What Will the Obama Presidency Mean for Fathers?
January 19th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
I'm often asked what I think the Obama presidency will mean for fathers. I think there are some reasons to be optimistic and some reasons to be pessimistic. Below I list a bunch of them, not in any particular order.
Positive: Obama clearly understands the importance of fathers, and has often emphasized it.
Negative: Obama believes, or at least publicly believes, that fatherlessness is caused almost entirely by irresponsible fathers.
Positive: Obama seems to understand that there are systemic problems with the child support system, and that these problems are part of what causes men to fail to pay their child support.
Negative: Obama has said that he wants to beef up child support enforcement against those who he believes, perhaps incorrectly, are capable of paying.
Positive: For the next four or possibly eight years, a good, loving, hands-on father will often be in the media interacting to varying degrees with his children.
Negative: Many of Obama's allies in the Democratic Party, including the National Organization for Women, are hostile to fathers.
Positive: For eight years George Bush and the Republican Party have said and done little on fatherhood and fathers. Sometimes we will not like what Obama says about fathers, but the issue of fatherhood has a much better chance of a least being on the radar screen.
Negative: Vice President Joe Biden has unwittingly aggravated the problem of fatherlessness through his staunch support of the Violence Against Women Act. VAWA has made it easier for unscrupulous women to drive fathers out of their children's lives by employing false accusations of domestic abuse.
Positive: Obama's Responsible Fathers Act will allow low income fathers' child support to go directly to the mothers and their children, instead of the state. Research shows this helps bring fathers closer to their children because they feel they're being allowed to provide for them directly. The Act will also expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and provide fathers with job training services
Negative: Obama's Responsible Fathers Act has too much stick and not nearly enough carrot.
Neutral: Obama, like John McCain, spent a fair amount of time during the presidential campaign pandering to women by falsely claiming that women get paid significantly less than men for the same job. This doesn't directly impact fathers, but it does help feed the mistaken societal notion that men are privileged and it's really moms who do the work in families. I can't count it as a positive or a negative regarding Obama, however, since McCain also pushed the wage gap myth.
I know readers have their own views as to how fathers will fare under Obama -- feel free to list other positives and negatives in your comments.
"));
19 queries. 0.543 seconds.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
hes a liberal...that means nothing for men...
January 19th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Of course the wage gap myth is a negative against Obama.
OK so McCain pushed it too so that would be a negative against him as well, but that doesn't somehow make Obama less guilty of spreading lies.
In this area (as with many others) you have a lose-lose situation regardless of who wins the election.
The only hope is perhaps Obama realises the whole thing is a lie and just said it to get votes from the biggest group of voters out there.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
"Negative: Vice President Joe Biden has unwittingly aggravated the problem of fatherlessness through his staunch support of the Violence Against Women Act."
I respectfully disagree with this statement, unless you mean by "unwittingly" that Uncle Joe has no wits.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
"hes a liberal...that means nothing for men..."
I disagree. I have before listed many areas where liberals were better to men than conservatives were. That's especially true for low-income men, homeless men, blue collar men, union men, disabled men, minority men, gay men, men accused of crimes, "Johns" who seek services of sex workers, etc. It certainly wasn't conservatives who stopped the family courts from jailing men without hearings for nonpayment of child support. it was the liberal ACLU.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
well marc....you have 2 new liberals in charge in the white house....both all for womens issues....their past is proof enough
January 19th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Obama clearly believes,as many do,that its lack of male responsibility only that is the cause of fatherless families,rather than decades of anti-family legislation,feminist mischief making,and a corrupt family court system.As long as he continues to believe this,he wont be much help to fathers or families.Its also common knowledge that Mrs.Obama is a feminist,and her prejudicial views on men/fathers and traditional families will likely have a negative influence on his initiatives to address father issues.I am not optimistic,but maybe he`ll surprise all of us.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
"well marc....you have 2 new liberals in charge in the white house....both all for womens issues....their past is proof enough"
Yep, both of whom said women too should be drafted while the right wing hypocrits said only men should be dratted. I happen to care about that too, along with those I listed above. I had forgotten to list that issue. Thanks for reminding me.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Of course Obama believes fatherlessness is caused almost entirely by irresponsible fathers. In his case, this is true. His father was Arabic and had several wives. Young Obama was raised and cared for not so much by the mother,but his maternaql grandparents. I don't see ANY changes occurring with a "It takes a village to raise a child" administration. Don't get your hopes up for any positive change. Rather buckle up for the rough road ahead.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
he panders to women and that is clearly not a positive for men. look at his record on partial birth abortion. his position was for votes. he proved it by changing his tune when being called out. i haven't read anywhere that he doesn't support alimony, chasing "deadbeat" dads for more money, vawa ( his pic for vp says it all). he panders pure and simple. thumbs down.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
positive: many things Obama has said about planning to bring new deal-style programs specifically affect poor and working class men. His plan to spend lots of federal money on infrastructure affects blue collar jobs that have been outsourced for decades, causing poverty and unemployment for many men.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
marc is that all you have to mention is the draft...lol....i understand the chilvary aspect from republicans.....but when it comes to liberals and democrats.....men are last on the list...please tell me what liberals have done for men??...........liberals love to victimize women and minorities...just turn on the news...npr...cnn...its all there...
January 19th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
I recall, in one speech, Obama referring to the family in which he was raised as a "strong" family. His family was broken. If he really believes that his growing up without a biological father represents a strong family, this portends troubled times ahead for biological fathers trying to stay connected to their children and being seen as more than a seed and a paycheck.
I hope that I am wrong in my prediction, but I fear that I am not.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
@Marc A...
If the US is a party to the International Labour Organization's Convention on Forced or Compulsory Labour of 1930 It is NOT legal for women to be drafted even if not for miltary duty.
Throughout history and continuing into modern times, the practice of forced labour has overwhelmingly targeted adult able-bodied men, leading to millions if not tens of millions of deaths. Despite this grim record, the ILO's Forced Labour Convention designates one group and one group only as legitimate targets for forced labour: these same adult able-bodied men. Article 11 of the Convention states that "Only adult able-bodied males who are of an apparent age of not less than 18 and not more than 45 years may be called upon for forced or compulsory labour," so long as "they are physically fit for the work required and for the conditions under which it is to be carried out" and "the number of adult able-bodied men indispensable for family and social life" is allowed to remain in communities targeted for forced labour. In addition, the ILO states that both the forced labour involved in military conscription and the use of prison labour are acceptable under the terms of the Convention. Both of these institutions, of course, target males close to 100 percent of the time (see the Gendercide Watch case-studies of military conscription and incarceration/the death penalty).
http://gendercide.org/
January 19th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
"marc is that all you have to mention is the draft"
Actually, no, John, I listed a whole bunch of things in the previous post.
I have listed others as well. E.g., Obama called for an independent investigation into Nifong, which none of the Republican candidates did. See my prior posts.
My response was to your statement that "liberals" offer nothing for men. I think I have answered it sufificently and succintly.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
"If the US is a party to the International Labour Organization's Convention on Forced or Compulsory Labour of 1930 It is NOT legal for women to be drafted even if not for miltary duty."
