Federal Government's Website on Fatherhood a Surreal Experience
June 28th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.On June 20th, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a press release describing a new "public service campaign...promoting fatherhood." The press release directs readers to the website www.fatherhood.gov, and breathlessly promises a public service announcement by none other than President Obama himself. Needless to say, that was an offer I couldn't refuse.
When I went to the site, I discovered it was the home of something called the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse. And, much as I would expect from a site with that name, I found pablum - the shallowest, most out-of-touch-with-reality ideas of fatherhood and the barriers to father involvement imaginable. Obama's 30-second PSA is skin-deep, essentially an exhortation to fathers to take their children to the zoo and help them with homework. Michelle Obama's message is no better.
The message is simple; fathers are good for children, therefore, responsible fathers will spend time with them and everyone will be better off. Surrounding this message on every side is the subtext of "responsibility," i.e. if a father isn't actively involved in his kid's life, he's at fault. He's just irresponsible and, if he cared about his child, he'd man up and do the right thing. In short, it's the standard narrative of male perfidy that omits all mention of family laws and court practices that doggedly separate fathers from children. And there's no mention of maternal gatekeeping that marginalizes fathers, sometimes from the first hours of a child's life.
But...
Look further on the site. Go to the library of publications and a whole new world opens before you. The publications the site links to aren't many and they're not up to date, but they paint an entirely different picture of fatherhood and the many barriers fathers face in trying to establish and maintain relationships with their children. There are scholarly publications on maternal gatekeeping, programs to enhance non-custodial parents' access to children, an article by Kathryn Edin about young, poor fathers and others.
In short, once a visitor to the site gets past the bumper-sticker phrases about responsible fatherhood, there's a lot of real information by (dare i say it?) responsible social scientists to be had.
And the juxtaposition of the two is mind-bending. It's the same thing we see every day. We know the truth; we read the massive amounts of social science that shows us the incontovertible fact that fathers strongly desire close relationships with their children, but are thwarted by a bewildering array of laws, policies and practices that seem to be based on a complete ignorance of well-established facts.
To listen to the president of the United States intone the mantra of responsible fatherhood, cheek-by-jowl with the real information about everything we do to prevent that very thing verges on the surreal. The site neatly, if inadvertently, catches the deeply contradictory nature of our public discourse and our public policies on fatherhood.
"));
19 queries. 0.376 seconds.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Robert Franklin wrote: To listen to the president of the United States intone the mantra of responsible fatherhood, cheek-by-jowl with the real information about everything we do to prevent that very thing verges on the surreal. The site neatly, if inadvertently, catches the deeply contradictory nature of our public discourse and our public policies on fatherhood.
Meh, maybe. The PSAs from the president and the first lady are really just window dressing. As you noted, the real content is in all the other links and sections of that website.
It should be noted that this website is aimed primarily at "Primarily a tool for professionals operating Responsible Fatherhood programs". The website is obviously available to the general public but it does not appear to be specifically targetted at ordinary people.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
The powers that be are well aware of the dichotomy of what may safely be said publicly about men and fathers and what is really going on. The question is what significance do they give that contradiction and what might they consider doing about it, if anything? That can only be answered by their actions. Obama at least talks about fathers, which is more than his predecessor ever did. And he produces a web site which, if covered with the conventional gloss, at least acknowledges the truth by linking to it. These can only be good signs. Doublethink is par for the course in this game, and it's the only game in town...
June 28th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I don't know. A site that offers the standard talking points about how fathers should be more responisble for their kids, accusing them of being guilty from the get go, then links to sites that give a bigger picture than the main page itself refuses to offer.
Something's not right here.
Sounds more like the webpage only offered those links to appease the people who object to their mantras as if to appear they are listening to them. Meanwhile, the president and first lady's speeches laying the guilt on fathers are allowed to take up bandwidth anyway. In short, they lay the guilt on fathers as their faux empathy exonorates them from accusations of slander.
It's the ultimate double talk.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Eagle31, did you actually read past the first few pixels of the www.fatherhood.gov website?!?
If you did, you'll quickly see there are plenty of information and links that are positive for fathers, and as Mr. Franklin wrote, there is plenty of social science information is present as well.
So before you accuse anyone of "double talk", please at least take the time to look through the website and see for yourself what is, and isn't, there.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
looks like political junk
June 28th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Politicians may be learning that the only way you can help men, is if it’s not
seen as done at the expense of women. I’ve read feminists who acknowledge
that boys are having a harder time at school than girls, while denying that that
has anything to do with gov’t education program monies being geared more
toward girls than boys.
