New Column: DNC Platform Is Bad News for Dads
August 18th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"If the Democratic Party is interested in garnering men’s votes, one certainly would not know it from their platform. The Democratic National Committee’s "Renewing America's Promise" is bad news for American fathers."
My new co-authored column, DNC Platform: Bad News for Dads (World Net Daily, 8/15/08), criticizes the new Democratic Party platform's family and fatherhood policies.
To write a Letter to the Editor of World Net Daily, one of the largest content websites in the world, regarding DNC Platform: Bad News for Dads, click on letters@worldnetdaily.com.
The column, co-authored with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, is below.
DNC Platform: Bad News for Dads
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
If the Democratic Party is interested in garnering men’s votes, one certainly would not know it from their platform. The Democratic National Committee’s "Renewing America's Promise" is bad news for American fathers.
The platform’s "Fatherhood" plank puts all blame for father absence squarely on men, and promises to "crack down" on fathers who are behind on their child support. It also promises to ratchet up draconian domestic violence laws which often victimize innocent men and separate them from their children.
It’s doubtful that many dads wake up in the morning and say to themselves, "My child loves me and needs me, my wife/girlfriend loves me and needs me--I'm outta here." Research shows that the vast majority of divorces, as well as many break-ups of unmarried couples, are initiated by women, not by men, and that most of these do not involve serious male transgressions.
When a married or cohabiting couple splits up, the father is generally relegated to visitor status and often can only participate in his children’s lives if the mother allows it. Courts tilt heavily towards mothers in awarding custody, and enforce fathers' visitation rights indifferently. In most states, mothers are free to move their children hundreds or thousands of miles away from their fathers, often permanently destroying the fathers' bonds with their children.
Obama and the Democrats say they’ll gain billions of dollars in revenue by taxing the “windfall profits” of the evil oil companies. Similarly, the DNC promotes the illusion that cracking down on child support obligors will create a windfall for single mothers.
Yet Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement data shows that two-thirds of those behind on child support nationwide earned poverty-level wages; less than four percent of the national child support debt is owed by those earning $40,000 or more a year. There’s no pile of “deadbeat dad” gold out there for the taking, and research shows that heavy-handed enforcement measures often drive fathers away from their children.
More ominously, the DNC platform pledges to “strengthen domestic violence laws,” support the Violence Against Women Act, and increase funding for domestic violence programs. Society rightfully despises the wife-beater, but the specter of the wife-beater has been used to justify many destructive policies and civil liberties violations. They have also provided easy ways for disgruntled women to kick decent, loving fathers out of their homes and exclude them from their children’s lives.
Domestic violence laws were dramatically altered in the wake of the OJ Simpson double murder case, and VAWA was passed in 1994. Among the most harmful is the trilogy of mandatory arrest, the primary aggressor doctrine, and “no drop” prosecution policies.
Greg Schmidt, who created the Seattle Police Department’s domestic violence investigation unit in 1994, says that under mandatory arrest laws police officers are forced to make arrests “in petty incidents, often where the abuse is mutual or it is unclear who the aggressor was.”
Attorney Paul Stuckle, a former Dallas, Texas patrol officer, believes these laws lead cops to make arrests based only on the alleged victim’s statements, and that officers often fail to complete a fair and thorough investigation. Some cops call this “You call, we haul”—all a woman has to do is make a 911 call, and police arrest her spouse or male partner.
When mandatory arrest laws were first passed, they led to a sharp increase in the number of women arrested, reflecting the well-documented fact that women are as likely to initiate and engage in domestic violence against their male partners as vice versa. In response, the VAWA-funded DV establishment promoted the primary/dominant aggressor doctrine.
Under this doctrine, when police officers respond to a domestic disturbance call, they are instructed not to focus on who attacked whom and who inflicted the injuries, but instead consider different factors which will almost always weigh against men. These factors include: comparable size; comparable strength; the person allegedly least likely to be afraid; who has access to or control of family resources (i.e., who makes more money); and others.
Third, many if not most jurisdictions have adopted "no drop" prosecution policies. As a result, many cases of mutual, trivial, or nonexistent "violence" are prosecuted as if they are serious crimes, even when the alleged victim recants or asks that the charges be dropped.