Gwallan, the U.S. is part of that treaty, and the anti-male discrimimation in Article 11 was superceded and eradicated by subsequent statute.
Also, that is not what Article 11 or the rest of the treaty said anyway. The treaty banned forced labor but made exceptions for military and prison (Article 2) and for "able-bodied males" ages 18-45 (Article 11). Again, Article 11 was later superceded and is no longer effective. But even if it were still effective, it does not mean women can't be drafted. Anyone can be drafted under that treaty because Article 2 exempts military.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Another concern that I have about Obama is that he is surrounded in his home by his wife and two daughters, no males.
Speaking for myself, one of the best things to happen in my life was having a daughter. I then did a better job of seeing the world through female eyes, i.e., the eyes of my daughter.
Without a son, and growing up without a biological father, will Obama see males as mostly problems. I hope the answer to this is "No", and he sees in the mirror masculinity, paternity, husbandry, intregrity, protectiveness, bravery, helpfullness and all other benefits that we try our best to give to our families.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
"superceded and eradicated by subsequent statute."
Sorry I meant "superseded and eradicated by subsequent TREATY."
I've got to start finding the time to proofread.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Adam Jones of gendercidewatch.com, bless his heart, was simply mistaken when he protested the anti-male bias in Article 11 of the Forced Labour Convention of 1930. He did not know that it was superseded by subsequent treaty. I didn't know either until I protested and then had communication with the ILO, who showed me the subsequent treaty. However, I still talk about this when I speak at a law school about men's rights, because it's still a history when our international labor laws expressly exempted men from forced labor, and if it were women whom that happened to we would be hearing about it all over but nobody hears about this history because it was males who were discriminated against, and of course nobody cares, neither the left nor the right.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Details please Marc. I've not been able to find this "superceding" treaty.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Social conservatives like Bush and McCain lapse or fall back on the traditional position whereby the men work and the women do the child rearing when push comes to shove. Barak Obama lapses into "rights' and social justice rhetoric when trapped. It will be harder for Obama to justify "inequality" if for no other reason then that he has made such a stink about it.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
"Details please Marc. I've not been able to find this "superceding" treaty."
I will try to dig it up right now in old emails. However, the more important point is that Article 2 exempts military, so the treaty does not stop anyone from being drafted, men or women. This remains true regardless of whether Article 11 was superseded. Anyway I'll try to dig it up now.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Ok Gallawan, I found it. Below is the email that the ILO sent me. Now I'm actually not sure whether it was a superseding treaty or just and abatement by a particular date or event. But I recall looking this up and this ILO guy appeared correct. If he's wrong I'd like to know. marcangelucci@hotmail.com But again, Article 2 exempts miliary, so the treaty does not forbit military drafts. That was the main point.
Marc
marcangelucci@hotmail.com; Raphael Crowe (crowe@ilo.org); Cleopatra Doumbia-Henry (doumbia@ilo.org); Zafar Shaheed (shaheed@ilo.org); SECRETARIAT GENDER (GENDER@ilo.org); Evy Messell (messell@ilo.org); Roger Plant (plant@ilo.org)
Dear Mr. Angelucci,
Thank you very much for your e-mail of 19 February questioning the validity of Article 11 of the ILO Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29).
In fact, Article 11 belongs to the so-called "transitional provisions" of the Convention (Articles 3-24), which are no longer applicable, since the transitional period provided for in Article 1(2) of the Convention has elapsed long ago. For more details, please refer to
the General Survey on the Eradication of Forced Labour, 2007, prepared by the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, which is available on the ILO web-site:
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_089199.pdf
Paragraph 10 of the General Survey (page 6 of the English text) deals specifically with this issue.
I hope that these indications will be useful to you and remain at your disposal for any further information you may require.
With best regards
Alexander Iafaev
Forced Labour section
International Labour Standards Department
International Labour Office
iafaev@ilo.org
January 19th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Damn. Hit return to soon.
The US never ratified the 1930 convention!
All bets are off.
OK. 1957 it is retitled "Abolition of Forced Labour Convention". The US ratified this only in 1991.
The relevant parts follow...
Article 1
Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress and not to make use of any form of forced or compulsory labour--
(a) as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system;
(b) as a method of mobilising and using labour for purposes of economic development;
(c) as a means of labour discipline;
(d) as a punishment for having participated in strikes;
(e) as a means of racial, social, national or religious discrimination.
Forced labour for military purposes and for prisoners(although possibly disallowed by (b)) is still legitimate.
I would presume that the US can therefore legitimately conscript women for miltary purposes.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
"I would presume that the US can therefore legitimately conscript women for miltary purposes"
You're right, but it's even more clear by looking at Article 2 of the 1930 treaty, which was not "transitional" but permanent. It states, in pertinent part:
"Nevertheless, for the purposes of this Convention, the term forced or compulsory labour shall not include-- . . . (a) any work or service exacted in virtue of compulsory military service laws for work of a purely military character;"
That explicitly exempts military drafts. So even though the U.S. later ratified, the U.S. is not barred from drafting women. It can certainly do so. And IMO it violates men's equal protection rights to draft only men or even to force only men to register.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
The other thing is, who is going to tell this to Obama's face? The mainstream media is so suppine and obsequious to Obama and women's issues that it is hard to see how he is ever going to be challenged. The Republicans certainly won't call him on men's issues. Bush could always hide in the Bible. Obama won't have the same defensive redoubt to crawl into; but then again he probably won't need to.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Marc the 2007 stuff appears to be a "survey". It's not a treaty at all. Seems they're still working on it!
The 1957 version appears to be the current instrument.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Bravo! I don't think I could have written that better myself. You hit all of my highlights. I supported O'Bamma early on but when he picked Joe Biden as his running mate, I was forced to reconsider my support. I am highly concerned about O'bamma in office when it comes to fathers because of his desire to lean on child support collection efforts and his running mates support of VAWA.
Do I think that stamping out Domestic Violence is paramount to our society? Certainly! Do I think that VAWA does it? Not in the least.
Question? Is it better to strengthen child support collection when the State can already arrest you, put you in jail, suspend your licenses (all of them), confiscate your car, deduct 100% of any bank accounts, seize assets, seize tax returns, publicly humiliate you (deadbeat parent pictures), forfeit passports, and more. Or is it better to enforce visitation which in Illinois is a petty crime... And Illinois is one of the lucky states that has ANY criminal penalty for visitation interference. Food for thought Mr. O'Bamma.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
"please tell me what liberals have done for men??"
I have answered that before, but I'll whip a partial makeshift list now:
- ACLU stops L.A.P.D. from confiscating men's cars for soliciting sex workers in Hollywood.
- ACLU stops courts from jailing men without hearing for child support arrears.
- Innocense project frees many men falsely convicted of rape.
- Two democrats in CA were the only legislators to ever introduce a joint custody bill
- Two democtrats in CA were the ones to introduce paternity fraud legislation.
