Topics

Has bias pendulum
swung against men?
Fewer college-bound, higher suicide rates,
shorter life spans suggest males getting shaft

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 20, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – Watch network sitcoms and you will find the dolts are usually men.

In TV commercials, it's always the kids or the mothers who know the real score, not the fathers.


Affirmative-action programs by definition mean women get preference in hiring, school admissions, contracts and promotions.

While some social scientists may see these facts as harmless – or possibly even necessary reconditioning of society to correct past injustices against women – others are beginning to conclude that men are the real victims of discrimination so virulent it is shortening their life spans, causing them to be self-destructive and suicidal, crippling their educational opportunities and destroying a generation of fatherless children.

Here are some sobering facts:


Men, whose average life expectancy was formerly on a par with women, are now dying 10 years earlier.

Boys have inferior reading and comprehension scores and lower graduation rates than girls.

Men are much less likely to pursue secondary degrees and university graduate programs.

The suicide rates for boys, young fathers and older men range from four to 10 times higher than for their female counterparts.

According to Dr. William Pollack of the Harvard Medical School Center for Men, the general health of American males is in a state of serious crisis.

Men spend more and more time at work, as compared to women in similar full-time jobs, and they engage in considerably more demanding and dangerous career choices.
Those are just a few of the findings of a report of the New Hampshire Commission on the Status of Men, one of several state panels convened to re-evaluate assumptions about the role of men in society.

"That men would need help by way of a chartered commission to improve their status seemed counterintuitive given the popular image of men as independent, self-sufficient survivors, able to overcome the most difficult of life's challenges on their own," said the commission in its report issued in November. "Modern pressures, however, find men and their families experiencing significant difficulties due to evolving values, health problems, growing educational deficiencies and new socio-economic family standards."


The commission found the school drop-out rates of boys much higher than for girls. It found men treated unfairly by the family court system. It found men often falsely accused of domestic violence not getting due process. It found government programs for women getting far more funding than programs for men.

In matters of health, for instance, breast cancer, a threat to women, receives far more government funding for prevention and research than does prostate cancer, a threat to men.

Nationwide, about 9 percent more men develop prostate cancer than women develop breast cancer. Yet the federal government spends approximately seven times more on breast cancer research ($550 million) than it does on prostate cancer research ($80 million).

In fact mortality rates from all causes – cancer, diabetes, heart disease, injuries, suicide – are significantly higher for men than women. The New Hampshire commission found men are more than five times more likely to kill themselves than women.

Perhaps nowhere is the bias against men so obvious than in matters of child custody and support, the panel found. Fathers get custody of children in uncontested cases only 10 percent of the time and 15 percent of the time in contested cases. Women get sole custody 66 percent of the time in uncontested cases and 75 percent of the time in contested cases.

This might make sense, the commissioners suggested, in a society in which the workforce was dominated by men. However, according to the latest statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor, women now make up 47 percent of the total labor force.

"Given the plethora of evidence documenting the benefits of involved fathers with their children, and the present rate of female participation in the workforce, the custody imbalance between fathers and mothers seems difficult to justify," concluded the commission. "This commission suggests that the governor of New Hampshire issue a proclamation declaring that both parents are equally important for their children."

But the bias against men in the family courts is not limited to custody cases, according to the commission.

"Men came forward during our public meetings to allege unfair treatment in family court domestic violence proceedings and to allege that unsubstantiated charges of domestic violence were being improperly used as tools to place them at a distinct disadvantage in civil matters before family court," the New Hampshire commissioners reported.

The word on the street, the commissioners learned, was that a woman could readily gain immediate possession of children, home and other assets by filing an "emergency" ex-parte domestic violence petition, claiming to be in fear of her safety. The accused would then have an immediate restraining order placed against him on a "temporary" basis without any hearing or defense.

The commission also cited studies that show more than half of all domestic violence is actually directed against men. It points out that the American Judges Association website notes solemnly: "Every 15 seconds a women is battered somewhere in the United States." What the website doesn't mention is that every 14 seconds women batter their partners.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48895

Program Link --->> http://krightsradio.com/06shchbaskerdual.php

It is about 10 minutes long, and there is not a whole lot said that hasn't already been said here. Nevertheless, you may want to listen to it, and provide the link to others.

