U.S. News & World Report: 'Bad Dads' Reality TV Show Stirs Controversy
May 5th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: Fox recently announced its intention to launch a new reality show called Bad Dads. According to Reuters, in Bad Dads Jim Durham, director of the National Child Support Center, "functions as a sort of 'Dog the Bounty Hunter' for tracking deadbeats...[Durham's role is as] an avenger of penniless single mothers [who] hunts down deadbeat dads and forces them to pay child support...It's ambush reality TV."
We oppose Bad Dads because it unfairly depicts divorced fathers as uncaring and selfish, when research clearly shows that most divorced dads pay their child support and remain a part of their children's lives, often under difficult circumstances. It also publicly humiliates children of broken families by depicting their fathers as not loving or caring for them.
I partnered with Fathers & Families and the American Coalition for Fathers & Children in a campaign to ask Fox to cancel Bad Dads, and Fox has received over 5,000 letters, faxes and calls from our supporters. To learn more about our campaign or to join us, visit our campaign page here.
Adam Voiland of U.S. News & World Report covers our campaign in his new piece 'Bad Dads' Reality TV Show Stirs Controversy (5/2/08) and does a creditable job.
On a side note, the article is another example of one of my favorite maxims--"No good deed goes unpunished." I've received hundreds of emails about our campaign, and I don't think I've received more than 2 or 3 that were negative or critical. When I got a critical email from a reader named Bruce, I thought I would share it with my readers so the opposition perspective can be seen. And guess what happens?
Based only on that one letter, my buddy Adam writes "There are people protesting the protest, too." Sigh...
For aficionados of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, I guess I did a Brutus when I should have done a Marc Antony...
"));
19 queries. 0.416 seconds.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
That's okay - Voland's kind of like Falstaff from Henry IV (in the sense of being a clown).
May 5th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
It looks like Fox network is pretty nervous about this concept for a program and may not proceed with it.
There actually could be benefits from a program like this, because it would quickly run out of rich men "deadbeats" and have to showcase the reality that most men failing to make their child support are unemployed and poor.
I doubt the show will ever air.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
It appears FOX is getting savaged in the press...
May 5th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
"A spokesperson for Fox, Scott Grogan, says: "We have currently been pitched an idea for a show with the working title Bad Dads. It is something the network is taking into consideration just as we consider hundreds of other ideas a year." The studio has no firm plans to air the pilot at this point, he says."
It could be wishful thinking but that looks like a man about to sound a retreat. Lets hope so.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Roy says: "There actually could be benefits from a program like this, because it would quickly run out of rich men "deadbeats" and have to showcase the reality that most men failing to make their child support are unemployed and poor."
Doc says: Wishful thinking on your behalf Roy.
For a 1 year show, only 26 deadbeats are needed to be portrayed on the show. The show goes into r-runs for a few months then. If the show were to air, then there can be little doubt that Durham will get more clients with more deadbeats that can meet the criteria for the show.
Solely for the sake of argument - lets hypothesize that each of the 15 other private agencies each have half that number of qualifying deadbeats - 13 - that could be publicly humiliated. That would give the show an additional 7.5 years life.
Let's also take a moment and define "rich." The show - and the private industry - defines "rich" as someone that is living a good life whilst at the same time providing absolutely no financial support for his or her children. Each of the private agencies has a couple hundred cases like that.
Contrary to the propaganda that you and others here are choosing to believe - there are thousands of people like that. We are talking about doctors, lawyers, other so called "professionals", business owners, etc. Anyone can claim poverty, and claim that they can't afford to pay child support. The government agencies make no real effort to delve into their financial dealings to determine if they are telling the truth or not.
On paper, anyone can make themselves to look poor and impoverished. This practice is commonly known as making yourself "judgment proof" so that no one can collect any money from you.
I have seen many men go in and "try" to get a child support reduction claiming that they were paying a lot of child support for some other kids that they fathered. Guess what? They weren't paying child support for those kids either.
The MRM people, and those pushing for wide ranging changes to child support need to realize that there are thousands of real deadbeats in your midst and start demanding that they be held accountable. By doing that, you can avoid the label that you are all protectionists of deadbeats - and your causes will be better received by the general public.
Doc
May 5th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Protesting the protest
Very accurate portrayal by Glenn's friend Adam. There are two sides to every story and debate, and no side is going to be 100% correct.
If both sides would try to meet in the middle instead of trying to find an imbalanced solution to the perceived problems, That way a greater percentage of people can benefit.
Doc
May 6th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Assuming that Fox actually goes through with such a show, there could be a good side to it. How? On the same show, Fox ca give equal time to the moms who disappear with the kids after custody is given to them. Have these moms hunted down by Fox and their acts explored and revealed for the whole nation to see. Since there are a lot more moms in this category, than dads in theirs, the show might be quite educational for the masses.
ir
May 6th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Incorrect I. Rabinowitz.
Percentage wise there may be more women that do not pay child support than men, but the numbers of men are much greater. This is of course due to the fact that more women end up as the primary custodians than men do.