Maybe none of you have noticed but female supremacists hate anytime tax
money is spent on men or boys. Tax money is for the exclusive use of women
and girls.
Sharon
June 28th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
We can quibble all we like about the inadequacies of the window dressing, such as the public service announcements.
But frankly, I'm just glad that the federal government publishes a website whose primary topic is fathers! That's a huge step forward for fathers rights, in my view.
June 28th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Perhaps Mr. Obama recognizes that he was also abandoned by his "mother", who, it is reported, sent him to be raised by her parents in 1971 while she remained in Jakarta, returning to Hawaii for some period, and then going back to Jakarta, again leaving Mr. Obama with her parents.
Mr. Obama might also have speculated that his mother's nature could have contributed to his father's decision to leave, i.e., to get away from her. And Mr. Obama might also be aware that his father had zero chance of getting custody of him in the America into which Mr. Obama had been born.
Mr. Obama, being a bright individual, might have speculated that the combination of self-serving women and an accommodating government who bows to the "mother" no matter how neurotic her behavior and decisions, could be the root cause of fatherlessness experiences of many American children.
But that's just speculation.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Knock Knock is right. I think Mr. Franklin has regrettably fallen prey to a tendency to automatically shoot first and ask questions later. He disparages a NATIONAL public address focusing on fathers, without regard to any of its positive effects. I understand that this public service announcement is not all that he would like to see. However, LOGICALLY speaking, in order to get society to a point where it may begin to grasp the inequities facing fathers in family courts, people must first learn to care enough about the roles of fathers. Common sense, yes? As it stands now, the president could present all kinds of evidence of the injustices facing fathers, and all the response it would elicit from many citizens would be, "So? It's kind of sad, but it's not as though kids need dads as much as they do moms, anyway. Besides, most of those dads probably don't really care, or they would win in court." So, that myth must be addressed and debunked before anything else.
This site provides links to sources citing the need for fathers (thus, debunking the "fathers as loose change" myth), and the entire message is encouraging fathers to be involved. Well, regardless of whether such encouragement is redundant to fathers, the message is still being absorbed by society, with its attendant implication, that if fathers are being told to stay involved with their kids, then it really MUST be important.
If Mr. Franklin insists on applying a one dimensional analysis to the President's message, and only paying heed to it inasmuch as it presents fodder for his canon fire, that's his prerogative, of course. I do think it'd be more sensible to treat this, instead, as an educational tool, and an opportunity to keep fathers on the forefront of public consciousness. The more people hear about how fathers are so very important to their kids, the more credibility fathers' rights organizations will gain. And that, to me, is the most potent weapon of all. Advertisement!
June 29th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Rebekah,
Robert is right to correct what is a one dimensional view of fatherhood. To acerbically say that those in the fathers movement shouldn't offer criticism when fathers have been left out of the dialogue is nonsensical. I agree with Robert, a President who aligns with feminist groups and supports their views on gender issues, and conflates that to be the proper view deserves skepticism.
Mothers need to be addressed equally on involved parenting. Assuming that only fathers need this message aligns with the manipulation exercised by feminist groups and repeats that fathers are the bad irresponsible parents. If the focus is on fathers, it should be consistent with what groups surrounding fathers say, not what women are saying, because we aren't fathers. The ones that needs the message most about involved fathers is mothers. The administrations approach repeats the equality problem. Only men are held responsible, and women are not capable of being responsible.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Mona, you might re-read what I said. I did not say that Mr. Franklin was wrong to "correct what is a one-dimensional view of fatherhood." What I said was, his analysis of the public address by President Obama was one-dimensional. Do you understand that those are two totally different things?
Mr. Franklin's entire summation of the project only focuses on the negative, and therefore appears to dismiss the entire thing, without regard to any potential positive effects, such as the fact that this is putting fatherhood front-and-center, on the map in the social consciousness. That is quite a departure from the "father-as-background-noise" mentality that is currently in vogue. That's very, very important.
The ones that needs the message most about involved fathers is mothers.
Yes, and while the administration is currently focused on fathers' responsibility alone, the fact is that the underlying message in all of this is that fathers are necessary. No matter what political spin is put on it, that central theme is what underlies the program, and it is that ideal that can effect the most change in our society's perceptions of fathers. It's ironic in that whatever some women supremacists may believe this program to be about, that one fact alone eradicates all other popular premises regarding child rearing.