- Liberal LGBT people helped support NCFM's fight for male victims of DV in CA and who backed NCFM nationally.
- Liberal professors at UCLA Law and at CA Lutheran College invite me every year to speak as an MRA to her class on men's rights. No conservative professors did that.
- Liberal/socialist instructor of U.S. history at Pasadena City College (E. Pacas) tells his students to read Warren Farrell and publicy supported NCFM on men's rights.
- Liberal-leaning Glenn Sacks (IMO he is) - his work need not be listed, speaks for self.
- It took a liberal-leaning attorney (me) to sue the state and DV shelters to stop anti-mald discrimination, not to mention fight for paternity fraud legislation plus all the other stuff I have done for 10 years that I won't list here.
- Liberals have been more supportive of Choice For Men than conservatives have (e.g., former NOW president Karen DeCrow and certain liberal columnists I've read).
- Warren Farrell, whose work on men's rights is unprecedented, is IMO liberal.
- Liberal former NOW president Karen DeCrow publicly supports fathers' rights.
- Liberal gay rights advocate creates "Dude Power" website supporting men's rights and gay rights both.
- Many liberal members of fathers rights groups particularly in the Black community (e.g. Pops On Point, and My Child Says Daddy, both in Los Angeles in Black communities).
- Liberals supporting equality in the military draft.
- Liberal Obama calling for an independent investigation into Nifong.
- Liberals being more supportive of due process in criminal courts than conservatives.
- Liberals being supportive of support for homeless and disabled veterans and for more medical and other public help for them than conservatives have been.
- Liberals doing more for male prisoners than conservatives have.
- Liberals opposing the right wing - feminist anti-porn alliance.
- Liberals forming groups to fight against prison rape when conservatives didn't care.
Those are just a *few* of the things "liberals have done for men." These are not even to include all the things liberals have done for homeless veterans, disabled men, incarcerated men, etc. etc. etc.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Marc A,
Great post about liberals. I wasn't aware of the majority of items on your list. I feel a little more knowledgable now.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Marc A,
Do you mind my asking in which state you reside?
January 19th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
You guys are putting to much faith in what any president can accomplish.
GlennSacks.com and it's educated readership will do more for mens/fathers rights than Obama will.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:00 am
"Do you mind my asking in which state you reside?"
California.
I have never said I think liberals are better than conservatives for men's rights than in the big picture. In the grand scheme I think conservatives are better for men's rights only because they aren't as proactively supportive of feminist anti-male misandry. But to say liberals have done nothing for men is just plain incorrect, and I think it's important to respond to that kind of simplistic liberal/bad, or conservative/good, picture. I have known plenty of liberal and left-leaning MRAs and I think it's important to stop attacking each other's poltiical backgrounds if we're going to unite. A "liberal-bad" "conservative-good" mentality doesn't help us unite at all. It only divides which is the last thing we need.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:50 am
I believe that Father's have a better chance with President Obama. I know! For the past years that he was a senator, he was in receipt of several pages of the nightmare that underlies my book, "The Diary of a Patient Man, A Father's Struggle." The County Court where my case is has four volumes, with paperwork that is CC'd to Mr. Obama. My living nightmare has been communicated to him, right down to my ex harassing my Washington DC visit by calling the secret service. She gave me an example of why I was in DC while I was in DC. Hello "STALKING LAWS!!!!"
United States Senator Dick Durbin has a copy of my book in his office. I had 46 minute conversation with Durbin's office on January 13th, 2009 at 4:31pm CST, #202-100-5730.
Do they understand reciprocal violence? Do they understand the states refusals to effectively deal with mental health issues of domestic violence, particularly BORDER LINE PERSONALITY DISORDER? Yes, they do. At least, after our conversation they do.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Durbin are aware, in person of the tragedy that I deal with, but not just me, millions of dads across the US. I trust that our new president will see that legislation and action deal with the mental health issues aggressively ignored by county prosecutors representing the state and stepping on falsely accused fathers, only seeking headlines.
We need to effectively deal with the domestic violence problem in total, dismiss the age old "business as usual" child custody prejudice and start addressing the problems at the root.
My call with Senator Durbin's office ended with the door open in how to deal, effectively, with mental health issues, state gender prejudice and the growing number of homocides and suicides that result from dereliction of duty by the state.
I am certain that Mr. Obama will guide America forward. I am certain he is aware of the problems fathers face as he is in receipt of thousands of pages of my nightmare alone, as a Senator.
Criminal Enforcement of 18 USC 241 against prosecutor's like Missouri's Eric Zahnd who refuse to prosecute women will make state actors straighten up. Zahnd himself should be a poster child of a state actor, my ex, a poster child of a perp. Hell, my ex has already harassed the next president. Time to tuck her ass into a cage and toss away the keys.
I believe in Mr. Obama. I have since he went to the U.S. Senate and I have supported him from the first day I heard his name. I am tired as I write this, tired from preparing for the last day of Trial in child custody litigation that has only observed constitutional rights violations, compromise of my daughter's best interest and the facilitation of domestic violence against father's and children by both the Clay County Circuit Court and Platte County Circuit Courts in Missouri.
I believe that President Obama will do all in his abilities to guide us in the right direction.
Before he is president, Mr. Obama is a father and I do not believe that he'll cater to feminists as they are a minority (with big mouths) that facilitate violence against the family.
Enough is enough. Domestic Violence from both genders requires equality. It is time to do away with Stereotypes, period. Violence against fathers and children ignored is the status quo, put kids in mom's hands regardless. DHHS statistics say kids are safer with dads.
Let's break the status quo, let's break the TITLE IV-D motivation and corruption and fix our families and our economy. $172 Billion dollars is wasted ignoring the problem. Seems addressing things properly, we'll have a natural recovery of our economy by rechanneling dollars where they should go, and we'll have less stress on credit to pay for shit we shouldn't have to.
Accountability, Ladies and Gentlemen, Moms and Dads, and those corrupt figures who figure, ignore violence because you are part of the collective revenue stream. Accountability. I believe that President Obama will give us that. As well as firm enforcement of laws or no federal dollars to corrupt state programs. 46 Minutes on the phone with the U.S. Senate last week. I'm sure the graphic examples I gave won't be ignored.
Thanks, and Go President OBAMA!!!
January 20th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Marc A...
I think we can safely add your own work and that of Glenn to your list.
Wish there were more such as yourselves in my country.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:17 am
negativ:
- Joe Biden
- he is raised by a woman
- he thinks fathers can be missed
- he doesn't confirm equal rights
- he must know its unfair and inhuman
- fathers are captured (GuantanamoBay)
- children are well off with 2 mothers
- men are reduced to civil workers
- Michelle is brainwashed with wrong feminism
- he's doesn't care for his own children, leaves it to Michelle
- women are innocent and men must prove that
- he believes children belong to mothers
- he allows institutional unequel treatment for men
- he believes in one-sided misforming childinterest
- he doesn't debate in principle, he don't know the risks
etc. etc.
positiv:
- human rights begin with the conception
January 20th, 2009 at 3:53 am
Ever since Obama appointed Larry Summers ive decided to give him the benefit of the doubt- perhaps he isnt going to be the politically correct nightmare his record suggests. Perhaps.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:50 am
He chose Biden as his running mate. That should tell you everything you need to know.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:13 am
The most notable feature of much of the rhetoric about promoting responsible fatherhood is that most politicians will seldom lecture any other group about responsibilities.