As for Fox exposing these women - "equal time" is not required in the entertainment venues. I am fairly confident that if a women who is an obligor that meets the goals and criteria for the show is found, then she would be portrayed. However, since they are in the minority of deadbeats, and typically do not have the financial resources that men will have, it is not very likely that they would be portrayed.
Given the general American public opinion about women, a show like you suggest would in all likelihood go over like a "lead balloon" in the ratings department.
Doc
May 6th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Good misdirect Doc, but not exactly accurate. If they did a female version of the show it would never reach the air because of feminist activist opposition, and you know it. As for the reason she would be portrayed differently (assuming the segment got past the claims of "further victimization" and the like from feminist groups), is because men still generally like women, and don't like thinking of them as capable of doing bad things simply because they're....well....bad people.
Sort of like how some men can't handle the idea of their daughters being far more sexually promiscuous than their sons...just because they're that much more "interested". It's putting women on a pedestal that keeps them from suffering the demonization apparent in programs such as this....not cold hard facts as you surmise....a pedestal.
Which is also the reason why women have custody far more than men.
And get off lightly for crime.
And can essentially ruin a man's life on a whim, with no consequence to her except some attention.
And can have a child by herself and expect the father to pay for the child...whether he wants it or not.
And not only receive preferential hiring practices, but control the men in the office through sexual harassment threats.
All because of men's innate desire to protect those he loves and admires.
It must be scary to watch this impulse erode in men before your very eyes....given that so much depends on it.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:47 am
Whilst I can agree with your comments about men putting women on pedestals I would hesitate to blame the feminists for the resultant actions of men.
You are talking about basic human nature - men putting women on pedestals. It goes on around the world in one form or another.
I would like to point out that a woman does not have a child by herself. It takes two to complete that cycle. The vast majority of men in society also support the concept that men should pay child support if they are the fathers.
Men traditionally are held to higher standards than women. Men hold men to higher standards than women. It has been that way for generations. You aren't going to see that change in your lifetime. Crying "foul" and trying to blame feminists for the views and beliefs of not only society, but also human nature, is ultimately going to get you no place.
Doc
May 6th, 2008 at 7:53 am
My comment is perhaps the Fox news could do a show about the anguish and incredible pain Fathers and their children go through when her custodial highness decides to move out of state with our children.
How about a camera in the life of a Father who has to eat ritz crackers for four days because he has no money to buy food but the child support payment goes out on time. I know about that because it was me-----
The media never called to ask for a picture of my pain. I didn't see my children whom I dearly love because of a malicious move out of state. I had no legal recourse but if I didn't pay child support I would have gone to jail.
It is a sexist double standard to punish men/fathers for percieved irresponsible behaviour but let mom of the hook for equally irresponsible behaviour. Good for all of you who are speaking out against this injustice and especially the few women who see the sexist double standard and are not afraid to say it. I applaud you ladies.
Thanks for the chance to speak-
Bill
May 6th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Doc says: Very accurate portrayal by Glenn's friend Adam. There are two sides to every story and debate, and no side is going to be 100% correct."
Funny, that it's a very accurate portrayal in this instance. So would you agree that the FACT that the statistics on DV have NOT been accurately portrayed.
or would you say that media always gives accurate portrayals (i.e. equal time) when it comes to women's issues. Funny I can't think of a single instance whenever abortion rights comes up where the media ASKED for a man's opinion let alone printed. it. I have no doubt there have been some but I rarely see a men's issue portrayed without commentary from those opposed to it.
and btw ONE or TWO dissenters out of thousands DOES NOT represent an accurate portrayal when its less than 1% of the overall response. Nice try at spin though - NOW would be proud of you.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Factory – “And not only receive preferential hiring practices, but control the men in the office through sexual harassment threats.”
You Don’t get it…….They do not just use sexual harassment threats, they use a combination of sex as weapon and sexual harassment threats. It’s a double ended barb.
While it is bad if you stare at my overly low cut blouse and very high skirt and thong, it is worse if you do NOT stare at me. Women often get MORE mad if you do not give them the attention they want than to give them too much attention.
Equal work is equally dangerous. Women can claim that they do equal work when they die at work with equal frequency with men. Right now, 93% of all workplace deaths are men. Women do not do equal work, but they expect equal pay.
