Protest TIME Magazine's Father's Day Hatchet Job on Dads!
June 12th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
TIME magazine's new Father's Day hatchet job on divorced and separated fathers--"Daddy Dearest: What Science Tells Us About Fatherhood"--questions whether fathers "have done a good enough job to deserve the honor" of having a Father's Day. The contents page reads "Behavior: Why some animal fathers are more nurturing dads than many men are."
In the article, which appears in the June 18 issue of TIME magazine, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and Mary Batten write:
"In the U.S., more than half of divorced fathers lose contact with their kids within a few years. By the end of 10 years, as many as two-thirds of them have drifted out of their children's lives. According to a 1994 study by the Children's Defense Fund, men are more likely to default on a child-support payment (49%) than a used-car payment (3%). Even fathers in intact families spend a lot less time focused on their kids than they think: in the U.S. fathers average less than an hour a day (up from 20 minutes a few decades ago), usually squeezed in after the workday."
The drumbeat continues--dads don't care, dads walk out, dads are stingy. All of these canards have been debunked many times, but that doesn't stop the mainstream media's attacks on fathers and fatherhood.
To write a Letter to the Editor of TIME magazine, click here.
Let's look at each of these accusations individually:
Criticism #1) "In the U.S., more than half of divorced fathers lose contact with their kids within a few years. By the end of 10 years, as many as two-thirds of them have drifted out of their children's lives."
In other words, dad's a cad who walks out and doesn't look back. The authors' assertions are contradicted by a large body of research.
We're not given a source for this information, but it is likely the highly-influential and highly-publicized study conducted by Frank Furstenburg, Ph.D. and his associates. Furstenburg used a large, representative national sample in his study, and he found that half of the children in his study had not seen their noncustodial parent--usually dad--during the previous year. Furstenburg labeled these men the "disappearing dad."
Arizona State University researcher Sanford Braver, who conducted the largest federally-funded study of divorced dads ever done, points out that there are many problems with Furstenburg's research:
1) Furstenberg's research is based only on custodial mothers' views--the fathers were never asked. I doubt many fathers would feel their angry ex-wives are a particularly accurate source of information about their bonds with their children.
2) Those who cited Furstenburg's research widely presumed it applied only or primarily to divorced dads, as did the TIME magazine article's authors. However, in his study Furstenburg did not distinguish between divorced dads and never married fathers. When Furstenburg's colleague Judith Seltzer later separated the two groups, she found that divorced fathers were more than twice as likely to have retained contact with their children as never-married dads.
3) The survey, which is used to condemn American fathers in June of 2007, was based largely on divorces which occurred in the late 1960s! A tremendous amount has changed in the area of gender roles in the past 40 years.
Braver's study found that--by either parent's account--90% of fathers had contact with their kids in the past year. Of those who lived within 60 miles of each other, there was virtually universal contact.
Moreover, Braver's research found that to the degree that divorced fathers' contact with their children is infrequent, the cause is very often not the fathers' lack of desire, but instead attempts by mothers to push their ex-husbands out of their children's lives.
According to the Children's Rights Council, a Washington-based advocacy group, more than five million American children each year have their access to their noncustodial parents interfered with or blocked by custodial parents. We get no sense of this enormous social problem from the TIME article.
Criticism #2) "According to a 1994 study by the Children's Defense Fund, men are more likely to default on a child-support payment (49%) than a used-car payment (3%)."
Whereas TIME magazine assumes that dads don't pay because they don't care, Braver found in his research that "unemployment is the single most important factor relating to nonpayment." Braver notes that his findings were "consistent with virtually all past studies on the topic" and that it "belies the image that divorced fathers don't pay because they refuse to though they are truly able to pay."
Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement data shows that two-thirds of those behind on child support nationwide earned poverty-level wages; less than four percent of the national child support debt is owed by those earning $40,000 or more a year. According to an Urban Institute study, even among fathers who experience income drops of 15% or more, less than one in 20 are able to get courts to reduce their child support payments. In the interim, arrearages mount, along with interest (10% or more in many states) and penalties. This greatly contributes to child support noncompliance.
The "child support vs. used car" comparison is spurious. For one, divorced fathers don't just pay child support--they sometimes also pay spousal support, and are frequently saddled with stiff and sometimes catastrophic divorce-related legal fees, often including those of their ex-wives. Also, child support alone often comprises a third or even half of a divorced fathers' take-home pay.
In California, for example, a noncustodial father of two earning a modest $3,800 a month in net income pays $1,300 a month in child support--almost $300,000 over 18 years. For the financial burden to be equivalent, the father would have to buy a hell of a lot of used cars.
One more point--since noncustodial mothers' default rate on child support is higher than that of noncustodial dads, the "child support vs. car payment" statistic which is used to vilify fathers also applies to mothers.
Criticism #3) "Even fathers in intact families spend a lot less time focused on their kids than they think: in the U.S. fathers average less than an hour a day (up from 20 minutes a few decades ago), usually squeezed in after the workday."
We're not given a source for the assertion that "fathers in intact families spend a lot less time focused on their kids than they think," but it may have been taken, to one degree or another, from Susan Faludi's 1991 anti-male bestseller Backlash. In that book she contrasts what men and fathers do around the house with what Faludi says men "think" they do.
And who's to tell them they're wrong, that they don't do much, they only "think" they do?
Their wives, of course.
It never seems to occur to Faludi or Hrdy/Batten that perhaps the fathers' assertions of their roles are accurate, and that it's mothers--who often pride themselves on being #1 with the kids--are disparaging or downplaying fathers' role. It is likely that, to some degree, both fathers and mothers exaggerate their own roles, though we get no sense of that from the TIME magazine article.
The "lazy husband/uncaring father" stereotype is a myth. Census data shows that only 40% of married women with children under 18 work full-time, and over a quarter do not hold a job outside the home. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' 2004 Time Use Survey, men spend one and a half times as many hours working as women do, and full-time employed men still work significantly more hours than full-time employed women.
When both work outside the home and inside the home are properly considered, it is clear that men do at least as much as women. A 2002 University of Michigan Institute for Social Research survey found that women do 11 more hours of housework a week than men but men work 14 hours a week more than women. According to the BLS, men's total time at leisure, sleeping, doing personal care activities, or socializing is a statistically meaningless 1% higher than women's.
Despite the fact that fathers bear the primary burden of supporting their families, the Families and Work Institute in New York City found that fathers now provide three-fourths as much child care as mothers do. This figure is also 50% higher than 30 years ago.
The "usually squeezed in after the workday" slap is also spurious. Between dads working all day and the kids being in school, it's hard to see when a father would have much time to spend with his kids that isn't "usually squeezed in after the workday." The full TIME Magazine article can be seen here.
To write a Letter to the Editor of TIME magazine, click here.
Thanks to shared parenting activist Jane Spies, M.S. Ed., for pointing this article out to me. Jane is currently working with Aginelo Productions to promote the new documentary film "Support? System Down," which criticizes abuses within the child support system.
"));
19 queries. 0.620 seconds.
June 12th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Time Magazine is soooo full of crap! I've been divorced almost 2 years now, between the lying EX, the NJ Court System, I had to just file BANKRUPTCY, and my work has slowed down so bad, by the time they take (garnished child support) and taxes and medical out of my paycheck.....ummmmmm........last week I took home $98.....what ya think about that? And ALL my bills are PAST DUE! THERE IS NO JUSTICE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM!
June 12th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
This type of article points out all too well where the press in general is, whether it's print or media. There's almost no way to combat it with logic or refutable facts, - they're simply aren't interested. Two things come to mind, - and would require quite an sustained effort to pull off. One is to buy a page, or whatever and have "our" side presented. Personally, I don't like that approach because it puts "bucks in their pockets" - not a good idea. However, as a short-term approach it may have some merit. The other is to start a "quiet corportation" whose whole purpose is to buy stock, over time very large amounts of stock in a "targeted" media company. Once enough stock has been purchased, squeeze their b*lls and or t*ts until their eyes cross. ... It's nice to go on a board and all complain together, (bonding anyone? ;-) ) but it has to go FAR beyond that to accomplish anything. - Now how do we start "buying" one of those outfits.
June 12th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
I wonder if it is still true that fathers have most of the burden for supporting their intact families? I know many fathers who share that equally with their wives and many of the men on our block are stay at home Dads. I think that we need to use up to date research for ALL assertions. Also, one thing I never see when talking about how divorced Dads are thrown into poverty, is information on the financial state of the ex and kids. All the research I have read says that within 3 years the custodial parent and kids are much worse off than the non custodial parent, especially if the custodial parent is a woman. I welcome new research to dispute that. If the ex hasn't remarried, I can't imagine that life is much posher for her and the kids! And, even if she has remarried, her new husband is probably paying child support. I believe that this website makes some very valid points. But turning to mother bashing as a way to relieve fathers of their responsibility doesn't seem any more fair than Dad bashing. Can't we look at the best interests of the children and their right to a lifestyle similar to the one they had when their parents were together? What about equal responsibility for birth control, so there aren't so many children born to unstable relationships? Hey guys, you married her and continued to have children with her. Maybe we should rethink no fault divorce. Maybe we should stay together for the sake of the kids and participate in therapy to help make it work. Someone has to support the children of divorce. I would prefer it be the parents and not the welfare system.
June 12th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
TIME Magazine has been get progressively more pro-female/Marxist all the time. Then again, like all mainstream media, it does have to sell out to the female democraphic for that all important advertising revenue from ads targeted at the Spending Sex.
It recently ran an article written by the female journalist, Lisa Cullen, entitled "Defending Jerks at Work". It was about workplace nuisances, but it referred to them exclusively in male-specific derogatory terms including "asshole", "jerk". It referred to the "No Asshole Rule" and "Total Cost of Asshole".
To put it in perspective, the opposite would be referring to workplace nuisances as "Cunts", "Bitches" and "Sluts". But would TIME ever dream of printing such language? That would be deemed completely unacceptable and politically incorrect. The Effeminate Media, male and female politicians and letter-writers would all come down like a tonne of bricks. And the journalist would be forced to apologise. Multiple times.
Cullen's article both lowers the tone of the once-respected publication and popularises misandry at the same time. It refe
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1601864,00.html
Such a pity as TIME used to be a quality commentary on political and economic issues. It is useless now and well down the road to feminisation and all the trivilisation and misandry that goes with that.
June 12th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
What idiots.
Obviously, the best way for a woman to secure her cash stream from the father of THEIR children is for him to never be able to get custody.
The best way to keep him from ever being able to get custody is to shove him as far out of the children's lives as possible.
The system incentivizes the chasing away of fathers. OBVIOUSLY!
I will forthwith cancel my Time Magazine subscription,
AND
CANCEL AOL MY SUBSCRIPTION.
Yes guys, it is "time" for a boycott.
AOL Time Warner is perpetrating hatred against men through errant reporting.
June 12th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
"Can't we look at the best interests of the children and their right to a lifestyle similar to the one they had when their parents were together?"
Where in the hell did you get the idea the kids have a "right" to the same lifestyle?!? TOTALLY BOGUS MY FRIEND.
In a divorce, household expenses DOUBLE! One paycheck now has to cover both. If he remarries, FAR TO OFTEN he and his new wife and her two kids are living on less than what he is sending to the ex for his HALF for the ONE child they had together!
A substantial number of ex husbands are currently caught in this travisity of justice and there is no excaping it until the 21 years runs out. Some states are pushing for 23 years... And by the way, that $900 per month for health insurance he is forced to pay for by state law, is not counted towards child support. Oh, he pays out "after tax" money but cannot claim any exemption. There's more but you get the idea...
DanH
June 12th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Anon, what you said about women alienating children to get sole custody, and then ensuring a cash stream in the form of alimony/child support is totally true... That is the process that is going on... But TIME magazine is never going to report that... Nor is it going to speak of the habitual non-observance of visitation agreements by Family Law Courts throughout the Matriarchal West, which force a culture of "disappearing dads".
"I will forthwith cancel my Time Magazine subscription,
AND
CANCEL AOL MY SUBSCRIPTION."
I fully recommend that you do that - but may I say, TIME Magazine (neither AOL or CNN, its partner companies) care - as they are after the female readers from which they can derive greater ad revenue. They've long given up on the male demographic; they don't care where they go or what subscriptions they lose.
June 12th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I dont subscribe to TIME magazine, though I will read it if it is in the office. I wont even be doing that now because this article, trying to pass bullshit off as SCIENCE, is indisputable evidence that TIME magazine is more suited for ass-wiping than news reporting. Sometimes I think the media puts these thing into the atmosphere knowing full well it's B.S., intent on sowing that much more discord between men and women. I totally agree with John's idea that protesting and boycotting TIME ain't enough! We have to organize, buy some stock, kick some ass, and take some names. We'll let TIME magazine's rotted carcass serve as a warning to corporate and government entities that we don't all think with our dicks, we're not all pussywhipped, and you keep disrespecting our gender, and relatiionships we comin' for you!
June 12th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
In some states the courts take into consideration the standard of living the children had before the divorce. It would be interesting to compare the divorce rates of such a state (Colorado for instance) with those of CA. I haven't done it. Why would a reasonable person take on another family when they struggle to support the first one? It is natural to want to start over, but responsible people know that we can't always do whatever we want. Kids shouldn't be set aside while a parent starts a new life and makes new financial committments. We can't do it with cars or homes, why should we do it with children? I'll say it again, who should support children, if not their parents? Maybe we can impact divorce rates if we hold both parents equally responsible for supporting their children. Visitation is a seperate matter and can't be denied when a parent is behind on support. The problem is that it is expensive to go to court to enforce visitation. So, rather than make it OK not to pay child support, why not make it easier and cheaper for parents to enforce visitation by using sourt mediation rather than having to file a court action?