Missing: Males on College Campuses

June 15, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Wendy McElroy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some researchers call them the "Lost Boys." They are the students you don't see on college campuses.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) tracks the enrollment in all degree-granting institutions by sex. From 1992 to 2000, the ratio of enrolled males to females fell from 82 to 78 boys for every 100 girls. The NCES projects that in 2007 the ratio will be 75 males for every 100 females; in 2012, 74 per 100.

In short, your son is statistically more likely than your daughter to work a blue collar job.

Thomas Mortenson, senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, argues that leaving a generation of boys behind hurts women as well. In a Business Week cover story, Mortenson observed, "My belief is that until women decide that the education of boys is a serious issue, nothing is going to happen."

He believes some women feel threatened by even admitting the problem because "it will take away from the progress of women...What everyone needs to realize is that if boys continue to slide, women will lose too."

That realization still seems distant among educational experts, who continue to downplay the NCES statistic as well as other data that indicate schools are hurting boys.

Jacqueline King -- author of the influential study "Gender Equity in Higher Education: Are Male Students at a Disadvantage?" -- is an example. She found that 68 percent of college enrollees from low-income families were female; only 31 percent were male.

Yet King insists there is no "boy crisis" in education despite the fact that data from Upward Bound and Talent Search show a comparable gender gap. (These college-preparation programs operate in high schools and received $312.6 million $144.9 million in tax funding, respectively, in 2005.) Of the students who receive benefits from those college-preparation programs, approximately 61 percent are girls; 39 percent are boys.

King's quoted explanation of the gender gaps: "women make up a disproportionate share of low-income students" who go on to college. Since low-income families presumably give birth to boys in the same ratio as the general population-- worldwide the ratio is between 103 to 107 boys for every 100 girls -- why are so few boys applying for assistance? A higher drop-out rate might be partly responsible, or boys may have no interest in higher education.

King comments on the latter explanation: "male low-income students have some ability in this strong economy to make a decent living with just a high-school diploma." In particular, she points to the construction industry.

King may be correct. The fact that low-income boys gravitate toward manual labor may account for some of the educational gender disparity. What is striking, however, is her apparent dismissal of that disparity as important. She seems to accept the reality that far fewer men than women enroll in college and that poor boys enter "the trades" while poor girls become professionals.

Imagine the gender ratio being reversed, with 78 girls for every 100 boys entering college. Imagine a generation of poor girls being relegated to low social status labor while tax funding assists poor boys. It is difficult to believe King would be similarly unconcerned.

Nevertheless, merely by acknowledging the situation, King shows far more balance than prominent voices, like the American Association of University Women, which still maintains there is a "girl crisis."

Fortunately, researchers like Judith Kleinfeld of the University of Alaska see that boys are in distress.

Kleinfeld -- author of "The Myth That Schools Shortchange Girls" -- states, "In my own college classes, I see a sea change in the behavior of young men. In the 1980s, the young men talked in my classes about the same as young women. I know because each semester I measured male and female talk. Now so many young men are disengaged that the more articulate, ambitious women dominate the classroom ....and my office hours."

Kleinfeld tried to trace the problem backward by interviewing high school students on plans for their future. She states, "The young women almost always have a clear, realistic plan---go to college, have a career, often directed toward an idealistic goals about improving the environment."

This clarity of vision and was generally absent in young men.

Among those who acknowledge the "boy crisis," explanations are vary and may all be true. Some point to the "feminization" of education over the last decade, which occurred largely in response to a perceived need to encourage girls. But, if boys and girls learn differently, then the changes may be placing boys at a disadvantage.

Others point to explicitly anti-male attitudes -- that is, political correctness -- within education. The website Illinois Loop lists "22 School Practices That May Harm Boys." One of them: "'Modern' textbooks and recommended literature often go to extremes to remove male role models as lead characters and examples."

Kleinfeld points speculatively to the impact of increased divorce and fatherless homes on the self-image of boys who lack a positive male role-model.

Approximately 40 percent of American children now live in homes without their own biological father.

Ultimately, explanations of and solutions to the "boy crisis" will come from exploring a combination of factors. My solution: privatize education and place it under the control of parents or adult students.

The first step to any solution, however, is to acknowledge there is a problem. We are not quite there yet.