For example, last year Suzanne Gassner Weatherford, a Marin, California juror, told the Marin Independent Journal:
"I spent three days as a juror in a case in which it seemed obvious early on that no conviction could possibly result.
"A woman had called 911 complaining her fiancé had been drinking and pushed her onto their bed. The defendant claimed he held her arms to keep her from hitting him with a phone. The next day, the woman phoned police and the district attorney's office asking that her fiancé not be prosecuted.
"She stated that she had overreacted, and that she would do anything she could to stop the prosecution…Nonetheless, the case proceeded.
"The only other witness the prosecution had was a policeman who had heard the woman's original complaint. Part of his testimony was contradicted by facts that could be ascertained from the 911 recording…In the jury room, some of us speculated about why this case had ever been brought to court."
The toughening of domestic violence laws has also led to an explosion in restraining orders. When a restraining order is issued, the man is booted out of his own home and can be jailed if he tries to contact his own children, even though he has never been afforded the opportunity to defend himself in court. Restraining orders are easy to obtain and are often used as child custody maneuvers.
Fathers’ ties to their children are more tenuous than at any time in American history. Child support and domestic violence policies have helped drive a wedge between fathers and their children. Sadly, the Democratic Party has committed itself to policies which will make the problem worse.
This column first appeared on World Net Daily (8/15/08).
Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. Their website is www.acfc.org.
Glenn Sacks’ columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United States. He invites readers to visit his website at www.GlennSacks.com.
"));
19 queries. 0.367 seconds.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:36 am
The Democratic party is all about creating dependency on government. This means
1. make women and children dependents upon government programs
2. make men into slaves to pay for the government programs.
That's it and that's all. There is NO way for the Democratic party to create any other role for itself but that of growing government dependency of the most easily manipulated (or purchased) large voting base -- women.
Many future generations of girls/women, as well as current ones, who cannot find husbands or even boyfriends, will be and are paying with the loss of their hoped for family lives due to the collective failure of women in America to rein in the exploitation of men by government on behalf of female voters.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Domestic violence laws were dramatically altered in the wake of the OJ Simpson double murder case, and VAWA was passed in 1994. Among the most harmful is the trilogy of mandatory arrest, the primary aggressor doctrine, and “no drop” prosecution policies.
Excerpt from Spreading Misandry....
"Ideological feminists want revolution, but they see no need for military tactics. Feminists of all stripes have found much more effective ways of producing radical social, economic, and political change in democratic societies - that is, societies in which public order relies on public opinion. To change public opinion, they have exploited debates over major public events such as the confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas, the trial of O.J. Simpson, and so on. Then too, they have relied on the fact that many men consider shame, as they have for countless generations, a "fate worse than death." In other words, men - especially political, religious, and other leaders - can be "manipulated easily" through fear of public humiliation for feeling "threatened" by women."
August 18th, 2008 at 10:56 am
"The platform’s "Fatherhood" plank puts all blame for father absence squarely on men, and promises to "crack down" on fathers who are behind on their child support. It also promises to ratchet up draconian domestic violence laws which often victimize innocent men and separate them from their children."
"he platform’s "Fatherhood" plank puts all blame for father absence squarely on men"
woman good, man bad.
"and promises to "crack down" on fathers who are behind on their child support."
Beat their chest, to go after these scoundrels!
"It also promises to ratchet up draconian domestic violence laws which often victimize innocent men"
Give women even more power to abuse men and control them through fear and intimidation.
"and separate them from their children."
So the mother can gain the maximum amount of child support awards, and also have the power over the men via their own kids.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:58 am
And not to forget to mention the fact that all these things "further marginalize all men."
Marginalization is the social process of becoming or being made marginal (to relegate or confine to a lower social standing or outer limit or edge, as of social standing); "the marginalization of the underclass"; "marginalization of literature" and many other are some examples. Marginalization involves people being denied degrees of power. Marginalization has the potential to result in severe material deprivation, and in its most extreme form can exterminate groups. (Mullaly, 2007).