June 12th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I pay nearly $1200.00 a month to support two children from my first marriage and struggle to support my 2 year old daughter I have with my current wife. It has been with much difficulty in itself let alone all the things my ex did to make it even tougher. I have been jailed, evicted, extortioned, and repoed at the hands of ex-mama's little helper referred to as child support for the past 5 years, since I decided to move on and have a better relationship with someone else, and happened to have an arrival of another child together with her. She had the court's support in removing my overnight visits with my children when my current wife and I began living together and although currently married with a child of our own has still not made any motion to amend the current order, but seems to feel that one day, one weekend a month, is visitation. She is sitting back waiting for me to patition, so she can play the defensless and volnurable ex-wife and single mother of "that bastard's" two children all over again and try to play the court system I strongly believe, their will be fewer dead beat dads if the DCSE and federal lawmakers seriously look into reforming the laws that govern child support and even the scales. Right now the laws don't acheive what they are designed to in creating a deterrent for divorce. It does far worse by alienating fathers from their children by allowing these women to receive ungodly amounts of sustanance from these dads. I was accused of not taking my visitation seriously causing my son to have issues with it needing counseling because I was working on weekends. Well, duhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! I worked weekends to try to pay that child support. Also, a note about dads who will pay a car payment instead of a child support payment. I wish I could afford a car payment. Fortunately, I live in a metropolitan area and can rely on trains and buses. Those who can't, I sympathize with the challengeing parodoxial decision to chose a means to get to that job that might help you halfway pay your child support obligation. Anyway, I don't subscribe to AOL Time Warner or Time magazine, but you certainly have my support in the boycott. I certainly won't be a subscriber in the future either. But, hey guys, instead of just boycotting a cause, there seems to be enough of us to bring this to the U.S. Presidents back yard in the form of an organized plea for reform, don't you think?
June 12th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
I hope the energy expressed above is also being expressed through letters to Time. We need to flood them with letters/cancellations.
June 12th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Thanks Derrick, - complaining about an article means almost nothing to them. Folks have done that on different issues for decades - they're quite use to it, and it's simply not a problem. ... However, buy "enough" stock and become a partial owner, ie boss - and you WILL get their attention. They might (will) find it a tad uncomfortable working for a group that will give 'em a kick in the c**kies/p***y without a second thought. Even better than that, - it WILL send a message to other news or advertising agencies that "the free run on men" has a very high cost. Not something that most corporations are interested in. ... And these folks call "talk radio" hate speech - hello!!!
June 12th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
A highly hypocritical letter published in TIME Magazine on 26 April, 2007 on a "gender related issue":
"As a black woman, I am bothered that Imus went too far, that he's been allowed to spew his garbage virtually unchecked for decades, that the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Sharpton are hypocrites and that too much hip-hop degrades women. But I am even more disgusted that Imus' defenders try to trivialize his remarks by citing his charity work. Philanthropy is not a license to discriminate or to disrespect me, my race or my gender.
Renee Newbold, NEWPORT NEWS, VA."
Would they publish a letter from a man about slandering against all men by TIME Magazine on a far more focused and powerful level than Don Imus, and about the Institutional and Systematic Bias against men in our various Educational, Legal and Social Systems? I do not think they would.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Why is everyone so insulted and suprised? This type of crap happens EVERY Fathers Day and this is the time it happens.
Last year it was a PBS program and how could we forget "Bad Dads" the year before. Do you think this might be PLANNED?
Without fail EVERY year at this time, so whatever we have done in the past has NOT slowed down the assualts on Fathers.
you can "Protest" "Boycott" write letters (like I did for the last 2 years) and I promise you next year it WILL happen again!
Flood them with letters all you want......IT DON'T WORK!
June 12th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Last year it was a PBS program... I promise you next year it WILL happen again! Flood them with letters all you want......IT DON'T WORK!
Next year it may well happen again, and we'll be there to protest and get our views into the Letters to the Editor section. As for the PBS protest, I think you didn't keep up with it--the protest was a resounding success--see http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/index.php
June 12th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
The biased and onesided article "Daddy Dearest: What Science Tells Us About Fatherhood" shows the truth in the old axiom "tell a lie enough times and people will begin to believe it". We have been served this same serving of Deadbeat Dad crap from the media for decades now, and people have been buying it hook line and sinker. The Lie doesn't disturb me nearly as much as peoples unwillingness to CHECK THE FACTS! Where is the evidence to support their bold and blatant lies? Researcher Sanford Braver has enough supporting evidence to choke a horse - why in heavens name is HE never quoted in the mainstream media. His research was even FEDERALLY FUNDED!
My Ex already had another "replacement dad" ready before the ink was even dry on the divorce papers 12 years ago (Surprise! SHE filed for divorce - not me, ladies!) The horrendous Burgess decision in California let her move anywhere in the US she wanted - as long as it was for a "better job" - which she took advantage of. She took my then 5 year old son with her. A year later she was pregnant with triplets -so much for the urgent job) and that was the the beginning of the end of regular visitation for me.
Because one of many judges refused to accept a debilitating medical disorder that I contracted 5 years before the divorce, my actual wages were disregarded, and wages were "imputed" to a figure I was earning before I contracted my disorder - and child support payments were established at $500 / month. Hell, I wasn't able to EARN $500 a month - let alone pay my ex $500 a month! Keep in mind please that at this same time my ex's new hubby owned many pieces of property, is working as an Engineer in the lucrative Micro-chip market and owned many patents worth millions of dollars, and was able to afford very costly attorneys, yet I was yanked back to court for "contempt of court" for not paying the $500/month in child support years later. For this sin of not being ABLE to pay the outrageous amount each month - my entire pension (worth approximately $120,000) was GIVEN to my ex wife to "purge" myself of contempt. How is that for Family Court Justice for you?
And who suffered the worst because of this tragic travesty of justice - my son. Through no choice of his, he has been forced to move not once - but 6 times since the divorce. Make new friends, then have to leave them a year or so later because Mom and Dad decided to move again. He was only able to see me occasionally during this time because due to my dire financial situation. All with the blessings of our wonderful Family Court System. Tell me where the "best interest of the child" was served here. Tell me the courts had his best interests in mind when my son was forced to call his "stepdad" Dad, and call me "Tom" (which still stands today by the way). I could go on and on.
But yes, tell me again about our "fair" "unbiased" and "just" family court system Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and Mary Batten , where women are so unfairly treated and have it so rough after divorce where the dasterdly Deadbeat Dad reigns supreme and never pays his due. And please tell me again how I don't give a damn about my son. The only thing I ask is that you do it in front of me - face to face - instead of hiding behind words provided by a magazine that has lost the meaning of integrity. I will not be so cavalier in my response as you were making false statements in your article.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Curious about this company, I just looked at Time Warner's stock (TWX), and looked back to January 1, 2004.
During this time period, their stock has sucked. They horribly underperformed the S&P500, the Nasdaq and the Dow.
This is a poorly managed company, delivering poor results to shareholders, and doing a poor job of presenting the "truth" -- in fact they apparently don't, they present lies in their desperation to make a buck.
I say
1. dump their stock if you own any
2. if you own any mutual funds via your 401k or IRA, contact those fund companies to demand that they not invest your funds in TWX stock, and if they don't divest, you will move to other mutual funds.
There is nothing more fun than watching a marginal public company run scared from a shareholder dump threat on their stock. Especially if that threat is coming from fund managers who are under seige by 401k holders -- the largest source of mutual fund assets in America.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Glen Sacks is correct. I wrote a few letters to PBS and sent a little money for the responsive cause PBS took note of the ground swell and responded. It only takes a few minutes to express your opinion and 10,000 opinions will not be ignored. If nothing else, it made me feel good to "try" to explain my side of a very nasty bias.
lf
June 12th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I will go even further then writing to Time, I will write to Time Warner and any of the brands below:
www.timewarner.com/corp/businesses/
For an even more detailed list of Time brands, see the list at the bottom of the following site:
www.timewarner.com/corp/businesses/detail/time_inc/index.html
Also, if you are a shareholder in TWX, be sure to write investor relations and let them know you will be dumping their stock.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
There seems to be a campaign to insult fathers on Father's Day. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott i blaming us for family violence, I attacke him in my blog and sent the powt to him by e-mail! Where else are we being attacked?
June 12th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
We know from long experience that these people will never listen.
But we also know who WILL listen: THEIR ADVERTISERS.
So I think THOSE are the people to whom we should be writing.
Which companies, products, and so on were placed immediately in or around the pages of this BLATANT HATE SPEECH? I say we should find out, and write to those people specifically, telling them that because they are the most closely associated with the publication of this BLATANT HATE SPEECH, they're going to be the ones to suffer the consequences -- not only will we not buy their crap, we'll trash their corporate reputations and the reputations of their products.
We will ATTACK THEM BACK, just as THEY have finacially supported this BLATANT HATE SPEECH ATTACK ON US.
And that furthermore, these consequences aren't going to stop unless and until they make it publicly known that their advertising managers have made it explicitly clear to Time magazine that they never, ever want THEIR advertising to be positioned next to such blatant hate speech again.
Hit them where they're weakest: IN THE PAYROLL!
June 13th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Glenn - I haven't had time to check out your site further than this one post, but I must say I'm shocked that all of the responses seem to be from men. Where are the women out there married to the men that deal with this sort of thing every day? I, personally, am appalled by the male-bashing that goes on, by the court bias, by articles such as these. I'm appalled that society allows the court system to destroy the relationship between fathers and their children. I'm sad for Dads, more sad for the kids who grow up thinking Mommy really does know best. We won't see the depth of the devastation for another generation to come. Thanks for speaking out on this issue. It needs so much more airtime than it gets.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:49 am
This post makes clear that Time Magazine is becoming a real loser as a business -- so their fraudulent reporting is not their only problem it would seem:
http://jeffmatthewsisnotmakingthisup.blogspot.com/2006/11/old-media-in-bizarro-world.html
These paragraphs are particularly noteworthy:
"Time magazine, the flagship publication of Time Warner's Time Inc., is cutting its rate base, or the circulation it guarantees advertisers, according to Ed McCarrick, world-wide publisher of Time magazine. He says Time will cut the rate base by 750,000 to 3.25 million, a reduction of about 19%.
—The Wall Street Journal"
and
"Time had kept circulation artificially high by offering cut-rate subscriptions, the account went on, noting, Time's ad pages are up 2% for the first 10 months of the year, according to Publishers Information Bureau, but were down 12.2% in 2005."
Seems like fraud may be the main skill of those running Time Magazine -- including both editors and publishers?
June 13th, 2007 at 3:23 am
First, it does not matter whether they listen, it is only important that you told them, sent a letter, you disagree and what they said is not true, remember, the point of publications are to persuade, YOU. They have lost already when you tell them you did not buy it. Of course, what they can think is it does not matter there are plenty of people who do.
So step two
Second, share Glenn's E-Newsletter, specifically the one above, with at least two friends, and ask if they think it is important enough to share with some of their friends.
Think what you will find, in fact know it, is not that most people agree with you, but that most people think that to make things work you need to start with being honest about the facts and that means giving the other side, and to give the other side, well, that completely undermines any false hope of plenty of people agreeing with Time.
JT
June 13th, 2007 at 3:49 am
Oh yes, forgot to mention, Glenn, this was one of your best. You did not just offer a counterview, but a refutation of their's.
Well Done!
JT
June 13th, 2007 at 4:40 am
Glenn: What do you think WILL work?
I know there will be more contempt for all men and especially for all fathers. Too many people either love it or refuse to fight contempt for males. What I do not know is what will change the way things are.
June 13th, 2007 at 5:27 am
jw, ... it would/will be interesting to see what Glenn says. In the meantime, three's nothing wrong with wriiting a letter etc. - but they've had that for years on different subjucts, they're used to it. To get "their" attention, the media & advertising agencies, - we've got to damage one financially. THAT WILL send a message they understand - and also get the attention of the others. I suggest setting up a dummy corp. whose sole purpose is to buy their stock, over time A LOT of it, - take control of their activities. This IS NOT about making money in their stock, - it's about ownership. In fact closing one down, or selling it to a new and friendlier owner is the goal. Putting one out of businness would even get Washington's attention, which is long overdue.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:32 am
I Did little a research on the two authors. They're both scientists.
http://www.marybatten.com/newsletter.htm (the tone of her latest newsletter is clearly anti-male)
Sarah Blaffer Hrdys curriculum vitae at http://www.citrona.com/CV.pdf and she also has a page at wikipedia
June 13th, 2007 at 9:14 am
In recent history, men have given females gobs and gobs of money to spend (in the name of "equality"). Females now have lots of money.
Advertisers want more money.
Time wants more advertisers.
It stands to reason that Time's articles will appeal to females in order to attract more advertisers who, in turn, are trying to attract money from females (who have received gobs and gobs of money from men). It's a simple circle.
Accordingly, we men should not be surprised to find that Time's articles are highly anti-male, because females are almost universally anti-male.
This isn't rocket science.
Are we men ever going to pull our heads out of the sand?
Anon.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Glenn, I did keep track...but you idea of success is different than mine. The letters made PBS re-do the piece which is what you set out to do. Success in my eyes would have been that Time would not even think of writing that article but they did. The letters to Volvo ( I sent mine)
didn't stop them, they chose the ad agency anyway. I could list other things.
Success would be "Striking fear" into anyone we send them to,but we don't. It sure does work for the women.
Larry Fiscus said: "if nothing else, it made me feel good" I want more than to make myself feel good, maybe I want to much.