Can anyone imagine Obama, or any other significant leader for that matter, lecturing women about how they have to take more responsibility for how their own choices contribute to things like the earnings gap or the glass ceiling? Or lecturing women about how they must accept more responsibilities in return for being guaranteed rights like legal abortion? Anyone who did would not survive for long.
Can anyone imagine Obama lecturing a group of senior citizens about how they should take more responsibility for saving and funding their own retirements, instead of simply expecting more government entitlements?
In our rights-obsessed society, men are one of the few groups who are constantly lectured about "responsibility". Everyone else is entitled to demand more rights and benefits without responsibilities.
So respectfully Mr President, until you are prepared to extend your rhetoric about responsibility to include some less expedient targets, then I will have to assume that it is just phony pandering and skapegoating, and henceforth provide you with detailed instructions on where to stick it.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:24 am
One interesting point about the wage gap is that some writers have looked into how much the men and women who work for Obama get paid, and have found that on average his female employees are earning significantly less than his male employees. (I believe that among John McCain's staff, the earnings gap is slightly narrower).
This begs the question of Obama. Are we to therefore believe that Obama is also guilty of practising pay discrimination? Or are we expected to confer on Obama the very benefit of the doubt that he denies other employers who he is only too willing to accuse of pay discrimination? Hypocrisy anyone?
January 20th, 2009 at 7:32 am
"Neutral: Obama, like John McCain, spent a fair amount of time during the presidential campaign pandering to women by falsely claiming that women get paid significantly less than men for the same job. This doesn't directly impact fathers, but it does help feed the mistaken societal notion that men are privileged and it's really moms who do the work in families. I can't count it as a positive or a negative regarding Obama, however, since McCain also pushed the wage gap myth"
There is something strangely perverse about a situation where anyone running for office is more or less required to support lies in order to remain in contention.
The whole wage gap argument has been obvious bunkum for a long time. Anyone with a modicum of common sense and intellectual honesty would surely realise that so long as men are more likely to be judged by their earnings potential and work commitment than women are, then it is inevitable that average male earnings are always going to be higher. Indeed, there is no way that any society could guarantee equal outcomes between men and women without major social repercussions, including creating an underclass of poorer men.
It's never a good idea to put reality up for grabs, because sometimes you need to rely on reality.
January 20th, 2009 at 8:07 am
I believe that Obama's economic policies will accelerate the decline in the value of the dollar (indexing minimum wage to inflation = feedback loop, "borrow & spend" to prop up the economy, "tax" refunds for those who don't pay taxes... )
As the purchasing power of a dollar falls, the security of a government support check will be increasingly attractive compared to the increasing risk of a spouse losing a job and exposing the whole family to economic struggle. As the value of the dollar falls, the organized Democrat base will increasingly call for steep increases in child support guideline tables - securing the women's vote by promising to insulate them from the dollar collapse and further increasing the attractiveness of the no-fault divorce for support money.
The housing market will not support a return to the two-parent household model. If the 2006 population of 300M were to live at the 1960 occupancy rate of 3.1 people per home, we could house the whole US population in 96M homes. According to the Census Bureau, we have about 126M housing units in the USA. 30M vacant homes for sale would cause housing values to fall AGAIN, and the Obama administration will not go anywhere near anything that could threaten housing values, undermine mortgages and cripple banks.
The only way Obama could be helpful to fathers and families is if he recognizes INVOLUNTARY fatherlessness as part of the CAUSE of many of the problems he will face. He will need to admit and confront the divorce incentives built into family law, and rein in the divorce industry (lawyers, judges, social service workers - Democrat base)
But he won't.
January 20th, 2009 at 8:29 am
It s not what is said; it is what is done. Will NOW be rewarded or scorned? Watch VAWA reauthorization in March.
January 20th, 2009 at 8:35 am
He appears to recognize that there are objective hard scientific truths independent of implications to public policy. We may find that rationality carrying over to matters of social science. Maybe he'll be able to differentiate evidence and spin to promote an agenda.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:02 am
All of the positives are simply things he claims to believe or an image he presents. The negatives are mostly real associations with horribly anti-male organziations and real devastating laws that were passed.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:14 am
you won't get any of the Obmaites to believe anything other than he is the second coming.... sorry folks to someone who actually looks objectively at what he has done since winning the election I'm not impressed. He's installed in his cabinet a bunch of Clinton retreads and I won't even get into some of his more personal choices.
he's also already broken the his biggest promise - I'll bring the troops home in 16 months!! Now it's a 3 years timetable which hmmmm is THE SAME AS BUSH's.
That's change for you - stop drinking the koolaid people - if any of you think he will do anything postive to help father's you are fools. It comes down to what will work for him politcally and monetarily. He'll continue his public pandering to womens groups because they will keep him in power and we men will just sit back and say nothing
January 20th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Bill Stonekin, I don't know your story, but do know, from what you wrote, that you have suffered greatly under the present system of family law, like just about everyone on this site has, to one degree or another. I fear, though, that your trust in Obama is misplaced. He had no trouble throwing his own grandmother under the bus when it was politically expedient to do so, and he had to know that she was dying. He is, as John McCain learned, a consummate liar, not to be trusted. Certain of his supporters are now learning this with his abandonment of the 16 month withdrawal promise. On the positive side, you have made some powrful politicians aware of the issues, and I congratulate you for this. Just brace yourself for another disappointment, especially since the author of both the VAWA and the assault weapons ban is now Vice President of the United States!
January 20th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Obama is a big government, liberal. When he was in the Senate he was ranked as the most liberal Senator. At Harvard University as an Editor he considered radical feminists his close advisors.
With almost a trillon dollars to spend to save America, much this money will go toward business as usual government programs abortion, child support, domestic violence, discriminatation against women, pets, children, and more.
With more money to spend for these programs it will translate into more rules, more enforcement, and more men persecuted and or jailed.
I expect more of the same, but in greater measure against men (non-gay men of course). It would be wise to run and hide.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:01 am
What will the Obama Presidency mean for fathers?
Well,..... change. Mind you, it will be about change that we haven't yet heard about while he was campaigning, but never mind that.
Hold him to his promise of change for fathers, guys. Unless, of course, that he didn't mean change for fathers when he wasn't telling anyone what he meant by "change" before he was elected.
"But Mr. President, I thought that you were for change. I'm still being treated as a criminal in my own home because the system, without evidence, treats and punishes me like I was."