Women play up to three sets of Tennis, but they expect equal pay with those who play up to five sets of tennis. Let me have equal pay for easier work please (and that will make women paid better overall since they do not have to work as hard for the same pay.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:33 am
wow DOC, i would love for you to walk a mile in my shoes. try paying so much in child support that after 80+ hours of work, at $10.20 an hour, with a chest cold in a Missouri winter, with your half of the rent and your car payment due, and all you get is a direct deposit slip that states you recieved $98.16.
i would love for you to show up to court, for a visitation hearing, and she's a no-show. and the judge gives her a continuance. it is her 5th. then you go to Montana for training with the US Army, and her lawyer gets the joint custody cased dismissed. (if i'm not mistaken, that is illegal!)
try having your license suspended, your wages garnished to the point of poverty, and have some uppity CSE worker tell you that "had you not decided to abandon your responsibility, you wouldn't be in this position." when you know damn well you never abandonded any part of your child's life. try having really shitty legal help because you had a breakdown at work and got him through legal aid! try getting drunk on your birthday because you look around and your family is incomplete because all your children aren't there. try being married to a woman who's ex husband was ordered to pay support, but through a lie to the social security disability admin, was able to get the support dropped, but through the divorce got visitation, even though he has less to do with his kids lives than anyone. try being stalked on MySpace by someone that tells you they know where your child is, only to find out they were lying.
you live my life, and tell me why haven't you just given up? why haven't just walked away. how do you live every day knowing your kids are out there, and you can't be with them? and, then, some BS "entertainment" channel wants to make YOU the bad guy on some crappy show, lumping you in with guys with watches that are worth more than the car you drive.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I see nothing wrong with pointing out the connections between feminism and the actions of men (and women) that are not in line with treating men with civility and fairness.
In some circumstances, it is human nature to put women up on pedestals (and in other circumstances it is equally human nature to put men up on pedestals). The feminists, in fact, blamed the patriarchy for its tendency to put men on pedestals and those of us in the MRM (the movement) are pointing out that matriarchy has a tendency to put women on pedestals.
IMHO, putting people on pedestals is not beneficial for society. No one is perfect, not even the goddesses in our midst.
Also note DOC, if you listened a little more carefully, the claim of feminists is NOT that women are put on pedestals around the world they claim women are mistreated the world over. Putting a woman on a pedestal is not appreciated by feminists, as they expect golden halos; they expect women to be labeled saints, martyrs, and goddesses, not mere pedestals.
I do not know if you claim to be a feminist or not and I do not care because you sound just like one. Criticizing feminism is like attacking the sacred cow and being empathetic with men is out of the question. Empathizing with men is not the same as agreeing with them. You can and should disagree with a person and still have empathy for them, but this is a somewhat rare trait among feminists. Feminism rarely leaves room for empathy with men; too many feminists and feminists supporters (whether self attaching the feminist logo or not) are spreading contempt and/or hatred for men to be able to grow any understanding for them.
Who cares if child support orders entail too large a percentage of a person’s income?
Who cares that the tax for that income is paid for by the person who doesn’t get to enjoy the income (if society valued kids, it would make that income tax free for both parents, not just one).
Who cares if she refuses to let him see the kids
Who cares if men rarely get custody?
Who cares if she moves out of state?
Who cares if he gets custody he wont likely get any child support?
Who cares if he gets child support she’s more likely to default and not pay?
Why should we have any empathy for men since we all know somewhere some guy is doing wrong or that there might be thousands of men doing wrong.
There are millions of men doing right.
Doc says – “. The vast majority of men in society also support the concept that men should pay child support if they are the fathers.”
The vast majority of men were raised by women and educated by women (and propagandized by women). That is the source of their power, they raise the next generation and have raised people on daily doses of feminism or feminism lite or feminism extremum. Feminism has become an unquestioned meme in our society. You do not have to wear the pins or wave the feminist flag to be affected by the feminism that has been collecting in the air for many decades.
Men, raised by women, taught to treat women fairly (or more than fairly) support the concept that men should pay child support (AGREED). Of course, these same men have heard NOTHING from their mommies and their female teachers (most teachers are women when boys are most impressionable and NAÏVE) about men’s rights and the travesties of justice that men have had to live with.
Not surprisingly, even though men have been raised on their daily dose of feminism, most realize in the back of their head, in their deep subconscious that something is deeply wrong in doggy land.
Men are standing up and saying we wish to be held to no higher standard than women and people like you are saying we should be held to a higher standard. We are saying flag you dipstick, we demand equality. That is the ideal of feminism we were raised with and that is the treatment we expect. If you want to put women on a pedestal, put me right next to her. If you want to concern yourself with her rights, you’d better be equally concerned with our rights as well (stop selling men down the river doc and stop throwing em under the bus)……
We start off talking nice, but if we aren’t gonna be treated nice, you aint gonna like the next action, cuz we are mad as hell and we aren’t gonna take it anymore.
We’re not gonna take it anymore!
We’re gunning for people like you doc. Cuz we know guys like you feed the matriarchy….if patriarchy is bad, then so is matriarchy….if matriarchy has redeeming qualities, then so does patriarchy…….
May 6th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Akhi says: "Equal work is equally dangerous. Women can claim that they do equal work when they die at work with equal frequency with men. Right now, 93% of all workplace deaths are men. Women do not do equal work, but they expect equal pay."
Doc says: There are a couple of flaws in your statement.
Flaw 1: Women and men are not equally represented in dangerous jobs. Hence, of course, the greater representation will meet an untimely end in a dangerous job.