Wendy McElroy

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mcelroy/2005/mcelroy061505.htm

How is this for a suggestion? How about doing away with calling parents Custodial Parents, Non-Custoidal Parents, Primary Parents and Non-Residential Parents?
Centuries ago kids came up with other labels for their parents - Mom and Dad. It seemed to work fine for so long; what happened?
Oh, I'm sorry. It must have needed fixed!
Do you think judges could bring themselves to ask, What does the mother think? Rebuttal could be, and what do you think Dad?
Also, since when did spending time with your kid become visitation? I can tell you no one has ever asked me, "How did your visitation fo over the weekend?" And, if they did it in the grocery store line it would have been cause for embarassment.
Do you think it might be better to just call it what it is - sharing time with your kid? Unfortunately, now that our society has become so advanced it is most improbable that we will ever re-visit these basics. But, I'm sure that children will feel they are in good custody as society continues to bring new meanings to their lives.

POC

Child Custody: Rethinking the System
By Jim Johnston

Todays family law system frustrates maximum dual-parent involvement with children of divorce. The three main elements of the decision-making that is necessary when couples separate and divorce compare to the legs on a three-legged stool. These three legs are:

Initial allocation of parenting roles and responsibilities at the time divorce/custody orders are filed;
Visitation time allocated and enforcement applied; and
Financial child support applied to include needs that children have at both households
Most of the problems with todays approach result from making a decision in each of these areas that is independent rather than interdependent on the others.

Children of divorce suffer a significantly higher risk of childhood pathologies ranging from teen suicide and substance abuse to teen pregnancy and violence. A divorce does not automatically damn a child to these or other disorders, but they are indeed real, and an absent parent is the predicting factor.

Society is at a threshold for dealing with such problems. Divorce is now a common and often expected result of marriage. No-fault divorce makes splitting up much easier, and we are now in at least the third generation of children impacted by it. Change is possible, however, if we have the will and the fortitude.

Change begins with changing expectations. Both the legal system and society must expect parents to continue to be responsible for raising their children in spite of a divorce, including determining themselves how they will co-parent. What they brought into the world together, they should expect to complete together. There simply is no logic to accepting anything else. Society is starting to come around to the idea that both parents are indeed important to these children. Much of this attitudinal change is probably due to the raw numbers of people directly impacted by divorce today. Chances are that if you werent a child of divorce, you are divorced yourself or have family or friends that have been. The expectation that both parents will continue their involvement is slowly becoming evident through changes in custody laws and practices, but much more of needs to happen.

Society now has enough experience to justify such changes. There are increasing resources available to facilitate educating parents to the fact that children to both of them. There are numerous publications that can be used to help parents establish parenting plans. A good parenting plan is the backbone of any meaningful co-parenting arrangement.

The end result of completing a parenting plan is important, but even more so is the process of getting there. An outline of parenting items to be considered by both parents enables each of them to share a collective wisdom gained from those who put it together. Both can make better-informed decisions rather than simply relying on their attorneys and a judge to do so for them.

Outside of the adversarial system itself, the biggest enemy of divorcing parents is emotional strain and an ignorance of the parenting challenges they will both face. An expectation by society that both should continue to parent their children, supported by parenting plan outlines and a requirement for them to work towards its completion, opens up thinking to the ways both can remain involved. This stands in contrast to the situation today, where we usually expect one to carry the burden of parenting, while making the other parent simply a visitor to their children.

The adversarial process is a disastrous impediment towards maximizing dual-parent involvement. Efforts must be made to reduce the practice of automatically litigating custody. Once attorneys are brought in as representatives, the parents are immediately discouraged from trying to work through details together on how they can co-parent the children. This is especially harmful as they are essentially pushed towards opposite camps, fighting for custody and the rewards that come with todays system. Laws and judicial practice should encourage alternative dispute-resolution processes that facilitate the parents working together towards parenting their children.

After all, who knows the children best? Certainly not a judge who has spent little time with the case. Incentives that encourage a parent who refuses to cooperate should be reduced, if not eliminated. Parenting plans offer up an excellent avenue of ensuring that this happens. A common provision in most is some description of an alternative approach to be agreed upon for problem or conflict resolution that would be used before going to court. This in and of itself could have the greatest impact on reducing conflict between parents as they raise their children in separate households.