August 18th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Obama is offering the "monkey's paw" to woman The 'monkey's paw' is an old story and an old movie in which the" monkey's paw" grants three wishes to its possessor. The consequences of receiving the first two wishes cause the holder of the paw to not seek the third wish. Some woman may gain the paw's gift, but all woman and all men will suffer the paw's consequences.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:11 am
For example, last year Suzanne Gassner Weatherford, a Marin, California juror, told the Marin Independent Journal:
"I spent three days as a juror in a case in which it seemed obvious early on that no conviction could possibly result."
Well, then the feminist can claim that SO many domestic violence cases are not resulting in a conviction that things must be reformed. "reformed" in this context is a code word for soft revolution. They will argue that domestic violence shield laws need to be past and other things such as "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" will probably be changed to assist in an easier conviction on the weakest of cases. All of a sudden we are finally seeing a "result" vast numbers of convictions!
August 18th, 2008 at 11:22 am
I am so distressed to see what American "democracy" has become.
It is just a circus sideshow designed to keep people amused and distracted from the corporate robbery that is the heart of the game.
When this country was trying to discover itself, there were real town hall meetings with real debates and anybody could step up and speak and it was local and grassroots democracy.
We now live in what amounts to a very sophisticated totalitarian state. (Or , if you'd like to read a little Foucault, "totalist" is a better term.)
It does not matter whether McCain or Obama is elected. It simply is theatre.
The real power is not at the White House. That is just the sock puppet for corporate hegemony.
There is no democracy anymore.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Very good points all. All support the position that it is the system that is primarily responsible for the persecutions of men at this point, not the women, or even the radical women's libbers. I hold that that system is largely composed of unprincipled lawyers and judges, plus certain politicians like Joe Biden. AP is absolutely correct about the Democratic Party, which is the party of greedy and unscrupolous parasitic lawyers. This, however, is not an indictment of individual Democrats.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:56 am
roy Says:
August 18th, 2008 at 11:22 am
I read that NBC Datline's to catch a predator paid $100,000 an episode to perverted justice? I'd say that was big business.
http://corrupted-justice.com/
August 18th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I was impressed the other week when The Economist (yes, The Economist) ran an article on why the DNC is having so much trouble. Here is the link below:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670719
For better or for worse, the focus of the article was on "white men" more so then on men in general, but I think the point was well placed.
"Mr Kuhn thinks the Democrats’ failure to take white men seriously is the main reason they keep losing presidential elections. The party captures liberal white men—typically prosperous professionals—but scores badly among businessmen and white male workers. Part of the problem is that Democrats are identified with the notion that white men are to blame for all the world’s ills, from racism to the oppression of the workers. Few white men share this view. Many are workers themselves."
.....
"In some voters’ minds, Democrats are associated with an assault on masculinity itself. “Boys can’t be boys in school any more,” complains Karen Combs, a volunteer for Mr McCain."
....
"But he [Obama] has his work cut out. The “people” section on his website divides Americans into 17 categories: Latinos, women, First Americans, environmentalists, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people, Americans with disabilities, Asian-Americans and Pacific islanders and so on. There is no mention of whites, or men."
August 18th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
...wait a second - I thought the Democrats were the sophisticated, intellectual, cerebral party, not like the so-called stupid Republicans. Face it - the Democrats will let the feminists write up their party platform for them. Unfortunately, the Republicans aint much better - they also will acquiece rather than be called sexist and the usual names.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
It makes you ask yourself if anything at all will help men's situations, it won't be in my lifetime. I just don't have a possitive attitude about this subject. By the time something is done I be dead and buried.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I'm pretty sure it will be some considerable time before you can say "Women are not oppressed" without someone looking at you like you're from another planet.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
...We're in the very beginning of a movement here and it will probably get much worse before enough people get upset enough to make it better. Our issues are not yet taken seriously. My local newspaper, for example, would rather write about WWII Japanese internment camps, a horrible injustice that ended more than 60 years ago, than write about the injustices men face today... The common, unquestioned belief is that we are the privileged ones and need to be taken down a notch, despite: living 5 years' less than women, accounting for 98 % of work-related deaths, most suicides, getting destroyed in family court, false perceptions that we are violent and not to be trusted, etc.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
,,,My own explanation for all the Obama bumper stickers I see on luxury cars and Obama signs in the front yards of the most exclusive neighborhoods: Rich people feeling guilty about their wealth and overindulgences but not wanting to make any personal sacrifices put up Obama signs as if to say "See - I'm a pro-Obama Democrat and therefore I am benevolent and a good person!"