Flaw 2: Men traditionally take more risks - needless risks it might be added - then women do. That is one of the basic differences between men and women. Hence, there probably would not be "equality in death in the workplace" over time.
What actually constitutes "equal work" is difficult to assess. In so called "mindless jobs" it is much easier to assess than in other types of jobs.
Doc
May 6th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I believe Doc is mistaken in that I. Rabinowitz was referring to custodial interference and not moms who fail to pay child support. Doc commented on a scenario that IR didn't present.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Akhi says: "Also note DOC, if you listened a little more carefully, the claim of feminists is NOT that women are put on pedestals around the world they claim women are mistreated the world over."
What Doc actually said was: "You are talking about basic human nature - men putting women on pedestals. It goes on around the world in one form or another."
Your dissertation on feminism, feminists and maternal influences is interesting, and in many ways correct though it is not all as cut and dried as you would seem to like it to be.
Ever since the industrial revolution women have been the primary "raisers" of boys. They inherited that role because the men were out "bringing home the bacon." In those days, up until say 20 years ago or so, it was virtually unthinkable for a woman with young children to work outside of the home. Many men felt that it was a threat to their own masculinity to have to rely on a woman to help "bring home the bacon." Once women went to work, then the next societal concern was the "latch key kids" who were coming home from school to an empty house.
Your comment about the lack of male teachers for primary school children is interesting. There are perhaps three considerations that must be looked at in that issue. First, for years the pay for school teachers was so low that it only attracted women. Second, men would consider men who were teaching primary school not to be "real men" but instead, most likely, homosexuals. Third, women were reluctant to have a man teach their precious little children out of fear that the male teacher might be a molester. In that respect, the male and female views of men in that level of the teaching profession are quite synonymous.
You talk about empathy and make the inference that feminists have no empathy. Whether they do or not is something that I do not know, and is, in my own personal perspective irrelevant. You also talk about respect, in a general nuance. You then go on with a number of "Who cares...? questions.
From my perspective, it is much easier, and wiser, to have empathy for individuals rather than a "class of people." That of course would mean that I believe that people are masters of their own destiny.
As for the percentage of the income dedicated to child support - the laws created that percentage. It is the result of legislators attempting to apply a "one size fits all" solution that might be flawed, in particular for the lower end of the income earners. To have empathy for everyone that claims the percentage is too high is not feasible in my opinion.
The tax situation is not deserving of empathy for anyone. That is a legal and practicality issue that could be resolved fairly easily in many respects. That is just a fact of life, and is not subjective at all.
Refusing to let him see the kids? Wholesale empathy is not possible. It all depends on the individual situation, and that requires knowing both sides of the story.
The custody issue - that too is subjective. Too many variables involved for there to be wholesale empathy for all men on that issue.
The same would go for the out of state moves.
The issues about women not paying child support: That to me is not an issue deserving of empathy but instead is something that should be enforced. Here we also have some indications of the male psyche coming into play. Many men will not ask for child support when given custody, and likewise, will not insist on pursuing the woman for child support. It's often that old "I'm a man and can do it without a woman" type of thing.
You seem to revel in believing that men are victims. From what I see on this and other MRM forums, all the men see themselves as victims. I don't buy into the theory or premise that men are victims. They may chose to be victims, but as far as being victims simply by gender, I do not buy into that concept.
As for women being victims - it is difficult for me to postulate on that as I am not a woman. I do know that as an employer, there were times that I paid men more than women, not so much because of their job performance, but because of their financial responsibilities, be they real or perceived. Hence, it could be argued that I did victimize women by doing that. I can rationalize my actions in any number of ways.
Are women victimized in other countries around the world? Without a doubt.
In the "victim court of opinion" which we have here, I know full well that I will lose. However, in the court of public opinion, I suspect that I will win. In the court of public opinion, people do not care for those who play the 'victim card' every chance that they can. Playing the victim card entails blaming everyone else for everything instead of shouldering at least half of the blame.
Doc
May 6th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Gee, Doc. Why aren't you promoting some of that good ol' affirmative action to get more women into the "death" professions? I thought you were into equality for women and all ...
By the way, what part of more risk + more danger = higher reward (pay) don't you get?
May 6th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Doc @ "However, in the court of public opinion, I suspect that I will win."
Well, of course, Doc. Most people have been taken in by feminism's constant barrage of lies. To you, of course, that makes no difference. As you admit, you don't mind being wrong -- so long as you are in the majority. To stay in the majority, you are perfectly willing (as are feminists) to suppress the truth, right?
May 6th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Gee Jay - I guess you don't really know what i am for or not for. :-) Or, is it that you are deliberately being obtuse?
Doc
May 6th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Doc you have to pay people more to do dangerous things. That men mostly do the dangerous things-- that pay more-- has much to do with the incorrect belief often touted by many feminists in a gender based pay gap.
Most stats not supplied objectively only look at men at the top and forget to look at men at the bottom. CEOs- mostly men. People in jobs where you can get killed- mostly men. Much is made about 'correcting' one while little is even noted about the other.