Hopefully things do not have to go this far before the proper news of the men's side of gender and family issues reaches the top. If the news doesn't reach the top, which would be reflected in his public address, then we'll know that the multi-layered chain of command would be preventing men's issues from receiving rightfull equal air time. Get names, times and dates, guys. Your name is already in THEIR data bases. Keep record of every written transaction with the system. Doing this en masse and organized with the guy down the street with similar problems is how the system will have to change.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:33 am
If McCain/Palin won the election, Todd Palin could have been the poster dad for the movement. On the flipside, it's hard to fake the fear of losing a child, but Joe Biden’s tears don’t ease this father's fears. The problem that I have with Biden is that he’s an enabler. He only builds on the perception which places women in the victims role. Mom no longer stays at home and takes care of the household and acts as the primary care giver. Moms need to demand change not for themselves, but for the young men they're raising. You see, we each have mother and some of us might even have two. Well, it's time the good moms need quit accepting what all the FEEDBEAT MOMS are doing to hurt the their children and grand children.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:47 am
When liberals, and for that matter conservatives, talk about "supporting a woman's right to chose" when appointing supreme court justices they are really talking in code. In my opinion they are also telegraphing that they are really going to appoint judges who are openly supportive of "women's rights" in general. And by women's rights I mean judges that prefer women over men.
It is ironic that the people who scream loudest for equality are some of the ones who believe the exact opposite. The last thing I want is to have judges sitting on the bench that are inhierently hostile to me having equal custody or paying more than my fair share to support mommy benefits at the expense of my own liberty. I pray that we do not enter some sort of dark ages whereby men are simply reduced to tax slaves to support the just and rightous single mommies who are our social betters.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Biden's being sweared in right now. A sad moment for America's men.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
The cover of "Ms." magazine says it all.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
"Sworn in," I should have written. Sometimes it shows that English is a foreign language.
Let me add that Obama is an extremely promising President on the whole; just not in the men's rights department.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I saw a thing on I think inside edition where biden was supposedly falsely accusing the guy who killed his wife in an accident like 25 years ago of being drunk...which is supposedly a total lie.
I think you know the kind of guy biden is if this is true!
January 20th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Thanks for Nothing
MarcA defends liberalism: "I disagree. I have before listed many areas where liberals were better to men than conservatives were. That's especially true for low-income men, homeless men, blue collar men, union men, disabled men, minority men, gay men, men accused of crimes, "Johns" who seek services of sex workers, etc. It certainly wasn't conservatives who stopped the family courts from jailing men without hearings for nonpayment of child support. it was the liberal ACLU."
PK responds: Lessee here. In order:
low-income/blue collar men were discriminated against by affirmative action and are regarded by the left as "losers". Look at how Sarah Palin's family was treated!
Homeless men: I find it always strange at how the left proclaims that they're helping homeless men in one breath and then blaming the right for all the homeless men around in the other. Perhaps these homeless men could use some of those great VAWA shelters by Joe Biden. Oh, wait, of course not.
Union men: Yeah, look at the great job they did with the auto industry! Americans love buying shoddy cars made by $80 an hour guys. Also, we all benefit from union government workers who put their paycheck ahead of public safety.
Disabled men: I heard an anecdote from a disabled man who was unable to get a job but it was available to his daughter, under affirmative action, as a woman daughter of a disabled man. He sends you his thanks.
Gay men: Granted, a significant Democrat special interest voting bloc that the Right refused to embrace. Note that most of the real money shot benefits will go to lesbians (free daycare, etc.)
Criminals: Yep, when it comes to pandering for votes even to criminals, Osama Bin Laden firmly endorsed Barack Obama!
In conclusion, any "help" the left offered men was only a side effect of them pandering to special interest groups that men happened to belong to. For the most part, the damage to society ultimately harmed men's interests more along with the very women and other groups they pandered to. Obama's campaigns to improve housing in Chicago are a dismal failure but they sure helped line the pockets of his buddies...
January 20th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I understand he flubbed his oath of office. If that happened to GW or Sarah Palin, they'd be laughing at him as "stupid" and hurling shoes at him.
Reap what you sow, Obama and enjoy the glowing Stalinist coverage while it lasts.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I'm not sure that he flubbed the oath. The little stumble is of no consequence, but to leave alter the oath to qualify "defend' with "endeavor to defend to the best of my ability" sounds like shysterly double talk.Then he omitted "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Whose mistake was it, his or Chief Justice Roberts? Or was it intentional?
January 20th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
After looking it up, the only omission was "faithfully." "Against all enemies---" is not in the Constitution.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
For all the young boys who have grown up or are growing up in single-mother households, Obama's life story shows them how to come from those circumstances and still be a strong man. That is an inspiration to all young boys and men.
*
January 20th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I've never seen a Presidential candidate get his ass kissed by the media more than Barack Obama. Take away his skin tone and age him 15-20 years, and you get Joe Biden.
Obama/Biden will be no different from Bush/Cheney. Mark my words: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
January 20th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
"For all the young boys who have grown up or are growing up in single-mother households, Obama's life story shows them how to come from those circumstances and still be a strong man. That is an inspiration to all young boys and men."
I happen to agree. And even a family that is handicapped by absense of one parent can still be "strong" in the circumstances, like mine was. I was raised by my dad from age 14 upward and we still were strong in the circumstances. Obama does not encourage single-parent familes. He says we need two parents and he inspires strength in the circumstances, even if he blames single parenthood on dads just as Republicans do.
Like it or not, he is inspirational to millions, particularly black men who mostly felt nothing but dispair coming from Bush. Right wingers can scream all they want about "big government" but to me it's hypocritical, as the Republicans are just as much "big government" as Democrats, except Reps prefer spend their billions on wars over illusory WMDs or supporting pro-U.S. dictators while people like Obama God forbid would rather spend it on infrastructure, jobs, hospitals, schools, health care, environment., etc. within the U.S. That's not a tough choice for me even if Obama does cater to feminists way too much. It so happens men make the vast majority of the homeless, dropouts, early deaths, etc. who need those programs and infrastructure more than anyone, and much more than they need to be sent off to war.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I just watched a recording of the swearing in of Obama and it was Roberts who blew it, not Obama.
And I agree with Marc 100% on his observations re. Republicans vs. Democrats vis-a-vis "big government." Republicans have thrown men under the bus every bit as much as Democrats have, they just do it for ostensibly different reasons (e.g., chivalry).
January 20th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
The guy has got four years, I now Jesus did his in three, but he raised the dead, made the blind to see, and cripples to walk, and he did not have to work through a Democratic Congress with the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Personally think it will be a miracle if he can get anything done for the nation, let alone fathers.
JT
January 20th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
We've got to use our congressional reps and local people to do what is necessary for fatherhood. The Washington and State politicians including the executive branchs don't dictate what we are to do locally. Do great things on the local level to get them involved in positive examples of responsible fatherhood. Then tell them to take these ideas to Washington or to the State. To change punitive legislative approaches toward responsible fatherhood we have to work to make them get it. Create FATHER speak outs etc. How are they to know unless ordinary fathers speak out. Lets focus on organizing fathers and force the change and not complain about what someone in power didn't do...
"By For and About Father"...lets work to empower fathers as a top priority!
