Topics

Tom Patterson, Dillard's Vice President Director of Stores, sent out letters on February 9 stating:

"Thank you for advising us about the T-shirts. We have instructed our stores to remove them from the sales floor. The shirts will no longer be offered for sale."

Dillard's carried T-shirts which say "Boys are Stupid--Throw Rocks at Them." They have 338 stores in 29 states and have annual revenues exceeding $8.3 billion. Since our campaign began on December 14, "Boys are Stupid" products have been knocked out of 3,345 retail outlets. Thanks to all of you who have made calls and written letters. Below are some of the articles which have been written about our campaign, including several new ones:

[A HREF=http://www.glennsacks.com/why_i_launched.htm]Why I Launched the Campaign Against 'Boys are Stupid' Products[/A] (Los Angeles Daily News, 2/4/04).

[A HREF=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4099643/]Retailers pull 'Boys Are Stupid' products[/A], (Associated Press, appeared in over 300 newspapers and news outlets).

[A HREF=http://www.bozemanchronicle.com/articles/2004/02/07/features/lifestyles/karinbzlife.prt]Hateful words still hurt, even if they're just on a T-shirt[/A] (Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 2/9/04)

[A HREF=http://www.nj.com/living/ledger/index.ssf?/base/living-2/1076222158254161.xml]In defense of boys [/A](Newark Star-Ledger, 2/8/04)

[A HREF=http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/story.asp?id=029B0329-F44F-4591-838C-E63395F68641]Suddenly, boy-bashing is all the rage for teenage girls[/A] (Edmonton Journal, 2/6/04)

[A HREF=http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=107&cat=48&id=185312&more=]Sauce for the goose [/A](Red Deer Advocate, 2/6/04)

[A HREF=http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/story.asp?id=6998098B-7ADC-4CC3-9D78-68A6283B91E1]Boy bashing 101[/A] (Calgary Herald, 2/6/04)

[A HREF=http://starbulletin.com/2004/01/30/business/engle.html]Goldman-Sacks controversy rocks David &Goliath Inc.[/A] (Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 1/30/04)

[A HREF=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001849413_shirts030.html]Never underestimate customer's 'bad' taste[/A] (Seattle Times, 2/3/04)

[A HREF=http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2004/02/01/editorial/editorial/daily02.txt]Don't encourage hurtful T-shirts[/A] (The Sentinel, 2/1/04)

[A HREF=http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20040131roddysatcolp1.asp]Boys can't take a joke, throw rocks at them[/A], (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 1/31/04)

[A HREF=http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/020204/opi_monbrief.shtml]Stupid is as stupid does [/A](Amarillo Globe News, 2/2/04)

[A HREF=http://www.stater.kent.edu/stories_old/04spring/2204/maleseditorial.ASP]Young males are victimized by fashion [/A](Daily Kent Stater, 2/2/04)

[A HREF=http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17734]Battle of the Sexes[/A] (AlterNet, 2/3/04)

[A HREF=http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200%7E20954%7E1923850,00.html]Valley man gets stores to pull 'Boys are stupid' logo items[/A] (Los Angeles Daily News, 1/30/04)

A self-described 'feminist' Congresswoman attempts to interfere with a lawful judicial process on behalf of one of her staffers. This is NOT the kind of person I'd want to represent me in Congress.

Woolsey apologizes after seeking lenient sentence for rapist

Congresswoman wrote to Marin judge on behalf of son of staff member

February 10, 2004
By SPENCER SOPER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Rep. Lynn Woolsey sought a lenient sentence for a convicted rapist who is the son of one of her staffers, igniting a political firestorm over the weekend.

The Petaluma Democrat quickly apologized after a Marin County newspaper reported she intervened on behalf of Stewart Pearson, who pleaded guilty last fall to raping a 17-year-old Terra Linda girl and covering her face with a rag soaked in household chemicals in an attempt to incapacitate her.

Pearson, 20, had volunteered on Woolsey's campaign and is the son of an employee in the congresswoman's San Rafael office.

"Stewart Pearson is a young man from a supportive family," Woolsey wrote in a Dec. 2 letter on congressional stationery to Marin County Superior Court Judge Terrence Boren one month before Pearson was sentenced. "I believe he has a promising life ahead of him, and I urge you to consider these factors when deciding upon a suitable sentence."

The letter was signed, "Lynn Woolsey, Member of Congress."

Pearson pleaded guilty to rape in September in a deal that dropped other charges, including assault and sodomy. Woolsey's intervention did nothing to sway the judge, who sentenced Pearson in January to eight years in state prison, the maximum allowed under law.

The attempt to influence the court outraged a Marin County deputy district attorney who prosecuted the case.

The assault was "as bad as it gets," prosecutor Alan Charmatz told the Marin Independent Journal in a story published Saturday.

"It's hard to imagine that after someone has committed a brutal crime like that they (Woolsey's office) would want to write a letter," Charmatz said.

Woolsey issued a statement over the weekend apologizing for the letter.

"Mr. Pearson's mother is a faithful employee, who I wanted to help, but I should not have intervened," Woolsey said.

"Given my support for both women's rights and victims' rights, my constituents and my community are right to be shocked by my action. I apologize to them. But most of all I apologize to the young woman and her family.

"I apologize for making a horrible situation worse, and I am sorry that they have been forced to relive this heinous crime by reading about it in the newspaper, again."

Woolsey is seeking her seventh term in the 6th Congressional District, which includes Marin and most of Sonoma County. A liberal in the left-leaning North Bay, she is considered the heavy favorite to win the Democratic primary in March and re-election in November.

Gloria Young, executive director of the Santa Rosa rape crisis center United Against Sexual Assault, expressed disappointment that Woolsey was trying to help a rapist when his teen victim "will live with the memory of this attack for the rest of her life."

The news was especially troubling because Woolsey has always had a "pro-feminine, anti-violence agenda," Young said.

"My disappointment was that she was intervening on behalf of someone who was convicted of raping a 17-year-old girl and it was a very brutal rape," Young said, adding she was glad to hear Woolsey has apologized.

San Rafael Police Lt. Jeff Franzini said Pearson and the victim were acquaintances. Pearson spent the night on the victim's sofa last July and sneaked into her bedroom in the morning while she was sleeping, Franzini said.

Pearson tried to incapacitate the teen by covering her face with a rag soaked in chemicals and then forcibly raped her when that failed, Franzini said.

On Monday, Marin District Attorney Paula Kamena issued a statement, saying, "Accessibility and openness is at the core of the court process. An interested party should be able to express their opinion. It is a personal choice as to whether a person would do this on an informed or uninformed basis."

Two of Woolsey's political opponents accused her of misusing her office.

Mill Valley communications consultant Renn Vara, who is challenging Woolsey for the Democratic nomination in the March 2 primary, said it was "terribly inappropriate" for Woolsey to use her office to try to benefit a convicted criminal because it was her employee's son.

"My concern overall is that she let a letter like that go out," Vara said, adding he was pleased Woolsey apologized. "It's just another example of her being asleep at the wheel."

Paul Erickson, a Santa Rosa real estate appraiser who is running unopposed for the Republican nomination, said he could understand why Woolsey wanted to help her employee's son, but she should not have used her congressional office to do it.

"She represents a lot of people," he said. "I can't imagine any of them agree with her on that letter."

News researcher Teresa Meikle contributed to this story. You can reach Staff Writer Spencer Soper at 521-5257 or [email protected].

Boys used child-protection lessons to frame their stepfather as a sex abuser

By Leonie Lamont
February 4, 2004

An 11-year-old boy who hated his stepfather used information learned during child-protection lessons at school to accuse the man of sexually abusing him and enlisted his younger brother to tell a similar story.

In the District Court yesterday, Judge Harvey Cooper awarded damages to the stepfather in a rare case of malicious prosecution.

He said that while children had to be protected "those innocent of such allegations should likewise be protected".

Judge Cooper criticised the joint police and Department of Community Services team of the Child Protection Enforcement Agency. In the investigation of the allegations against the man, from south-western Sydney, "fairness gave way to zealotry and proper methods of impartial investigation designed to ascertain the truth gave way to badgering designed to obtain information to support the preconceived belief that such allegations are true".

He said the charges went ahead, even though the younger boy, then nine, recanted and agreed he had told lies to help his brother. There had also been "compelling evidence" from family members that the abuse could not have occurred when it was alleged to have happened.

Judge Cooper said the investigating officer, Detective Constable John Floros, "succumbed to the pressure from senior officers in the Child Protection Enforcement Agency" to lay charges because the stepfather was a civilian employee of the police service.

In the case of the older boy, the judge said he was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it was a proper case to bring to court, notwithstanding the "countervailing evidence".

"Armed with the knowledge gained from the lessons, books and CDs provided by his school, [the elder boy] was able to make this very serious complaint with some degree of plausibility," Judge Cooper said.

But the malicious prosecution case had been made regarding the younger boy, the judge found. He said Detective Floros could not have believed the stepfather committed the offence.

The stepfather was awarded $31,000 in damages for the stresses which occurred during the nine weeks between being charged and the DPP taking over the case. When the case was heard months later, a magistrate found a jury was unlikely to convict on the evidence and dismissed the charges.

Meanwhile, the two boys were made wards of the state. The younger boy returned home after threatening to kill himself while in foster care, and the elder boy also ran away from foster care and returned home, without court approval.

Judge Cooper heard the stepfather now lived in a granny flat in the backyard, fearful the boy would make an unfounded sexual abuse allegation against him. His wife, stepchildren and his own children in the marriage live in the family home.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/03/1075776061786.html

From Glenn Sacks, Round 5 in the Campaign Against 'Boys are Stupid' Products.

Round 5: Dillard's

As I announced on the air, our next target is Dillard's, which carries "Boys are Stupid--Throw Rocks at Them" T-shirts and pajamas. Dillard's has 338 stores in 29 states and has annual revenues exceeding $8.3 billion.

The CEO of the company is William Dillard II.  The phone number for Dillard's corporate headquarters in Little Rock, Arkansas is (501) 376-5200.  The operator can be reached by pressing "0", at which point listeners can ask for Mr. Dillard or the other officers listed below.

Call them and write them and let them know how you feel. Be polite, but be clear. Please put "Boys are Stupid--Throw Rocks at Them" in the subject line of each letter and please copy me at [email protected].

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks

Dillard's Contact Information:

William Dillard II, CEO [email protected]
Gene Baker, Vice-President [email protected]

Joseph Brennan, Vice-President [email protected]

Kent Burnett, Vice-President [email protected]

Mike Dillard, Director [email protected]

Customer Service/Complaints [email protected]
 

A message from Melanie Cummings

Subject: Paternity Fraud/Establishment: DHHS/HHS On-Going work for 2004 (Human Services Policy)

Everyone needs to go into this website to see what the DHHS/HHS, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning & Evaluation is up to in the family formation field.  The big topics are Family Formation (including Child Support, Fatherhood, Teen Parents).  They are policing via projects.  A current bullet point is "Emerging Issues in Paternity Establishment".  
 
Please read the below carefully:

"This project will analyze legal, ethical, financial and psychological challenges around paternity establishment, focusing on how the science of DNA testing may impact the child support enforcement system, family economic security, child well-being and the principles of family law that underlie child support practices.  Potential changes to the paternity establishment process, particularly in response to challenges to paternity acknowledgements established without benefit of DNA testing, could have a major impact on the performance of the child support enforcement system as well as Federal and state child support financing.  Given the potentially controversial nature of this project, it will be a low-profile project that will provide the department with an analysis for internal use only.  Background papers will be drafted in consultation with experts."
 
Everyone needs to write to senators, congressmen, Arnaudo and Horn, etc. (list of participants are on the website).  We need a "seat" at the table and since your funds (hardworking taxpayers $$) are paying for this, it is public property - not a document for internal use only and then it is a low-profile project.  As we all know, fraud is fraud!!!  
 
All ongoing work is listed which is quite beneficial to EVERYONE on these lists.  My personal favorite was "The Effects of the work Pays Demonstration, EITC Expansions and the Business Cycle on the Labor Mraket Behavior of the California Caseload".  You will see the authorities used in compiling info from the CSE system.  They are using it!!!!  As always, it states for TANF recipients BUT since we pay into the system via non-TANF, we are still under TANF.
 
To find these "works":  Go to //www.dhhs.gov
click on HHS
click on Topic List
Click on Family Formation
 
Good luck - this is quite important.  Email me if you have any problems.
 
Melanie Cummings
[email protected]

A message from the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men.

Greetings Friends and Supporters!

The Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men (DAHM) needs your help! Our call volume to the toll free 24/7 helpline has quadrupled in the over three years we have been in existence. Additionally, Verizon is working over the next year to include our toll free 24 hour number on the crisis line page of every phone book they make in the country!

For over three years we have worked out of a small home office responding to callers 24/7, developing trainings, mailing requested materials, and setting up annual educational conferences on male victimization etc. Now is the time to start expanding our services and capabilities!

There is a building for sale nearby that has just the space we need to accommodate offices for our volunteer staff and a larger room to hold trainings, support groups and other meetings. There is also an efficiency apartment on the second floor. The building needs some updating and remodeling and friends of DAHM are willing to donate time and services to make this happen.

When we began our mission in October 2000 to give voice to male victims/targets of domestic abuse we had no idea what the need was. The first two years it was quite a struggle to keep the helpline running 24/7 with just two volunteers covering the line and funding limited to a few small private donations. Today we are still pretty much self supporting but we have an all volunteer staff made up of an Executive Director, a Volunteer Coordinator and seven trained volunteers who man the helpline as well as donated services from the American Message Center of Ohio, a 24/7 answering service.

We have had over 3,000 calls to the helpline since that time and have discovered that there is an undeniable need for support, referrals, shelter and advocacy work for male victims/targets and their children. Please help us to expand DAHM so that we can continue to do this much needed work!

The approximately 20 x 40 log building (on a slab) we have in mind is sitting on 3.75 acres of land here in Harmony, Maine. The price has recently been reduced to $24,900 and we hear that the owner is willing to pay some of the closing costs. We are looking for a contributor or contributors to buy the building and donate it to DAHM. If one person donated 24,900 or 25 people donated 1,000 each or 250 people donated 100.00 each DAHM could have a office and expand their services for male victims of domestic abuse. Please consider making a tax deductible donation to help us make this dream happen!