It is a double standard to seek equality at the top but not to fight for it at the bottom to.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Jay - the truth is always subjective. The truth comes in many different shades of gray.
Lewis - what you are doing actually is criticizing capitalism.
No matter how you cut it, slice it or dice it, men go into the more dangerous jobs which pay higher because men are bigger risk takers than women. Physically, many men are more suited for that type of job than a woman is. Has nothing at all to do with feminism.
Doc
May 6th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Doc:
No matter how you cut it, slice it or dice it, men go into the more dangerous jobs which pay higher because men are bigger risk takers than women.
And that is part of the reason why you see more male CEOs than female CEOs. In order to be a successful CEO one has to put in long hours of stressful work and spend the majority of their time away from family. The CEO isn't as likely to be killed on the job as the coal miner but that CEO is much more likely to have a mental break or even commit suicide over a failed deal, a lost account, or a corporate takeover.
Physically, many men are more suited for that type of job than a woman is. Has nothing at all to do with feminism.
Yes it does. If a woman wants to work in the sanitation industry instead of in an office then by all means let her do it. But for some reason we never hear about feminists "raising awareness" about gender discrimination when it comes to hiring garbage collectors and coal miners...
May 6th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Doc, you make an awful lot statements that are highly questionable and debatable. How about offering up citations to valid, peer-reviewed sources for statements such as:
Please provide proof that most risks that men take on the job are "needless." I think that the many risks inherent in dangerous jobs are not needless, but rather, simply part of the job description, the part that makes the job 'dangerous' in the first place. You're blaming the victim here and I'm calling you on it.
Not true. Beginning in the 1960s women were encouraged to pursue careers. I was there and that was almost 50 years ago. Stop spinning the facts to suit your agenda.
Typical feminist shaming language, and IMO an unsupportable canard. Provide proof for this or modify the statement to clearly show this is simply your opinion.
Again, not true - I went to school in the 1960s and there were plenty of male teachers at the time. And the best teachers I had were men. Please provide legitimate evidence to support your statement.
Well, in your mind maybe men "would" consider men who were teaching primary school not to be real men, but unless you can provide proof that men did this then we can dismiss this as simply another one of your opinions.
Once again, please provide valid evidence for this statement. Most men I know who have custody and don't get CS are simply the victims of Deadbeat Moms, and the courts refuse to enforce their own orders. Plus, this conflicts with your assertion earlier up that "As for the percentage of the income dedicated to child support - the laws created that percentage." So which is it? Does the law dictate CS or is it simply that men don't ask for it, presumably in your mind because of some 'macho' cultural thing? Is the law sexist in that women are often given a pass on CS when they aren't the custodial parent? Much as you may wish it, you can't it both ways.
Men and women are both victimized, here in the West and throughout the world. As for the "Victim Olympics," feminsts are regularly calling for MRAs to cease with this, but you come here and insist on playing that game and I'm calling you on it.
Then please explain the success that feminists have had with this exact tactic.
Which is a main complaint that MRAs have with feminists. I'm glad to you see the problem with feminists refusing to take any responsibility for the reprehensible actions of the last several decades.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Doc said:
"No matter how you cut it, slice it or dice it, men go into the more dangerous jobs which pay higher because men are bigger risk takers than women. Physically, many men are more suited for that type of job than a woman is. Has nothing at all to do with feminism."
But this evades the fundamental questijon: why are men bigger risk takers than women in the first place? Perhaps women reinforce risk-taking in men by choosing aggressive alpha males as mates. Studies have actually shown that male sexual competition over women is linked to the life-expectancy gap.
If men were so "well suited" for risk-taking, then why would men die so often in the process (over 90%)? Perhaps neither men or women are well suited for risk-taking, but it is men who face little choice.
If being "bigger" or more "risk-taking" somehow justifies male disposability, then perhaps being "smaller" or "submissive" somehow justifies the rape of women. Personally, I don't think either situation is a valid excuse.
MXY
May 6th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Danny said:
"But for some reason we never hear about feminists "raising awareness" about gender discrimination when it comes to hiring garbage collectors and coal miners..."
So simple, and so true.
MXY
May 6th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Doc:
Here we also have some indications of the male psyche coming into play. Many men will not ask for child support when given custody, and likewise, will not insist on pursuing the woman for child support. It's often that old "I'm a man and can do it without a woman" type of thing.
So since some or many men don't pursue support its okay for the noncustodial moms to duck out on it and okay for the court system to just let them slide? I'll use a reverse situation and ask this: Since many female rape victims are too scared to step forward does that mean their rapists should be allowed to get away with it? We all know that is full of just as much bullsh!t as what you said.
You seem to revel in believing that men are victims. From what I see on this and other MRM forums, all the men see themselves as victims. I don't buy into the theory or premise that men are victims. They may chose to be victims, but as far as being victims simply by gender, I do not buy into that concept.
Nice to know that you along with feminists are taking it upon yourselves to define someone else's victim status. And frankly I don't think I'm a victim but I do see myself as a potential victim if things continue as they are.