This is fundamental: if fathers are necessary to the wellbeing of their children (and Pres. Obama's administration is saying, YES, THEY ARE), then it follows that we must work to keep the bonds between father and child intact. Now, initially, they are proceeding with the belief that fathers are not involved due to a lack of responsibility, or interest. Mr. Franklin is correct in pointing out the unfortunate tendency of the administration to proceed with an erroneous assumption. However, as this project continues, and stirs up more interest, and research, inevitably, certain truths will come to light. And that, in turn, will give rise to reform. But, it takes something to bring the issue to light, first. And that's what this project helps to do.
So, if anyone is using acerbic commentary here, it isn't me. Call me crazy, but I think it's short-sighted to simply "throw out the baby with the bath water" and shoot this project down so precipitously. There is an opportunity to use this to the advantage of fathers' rights organizations, if only one will consider it from all angles. Use all your tools, all your resources--even the ones the opposition unwittingly lends to your cause.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I do mostly agree with you, Rebekah... but what if it's an ugly baby? :-p
Joking aside, my introductory into awareness about men's rights was simply a scholarly curiosity about the antonym of misogyny. I can't help but seeing that possibility for other people out there, just as the former victims of family court see themselves in those possible victims-to-be.
Parents of both genders are important. It's commonly accepted that mothers are important, and perhaps, even with a misguided start, this president can help society remember how equally important fathers are.
June 29th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Rebekah,
I did read your post, and I was using your words on purpose by pointing out that Robert was commenting on what was a one dimensional view of the President. You criticized Robert for being one dimensional, but want to give the one dimensional message by the President a pass which doesn't make sense. It is important to not lose sight of the point that the attention on fathers by the President is based in a sexist, anti-male framework. The way truths come to light is by people writing about them. Robert is not throwing out the baby with the bath water, he is writing to bring the truths to light.
June 29th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I found the links on the site,and there are some good ones.But unfortunately,the customary mantra that fathers are to blame for "fatherlessness" and that they should "step up to the plate" dominates much of the site.The real reasons for fatherlessness are more hidden,except for what appears in some of the links.Rebekah doesnt get it.Its just like the media.We hear over and over that fathers should be responsible,but we dont hear about the anti-male policies that come between fathers and their desire to be "responsible" for their children.And of course,responsible motherhood never enters the discussion.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
You criticized Robert for being one dimensional, but want to give the one dimensional message by the President a pass which doesn't make sense.
Mona, you still must be reading something other than my post. Please note that no where did I state that this was only a good thing, or that there were no flaws to the program. In fact, I specifically stated that Mr. Franklin is correct that the premise that men don't want to be responsible fathers is false. Explain how that statement of mine jives with a wholly uniform view of the program?
It is important to not lose sight of the point that the attention on fathers by the President is based in a sexist, anti-male framework. The way truths come to light is by people writing about them.
Yes, however, if one solely focuses upon the negative on a situation like this, one runs the risk of tainting the cause with the unsavory tag of "angry, bitter, disenfranchised activist." You know, like how so many feminists come across? In my humble opinion, the best way to bring truths to light is to use reasoned arguments, (whether it's in written form, or in other types of media used) presented fairly, and buttressed by rock solid evidence. Eventually, even the loudest opponents will be silenced by a steady diet of facts. And of course, it helps to have a major platform from which to wage war in the battle of ideologies. That's what this program does--it opens the door, and gives voice to fathers everywhere.
Robert is not throwing out the baby with the bath water, he is writing to bring the truths to light
Perhaps. I still think it would be more effective to use one's voice to encourage many readers out there to figure out a way to exploit this thing for everything it's worth. Wring every last bit of usefulness out of it, then shuck it aside. Maybe that sounds ruthless or something, but like I said, use everything you've got, even the ammunition the other side gives you unknowingly.
::shrug:: But, it's not my blog, it's his; so I guess we'll just stay stuck on what's bad about the administration's pro-fathers initiative and leave it at that. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
And to Rubic: LOL on the ugly baby!
Yeah, this thing's ugly alright. ;) Would recommending plastic surgery be unethical?
The good thing about an ugly baby, is it does garner a lot of attention, and staring. Similarly, I think a lot of people view fathers' rights as a kind of freak show. Like, what kind of animal is that? And why do we need it? Good questions, though, that I'm hoping will be asked more and more frequently.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Rebekah doesnt get it.