To find out more about us visit our website: //www.noexcuse4abuse.org or contact the Executive Director, Jan Brown at: 207-683-5758 THANKS!!

From Glenn Sacks.........

As many of you know, it's been a big media week for our campaign against the "Boys are Stupid--Throw Rocks at Them" products. Our campaign was the subject of an Associated Press article "Retailers pull 'Boys Are Stupid' products " (MSNBC, 1/29/04) which has been picked up by over 300 newspapers and news outlets worldwide, including most major American TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers. Newspapers in Canada, England, New Zealand, and even South Africa have printed the article.

The Los Angeles Daily News wrote their own front page story on it on Friday and over the past few days I've been on Fox News and KABC TV in various cities and on KTLA 5 here in LA. Today Inside Edition is coming down to the KMPC studios to shoot a piece on it, and Dr. Laura gave our campaign a passionate endorsement on Friday, declaring it to be a "Dr. Laura Call to Action"--see //www.DrLaura.com.

I've done and have scheduled about a dozen radio appearances, including ones in Seattle, Phoenix, Detroit, and Los Angeles, and on the Westwood One, Radio America and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation networks. Our campaign has been trashed by Dom Giordano on WPHT-AM in Philadelphia, "Monsters of the Midday" on 104.1 in Tampa, Florida, Dennis Roddy in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Boys can't take a joke, throw rocks at them, 1/31/04), as well as numerous others.

Given the media barrage I have decided that instead of targeting a new company this week we should instead use our resources to defend our campaign in the media. Stories on our campaign have appeared in most newspapers and I want His Side listeners to write letters to the editors in support of our campaign. The e-mail addresses for the letters to the editor sections of 25 major newspapers can be found at Contact Editors about the His Side Campaign.

Link: http://hisside.com/campaign_letters.htm

Be polite, but let the editors know exactly how you feel. Feel free to forward me copies of what you have sent to [email protected].

The best place for all information on the campaign and its media coverage is Join Campaign Against 'Boys are Stupid' Products. The most comprehensive article on the campaign so far is MND Newswire's Radio Campaign Knocks Anti-Boy Products Out of 3,000 Retail Stores (1/29/04).

Thanks to all of you for the campaign's success--all of you have made the world a little bit better for our sons.

Can't wait to hear the standard refrain: They're not really child abusers, they're just "emotionally disturbed" and need "help". Either that or "their husband/boyfreind made them do it".

[img src=http://images.ibsys.com/2004/0116/2771692.jpg]
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. -- A mother is facing charges of chaining her children to the bed as punishment after her 6-year- old daughter told a teacher about the alleged abuse. Layla J. Wendt of Pinellas Park was arrested Wednesday on three counts of aggravated child abuse. She is free on $5,000 bail. Pinellas Park Police officers said they found two of the girl's brothers, ages 7 and 9, had also been chained to their beds as punishment. The chains and plastic ties that were used to bind the children were still attached to the beds, according to police reports. The daughter was chained for a couple of hours; the boys for four to five hours, said Pinellas Park police spokesman Sgt. Gene LaPouttre Thursday. One of the children had bruising on the wrists. The other two were in good health.


[img src=http://images.ibsys.com/2004/0120/2779080.jpg]
YORK COUNTY, Pa. -- A York County woman is facing multiple charges for allegedly taping herself sexually abusing children she was baby-sitting, according to a report. Tracene Jo Usko, (pictured, left) of Newberry Township, is currently in the York County Prison in connection with the alleged abuse. Usko is accused of abusing a 1-year-old boy and 2-year- old boy in her care between Dec. 31 and this weekend, WGAL-TV reported. Police said Usko's daughter found recorded footage of the abuse and told her boyfriend, who then contacted police. Police are still investigating to see if there were any more victims and if any of the footage was distributed on the Internet.

[agreed to drop all products bearing the anti-boy slogans from its product line. In six weeks His Side listeners and supporters have knocked the products out of nearly 3,000 retail outlets]

From Glenn Sacks. Looks like everyone's hard work paid off- Claire's has decided to do the right thing (albeit under some considerable pressure). Yesssssssssssssssss!!


"Yesterday we won the decisive battle of our campaign against the "Boys are Stupid--Throw Rocks at Them" products as Claire's, a jewelry and accessories retailer with stores in nearly a dozen countries, agreed to drop all products bearing the anti-boy slogans from its product line. In six weeks His Side listeners and supporters have knocked the products out of nearly 3,000 retail outlets--an estimated three-quarters of all retail outlets which sell the merchandise."

"The Associated Press wrote an article about our campaign (see Retailers pull 'Boys are Stupid' products at MSNBC) and it was published today in nearly 100 newspapers, including the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Toronto Sun, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Dallas Morning News, Guardian, Newsday, Miami Herald, Florida Sun-Sentinel, Baltimore Sun, and the Fort Worth Star Telegram."

"Also see the MND Newswire story Radio Campaign Knocks Anti-Boy Products out of 3,000 Retail Stores.


 >>>>>>>>>>>>

Thanks to everyone who helped in the campaign--far, far too many to name. Thanks to the many men's and fathers' groups and websites who have joined our effort, including: Stop Abuse for Everyone (SAFE); the Separated Parenting Access &Resource Center (SPARC); the National Coalition of Free Men Los Angeles; Equal Parenting of Canada; MensNewsDaily.com; IFeminists.net; and MensActivism.org. SPARC in particular has helped rally support for our campaign.

I will be announcing the next target for our campaign on my next broadcast on Sunday, February 1. All news and updates on the campaign will always be available at Join His Side Campaign Against Hateful T-Shirt.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
Listen to His Side with Glenn Sacks in LA &Seattle
GlennSacks.com

From Stan Green's mailing list.

In his list of "John Kerry on the issues", "Women's Issues" appears, yet
a listing for "Men's Issues" is conspicuously absent.

To focus on the issues faced by one gender while neglecting to
acknowledge that the other gender has any legitimate concerns is both
astonishingly arrogant and all too common; I'm not aware of any
candidate of any party who even attempts to bring an appearance of
fairness on these matters.

The comments below, very likely could be adapted to nearly any
candidate's website, R or D.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Two excerpts from the Kerry campaign which highlight the lack of
consideration of issues facing men:

Fight Violent Crime Against Women
 John Kerry was an original cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act,
which has provided over $1 billion for battered women's shelters,
hotlines, and other crucial resources. The Violence Against Women Act
also significantly strengthened federal law by including several new
federal crimes and enhanced penalties for acts of domestic violence.
John Kerry will take this commitment to the White House and support
those working to help crime victims and put attackers behind bars.

What about men (gay and straight) who are victims of intimate partner
violence?


The "pay gap" factoid also appears:

Close the Pay Gap
 Women still earn, on average, only 73 cents for every dollar earned by
men.  John Kerry believes that we must expand opportunities for women
and work to make equal pay for equal work a reality not a slogan. He
would start by improving enforcement and disclosure about payment
practices.

What about men who don't have the choice to stay at home to raise their
children (a choice available to some women, which is one of the factors
in the alleged "pay gap")?
When I stayed home as the primary caregiver in the late 1980s, that was
an EXTREMELY unusual thing for a man to be able to do and I recognized
that I was very privileged in having that opportunity; and I got a lot
of strange looks from moms on the playground.
The 28 y.o. son of a friend told me that he wished he had
the choices which his homemaker-wife has, regarding
career, education, and family.  Not all women have those choices, but
substantially more women are able to make such choices than men.
In addressing workplace gender issues, how about looking at
the Death Gap: men suffer 94% of workplace deaths;
yet we don't have a Men's Occupational Safety and Health Admin.,
"MOSHA"; nor should we.  The government, and candidates, should be as
concerned workplace safety for men as well as for women, just as there
should be equality of concern for men and for women who are victims of
domestic violence.

The point is NOT that women don't have legitimate concerns; the point is
that men ALSO have legitimate concerns.

Links to websites of Demo. candidates for President can be found at:
http://www.democrats.org/whitehouse/candidates.html

If you choose to participate in caucuses or other partisan forums, I
encourage you to urge that your party's platform include statements
calling for gender equity: recognizing the legitimate concerns of ALL
residents, regardless of demographic status.

Stanley Green

[She had served almost seven months of her three year sentence.]

Wow, 7 whole months in jail for killing a baby. You can serve more time than that for mistreating a dog.

Convicted Baby Killer Released After Seven Months
 
January 27, 2004

A judge Tuesday granted the early release of a woman convicted of killing her newborn baby and then putting his body in a trash can.

Muskingum County Common Pleas Court Judge Howard Zwelling ordered three years of probation for Jennifer Bryant before he released her. She had served almost seven months of her three year sentence.

Zwelling also ordered the 23-year-old to e-mail high schools and colleges throughout Ohio and offer to speak about what happened to her as a result of the pregnancy.

Prosecutors opposed her early release.

Bryant's baby was discovered February 4th, 2002, wrapped in a blanket in a trash bin behind the home she shared with five women near Muskingum College, where she was a student.

Bryant told police the baby was stillborn. Autopsy results showed the baby was born alive and died of suffocation.

http://www.onnnews.com/story.php?record=28693

[Apparently the result of that meeting was a decision to request that all letter writers and callers send Claire's their full names and mailing addresses so that Claire's could snail mail them a response. I speculate that Claire's did this to gauge our true level of support. Perhaps they believe that our campaign is really the work of a few individuals with a bunch of different e-mail addresses. Also, I believe they are stalling in the hope that our campaign will lose steam.]

Last Sunday evening we initiated round 4 of our campaign against our largest target yet--Claire’s, which has 2,875 retail outlets in nearly a dozen countries. They sell hats, wallets, wristbands, socks and other products which say "Boys are Stupid--Throw Rocks at Them" and "Stupid Factory--Where Boys Are Made." The next morning hundreds of you wrote and called Claire's to complain, and Claire's executives met Monday morning to decide whether they should continue to sell the products.

Apparently the result of that meeting was a decision to request that all letter writers and callers send Claire's their full names and mailing addresses so that Claire's could snail mail them a response. I speculate that Claire's did this to gauge our true level of support. Perhaps they believe that our campaign is really the work of a few individuals with a bunch of different e-mail addresses. Also, I believe they are stalling in the hope that our campaign will lose steam.

As I said during my January 18 broadcast, I did not expect Claire's to give in as quickly as our three previous targets did, all of whom capitulated before noon the day following our broadcast. Please give them the information they requested so they will see the broad support our campaign has garnered. Also, urge your families, friends, and colleagues to get involved.

Also, while I'm touched that hundreds of you have joined our campaign, given the size of this e-list it is clear that there are many of you who have not participated. If this is because you disagree with our campaign then I'll respect your opinion. If not, then I urge you to join us. All information about the campaign, including contact information for Claire's, will always be available at Join Campaign Against 'Boys are Stupid' Products.

The campaign against Claire's has received some prominent endorsements and press coverage. and has made local news in Cleveland, Washington state, and others. There are major media outlets who have expressed an interest in covering our campaign, though if our action against Claire’s fails they probably won't materialize.

Some of you have been writing Claire's about "Boys are Stupid--Throw Rocks at Them" T-shirts. Please remember, as I stated in my broadcast and on our campaign page, Claire's sells many "Boys are Stupid" products but does not sell T-shirts.

Thanks to the many men's and fathers' groups and websites who have joined our effort, including: the Separated Parenting Access &  Resource Center (SPARC); the National Coalition of Free Men Los Angeles; Equal Parenting of Canada; MensNewsDaily.com; IFeminists.net; and MensActivism.org. SPARC in particular has helped rally support for our campaign.

Our computer network was under a major virus assault on Monday and Tuesday--a coincidence, I'm sure--so if you received strange e-mails from me or your mail to me bounced back this is why. Also, my mailing from Monday contained a typographical error--in the sentence "This week I want to knock these products out of over half of David &Goliath's retail outlets" the words "these products" were inadvertently omitted.

There have been several columns written about our campaign against the "Boys are Stupid" products, including: Brian Carnell's Clothing Retailers Are Stupid -- Throw Glenn Sacks at Them; Pete Jensen's Praise the Lord and Pass the Iron; Richard L. Davis' Boys are Stupid?; and Fox News columnist Wendy McElroy's Christmas in a War Zone.

I enjoyed Carnell's headline but his carping surprises me a bit. Men's activists have spent years and decades decrying our culture's anti-male bias and total insensitivity to the issues men and boys face. Yet on the rare occasion when someone actually does something about it, Carnell thinks it's making something out of nothing. How many times in the past 20 years have several major companies been forced to remove a product and apologize because it was offensive to males? Damned few, I would guess. Carnell is correct that "Boys are Stupid--Throw Rocks at Them" products are not the biggest issue in the world to fight over. However, they're sure a good place to start.

I would once again like to thank all of our advertisers--it is our advertisers who make His Side possible. To help support His Side with Glenn Sacks, click here.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
Listen to His Side with Glenn Sacks in LA & Seattle
GlennSacks.com

==========================================

Marla L. Schaefer
Co-Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Claire's Stores, Inc.
[email protected]
Phone (212) 594-3127
Fax (954) 433-3999

Bonnie Schaefer
Co-Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Claire's Stores, Inc.
[email protected]  
Phone (954) 433-3900
Fax (954) 433-3999

Phyllis Korman
Executive Secretary
Claire's Stores, Inc.
[email protected]  
Phone (954) 433-3900
Fax (954)433-3999

Ira D. Kaplan
Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
Claire's Stores, Inc.
[email protected]

Michael Rabinovitch
Vice President of Finance
Claire's Stores, Inc.
[email protected]

[This week I want to knock out of over half of David & Goliath's retail outlets.]

From Glenn Sacks:

Over the past month you have successfully driven the hateful "Boys Are Stupid, Throw Rocks at Them" T-shirts from Universal Studios, Tilly's, and Bon Macy's--72 stores in all. Our campaign has been picking up steam, both in prominent endorsements and press coverage .

It is now time to focus on our next campaign target: Claire's, a large chain with 2,875 retail outlets in nearly a dozen countries. They sell hats, wallets, wristbands, socks and other products which say "Boys are Stupid--Throw Rocks at Them" and "Stupid Factory--Where Boys Are Made."