As for women being victims - it is difficult for me to postulate on that as I am not a woman. I do know that as an employer, there were times that I paid men more than women, not so much because of their job performance, but because of their financial responsibilities, be they real or perceived. Hence, it could be argued that I did victimize women by doing that. I can rationalize my actions in any number of ways.
No argument you were practicing sexism. You paid women differently than men in the same positions. But I bet you were hoping no one would notice this part of you post right?
In the "victim court of opinion" which we have here, I know full well that I will lose. However, in the court of public opinion, I suspect that I will win. In the court of public opinion, people do not care for those who play the 'victim card' every chance that they can.
Funny thing is feminists have been playing the victim card for the last decade or so and its paying off just fine for them.
Playing the victim card entails blaming everyone else for everything instead of shouldering at least half of the blame.
I think you just defined that everything and nothing at the same time scapegoat called (drum roll please...) The Patriarchy. When you absolutely have to make sure men are held responsible for the plights of women just push the Patriarchy Panic Button. Not even half the blame is necessary. Just admitting some responsibility would make me happy. But good luck getting a feminist to own up when it comes to responsibility...
May 6th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Since 2001, my support report statements has not been accurate. A few years ago, it took me about a dozen court appearances and meetings with the Clerks to get about $19,000 in credits applied to the account.
The Child Support function of a county clerk's office is essentially an accounting function; yet none of the employees - about five - have experience or education in accounting. For example, when I pointed out that about six entries were not prorate for the period, the supervisor asked, "What does "prorate" mean?"
May 6th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Doc,
Re:
"The MRM people, and those pushing for wide ranging changes to child support need to realize that there are thousands of real deadbeats in your midst and start demanding that they be held accountable. By doing that, you can avoid the label that you are all protectionists of deadbeats - and your causes will be better received by the general public."
_________________________________________________
What a bunch of nonsense.
I constantly hear MRA's admit that there are deadbeat dads that need to be held accountable. They've done so for years now. To say that MRA's as a whole do not acknowledge the existence of deadbeat dads is ridiculous. In fact, the more public MRA's have actually been quite fair in their portrayals of both deadbeat women and men.
It sounds like you want men to do what they've always done: stand in a circle and scream, "Yes, we're bad! We're bad!" In that way, according to you, the public will accept us through a collective admittance of our guilt. That’s old hat, and it has never worked. All it’s done is put us deeper in the hole.
Men are much better served by repeatedly letting the public know the facts and hear our reasonable arguments. It’s worked so far in campaigns against several major corporations. We should stay the course we’re on, not revert to a bunch of apologetic namby-pambies.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
We should stay the course, press harder, and get much more aggressive on this issue. I'm definitely in. I'm ready to attend any rally or join any reaosnable protest.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I think that Doc may be from/ paid by FOX to confuse and defuse the argument on the blog. I suggest you ignore "his" distortion of reality and stay on the topic. "Bad Dads" as a reality show premise would be good for Father Rights because it would prove that it is impossible for Family Courts to get it right, and who ever is "exposed" by this show would sue the pants off the network, because the show would have to slant and expand facts to make it entertaining. This is not Jerry Springer where all the people agree to be there. What is really going on in Family Courts more people need to know, and see, and there would be an out cry in this country to clean up the mess.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Dorothy,
I think you could be right about Doc. He might just be here to derail the topic. However, I don't think it's a good idea to air the show. I can see where you might have a point about it shedding a light on the whole evil process, but that would require people to take a closer look at what they're viewing. I don't really think the people who would be interested in such a show as entertainment are the deepest thinkers. They'll probably just be swayed by the first thing they see. As it is, Fox is geared towards the lowest common denominator.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Metalman,
Yes, you are right that people will not look further than first impression, that is why a movement must be made to collect money to pay a high profile attorney to use the rule of law, so often ignored in Family Court, to turn the broadcast story on its ear, and then expose FOX to big time law suits for damages to the accused. I don't think that they would be able to broadcast anything without permission of those involved, as they are making a profit out of the broadcast.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Metalman and Dorothy--let's leave the conspiracy theories about Doc alone and instead focus on his arguments. I know who Doc is, and he isn't from Fox or anything.--GS
May 6th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
This is essentially my response to Doc saying I'm criticising capitalism. Your choice is 10K at the library and risk picking up too many books or 30K in the coal mine and risk black lung and death in a cave in?
Perhaps you have a long list of females willing to date men who earn 10K in the library?
May 6th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
OK, I’ll focus on some of Doc’s arguments - or, rather, assertions:
1) “Whilst I can agree with your comments about men putting women on pedestals I would hesitate to blame the feminists for the resultant actions of men.”
- I agree with this. Men are responsible for their own actions. Likewise, women should be as well. There are many men who try to slough off responsibility for their own actions onto others. What MRA’s talk about, however, is the fact that in our culture, women have been very successful in sloughing off responsibility for their actions onto others through institutional means. Our media is also very quick to forgive women for their bad behavior (unless you’re Lindsay Lohan), while it just as quick to demonize men for their behavior. Quite simply, women seem to get a pass, while men get the whip. It’s been that way for a very long time now, and we have the evidence to prove it.