A thorough review and change of all laws and practices dealing with determining custody and parental roles is necessary. The goal is to maintain and support the integrity of a childs relationship with both parents. This does not mean the automatic establishment of 50/50 parenting. What it should mean though is that whatever the maximum time-share arrangement can be with both parents depending on their unique family circumstances is reflected in the post-divorce legal agreements, nothing less. Todays system is incredibly skewed towards enforcement of financial child support, while giving little attention to the establishment of continued parental responsibilities of each parent, including the protection of the childs access to and involvement with both. The primary consideration that should drive all such decisions should be the recognition that children want and need both parents in their lives. Maximizing dual-parent involvement should drive custody, residency, parenting time, and financial child support decisions. We have started to turn the corner in fully appreciating that parents are more important to children than a garnished paycheck. Most critical is ensuring that their emotional child support needs are met and supported by each of the legs of our custody stool.

Websters Collegiate Dictionarys definition of the word system is A regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole. If we are truly interested in improving the lot of children of divorce, we need to look at our existing system holistically. The children of divorce do not come from just one parent. They are built from the genes, values, and beliefs of two parents. To minimize one parent following the typical divorce is to rip out a part of a childs identity. Divorce is an unfortunate reality, and is unlikely to go away as a societal norm. With that, we must do all that we can to ensure that children impacted by such decisions are protected both physically and emotionally. If both parents are fit and capable, both should be supported in their efforts at continuing to provide for their children. How wonderful it will be to hear one day that we truly have a system that protects the relationship children of divorce have with both parents.

On any quality stool, the legs must be balanced and work together to ensure the greatest degree of stability and safety for the person sitting on it. Should one leg be weaker and/or shorter than the others, the potential for the stool to tip over is great. When our government in our present system for instance spends in excess of $4 Billion/year on financial child support enforcement, yet hardly a pittance on programs keeping both parents involved, our stool is about to collapse, leaving our children at risk.

http://www.fathermag.com/003/child-custody/index.shtml

State to seek repeal of access law for noncustodial parents
Student record policy at issue
By Patricia Wen, Globe Staff  |  May 22, 2005

State education officials plan to ask for the repeal of a statute that has forced many divorced fathers to prove they are not dangerous before they can receive their child's report card, which may include a former spouse's address.

ADVERTISEMENT  
The move was prompted by federal authorities who, after being contacted by a local father, said the law was discriminatory and put Massachusetts in jeopardy of losing federal funds.

Within the next two months, Education Commissioner David P. Driscoll will come up with a new policy that will treat divorced parents more fairly, while still protecting parents who have legitimate reasons to worry that former spouses could use student records to locate and harm the family, said spokeswoman Heidi Perlman.

Perlman said the commissioner has always understood ''the spirit" of the current law, but agrees with officials at the US Department of Education that the existing statute ''went too far."

''We're pleased to be in a position to adjust this law," Perlman said.

Some advocates for divorced fathers have been lobbying against the law since it was passed seven years ago, arguing that it treated noncustodial parents unfairly.

The current law applies to any noncustodial parent, who is typically a divorced or unmarried father who does not have joint legal physical custody of the child but often has visitation rights. In order to see their child's educational records, these parents have to show school administrators written proof, through court records or affidavits, that they pose no danger to the former spouse or child.

The process has to be repeated each year.

''It's a guilty until proven innocent law," said Ned Holstein, who heads Fathers & Families, a Boston-based fathers' advocacy group.

The state law came under scrutiny by federal education officials after they received a complaint from a divorced father from Milford who had been initially barred last summer from seeing his 17-year-old daughter's academic class schedule.

The father, Henry Fassler, said he had long been angered by the 1998 statute that created what he called extensive ''hoops" for divorced fathers to see their children's school records.

He said the law was initially the brainchild of some fathers' rights advocates who wanted a law spelling out the rights of parents to see school records related to their children.

But after battered-women's groups lobbied for changes, the measure was amended to include distinctions between custodial and noncustodial parents and legal proof of parent safety. These changes, Fassler said, transformed the law into an ''abuse-prevention bill."