These products are made by a company called David &Goliath, and are sold at 3,500 retail outlets worldwide. We oppose any product which says "boys are stupid" or promotes violence against boys. This week I want to knock out of over half of David &  Goliath's retail outlets.

This is a much bigger target than we've ever tackled before and it's going to take a big effort to win. This is Stalingrad--the decisive battle of our campaign--and I want all of you to unleash hell.

Below is the contact information for both of Claire's CEOs, as well as their CFO, their VP of Finance, and the CEOs' executive secretary. I want you to call and write all five of them. Be polite, but let them know exactly where you stand. Please copy me on all emails at [email protected] and use the subject line "Customer Complaint - 'Boys are Stupid' Products at Claire's."

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks

Who to contact at Claire's Stores, Inc.

Marla L. Schaefer
Co-Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Claire's Stores, Inc.
[email protected]
Phone (954) 433-3900
Fax (954) 433-3999

Bonnie Schaefer
Co-Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Claire's Stores, Inc.
[email protected]  
Phone (954) 433-3900
Fax (954) 433-3999

Phyllis Korman
Executive Secretary
Claire's Stores, Inc.
[email protected]  
Phone (954) 433-3900
Fax (954)433-3999

Ira D. Kaplan
Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
Claire's Stores, Inc.
[email protected]

Michael Rabinovitch
Vice President of Finance
Claire's Stores, Inc.
[email protected]
 

Thanks to Randy Dickinson of our NY affiliate Fathers and Families for sending this piece published in the Press Republican, Plattsburg, NY. Randy hits the nail right on the head when discussing what's really on the minds of Dads this election cycle.  

Politicians should recognize that fathers, and those who are concerned for them, are not to be taken for granted and could well be the decisive "swing voters" at every level in this election year.  FYI, related items are at the bottom.

ACFC - http://www.acfc.org
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Race to the 2004 Elections by Randall L. Dickinson

Ellen Goodman, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe, writes that "the Democrats need to appeal to more men in 2004".  More specifically, she says, "it's the so-called NASCAR Dads" ("NASCAR Dads attractive this election", Mon., 3 Nov. '03).  Borrowing from pollster Celinda Lake, who originally coined the term, she describes the NASCAR dad "as the blue collar family man who's been hurt by the economy, watched jobs shipped overseas and his brother shipped out to Iraq".

Apparently, while those among us of more advanced intellect and sophistication - you know, Ms. Goodman's kind of people - are sufficiently enlightened as to make their votes pretty much a sure thing (and, of course, implicitly understood as being included in this group are all those with "the XX chromosome on [their] DNA pickup"), it is the blue collar working classes, who presumably live in trailer parks and occupy their time with such quaint and charmingly simple activities as watching professional football and NASCAR races (John Edwards' "ordinary people"), that are either too ignorant or too stupid, or both, to vote Democratic.

That hasn't always been the case; he was once a Democrat, until he began to backslide, and strayed from the flock to become a Republican.  "He may be up for grabs," though.

Offer him enough bread and circuses, and the Democrats just may be able to encourage him to return to the fold, once again. The arrogance expressed in this perspective is breath-taking. Ms. Goodman might want to ask herself if she doesn't think that, perhaps, it's not this very elitist attitude, itself, that is largely responsible for driving Bubba and the boys to the other side in the first place and that has transformed them into the next block
of swing-voters.

Moreover, Ms. Goodman's attempt to describe the NASCAR Dad and what his issues might be demonstrates a degree of perceptual inertia that lends new meaning to the term paradigm paralysis.  Indeed, it only serves to confirm how pathetically and hopelessly out of touch the press/media, as well as the political parties and their representatives, have become with the currents of social change taking place all around them. Ms. Goodman confesses that she knows nothing about NASCAR or the even more popular professional football.  

This, she explains, is why she has chosen not to run for president herself.  She might also want to re-assess her qualifications for speaking for male voters and defining for the Democratic Party  which issues may or may not be presumed to resonate with them.  After all, does anyone really harbor any illusions about the reactions likely to result from any attempt by a male journalist to describe what the female political animal really wants?

The truth is that, in their single minded attempt to appear sensitive to "women's issues", the press/media seems to have made the presumption that men simply have none.  In their frenzy to appeal to the all-important "female vote", the political parties have sent an unmistakable message to men that their votes can be either taken for granted, or that they simply don't count.  In their commitment to "political correctness", the conventional wisdom holds that men and their issues simply aren't.  As former Congresswoman and feminist icon, Patricia Schroeder, once stated during the now infamous "Tailhook" scandal, "They just don't get it".

Here's a hint; it ain't about professional football and/or NASCAR. It ain't the economy, either, stupid , or where the jobs may or may not be going, or taxes, or health insurance, or terrorism and the war in Iraq. Here's a message for both Democrats and Republicans, alike -as well as for the various "third parties" looking for a plank or two to add to their political platforms.  

The key to an understanding of men's issues and any political capital that may lie there can be found hidden in Ms. Lake's description of the NASCAR Dadas the "blue collar family man" and in Ms. Goodman's admonition not to forget the "dad" in the NASCAR Dad. For the most part, the issues described by Ms. Goodman are pretty much the traditional "bread and butter" issues that have a certain general appeal regardless of gender.  

A point often overlooked, however, is that they derive much of their significance principally in the context of the institution of the family and from their importance in making it possible to provide for and protect our families.  Separate a man from his family, and you have suddenly removed a good deal of any incentive for him to continue caring about these issues.

The reality for men today is that the definition of the family as being comprised principally of a mother and her children has become so deeply entrenched in our social consciousness that the role for fathers in the family and the lives of their children has increasingly been marginalized to the fringes - except, of course, for their "economic" obligations to the family, you know, "just send money".  

The corresponding ideology reflected in both parties offers precious few alternatives as a political home for men.  The result is that, today, the most dangerous decision a young man can make - the decision that, above all others, will expose him to the greatest risk (better than a 50 percent probability) that he could wind up losing everything, including, in certain instances, even his life - is the decision to marry and begin a family. Neither Ms. Goodman nor anyone else should deceive themselves, however, that recent attempts by Democratic candidates to portray themselves as solid family men had anything remotely to do with an attempt to appeal to male voters.  Note that the comments to which Ms. Goodman referred in her column took place at a "forum on women's issues"; need more be said?  

Does anyone really believe that politicians waxing sentimental about the satisfaction they have derived through the years from their families and the pride and joy they have experienced from the privilege of raising their kids will resonate positively with men who have been ejected from theirs and whose status has been reduced to that of "visitor" and "check-book"?

Ms. Goodman quotes sociologist Arlie Hochschild as proclaiming that NASCAR Dads are, indeed, allowed to feel anger.  Apparently, according to Ms. Goodman, however, such license applies only if focused "on enemies abroad", or "the folks who duped him with their' Mission Accomplished' banner and their Enron economy".

Ironically, if a foreign power came to our shores and visited the same rain of terror and destruction upon our families that our own courts, social services agencies, and public policy "experts" do every day right here at home, while politicians from both sides of the isle turn a blind eye to their bungling incompetence and excesses, it would be considered grounds for a declaration of war.  Our women would demand it, and our men would be expected to simply "do their duty".

Yet when driven to rage by a system that currently has and routinely exercises the authority to eject them from their families, evict them from their homes, abduct their children, extort their financial resources, and confiscate their assets as a matter of public policy, and always "in the best interest of the child", men are simply diagnosed, as political dissidents in the old Soviet Union so often were, as having a psychological disorder and ordered to attend anger management courses - or, often, simply thrown in jail.  

How 'bout that, Ms. Goodman; are men permitted to be angry about that? Ms. Goodman is right about one thing; future elections are likely to involve, more and more, the politics of gender.  Those wishing to remain in the race, however, are well advised to consider that the contemporary politics of gender feminism and/or gender supremacy, which presumes that only "women's issues" have any legitimate claim to the political processes, will no longer be an asset; rather they will be a substantial liability.  

Indeed, they will need to begin embracing the rather novel concept of two genders, one of which having been largely absent from the political discourse, and each with issues equally deserving of consideration.

Recent simplistic attempts by the Democratic front-runners to appeal to male voters, as referenced in Ms. Goodman's column, will be seen as nothing more than political pabulum.  Reform of matrimonial and family law, confiscatory and punitive child support standards, Draconian domestic violence legislation, intrusive and coercive social services bureaucracies, paternity fraud, a man's "right to chose", men's health and education, etc. . these are but a few of the very real issues resonating with men in ever increasing numbers today. The parties and their candidates ignore them at their political peril.

Those with the courage and sense of fair play to incorporate these issues into their political platforms will be rewarded with a bountiful harvest of votes.  Any fear that, by doing so, they will risk losing their block of women voters only serves to further illustrate how totally invisible men have become on the political landscape.

It doesn't seem it should be necessary to point out that the men who's votes may hang in the balance are all members of families, each one consisting of a mother, and sisters, and aunts, and grandmothers; many have second wives or sweethearts; all of them, the last time we checked, are female, and all of them negatively impacted by the very same issues through their direct associations with the men in their lives - men, by the way, that they happen to love and care for.

-- Randal L. Dickinson resides and works in the Albany, New York area and is Vice President of the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, Inc.  The Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, Inc. is a not-for-profit public information, education, and lobbying organization dedicated to the advocacy of family related issues and to preserving the relationship between fathers and their children.  Its national  affiliate is the American Coalition of Fathers and Children.

 Mr. Dickinson can be reached at (518) 899-3302, e-mail: [email protected].

Published as "Issues that resonate with men" by Randall L. Dickinson on Sunday, December 21, 2003 in the Press Republican (Plattsburg, NY).

Related items:

Single Women May Decide 2004 Election ["...key demographic, like the NASCAR dads of 2002 or..."]

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1669

by Allison Stevens -- Women's eNews, 09 Jan 04

NASCAR Dads attractive this election

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=187991

by Ellen Goodman -- Times Union, 10 Nov 03

Children Victimized By System Secrecy
by Wendy McElroy

January 14, 2004


Denise Moore is the Indiana caseworker who recommended taking 4-year-old Anthony Bars away from a loving foster mother and placed him, instead, with a couple who starved and beat him to death (http://www.indystar.com/articles/7/108973-8507-009.html) over a 10-month period.

Had Moore bothered with the required background check, she would have known that the new "home" had a long record of abuse within the child protective services and that the new "father" had a felony battery conviction for savagely beating his own daughter with an extension cord.

Last week, D. Sue Roberson, director of the Indiana Personnel Department, announced that no disciplinary action would be taken against Moore. Why? Citing confidentiality laws, Roberson added, "I am not at liberty to discuss the findings."

Days later, Cheryl Sullivan, secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, stated that disciplinary action (http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/109923-6212-009.html) is still possible. But she affirmed confidentiality and painted her agency as the true victim.

Sullivan's statements came in the wake of a four-month investigation by TV-station WTHR. It came after a court case that convicted Anthony's killers, after criticism from Rep. Phil Hinkle and Gov. Joe Kernan, and heart-breaking questions from Florence Hurst, the foster mom who spent 15 months caring for Anthony. She wanted to adopt Anthony and his sister before Moore recommended their removal.

Why? Again that word.

Race may have been a factor. Hurst was white. Anthony was black.

The circumstances surrounding Anthony's death become more wrenching with examination. But dwelling on them misses the larger point: the children abused by CPS are not merely the fault of "bad" caseworkers. They are not restricted to Indiana. The bodies of dead children demand we ask: is CPS harming - not helping -- children?

I say "bodies" because Anthony is not an isolated incident. Almost one year to the day after Anthony's death, 7-year-old Mark Adrian Norris II's was found starved and covered with bedsores in an Indiana house, which was set on fire to disguise his death-through-neglect.

Mark's caseworker, Michael Warrum (http://www.indystar.com/articles/1/109498-7881-009.html) neglected his required monthly visits to the home and did not follow up on complaints that Mark was being starved. For his complicity in Mark's death, Warrum lost his civil service job. And, presumably, his pension.

The problem is not exclusive to Indiana. The carelessness with which the Florida CPS "loses" children (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/5711425.htm) became a national scandal last year. In California, even the state's Department of Social Services admits (http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1014.html) families are being aggressively torn apart and children unnecessarily placed in foster care. The problem is federal and systemic.

A column that questions the fundamental value of the current CPS will elicit outraged feedback from social workers who protest that they sincerely care for children. I believe them without question. For one thing, I have a sister-in-law working within that system.

The problem is not the intentions of individuals but the structure and rules of the CPS, such as confidentiality. As long as those rules remain, the institution will harm children.

Consider an analogy: a factory with machinery and procedures designed to build airplanes. A worker on the factory floor loudly protests that he is there to build motor boats. But, as long as he uses the factory's machines and follows its rules, he will produce airplanes whatever his intentions. The structure of the institution defines the product, not the worker's intentions.

What is necessary to protect other Anthonys within the system?

First and foremost: transparency. Both Roberson and Sullivan drew a shroud of silence across Anthony's body. Confidentiality was never meant to hinder the investigation into dead children. A threatened bureaucracy is using silence to immunize itself. As Rep. Hinkle has said, "You cannot hide behind confidentiality when there's been an obvious wrongdoing."

But the actions of the Indiana CPS amount to more than this. They are attempting to shift the blame for dead children away from their own policies onto the shoulders of society.

Sullivan, before the Indiana Commission on Abused and Neglected Children and Their Families, asked, "Does it make more sense for the child protective service workers to be sitting outside a juvenile justice courtroom or located with the police?" She suggested that caseworkers should be protected from "illegal drug labs" and other threats by being further removed from public access by being housed in police stations or courthouses. Who protects Anthony from them?

The CPS does not need more confidentiality, more difficult access and less accountability. There is no overriding reason for silence: the deaths of Mark and Anthony do not threaten national security or compromise the witness protection program. They raise questions that threaten the structure of an institution that may be complicit in killing the very children it was constructed to protect.

Short of deconstructing CPS, the solution is more -- not less -- accessibility and the imposition of criminal liability for the gross misconduct of caseworkers and superiors.