2) “Men traditionally are held to higher standards than women. Men hold men to higher standards than women. It has been that way for generations. You aren't going to see that change in your lifetime. Crying "foul" and trying to blame feminists for the views and beliefs of not only society, but also human nature, is ultimately going to get you no place.”
- If, in fact, men are traditionally held to higher standards than women, does that make it right? And if this is in fact the case universally, and has been that way for generations, does that make it right or reasonable?
Let’s say your assertions are right. One would have to assume, then, that all women are held to lower standards because their actions of are a lower nature. One would also have to assume that this assertion is correct simply by virtue of its having been believed for a very long time. I cannot say that I believe either of these assertions universally, as there is no overwhelming evidence to PROVE THEM.
One of the things I admire about this site is its abundance of fact, and its effort at backing up arguments with common sense and reason. Sure, there are ideological screeds here and there, but nothing like the tripe I see on a lot of feminist sites, where the merest hint of dissidence results in eternal banishment or death threats.
3) “Women and men are not equally represented in dangerous jobs. Hence, of course, the greater representation will meet an untimely end in a dangerous job.”
- Women, by and large, are not as well represented in more dangerous jobs because they are not as physically capable of doing them and because they don’t want to do them. But that doesn’t matter, really. What matters is that men have been doing the more dangerous and stressful jobs for years and they have died an average of 5 – 7 years younger than women for years as a result. And yet, when you look at the health articles on CNN, MSN, etc, the huge majority of them are geared toward women. Funny, eh? I don’t really think it’s a pay thing so much as a DEATH thing.
4) Men traditionally take more risks - needless risks it might be added - then women do. That is one of the basic differences between men and women. Hence, there probably would not be "equality in death in the workplace" over time.
- This is a throwaway statement, and an insulting one at that. Let’s take logging as an example. Logging is a very dangerous job. Do you mean to say that every time a male logger goes to work to support his family, he’s taking a needless risk? Do you mean to say that every time a police officer attempts to apprehend an armed assailant in the course of doing his job to provide for his family, he’s taking a needless risk? Is it also a needless risk if a female police officer does this? Is it a needless risk whenever a trader takes a position in the market in an attempt to make money to support his family? C’mon, Doc, you have to do better than this. Risk is what builds society and moves things forward. You make every man sound like Evil Knieval.
5) “What actually constitutes "equal work" is difficult to assess. In so called "mindless jobs" it is much easier to assess than in other types of jobs.”
- How many completely ‘mindless’ jobs are out there, really? Not only that, but are you saying that it is impossible to compare the productivity of two lawyers at the same professional level at the same firm over a given period of time, given a few variables? Would it also be impossible to do so for two car salespeople at a car dealership? I think not. Usually, the boss just looks at the numbers at the end of the month and the answers are right there in black and white – at least in the real world where bills are paid.
6) “As for the percentage of the income dedicated to child support - the laws created that percentage. It is the result of legislators attempting to apply a "one size fits all" solution that might be flawed, in particular for the lower end of the income earners. To have empathy for everyone that claims the percentage is too high is not feasible in my opinion.”
- You miss the problem entirely, which is that the system is set up so that fascists in black robes have unilateral power to do WHATEVER THEY WANT. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and it has done so.
7) “The issues about women not paying child support: That to me is not an issue deserving of empathy but instead is something that should be enforced. Here we also have some indications of the male psyche coming into play. Many men will not ask for child support when given custody, and likewise, will not insist on pursuing the woman for child support. It's often that old "I'm a man and can do it without a woman" type of thing.”
- Of course it should be enforced! That’s an issue, but I don’t think it’s the issue we’re pointing out here. What we’re pointing out is that there has been a bogus deadbeat DAD campaign launched in this country in order to give everyone the impression that only non-custodial dads are deadbeats, while in fact, percentage-wise, it is WOMEN who are the major deadbeats. At some point you have to look at the numbers, dude. And not only that, but who cares about the whole male psyche, tough guy thing! That doesn’t make it right! Big deal! That’s beside the point, and more or less obfuscation.
8) “I don't buy into the theory or premise that men are victims. They may choose to be victims, but as far as being victims simply by gender, I do not buy into that concept.”
- I don’t buy into victim theory either. But a whole bunch of academic feminists do – and they’ve passed a good deal of legislation that has, in fact, truly victimized others.
But there are true victims. I’ll give you an example.
Say there is a young male student and a young female student, both of whom go to the same college. They meet at a party, have a few drinks, and go back to the female student’s dorm room and have sex. Two weeks pass. It turns out that the young female student actually has a boyfriend at another college campus. This boyfriend knows other people on his girlfriend’s campus, and he finds about his girlfriend’s tryst. He confronts her, and in a panic to try and cover for herself, she claims that the young aforementioned male student raped her. The police come to his dorm room, bring him down to the station, and question him. When they find out that there was alcohol involved, it is decided that because the female student was drinking, she was not ‘capable of making a rational decision.’ The male student is thrown in jail and his life is ruined.