August 18th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Democrats think money and social/public assistance programs fix things, or make them better. Exactly the opposite is true. Welfare has crated 100 times more problems than it ever solved. There are virtually no effective government programs, yet the democrats are convinced that if we get the government more and more involved in peoples lives that it will solve the peoples problems.
This is the Great Irony of government. They take money from the people only to make the problem worse. Money does not fix the problem it only exacerbates it!
August 18th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
It would be an interesting experiment to try to use the Internet as a tool for "direct citizen democracy."
That would mean, let Americans vote directly on every bill before Congress.
Let the people decide.
It could be done, quite easily.
But it would be the end of the current fake "representative democracy" that we enjoy.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
neither party cares about men which is what is going to make this election real interesting -the dems already have the feminist vote so their continued pandering is nothing new. What is real interesting is the Rhinos (ther are no true republicans anymore) think by pandering THEY will get the feminst vote.
now in the end the feminist vote will NOT decide this election what will decide it is the white male vote. Bottom line is Mcain needs to win that demographic in a landslide to have any chance - yet he is pandering to those who HATE white males and blame all of society's ills on us.
in any event this white males will not be voting for EITHER of these idiots because of the fact neither as shown even the slightest interest in what matters to me. and contrary to what the obamaphites believe it's not cause he's black - that is completely and utterly irrelevant to me
August 18th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I don't know that I won't be voting. I'll have to choose the lesser of two evils, most likely, but otherwise that sums it up.
Anybody got another option?
August 18th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Definition of a liberal Democrat:
" An absence of logic and a total disregard for facts "
August 18th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Perhaps the ugliest thing about the "deadbeat dads" thing is how it plays into stereotypes of poor and minority men as lazy and irresponsible. They are the "welfare queens" of the current age (never mind that both poor men and poor women usually work).
August 18th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
perhaps we shoudl scrutinize ACFC as well if we're going to be putting other groups under the microscope. dnc might as well just start calling themselves the American Socilist Party from reading the article and reviews here, and it may be fitting. But given the amont of time that ACFC has been trying to get reform, seems like it's time for new leadership.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
DCR -- "and contrary to what the obamaphites believe it's not cause he's black - that is completely and utterly irrelevant to me..."
I really respect that p.o.v.
But in my Midwestern redneck cracker town, people still whisper "I don't want a n*gger as President." These people obviously need to be put away somewhere. Maybe Guantanamo?
The really funny thing is that if some of these fine folks did a geneaology search of their own families, they would discover they have more black blood in them than Obama!
August 18th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Looks like OJ did for men's rights what 9/11 did for civil liberties.
Vote McCain or get kicked in the teeth for the next 4-8 years.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
That does it. I'm not voting democrat. It's bad enough that Obama wants to
increase taxes on the middle class, has no real energy policy, and refuses
to take stands on most issues, but this whole fatherhood agenda shows that
Hillary really won the nomination -- not Obama.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Is anyone here willing to support a "lawyer" for president?
Does anyone here believe that "lawyers" have a real world perspective on anything?
Lawyers in America have become a self-appointed, self-perpetuating privileged class who feed off of productive people, and by all indications I can see, very rarely add any value to anything they touch.
Now let's think about some of the "lawyer" candidates and presidents of late:
Edwards -- cheated on wife while she had cancer -- yep, he really cares about others.
Clinton (Bill) -- please, I can't type all of his ethical accomplishments
Clinton (Hillary) -- ditto
Need I go on?
OK. How about Nixon? Couldn't tell right from wrong.
Anyone seeing a pattern here?
The office of President of the United States needs to be occupied by a real human being, and unfortunately, it is hard to function as a real human being if you have spent any time practicing as a contemporary lawyer in America. Granted, Obama did much of his legal work fighting the good fights which law was supposed to be all about in this country. But the mere fact of his close-quarters contact with the contemporary mess which is the U.S. legal system should give all voters pause. One hopes that he is the rare exception, but one should fear that he is not.