Wendy McElroy
[email protected]

January 14, 2004

Bush Plans $1.5 Billion Drive for Promotion of Marriage
By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
 
ASHINGTON, Jan. 13 — Administration officials say they are planning an extensive election-year initiative to promote marriage, especially among low-income couples, and they are weighing whether President Bush should promote the plan next week in his State of the Union address.

For months, administration officials have worked with conservative groups on the proposal, which would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain "healthy marriages."

The officials said they believed that the measure was especially timely because they were facing pressure from conservatives eager to see the federal government defend traditional marriage, after a decision by the highest court in Massachusetts. The court ruled in November that gay couples had a right to marry under the state's Constitution.

"This is a way for the president to address the concerns of conservatives and to solidify his conservative base," a presidential adviser said.

Several conservative Christian advocacy groups are pressing Mr. Bush to go further and use the State of the Union address to champion a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. Leaders of these groups said they were confused by what they saw as the administration's hedging and hesitation concerning an amendment.

Administration officials said they did not know if Mr. Bush would mention the amendment, but they expressed confidence that his marriage promotion plan would please conservatives.

Ronald T. Haskins, a Republican who has previously worked on Capitol Hill and at the White House under Mr. Bush, said, "A lot of conservatives are very pleased with the healthy marriage initiative."

The proposal is the type of relatively inexpensive but politically potent initiative that appeals to White House officials at a time when they are squeezed by growing federal budget deficits.

It also plays to Mr. Bush's desire to be viewed as a "compassionate conservative," an image he sought to cultivate in his 2000 campaign. This year, administration officials said, Mr. Bush will probably visit programs trying to raise marriage rates in poor neighborhoods.

"The president loves to do that sort of thing in the inner city with black churches, and he's very good at it," a White House aide said.

In the last few years, some liberals have also expressed interest in marriage-education programs. They say a growing body of statistical evidence suggests that children fare best, financially and emotionally, in married two-parent families.

The president's proposal may not be enough, though, for some conservative groups that are pushing for a more emphatic statement from him opposing gay marriage.

"We have a hard time understanding why the reserve," said Glenn T. Stanton, a policy analyst at Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian organization. "You see him inching in the right direction. But the question for us is, why this inching? Why not just get there?"

The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of a national group called the Traditional Values Coalition, has started an e-mail campaign urging Mr. Bush to push for an amendment opposing the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Other groups, like the Southern Baptist Convention and Focus on the Family, are pushing more quietly for the same thing, through contacts with White House officials, especially Karl Rove, the president's chief political aide, who has taken a personal interest in maintaining contacts with evangelical groups.

In an interview with ABC News last month, Mr. Bush was asked if he would support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage and gay civil unions.

"If necessary," he said, "I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that, and will — the position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state, or does start at the state level."

Asked to cite the circumstances in which a constitutional amendment might be needed, Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said on Tuesday, "That is a decision the president has to make in due time."

The House of Representatives has approved a proposal to promote marriage as part of a bill to reauthorize the 1996 welfare law, but the bill is bogged down in the Senate.

Without waiting for Congress to act, the administration has retained consultants to help state and local government agencies, community organizations and religious groups develop marriage-promotion programs.

Wade F. Horn, the assistant secretary of health and human services for children and families, said: "Marriage programs do work. On average, children raised by their own parents in healthy, stable married families enjoy better physical and mental health and are less likely to be poor."

Prof. Linda J. Waite, a demographer and sociologist at the University of Chicago, compiled an abundance of evidence to support such assertions in the book "The Case for Marriage" (Doubleday, 2000). Ms. Waite, a former president of the Population Association of America, said she was a liberal Democrat, but not active in politics.

Some women's groups like the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund oppose government programs that promote marriage. "Such programs intrude on personal privacy, may ignore the risk of domestic violence and may coerce women to marry," said Timothy J. Casey, a lawyer at the fund.

Administration officials said their goal was "healthy marriage," not marriage for its own sake.

"We know this is a sensitive area," Dr. Horn said. "We don't want to come in with a heavy hand. All services will be voluntary. We want to help couples, especially low-income couples, manage conflict in healthy ways. We know how to teach problem-solving, negotiation and listening skills. This initiative will not force anyone to get or stay married. The last thing we'd want is to increase the rate of domestic violence against women."

Under the president's proposal, federal money could be used for specific activities like advertising campaigns to publicize the value of marriage, instruction in marriage skills and mentoring programs that use married couples as role models.

Federal officials said they favored premarital education programs that focus on high school students; young adults interested in marriage; engaged couples; and unmarried couples at the moment of a child's birth, when the parents are thought to have the greatest commitment to each other.

Alan M. Hershey, a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research in Princeton, N.J., said his company had a $19.8 million federal contract to measure the effectiveness of such programs for unwed parents. Already, Mr. Hershey said, he is providing technical assistance to marriage-education projects in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico and Texas.

A major purpose, he said, is to help people "communicate about money, sex, child-raising and other difficult issues that come up in their relationships."

Dr. Horn said that federal money for marriage promotion would be available only to heterosexual couples. As a federal official, he said, he is bound by a 1996 statute, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for any program established by Congress. The law states, "The word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

But Dr. Horn said: "I don't have any problem with the government providing support services to gay couples under other programs. If a gay couple had a child and they were poor, they might be eligible for food stamps or cash assistance."

Sheri E. Steisel, a policy analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said, "The Bush administration has raised this issue to the national level, but state legislators of both parties are interested in offering marriage education and premarital counseling to low-income couples."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/politics/campaigns/14MARR.html?ei=5062&en=4de1d4434bd90853&ex
=1074661200&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

A message from the Joint Parenting Association (//www.jointparenting.org.au)

Let us unravel the gender feminist 'safety of children' argument.

The evidence that sole custody is dangerous for children is clear and
convincing upon examination.

Even a cursory look at the data documents that children are victimized
by sole custody decisions. However, the HORISP Committee would prefer
to base its conclusions on debunked feminist ideology rather than
mainstream science.

The following disturbing findings were included in the Joint Parenting
Association's submission to the federal inquiry. The Committee's
disregard of the substantial published research is simply staggering.

Perhaps the most striking information suggesting that sole custody
arrangements victimize children are several reports which indicate an
increased risk for all forms of child abuse for sole maternal custody
(Ditson & Shay 1984, Webb 1991). Ditson & Shay (1984) for example,
presented data which indicates that 63% of all confirmed child abuse in
one American city during one year took place in the homes of single
parents and that the mother was the perpetrator of the abuse in 77% of
those cases.

The nationally representative survey by Gelles (1988) of 6000 American
households revealed that single mothers are more likely to use violence
towards their children than are parents in dual-caretaker households.
These disturbing statistics support the often-ignored Straus, Gelles, &
Steimnetz (1980) finding that:

"Mothers are at least as likely as fathers to use even more serious
forms of violence such as kicks, bites, punches and beatings. This is
important because family violence is probably the only situation where
women are as or more violent (physically)than men...While fathers who
beat up their children do so on average of once a year, mothers who beat
up their children do it more than once every other month."

Moreover, the researchers in their comparison between mothers and
fathers who were living together in the intact family revealed that
mothers were more likely to use forms of violence which placed their
children at risk of physical injury than were fathers. The study
documented a 62% greater rate of child assault by mothers than fathers.
Sons were beaten more frequently than daughters. Also, sons were the
only ones who were threatened or assaulted with guns or knives. In
discussing the incidence of child mistreatment, Straus and colleagues
observed that the literature on child abuse suggests that abuse may be
more common in families where only one parent lives with the child. Had
they studied single-parent homes, the authors considered that they might
also have uncovered a higher rate of extreme violence towards children.


Sack, Mason, & Higgins (1985) found that the prevalence of physically
abusive punishment to be twice as high in single parent families as in
two parent households. The sex of the single parent was not related to
the abusive behaviour. Other data from various United States
departments of human services suggest that, in most cases of child abuse
and neglect, the mother is perpetrator (Webb 1991, Wright 1992) and this
is consistent with research reports by various advocacy groups for
non-custodial parents and their children (Anderson 1990; Burmeister
1991a). A study of all state child protective services agencies by the
Children's Rights Coalition (a child advocacy and research organization
in Austin Texas), found that biological mothers physically abuse their
children at twice the rate of biological fathers. The majority of the
rest of the time, children were abused because of the single–mothers'
poor choices in the subsequent men in their lives. Incidences of abuse
were almost non–existent in single–father–headed households (Anderson
1990).

These data could result from the increased stress associated with single
parent responsibilities, since the Ditson & Shay (1984) research also
indicated that, in married families, the abuse was evenly split between
male and female perpetrators (i.e., the mother and the father). Also
these data–based conclusions may result from the fact that following
divorce more children live with mothers than with fathers. Further, no
information is currently available on such increased risk among sole
paternal residence children. Finally, some studies indicate directly
conflicting results (Rosenthall 1988). However given the potential risk
of child abuse, which may be associated with sole maternal custody,
these reports must be investigated

National data collected by the Australian Institute Of Health And
Welfare (AIHW) show much the same pattern. Child abuse and neglect
statistics collated by Angus & Hall (1996) of the AIHW show an
over–representation of single–parent households. For the three states
(Vic, Qld, & WA) and two territories (ACT & NT) for which data were
provided, more cases involved children from female single–parent
households (39%) than families with two natural parents (30%) or other
two parent households such as step parent households (21%). The
over–representation becomes even more apparent when the abuse statistics
are compared with Australian Bureau of Statistics (1995) data on the
relative frequency of different family types in Australia.

Both Angus & Hall (1996) and Broadbent & Bentley (1997) acknowledge the
over–representation, but fail to comment on its large size. Angus &
Hall (1996) say:

"In all, 34% of substantiated cases of physical abuse occurred in
families with two natural parents and 32% in female single–parent
families. More substantiated emotional and sexual abuse and neglect
cases involved children from female single–parent families than from
other types of family––38% of substantiated cases of emotional abuse,
34% of sexual abuse and 47% of neglect cases. In comparison, 31% of
substantiated cases of emotional abuse, 30% of substantiated cases of
sexual abuse and 26% of neglect involved children from families with two
natural parents."

The data strangely missing from the above statement is the relative
incidence in the community of single–parent households compared with two
natural parent families. When this factor is taken into account, the
difference in child abuse rates becomes more starkly apparent. Since
81% of Australian children 0–14 years live with both their natural
parents (Australian Bureau Of Statistics 1995) and 30% of child sexual
abuse occurs in this type of family, while 13% of children live in
female single parent households (Australian Bureau Of Statistics 1995)
and 34% of child sexual abuse occurs in this type of household––it
follows that the relative risk of child sexual abuse in a female single
parent household is over seven times the risk in a two natural parent
family (34/13 x 81/30). The relative risk of any kind of abuse in a
single parent household is eight times that of a two natural parent
family.

Importantly, for children there are no reported instances of abuse in
joint custody families

The situation is becoming more serious. The Australian Bureau of
Statistics reports that between 1982 and1992, the number of families
headed by a lone parent grew by more than 180,000, reaching an estimated
619,000––an increase of 42% in just ten years (Australian Bureau Of
Statistics 1995). The data provided by Angus & Hall (1996) and the
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1995) shows the dramatic relative
risk of child abuse and neglect in single–parent families, and even more
in step–families. The proportion of two natural parent families in the
community has decreased since 1992 (Australian Bureau of Statistics
(1995), with a corresponding increase in the proportion of single
parent and blended families but the relative risk of child abuse in the
non–traditional family types remains much higher than for two natural
parent families.

Child abuse is intimately related to later delinquency and violent
crime, and here too divorce is implicated (Fagan 1997). Higher levels
of divorce mean higher levels of child abuse. Remarriage does not
reduce this level of child abuse and may even add to it. Serious abuse
is a much higher among stepchildren compared with children of intact
families. Adults who were sexually abused as children are more likely
to have been raised in stepfamilies (Fergusson, Lynskey, & Horwood 1996)
The rate of sexual abuse of girls by stepfathers ranges from six to
seven times as likely (Russell 1984), and may be as much as 40 times
more when compared with such abuse by biological fathers in intact
families (Wilson & Daly 1987).

Australian Human Rights Commissioner Brian Burdekan 1989) has reported
that sexual abuse of girls is very much higher in households where the
adult male is not the natural father. National statistics indicate that
the relative risk of child sex abuse in a family where only one of the
parent figures is a natural parent, is much higher than in a
single–parent family and enormously higher––around 17 times––than in a
two natural parent family. In a step–family, the abuser may be an older
step–sibling––not necessarily the step parent.

Family structure predicts huge differences in rates of fatal child
abuse. Professors Margo Wilson and Martin Daly (1987) of the Department
of Psychology at McMasters University, Canada, report that children two
years and younger are seventy to a hundred times more likely to be
killed at the hands of stepparents than at the hands of biological
parents. Younger children are more vulnerable because they are so much
weaker physically. British data is milder but the research is not as
rigorous as the Canadian research. There the fatal abuse of children of
all ages occurs three times more frequently in stepfamilies than in
intact married families. Neglect of children, which frequently is more
psychologically damaging than physical abuse (Emery 1989),109 also is
higher––twice as high––among separated and divorced parents.

Stepparents always have had a difficult time establishing close bonds
with new stepchildren as even traditional fairy tales recount. Sole
custody is the judicial preferment of step–parents. Difficulties
between children and step–parents are not confined to Grimm's fairy
tales. The fairytale theme is confirmed in the research literature: The
rate of bonding between stepparents and stepchildren is rather low. By
one study only 53 percent of stepfathers and 25 percent of stepmothers
may have parental feelings toward their stepchildren, and still fewer to
love them.

A Melbourne study (Hodges 1982). indicated considerable difficulties
were experienced by adolescents on the re–marriage of the custodial
(usually the mother). The majority appeared uncomfortable. There is a
vast biological literature regarding parental solicitude which shows
that it is discrimutive. Parents favour their own children. Biparental
care is universal in our species and is a fundamental attribute (Dally &
Wilson 1980).