It's all about POWER and thats something the Fathers does not have, at least not enough to stop this attack on Fathers and Men.
IMHO: Success would be having 10 guys like "Glenn Sacks" with web sites like yours, if each site would generate 10,000 letters thats
100,000 letters and thats a great start to the Power base.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I like this quote from the article:
"Anthropologists are trying to figure out why."
My God these morons. The answer is as plain as the nose on your face if you simply read a little history. 150 years ago a father spent nearly every waking hour with one or all of his children. In 2007 they say he spends an hour.
The simple answer is that the massive daily exile of men to go to jobs to produce what their wives used to produce at home is the simple wedge that drove him apart from the kids.
And to think I once considered Anthropology as a career.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:52 am
And Geez, talk about having an axe to grind. I mean, they've got 11 other months of the year to lament men's moral inferiority. Why pick this one -- the month for Father's Day -- to highlight it so.
Feminists complain of a backlash. Stop whipping and there can be no backlash.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:59 am
A few things I can think of in response to the article:
-What is the reason 10-40% of children don't have fathers in their lives? Have the fathers actually run off or have they left in search of employment to support the family? Have they been killed (wars and violence kill more men than women)? The authors assume the men are not involved because they choose not to be.
-I find it interesting that they compare child support to USED car payments. If deadbeat dads were really as well off as some feminists say they are, shouldn't they be making new car payments?
-So now we're blaming fathers for going to work instead of spending time with their children? I guess if they were good fathers they'd only work part time and halve their income so they could spend more time with the kids.
At least the article doesn't say men are useless. However, it does say that somehow fathers are not as deserving of the praise they get on their day as mothers are.
June 13th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
[...] a few hours of my blog post Protest TIME Magazine's Father's Day Hatchet Job on Dads! (June 12th, 2007), several hundred angry fathers and their supporters wrote TIME magazine to [...]
June 13th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Texas Child Support Enforcement * Staff Attorney Cynthia Dillard Ince, Tarrant County Family Court *Associate Judge Owens, Attorney Kyle Whitaker DO NOT "have the child's best interest at heart". Mother moved 4 hours away from Dad, chose to buy a new house and a new car (at a higher cost than her income would allow). You guessed it -Mother went back to court to raise child support.
The judge based the increase on Dad's "potential income" as a truck driver.
Dad has a GED and drives a truck locally. The judge stated that if he did long hauls he could potentially earn double his current income.
Mother's potential income was never considered. Even though has a bachelor's degree in pyschology and socialogy; she in a bank (that's how she managed to buy what she couldn't afford).
Dad has to share rent, can't afford a car, rides a motorcycle to work, and works 6-7 days a week including weekends, can't afford transportation or gas to visit his son.
Grandson crys to see his father and father's family, but Mother doesn't care, Courts don't care.
Grandson is angry (age 11) and starting to rebel.
In 3-5 years, when Grandson stands before the court for his own acts of juv. delinquency, the judge, the mother will claim it's the fathers fault for not being there-but ti will be their own fault for this alienation.
I could go on and on, but this story out of Texas is the same as so many others. As far as I'm concerned the Texas Court System, and the Attorney General's office are as crooked as the day is long. The unfairness is sickening.
June 13th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
When I get cheated or get inferior service, I often do not say anything, but simply do not shop there and let my friends know about it. This has put at least one auto parts business under, as I was part of the local racing fraternity! Everything said in these comments is true, with the possible excetion of Stephanies' assertion that we will need to wait a generation to see the ill effects of the divorce industry. They're here and now! They'll just get worse if we don't change things. So far I have attacked Texas AG Gregg Abbott, Texas Head Coach Mac Brown (to include personal e-mails), written a letter to the editor of the Austinn Statesman about the OPUS cartoon, Mac, and Greg A.., and written two blog entries. As to Time-Warner, I have forwarded one of your comments to a large stockholder/friend and he/she will share this with his/her friends. Say nothing and put them under as a tactic has its merits. It's also known as not telegraphing your punch!
http://ken454.statesmanblogs.com
June 13th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I don't think these women who man bash should be called feminists. In my eyes the feminist movement is what got women the right to vote, into the workplace, and things of that nature. Making sure women had all the basic rights as U.S. citizens. The women that are mostly talked about on this blog are just evil disguising themselves as feminists. I have been called feminist by the stay at home moms on my street like it is a four letter word. This is just because I work full time. I think that all these women collectively give feminism a really bad name.
About Father's issues, I am a happily married mother of a 3 year old and my husband and I are getting ready to try for another baby. We both work full time and divide all the household work in half so that we can spend as much time as possible with our son. If we ever split up I would never keep him from our child or future children. If a person really loved their children they would never do that. I am looking forward to Sunday, I have planned an entire day dedicated to the great father that my husband is. He had a great teacher, his own dad. I am the product of a single parent home. I was born 3 years before my dad was ready to be a parent; believe it or not I am his 3rd child. He actually fought not to have visitation. I have used this experience to make myself a better person instead of a victim. I know that I have my independence because of my childhood and am now happy with that. I too subscribe to Time; I am shocked that they printed an article so hateful.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
GR
You cannot change the world all at once. Winning victories, even ssmall victories, will, hopefully lead to achieving the greater goal eventually. Civil rights campaigners did not achieve everything at once.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Malcolm....Thats true, but as I have stated here before I've been doing this for 10 years with very little change.
The Civil Rights people.....Today's Fathers groups could learn a lesson from them.....They were successful because they were both
organized and relentless. They got together and got it done.....
June 13th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
"By profession I am a soldier, and take great pride in that fact, but I am prouder, infinitely prouder - to be a father". - Douglas MacAurthur.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Interesting little tidbit from the article:
Research by anthropologist Steve Beckerman and his team suggests that the optimal number of fathers is two, with 80% of children in the Bari tribe of Venezuela who have two male providers surviving to 15, compared with 64% among those with only one.
Father figures actually being good for children? What a concept. So maybe what the world needs, at least from this anthropological study, is more fathers, not less. I notice there is no comparison between no father and one father, at least not one cited in the article.
The article ends with:
Few modern fathers would like such an arrangement, but they hardly need to. Given the right combination of chemistry and culture, good fathering is a varied and highly sustainable resource--one that's just waiting to be tapped.
Maybe divorce and re-marriage is how this is accomplished in our culture. How else do you get the benefit of two men providing for you?
ds
June 13th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
There is a blog about stay at home dads that I really like called RebelDad. He also posted an entry blasting the Time article titled "Time: "Happy Father's Day, You Undeserving Goons!" His wife is a law professor and here was her response..........
"You have riled me sex-based discrimination professor-ness up, so here goes...
Why, oh why do you feel so attacked by an article that clearly is not targeting dads like you (and your readers)? The lede even exempts individual dads--it implies that as a group dads are lagging but individual dads may not be.
As such a great dad, I would think you of all people would welcome an article that tells no-so-good dads to STEP UP!
Do you have such allegence to your sex that you'll defend a dad's right to have a warm fuzzy father's day story to make him feel good about his involvement even when he is underinvolved compared to moms?
And as for the work family balance issue, women face it too (and perhaps even more so) but moms as a group still step up to the plate. No-so-good dads need to get over themselves and quit blaming their lack of involvement on everyone else.
And comparing stats from 1985? What? That was more than 20 years ago? The fact that men are when women were two decades ago is adequate progress? Men shouldn't settle for that--and neither should their partners.
I could go on, too, but I'll end by saying that RD some days I think you are single handedly responsible for the positive trend in dad stats because of how much you do for our family. (And I love that after 12 years together you can still get me all riled up intellectually). Happy Father's Day to you and to all the rebeldads out there.
-RM
There is a long way to go to have people see fathers in a new light. No matter how much has changed there will always be people who just will not give credit where credit is due.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
juststoppingin,
That all sounds beautiful, and I really do wish all the best to you and your husband. Too bad more women aren't level headed like yourself. Especially given your childhood experience with your father it would be real easy to understand you having a chip on your shoulder. But that's another issue all together. The problem is should you discover your inner chip, and decide to use your child as leverage, there would be very little to stop you from doing that as far as the law is concerned. Bless your heart though , you made a proactive decision not to do that, and I applaud you for that. I'd just feel so much better if we had laws on the books, that were enforced, that were in the best interest of everyone involved, instead of being the tool of a vidictive person trying to win a game.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Well just another dad, there is a way to benefit from two dads. Just live in Massachusets. I pulled this from a Fathers and Families website, it is ny Ned Holstein, president of the organization.
" On November 2, 2004, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that a mother would collect child support from two men for the same child (Department Of Revenue v. Ryan R.).
In this case, the mother had a child by Ryan while she was married to Sheldon. Three years later, she and Sheldon filed for bankruptcy.
The next year, Susan instituted divorce proceedings against Sheldon. The court awarded custody to Susan and ordered Sheldon to pay child support despite the fact that he was not the father of the child. The court explained, “…the husband is the only ‘father’ that the child has known during his life, and as the husband has cared throughout the marriage for the child and there is a bond that exists between the child and the husband… the husband is the ‘de facto’ father of the child.”
Then, hoping to improve her cash-flow, and since Ryan had deeper pockets than her bankrupt ex, Susan filed a complaint for child support from Ryan too.
The court found that Ryan should also pay child support because he is the biological father of the child. But -- surprise, surprise -- after all these years, the courts still have not gotten around to ruling on Ryan’s request for custody and/or “visitation.”
So you see with the miracle of modern stupidity, you can have two dads income. To quote Ray Charles "Yes I think to myself what a wonderful world.......
Oh yeah"
June 13th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Kelly, not only the income of two dads, but you also get to damage the kids by keeping them away from any hope of a male role-model.
June 13th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Juststoppingin:
Just a note, I admire your outlook, we need more women like you.
But unfortunately, this is the feminism we live with today. You can say taht they aren't 'real' feminists, yet they are the majority, so they represent the movement. And if women now have teh vote, why do feminists still exist? And argue against 'the patriarchy'
Also, feminism didn't get women into the workplace, capitalism did. Women went when women's work took less time, women had less kids to look after, and the work women could do was a lot less miserable than the work men had been doing for centuries.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
>>Can't we look at the best interests of the children and their right to a lifestyle similar to the one they had when their parents were together?
June 13th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
No we cannot.
That "assumption" is neither logical nor reasonable.
A child is not "entitled" to a given standard of living. Particularly when the resource alotment has significantly changed by something called divorce.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
...is that in the Bill of Rights - the right for kids to have the same lifestyle as when parents were together? Is like saying kids have the right to same lifestyle after their parents lose their jobs as the one they had before dad and/or mom wound up on the unemployment line...
June 13th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
As a wife, mother and grandmother, I will be writing to Time and just for good measure I will be writing to New Line Cinema, Warner Brothers and Turner Broadcasting to let them know I will be boycotting them as well. I will also be contacting the advertisers of this publication to let them know my displeasure and my boycot of their products. I have forwarded this article to other 2nd wives, mothers and grandmothers who have witnessed first hand the injustice of the family court system.
IMO, one of the biggest obstacles to good fathering is mothers. Too many fathers, even in intact families are pushed to a back burner because the woman dictates what their involvement will be, when, and how it will be done. To many of this generation of women has been programmed to be anti-male and anti-father. Just look at the advertising trend that portray men as anal, selfish, simple-minded and irresponsible. This article plays to that same mindset. Too many fathers are considered disposable because of mom's remarriages. How many false DV charges are filed yearly with no consequences to be faced for doing so? How many kids are subjected to endless alienation against their fathers. Women have become the "golden" "untouchable" gender. Society has gone from one extreme to the next and common sense, equality and fairness are but words, not ideals and rules to live by. They speak of father monkeys and how much more nurturing they are as a species. Well maybe, just maybe, the species as a whole recognizes and honors the rights and necessity of each gender in caring for their offspring.
The majority of divorces in America are sought by women with the knowledge that they will receive primary custody of the children in the overwhelmingly majority of cases and child support. (yea, I know all of these women have been abused either mentally or physically). Society has programmed too many to be a victim whether they are or not. A post above stated how the kids need to be supported and I agree with that, but may I add that being a parent is more than just being a name on a check which is what too many mothers want fathers relegated to. If a father does not pay child support, all the mother has to do is go to cse and they are going to act on her behalf. The state will step in and garnish wages, intercept tax returns, seize drivers licenses, refuse hunting and fishing licenses and throw them in jail. If a father is denied his visitation, he has to pay hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars to get it enforced and even then it usually takes multiple contempt charges before the courts will actually do anything if they do at all. The courts are quick to impute income on a man, but in our state statutes, a "mother" will not have income imputed if she has any children under six years old regardless of her education or earning capacity. So tell me there isn't a double standard here. By the way
June 13th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
In our society and in the battle of good versus evil--evil gets the most publicity. That's just the way it is because controversy and negativity sells. The publicized battle against men sells. The justice (just-us) system allows those women, who feel they have been scorned by a man that once shared their life, to use it as a guaranteed method for vindication. The kids become the victimized pawns in a vindictive game of chess and the media becomes the sounding board for the woman scorned.
The truth is that there are bad dads out there. We see them all the time in court, ignorantly attempting to justify why they haven't paid their $50 monthly child support, garnishing a silly smirk on their face while we sit there, tension stricken, preparing to defend against another plea from a vindictive Ex to raise our monthly child support payment an additional $500. We see them during our brief stay in jail, after being found in contempt for missing two child support payments, because we were unemployed while looking for a job after being laid-off due to corporate economic downsizing; as they brag about not being caught for over two years of evading. However, there are good dads out there, but they go unnoticed because their behavior is in conformance with society’s expectations. Yet, since the good dads share the title of "man and father" with the deadbeat dads, they get lumped into idiotic baseless dribble as spewed in the recent Time article. Objectivity is foreign to the media just as it is with the justice system.
