"Although most teenagers talk more to their mother than to their father about their social lives, they usually turn to their father to solve other problems, to get advice on education and jobs, and to get encouragement for self-reliance."-- Dr. Linda Nielsen, President of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children

ACFC President Dr. Linda Nielsen, author of the book Embracing Your Father, wrote an academic paper for the Journal of Divorce & Remarriage several years ago called Disenfranchising, Demeaning, and Demoralizing Divorced Dads : A Review of the literature. One of the paper's best sections is called "The Benefits of Fathers versus Mothers." It is excerpted below.

Nielsen has countless citations to support her arguments--I have removed them but they can be found on page 3 of her paper.

The Benefits of Fathers versus Mothers
Dr. Linda Nielsen

The belief that children benefit far less from a relationship with their father than with their mother can also be demoralizing to divorced fathers. Moreover, this demoralizing belief is not supported by our best and most recent research on child and adolescent development.

Depression, Anxiety, and Eating Disorders

Teenagers and young adults who have close relationships with their fathers are less likely to become clinically depressed, to develop eating disorders, and to develop anxiety disorders. So for example, teenage girls often become less clinically depressed after they start spending more time with their divorced fathers. And since depression is much more common among girls than boys, especially during adolescence, having a close relationship with her divorced father might be especially important for a daughter.

Dating, Sexuality and Social Maturity

Children who are able to maintain a close relationship with their father also tend to be more socially mature and to have fewer problems related to dating and sexuality - particularly if their divorced mother has not remarried. For example, many daughters who live with an unmarried mother and have little or nothing to do with their father either tend to grow up too fast by dating, having sex, or getting married at an early age or behave as if they are afraid to grow up and are extremely uncomfortable with dating and sexuality.

Generally though, the son seems to pay a greater price than the daughter when he has little or no relationship with his father after divorce. Usually those boys who live with their unmarried mother and see little or nothing of their father are more socially immature, aggressive, delinquent, defiant, and psychologically or emotionally disturbed than other boys their age.
 
Self-reliance, self-discipline, and self-motivation In most families it is also the father who contributes most to the children’s becoming self-reliant, self-disciplined, and self-motivated. For instance, teenagers of divorced parents say it is their father who gives them the best advice, who teaches them the most, and who pushes them more to do their best. And after parents divorce, those girls who live with their unmarried father have higher educational goals and higher achievement test scores than girls who live with their unmarried mother.

Although most teenagers talk more to their mother than to their father about their social lives, they usually turn to their father to solve other problems, to get advice on education and jobs, and to get encouragement for self-reliance. So although teenage children might see their father are more demanding or more judgmental than their mother, those who remain close to their father often end up being the most self-reliant, self-disciplined, self-motivated, academically and vocationally successful, and achievement oriented.
 
To read Nielsen's full article, click here.

Not overtly father-bashing but it's irksome that the absent father is implicitly not dependable.

Funny how it's the other kid's mom who worries over the kid and does the right thing and it's this kid's dad who will be showing up quite late, if at all.

If Liberty Mutual has an ad featuring a loving dad who has to pick up the slack for an irresponsible or uncaring mom, I must have missed it.

To watch the video, click here or see below. Thanks to Robert, a reader, for sending it.

From prison Syrian poet and journalist Faraj Bayrakdar (pictured), an honorary member of English PEN, wrote a sad reflection on his daughter and fatherhood. In A Father to the Point of Tears he writes:

I’m not sure whether I’ve been a success or a failure at being a father.

In truth, my circumstances have not made it possible for me to delve thoroughly into this topic. I went into hiding as soon as my daughter was born, and I was arrested before she was four years old. I spent the first five years of my detention with no access to news and no visits. In spite of all that, I feel that I am a father to the point of tears.

When I was in hiding, I used to see my daughter from time to time. I used to call her name and she would respond with one of the many pseudonyms that I have adopted and changed according to different situations.