With these recorded results, it is somewhat surprising that the factor
of sole maternal custody is not considered in much of the literature on
child abuse. Numerous factors are considered as correlates of child
abuse including age and sex of the child, race, family income, number of
siblings and social status. While a number of Australian studies have
considered the effects of the family structure on child victimization,
most merely refer to structure as part of the family demographic
information, noting the over–representation in their sample (e.g.
Goodard & Hiller 1992). However, results are not reported which would
indicate whether mothers were more prone to child abuse than fathers, or
if sole maternal custody—as compared to joint custody, sole paternal
custody, or intact family status—contributed to an increased risk for
child abuse. These are simple questions. Yet these fundamental
questions are not being addressed.

In this context, the decision taken in 1997 by the AIHW (Broadbent &
Bentley 1997) to no longer publish data indicating the sex of
perpetrators in substantiated child abuse cases must be reversed. The
action was taken just one year after the data was first published in
1996 (968 men and 1138 women). The omission was justified on the
wobbly basis that only one state (WA) and two territories (ACT & NT) had
furnished statistics and a lack of publishing space. . Interested
parties were advised that they could obtain the data under a Freedom Of
Information request at a cost of $200.

Curiously, these reasons did not preclude the publication of these data
in 1996. In fact, Angus & Hall (1996) observed that "the information
base provide an extra dimension to data previously presented." Quite
obviously, the non publication of these important statistics can
negatively impact on child abuse policy and the allocation of resources.
If the AIHW decision does indeed represent bias reporting then such
slanted views clearly have no place in scientific endevours.

Yuri Joakimidis

National Director

Joint Parenting Association

//www.jointparenting.org.au

Understanding female pedophelia

By Carolyn Susman, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 10, 2004



It is one of the worst taboos in society: a nurturing mother figure who sexually abuses a child. But three recent criminal cases in Palm Beach County make the topic unavoidable.

Last month, Amy Duane, a 37-year-old mother of three, was sentenced to four years in prison for having sex with a 13-year-old boy. Her friend, Debra Favre, 39, will be sentenced next month after pleading guilty to having sex with a 16-year-old boy and serving alcohol to minors in Duane's home west of Greenacres.

Wednesday, Boynton Beach music teacher Carol Lynn Flannigan was charged with sexual battery on a child. Police say Flannigan, 49, the mother of a 16-year-old autistic son, began an affair with one of her students 19 months ago, when the boy was 11. She was granted $30,000 bond Thursday morning and placed on house arrest while she awaits trial.

When men commit sex crimes, they spark horror but little surprise. For the most part, we think we understand them. But many people seem unwilling to believe that women are capable of such things.

"I think the first reaction is denial. Then people think, 'She has to be crazy,' " Gail Ryan said in a report published by ABCNews.com. Ryan has studied hundreds of sex offender cases and directs the Perpetration Prevention Program at the Kempe Children's Center in Denver. "I think the public feels that a woman who does such things must be mentally ill, as opposed to the whole population of men (who are sex offenders). That's because women are regarded as nurturers and mothers."

In fact, the thought of a woman molesting a child is so abhorrent that for years researchers avoided the subject, making scientific studies rare and limiting our understanding of female pedophilia.

"We don't want to see mothers in that capacity," says Alison Tarlow-Sale, a Boca Raton psychologist who specializes in treating sexual abuse at The Renfrew Center in Coconut Creek.


Why do they do it?

Make no mistake, sex offenses are still very much a man's crime, according to the Justice Department. Men were the perpetrators in 96 percent of the sex assaults reported in 1999.

Women were most often involved in cases in which the victim was under age 6, making up 12 percent of those offenders. Women were involved in 3 percent of the sex cases in which the victim was age 6 through 12, and 3 percent for victims ages 13 through 17.

Experts are not able to draw an accurate profile of a typical female sex offender, because they are so rare. The few psychologists who have studied the issue believe female pedophiles are most likely to be women who have had failed adult relationships, who have suffered a great loss, or who have been victims of abuse themselves.

Middle-aged women who have sex with teenage boys -- classified as "Teacher/Lovers" by researchers -- sometimes have additional motives, psychologists say.

"You're talking about a power differential," says Tarlow-Sale. The offender "is a person of perceived power, so they're going to have a much greater influence (on the child). In the case of a teacher, that would certainly be the situation."

Some believe female pedophiles are struggling to fulfill emotional needs through sexual relationships that are entirely within their control. Desperate for love but trapped in an unsatisfying marriage, or unable to sustain any kind of adult relationship, a woman looks to a child for the affection, intimacy and attention that she has failed to secure from an adult male.

"She's in control here," says Tarlow-Sale. "The child gives her the attention and love she's yearning for. The intimacy through the sexual relationship and attention (translates into) love."

But although sex is the mechanism for securing what the female pedophile needs, few see it as the driving force behind the abuse.

"They don't seem to be pedophiles like men," Hollida Wakefield told ABC News. Wakefield has studied and treated sex offenders for more than 20 years at the Institute of Psychological Therapies in Minnesota. "There are some cases where some people are in bad relationships or marriages and are just really lonely, and they find themselves in a relationship with these children. It isn't so much that women are sexually aroused."


Victims, or just 'lucky'?

Abuse cases in which the victim is male and the offender female are likely to be under-reported because of society's attitudes about boys' sexual development. What is rape when the victim is a girl might be considered a boy's "rite of passage."

"In society, it used to be that with a 13- or 14-year-old male, if his first sexual experience involved a 25-year-old girl who may well have taken advantage of him, his male counterparts may say, 'Hey, you lucked out,' " Dr. Richard Gartner, author of Betrayed as Boys: Psychodynamic Treatment of Sexually Abused Men, told ABC News. "It was almost seen as a rite of passage. That's the only group that later recalls such experiences as 'lucking out.' You don't find that in females. Today that kind of behavior is regarded as sexual assault."

Whereas abuse of a young girl by a man is always seen as horrifying, this "rite of passage" perception can make cases involving the abuse of a boy by a woman seem titillating -- and thus irresistible to the media. It is unlikely, for instance, that Mary Kay Letourneau, the former schoolteacher serving time for having an affair with one of her students (and ultimately bearing him two children), would have generated countless headlines and a made-for-TV movie if she had been male and her victim female.

The scenario in which an older woman "teaches" a young man about sex is also ubiquitous in literature and movies. The Graduate's Mrs. Robinson and The Summer of '42 are classic examples of a theme that has been explored endlessly.

"Society glorifies the French tutor, the older woman teaching the younger boy," says Dr. Patricia Pape, a psychologist at Palms West Hospital in Wellington. "But for a child (underage), there is no informed consent."

And experts say these messages can confuse male victims and subtly encourage them not to report abuse. Because boys tend to be easily sexually aroused, Gartner said, adults can manipulate their victims into thinking they were equal and willing participants in sexual acts. And because society sometimes perceives that the incidents aren't abuse but a case of the boy "getting lucky," male victims might not admit or even realize they've been abused until they reach adulthood.

A boy might see sex with an older woman as "a sort of a prize," says Tarlow-Sale. "Depending on the maturity level, that could be something they would want.... It would be really hard to judge whether he felt raped. If he's gone through puberty and is having sexual feelings, it could be working out for both of them. It's absolutely inappropriate, but the victim might not be aware of that."

[email protected]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/accent/content/auto/epaper/editions/saturday/accent_f3ffc122d1c3f0fe007a.html

Senate: Divorced parents can't be made to pay for college


By ANNE SAUNDERS
The Associated Press
Published: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2004

CONCORD - The state Senate voted Wednesday to bar judges from ordering divorced parents to pay their children's college expenses.

The 20-2 vote sent the bill to Gov. Craig Benson for signature. The House had approved it last year.

Judges cannot ordered married couples to pay for college tuition, and it would be unfair to apply a different standard to those who are divorced, said Sen. Frank Sapareto, R-Derry.

"If a college education is to become public policy, it should be for all parents, not just divorced parents," added Sen. Robert Clegg, R-Hudson.

Lawmakers wanted to reverse a state Supreme Court ruling extending a divorced father's child support for his daughter while she attended college.

Clegg said parents can make divorce agreements that cover college expenses even though judges can't. Judges can approve the agreements and enforce them.

Other states allow judges to order a divorced parent to pay college expenses for their children. Studies show the children are less likely to go to college.

The Senate also approved a bill that would seal financial records in divorce proceedings. The Senate said the information can be released if someone can convince a judge the public interest is served.

Supporters of restricting access argue affidavits provide information that could be exploited by stalkers or identity thieves.

But those who want divorce records to remain open say the public can't evaluate the fairness of property divisions and child support orders if they can't see the facts underlying those decisions.

Clegg said the added exception protects the public interest but establishes "a high standard to protect the privacy of divorcing parties."

The bill goes back to the House.

The Senate also approved and sent back to the House a bill that would make it easier to change a child custody arrangement if the court is convinced the existing arrangement is detrimental to the child. The current rule allows for a change only if there is a "strong possibility the child will be harmed" without it.


http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040108/NEWS02/201080428

30 years of toxic gender-feminism, spreading fear of *all* men has had its effects. This is just one classic example of the over-reaction that is the result of gender-feminism's hate campaign against men.

Killing the Good Samaritan
 
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
By Wendy McElroy

The price tag for decades of gender warfare is usually expressed in general terms -- for example, through data-filled studies that reflect how "boys" are slighted in education. The ordeal of Michael Wright -- a student at Oklahoma University at Normal -- captures the human factor. And it leads me to a question: What does the devil look like?
 
On a recent Thursday, two police officers appeared at Michael's house, apparently to investigate his stalking of a female OU student. Stalking is a serious crime, which is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated following and harassing of another person." It can place a young man on a registry of sex offenders that could haunt his future and limit his options in life. Indeed, Oklahoma is a state in which convicted sex offenders must register his/her address, which is made available to the public. No wonder Michael suffered "a great deal of nerve-wracking anxiety" before being exonerated.

What mistake did Michael make?

On Saturday, Sept. 27, he found the OU ID card of a female student. Looking up her number and e-ddress in the OU online directory, he dialed the no-longer-valid number then sent an e-mail:

"I found your ID card today on a photocopy machine at the AVA copy center. I picked it up to return to you, since you might not have remembered where you left it. I usually go to the campus every day and often go to the library or the computer lab in the physical science building. I get a cup of coffee every morning from the yogurt stand in the union. You can e-mail me or call me to arrange for me to return it to you."

Not hearing anything by Monday, he simply gave the card to an OUPD officer and e-mailed her: "You haven't replied to my e-mail from Saturday so I gave your ID card to an OUPD officer I saw in the main library." (A police officer investigating Michael said the card had not been returned, which was later revealed to be an OU oversight.)

The female student bypassed the university and went straight to the local police with the "allegation" that Michael "had looked up her number" -- albeit in an open directory. The police were forced by law and policy to investigate. Michael was forced to endure a weeklong ordeal before the bureaucracy offered him an apology ... or as close to it as bureaucracy ever comes.

The incident is not a breakdown in "the system." According to Michael, the police exercised both common sense and common decency, with one detective eventually thanking him for "making the extra effort to protect the members of our community" by returning lost property.

The incident reflects how paranoid our culture has become after decades of political correctness that defines and divides us into categories eternally at war: female against male, whites against minorities, heterosexual against gay.

I was once asked to describe the devil. (I interpreted the question to be about the general nature of evil in man rather than about religion.)  

I replied: If the devil is the living flesh of evil, then here is who I think he is. Far from appearing as a hideous demon, he is the average-looking person who walks into a room and shakes your hand with a smile. By the time he leaves, the standards of decency of everyone within that room have been lowered ever so slightly.

Perhaps he offers general statistics on divorce or child abuse to convince you to suspect your husband of infidelity or your neighbor of molestation. No evidence of specific wrongdoing is offered, of course. But since such "crimes" do occur, you are advised to be vigilantly on guard against them in your personal life. And so, you begin to view your spouse and neighbors with a bit more suspicion, a little less trust and with the tendency to interpret every action as possible evidence of wrongdoing. The very possibility of an offense is taken as evidence of its presence.

Perhaps he spins a political theory that inches you toward viewing people, not as individuals to be judged on the basis of their merits, but as members of a class. And so, your co-worker is no longer an individual; he becomes "black" or "male" or "gay" and his actions are interpreted according to his category.

Slowly, you come to view the world through the eyes of the devil. People are guilty until proven innocent. Acts of kindness and common decency are meticulously dissected for hidden motives and agendas. People are not individuals but categories. Those closest to you -- family, friends and neighbors -- do not receive the benefit of the doubt; they receive the "benefit" of your suspicion.

With no religious implication, I say: a devil is at large. He tells us that acts of kindness and common decency do not exist; the worst possible interpretation should be placed on acts that appear to embody those values. Individuals do not exist; only categories.

In real PC terms, this means that all men should be objects of suspicion. A man, such as Michael, should be subject to a criminal investigation that could damage the rest of his life for trying to return a lost ID card.

I hope he has not learned the devil's lesson. I hope the next time he can help another human being, he chooses to be a Good Samaritan. Perhaps the next beneficiary will say "thank you" rather than dialing the police.


Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100664,00.html

PARENTAL RIGHTS
Convicted mom may get kids

The state Supreme Court will likely decide whether a parent can rehabilitate herself after harming a child, and can be trusted to be a parent again.

BY CAROL MARBIN MILLER
[email protected]

STEPDAUGHTER KILLED: Joy Ford was convicted in 1996 case.
[img src=http://www.miami.com/images/miami/miamiherald/7661/58694850093.jpg]
 
An appeals court has restored a Broward mother's right to raise her two small children, despite a 1996 manslaughter conviction in the killing of a 3-year-old stepdaughter -- who was kicked to death for taking a soda can from a refrigerator.

The decision marks the second time this year the appeals court has restored the rights of a mother who was found guilty in either criminal or juvenile court of serious child abuse or neglect.

In a seven-page opinion that is almost certain to create controversy, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach ordered that Broward mother Joy Ford -- convicted of manslaughter and aggravated child abuse in 1996 -- be given another chance to regain custody of her two children. They were taken from her by child welfare officials.

Wednesday's opinion, together with a similar ruling last summer, poses a question of considerable import: Can a parent, who has been found guilty of harming a child in the past, rehabilitate herself or himself enough to be trusted with the care of another vulnerable child? The appeals court panel believes the answer is yes.