Indignant as he was, Fassler said he didn't complain at his daughter's school, worried that another child still in elementary school might be embarrassed if he made a scene. Plus, Fassler said, his former wife, with whom he shares a positive relationship, voluntarily gave him access to all the records that she received.

''I was getting them anyway, so I figured why start trouble," said Fassler, 62, who works as a dentist in Wellesley.

But last August, when his daughter had a problem with her high school academic schedule, Fassler called the school to see her class list. When school officials balked on grounds that he was a noncustodial father, Fassler's anger over the law was renewed. He said his daughter, now old enough to understand the inequities, agreed that he had to speak his mind.

This led to his crusade to scrutinize the federal and state laws, prompting him to contact the Family Policy Compliance Office at the US Department of Education.

On May 6, LeRoy S. Rooker, director of the federal office, wrote a letter to Massachusetts education officials, saying their law violates federal rules allowing parents access to student records.

In his letter to Driscoll, the federal official said every state must allow parents the right to see educational records involving their children unless provided court orders or laws that ''specifically revokes these rights."

Nancy Scannell, director of government affairs for Jane Doe Inc., a nonprofit group that works to reduce domestic violence, who helped draft the 1998 bill, said she understands the legal concerns raised by federal officials and will eagerly participate in any discussion to rewrite the bill. But she emphasized that many fathers' advocates were at the negotiation table when the current bill was written, and women's groups like hers did not ''hijack" the legislation in any way.

Scannell said she understands that all parents want to be involved in their children's education and desire access to records, but that wish needs to be balanced against other parents' legitimate safety concerns.

''We may need to revisit the method," she said. ''But our intent was always a good one."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/05/22/state_to_seek_repeal_of_access_law_for_noncustodial_parents/

I got your email. I tried to reply to it. But, something was wrong with your address.

This email is in reverse order to times they were sent sent, So, you might want to start from the bottom. I'll only give away that I'm Carl:

Jessica,

As fundamental as it should be considered to be that in the absence of wrongdoing, both parents ought to be able to be a meaningful part of their kids lives, it is still hard to express my joy, respect, and to a much smaller extent, some feel sort of vindication when a legislator openly agrees. I realize the phrase of "meaningful part" sets the bar pretty low, but even so, making it possible for all good parents to do just that would be the most important piece of legislation to benefit the current generation of children, as well as others to come. Even if the legislature had an infinite amount of money to fund an unlimited number of programs, it would still fail to match the success that only a child's two parents have the ability to provide. I appreciate and accept Rep. Goodlette's offer to locate another sponsor. I am certain that in hind sight, Rep. Goodlette's only regret will be that he wasn't the original sponsor of such common sense and profound legislation. Nevertheless, I am proud of his stance.

If you and Rep. Goodlette have noticed a marked decrease in my correspondence to your office, it is that I regrettably no longer live in his district. But, my son still does while he is not with me. Since my focus has always been about making things the way they ought to be by the time it is time for him to be a daddy for all the right reasons, your response regarding his future means more to me than my current representative's would (Rep. Davis). Besides that, from my correspondence with Rep. Goodlette, and especially Steve Hart, I can say that I like you. I hope you will pass along our correspondence to Steve. He is a good dad too. There is no reason why Florida shouldn't say that it is the policy of our state that all parents like him be able to be a meaningful part of their kids' lives.

Regrettably, I have not heard back from Rep. Davis' office in quite a long time now. That is even though a similar type letter was emailed to him at the same time as this last one to you. If there is anything you can do to help facilitate correspondence between us, I would very much appreciate it. Coincidentally, he is on the Future of Florida's Families Committee, which would be a very appropriate committee for such legislation to originate from.

I am sorry that I somehow missed your message at my home phone. I would be honored to hear from you on my cell at XXXXXXXX. That is how to best get in touch with me during the day. Of course, email is always good too. My first natural question is what would you like me to do to start looking for another sponsor, and can I say that Rep. Goodlette has agreed to co-sponsor the legislation?

On behalf of millions of good dads, who would like to be more meaningful parts of their kids' lives, I anxiously look forward to hearing back from you.