I taught her never to call me “Baba” (Dad) in front of anyone. She was very good at following this precaution except when she wanted something specific. For example, if her mother refused to let her buy soda pop, she would turn to me, and like a broken record would repeat, “Baba, Baba, Baba” in a loud and insistent voice. She wouldn’t stop until she got her wish or at least extracted a promise that she would eventually get what she wanted. 

After her mother was arrested, I saw my daughter only twice.

My biggest fear when my daughter was with me was that my safety would be threatened and I would have to flee. I worried about having to leave her alone when she knew only my nom de guerre, when she could barely pronounce her own name properly. I feared then that she might be lost to me forever.

My daughter had a small suitcase at that time. I have no idea who had given it to her, but she seemed so careful about keeping track of it.

I opened the suitcase and placed a small piece of paper inside. On this paper, I had written clearly my daughter’s full name and my family’s address. I emphasized to my daughter that she should never tear or damage this piece of paper.

On that particular day, I had to take care of some business that made it difficult for my daughter to stay with me. So I left her with a woman friend who agreed to find someone to bring my daughter back to me in the evening. When my daughter returned, both the paper and the suitcase were gone! 

“Where’s the paper, sweetheart?” I asked.

Raising her empty palms in the air, she declared, “Gone.”

That was the last image I had of my daughter before I was apprehended.

She would always ask me about her mother. Her voice would grow hoarse and her eyes would plead with me. At times like these, one’s throat contracts, and it is impossible to hold back the tears. That is how my little one would expose my weakness.

When I was first apprehended, I felt as if I had run away from all her questions. But no sooner would my interrogations cease than her questions about her mother would haunt me, and I would begin pounding on the cell walls.

What could I do, my daughter, when I was so powerless?...

Eventually, the cumulative years of living in destructive anxiety cloaked everything with a thick layer of numbness. This lasted until one day when we received a large collection of photographs.

The prisoners claimed all the pictures but one. This last photograph was passed around from one to the other in the hope that someone would identify it.

Read the rest of this entry »

"What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.

"To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy-a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

"Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival."

My father was an avid reader of abolitionist Frederick Douglass' books and would often read to me from them when I was a kid. My all-time favorite speech is the one above, given by Douglass in 1852.

Men, if you're ever frustrated that your wife watches too many soap operas and doesn't pay attention to you, I recommend that you not try to handle the situation in the way this young lady did with her video-game addict boyfriend. Watch the video here.

A nice story which kind of reminds me of how protective my son is of his little sister. When he's not teasing her, that is. From 5-Year-Old Saves Sister From Hanging (WFSB, 6/27/08):

Trevor Caron didn't waste any time when he saw his younger sister hanging with beads around her neck.

“I thought Hannah would die in three more seconds,” he said. “But then that's when I got off my bed and ran to Hannah and saved Hannah's life.”

With his grandmother in the other room, Trevor said he was watching television when he heard his 2-year-old sister choking. He said he turned around and saw her dangling above the floor, her face turning white.

Nancy Caron, Trevor and Hannah’s mom, was at work when she got the call about what happened. She said she didn't even know how serious it was until she came home, saw the mark on Hannah's neck and took her to the doctor.

“Her doctor looked at her and said my son saved her life,” she said. “It was very close. She was seconds away from passing out.”

Read the full article and watch the video article here.

Thanks to Mark, a reader , for sending it.

I was recently quoted in CSU Fullerton women athletes outnumber men (Orange County Register, 7/1/08) about Title IX's effect on collegiate athletics in California. The piece isn't terrible but it is reflective of the way men's and fathers' concerns are covered (or not covered) by the media.

The article is largely an applause piece about the growth of women's collegiate athletics in California. Much of this "progress" has been made simply by cutting men's sports, and the criteria to determine which sports to keep or build and which ones to cut is very flawed.