To combat this onslaught of negative rhetoric against the good dads will require a united front; a united front that can induce change in legislation and a change in how the media portrays all men and fathers.
Irregardless of what goes on around us, the good dads, and you know who you are, will be recognized on father's day. Good will overcome evil.
Much thanks to Glenn for his contribution to the cause. It's now time for all of us to unite to deliver a significant blow to the opposition.
Happy Father’s Day!
June 13th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
"Irregardless" has the look and feel of fingernails down the blackboard.
"Regardless" gets it done.
And while I'm at it, press the Control key (there are two of then on the keyboard) and roll the mouse wheel forward. Now isn't that more better?
DanH
June 13th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Shame on Time Magazine for defaming father and glamourizing moms. This is all part of a hidden agenda from women rights groups to make life more diffifult for men in general. Many news laws have just passed making it more difficult for men to claim their right as "Father" in a court of law. In fact, certain women rights group have employed the power of the internet to facilitate the collection of child support and alimony. I could only imagine that it will get worse.
Men, if you are divorced, recently divorced, or planning on getting divorced, PRAY, because it's your only hope.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Thanks DanH for your contribution. As blogging is casual writing, my use of "irregardless" was for emphasis, not to irritate. I believe most of the bloggers here have been caught in the "travisity (sp) of justice" and "get the idea" as you so eloquently stated in your previous blog. (Be sure to check yourself, before checking someone else).
Oh, by the way, thanks for the "control key" suggestion, however, I believe in streamlined processes and efficiency. For scrolling, I click the scroll bar, and then use the mouse wheel. That leaves my other hand free for sipping on a cold beer as I read more interesting and insightful posts.
Trust me; we all "get the idea", however, stop complaining about being hung by an old rope and take action.
I will await your next grammatical and editing critiques, because obviously you have nothing else to add of any value.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:21 am
To Kelly M. Bray: It is not for any of us to judge who is what Dads are "good" or "not-so-good".. That is naive and condescending. We should however protest against generalised misrepresentations (in the Media) and systematic bias (in the Courts and Government).
I believe, quite contrary to what you said, that the TIME Magazine article was not an attack on "individual" Dads but fatherhood as a whole, and thus was a general slandering of all fathers and all men.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
There are two "Anons" here. I'm the first one above, not the second one.
There shouldn't be more than one person with the same identifier.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
I think that it's quite telling that so many posters on this website use anonymous handles.... and not even the normal, internet-brand of pseudonyms that can be trivially traced back to their real identities, but utter nonsense. I suppose we're all afraid of someone finding out we post on these blogs and being branded sexist woman-haters.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
All right, so Time is joining the feminist-inspired anti-male groups that make the annual recurrence of Father's Day a trigger for anti-male hate propaganda. It is like making Valentine's Day an occasion for pushing anti-male hate propaganda in the name of vaginas. Keep it up, girls. You want a gender war, you are certainly entitled to one.. As for Time magazine, all I can say is that I never read the rag. What we need is a serious male embargo on orgs that deliver anti-male hate propaganda as a matter of planned policy. I propose that people and orgs who regularly engage in anti-male hate propaganda be subject to an internal embargo: they are deprived of all goods and services to which any males contribute. How about it, girls? That means no cars, no clothes, no food, no health services. You want to do anti-male hate? You pay the price. You don't want to pay the price, don't do anti-male hate. Even feminists can figure this one out.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Foo.....aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh Foo is about the same as anonymous.....I use GR because my first name is the same as Sacks....Glenn
I'm sure you can understand. I don't hate all women........just feminazi, man hating bar dykes. Now you know why I use GR.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
[...] read Glenn Sacks' opinion on the article go here. No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI [...]
June 14th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
My e-mail to Time:
---------------
In a subtle way, this article seems to praise fatherhood, calling it a "varied and highly sustainable resource." However, the question regarding whether fathers as a whole deserve the honor of having a Father's Day in the beginning of the essay undermines the effect by its very existence.
By now, you have probably received much mail from many men and women refuting your claims, questioning your motives or even threatening you. I hope you can understand why they may have responded this way. As women, imagine that it was Mother's day that had been questioned. After all, with women initiating 70-80% of divorces and aborting nearly a million fetuses per year, whether women, as a whole, deserve a Mother's Day, could be called into question. An article that tries to support the idea that it's only possible that women deserve the honor would be trashed simply for questioning the concept. Men, fathers yet or not, are no less sensitive to questions regarding their own worthiness.
In some ways, I must say that you almost elevate Fathers above Mothers. Fathers, as a whole, have sacrificed being able to sit at home 80-90% of the day holding their baby and beholden to nobody or deadlines in lieu of going to work every morning and doing someone else's bidding in order to allow their family to thrive. At the end of the day, the majority of mothers seem to think that fathers also take care of children. If, as you suggest, there's even more to tap from fathers, perhaps we deserve more than the measly 100 million cards Hallmark will sell, perhaps even more than the 150 million that Hallmark sells on Mother's Day.
-------------
June 14th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
To: "Dad To The Sixth Power Says:"
guilty...
DanH
June 14th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
This is a copy of my letter to Time.
After reading you Bias article on (The Psychology of Fatherhood) "Fathers as a Group" I did some research on "Mothers as a Group."
I would like to submit this article for Mothers Day 2008
"The folks at Hallmark are going to have a very good day on June 17. That's when more than 100 million of the company's ubiquitous cards will be given to the 66 million dads across the U.S. in observation of Father's Day. Such a blizzard of paper may be short of the more than 150 million cards sold for Mother's Day, but it's still quite a tribute. What's less clear is whether dads--at least as a group--have done a good enough job to deserve the honor."
After you read this article I'm sure it will be even less clear for your very small and closed minds to understand why
they sell 150 million Mothers Day cards, I know it was for me.
Dump your children here’ box to stop mothers killing their babies
The last resorts
— First modern baby-drop in Germany was introduced in Hamburg in 2000. There are now more than 90
— Forms of baby-drop exist in Pakistan and the Philippines. Japan has just approved a “stork cradle”
— Some US states allow newborn babies to be left anonymously on hospital and fire station doorsteps
Sources: German Green Party; saveabandonedbabies.org
the case in Dallas, where a mother allegedly locked her daughter in a closet with little to no food, and no contact with the outside world. This girl was shown no love for months of her life.
in 1994, a young mother in Union, S.C., drove her two sons into a lake, setting off an international media frenzy that made Susan Smith a household name.
"Why Mothers Kill," published by Oxford University Press, includes profiles of 14 mothers who killed their children.
Forensic Medicine in Angers. Information concerning the mothers was collected from forensic medical files, police reports, and legal files. Interviews and forensic psychiatric examinations were available for consultation. Results: Our study concerns 17 observations of child-killing mothers and 19 child autopsies. In 2 cases, the issue was in fact a double murder, with the mother killing all the siblings. The mean age was 3.5 years for victims and 29.5 years for the women. The majority of the mothers were married or lived with their partners. They often had an occupation. Generally the economic status was average. Head trauma, strangulation, suffocation, and drowning were the most frequent means of filicide. However, some mothers used more active methods such as striking and shooting.
HUDSON OAKS, Texas - A relative found the bodies of a 23-year-old woman and her four small daughters hanging in a closet in their mobile home Tuesday morning, all of them dead but an 8-month-old, who was taken to a hospital, the sheriff said.
The other children, ages 5, 3 and 2, had all had been hanged with strips of clothing and sashes, Fowler said.
The article ends up with some observations about four other Texas women who had killed their children. All four of those women were found "innocent" by reason of insanity.
Chairwoman of the Offspring Murder Club, Andrea Yates, is trying once again to avoid jail time by pleading insanity. She was already convicted for the drowning deaths of 3 of her 5 children (She actually drowned all 5, but for some reason they convicted her on only 3), but the conviction was overturned when a doctor testified that a Law and Order episode recently aired that portrayed a drowning children/insanity plot, when in fact no such episode existed.
There were also 1,772 abortions performed on children under the age of 18. There were 29,297 abortions performed in women 18 years of age or older with the majority between 18 and 29 (16,130)…JUST IN 2005 IN WASHINGTON STATE.
More than 200 women kill their children in the U.S. every year. Andrea Yates who drowned her five kids, and pediatrician Ellen Feinberg, of Champaign, Illinois, who stabbed her two young sons, one fatally, are not unique.
Doctors have been warned not to dismiss the possibility of foul play in cases of sudden infant death, even if the parents display intense love and grief. The warning has come after a woman who killed three children managed to convince the authorities that they had died naturally.
It took three murders and two attempted murders for the woman (referred to as M) to be convicted---the delay perhaps resulting from the fact that doctors could not accept that someone who could grieve so deeply was capable of such atrocities.
Why They Kill Their Newborns
By Steven Pinker
Killing your baby. what could be more depraved? For a woman to destroy the fruit of her womb would seem like an ultimate violation of the natural order. But every year, hundreds of women commit neonaticide: they kill their newborns or let them die. Most neonaticides remain undiscovered, but every once in a while a janitor follows a trail of blood to a tiny body in a trash bin, or a woman faints and doctors find the remains of a placenta inside her.
Women who KILL by: Carol Anne Davis
Nowadays the reason for most infanticides has changed and women tend to kill their young so that they themselves can enjoy a less restricted lifestyle without risking possible public disapproval by giving their children up for adoption. These crimes are often premeditated and carefully carried out.
“Statistically, our data suggest that at least once every three days, somewhere in America a mother kills her children,” says Cheryl L. Meyer, a psychologist with a law degree and author of Mothers Who Kill Their Children:
Then in November of 2004.
35 year old, Dena Schlosser is arrested for cutting off the arms of her 11-month-old baby.
: Mothers who murder their children
Los Angeles, CA 90076 October 21 2005
More than 600 mothers kill their children each year, which gives rise to a psychological condition described as "maternal filicide," according to a child psychologist who has reviewed the worldwide research on this topic.
MAGDALENA LOPEZ: Lopez, 31, of Crown Point, Ind., was sentenced to 110 years in prison for the July 2005 bludgeoning deaths of her sons, ages 9 and 2. Outside the home where the boys' bodies were found,
BRENDA DRAYTON: Drayton, 31, of Flint, Mich., was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison for the November 2004 suffocation death of her 2-year-old daughter
RUTH ANN BURNS: Burns, 29, of Port Charlotte, Fla., was committed to a mental hospital after a judge found her incompetent to stand trial for the June 2004 stabbing death of her 7-year-old daughter.
REBEKAH AMAYA: Amaya, 33, of Lamar, Colo., was found not guilty by reason of insanity in the October 2003 drowning deaths of her children, ages 4 and 5 months.
A Bronx woman has been charged with murdering her newborn son, who was found wrapped in a plastic bag and stuffed behind a toilet in her house, police said yesterday."
- Newsday, 6/23/97
"She arrived at the prom in New Jersey last Friday night in a loose-fitting black dress...and made a beeline for the bathroom.... But the girl had apparently told no one - not even her boyfriend - that her loose-fitting dress hid her pregnancy and that in the bathroom she had given birth to a baby boy, wrapped him in a plastic bag and disposed of him in the trash."
- The Washington Post, 6/10/97
"The body of a 5- to 6-pound infant girl was found by police inside a canvas tote bag tucked into a crawl space at the Mukilteo home of a Holy Cross student. Authorities were alerted by a Child Protective Services caseworker after the student had consulted an Edmonds doctor - an estimated 24 hours after the birth - because of bleeding."
- The Seattle Times, 6/5/97
The stories are horrific. Teen girls accused of murdering their babies only minutes after they are born. Newborns who were never given names, never held or rocked - instead suffocated and abandoned moments after taking their first breath.
Most Killed their Children, Husbands
It is indeed rare for a woman to be given the death sentence in the United States. Of the 3,487 persons on death row in the U.S. as of June 2004, only 49 of them, or 1.3 percent, were women.
Of the 49 women who were on death row in 2004, 55 percent (27) of them were convicted of killing their children, their husbands/boyfriends or both, according to Victor L. Streib's research in "Death Penalty For Female Offenders, January 1, 1973 through June 30, 2004." Seven of those 27 women who killed family members, killed more than one victim.
There are approximately 50,000 women in prisons in the United States, only 0.1 percent of them are on death row. In comparison to men, death sentencing rates remain very low, with only 566 total executions carried out against women since the first recorded execution in 1632 -- or less than 3 percent of the total executions.
Very few women enter the capital murder system, and fewer still are ever actually executed, according to the Death Penalty Information Center:
Two years ago, Beverly Bartek of Lincoln, Neb., drowned her infant daughter in the kitchen sink two days after her physician told her that her moodiness and paranoia were the results of the baby blues. Angela Thompson had hallucinations after the birth of her first child, jumped off a bridge and was taken to a mental hospital. Still, when she became pregnant with her second child, she notes, "my doctor said, 'Just take it easy. I see no reason why it should happen again.' "
We?ll never know what the little girl might have become or how she might have flourished in her upscale neighborhood with both parents. On May 13, Dr. McCarron confessed to putting a plastic bag over her 3-year-old?s head until she suffocated.
Factors in the Murder of Children
The United States has the highest homicide rate for children of any industrialized nation in the world. Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics show that slightly more than 11 percent of murder victims in 1999 were children under the age of eighteen.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
I recall watching 'Alien' with my mom years ago and after the movie she explained to me how disgusted she was at the entertainment biz because too much of their product features the destruction of the 'great American male'. She noted how the hero of the movie, Sigourny, was a woman who acted like a man and Bill Pullman was the nuetered loser (It's game over man! Game over!!).
