where's the sanity in fathers being sentenced to years (up to 9 years that I've heard of) for child support arrears? How does a father that earns near minimum-wage owe close to six-figures in child support within a few years, an amount that can be even more than what his total earnings would be during that time? The government fees and interest, along with unfairly high amounts, make it impossible for many fathers to keep up even if they do all they possibly can. The repercussions of falling behind push them further and further away from their children. The unrealistic system sets them up for failure from square one, in order to add support to their accusations against the infamous "Deadbeat Dad", and keep the blame of the entire incompetent system on his shoulders. It's easier than looking at their own huge mess, taking responsibility and making positive changes.
Even in the few states that even bother to consider the mother's wages when assessing child support, the amount they figure as the mother's share is close to nothing at all ($3 a month in my case), even if she earns double what the father does. Dad can also end up paying many times more than the amount of child suppport assessed when he's also ordered to pay for all child care expenses, plus medical insurance and all expenses not covered by insurance. There are families that could never afford individual medical insurance when together, yet the father is expected to miraculously provide full coverage after a split. Some are court-ordered to only work for a company that offers insurance coverage, which can be totally impossible in many areas and in many types of jobs.
There are countless government supported programs providing various services for only females, but none for males. Men are forced to pay taxes that financially support organizations whose main objective is to destroy them. This makes the entire system unfair and unConstitutional toward males.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I have been attempting to deal with a deadbeat mother for several years now and it has been made difficult. For all this woman had to do is get public assistance in the form of food stamps and cash and Child Support enforcement couldn't do a thing to her. And in a few days we will appear in court again for her contempt. She has already been convicted 2 times and I hope this will be the third.
What gets me is that there is a statute on the books that states that anybody owing child support is not allowed to collect any type of assistance from the government. Yet this only applies to men it seems. Because while a man could possibly go on with his life and have another child or 2, he is not going to get any assistance in accordance to the state he resides in. While on the other hand, a woman has another child or 2 and she is automatically eligible, plus when caught of the Gov. books may still get a light sentence or a purge where a man will never see this. Off to jail he goes.
I also wonder if changing the title to this program would even due "Deadbeat Parents" and there are many of them that do deliberately avoid paying because that is what my Ex has been doing all along.
Ask her for her 1/2 of the payment for our daughter braces and she says, "I don't live there anymore so I don't have to pay." Well that is not in the custody agreement or in the new one just signed. She uses these 2 new children as a pawn and an excuse for her not working, along with mental ailments she does not have, and expects entitlement all the way..But though the process is VERY slow the system has caught up with her, and her did finally go to jail after not paying a $500 purge. Now all of the sudden she is attempting to pay yet still very behind on it all.
There is another thing that makes this even more frustrating and it is her obvious way of not seeing these children for so long and acting like she has been in contact with them everyday for the past several years. And now she wonders why I was granted A SUBSTANCIAL INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT. And now that she has been charged with child abuse she still can't figure why I got supervised visitation until there are several changes made. I also know that she should be the first female candidate for this program if it ever gets on the air.