I would call that young man a victim.
That is the kind of thing we are against.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Chris D why do you keep spamming the same link on every thread?
May 7th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Your comment about the lack of male teachers for primary school children is interesting. There are perhaps three considerations that must be looked at in that issue. First, for years the pay for school teachers was so low that it only attracted women. Second, men would consider men who were teaching primary school not to be "real men" but instead, most likely, homosexuals. Third, women were reluctant to have a man teach their precious little children out of fear that the male teacher might be a molester. In that respect, the male and female views of men in that level of the teaching profession are quite synonymous. - Doc
First, school teaching was a male-dominated profession before it became a female dominated one. Making your first point backwards.
Second, men consider each other "real men" based on whether women find them attractive. Musicians, actors, and artists make terrible livings and are often actual homosexuals, but are considered "real men" becuase women find them attractive.
Third, there aren't more male school teachers becuase women don't want there to be. You got that one right.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:41 am
I was talking to a friend in Ontario today. She mentioned she'd seen a blurb on this on CTV . She's going to try to find me a URL on it.
G_R
May 8th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Discussing male professional educators... in the words of a boating friend (and I suspect Glenn can affirm this from his own experience) who's also a male educator "there's no way in hell I would teach public these days, all it takes is one pissed teeny bopper who thinks she deserves a better grade crying "rape!" and my career is ended before the echoes die away".
Read that to mean "men may not be fast to catch on, but they do learn". And one lesson men have learned the hard way across the spectrum of life in America is when you've been accused of molesting or trying to molest a child... the facts become irrelevent real fast. The accusation alone is as a WMD from which there is no defense, as the stigma follows you everywhere.
G_R
May 8th, 2008 at 1:24 am
And, all it takes is some deranged boy with a gun, who thinks he deserves a better treatment from other students to end a teaching career permanently.
American society as a whole seems to have deteriorated considerably over the past couple, three decades. There is a lot of blame to be passed around to a lot of different groups, ideologies and people.
Doc
May 8th, 2008 at 4:26 am
Doc is obviously an ardent feminist, given his/her Patriarchy Hurts Men Too (tm) argument. It's well known that feminism is about manipulation of both men and women to gain it's goals (after all, that's really all ANY political movement is). What you are suggesting Doc, is that men are to blame because "they fell for it". That's a bullsh!t argument.
It cannot be denied that feminists are fighting furiously to derail the men's movement, and see it as a direct threat to their goals. Why is this Doc? Why is it so threatening for men to become politically aware? It's not like there's been anything said here that doesn't pale in comparison to the vitriol and hatred spewed forth regularly from the feminist elite.
Could it be because if men ever woke up to what feminism has done to us, we'd react "badly" and quite strongly? Is it because you know that response is directly proportional to injury, and you're well aware of the extent of that "injury"?
Because I don't think for a minute you're actually interested in equality.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:30 am
Doc Says:"American society as a whole seems to have deteriorated considerably over the past couple, three decades. There is a lot of blame to be passed around to a lot of different groups, ideologies and people."
I will come out and state right now that I think the VAST majority of the problems being experienced are a direct result of changes fought for in society by feminists. These resulted in the broken homes, mistrust, demonization of men, alienation of boys, and general feeling of hopelessness many boys have in all walks of life. The signs are all there, in suicide rates, educational achievement, crime rates, etc. It's just not PC to bring the subject up in most circles.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:42 am
A highly intelligent and educated fellow I know believes with all his heart, soul and mind that the CIA has, and is trying to ruin his life. He has been diagnosed as "paranoid delusional," a diagnosis that he vehemently denies. He is quite functional in most aspects of his life other than being able to recognize how illogical his fears / illusions actually are.
If you see any similarities between yourself and him, I am confident it is only coincidental.
Doc
May 8th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Doc:
"American society as a whole seems to have deteriorated considerably over the past couple, three decades. There is a lot of blame to be passed around to a lot of different groups, ideologies and people. "
That's a very lazy statement. Saying, "Well, there are a lot of bad people" is meaningless. Yes, there are bad people, but some are worse than others. What we need to do is look at each situation with something akin to reason and find a reasonable solution or compromise.
Your mention of 'ideologies' is especially pertinent. One of the problems is that the feminist movement is mired in half-baked ideology and hearsay. Modern feminism is basically an ideology masquerading as an argument. A lot of what we do here is unmask that ideology and show it for what it is.
Another problem with most feminsts is that they are often too busy protecting their entitlements to utlize reason or reach compromise, whether they realize it or not. That's why I'm not surprised when I present a feminist with a well supported argument backed with facts and research, and she stares at me glassy-eyed and repeats whatever propagandistic phrase she's learned. When people have something to lose, they usually develop fairly short horizons.