January 20th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
One of Australia's major TV networks had it on live. We don't do that for OUR OWN parliaments!
What a joke. The most boring TV presentation I can possibly imagine. The most inane commentary I've ever heard from a bunch of the most incredibly ditzy women.
It may have some relevance and interest to US viewers but I'm seriously offended at it being shoved down our throats.
Frankly I'd rather watch a slug race.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
James Says:
January 20th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
"To change punitive legislative approaches toward responsible fatherhood we have to work to make them get it. Create FATHER speak outs etc. How are they to know unless ordinary fathers speak out. "
Sorry James, I was under the impression going to work every day paying taxes, keeping the house and yard in repair, playing with the kids, helping clean the house, and not to mention avoiding chasing loose women, getting drunk every night, gambling away the money might have been enough to give a clue, but I do confess to rolling my eyes and not doing the laundry the way she wanted, so I guess like the millions of other hard working men it will never be enough that our government abide by its basic agreement with the people that we are all equal before the law and stop pandering to special interest groups which do nothing but subvert the common good.
Did I make it clear we do not need any more laws or legislation, special or otherwise, those on the books will do. What needs is for them to be obeyed.
JT
January 20th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
In response to the person who responded to my comment. I've got stuff to do to ...but..collectively we have to change the way these people view fatherhood, I care about that. I don't know about you but in my community this is not just an individual thing, What about all the positive things that we do, crime watch and security, taking kids to school, and the 1,000 other positive things that fathers like you do. In my community, fatherhood perception is based on a lot of negative things like you named, in fact you described my father. You are correct to not expect Gov. to solve the problem, I don't either..if you got my drift it was about the need to come together to see what our common challenges in our own community are. Maybe you can't do it but support (morally) those that can.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
James,
I agree perception is the problem, but not in the way you think. Perception is the problem because we use it in place of facts, and then implement policies that are based on what we want to believe, rather than what can be known.
It is precisely the reason we have such things as innocent until proven guilty because it is a logical impossibility to arrive at any other answer to a question then the one we assume to already know. The only assumption that works is to assume nothing is known, innocent until proven guilty.
The same for due process, if we skip steps to finding facts we are racing to the conclusion we wanted all along.
Every social injustice exist because these are neglected.
To make matters worse they use courts of equity, money judgments, so as to deny all the proceeding of a court of law, leaving the person defenseless, then make judgments as punitive as if they were courts of law.
No fault divorce as contributed significantly to this. SInce no fault divorce is an oxymoron, divorce means to divide and no fault claims nothing was broken. How can you get two piece from one, if nothing is broken? Another logical impossibility
Any since abandonment of reason is necessary for this to work, no one should expect reason to remain at all in these courts and did does not.
Changing perceptions without changing facts only allows bigotry, bias and prejudice to exist in another form with some other group.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
John Taylor
Thank you expressing these ways to address the challenges fathers experience. that we should go after with force and conviction.
I appreciate your opinion and insight.
James
January 20th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Mr. Obama seems like a fair-minded and practical individual who truly wishes to do an excellent job, and doesn't try to win by creating false evils like so many politicians do.
Much of what has been done to men in general and fathers in particular in this country has been done through the creation of false evils.
He has made clear that he understands that there are also many false either/or-type choices which tend to drive bad decision making and bad law-making in America.
He seems to comprehend such concepts as the notion that in fact, children can be well cared for AND have a father who has not been sold into slavery.
He seems to see the value in kicking the legs out from under these false either/or choices which have been used to justify so much extreme and absurd legislation in America.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
AP, I hope that what you say seems to be, is. But I must say "Amen," to John Taylors observations..
January 20th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
In addition to my previous comment (#58), I must stress also that Joe Biden is a superdad. He singlehandedly raised his children for several years while being a senator, commuting back and forth between Delaware everyday.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:01 am
"In addition to my previous comment (#58), I must stress also that Joe Biden is a superdad. He singlehandedly raised his children for several years while being a senator, commuting back and forth between Delaware everyday."
I appreciate that and I even appreciated his comment during the debate that "what's this thing that just because I'm a man I don't know how to raise a child." But that really doesn't detract from what he did with VAWA. He intentionally blocked serious researchers like Straus from testifying and instead put feminist advocates up there to support his biased language and his leaving out any safeguards against false accusations. The American Indian portion excludes Indian men and the bias of the title speaks for itself. I cannot respect him even if he is a superdad.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:09 am
Well, if you are watching all of the major news outlets, it would seem that "fashion" is at least as important as the troubles that are facing this country. To say all of the time spent on the clothing that Michelle (or anyone else) wore is annoying would be an understatement.
January 21st, 2009 at 10:05 am
Biden, heroically taking the train and going to Home Depot
Etherspirit, go to amtrak.com and download the northeast corrider 1 schedule. The train between Delaware and DC is about 1 hour, 10 minutes. The Capital is a walk across the street from Union station (assuming he walked.)
Yes, I know Biden thinks it's heroic to (gasp) take a 1 hour TRAIN ride for work but the reality is that many men commute about that time everyday. Average commutes in this area are about 40 minutes. What a ham!
January 21st, 2009 at 10:17 am
AnonymousPamphleteer Says: "Mr. Obama seems like a fair-minded and practical individual who truly wishes to do an excellent job, and doesn't try to win by creating false evils like so many politicians do."
PK responds: This is what he was nodding his head to in solemn prayer during his inauguration: ""Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen"
Obama himself then threw out a load of hallmark nonsense including "put away childish things" and bashed America as ungenerous and unconcerned about suffering in the world before he graced us with his presence.
With the unpopularity of GW overall and McCain with his own party and massive white guilt, Obama could have read the phone book and enraptured his supporters chanting 'yes we can" "o-bam-a" and "change" and that's pretty much what he did. I did find this promise from him rather interesting. It was one of the few snippets of actual policy or direction he provided: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government"
Er, this is from the guy whose successor was put into office by a Governor soliciting bribes and then used the race card to shove his way into a senatorial seat. Who just proposed a nearly trillion dollars worth of "stimulus" spending which is nearly all pork barrel vote-buying politics. In other words, don't hold your breath either as an American or as a father.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
This Hussein guy is a fraud. We are in so much trouble.
January 21st, 2009 at 10:28 pm
"Positive: Obama's Responsible Fathers Act will allow low income fathers' child support to go directly to the mothers and their children, instead of the state. Research shows this helps bring fathers closer to their children because they feel they're being allowed to provide for them directly. The Act will also expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and provide fathers with job training services"
But these are all essentially welfare and pork-barrell measures that only inadvertantly help some men who are able to attach themselves to other designated victim groups.
The problem with measures favoring low-income fathers is that there is no reason why fathers who work long hours and are not therefore low-income should be penalised.
Most evidence also shows that job training programs produce little benefit, and are largely a waste of taxpayers money. That is because most job skills can only be learned through actual experience in the workforce, not through some government Mickey Mouse program. Also, the biggest barrier towards employment for some people is not simply work skills, but basic social skills, presentation, even hygiene. These things are only really learned through social interaction and personal responsibility.