At that time I thought she was a reaching a bit, but time, and Time, proved her right after all. Today's masculine movie heroes aren't exactly the Bing Crosby or Gary Cooper or John Wayne male role models of her generation. Today's entertainment biz male hero is short on responsibility and morality - and long on killing or screwing their way to victory. And that's exactly opposite of how the majority of America's fathers act today.
Most of those responding here know that Time is not real news - it's entertainment! I've never subscribed to Time and never will and not just because of this lazy piece of work they've published for Father's Day. Treat it as the light-headed entertainment rag it is and do everything you can to educate those who don't realize it. Don't let it rest even if it makes for uncomfortable talk at the office or presidential campaign stop-over or Time Warner's annual stockholders' meeting.
Good job Glenn Sacks!! You're going to distribute these comments to Time's advertisers, aren't you?
June 14th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Spike TV just did a study on the state of fatherhood whose findings are very much at odds with what this Time story suggests. http://sev.prnewswire.com/television/20070612/NYTU08812062007-1.html
June 15th, 2007 at 8:56 am
It all seems so ridiculous.
1. Men give girls the right to vote.
2. Men give girls gobs of money.
3. Men put girls in powerful positions in government and business.
4. Men give girls power over marriage and family.
5. Then men weep and moan when girls use 1, 2, 3 and 4 above to poop all over them and wreck civilization.
Ridiculous in the extreme.
Sincerely,
Anon the First.
June 15th, 2007 at 9:19 am
GR Says:
June 14th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Foo.....aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh Foo is about the same as anonymous
Never said it wasn't.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:43 am
The time article just got Farked. The attitude there is similar to the one here:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2869803
June 15th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Glenn, John has a fantastic idea with the targetted aquistion approach to moderating corporate behaviour. Agreed large companies like Time Warner might be immune to it, but if it happened to a few of the smaller media companies they'd start to take notice.
It's definately a cause I'd donate to.
June 15th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
This is the response that I sent to time. bet me that they dont publish it.
Dear Editor,
First, let me congratulate you on your efforts to create something that does not exist. A conclusion that, in specific, shows that the American father, an possibly all fathers worldwide, are failing. You have tried to compare events and statistics that are not correlated. The social and practical life of a human is so distinctly dissimilar to that of other mammals that to compare the two is idiotic.
Initially, you indicate that 10% to 40% of children grow up in households with no father at all. This is an enormous percentage gap to be reconciled. You have failed to provide any evidence that supports that the mothers of these children were in a substantial relationship with the intention for continuity. There is also the possibility of the father having died due to malnutrition or disease at some point. Last, but not least, is the females intention of not having the male around at all for personal reasons.
Next, you state that half of divorced fathers lose contact with their children within a few years. There are states, such as Utah, that have laws on the books that highly favor the mother in custody disputes. There are attorney's who coach divorcing mothers in how to improve their chances for full custody by making claims of child abuse or molestation in order to turn the father into a visitor or less (a criminal). Then there are child support guidelines that require so much of the non custodial father that most have to maintain 2 jobs in order to not face hunger and homelessness. This is largely the result of the enemy "No Fault Divorce". This was never even considered in your article. When was the last time a mother ape filed for a No Fault Divorce.
Next, you cite the propensity to default on child support versus a used car. This choice morsel of comparison is comparable to non custodial mothers. Let not compare apples to oranges, lets compare apples to apples. The default rate for non custodial mothers on child support payments is higher than that of non custodial fathers. Please do not compare any father's desire to provide for this children and compare that to a used car. This is unfair to all of us fathers who are now divorced due to no fault of our own. We work hard to do what is right in the face of discrimination.
Next, you mention that contemporary fathers in the U.S. spend very little time with there children, less than 1 hour per day. While you state that this is an improvement over prior generations you are comparing humans with other mammals. This is also an unfair comparison. Try comparing the amount of time a father spends with their children to how those children turn out. Time as a function for comparison to others does not yield a valid result. After all, this might allow us to conclude that the TiTi monkeys offspring are more successful since they can hang around in trees and eat leaves and fruit. As members of the human race we are concerned with how our offspring (children) will function in society.
As an anthropologist these types of comparison may seem useful to the uneducated pseudo scientific community. I am a realist. I would like to see you focus on humans in relationship with other humans. I also am a very concerned father and I hope that you never receive a mothers day gift written with such degrading intent. God did not give children two parents by accident. It is by requirement, so that children can grow in community with both genders and gain the benefits of those relationships.
For an opinion that includes fathers and mothers please visit any of the sites listed below.
http://www.iamnotavisitor.com
http://www.menandfathersforjustice.org/
http://www.acfc.org/site/PageServer
Representative Dunnigan,
Here is yet another example of what non custodial fathers are faced with on a regular basis. The discrimination will not stop until we, as a state, change our laws to end the legislative bias that exists and is perpetuated in the elected officials and the media.
Thank you,
June 15th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
dale - Well conceived and well written. Good job.
Now for the big question - will representative Dunnigan do something about this blatant sex-biased discrimination? Or is there too much money to be made by judges, lawyers, social workers, mediators, ad nauseam, from the current adversarial system to keep any meaningful change from happening? The "divorce industry" stands too much too lose by a system based on reason, common sense, and the real best interest of the children – presumptive shared custody.
Unfortunately, my experience with the family court system over the past 13 years has left me with a very cynical and hopeless outlook. For the sake of my son and his future, I hope I am wrong.
Tom
June 16th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Sent To Time:
To whom it may concern,
As a parent & Father, I found your article about Fathers disgusting & dispicable! Not only are you trying to compare fathers to animals which in itself is appalling, but you use studies from the 1960's as well as a redicioulous study from 1994 to do nothing more than to demoralize Fathers.
Did you bother to do any NEW studies? Many more Father's are in their children's lives today, and the Mother's are losing custody more often everyday in this country.
I do not remember seeing an article about Mothers being compared to animals during the week of Mother's Day, and how more and more they are abusing and killing and losing their children. Do an article on that!
And to think that the "Amnesty" Immigration Bill is more important than putting a Father & his story about how the Courts are geared towards the Mother on your cover.
Why didn't you say in your article that just by being a Man, he is already almost defeated in Family Court and demonized even though he may be a better parent and takes the "best interest" of the children in to consideration in his life?
Your one sided and biased reporting is absolutely horrible, but you have finally shown your true reporting ideals to me, and I will be much wiser in the future when calling your publication a "Respected" Magazine instead of the "Tabloid" that it has turned in to.
I demand that you write an unbiased article, and try using Father's in your studies instead of the Ex-Spouses that these writers use. And let a Father write an article, instead of two people that have absolutely no clue what it is like to be a father; namely Sarah Hardy & Mary Batten who obviously have a "man-bashing" problem, and Time Magazine has given them their pedestal.
Respectfully,
S M
June 16th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
[...] is getting in on the Father's Day week dad-bashing that we've also seen from TIME magazine (click here), the nationally-syndicated OPUS cartoon (click here), Barack Obama (stay tuned), and [...]
June 17th, 2007 at 10:33 am
GR,
Your article for Mother's Day 2008 speaks the truth. I challegne Time to print it. If they don't-someone should. Time should add an article regarding the many mothers who consider their children only a paycheck. Another article should feature mothers who intentionally alienate the father. Additionally there should be an article regarding women who manipulate the family court system to sway rulings in their favor. If by chance they need a place to start- I personally can give them names, dates, court documents and proof to start off their investigation. Also, I'm writing to Sony regarding their camera commerical featuring Dad as "not a horse's behind" . I find it degrading, distasteful, and another nail in the coffin of the male species.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
The sad thing about all this is what is happening to our children and family life as we know it. We are destroying families and generations to come. There are many documented reports of the results of children in a fatherless home, a home which he is driven from far more than he walks away from.
In my particular case of PAS, consider the effects of PAS on the child:
Child Development Doctor has stated that his significant speech and cognitive delays are not physical, they are the result of a difficult environment. He lives with Mom and stepdad. He was denied a relationship with his father for several years, then mom moves him 4 States away to prevent a relationship.
He has significant speech and cognitive delays, about 12 to 18 months behind his age group.
He suffers from anxiety, high acid content resulting in acid reflux, causing choking.
Sleep disorders, awakens with nightmares.
In his short life of 6 yrs he has had Dad, Stepdad, and at least 4 of Mom's boyfriends in his life.
Any good guesses where this child will be when he becomes an adult??
And the courts stand behind mom by doing nothing to prevent interference with visitation. Her taunt is, take me to court, nothing happens, and she's right. We've been through it. Maybe Time's article should have been on the destruction of the family by the current family law system.
A retraction is definitely in order.
June 17th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
A very Happy Fathers Day to all......hang in there.
June 17th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Thanks Zombie - it really would work. As the former owner of two small companies, - I absolutely guarantee you business understands loss of revenue and/or ownership. They, and their stock holders of course, would do anything to prevent either. ... The idea is NOT about making any money on the "targeted" stock, - it's about "control" - and the fear of losing it by "them".
June 17th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
I am a woman and I think this article is appalling and untruthful to say the least. Last year my bestfriend was involved in a custody battle of a new born with a woman whom he had a 3 month relationship with. He eventually had to get a 3 yr restraining order on her because she was harrassing him at work ( we all work together). His take home pay is $1900 a month but he was order to pay $676 in child support and that doesnt include medical for one child (mind you we live in the bay area in ca) and 3 hours, 3 days a week for visiting and he lives 20 minutes from her house. The judge refused to take into account the drop off place must be in his city because he would spend a substantial amount of time transporting his daughter and basically that intrudes upon the 3 hours given. The judge should be trying to make sure this child has her father in her life and stop listening to some of these scorned women who want these men and if they can't have them, they are willing to use the child against them. The family courts allow this.
June 18th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
[...] part of the father-bashing Father's Day week pile-on that we've also seen from TIME magazine (click here), the nationally-syndicated OPUS cartoon (click here), the Washington Post (click here), and [...]
June 18th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Dear Editors of Time Magazine:
Please explain to me why you allowed such a hostile title for a rather mundane scientific article about human hormones affecting parental relationships - oh, wait I know why -- it is called the science of the decline in journalism in the twentieth century. In Hdry's previous publications she has not even mentioned fathers, her total interest is in mothers and motherhood. Why would respectable editors allow this article that is focused on fathers and fatherhood to be written by someone so totally unqualified?
"Daddy Dearest" instead of explaining to PARENTS how scientifically they are affected by early and continuous contact with their infant, based on research, the article was slanted to attack American men and their relationships with their children. The research mentioned was not conducted in America, so all data regarding relationships between American fathers and their children, divorced or not, was conjuncture to exploit an group who are currently the popular target of media/societal attack.
Why is "Parental Alienation Syndrome" not mention as the reason that Dads are not part of their children's lives, instead of the hackneyed phrase men who "drift out of their children's lives." The facts, that have been researched in America, are that mothers are angry at their lives and husbands/ex-husbands/ex-partners and they systematical poison the relationship between fathers and their children because of their own issues. Another recognized fact is that the child support system in America is in the hands of county prosecutors who get federal funds to treat fathers like criminals instead of working through support/visitation issues that would be beneficial to children, instead of the prosecutor's political careers.
It is very sad that Time magazine has stooped to allowing this kind of tabloid drivel into what was previously a very respected publication. Are your subscription numbers so small that you have to cheapen your content to get readers and subscribers? In the future I expect I will see Time at grocery checkout lanes, and I will ignore it with the rest of the tabloids.
Dorothy Snyder
June 18th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Men, it's time to terminate all "serious debate" with females. We have to stop all this nonsense. We no longer have the luxury to waste any more time. The candles have burnt out.
Anon the First.
June 18th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
"Fathers, as a whole, have sacrificed being able to sit at home 80-90% of the day holding their baby and beholden to nobody or deadlines in lieu of going to work every morning and doing someone else's bidding in order to allow their family to thrive"
Do you really know anyone for whom this is true? You all must live in a very different world than I do. I teach in an inner city school where the majority of children live with just their mother and I can tell you first hand that children need both parents, but slamming mothers out of retaliation is simply not accurate, nor intelligent. When I am off in the summer, I do sleep in to the late hour of 6:30 instead of the usual 5:30. Since I am "on break", I take over total responsibility for housekeeping, meals and care of our yard. I tutor our children, schedule and keep doctors appointments and take children to their activities. My husband comes home from work and relaxes and spends time with the children, while I get dinner and clean up afterword. While he has quality time, I fold laundry. The plus for all of us is that, because I don't work during the summer, we are able to spend time together on the weekends doing somehing besides chores. Why on earth would you have a child with someone, man or woman, who sat around 90% of the time? The opinions on both sides of this issue are too extreme to do anyone any good. Children are entitled to responsible parents who value a stable life for them. No one should have more children than they can afford. If you get divorced, you do not have the right to have more children while you leave the support of your first kids to someone else. Most of you don't seem to care as much about visitation as you do child support. My guess is that if the courts cut your child support to 0, you would gladly give up visitation. If I am wrong, why not focus your efforts on enforcing visitation? For the record, my first husband left me with 3 children to support. I moved 300 miles away because that was the best job I could get. Although he didn't support his children, he tried to claim that I had tried to alienate them from him. He never sent cards or letters and seldom called. He showed up usually when he got a new girlfriend, demanding visitation. I remember that one daughter bought him a Christmas present, when she was six. It sat in our living room for 4 years before he called again. I worked 2 jobs and juggled child care to give my children a good life. Those of my children that are adults have made an adult choice not to have their father in their lives, because all he can do is bash their mother. I didn't alienate them from him, he did that himself. Divorce is not death nor involuntary job loss. It is a choice and seldom comes out of the blue. Marriage counseling is available through many avenues. I think that courts should take a hard line in regards to both child support and visitation. Maybe then parents would take their responsibilities toward their children more seriously. I was fortunate to have a second chance to marry a responsible partner. We had another child together and he also helped me to support his stepchildren, while their bio father continued to whined about being disabled (not too disabled to father more children, however).