Respectfully,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


----- Original Message -----
From: Kardas, Jessica
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 4:13 PM
Subject: write your representative website


Dear Carl,
Thank you for your email to Representative Goodlette. He has read your email and asked that I respond. I did try to contact you through the XXXXXXXX phone number and left a message. Representative Goodlette, although he agrees with your analysis, is not in the position to file such legislation. He would however like to help you locate another bill sponsor. Feel free contact me via email if you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,
Jessica T. Kardas
Legislative Assistant
State Representative Dudley Goodlette
Florida House of Representatives, District 76
3301 East Tamiami Trail Ste 203
Naples, FL 34112 P:(239) 417-6205
317 The Capitol, 402 S. Monroe St.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300
850-488-4487 FAX 922-6002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Wed 11/24/2004 8:49 AM
To: Goodlette, Dudley
Cc: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: From 'Write Your Representative' Website


11/24/04 8:49 AM

To the Honorable J. Dudley Goodlette;

Dear Rep. Goodlette:

Ch. 61.30 of Florida's statutes defines a 'substantial" amount of time between a parent and their child as being 40% or more overnights by the child at that parent's home. In that context, the word substantial has been used interchangeably with the word meaningful. Yet, Florida has no provisions or assurances that fit parents retain their rights to be a meaningful or substantial part of their children's lives. In contradiction to the U.S. Constitution, Florida's state statutes do not provide parents any rights to the custody and care of their children at all. Somehow an Orwellian presumption was allowed to develop that courts can best determine the interests of children, rather than their parents. Could it possibly be that Florida's Legislature doesn't believe that in the absence of wrongdoing both parents should be a meaningful part of their kids' lives?

I suspect that if asked in a public setting, nearly all legislators would say that yes, they believe in the absence of wrongdoing, both parents ought to be able to be a meaningful and substantial part of their kids' lives. But, needless to say, the Florida Legislature has been collectively silent. As a result, it would be difficult for the Legislature to have failed its children more miserably. By just about every conceivable measure of child welfare, that is proven to be the case. I'd be happy to provide the results of those types of studies to you again, if you would like.

Interestingly, in Massachusetts, quite possibly the most liberal of states, where it would be rational to assume that NOW has as much political influence as anywhere else, there was a statewide referendum on this very issue. The following is the exact wording on the ballot that was put to voters just this month:

"Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote for legislation to create a strong presumption in child custody cases in favor of joint physical and legal custody, so that the court will order that the children have equal access to both parents as much as possible, except where there is clear and convincing evidence that one parent is unfit, or that joint custody is not possible due to the fault of one of the parents?"

The measure received a super majority of 85% of the vote. To put that in context, John Kerry only received 63% of the vote. It was a 6 to 1 vote in the support of the common sense that the best parent is both parents. With knowledge of these types of facts, it is my hope that legislators in Florida will no longer be reluctant to deal with the issue. As my son's representative, and a member of the Civil Justice Committee, I ask that you sponsor a bill which will assure him that both of his parents be allowed to be a meaningful part of his life.

Please let me know where you stand on this issue.

Happy Thanksgiving,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The JohnKerry.com website has created a new website to stay up after the election. It is called Common Ground, Comon Sense. Let them know that common sense tells you that both parents are the best parent. I did my best to keep a certain segment of the previous website at bay. But, power is in numbers. I hope many from this site will join in that forum to let others know more than a select few would like for both parents to be allowed to be a meaningful part of their kids' lives. Here is a link -

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/index.php?

Whomever is elected president, governor, rep, senator, etc... let's put the pressure on them. Please ask reporters to start asking our newly elected/re-elected leaders, "In the absence of wrong-doing, do they believe that both parents should be allowed to share meaningful time with their kids?"

It's simple and to the point. It's really yes or no. They can make all the lame excuses they would like. We've heard them all before. If they want to talk about the small percentage of dads who abuse or neglect their kids, they are only reinforcing the absence of wrong-doing provision. If they want to talk about the small percentage of dads who don't want to see their kids, they are only reinforcing the "allowed to share" provision. Soon, all will be able to see if these "leaders" truly believe that both parents ought to be a meaningful part of their kids' lives, or not. Then, good moms that are NCP's will get the respect they deserve too.

Sooner or later, there will be a reporter who wants to make a name for him/herself!

While busy at work today, I got a phone call from my sister. It was the kind of call that you could hear the bit chin before the receiver got 10 inches close to your ear. After yelling at her to shut the he** up, and listen, I had to explain that no, I wasn't voting for Ralph Nader.