My policy: never vote a lawyer into any office in the U.S. -- ever.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:30 am
While racism is repugnant suggesting people be sent somewhere to be tortured because they think differently than you is equally repugnant.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:08 am
[...] Click to read more Technorati Tags: Black people,African Americans,African American people,black men,black women,African American men,African American women,black news,African American news,black fathers,african american fathers,DNC,democratic national convention [...]
August 19th, 2008 at 10:09 am
[...] Click to read more Technorati Tags: Black people,African Americans,African American people,black men,black women,African American men,African American women,black news,African American news,black fathers,african american fathers,DNC,democratic national convention [...]
August 19th, 2008 at 10:14 am
re: August 19th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Well, it looks like the "Sadly, No!" gang has decided to stick around a while.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Lewis -- "While racism is repugnant suggesting people be sent somewhere to be tortured because they think differently than you is equally repugnant."
Are you suggesting that America as been torturing people?
I thought our President assured us that was not the case.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Apologies.
I suppose that should have been "...sent somewhere they are allegedly torturing people because they think differently than you..."
August 19th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
When has the modern Democratic party EVER been good for men?
August 19th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
AV - When has the modern Republican Party ever been good for men?
August 19th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Reasons like this are exactly why I can never call myself a Democrat again.
The worst part is, it's not exactly the overall ideas of liberalism that I disagree with. Heck, I agree with many of their social views. I support things like gay marriage and immigrants' rights, and am against the war on drugs, media censorship, and book banning. But the very idea of putting myself in the same ideological company as the likes of people like Michael Moore, Al Franken, CNN, Duke University's Gang of 88, and all the other usual suspects makes me want to puke.
Why associate yourself with people who are going to treat you like you're the Devil Incarnate? Why should you have to follow any doctrine that treats you like your white race or your male gender are some sort of Original Sin that you have to absolve yourself of (and does it all in the name of fighting racism and sexism, no less!)?
I'm starting to see Matt Stone's (one of the co-creators of South Park) point when he said "I hate conservatives, but I really ****ing hate liberals." Let me put it to you this way, because for the most part, it works like this: partisan Republicans are a bunch of idiots. Partisan Democrats are also a bunch of idiots...except that they're absolutely convinced that they're the smartest people on Earth. Partisan Republicans are a bunch of closed-minded, mean-spirited numbskulls. Partisan Democrats are a bunch of closed-minded, mean-spirited numbskulls...who carry out said numbskullhood all in the name of open-mindedness, tolerance, and sensitivity. I've encountered people on both the far Left and Right, and don't get me wrong, they both get on my nerves. But that special brand of arrogance, conceit, and shameless belief in their own intellectual and moral superiority, is what puts the loonies on the Left on a planet of their own.
Unless, of course, I'm missing something, and there's a conservative-dominated university or someplace like that where I can encounter these types of nutcases on the Right as well.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Orwell Lives
Alex says: "The worst part is, it's not exactly the overall ideas of liberalism that I disagree with. Heck, I agree with many of their social views. I support things like gay marriage and immigrants' rights, and am against the war on drugs, media censorship, and book banning."
PK responds: That very statement, Alex, is a perfect example of the Orwellianism and moral bankruptcy of the left/liberalism.
Let's start with "immigrant's' rights". What liberals mean by that is _illegal_ immigrant's rights and dishonestly portraying the right as against _all_ immigrants when that is not the case.
Next, media censorship. The left in most of Europe and Canada now oppose free political speech as "hate speech". Feminists implimented "sexual harassment" codes getting men fired for saying the wrong thing at work. The left wants to impliment "equal time" codes in radio and television to "hush rush" after they failed in their own bid for radio talkshows.
Next, book banning. Want to have some fun? Go to a hip, trendy leftist bookstore and ask to see Ann Coulter's book. You'll notice that they hide it so that people can't find (and buy it) even if the chain owners want to sell it.
Ok, now onto Gay Marriage. This is a rather silly cause since marriage is such a mess already with the marriage strike and all. And the war on drugs. I largely agree it's counter productive but note that the left/feminism now opposes legalized prostitution out of fear of competition by normal women.
January 18th, 2009 at 1:38 am
[...] GlennSacks.com " Blog Archive " New Column: DNC Platform Is Bad News … [...]