Reporter Mary Jo Fisher throws my quote in there for "balance" but it ain't much--my quote is short and without much context or supporting evidence. (To be fair, it's possible that Fisher included a longer quote and/or more context but it was cut by a copy editor.)

The quote was drawn from an article I wrote seven years ago. While some of the numbers are probably no longer accurate, it does describe the problem with Title IX and why it has harmed many male college athletes. It appears below.

California Men's College Sports Under Assault from NOW
By Glenn Sacks
Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal (10/29/01)

California State University men's sports are under assault from feminist organizations who are pursuing a course which both ignores the desires of female college students and victimizes male college athletes. This week's casualty was California State University Northridge's (CSUN) 40 year-old football team.

The attack on male CSU athletes began in February of 1993, when the California chapter of the National Organization for Women (Cal-NOW) sued the CSU system for sex discrimination in athletics under federal Title IX legislation. The CSUs were forced to sign a consent decree with Cal-NOW in October of that year, and since then dozens of men's college teams throughout the state have been eliminated.

The consent decree mandates that CSU schools achieve "gender equity" by bringing the percentage of female to male athletes and the percentage of female to male scholarship funding to within 5% of the percentage of females to males eligible to participate in athletics. It also requires that the female portion of the overall athletic budget be within 10% of the school's male-female ratio.

On the surface this seems fair, but it in fact discriminates against male college athletes in several ways. For one, the consent decree judges "gender equity" by male-female enrollment ratios instead of student interest levels. Yet numerous studies demonstrate that female college students, in general, are less interested in competitive team athletics than males are, and are more interested in personal fitness activities (jogging, aerobics, etc.), than males. Even at all-women's colleges the percentage of females participating in and expressing an interest in participating in team sports would not be enough to achieve the consent decree's gender balance at most co-ed schools.

At the same time, some female athletic activities, such as drill team and cheerleading, are not counted as athletics. Thus a male football player and a female drill team captain both practice with their teams, do physically demanding training, and perform every weekend, but only the football player is considered an athlete, and only the money spent on his activity is considered for gender equity.

In addition, gender equity calculations unfairly count a sport's athletes, scholarships, and budget without considering its money-making ability. While most male sports and almost all female sports are not profitable, some, such as football and men's basketball, often bring schools large revenues--revenues which frequently benefit women's athletic programs but which are completely invisible in gender equity calculations. Read the rest of this entry »

The anti-dad drumbeat continues...reading the first couple frames of this cartoon, I actually thought that it might be a pro-dad or even a pro-divorced dad cartoon. Silly me.

The media frequently devotes much attention to mothers who are separated from their children by deportation actions. The treatment is usually highly sympathetic to the mothers. When fathers are deported away from their children, little attention is paid. Even when the media covers the issue, there is little handwringing, as evidenced in a recent straight-facts story from the Los Angeles Times--Custody case of Long Beach boy complicates deportation of illegal immigrant (6/30/08).

The story details the case of Michael Campo, a 10-year-old Los Angeles boy whose father Carlos Alvarado is an illegal immigrant. Alvarado is fighting deportation proceedings, saying that he should be allowed to stay in the U.S. because of his son. According to the Times:

Alvarado sneaked across the Mexican border in 1991. He and Marla Campo met about five years later and she gave birth to Michael in October 1997. After a few years, the couple separated. In 2003, Campo disappeared with Michael. Alvarado called police, who tracked her down...the couple returned to court and the judge gave the parents joint legal custody...Michael spends every weekend with his father. Alvarado pays child support and pays for Michael's health insurance.

Alvarado's trial in immigration court took place in June 2005. The judge ruled that he could stay in the U.S...The government attorney appealed the case, saying in court papers that 'this separation is no different than if [Alvarado] relocated to another state in the U.S.'"