Now, most of you don't know this, but I grew up in a politically active family. My dad was a party executive committee chairman in the county I grew up in. No, it wasn't some high fluting position. But, it was enough to keep every dinner conversation charged up if we weren't talking about baseball. That's just the way it was.

My sister has done well for herself, and is quick to let others know about it. Not saying she is a bad person, but that's the way she is too. Some things you just seem to learn by the time you are five or so. As the eldest of 6 kids, she takes liberties about pseudo-matriarchical duties. Some times I just let her feel important about herself, and go on about what ever it is that she feels is so important. Personally, I'd rather use the time to chat with you all about matters that I know are important.

Well, finally, I had to clue her in on whom I was voting for. His name is Michael Bidnarik - if only my father could hear me now (I really miss him:(  My sister went ballistic, "Michael WHO, I've never even heard of him. HOW IN THE HELL COULD YOU WASTE YOUR VOTE ON HIM?" I told my sister, "well, it's like this, there's only one candidate who believes that in the absence of wrong-doing, both parents should be meaningful parts of their kids' lives." That person's name is Michael Bidnarik.

With much more whining and moaning, I had to listen to how I was throwing my vote away to the other major party candidate. Calmly, I replied, "no, he doesn't believe in both parents being a meaningful part of their kids' lives either." I graduated with a Political Science degree, and I have thought about this a long time. I completely understand the dynamics of the two-party system we live in. That is the way the system is, and the way it was designed to be. I even thought what if my one vote in FL was to be the difference this election?

I know Michael Bidnarik will not be elected president. But, I could not imagine my vote meaning more than by saying the father of the first family in our country should openly express that both parents ought to be meaningful parts of their kids' lives. If something terrible were to happen to you before you got to vote in the next presidential election, wouldn't you want your kid(s) to know that both mothers and fathers are important?

For those of you wondering, no, I didn't let my sister win the argument today.

"Parents' Rights

No issue is more sensitive -- and few issues are more
troubling to Libertarians -- than the role of
government in family life. On the face of things, the
federal government has an even smaller role in that
area than it does in most, and I favor keeping
Washington out of issues like defining and licensing
marriage, regulating homeschooling, mandating
childhood vaccinations or using tax policy for
"socially engineering" the makeup and function of the
family.

However, there are some areas of family life in which
the federal government arguably has a role to play.
The Constitution ordains that all Americans receive
the equal protection of the law, and it prohibits
involuntary servitude.

In both of these areas, the federal government has
failed America's families and, in particular, its
parents.

Equal protection of the law pre-supposes fairness for
those coming before the bar of justice. Yet in divorce
proceedings, the states routinely award custody of
minor children to one parent or another, relegating
the other parent to the status of "second-class
citizen" -- not because the latter parent has been
convicted of any crime, or found unfit, but because of
a prejudice in favor of father or mother as the best
"single" parent.

This is a matter of federal interest under the 14th
Amendment, even intra-state. Once one parent or
another, possibly with a child in tow, moves to
another state, any shadow of doubt is erased. It
becomes an interstate matter, and by definition
therefore falls under federal jurisdiction.

As president, I will direct the Justice Department's
civil rights division to investigate state policies
which violate the 14th Amendment rights of parents and
to pursue the elimination of those policies in court.
The default presumption in any divorce proceeding must
be for joint custody of minor children. Failing the
waiver of that presumption by one parent, or proof
that one parent is unfit, to deny any parent equal
access to, and equal participation in the raising of,
his or her children is clearly an abuse of law and
repugnant to the Constitution.

Above and beyond the matter of custody comes child
support. While it is reasonable to assess support for
a minor child when circumstances dictate that he or
she will be living exclusively with one parent, the
matter has been inflated into, literally, a federal
case.

The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. In
the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court clearly
and unambiguously ruled that this prohibition applies
to "peonage" -- the attachment of criminal liability
to failure to pay, or work off, debt. Yet, across the
nation, hundreds of thousands of non-custodial parents
find themselves in court, often charged with felonies
and facing prison, for their failure or inability to
pay child support. Further, the federal government has
intervened to the extent of maintaining a special
database to track "deadbeat parents" across state
lines in order to enforce these draconian and
unconstitutional laws.