The Florida Supreme Court likely will have the final say. Next month, justices will hear arguments in the July case, in which the appeals court held unconstitutional a state law that allows judges to terminate parents' rights based on their past conduct.

The controversy centers only on a judge's ability to permanently sever a parent's rights to his or her child, the most far-reaching action a juvenile judge can take. It does not challenge the ability of state child welfare investigators to take into custody, at least temporarily, children who are at risk.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Children & Families declined to discuss the cases, as they are pending legal matters.

Wednesday's opinion, written by Judge W. Matthew Stevenson, said Broward Circuit Judge Michael L. Gates erred when he severed the parental rights of Ford to her son and daughter. DCF failed to prove Ford's killing of her stepdaughter in 1996 made her a threat to the lives of her other children, Stevenson wrote.

''The issue in these types of cases is whether future behavior, which will adversely affect the child, can be `clearly and certainly predicted','' Stevenson wrote for a three-judge panel. ``The department must prove a [link] between the act of abuse and any prospective abuse.''

At Ford's hearing in September 2002, state officials failed to provide sufficient evidence that Ford's past history of child abuse makes her unfit to raise children in the future, the opinion states.

Ford's attorney, Denise E. Kistner of Fort Lauderdale, said the ruling was a fair one that requires state officials to meet strict standards before courts can strip parents of a fundamental right: to raise their own children.

'As parents' attorneys, we have always argued that these issues need to be decided on a case-by-case analysis -- to determine what is the current risk to children, regardless of what happened in the past.''

In the July opinion, an appeals court panel reversed a ruling, also by Judge Gates, ending the rights of a mother, identified only as F.L., to raise a baby boy. The mother had lost the right to raise six older children due to child abuse and neglect.

Children's advocates say the opinions could leave children at risk of harm.

The ruling Wednesday involved Ford, who was convicted in April 1996 of manslaughter and aggravated child abuse in the death of her 3-year-old stepdaughter, Shaqunta Ford. At trial, the toddler's half-sister testified she saw Ford kick the child three times in the stomach.

The beating, the half-sister testified, was administered because Ford was angry the little girl took a soda can from the refrigerator.

At issue in the case is Ford's ability to raise two other children, one of whom was born after Ford was released from prison in January 1999. One child is living with a relative, and the other with a family friend, under the department's care.

''It's shocking to me that [the judges] would expect the department to prove something that has already been proven many times over,'' said Dr. Walter Lambert, who heads the University of Miami's Child Protection Team.


http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/states/florida/counties/broward_county/7657321.htm

http://www.helpjohngetdivorced.com/index.html

I want to say right off the bat that I do NOT agree with this kind of thinking. This is NOT going to help fathers in the slightest, it will only make real fathers advocacy groups look like dangerous whackos.

I saw this quote on another board (Divorcesource), and I was appalled, to say the least. The quote was allegedly made by "Eric" from "FIRM" (Fathers Integrity and Rights Movement"). It's been referenced on the Divorcesource boards repeatedly, although I couldn't find the original (which was on yet another message board). Here is the post:

--------------------------------------------------
Eric's response to the idea of killing (family court) judges:

"I think if it could be done, it would have a positive impact and radical change would begin to happen. Especially, if we would applaud the actions."

http://www.divorcesource.com/cgi-bin/wbb/fathers.pl?read=24314
--------------------------------------------------

It's a little hard to tell, but apparently he admits to making this statement.

Pardon me?? Killing judges will have a "positive impact"? And fathers rights groups should "applaud the actions"?

Like hell. Not on this planet, buddy.

Needless to say (and I'm damn sure that I speak for the admin here too), SPARC does NOT support this idea in the slightest. Call us wimps, but we don't condone murder, whether it goes under the name "political activism" or whatever. This is CRAZY. 100% unadulterated CRAZY.

If other groups or individuals want to make statements like this, that's their problem. I think the idea is insane and the poster should probably be investigated by the police.

This is the kind of statement that "Toxic Trish" or "Liz" (or whatever her name is) just loves to see- a "father's rights" person supporting the idea of killing judges.

Sorry, but that's not something we want to have anything to do with at all, no way, no how.

I'm familiar with some of Dr. Amneus' work, including "The Garbage Generation".

LEGENDS LEGAL AID SOCIETY
P.O. Box 3600
Stateline, Nevada 89449
707-265-9340 TEL
309-273-7020 FAX
[email protected]

*FOR WIDE DISTRIBUTION*

REQUIEM FOR DR. DANIEL AMNEUS

By Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr.
January 8, 2004

I am quiescent and circumspect.  Sad and reposed.

I just received news that my mentor, the honorable Dr. Daniel Amneus passed
away just last month on December 18th, 2003.  Like a somber mid-December
storm, a great passing has occurred in this nation; quietly, and without
fanfare.  Like a dark rain, something important has passed us all, in
profound silence.  But that passing has meant something.  I hope to put the
words here to show who and what this man was, and what he had accomplished.

Most Father's Rights advocates have no idea whom Dr. Amneus was.  They have
no idea of his foundational contributions to the movement.  They have not
read his most compelling works.  Yet they must.   The modern contemporary
men's movement and its achievements of the last decade, can be directly
traced to him.  He was not the first Father's Rights advocate, but
certainly, he was the most concise and eloquent of our forefathers who
wrote about Father's and family rights, (at a time when it was not only not
recognized, but openly excoriated).  Like Galileo, he saw an immutable
truth, and wrote comprehensive text about it­which allowed our modern
movement a solid socio-political treatise which indomitably changed the
face of fatherhood, and made Father's Rights marketable and more
mainstream.  He paid a price for that dedication and truth: his work was
mostly ignored.

I am the direct heir of his knowledge, and carry on his teachings, words
and works.  He was a quiet, aquiline man of great intellect; he was the
unrecognized sage of our times.  He was a vested university professor, a
sage, writer and intellect.  He lived quietly in Alhambra,
California­retired­in a modest two-story home.  I remember first visiting
him in the summer of 1998, and he immediately took me in with open arms.  I
remember my first night with him, sitting late at night in his dimly lit
living room, we spoke of immutable truths.  We hit it off from the moment
we met.  He was in his eighties, and I in my late forties­he took strength
from having me there.   We spoke of many things and had many give and take
sessions that first night.  We stayed up until almost 4AM before we
mutually agreed to go to bed.  The resultant days and months the Dr. Amneus
and I visited and corresponded, were more like Father and son then mentor
and student; yet, there was a degree of separation between us, due to we
both being wounded by the current child support system and the courts which
destroy fathers.

His, was a likely tale.  He and I never went into our personal tragedies,
but we did speak about our sons.  I knew he also had a daughter and was
eminently proud of her, but our conversations and concerns we both had,
always lay with our sons.  I always sensed his underlying angst between his
relationship with his son­and we spoke of that.  These things brought us
closer, and under his guidance and tutelage, I was able to conceive and
gain my direction and voice, directly due to his efforts and sage
reasoning's.  Without his efforts, I doubt I could have progressed my work
as far as it has gone.

The man was a great intellect, coming clearly from a classical background
and training.  His mind was eminently empirical, and he countenanced no
less excellence in either his work or his students work.  My first book was
given to him around 1994
(http://www.angelfire.com/home/sufferingpatriarchy/index2.htm) and he was greatly disappointed by it.  It was my first edition writing
on this subject, and I was quite deflated...as I was hoping for compassionate
kudos from him, as every student wants to gain the acceptance of his
teacher.  But I could tell that it was not my content which disappointed
him, but rather, it was my form factor: no bibliography, no
footnotes.  "There's too much wrong with it," was his short review of my
first book.  Yet, he urged me on­and our correspondence never faulted.

You would have to know the man to understand the intellect.  He was nothing
like I had ever met.  I am a very upfront, confident and forward person.  I
say what I mean and when I knew my direction­I go without delay or
falter.   We could not be more dissimilar.  He was a quiet, reserved
man.  One who tread in a measured pace.  When we spoke together, it was a
comical sight, as my mind was fast as his was digestive.  I could count
innumerable times, where I would pose him with direct questions, and during
my discussion, he would completely stop the conversation and go into the
depths of a profound silence.  He would literally stop all motion, and the
conversation; and sit and quietly think.  During this time, minutes would
go by, maybe to a quarter hours time, to my complete astonishment.  I would
sit and start wondering if he actually heard me.   In these early
conversations, I found that, he did in fact, hear me, but instead of
ignoring me, he was in fact, just profoundly thinking.  During our later
conversations, when he was in deep reflection­I would just stop and wait
for him, totally exasperated.  Then, in five, sometimes ten or fifteen
minutes later, he would begin to answer me; and when the answer came, it
was always profound, given in a different light of deep through which I had
not considered.

It was exasperating for me though.  I wanted to push ahead, and suck all
his knowledge from him.  Sometimes I felt our relationship had developed to
one where we were husband and wife and just "accepted" the quirky
differences between us.  But, it must have been a comical sight for God to
look down at us, with me anxious, demanding and bludgeoning him forward,
biting at the bit willing the moment to push forwards and onward to some
higher truth while conversely; the good Doctor, would sit there demurely
digesting his thoughts.   It drove me nuts.

But we would take great joy in each other.  One thing he would love doing
is to take me to the Black Angus restaurant.  There, he was in his element,
holding court, with good food, and good wine and good conversation.  But I
could see the joy of a child when early evening came­he wanted to go
out.   I accepted his excited invitations because he showed a
Christmas-like glee in the moment.  It was the high point of the day for
him­and I would see him revel eating as we would talk intently, and after
the banquet, he would grab his tummy and sigh that he was full, then
pleadingly say: *sigh*, "I'm old.  I'm so old."

I'd chuckle, and politely differ the reality, yet; the words always worried
me.  He was advanced in age and feeble, and it was getting worse.  I would
call him from Northern California or New York, and he would answer his
phone in complete disarray­our first five minutes of speaking during these
difficult times would contain me screaming slowly into my end of the phone
saying: "It's ME--Bob!  Bob Cheney!"  To his confused reply: "Rob
who?  Reeny?  Who?...Who is this??" he would say defiantly, as if it were yet
another phone salesman.  After this futile preliminary dialogue which
occurred each and every time I called, he would finally say with bright
realization with great excited gusto: "Bob Cheney!  How is Bob Cheney
today!?" and we'd then begin our conversation in earnest.  It made me laugh
every time as I unconsciously threw both my arms up in the efforts to speak
with him by phone...and when I hung up the phone each time, I was
drained.  It all worried me. One of the last times I spoke to him, he said
he was tired of fighting the government, and he saw no redress in the
insolence of the Family Court and its related institutions.  He had given
up hope.

I think him right.

He found me a resource when I was there with him.  As I was a systems
engineer, and really knew computers, and he was thrilled having me there
with him to assist him.  I'd be downstairs writing and he'd quietly beseech
me for help upstairs.  I would go up through the winding catacomb of his
home, threading my way through walls of books and newspaper clippings and
other reference works which were quite considerable and piled in every
conceivable place.  Like landmines in an Iraqi desert, you'd never know
when a tower of paper or books would suddenly come tumbling down.  There,
in one corner of the upper room, cramped by piles of paper around him, he
sat in sartorial splendor of his own making.  The cramped quarters of his
computer (with everything inaccessible) around him, with his (inaccessible)
printer sitting right behind him.  You'd have more room sitting in an F-18
fighter than typing at his computer.  Yet I would sit there and he'd stand
behind me and we'd converse as to what he wanted and he'd be so thrilled
and thankful when I solved his problem.  I knew he needed help and I wanted
the best for him­I would have loved to have someone there to help him all
the time.  I knew there was a part of him that was lonely...and that needed
this safety and attention.  I could tell he needed me there in me being
with him.  There was a bond developed, one of trust and understanding,
which was very remarkable in both our lives.

I remember those days of bright sunshine, of his blue pool which I would
swim laps in.  Of his quiet home cut silently by the right light coming in
through his back yard.  His quiet cats which danced quietly about his house
as my mind was working and stimulated.  I remember his racy red Dodge
compact which he drove with all the alacrity of an eighty-year-old.  He
lived comfortably, but he hurt within, like all men who have gone through
life having their children removed from their lives.  Both he and I, like
most men, were playing wounded on the field of life­quietly pacing each day.

He wanted to help others...so he took the tools of his trade: his mind, his
teaching and his writing and applied them to the current problem of modern
Fatherhood.  The Father's Rights movement has no idea of the treasure it
has lost.  A great national treasure has passed from our midst­and there is
nothing in recognition.  Only silence.  We should mark him better, and
defend not only his name, but his work for all time to come.

His first book on Father's Rights was a book called "Back to Patriarchy,"
printed by Arlington House Publishers in June of 1979.[1]  I read the book,
and although it was good, it had not truly established his voice.  It was
merely the first gauntlet thrown to the floor which would later be the
basis of his further ideas of development into Patriarchy, which progressed
with his other works.  His second work was "The Garbage Generation,"
[published under his own label of Primrose Press, 1990], which was a book
which finally came into his own.  This book was clarity, and had defined
not only the standards of Fatherlessness, but had established the watermark
of the modern men's movement.  All Father's Advocates owe their work to the
Garbage Generation, yet; the future was to arrive in his next book.

I first came upon the Garbage Generation in about 1992 and was very
impressed by the work and not only in what it said, but the definitive and
empirical truths it produced.  My work up to that time was related more to
law and how it related to fatherhood...and I was floundering.  Like
attempting to make anti-matter with pick and shovel, I just didn't have the
tools with which to progress.   It was Dr. Amneus next book: The Case for
Father Custody, [Primrose Press 2000], which truly opened my eyes.

We had already been conversing by then, having one John Knight of the
Father's Manifesto, who saw similarities enough to bring us together.  Dr.
Amneus had graciously given me a pre-release copy of The Case for Father
Custody, and the second I read it, I fully understood its import.  I saw
both the past and the future at once, after reading this watershed work.  I
knew it was the answer.  My further research, has affirmed his work.