June 18th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
My bad Anon
June 18th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
RJ -
"Do you really know anyone for whom this is true? You all must live in a very different world than I do..."
Yes I do know somone who has been through the meatgrinder called the family court system. And no, I am not living in a different world than you do - just unfortunate to have been born a male.
"... I teach in an inner city school where the majority of children live with just their mother and I can tell you first hand that children need both parents..."
An absolutely brilliant observation RJ. Now ask yourself just two questions:
1)Exactly WHY is it that “…the majority of children live with just their mother...”? You might consider that women file 70 to 80% of all divorces, and that women friendly family courts routinely grant physical custody to the women in the vast majority of cases – regardless of the wants or wishes of the father. Do you arrive at the erroneous conclusion that the fathers must not CARE about their children; otherwise there would be more men with custody? Take a look at the numerous posts here that describe a different story.
2) I doubt that you would find many non-custodial fathers that would disagree with you that “ …children need both parents...? All they have ever wanted is to be a regular and consistent part of their children’s lives. Two parents may get divorced – but that procedure should have nothing to do with the sacrosanct right and responsibility to be a parent. Why is it RJ that men are not permitted to be a father to their children as women are allowed to be mothers, thus enabling the children to keep BOTH parents in their lives? Do you conclude again that it must be because men simply do not care about their children? How many posts will it take to convince you otherwise?
This debate would end in an instant if all the incentives for women filing for divorce were removed. What if Presumptive Shared Parenting were the law of the land? What would be the outcome if, when one partner files for divorce the law allowed for the two parents to divorce, as now, but also gave the children the basic right they are entitled but are now denied: to keep both parents in their life!! Wow - what a concept! 50/50 shared parenting! Each parent assumes the responsibility they had before the divorce – each provides shelter, meals, and involvement in their children’s lives. No money is required to exchange hands. The courts would from removed from the role of playing God - assigning a “good” parent for custody, and a “bad” parent for visitation (good luck!) but more important – a walking ATM machine for the “good” parent. BOTH parents are presumed good until proven unfit. The operative word here is PROVEN. There are already laws on the books that take care of those situations. New ones would not be required.
Of course, just as now, a parent could abdicate their responsibility to their children if they wish. There are already laws that provide for child support if one parent is unwilling to take on the responsibility of providing for their children. Nothing new is needed here.
Oh yes, one last thing. It would also end the “Deadbeat Dad” debate once and for all.
If all fathers walked away from their responsibility as a parent in droves – as many women think would be the case – then the system would simply pick up as it is now: assigning draconian support orders, writing insulting articles about whether dads really deserve Fathers Day – listing fathers in the Most Wanted Post Offices pictures – Etc, etc.
On the other hand, what if all the liberal social science experimenters were wrong – and fathers actually DID give a damn about their kids! Well, I guess all the slanderous articles would have to stop, deadbeat dad wanted posters in the post office would disappear, and best of all – children would have their fathers back in their lives.
Tom
An absolutely brilliant observation RJ. Now ask yourself just two questions:
1)Exactly WHY is it that “…the majority of children live with just their mother...”? You might consider that women file 70 to 80% of all divorces, and that women friendly family courts routinely grant physical custody to the women in the vast majority of cases – regardless of the wants or wishes of the father. Do you arrive at the erroneous conclusion that the fathers must not CARE about their children; otherwise there would be more men with custody? Take a look at the numerous posts here that describe a different story.
2) I doubt that you would find many non-custodial fathers that would disagree with you that “ …children need both parents...? All they have ever wanted is to be a regular and consistent part of their children’s lives. Two parents may get divorced – but that procedure should have nothing to do with the sacrosanct right and responsibility to be a parent. Why is it RJ that men are not permitted to be a father to their children as women are allowed to be mothers, thus enabling the children to keep BOTH parents in their lives? Do you conclude again that it must be because men simply do not care about their children? How many posts will it take to convince you otherwise?
This debate would end in an instant if all the incentives for women filing for divorce were removed. What if Presumptive Shared Parenting were the law of the land? What would be the outcome if, when one partner files for divorce the law allowed for the two parents to divorce, as now, but also gave the children the basic right they are entitled but are now denied: to keep both parents in their life!! Wow - what a concept! 50/50 shared parenting! Each parent assumes the responsibility they had before the divorce – each provides shelter, meals, and involvement in their children’s lives. No money is required to exchange hands. The courts would from removed from the role of playing God - assigning a “good” parent for custody, and a “bad” parent for visitation (good luck!) but more important – a walking ATM machine for the “good” parent. BOTH parents are presumed good until proven unfit. The operative word here is PROVEN. There are already laws on the books that take care of those situations. New ones would not be required.
Of course, just as now, a parent could abdicate their responsibility to their children if they wish. There are already laws that provide for child support if one parent is unwilling to take on the responsibility of providing for their children. Nothing new is needed here.
Oh yes, one last thing. It would also end the “Deadbeat Dad” debate once and for all.
If all fathers walked away from their responsibility as a parent in droves – as many women think would be the case – then the system would simply pick up as it is now: assigning draconian support orders, writing insulting articles about whether dads really deserve Fathers Day – listing fathers in the Most Wanted Post Offices pictures – Etc, etc.
On the other hand, what if all the liberal social science experimenters were wrong – and fathers actually give a damn about their kids! Well, I guess all the slanderous articles would have to stop, deadbeat dad wanted posters in the post office would disappear, and best of all – children would have their fathers back in their lives.
Tom
June 18th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Please excuse the double posting of my reply. An Edit feature is needed here.
Tom
June 19th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I think that RJ using what she is seeing in the inner city as a basis for her post. I am from the inner city. Divorce was not really an issue there(at least where I am from). Most of the people that I knew had parents that were never married. The people at my school with married parents were the odd balls.
June 19th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
I totally believe in 50/50 parenting but I do not believe that "no money needs to exchange hands" That is ridiculous, when incomes are not equal. The child would go from middle class to poverty every other weekend. I stand by my observation that this is more about child support than parenting. The research shows that the standard of living of the custodial parent drops within the first few years of a divorce. What incentive to divorce is that? The only workable solution that will truly be in the best interests of the children is to enforce child support and visitation orders with equal vigor. If I could work to jobs as a custodial parent to support my children, I don't see why a non custodial parent can't do the same.
June 19th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
That's the whole point. There should be a few incentives to divorce as possible. When you file for divorce you're saying you want things to change. This includes a change in standard of living. Noone should be responsible for the standard of living of someone they are not currently married to. Is that the only reason so many women file for divorce, to have someone subsidize their standard of living? You're starting to tell on yourself RJ. See even when a man has custody and gets support from his ex, the courts continually monitor the situation, and once they feel he should be on his feet, his support is reduced, or the custody gets reevaluated because some in society feel that a grown man shouldn't have someone taking care of him. So why shouldn't the same be said for a grown woman. What you seem to keep forgetting to mention is that as the custodial parent you get all kinds of support, like a $3,000 deuction from uncle sam for every child, just to name one. Why should money change hands, if you're an independent woman, and custody is shared?
June 19th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Everyone talks about getting rid of the incentives.
Why not start by writing your congressioanl reps and tell not to vote for HR 1386 and SB 308.IS
To repeal a provision enacted to end Federal matching of State spending of child support incentive payments.
The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act did away with Federal Incentives to states for the collection of child support.
Here is a good opportunity to start turning things around. These bills have a lot of sponsors/co-sponsors
and will most likely pass unless people start making their voices heard. Elections are just down the road.
We also need to get lawyers out of divorce and the J.A.I.L. initiative passed in every state!
But, it won't be long before the jails are so full that things will have to change. With most men being
divorced these days and jobs going overseas, there is going to a large increase in incarcerated men
who can no longer pay child support.
June 19th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
RJ - So what you're saying is you want your cake and eat it. You want to marry a man, have his children, and naturally, have him support you and the kids. But, you also want the privilege and option to end the marriage any time you want without any real reason whatsoever (No Fault Divorce) and then again, you want your ex to support you and your children even though he may not have wanted the divorce in the first place.
You do bring up a very good point though. In reality, there is absolutely no difference between alimony and child support. Bottom line - what is alimony? Answer: Money that the ex pays to the former spouse to spend any way the spouse wishes, without any accountability whatsoever.
Bottom line - what is child support? Answer: Money that the ex pays to the former spouse to spend any way the spouse wishes, without any accountability whatsoever.
The two terms are virtually indistinguishable.
In actuality - children need the same basic necessities of life that everyone does: food, shelter, and clothing. Most important after these necessities are the love and caring of their parents. It could be said that love comes BEFORE these other necessities. After Love, anything else is simply icing on the cake. How many stories have you heard from celebrities about all the things they had to do without while growing up, but everything shrank in significance when compared to the uncondition love, attention and praise they received from their parents. Jim Carey and Shinaya Twain are two that come to mind - but there are countless others.
Believe me RJ, if there is love coming from BOTH parents, then all the money in the world is not going to make a difference.
Go ask Paris Hilton in jail.
Tom
June 19th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
I am the mother of a "dead beat" Dad.....I hate that phrase!!! I am with you all in changing the laws to protect the "mom" and screw the Dad!! I have been trying for four years to get someone to listen to the horrible story I have to tell and if it takes the rest of my life I will get this story out so what happened to my son won't happen to someone else! I know there are many of you who have horrific stories to tell....I am one of you! I may be a Mother of a son who's been screwed royally by the judical system and a lying ex wife but I'm right there with you all...to support you in any way I can!!
June 21st, 2007 at 1:39 am
Live with it for the rest of your life or send $50 to Michael Robinson, the SOLE men's issues person pounding the floors in Sacramento to pay for one month of his cell phone bill. Right now, Michael is the only person pushing back these harebrain laws. He is raising two daughters on nothing to keep the candle in the window that maybe there is some hope things can be made more fair. If not for Michael, there is NOBODY pushing back these horrid laws. NOBODY! GOD DAMN NOBODY!
Please read the above again. There is only ONE person in Sacramento fighting off the ridiculousness of what is going on and he is beginning to see the light that living on dirt with no support from those supposedly really angry with “the system” is not worth it to him and his daughters any more.
Even the billionaires that get their butt kicked in family court because of asinine laws pay millions to lawyers for no results do not give a dime to Michael when that would get him, among other things, get a part-time an assistant to follow up on the 10 million things that maybe he could influence if he had the resources.
Mr. Baldwin: Michael knows which laws need to be changed and how to change them to force a judge to kick Kim’s butt if she continues to interfere as she has been doing. It takes dollars to push back the bad legislation and keep it pushed back. Dude, your expensive lawyers are up against very bad laws. How about a shift in strategy and fund some of the changing of the laws? You will never win in a million years as long as you fight her with lawyers instead of with strong laws backing you up.
The super sad thing is all of this is that most of the men so ground up are living hand-to-mouth and cannot help keep Michael on the job. It’s going to take a coalition of those with extra income to get this right side up again. Women in second marriages are beginning to write checks to end what is happening with their new husbands. That is one heck of a good sign but the total funding needs to increase or the smart money says this generation of men don’t get it so abandon the fight and live with wherever it goes from here.
If you can blog, you can write a check. If you write a check, you are buying push-back. Every dime goes to push-back. Right now is the time to step up and vote with your dollars.
DanH
June 21st, 2007 at 5:30 am
Although letter writing may make a difference in some cases, in most it does not.
What can make a difference is people educating themselves on Family law and local courtroom procedure.
If, we can take the money out of divorce for the lawyers, it would make a big difference.
Someone needs to go after a Federal Grant to start up a chain of clincs for couples of divorce.
Pitch it as a way to turn around the divorce epidemeic in America and the loss of fahers in their
childrens lives and preventing the advent of future dead beat das.
Offer free counseling on divorce. Show films that have predictable outcomes of a woman losing thier
children and then a man losing thier children. Make it as appauling as possible. Make it where these
parents DO NOT want to enter the courtrooms with lawyers.
Show them what divorce does tothe children and what they can expect in return from those children
in the future.
Educate, Educate, Educate using our taxpayor money. Why not? evryone else uses our money. Like Child support enforcement!
Lets get creative here and come up with some viable solutions that DO NOT take 30 years to execute!
June 21st, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Tom:
If you will look at my posts, I stated that I, as the custodial parent worked 2 jobs to support my family. My ex tried every conceivable strategy to avoid paying a mere 300/month for child support. If I could work two jobs and juggle child care, surely a non custodial parent could manage it. I have worked most of my married and remarried life and most of female friends also work. Those that don't work take care of almost everything at home, but do have more time to spend with their children, although they have to budget more carefully. The children of my stay at home Mom friends excell in school and seem very stable. So where does this notion come from that most husbands support a wife who stays home and does whatever she wants all day? Why would anyone marry and have children with someone (male or female) with so little ambition? Are you guys getting married to 14 year olds or adults? Or could it be that men just don't want to recognize the efforts of their spouses? I have to say also, that, of the people I know who divorced, only one left because she was "unfullfilled" (she also happened to be an alcoholic), and there were no children from that marrage. Here are the other reasons, refusal of husband to attend marriage counseling, husband had 2 affairs(she forgave him after the first because of the kids), 2 husbands were homosexual, 2 drank heavily and refused to get help and spent a large amount of the family budget hanging with their friends and drinking/smoking weed, 1 controlled the finances to the point that the kids had very little, while the husband had all of his "toys" and one was emotionally abusive (punched holes in the walls, etc. So even though the woman intitiated the divorce, you can't say that they never have a good reason. And, it wasn't a decision they took lightly. They fretted and stressed and probably waited longer than they should have to see if he would change. Perhaps couples should wait five years after marrying before having children so problems like thes have a chance to be identified and resloved .