What don't I get, Bob? That the ideal permeating this initiative is that fathers are irresponsible? I'm quite aware of that, and I agreed with Mr. Franklin that it is erroneous. My criticism of Mr. Franklin's post has to do with his apparently thorough dismissal of the program, without regard to any of the positive information, that you, yourself, have even noticed. I'm not lauding this program, or promoting it as some kind of godsend. I'm simply saying that to dismiss it out of hand is to pass up a potentially huge opportunity to use it as a launching pad for getting fathers' rights front-and-center.
Think of it this way: even when someone is being accused falsely of something, that accusation by itself, gives opportunity for the accused to respond. So, Pres. Obama says, "Fathers are important, and they must be more responsible." Fathers' rights organizations should now stand up and say, "Yes, we agree that fathers are VERY important; good for you for finally realizing that! But, it isn't a question of paternal responsibility, so much as it is a system-wide discrimination."
The resulting dialogue means many opportunities for the public to learn the facts.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Oh, and Mona, one last thing, and I'll be done. (Sorry for the serial posts.) I reread your last post, and it seems you are comparing President Obama's perspective (one-dimensional) with Mr. Franklin's. If that's the case, I don't disagree with you. I never said the administration's perspective was anything but exceedingly biased on this issue. I fully expect them to treat it with a very limited and simplistic mentality that "fathers are the problem." The fact that they have a bunch of female supremacists breathing down their necks probably has a lot to do with it.
It's for that reason I appreciate a less reactionary approach. I fully expect hard core extremists and misandrists to respond in a knee-jerk, one-dimensional fashion. Not so from logical folks.
Peace.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
I didn't even bother looking at the website in question. But, the existance of it is not a positive thing.
I had three children taken from me by mom and her new sheriff boyfriend. After three years of unrelenting harrassment from her and his employer, I consented to the childrens adoption by this sociopathic monster. Because he carried a badge and I was self employed, he was deemed amore fit party for the children to reside with. They had committed adultry(proven to court), grand theft(proven to court), property vandalism(proven to court), child endangerment(investigated by his own police department) and I was left holding the bag to the mess they had created. I had to allow this or I would be in prison for failure to comply with the court order to allow my children's abuse and endangerment.
I paid for all the legal expenses(both sides). Essentially, I was ordered by the sixth judicial circuit court of Pinellas county Florida, to sue myself for my beliefs of what is best for my own children. I have personally met other men who have documented proof that the judiciary, courts, police, child protective services, routinely abuse the laws when civil matters of custody are at issue.
I miss my kids so much it is nearly unbearable. When you think of what you might have to do for your kids. It should not include out-sourcing your role as a parent to them.
Maybe, someone who has the power and will to correct the daily injustices done against fathers might read this. Maybe they won't.
Maddisen, Sydney and Bradley - Your dad misses you every minute of every day. I love You!
Jason LaCroix
Treasure Island Florida
June 30th, 2009 at 12:46 am
From New York: Less than 2 weeks ago I attended an expensively organized government-sponsored program at the famous Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem promoting "Fatherhood." It was astonishing. 100% of the subject matter had to do with child support collection. 0% had to do with the benefits of being a fully integrated father, a fully integrated child or any of the other many issues that deal with fatherhood. What the govt is up to is an effort to reduce welfare costs and reduce prison costs while at the same time setting up all-powerful surveillance and enforcement of low wage employment for fathers who will be herded around into various "programs" including "supervised vistiation" facilities where they can learn to be dads-on-a-leash but not genuine providers/teachers/nurturers for their children.. The future for a clear majority of low income fathers is to be this: conform to your low-pay employers' demands or else your employers can stick you in jail -- and the govt will keep you there until you have been "re-educated."
June 30th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Government and family are natural enemies. More broken families means bigger government to fill that role. Fathers are the weak link in the family, both politcially and because while its often a choice for mothers, fathers absolutely must work, almost always outside the home. I don't expect to see any real progress towards equal rights for fathers or concern for their children until we have a government bent on reducing its own size. Obama is the opposite, bent on government control over every aspect of our lives or worse. Without checking the latest garbage being served up by fatherhood.gov (an oxymoron in and of itself), I'm certain any links to any real facts about the plethora of barriers to fatherhood are mere window dressing meant to dissuade any truth-tellers from presenting a barrier to the largest expansion of government size and control in history.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Government and family are natural enemies. More broken families means bigger government to fill that role. Fathers are the weak link in the family, both politcally and because while its often a choice for mothers, fathers absolutely must work, almost always outside the home. I don't expect to see any real progress towards equal rights for fathers or concern for their children until we have a government bent on reducing its own size. Obama is the opposite, bent on government control over every aspect of our lives or worse. Without checking the latest garbage being served up by fatherhood.gov (an oxymoron in and of itself), I'm certain any links to any real facts about the plethora of barriers to fatherhood are mere window dressing meant to dissuade any truth-tellers from presenting a barrier to the largest expansion of government size and control in history.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I recently contacted the TX HHS, again, about the problem I've had for years in getting visitation orders enforced, or even being allowed to know where my child is at and who he's with since his mother was jailed on drug charges.