This was a body of work which is the watershed of our movement.  Where
contemporary men and author's have written mere expose's, such as Dr.
Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power Penguin USA (2001);  and Dr. Wade
Horn's The Fatherhood Initiative;  Jeffery M. Leving, Father's Rights:
Hard-Hitting & Fair Advice for Every Father Involved in a Custody Dispute,
[HarperCollins; (April 1997)]; as well as Dr. Steven Baskerville's work;
David Blankenhorn's Fatherless America, etc., it was Amneus who wrote to
the breadth of humanity.  Where modern writers speak to the illness, Amneus
addressed and uncovered the genetic code and model.  He gave us the
answers, deep within his intrinsic thoughts, his profound insight and
empirical and definitive proofs.  He gave us the Fatherhood genome and
revealed every code throughout its DNA. Our movement quietly stands on
Amneus, and most people have no idea of these facts.  It is not only the
men's movement, who in the future, will appreciate his work, but rather, it
is humankind who will also begin to understand his work as future
generations read it by and through the doctrine of necessity.  Like the
great classics of our time, The Case for Father Custody, will be a
definitive work about Father's Rights which will stand separate from all
others lesser works.  It is the classic of our time, and we must respect
that, and pay homage to that fact.

Most people do not read Amneus.  They do not know he even exists.  However;
when they are introduced to his work, the reaction is profound.  To put it
succinctly, his work is irrefutable, un-rebuttable.  It is the duty of any
true Father's Rights advocate to read Dr. Amneus The Case for Father
Custody.  We must make new effort to adopt Amneus work into the Lexicon of
the modern Father's Rights movement.  It would behoove us to categorically
demand that each of his works be in each and every library throughout the
United States.

Sadly, like my work­he was critical of his own creation.  I kept on urging
him to continue his work to produce another progressive volume to raise us
to an even higher level, however; he was consumed about going back and
redoing his work and even renaming the title.   I did everything to
dissuade him, as he was not convinced of its veracity. As we spoke of these
things at length, he knew I would ennoble his work, and yet, he would
grudgingly accept my kudos at arms length, with trepidation­but, he was
always driven to better it.   I kept telling him, however; that his
work­needed no further redoing or modification.  I, as others have
recognized it as a monumental work which has shaped the modern men's
movement in the United States and beyond.

I am reminded of my brother now.  When I first transferred from Humboldt to
Chico State University­I got a desolate call from the east coast.  My
brother (eighteen at the time and in his first year of college) had dove
into a river and inadvertently hit his head on a rock and drowned.  A
needless and bitter tragedy for me.

When I came back to California, I attempted to return to study, but­could
barely sleep.  I could not reconcile the loss.  I could not be consoled,
and instead, withdrew.   I remember walking one very late night, unable to
sleep, thinking about him, weeping inside at his thought.  As I walked in
the dark silence, I heard a song, way, way in the distance­haunting.  It
went:

Just yesterday morning they let me know you were gone
Susanne the plans they made put an end to you
I walked out this morning and I wrote down this song
I just can't remember who to send it to

I've seen fire and I've seen rain
I've seen sunny days that I thought would never end
I've seen lonely times when I could not find a friend
But I always thought that I'd see you again

Won't you look down upon me, Jesus
You've got to help me make a stand
You've just got to see me through another day
My body's aching and my time is at hand
And I won't make it any other way

Oh, I've seen fire and I've seen rain
I've seen sunny days that I thought would never end
I've seen lonely times when I could not find a friend
But I always thought that I'd see you again

Been walking my mind to an easy time my back turned towards the sun
Lord knows when the cold wind blows it'll turn your head around
Well, there's hours of time on the telephone line to talk about things
to come
Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground

Oh, I've seen fire and I've seen rain
I've seen sunny days that I thought would never end
I've seen lonely times when I could not find a friend
But I always thought that I'd see you, baby, one more time again, now

Thought I'd see you one more time again
There's just a few things coming my way this time around, now
Thought I'd see you, thought I'd see you fire and rain, now

As I heard this song I was stung by its sweet soliloquy and music.  It
pained me to hear it.  And now hearing of Dr. Amneus death, the song
returns and haunts me and plays in my mind.

And I am sad.

The Father's Rights movement has lost a great man.  We have lost others
before him, and continue to lose those who have given so much to our
cause.  We must recognize these great men, and begin to place them not only
in our minds, but into our monuments, so we not only do not forget them,
but more importantly­we not forget their words and their work.  It is time
we start making the public recognize these people's dedication and work,
which, in this one case, should withstand the test of time.

Socrates once stated that it is the duty for every student to surpass his
teacher.  My work now, is clear and well-defined.

However; it is now up to you not to forget Dr. Amneus and what work he did,
and the profound words he spoke in our behalf.  It is up to us to stand up
and not only to say his words, but more importantly to understand
them.  Then, we must teach them.  Amneus work should be required reading
for every college student in the United States.   We should teach
Patriarchy, with more veracity than we do feminist rights which now
predominate our university training curriculum.  We should venerate and
remember not only him, but others within our movement, like Mr. Mom, and
others who have with great dedication, kept our faith.  It is time to
venerate those who came before us, and gave us so much, and left us with
the treasure which it is up to us to carry forwards.

We are about to do great things.  We are about to stand on our own two
feet.   It is time we acknowledge those like Dr. Daniel Amneus­and make
them monuments to be remembered and admired.  For they have set our compass
and our future, we would be bereft in our duty, by forgetting them.

Remember Dan.  He was my mentor.  I am in fact, his student, and his
prodigy.  We all are.

--  30  --



[1] Amneus other works were: The Mystery of MacBeth, Primrose Press; (May
1983)
The Three Orthello's  Primrose Pr; (March 1986)   He was a University
English professor, and he was an expert on Shakespeare and his works.

Another "meddling" boyfriend.
MAN SAVES BABY LEFT TO DIE IN TOILET

By JEANE MacINTOSH and DON MURRAY

January 6, 2004 -- A New Jersey woman gave birth into a toilet, then put down the lid and left her newborn daughter in the bowl to die - but her boyfriend rescued the infant, authorities said.

The premature 3-pound, 2-ounce baby lay in the water for about 30 minutes after her birth in the bathroom of her mother's apartment Saturday, but her head was not submerged, Camden County prosecutor Vincent Sarubbi said.

The child, whose body temperature had dropped to about 82 degrees, is expected to survive, he said.

The mother, Denise Marie Winner, of Mount Ephraim, was charged with attempted murder and child endangerment.Conviction could mean up to 30 years in prison.

According to the prosecutor, Winner, 42, who has two other children, hid her pregnancy from friends and relatives, including her live-in boyfriend, Anthony Patterino.

Patterino, who saved the baby after hearing muffled cries from the bathroom, told Philadelphia's WPVI-TV that Winner thought she had a miscarriage.

He said the charges against her were "bogus."

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/44497.htm

Some of it I agree with, some I don't:

Divorce Self Defense 101 by Pete Jensen
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/j/jensen/2004/jensen010504.htm

I sure a few people will take offense at this, and that's fine. It's a free country (sort of). But don't waste your time hammering me, because I didn't write it, and I don't agree with everything in it. Feel free to email the author, however, whose contact info is at the bottom of the article.

[It's not about the T-shirts!]

Boys are Stupid?

January 6, 2004
by Richard L. Davis

Those who think that the Glenn Sacks campaign against the "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them," T-shirt is sophomoric, are missing the point. It's not about the T-shirts! It is more complex than a "men's rights vs. women's rights issue." It's about our sons and daughters.

OK, OK, it is a bit sophomoric, given the fact that many men's rights groups are attempting to "out PC" women's rights groups. Everything they disagree with seems to offend them, but you are still missing the point.

The point is, "What is it that our public policy makers do not understand about the "angelic female/demonic male agenda of the National Organization of Women?" NOW publicly claims that it wants the world to be a better and more humane place for all of us. And, for reasons beyond me, our public policy makers believe them. What NOW really wants is a better world for women and they are not very subtle about it.

At least NOW has an agenda. Although their agenda is disguised, it is an agenda never-the-less. What is the agenda of our public policy makers who march lemming like behind NOW? Do they really think that women's rights are more important than men's rights? Are they thinking about anything other than getting reelected?

Why is it so many of our public policy align themselves with NOW. I don't see any public policy makers who alien themselves with men's rights groups? Have they bought into the NOW angelic women – demonic men rhetoric. If so, I think it is time to ask why?

Sacks also has a not so subtle agenda. He wants more equitable treatment from both the civil and criminal justice system concerning father's rights and domestic violence issues. In fact both the men's and women's rights groups claim the other group has more "rights" than they do.

Both the women's and men's rights groups claim they are seeking "justice" from the civil and criminal justice system. And with little thought and even less research our public policy makers have placed the issue of domestic violence in the hands of the criminal justice system without any agreement on just what "domestic violence" is.  

Sadly, the fact is that there is little to no justice in either of those systems for anyone, male or female. And sadder still, both the women's and men's rights groups do not seem to understand that fact. What each group really wants (look up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs) is more rights than the other.

There is no greater oppressor than someone who thinks they are being oppressed. Those who view themselves as being oppressed, do not seem to understand that by attempting to oppress their oppressor, their are now as guilty as the party of the first part. Sadder still, most often these people do understand that, however, they just do not care. Hating someone simply because they hate you actually makes sense to far too many people, regardless of age or gender.

The fact is that our civil and criminal "justice" systems are not "justice" systems. They are a system of laws, not "justice." Under the law American women could not vote. Under the law African-Americas lived in a slave/neither world. Under the law American Jews lived in a shadow society. Under the law rich men in America paid a fee to avoid the deaths that poor young men faced in a war time draft. Whose version of "justice" is that?

NOW, in some twisted sense of "gender justice," thinks that to provide justice to our daughters we must demonize our sons. Is there is single person that has any doubt – any doubt what so ever - that if the T-shirt said, "Girls are stupid, throw rocks at them," that NOW would not be using its political muscle to stop the sale of the T-shirts? I DON'T THINK SO!

Isn't there a single member of NOW that has a son and if so, what the heck are they thinking? How is it that NOW is not willing to stand up for our/their sons? How is it possible there is not a single public policy maker somewhere in this nation that might ask themselves; "Why is NOW so willing to defend girls and remain silent when boys are defamed?" LIGHTS PLEASE!

The vast majority of us in America who actually love our daughters and sons equally, should question how and why it is possible for any member of NOW not to understand that in a humane world they would agree with Sacks. The silence of NOW is deafening. As my drill instructor told me more than once, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!  

At the risk of sounding Monty Pythonish, perhaps what we need is a group of radical moderates. Hummm, radical moderates. Now there's a thought. Not necessarily good or bad, but a thought never the less.

Richard L. Davis



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[font size=-2]Richard L. Davis served in the United States Marine Corps from 1960 to 1964. He is a retired lieutenant from the Brockton, Massachusetts police department. He has a graduate degree in criminal justice from Anna Maria College and another in liberal arts from Harvard University. He has a BA from Bridgewater State College in History and he minored in secondary education. He is a member of the International Honor Society of Historians and an instructor of Criminology, Group Violence and Terrorism, Criminal Justice and Domestic Violence at Quincy College in Plymouth, MA. He is a past president of the Community Center for Non-Violence in New Bedford, Massachusetts and the vice president for Family Nonviolence, Inc. //www.familynonviolence.com in Fairhaven, MA. He is an independent consultant for criminal justice agencies concerning policies, procedures, and programs concerning domestic violence. He is the author of Domestic Violence: Facts and Fallacies by Praeger publishers and has written numerous articles for newspapers, journals, and magazines concerning the issue of domestic violence.

He has columns concerning domestic violence at //www.policeone.com, and //www.nycop.com, is a distance learner instructor in Introduction to Criminal Justice and Domestic Violence for the Online Police Academy and has a website at //www.policewriter.com.  He and Kim Eyer have a domestic violence website The Cop and the Survivor at http://www.rhiannon3.net/cs/. He lives in Plymouth, Massachusetts with his wife and the two youngest of five children. He experienced domestic violence professionally for 21 years as a police officer and personally as a child and as an adult. In his retirement he continues to use his education, experience, and training to help the children, women, and men who have had to endure violence from those who profess to love them. He may be reached at [email protected]. [/font]

Message from Stephen Baskerville,
President, American Coalition for Fathers and Children


January 7, 2004

by Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.


It is a tremendous honor to be asked to serve as President of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children. We stand at a critical point. Families today are under attack as never before. But this attack does not come primarily from pornography, television, rock music, drugs, or even homosexuality. The attack comes from government, and it targets the family's weakest and most vulnerable point: the father.

The wholesale separation of children from their fathers, the mass incarceration of fathers without due process of law, the seizure of children from both mothers and fathers, the abuse of children by the very officials who claim to be protecting them -- this is hidden behind a media blackout, hidden behind the silence of the politicians, but it is the terrifying reality for millions of Americans.

The crisis is especially acute now. Sharp increases in already-crushing "child support" burdens, new penalties ostensibly to combat "domestic violence" -- these will produce more broken homes and fatherless children, more parents in jail, and further erosion of constitutional rights.

But it is also a hopeful time. As Americans wake up to the crimes being committed against families by their own government, they shake their heads in disbelief but cannot deny the reality they witness in their own lives. The media and politicians too can no longer look the other way, as fathers speak out and organize to protect their families.

Family and marriage issues are on the front pages around the world, and ACFC intends to make fathers and parents generally a leading voice in that conversation.

In the coming months and years, I look forward to working with ACFC Founder and Board Chairman David Roberts, Executive Director Mike McCormick, Communications Director John Maguire, Treasurer Ileana Basil, Membership Director Susan Antomarchi, and other prominent activists and all of you to stop the systematic destruction of families. ACFC is a rapidly growing organization, with new members and new affiliates added daily. In partnership with groups formed by many of you, ACFC will publicize and challenge the government's offensive.

Parents are now resisting the government's intrusions with new determination. I hear parents asking how they can become active, pledging to sacrifice whatever is required, vowing never to relent, dedicating the remainder of their lives to rescue their children from the clutches of this cruel machine. And yes, I hear some parents (increasing numbers, it seems) threatening to use measures which we dare not condone. But I also hear them vowing sacrifices which we can only admire.

Even now, we witness courageous deeds and heroic sacrifices. In Britain, fathers have placed their demands on the front pages of the most prestigious news organizations in the world. In Australia, Prime Minister John Howard has put divorce and custody issues before the national legislature. In Canada, debates on custody law are also national news.