Rather than wasting money on job training programs, it would make more sense to reduce regulations and costs to employers so they will employ more people.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
"Positive: Obama's Responsible Fathers Act will allow low income fathers' child support to go directly to the mothers and their children, instead of the state. Research shows this helps bring fathers closer to their children because they feel they're being allowed to provide for them directly. The Act will also expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and provide fathers with job training services"
As a one-time tax examiner, EIC will not help most non-custodial dads. What would be just, but isn't anywhere in sight, is to allow child support to be deducted on income taxes! We have just suffered a massive defeat and the only question is what can, or will, we do?
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Dad Bashing seems to be the flavor of the day, for te past 30 years in the federal and state congresses. When will we stop talking about poverty every time the child support issue comes up? The vast majority of the rip-off takes place in the middle class income brackets, where the court guarentees that if mom decides to get a new life, she cankick dad out with a few false accusations, or just prove that they do not get along in most courts, she will get half of all of the family assets, including the kids college funds, half the value of the house, and a substantial after tax check for about a decade or more.
We need to ask why in the Federal Guideline, it can be assumed that she is putting up her part of the support, and it is assumed that 100% of all support is used on the child, yet dad's part is tracked to the penny, and he is thrown in jail if late too often. Is the 14th ammendment still in effect in the US. Can my rights described in the Preamble to the US Constitution be surplanted to force me to support someone else at a higher lifestyle than I can live at myself. IS the 13th ammendment violated here when I am forced to live lower than the person who gets my take home pay?
January 25th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Obama is a puppet of the New World Order. The bashing od Dads was required to force men away from the women and children so that they would not fight and die to defend them in the coming WW III and marshal law in the US. I feel sorry for you guys in the US..you are going to be first to taste the New World Order closely followed by the UK.
Feminism globally was injected into society by the NWO/Elite. Aaron Russo comments that he was told directly by Nick Rockefeller that the Rockefeller foundation supported feminism to get women into the work force to increase taxes as well as get the children into school and to see the state as the authority.
JD Rockefeller was selected by Nixon in 1970 to head up the Commission for Population Growth (meaning decline) and in 1972 when the commission reported back they recommended 'equal rights' legislation be pushed through. In 1974 at the world population conference in Bucharest Romania many of the recommendations were about 'equal rights' and one recommendation was even to 'ensure' women participate on an 'equal' meaning equal outcome basis with men...the reason for this was to reduce the number of births and therefore reduce population growth.
Another was to 'raise the status of women'....and since they can't do that they have to 'lower the status of men'. All the things you have been seeing about 'man bashing' for the last 30 years has been official policy olf the NWO implemented by their lackeys in government. And it is going to get much worse yet. Men fight and die for their freedom and rights.....so the NWO is getting ready to do much worse than the make bashing they have engaged in so far...much worse indeed.
January 31st, 2009 at 5:35 pm
If anyone is waiting for a "mere politician" to do something about the travesty and injustice of the family court system, then they are waiting for ships that don't come in. Politicians are the ones primarily responsible for the system being the God awful mess that it is, you would have to be an idiot to believe they are going to clean it up. Politicians are political creatures who have reacted to the current political environment, women, liberal and other "man haters" have hijacked the legal system. They did this by putting pressure on these politicians, ie demonstrated and protested and told the politicians, "vote for all the goodies and benefits we want and we will keep electing you to office.
This works and obviously, the fathers right/mens rights / family law reform groups or whatever you want to call us, need to do the samething! Do the numbers, we outnumber and out finance the "man haters", if we organize and ally together, those politicians we suddenly have something new to vote for . It will be vote for laws that restore the balance, laws that hold women to the same legal standard as men have always had to follow, take away special rights just for women or give men the same legal rights as women. Once the balance is restored, the major problems in this country will lessen considerably.
But politicians, will only move if a big enough force is applied to them. Once, we make it painfully apparent to those politicians, vote for laws and reforms we like, or lose your "cushy little job". That will get their attention. Even after we start ,it will take awhile and a few of the hard headed bastards will have to end up on the unemployment line for the message to get accross, but it will happen, You see,politicans know little and care little for the basic concept of " right and wrong" they only understand power. They don't do anything because it is right, only if it gets them elected and they keep getting reelected.
We can start to push back the system , by doing what I have already started to do. That is, learn the law. I have beaten the family court terrorist several times by capitolizing on their ignorance ot the law and the stupid mistakes they make. We have a common law system and these bastards have to obey it, whether they like it or not. The courts , corrupt as they are, also have to follow the law and you can force them to respect your rights and force them to make the women and the state abid by and respect your rights. The bottom line is, we can not depend on anyone to restore our rights and status as parents, we have to do it.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I completely agree with Robert Stevens. I don't want to drift away from the original subject but educating yourself (If one cannot afford an attorney) is an extremely effective way to fight back. Plus it empowers the individual and transforms him from a legal victim to a warrior.
I am seriously considering opening a "Divorce School" in Pensacola FL. It will be a 16-hour basic skills course aimed at the inexperienced pro'se father. I have (and continue to) fought the system for over three years and have learned most of my lessons the hard way.
Once you make a mistake early on in a case, it becomes exponentially difficult to recover from it, if at all possible.
I would have given anything early on, when I was starting out, to have someone show me the ropes and help me. I have become seasoned in family law and I now volunteer my services to people I know who are in the same shoes I once was. We could make a big difference if everyone who is experienced helps just one other person.
I'm hoping to start small (Class size 10-12) sometime 2010.
Is there anything like this out there?? I can be reached at 850-393-2214
James Kelly, Pensacola FL
February 16th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
James, wtih the extreme bias in the law what I recommend married men do is get as much money out of the country to a safe place as possible. Get the right to live somewhere else. And on the day that the wife says she wants a divorce leave and never, ever come back. This approach is the best approach for any man today. Sad but true. I didn't have any money but I left. I was not well and fought through courts for 3 months for the right to even have the phone number of my children and was denied. Alas my health failed me and I took some time to recover. I do not recommend what I went through to any man. It is just too damaging.
If our society does not want fathers then fathers should leave and not come back until it is safe for them to do so. Enough men do this and the message will soon be clear for all to see. The elite are banking on men being selfless and doing their best for their kids. Though it is noble. This is a mistake because it perpetuates the problem.
If EVERY abused father in the world stopped paying his 'child support' and went to jail in protest we would solve this problem in a week. Because so many men who are abused fathers do so many of the critical jobs in our society it would cease to function inside 24 hours. All we need to do to stop this nonsense is for every non-custodial father to go on strike until his right to father his child/children is re-instated. This is one proposal I have. No rights to father our children? No right to our labour. Period. You can't put 20M men in america in jail. It doesn't work.
I now say to men "get your money out of your country before your county gets your money out of you."
February 17th, 2009 at 7:47 am
right but its perhaps the second best of all evil backwards choices, the best of the wordt is to stay in touch with your children, out of jail and then again keep going over and over again !!! Imagine if we would all act so, being a father is option, being a father is no choice ...