June 21st, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Educate, Educate, Educate using our taxpayor money.
Man am I with you there!
First we need to introduce people to the alien concept that a yellow traffic light is Mr. Brake Pedal asking for quaity time with your foot.
Second, we need to introduce people to the alien concept that merging and lane changing starts with hands-on familiarity with Mr. Turn Signal Lever.
A one-hour commute each way DanH.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:25 am
RJ - you need not go any further than your first sentence "...I, as the custodial parent..."
"Custodial parent" is an oxymoron. Children have TWO parents - not one. Once one understands that words like "custodial" and "non-custodial" are legal terms contrived by shrewd lawyers who figured a clever way to fatten their already bloated pockets by pitting one spouse against the other in a “winner take all” adversarial contest in Divorce Court – the terms become meaningless. In this game EVERYONE loses - the children the most – with the exception of the people who make a handsome living perpetuating the mindless myth that says there is a “good” parent and a “bad” parent, and that the children are always to be awarded to the “good” parent – who just happens statistically to be the female spouse.
You don’t seem to deny that females instigate the majority of divorces – you just happen to believe that they were justified in doing so because their husbands were either “unwilling”, “unfaithful”, “alcoholics”, “homosexuals”, “abusive”, or just plain “self-centered” and deserve what they got, while all the women you know work two jobs just to make ends meet because their lazy ex-husbands refuse to pay “child support”, or they are “stay at home” moms (you never did say how they are financially able to do this – maybe a not-so-lazy ex-husband?) who lavish all the love and attention and role model that the children will ever need.
Well then, it certainly sounds like you have no problem with Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and Mary Batten’s contention that men don’t deserve a Fathers Day then does it? The workers in the Divorce Industry will be quick to agree with you. All the leftist feminists will be cheering you along as well.
Unfortunately there are 95+ posts on this blog already that happen to disagree with your assessment. It might be because they were not so unwilling, unfaithful, alcoholics, homosexuals, abusive, or even self-centered enough to deserve the punishment of denied access to their children. Having your children taken away from you when you have done nothing to deserve it – is as close to a living hell as is one can imagine.
And I am curious, exactly what it about unwilling, unfaithful, alcoholic, homosexual, abusive or self-centered men that make them so attractive to so many women – attractive enough to marry them in fact. Not only marry them, but also have children by them! My, oh my, it sure does take you women a long, long time to figure out how wretched and evil our real nature is.
Why those cunning, wily, no-good bastards!
Tom
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
They marry them so they can divorce them and tak them to the cleaners. It's an industry! Women know that they can secure their futures financially by getting married, having children and then getting divvorced. It would be intersting to know how many women in this country have been married and divorced mutilple times.
Men become dead beat dads because the system forces them to. It allows the states to continue putting out the statistics on dead beat dads so they can justify the federal incentives the states get for child support enforcement. The women who allow their childrens fathers to be forced out of their lives do not deserve a penny from anyone. They should be jailed for child abuse just as men are jailed for not paying child support.
It's going to take some drastic action on mens part to get anywhere in changing any of this. It is too profitable to lawyers and the states.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Find here a copy of e-mail I sent to Time Life!!!
Thursday, June 14, 2007, 12:38:27 AM
Only way to get change is to protest!!!
While a man’s personal affairs should remain private, sometimes you have to lower standards to try to invoke change!!!
Let’s e-mail these ‘falsehood’ spreaders that are Anti-Family, Anti-Male, Anti-Children and Anti-Family!!!
Protest TIME Magazine's Father's Day Hatchet Job on Dads!
Link: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=815
Steve Martin
My letter sent to Time Life below!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
“The Psychology of Fatherhood”
My letter is protesting the “garbage” you publish as fact in “The Psychology of Fatherhood” found here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1630551,00.html
I find the erroneous misleading minutia trivial insignificant “garbage” you publish as fact in the article “The Psychology of Fatherhood” as a personal attack on me!
If I was a senior editor at Time Life, I would be scrutinizing work submitted by people such as Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and Mary Batten a little closer!
While Time Life has given insight to significant issues in the past…
…You have failed miserably here!
Point One:
I haven’t seen my “brainwashed” Son in over 11+ years!!!
Point Two:
My Ex-Wife’s “hormonal” balance drastically changed after child birth.
Point Three:
My violent vindictive abusive ex-wife continues her crusade and justification (in her mind) campaign of terror thanks to articles published such as “The Psychology of Fatherhood”
Point Four:
Time Life is doing a disservice to Family and Family Values by promoting an erroneous explanation to why the majority of Fathers lose contact with their Children.
Point Five:
Even though I was constantly being physically and emotionally being assaulted, because I was born male so “I have to take it like a man!”
No funded “shelter” or “safe house” available for me to escape to with Child!
I knew with Child gone, so would I be gone if I didn’t accept abuse such as chipped teeth, cracked ribs, facial scars etc!
Point Six:
After mom “bleed me dry,” (mortgage free home gone); and when I didn’t have more to give, access was denied thanks to corrupt government buying a woman’s vote!!!
Blackmail “helped” along by government extortion policies.
Point Seven:
As a man and a Father, how can you fight a corrupt system that allows misinformation to be published???
How as a Father can I have any faith in a system, when the deck is stacked against Dads???
Deck stacked and found in articles that are “ripe” full of lies!!!
Point Eight:
The internet has been an information boom for many individuals who can now blow holes in “falsehoods’ published by news agencies such as yours!
Maybe your organization should re-structure itself to use modern technology in the quest for truth!
The Lenore Weitzman’s mid eighties study has been proven as being a fraud…
…So why is Time Life “still” extrapolating the “myth” found in her 1985 study and why do our politicians “still” buy into it???
Lies, Damned Lies, and Lenore Weitzman
by Cristopher Rapp
See: http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm
Point Nine:
Does Time Life care more about “circulation” numbers then “presenting” the “Truth”???
Seems that way to me with the publishing of the “falsehoods” and “garbage” found in your published article entitled “The Psychology of Fatherhood”
Steve Martin
Pic:
http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/000Images/aim/atlas7201.jpg
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:20 am
Tom A
The stay at home Moms I referred to are married to the father of their children. My point is that statistics don't tell all. 70% of women initiate divorces, but that not to say that none of them have good reason. Not all men are deadbeat dads and not all women are coniving bitches. Using the extreme stories does nothing to further your cause because you lose your credibility. Thats what's wrong with most of the essays on this site. It sounds like the Jerry Springer show. And, you can cry about your loyalty to your kids but most of the posts just sound like parents who don't want to pay child support; parents who want to move on and make babies with someone else. I know a few of the extreme cases you all talk about, but for most divorced families, it was painful for both sides and both parents struggle to raise and support their children. For most women, choosing to live off their ex's support and not work would mean extreme poverty. Now days $2000 per month barely pays rent and utilities for a family with children. Add food, clothing, school and vehicle expenses and the total goes up. I ask again, and no one has yet answered me; Who do you expect to support your children, if not the parents? I worked two jobs to support mine, I don't want to have to support yours through my taxes. Are there any Dads out there with custody who would favor 50/50 parenting and would give up child support from their ex wife?
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:08 pm
RJ
"Using extreme stories does nothing to further your cause because you lose your credibility"
The stories are true factual stories. What you want is for someone to make up a Jerry Springer story so you can justify your denial of the facts.
Lets face it, when it comes to divorce, women are the ones who run to the lawyers office 1st in the majority of cases. And, in most cases, they do not even approach their husband and tell them they want a divorce and try and work the divorce out amicably. They run to that lawyer knowing they can get whatever they want in todays Family Court. This BS about not being able to live on 2K a month is just that. BS. In adivorce, everyone's standard of living is going to go down. But, women think they are entitled to live off of their husbands for the rest of their lives just because they were married! BS.....If you want to break the contract, then your on your own. The child support is not the issue with men as much as it is with Alimony and being denied equal access to their children.
I make a good salary and my wife of 14 years decides she wants a divorce. Not sure when she decided it but, she went and got a lawyer 2 days after we moved into our newly built home. She then called all her clients from her business and told them she was out of business. She was making well over $1600.00 (And not paying her taxes on it) a month in her business but, when she filed for divorce, she told the courts she was a stay at home mother and told them that she could not work because of her bad feet. The courts believed every bit of it without any supporting evidence! Talk about bias in the courts! Women get this treatment because the men do not stand up and fight. They just bend over and take it for the sake of the children. But, what goes around comes around. My wife does not realize it now but, down the road, she will come crying for help when our 2 sons enter those doors of the family courts! That is when I will tell her that she did the same thing to me and, our sons will realize then what kind of mother they really have and that women like her made this system what it is so, live with it!
I offered my STBX the house, 50K in equity (From My IRA which she never contrbuted to) that we put down on this new house and full child support as if she had full custody in return for 50/50 joint custody and her and her lawyer would not even come to the table and discuss it. They knew that as a women with children she can have it all. But, they screwed up big time. I was forced into bankruptcy by their greed and the house is being forclosed on and she will soon not have a place to live with those children. All because of their greed. Had she told me she wanted a divorce, I would have been more than happy to sit down with her and give her a good settlement. Now, she is going to be the big loser in this.
Unlike most men, I am not afraid of jail or dying for what I think is right. I WILL NOT bend over for the courts! My sons will know in time why also. Right after they walk out of the Family Courts for the first time!
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
NCDAD
Here is my story. I think that it is one of the extreme ones. My husband left when our kids were in pre school. I married and had children right out of college, so I had not put my degree to work at that time. I was awarded 1/2 of the assests and 1/2 of the bills and 300/month child support. I found a job, actually worked 2 jobs and never collected a dime on child support. Later, I was sued for my ex husband's 1/2 of the bills. I paid my 1/2, he didn't pay his and I was held responsible according to CA law. Thats when I found a second job; I had to or my kids would not have had food or shelter. My husband had quit a government job and worked under the table. When I took him to court for child support he came into court with a cane, claiming that he was permanently disabled by agent orange. No proof but he was a pitiful sight. Out of court he drove new cars, had three more children and married/lived with at least that many women. He popped in every couple of years demanding visitation rights and when each of my kids was 14, he tried to get custody, because kids can choose which parent they want to live with. I was remarried by then and he hoped that my current husband's income would count in setting child support. When he found out it didn't count,that the law had been changed, he tried to take one child and eliminate child support. When he found out that child support would not be eliminated, he stopped his attempt at gaining custody. Incidently, he wanted more child support per child than he had been ordered to pay. We have been divorced 25 years. I went to court and got all the back child support plus interest. His agent orange claim didn't hold up this time, because, 25 years later, he travels the country and recently remarried, again and has no proof that he was ever exposed. I am sure, that, to him, I am the coniving ex bitch. He is an example of a man who tried every tactic to avoid responsibility for his children. Their step-father supported them after I remarried and that is the man to whom they put forth effort for a relationship. Parental Alienation? I didn't have to do that. My ex did it to himself. Yet, I am not saying that every ex husband is like that. But, from most of the posts I hear, the issue seems to be about money, not parenting. I am not saying that most men don't care about their children. But, they are more mad about having to pay money to a woman they now hate. If what you say is true and you aren't leaving anything out, then you need to sue your lawyer. Why didn't you show her earning history? $1,600/month isn't very much money, I hope you weren't trying to say that she didn't need child support.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
The Bible states that divorced is allowed because we are called to live in peace. "If an unbeliever should want to leave the marriage, they should be allowed to leave, because we are called to live in peace." What has happened in America with no-fault divorce, custodial and non-custodial parents has not lead to peace for anyone. The laws supposedly are for the good of the children, but put the all the power in the "non-custodial" parents hands. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When one person believes that they can "make" someone else do something, then they loose perspective on right and wrong. Historically this has happened every time one group could control/ dominate another group. Custodial parents are using the family court system to control and dominate the spouse that they could not control and dominate in the marriage. Primarily the custodial parent is the mother because the system is set up to give the children to the mother unless the father has been able to PROVE unfitness.
This country needs to find a way that parents (custodial/non-custodial) and children can find peace after divorce, or the American standard of living will continue to decline. The Family Court System is the "enemy within," with a few (prosecutors/custodial parents) using their position to benefit from the misery of the non-custodial parent and the children.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:31 pm
RJ: With corrections lol...my keyboard does not always keep up with my fingers
No. i was not trying to say she did not need or would not get child support. I offered her evrything I own. HOuse, 50K equity, full child support based on state guildlines and Alimony. All I wanted was equal time with my sons and they would not even come to the table to discuss it any further. As far as they were concerned, they felt they were already going to get all of that but would not have to allow me equal time with my sons. My sons BTW wanted to live with me but, I do not believe in Sole Custody. I consider Sole Custody child abuse. Children need both their parents. In the end, she will reap what she sows. My sons know me well and they are tired of her saying things like. "Be careful around your father, he might try and kill you" or "Your father is going to kill me" and now most recently, "If you go live with your father, I will kill myself". She is hurting these boys so bad. They need closure and the way the courts work today, they will not get it unless I just disappear or, we end up with 50/50 custody arrangement.