I've never been able to get the judge to take any action and have been ignored in all attempts made and letters written to many, many representatives, agencies and organizations.
I was told I'd have to go through Child Support Enforcement (of all places), that they're responsible for adding names of missing parents to the National Missing Parent Locator List. I contacted the CSE again, as I had previously been told they can't help me because my ex lived in a different state. So it goes around and around in circles.
anyway, I explained to them that I'm a NCP registered with them, and I have been unable to find my child for two years. Tthe mother has been in contempt of visitation orders for most of the past sixl years. First off they wanted my SS# then they said "hire a private investigator".
I explained that I couldn't afford to again hire a private investigator, as I had done that and also spent thousands hunting them down the past few years, but without the judge being willing to take action to enforce his own orders it was useless.
I then asked if her name could be put on the National Missing Parent Locator list as the TXHHS indicated, and they actually laughed at me. I mistakenly thought that list was also to find a parent that is hiding a child from the other parent, and is in cotempt of court oders. It seems it's only for locating fathers owing child support so that's why I was laughed at.
So I can be put on that list fr being in arrears on child support, for a child who nobody seems to be interested in helping me locate, but my ex can't be put on it for hiding my child from me and violating visitation and contact orders for several years.
I'd LOVE to take my child to the zoo, I'd love to just be allowed to know where he's at, who he's living with and maybe talk to him on the phone. I'd be thrilled to just once have my visitation orders enforced after I've search for and found my child, instead of knowing it's a total waste of time, emotions and money.
I'd love to be allowed to be a father to my son, to fill this gaping hole in my soul and his, and feel half alive again.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:28 am
DcFather knows what he is talking about. We are dealing with a Family vs. Govt scenario. This why it is so problematic that the "Fathers's Rights Movement" sometimes overlaps with the "Men's movement" (similar to "Men's liberation of the 70s-80s). A libertarian version of the men's movement includes fathers' rights but groups this with such interests as: reforming drug laws, porn laws, prostitution laws and "gay rights." Thus this version of a "men's movement" ideology promotes rights for men as long as their families are broken without being pro-family, it promotes better access for boys to character-weakening immediate gratification behavior such as porn, prostitution and drugs (which is self-POISONING). One of the ressons that fathers' rights as a movement is so poorly organized is that it comprises mostly people who are trying to deal with coping with their own irretrievably broken families and thus do not offer an attractive prospect to the more general pro-family movement. This is a conundrum: if we were to succeed in making "joint custody"-type broken families into a mainstream phenomenon while at the same time allowing a morally bankrupt pop culture of non-stop porn, consumerism, intoxication, promiscuity, and narcisstic fantasy to remain mainstream aren't we then essentially guaranteeing the continued proliferation of out-of wedlock birth, violence (including abortion), divorce, STD, dependence-on-therapy etc?
On the Obama issue. We can ignore Obama. The anti-family engineering we are being hammered by was in place long before he came along. He will do as he is told. He is bought and paid for, just like Bush. The family policies of the fed govt (and big business and universities) will remain the same regardless of the identity of the name of the front man.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Rebekah
The problems I have with a site such as this is that all the positive information is hidden in links, forcing everyone who likes to see things from both angles to get out their magnifying glasses and search. Positive obscured by the negative.
Now, would you see this on a government website for programs directed to women and mothers? No. Everything positive is directed to the forefront with very little negative. It's a double-standard. That's what galls me.
Equality for me means changing it around where BOTH mothers and fathers are extolled for their positive contributions and encouraged to work on their negative aspects that are unproductive towards raising children. However, this site doesn't adhere to this so we're back to square one again. If it did, we wouldn't be getting video footage of the president and the first lady implying that fathers are to blame for the mess they're in, period. Again, would you see these sorts of videos on a government website for women and mothers?