February 21st, 2009 at 3:03 am
Glen, here are the facts:
1) Men are not a large political lobby like Feminists are and have been since the 1970s. The have had corporate sponsorship for decades!
2) Men are only just beginning to emerge and express their concerns via the Internet
3) The double standards of gender are slowly beginning to emerge, yet many men are afraid of being called cry-babies and wimps. This is because women know men like her sex, and don't want to be called wimps or cry babies.
4) American men must simply organize a political social agenda and now just become whining cry babies.
5) If all the school shootings were done by GIRLS instead of confused and depressed BOYS, then the Feminists would turn this country unpside down!!!!
February 24th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Who is our leader? Who will organize this effort? Where is our Susan B Anthony? Where is our Martin Luther King Jr? There is common ground between the father's rights activists; as such we can find unity. A social reform is needed, and the time is now. The reality is, this social reform, or at least any significant actions of this social reform, would take only weeks if men (and women) with common beliefs were lead into a mass protest. This is only possible with numbers, otherwise the individual risk is too great.
As painful as the concept sounds, we must risk going on strike, as Dad's, collectively, until we are provided with EQUAL access to our children. I'm not saying disappear. I'm saying boldly standup and send the message that “I am here and available to continue serving as a father, once my value is recognized and once my rights are guaranteed by law.” And we must make clear that this peaceful protest is the better alternative to a violent uprising which many believe is as justified as the revolutionary war. I’ve heard this…..
I'm saying refuse to exercise our custodial time and instead protest on the steps of the court houses, at the front doors of your local assemblymen's offices, at the entrances to your children's schools, at the offices of family lawyers (many of whom, and probably the best of whom, should carry a burden for fixing this broken system on which they’ve preyed). Let us file hundreds of thousands of legal motions for joint physical custody at the same time, and let us prepare to proceed pro se with only our own support. Let us overwhelm the broken system. Let us publically track our efforts.
We must reflect upon the “best interest of the child” standard. The best interest standard is a fabrication, a mere tool to mask the gender bias. As fathers, our actions dictate the best interests of the child, as much as the mother’s, and certainly more than any Judge’s can. That is, if we make the choices that are available to us. Only through our collective protest will we make this message clear. It is not until we can amass such support and take such bold actions will we ever change the system. It is a simple civil rights issue that will not be resolved until we decide to resolve it. If we've learned anything from successful civil rights campaigns, it is that we must protest in extreme numbers and through extreme actions to effect social change. We have the internet, and therefore have the potential to make mass change in minimal time, by organizing the effort.
The concept is this, we know that the time we spend with our child(ren) is the most important time in the world, despite what our opponents state. We must be willing to sacrifice that which is most dear to us, if we are ever to bring sufficient attention to change this disgraceful system. You can’t take from us that which we are willing to sacrifice for the possibility of a greater future. If all were equal, there would be no reason to fight. There would be less pain for all, most importantly our children. The best interest of the child can only be derived from what is collectively in the best interest of the parents. That cannot exist when the father’s interests are ignored.
Today, the state laws allow complete discretion to the Judges, and the Judges abuse their discretion by aligning their rulings with what they believe society wants. This will only change when we demand it.
Recall, not too long ago, the smartest people in our country believed that women shouldn't vote, and African Americans shouldn't be free, or later, shouldn't be integrated with white people. There were many studies, and complex arguments, supporting the status quo, but they all dissolved under notions of basic civil rights. A Legislator can no longer make a law that allows a Judge to decide that a particular woman can't vote, or a particular African American should be a slave. Similarly, we must arrive at the point where a legislator can't permit a law to exist which allows a Judge to decide which parent can have more time with their child.
We must not be afraid to explain to our children that at one point in time, men believed women shouldn't vote. And that over time, most realized this was wrong; and the laws changed. And that at one point, African Americans were owned by white people, but over time, this too came to be viewed as the most immoral of systems. And now, there is a family court system that believes mothers are better fit to be custodial parents, and should have more time with their child(ren) then fathers do, but in time this too will change. It will change because the human conscience will demand that it change. We must not be afraid to explain to our children that there were hero's who took bold actions, sometimes actions that were difficult to understand, in an effort to right wrongs. To right wrongs like those mentioned above. And that these people are hero's because they did so in the face of opposition, in the face of people who criticized their position or their methods (And make no mistake, we will be criticized.) They took risk. When we are collectively ready to take action, let us explain to our children, that their fathers MUST do what they are doing, because it is the only way for a moral father to achieve true happiness, and the only way we can guarantee that future father’s and children can have peace. That is, effect this necessary change.
Many know that any public efforts to criticize the family law system will only result in less time with our children anyway (Right? Fear of this is what has silenced the majority of us.) When we have sufficient numbers of committed fathers, we should seek our children’s support, even if they are only children. Martin Luther King didn’t hide his efforts from his children and neither should we hide our efforts from ours. We have morality on our sides. We just need to collectively recognize it. Let us tailor our message towards our children, with consideration for their ages, but we cannot let “those in the system” use our children against us any longer. We must be willing to face the inevitable cries from the opposition that will say we are just demonstrating that we don’t really love our children. On the contrary, we KNOW that we love our children, but we must hold firm. Let no one define the meaning of our actions for us. We know the truth.
We don’t need to speak loudly, or offer complex social arguments as to why this change is necessary. That would only dilute the moral clarity of the cause. We need only a leader, and a large group of followers, who are willing to take bold actions.
Who is our leader? Who will organize this effort?
Let us assemble, let us choose a leader, let us plan our strategy, and let us make ourselves available for action when called upon!
Maybe I should extend to you all an invitation to my next pro se hearing. Perhaps I will hear from a family lawyer who believes in this message who would attempt to help me achieve, pro bono, what my previous five lawyers refused to even try (after consuming my collective investment in them of $50,000.)
I recognize many of these ideas are not as organized as they could be, but it is what I’ve arrived at, stream of consciousness, in my first public blog.
I welcome your thoughts. naughtonjm@comcast.net.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:00 am
I welcome very much the message of naughj21 and especially the phrase at least as I interpretate it, to stop with work&custody and to go fight for equality with all you've got even untill death! The time with your children is very important but, when it comes to counting the time without your children is most important because its so alienating and damaging (also the 12/14 days without your kids) and the fathersuffering is horrible, the children suffer too but they have to go to court themselves when they're 18 to cash the(shock)damage done!
February 25th, 2009 at 5:45 am
thereby I recall the total bentdown in 2008 of both Canadian and Australian government regarding the assimilation of children because western civilisation was holy!
April 6th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
This goverment should practice what they preach. do ya know in massachusetts the state dont pay for state kids or foster kids tell there 23 years old but they force divorced fathers to pay for school tell a kid is 23 years old . they also dont force married people to put there 19-23 year old kids trew collage THIS IS DISCRIMINATION AND A VIOLATION OF OUR RIGHTS AND WERES OUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:00 am
[...] What Will the Obama Presidency Mean for Fathers? [...]