What Lies Ahead?

As fathers and parents, we are uniquely situated to lead families out of this bondage, as others have done before. But we must have no illusions. Before we reach the promised land of freedom, we must fight our way through a wilderness of despair.

We will be called vicious names: "deadbeat," "batterer," "pedophile," and more. We must withstand scorn from the media and politicians that offers us no platform to defend ourselves. We must be prepared to endure fabricated accusations of the most hideous crimes against our own children, with few constitutional protections for our rights. We must face summary incarceration from government bullies motivated by a toxic mix of self-righteousness and self-dealing. Indeed, some of us will find ourselves called upon to make (as some have already) the supreme sacrifice that fathers have never hesitated to make for the children.

We must dispense with the illusion that others will win this struggle for us. We must discard the vain hope that if only we inform them of the terrible injustices perpetrated against parents and children, then journalists, politicians, family advocates, or civil libertarians will wake up, and do their jobs, and end this injustice.

The bitter truth is that no one can "save the children" but their parents. We alone are responsible for our children, and we alone must protect them. No one will cry for us if we succumb. No one will respect us if we complain. No one will listen to our excuses if we fail. No one -- including our children themselves. The entire burden rests upon us and no one else. But when we succeed -- and we will succeed -- we will create a legacy of moral authority and family strength that will be passed to our children, and to theirs, and beyond.

Even the most vicious among our opponents have paid us this high tribute: They have made us responsible. "Father absence," we are told (and told correctly), accounts for virtually all today's social problems. And so we are blamed for being "absent" -- even when we have no right to be present. We are held responsible when a marriage ends, even when we did not end it. We alone are made responsible for providing for our children, even when they are forcibly removed from our care.

We alone are held responsible for violence in the family, even when we have not committed it (and even when it is committed against us). We are held responsible for the abuse of our children, even when they are abused by others. We are held responsible for the wayward behavior of our children, even when we are not permitted to offer them guidance and correction. Even when it is beyond our control, we alone are responsible.

We must not shirk this responsibility, for it is the essence of fatherhood. We must embrace it, for it is the salvation of our children and the restoration of our families. It is time we took the fair-weather friends of fatherhood at their word by standing up and taking action. The time for talk is past. It is now time to act.

Who We Are

So let us take this opportunity to state clearly before the world who we are and what we stand for.

There are those who claim to advocate for an abstraction called "fatherhood." Others describe themselves as defenders of "the" family. Many are well-intentioned. But they tend to be political professionals, and they often claim to speak for "the children," not their own.

Some of these professionals chide us because (they say) we are looking out for our own interests, our own families. They seem to claim moral superiority because they concern themselves with other people's children.

It is true that we have a personal interest in preserving families. Because we (and we alone) are defending our families. For us, the family is not an abstraction or an object for our good deeds. We do not pretend to be motivated by concern for someone else's children. We concern ourselves only with our own. We are not crusaders or zealots. And we are not professionals. We are proud to be amateurs (literally, those "who love"). We are parents, and our aims are limited. But that is not our weakness; that is our strength.

It is our strength because we have the authority not of paid officials but of parents and citizens. Politicians always promise to return power to "the people." But we are the people. We have endured much from the politicians, but when they take our children, we draw a line.

The good intentions of fatherhood promoters, family defenders, and children's advocates cannot meet the test. They will not fight for our children. They will not sacrifice for our children. They will not risk their careers or livelihoods or lives for our children. They will not die for our children.

There is no such abstraction as "the" family. There are only families -- our families. We alone can and will defend them. If others wish to help -- journalists, politicians, defenders of the Constitution, critics of the judiciary, civil libertarians -- we welcome them, and they will have our gratitude. But we must make it clear to friend and foe alike that this is foremost our struggle. We -- and we alone -- can save families, because they are our families.

Likewise, we do not trumpet an abstraction called "fatherhood." We are concerned with our fatherhood, the fatherhood of each individual father. And we will establish it not with words that cost nothing but with deeds that may cost us dearly indeed.

If those who pose as the champions of fatherhood dislike our deeds, then it is time they examined what they mean by "fatherhood." For if it means anything less than defending one's children against those who would interfere with them or take them away, then theirs is a definition of fatherhood we find wanting. They are entitled to their opinion, of course, but we are entitled to our children. And our children are entitled to us.

Opinions are important (to a point), and "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" is obligatory in a democracy. But few who have both would regard their opinions as being of equal importance as their children. While we respect the opinions of others about the best interest of children in the abstract, we expect others to respect our decisions about the best interest of our own children. And we expect them to understand something more: that no parent is answerable to government officials for how they raise their children or for exercising their right and duty to protect them.

Where We Stand Now

It is impossible to overestimate the burden that weighs upon our shoulders. We face a government that threatens our children, our lives, our Constitution, and quite possibly the very basis of civilization itself. Before our very eyes we see history's greatest experiment in human freedom being debased into a ruthless, depraved, diabolical tyranny.

It has fallen to us "to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime." But this tyranny does not come from abroad; it has arisen in our very midst. It is a tyranny of cowards, that hides in secret courtrooms and protected offices, that fears the citizens it ostensibly serves, while cynically using and abusing innocent children to increase the power of grown-ups.

Against this foe, we have no illusions that our struggle will be easy, that laws will be passed tomorrow to free our children. Even were this to happen, it would be to little avail. New laws are only as effective as the citizens who demand them. The means of freeing our children are already in our own hands. Our children will be free when their fathers stand up and speak out like men. Families will be safe and strong when parents everywhere know they must join us and build upon our work or face destruction, as we do now.

Defeat is not an option, because we fight for our very survival and for the survival of our children, and of their children. We will comport ourselves with dignified outrage. We will never cross the line into violence. But neither will we relent, withdraw, or surrender. And if we are struck down, others will rise up in our place.

How Far Do We Go?

How we speak out is a decision that each of us must make alone. We in the national offices of ACFC understand our task of providing leadership. But some initiative must come from you. Throughout the US and the world, parents are finding bold and creative ways of calling attention to this tyranny. Their courage is producing results.

ACFC is a broad political church. Each of us has our own views about the most fundamental questions before us: the goals we seek, the priorities we deem most urgent, the methods of achieving those aims. Inevitably, differences and disagreements must arise. As always, there will be the cautious and the impatient, the timid and the eager, the moderates and the militants. In our case, however, these difference represent more: Often, they reflect what the government has done (and can still do) to us in particular and to our children.

To the usual need for unity and forbearance of differences, therefore, we have a special need for charity toward one another. No man who sees his children has a right to brand as extreme one who does not. Likewise, no man has a right to label as timid one who, by acting rashly, could lose access to his children as a result. Were the circumstances reversed, the self-styled man of reason may be the one to find himself (as journalists say) "foaming at the mouth," and the coward may prove a hero.

However each decides to serve, each has a role, and all are needed. ACFC is here to offer support. The only line we draw is that ACFC does not condone violence in any form as a political method.

What You Can Do

The power of the divorce regime is formidable, but the power in our own hands is much greater. They are trading in lies, and as Dr. King said, "No lie can live forever."

Beyond the power of the truth, we have 15-20 million non-custodial parents, plus tens of millions more who love and support them. United in one voice and with our friends abroad, we have the power to check the global destruction of families.

But even short of that, your personal action now sends a message to your own children in particular, even children whom you may think have been irrevocably lost to you: Their father or mother loves them enough to sacrifice, to risk, and to act.

Many good parents' groups already operate across America and the world, and ACFC does not intend to duplicate or replace or preempt the work of any. Our aim is to unite and facilitate and support.

If you ask what you must do, this is my reply: I personally urge every parent in America -- single, married, or divorced -- to the following actions IMMEDIATELY:

First, if you have no done so already, join ACFC. (Call 800-978-DADS, or //www.acfc.org.)

Second, join your local group. If it is not yet an ACFC affiliate, begin the steps to make it one. The paperwork is very simple. DON'T BE PUT OFF. ("Yea, I went to a fathers' group, but it was just a gripe session, everyone complaining about their ex-wives and the judge. So I never went back...") A group is what its members make it. If you don't like it, join and change it. YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH NOTHING ALONE.

Third, contact your local media. Tell them your story. Tell them about your local group. Say they are affiliated to ACFC. Get others in the group to do the same. Then do it again. And again. Be respectful but persistent. Do not let them put you off. Investigating government wrongdoing is their job. Eventually they will respond.
Stand up in your church, your civic group, union, or place of employment, at candidates' campaign rallies, PTA or school board meetings, or wherever issues of the family or children or public policy are being discussed.

Tell them what has happened to you, to your children, and to countless others. Don't be afraid to change the subject. (Getting our issues on the public agenda by definition means changing the subject.) Is what they are discussing more important than your children? Try to have others present to second you. Do not be afraid of what people will think of you. Is the opinion of the world more important than your children? Do not be afraid to be called angry. You should be angry. "There are some things...to which I am proud to be maladjusted," said Dr. King, "and to which I call upon you to be maladjusted."

Be dignified but outraged. Show yourself to be a man of courage and a leader. You do not have to climb a scaffold 200 feet into their air, but is it too much to raise your hand or stand upright and relate the atrocious crimes the government has committed against your children? "Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members," wrote Emerson. "Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist." Show the world and your children that you are not afraid to be different, that you are a man.

Finally, stay connected with ACFC through the email listserve or by the web site for information about developments, groups, and activities.
In times of crisis, people often ask, "Where are the heroes?" In this crisis, the heroes can come from only one place: the parents, and foremost fathers. You may not realize it yet, but eventually the eyes of the world and of history will be upon us. We will be weighed in the balance, and future generations will judge what we do.

Yours in solidarity,

Stephen Baskerville

[The Internal Revenue Service has (once again) changed its interpretation of the law regarding the "special support test for divorced and separated parents."]

January, 2004
PLEASE NOTE:

The Internal Revenue Service has (once again) changed its interpretation of the law regarding the "special support test for divorced and separated parents."

The "Tax Tip for Never Married Dads"  (http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/irs.htm) that previously appeared at this website, explaining the circumstances in which a never-married non-custodial parent of a child born out-of-wedlock could claim the child dependency exemption, should be disregarded.

For the past several years, it was the official Internal Revenue Service (IRS) position that the entitlement to claim the tax exemption for a child of never-married parents was not controlled by the "special support test" (commonly known as the "custody rule") but rather by the "regular support test" (taxpayer must have provided more than 50% of the dependent's total support).

That has now (once again) changed. Effective with the 2003 tax year, IRS now says the "custody rule" DOES apply to never-married parents. The change of IRS position is apparently the result of the decision of the US Tax Court in the case of King and Lopez v. Commissioner, 121 TC #12 (9/26/2003) (http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ki7ng2..TC.WPD.pdf), which gave a revised interpretation to Internal Revenue Code § 152(e)(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/152.html), the law creating the "special support test" for divorced and separated parents.

So, for tax years 2003 and thereafter ............

The "Tax Tip for Never Married Dads" (http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/irs.htm)that previously appeared at this website, explaining the circumstances in which a never-married non-custodial parent of a child born out-of-wedlock could claim the child dependency exemption, should be disregarded.

In view of the US Tax Court decision in the King/Lopez case and in view of the recent change of the IRS position, a non-custodial never-married parent should NOT claim the child as a dependent (regardless of how much support was paid) UNLESS the non-custodial parent's tax return is accompanied by a completed IRS Form 8332 signed by the custodial parent.

LAWRENCE D. GORIN
Law Offices of L.D. Gorin
521 S.W. Clay St., Suite 205
Portland, Oregon 97201
Phone: 503-224-8884 (afternoons, Pacific time)
Fax: 503-226-1321
E-mail: [email protected]

[Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center (SPARC)]

Looks like we're going to get a chance to do it again....and I, for one, can't wait.  Read all the way though to the bottom. :)

LA Chain Agrees to Pull 'Boys are Stupid' T-Shirts After Storm of Protest from His Side Listeners

January 6, 2004
MND NEWSWIRE

The campaign began Sunday evening at 9 PM, and by 9 AM the next morning, it was all over.

Men's and fathers' issues radio talk show host Glenn Sacks declared a campaign against Tilly's clothing store, which sells T-shirts which say "Boys Are Stupid, Throw Rocks at Them" , during the Sunday, January 4 broadcast of  His Side with Glenn Sacks in Los Angeles and Seattle. The shirts depict a little boy running away as several rocks come flying at his head.

The next morning Tilly's, which has 32 locations in Southern California, was deluged with angry e-mails and phone calls. Sam Mendelsohn, Tilly's Senior Vice President, issued a statement Monday morning saying he had "immediately instructed the removal of merchandise in question [throw rocks] from all locations." Mendelsohn expressed his "sincere apologies regarding the merchandise."

Several other men's and fathers' groups, including the Seattle-based Separated Parenting Access &  Resource Center (SPARC) and the National Coalition of Free Men Los Angeles joined the campaign against the T-shirts.

The victory comes on the heels of a similar victory for the men's and fathers' movement in Seattle, when Bon Macy's, a major department store, agreed to remove the offensive T-Shirts from its stores in December. Bon Macy's was deluged with letters and phone calls after Sacks had issued a similar call for action during the December 14 broadcast of His Side

The shirts are distributed by David & Goliath, which says the shirts are among their best-sellers. As FOX news columnist Wendy McElroy noted in her column Christmas in a War Zone , the company also sells products which say "Boys Lie -- Make Them Cry" and "Boys are Smelly -- Throw Garbage Cans at Them."

She wrote that animation on the David & Goliath website depicts a "'Stupid Factory'...where boys are produced...a little girl pelts [the boy] on the skull with a large rock and he tumbles, landing with his head planted fully in the earth."

During his January 4 broadcast Sacks gave out Tilly's contact information and urged his listeners to "write them and call them and light them up. Be polite, but let them know exactly how you feel....degrading boys, insulting them, making our schools a hostile environment for them--we're not taking it any more."

After Tilly's decision to remove the shirts was announced, Sacks  said that he "applauds the store for its wise and humane decision." He says that he has already chosen the next target for what he called "round 3" of the battle, which will begin with his next broadcast on Sunday January 11.