Your 1st husband finally got what he deserved. My sisters husband did the same thing to her and, he regrets it now because it turned his daughters gainst him.
The children and the non-custodial parent are the ones who pay the price in their relationship and it is not from their own chosing in most cases. It is forced upon them by the state. The state depends on the federal dollars they receive for child support collection. By law, in order for them to collect the federal dollars, an NCP must be created. They have created a new class of American's and have stripped them of all their parental rights.
I would bet that most children of divorce will grow up not wanting to get married or bring children into this world. My sons told me that they never will.
In the end, these laws are just going to drive men and women further apart and put an end to the American Family and the values they brought to our once great country.
June 25th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Really really idiotic.
Our gender hands over the most important of our institutions, marriage and family, to females for them to destroy. Then when females destroy marriage and family and wreck everything, our gender cries and mopes about the loss of our children, our money, and our future.
In a word - exasperating.
Anon.
June 25th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Anon.....You make a very good point. We have put too much trust in them. Time for males to stop trusting...
June 25th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
RJ-
It took me two hours to draft a reply to you - and it was submitted but not posted. I know it was long - but it need to be to state facts and make a point. So I will aim for concise brevity.
One of your posts states, "Using the extreme stories does nothing to further your cause because you lose your credibility". Then you follow up with another post that states, "Here is my story. I think that it is one of the extreme ones." So you chide men for using Jerry Springer like stories that you deem extreme, then post your own story that you freely admit is "one of the extreme ones". So I will disregard your story because it is extreme - I certainly wouldn't want you to lose any credibility.
The stories you find here may seem extreme to you because they are so outrageous. Well, they certainly ARE outrageous - but they certainly are not extreme. And they certainly are not uncommon. As a woman you wouldn't understand how common they are - but for an unsuspecting male who has been through the meat grinder called the Family Justice System (an oxymoron if there ever was one!) there is nothing uncommon or extreme about it. This insidious, cavalier, bias and injustice occurring in the courts all over the US every single day, day after day, month after month, year after year and has a history spanning decades now.
As I have stated previously, the current system will not change because it stands too much too lose - as in $$$. It is no accident that the current Divorce Industry design is structured the way it is - it brings in revenue for too many people. And those people are not going to give up their cushy government jobs any time soon. The Divorce Industry has a strong self-interest in promoting a system based on adversarial divorce pitting one parent against another with lawyers costing thousands of dollars in a winner-take-all contest that is rigged from the outset. The winner of course is labeled "custodial parent" while the loser is called the "non-custodial" parent. In actuality, the "custodial parent" OWNS the children as though they were pieces of luggage, and the "non-custodial" parent is relegated the status of a very suspect 2nd class citizen - only permitted to "visit" his pieces of luggage when it is convenient for the owner, if he is lucky, or is never allowed to see them - depending upon the whim of the owner.
It would not be so bad if the playing field were at least level with these insane rules, but they are not. If a woman happens to end up on the "non-custodial" end of the game (statistically a very improbable happenstance - but it does happens now and then to show an appearance of "fairness") is she bound by the same rules that men are? No. Child support orders are granted for women to pay men child support, but guess what happens when women don't pay men child support........NOTHING! They are not put in jail, the wheels on their cars are not chained and locked, their licenses are not revoked, they get off scot-free! The statistics are that only 10% of child support due from women is ever paid by on time. In contrast, when fathers are allowed free and unobstructed access to their children - men pay all of the child support due over 90% of the time! Do you hear our mainstream media pointing out this obvious miscarriage of justice? Do you hear anyone talking about putting woman’s faces in posts office most wanted posters? Or women called "deadbeat moms" for not paying their "child support". This is just one example out of literally thousands how women are treated differently than men by the court system.
To keep this post short, I will present a story in a different post about some people I am very close to, and address the myth of how a woman’s lifestyle declines after a divorce while the males lifestyle somehow grows exponentially.
TomA
June 26th, 2007 at 11:49 am
RJ
You really are showing your true colours. Who has all the talk about money? Who's talking about extremes -- as in the child living in middle class half the week and in POVERTY the next? As has been said, and we all know, basic needs, love and teaching are all that is neccessary. To say otherwise implies that parents that can't provide as many luxuries as another couple (or individual) are inferior. Let's read between the lines here. You're not concerned about children going from one extreme to the next, you simply don't want to lose credit for luxuries provided by someone else. Ridiculous.
'But what about the children?' - the classic cry of alterior motive.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
TomA and Lane:
You do not realize how ridiculous it is to attempt to engage in a discussion with a female on this topic. You don't discuss serious topics (like the future of marriage and family) with females.
It's ludicrous. You don't engage females in serious discussion on serious topics.
On the contrary, we need to take control away from females, WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT WITH THEM.
Sheesh.
Anon.
June 26th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Anon
Don't assume that I don't realize and understand this... I made a comment to her but never said it was open for discussion. I will keep in mind not to waste my breath going so far in the future, and consider them the intuders against truth. Much respect to you.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Not to put myself on a pedestal but I've given everything for my son. When he mother stopped being home when he returned from school (leaving him waiting outside the front door for hours) I stepped up and lessened my work hours (even though she didn't work at all) and became his primary care taker for the last 5-years of my marriage (that is before my ex's lawyer told her to stay home and act like she'd been doing it for the past 5-years).
When my ex moved in a vicious criminal (convicted of numerous violent felonies) and the two of them started using and abusing my son, I didn't give up and spent a lifetime of saving and put myself into deep debt (nearly $500,000) for custody (that I never got... apparently NY State believes it's in the best interest of a child to be in the house with a violent criminal han with "God forbid" his father who was an honest, hard working citizen). I've paid $1,250/mo in child support religiously for the the past six years (even though my ex routinely violates our agreement) and with my business slowing down have no disposable income (while my ex has my house free and clear and just bought her third luxury car, but I'm the one that supposedly has all the money). I am currently trying to pay off my debt so I can find a way to pay for college next year (which won't be easy because while I'm supporting him in college I am still required to send my ex the monthly child support payments).
In the end I only got 40% of time with my son, but I've remarried with three step-children and in that 40% of time he has a loving, stable, home life where he could be himself without fear of reprisal. I gave it all up for my son and have nothing left (not even money for retirement) Let's see an animal in nature do that.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Mike:
The most monumental blunder in the history of mankind has not been war, conquest, genocide, pollution, etc. etc. It has been the decision by men in recent decades to transfer power, money and total freedom to females. The destruction of marriage and family is only one, among many, consequential disasters of men turning power and responsibility over to females.
Our times should tell us that whatever we men transfer to females gets destroyed in the end. We need to take it all back, before it's too late.
Anon.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Anon - I echo Lanes comment to you - don't assume I don't realize this or understand this. My purpose in responding to some of these few negative posts (the majority by women) is offer some kind of a rebuttal. I do not want to get into a debate with anyone over this - and I agree that arguing with a woman is for the most part useless. Remember - I was married to my ex for 13 years. My ex had two small signs on her desk where she worked, one said, "Don't confuse me with the facts - my mind is made up!" and the other one said " Be reasonable - do it my way!" The statements are funny - the sad irony is ( and continues to this day) that her personality is a living testimony to those statements. Some guys feel envy when their ex's remarry - I actually feel sorry for the guy because I know what he is going through - and what he as yet to go through. Black Widows are congenial to their male companions - until they get what they want. The males are lulled into a false sense of ease and contentment - then comes the deadly sting!
I am a believer in the saying, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" I refuse to idly stand by when statements are made that cannot be supported by the facts, reason or logic . To say nothing is to tacitly agree with what is said or written. I have a very hard time doing this - even when it comes to women.
Wouldn't you agree that the current system could not be any worse than if a small group of extremist left-wing feminists designed and implimented the whole thing. There is strong evidence to show that is exactly what happened in California by a well organized, vocal influencial group of feminist lobbyists in the early 1970's. Like the frog in a pot of water where the themperature is slowly turned up one degree at a time - we are all being boiled right now. Feminist orginated legislation has been forced into law by spineless politicians who refused to make a stand in Sacramento decades ago . They have created this current obscene charade by doing and saying nothing because it would have seemed too "political incorrect" to do so at the time. Not much unlike today.
I have the same passion as you, Anon, that radical change is necessary. Not some small tweaks here and there to "fine tune" the system, but a total tear down of the system from top to bottom and completely rebuilt from the bottom up. It is too entrenched in the current philosophy and structure to make any appreciable change. There are many fathers rights groups out there now, but Glenn Sacks is the only man I know of who is spreading the word through mainstream media - a radio talk show! We need ten thousand Glenn Sacks' out there doing the same thing! We need a "A Million Dads March" to bring media attention to the problem - and force congress to fix it! The problem is men, by and large, are working long hours - sometimes 2 or 3 jobs - just to make the outrages "Child Support" assignments and they don't have the time that stay at home moms do to involve themselves in change. I wish the many small fragmented "fathers rights groups" could somehow form a coalition under one central unbrella where some real change could be affected. Then maybe some of the ideas you have been talking about could be implemented with enough force to be contended with.
Many feel that small but signifcant changes should be made and, over time, the system will change. But I feel that for every small step we make, 2 large steps contiually seem to be made by the opposition. At least that is how it seems to me since I began getting involved in fathers rights 13 years ago. I am normally an optimist by nature, but knowing what I went through 13 years ago is still the norm today and seems to be getting worse - I have a hard time holding out any realistic hope.
My heart is with you brother.
TomA
June 27th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
One last post - I need to make a trip the next two weeks and will not be around. On being Poor and Rich that RJ was so worried about, I submit this short story that is one of my favorites:
===================================
One day the father of a very wealthy family took his son on a trip to the country with the firm purpose of showing his son how poor people live. They spent a couple of days and nights on the farm of what would be considered a very poor family.
On their return from their trip, the father asked his son, "How was the trip?"
"It was great, Dad."
"Did you see how poor people live?" the father asked.
"Oh yeah," said the son.
"So, tell me, what did you learn from the trip?" asked the father.
The son answered: "I saw that we have one dog and they had four. We have a pool that reaches to the middle of our garden and they have a creek that has no end. We have imported lanterns in our garden and they have the stars at night. Our patio reaches to the front yard and they have the whole horizon. We have a small piece of land to live on and they have fields that go beyond our sight. We have servants who serve us, but they serve others. We buy our food, but they grow theirs. We have walls around our property to protect us, they have friends to protect them."
The boy's father was speechless. Then his son added, "Thanks, Dad, for showing me how poor we are."
Anonymous
June 28th, 2007 at 9:45 am
TomA and Lane:
What we are witnessing is that girls will just drag our entire civilization into the swamp if they are given money, freedom and the power to do so.
The evidence abounds all around us.
Anon.
July 5th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Dear Editor of the Times:
I remember taking English courses at University where a major emphasis is placed on being non-biased- meaning the writer is required to show all sides of the story. But it seems that your so-called writers for the Times seemed to throw that core necessity of writing out the window. I have lost all credibility for your magazine. You have writers if that is an appropriate name for them who seem to be writing for their own 'special interest' cause avoiding all hard evidence to the contrary with regards to Fathers not being there. Its often not the Fathers decision to not show up its the system that puts the force and pressure on them : the lawyers, the judges, society automatically catagorize the woman as the victim and the husband as not capable or worthy by some law that has been legislated to show he was abusive, often the only witness is his wife who is completely free to say whatever she pleases truth or fiction.
I can't believe the part which states- he may pay for his used car first before child support payments. I don't even want to entertain this. What kind of hard facts do you have of this mr.editor? If you do come up with a few case of this happening may be he needs his used car for work that he need to make future child support payments ? I know many, many men who are paying 60 to 70 % of their income to child support. They have barely enough money to feed themselves. Many have to drop out the pressure is too great. Your article does nothing but infuriate men by driving another nail into our souls of an easy media target- men. Giving women this illusion that they are the only morally wholesome creates on this planet. I am going to do everything in my power to make sure people know your mag is trash. Everything. Lastly , you do nothing for families only fragment them further leaving children crying for love.
October 13th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
[...] Glenn Sacks, a men's and fathers' issues columnist, calls the article a "hatchet job" and attempts to debunk its disheartening statistics in his latest blog. [...]
December 10th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
hello to all the dads out there! I not here to explode on the fathers am here to ask are goverments why they procede to make every father seem dead beat.what about the mothers who tell the father you can not see your child again we dont want you in his life? but then 7years down the road they want money,and hell the courts dont say anything to the mother as to why they waited so long,were is there repurcution s for wrong doing.they all say its for the children bs if you ask me,to ruining a person for life is worse than what they do to crimanals at least they get three meals a day a warm place to sleep and dont have to file bankrupcty. i raised my two children with my own abilty and still let there father see them he was there father for christ sake child support offices dont have a clue as to what some of this mothers are really doing, talk about the IRS well those two offices should be married.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Homemade Porn Clip...
Its interesting, THX...
May 15th, 2008 at 10:36 am
[...] information can be referenced to, but men’s writer Glenn Sacks was familiar with the sources. He wrote a response to the article and the research in question, showing how the women used family research from the 1960’s and other [...]
November 6th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
[...] Glenn Sacks, a men's and fathers' issues columnist, calls the article a "hatchet job" and attempts to debunk its disheartening statistics in his latest blog. [...]
May 13th, 2009 at 2:01 am
[...] Protest TIME Magazine's Father's Day Hatchet Job on Dads! [...]
August 6th, 2009 at 7:43 am
What must I do to cancel my subscription?
JB Uys
42 van der Stel Street
Stellenbosch
7600
SOUTH AFRICA