Read the full article here. A few points:

1) The government attorney's argument in favor of deporting the father--"this separation is no different than if [Alvarado] relocated to another state in the U.S."--is ludicrous. Forcing Carlos Alvarado to move back to Mexico will drive a huge wedge between him and his son, and the relationship might be lost altogether. Consider:

Carlos Alvarado will be unable to visit his son in the United States

Alvarado is dependent upon the child being sent by the custodial mom to visit him in Mexico. She may not do this--she already kept the child away from his father in the past, and may well do so again.  Though the exes are getting along well right now, that could change. We also can't help noticing that the mother gave the child her last name, not his father's. Moreover she is already saying she doesn’t feel safe sending him to a border town in Mexico.

Carlos Alvarado will have far less income available to him to spend on visiting his son, communicating with him, buying him gifts, etc.

2) There are many exceptions made in immigration cases. The most notable one is for women who claim to be victims of domestic violence. The Violence Against Women Act provides allegedly battered immigrant women a way to become US residents. For example, women in deportation proceedings can claim domestic violence and get a "cancellation of removal" and obtain residency.

We have mixed emotions about this VAWA provision. We certainly favor aiding battered women, but we know from family court how frequently false claims are made in order to gain advantages. Regardless, if we can make an exception to immigration laws for allegedly battered wives, we should also be able to make exceptions to protect a 10-year-old boy from losing his father.

3) Let's look at it from another angle. First, let's disregard the human factor. Second, let's assume that illegal immigrants really are harmful to the US--a debatable assertion, but let's use it for the purposes of this argument. Looking at this case only in light of dollars and cents, the father still should be allowed to stay in the US. Why? Consider:

a) The boy is a U.S. citizen--whatever problems he encounters or creates, the US will have to deal with them. The boy is far less likely to become involved in crime or drugs, drop out of school or become a burden to society if he has a dad in his life than if he doesn't. All of those cost the taxpayer money--allowing Alvarado to stay would probably save taxpayers money in the long run.

b) The father pays child support and also pays for the boy's health insurance. If he's deported, both will cease, and the taxpayers will likely end up footing the bill.

4) If Alvarado is deported, he might also face child support enforcement action. He would have to get a downward modification of his child support based on his new, lower earnings in Mexico, which isn't easy to do for anybody, much less a low-income man living in Mexico. Arrearages will mount. Even if he finds legal ways to return to the US to see his child, marry, or work, he will be subject to arrest for child support arrearages. It is even possible that an extradition treaty with Mexico exists such that he will be arrested and brought to the US for child support arrearages.

Any way you look at this, everyone is better off if this hardworking and devoted dad is allowed to stay in the US  -- the child, the mom, the dad, his employer, and the US taxpayer.

Post-divorce move-ways often terminate the bond between the children and the noncustodial parent, generally the father. (To learn more about move-aways/relocation cases, see my co-authored column Is a Pool More Important than a Dad?, San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04, or click here.)

Recently I received a letter from Wendy, who told me about her husband's move-away case. Beyond being very sad, it illustrates a point I often make about move-aways--once the mother has moved the kids away, it is very difficult to get her to comply with court orders.

Wendy writes:

In 2001 a Georgia court allowed my husband's ex-wife to take their four year old daughter to Australia on a one to two year "work assignment."  Since then she has been fired by the company she went to Australia to work for, has worked for two other companies, dragged my husband back to Court when he got behind on his child support and stated that she was living with a man and had no intention of returning to the United States. The Court said, "OK". 

Georgia (Troup County) should be ashamed of themselves.  My husband has never had his daughter on her birthday, Father's Day or Christmas.  He is allowed to visit her twice a year in Australia (who has that kind of money or vacation time) for two weeks (which he has to forfeit because he can't afford to go) and his ex is required to bring her back to the US twice a year for two weeks each (he never gets two weeks as she takes four days travel time out of each visit). 

It is the most horrendous, ridiculous situation I have ever been witness to!  My husband has been forced through bankruptcy, fought depression and it almost ruined our marriage. His daughter will be twelve years old this year.