If there's positivity in fathers, I'd rather not be forced to comb a heystack for it.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Eagle31
Good point. The purpose of the "positive" info is simple. The govt bureaucrats are intent on giving the appearance of "balance." But the govt bureaucrats are fully aware that the anti-family elite has enourmous reseaources and cannot be countered by the resistance because the resistance has little money and no power. What will happen is that the elite will constantly engage us in "dialog" and will give us opportunities to "have our voices heard" and will let us "express our concerns." This charade will take up most of our time and resources, keeping us too busy to develop an effective resistance movement.
Take a look at how our side speaks. We are almost always "reactive." We rweact in real time against whatever is happening at the moment. We "express" ourselves, but few of us do more than that. And crucially, we have no accurate historical knowledge of the matters we are discussing and therefore are always stuck in the reactive defensive position -- and we will continue to be led by the nose in the battle, always reacting to the opposition's tactics, never leading the battle with our own effective long-term well-informed realiistic strategy (backed up by necessary resources).
June 30th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Eagle31
Good point. The purpose of the "positive" info is simple. The govt bureaucrats are intent on giving the appearance of "balance." But the govt bureaucrats are fully aware that the anti-family elite has enourmous reseaources and cannot be countered by the resistance because the resistance has little money and no power. What will happen is that the elite will constantly engage us in "dialog" and will give us opportunities to "have our voices heard" and will let us "express our concerns." This charade will take up most of our time and resources, keeping us too busy to develop an effective resistance movement.
Take a look at how our side speaks. We are almost always "reactive." We rweact in real time against whatever is happening at the moment. We "express" ourselves, but few of us do more than that. And crucially, we have no accurate historical knowledge of the matters we are discussing and therefore are always stuck in the reactive defensive position -- and we will continue to be led by the nose in the battle, always reacting to the opposition's tactics, never leading the battle with our own effective long-term well-informed realiistic strategy (backed up by necessary resources).
June 30th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I sent a message from the site to whom it may concern:
Responsible Fatherhood starts with Responsible government. States are allowed to discriminate when it comes to child custody based on sex. Racism was abolished by a civil war and a great president (Lincoln). End sexism by the states, shared parenting should be the standard for the nation. Level the playing field and then start to play the game. There is nothing about visitation enforcement, but all kinds of references to being financially responsible. Wake up and take a good look. It's... FatherTime
June 30th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
The Children's Rights Council of Illinois has had full-length (400- to 700-word) Fathers Day commentaries published in three to six leading newspapers in Illinois in 2007, 2008, and 2009. The interest on the part of Illinois newspapers was obvious - they were looking for something to balance the Fathers Day pronouncements being made by Obama. This recent 'focus on fatherhood' can be used by advocates to obtain coverage and can work to their advantage, if they are nimble and quick, since the media appears interested in hearing 'the other side'.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Michael Doherty: Thanks for the positive news. It is a fact that the data on crime, drugs, early pregnancy is scaring a lot of people into starting to look at "the other side."
Father Time: "Responsible Fatherhood starts with Responsible government." Perhaps I don't necessarily disagree with this statement when it is merely used as a rhetorical tool. But in reality it is true that Responsible Government is impossible without an organized informed citizenry prepated to volunteer time and resources into practical SELF-governing measures. Let's test the hypothesis by looking at Sucessful fathers (not like me) who have succeeded in protecting their children from crime (including the intelligent choice of mate) and have protcted their children from bureaucrats in schools, protected them from the incessant barrage of violent, noisy, and sexually titillating entertainment. I believe currently responsible fathers are those people who live their lives in a self-regulating way and refuse to wait for govt to solve problems and refuse to let govt influence them. In this type of thinking we might say: "Responsible government starts with Responsible Fatherhood" and when fatherhood falls into irresponsibility for a large portion of the citizenry (for whatever reason or cause) then responsible government is absolutely impossible. To get into a position where we are going to demand that the public servants start serving will take a strong resistance movement of SELF-governing people working cooperatively with a practicable strategy.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Thank you for this Article. Fathers’ right to be a meaningful part of their children’s lives, have been eroded to the point of non-existence. My research suggests that this is a phenomenon consistent throughout the industrialized nations. Children who are alienated from their fathers are more likely later in life to have emotional/behavioral problems, suffer from depression, drop out of school, fail in their jobs, and suffer from other social problems. I invite you to visit my site devoted to raising awareness on this growing problem: http://fathersprivilege.blogspot.com/