As president, I will direct the Civil Rights Division
of the Department of Justice to sue states which
attach criminal liability to child support obligations
and, if necessary, to charge government officials who
administer that unconstitutional criminal liability
with violations of the civil rights of non-custodial
parents.

I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask
the tough questions-to give you answers that really
work!"

http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/

Bitter parents who try to block their formerly beloved's access to the couple's child(ren) following divorce might think twice in New Hampshire, where a proposed bill aims to make life difficult for uncooperative custodial parents.

How difficult? By inviting the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to investigate the offending parent for child abuse and neglect.

This relatively revolutionary move was the brainchild of Maine psychiatrist Dr. Stevan Gressitt, who has been working with legislators to put some teeth into visitation enforcement. New Hampshire HHS Commissioner John Stephens endorsed the idea, and a bill sponsored by state Rep. David A. Bickford (R) heads to committee Tuesday.


Gressitt is hoping for a domino effect if the bill passes in New Hampshire.

The idea behind such legislation is that children of divorce should continue to have access to both parents, assuming there's no reason to protect a child from one of his parents. While child visitation orders are taken seriously in theory, the legal process of enforcement is usually time-consuming, laborious and expensive. In practice, the failure to take them seriously leads to an ever-widening, and predictable, trajectory of distance between the child and visiting parent.

Bickford's bill (HB 1585) would make it easier for parents denied visitation to seek remedy, while promising grief for parents who don't cooperate.

First, the non-custodial parent would get an expedited court hearing rather than take a docket number and possibly wait three to four months. Next, if the judge determines that the custodial parent is blocking access for no legitimate reason, then the Department of Health and Human Services would be notified of a possible case of child abuse and neglect.

Gressitt contends that denying a child his parent out of vindictiveness is a form of child abuse, but Bickford, a non-clinician, says he isn't ready to go that far. He explained to me that the bill supposes some parents may block access to hide abuse and that, therefore, the case warrants investigation.

He did say, however, that should there be a finding of psychological or emotional harm - a form of abuse - then the custodial parent could be prosecuted, referred for needed treatment, or lose parental rights.

I feel your cringe. Who wants government bureaucrats breathing down parents' necks to see who got little Johnny for the weekend?

I'm happy to lead the chorus saying family matters are none of the state's concern - let the adults hash out their visitation schedules. But abuses of this mannered approach assume qualities not always present in some adults and often leave non-custodial parents (usually fathers) bereft and angry.

Common sense tells us what we seem to need studies to demonstrate - that children need two parents and manage divorce best when they have equal access to both.

While family courts are increasingly trying to ensure that children have that access by awarding joint or shared custody, emotionally distraught humans don't always follow directions.

Meanwhile, courts and the state historically have been more effective in enforcing child support than visitation such that we have entire bureaucracies built around support collection tied to federal incentives. For every dollar that states put up to collect child support monies, for example, the federal government matches with two dollars. Other incentive funds are also available to reward collections.

While fathers' organizations long have pushed for stronger visitation enforcement, there are also some 3 million non-custodial mothers in the U.S., according to David Levy, CEO of the Children's Rights Council, a nonprofit group that advocates for shared custody. Levy applauded the New Hampshire bill, saying that the proposed bill codifies the idea that it's important for children of divorce to continue to have both parents.

But the proposed bill is not without critics. As with any law related to personal relationships, this one could be tricky to enforce. Imagine a HHS social worker knocking on your door to ask why you didn't let Johnny see his daddy last weekend.

Such well-intentioned laws also could backfire. As one close observer put it in an e-mail exchange, "Getting (HHS) involved is usually the worst thing to do. They usually side with the 'Mom who is concerned about letting the kids go to their father' and, they (investigators) may decide that neither parent is fit. And take custody of the kid(s)."

Such is the mess we have made of our lives.

In the best and least of all worlds, the deterrent effect of such a scenario would make visitation abuses less common and enforcement unnecessary. That way, only the bad guys lose. Or gals, as the case may be.

Kathleen Parker is a popular syndicated columnist and director of the School of Written Expression at the Buckley School of Public Speaking and Persuasion in Camden, South Carolina


http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/kathleenparker/2006/01/13/182425.html

Here is the text of my address:

I have two related issues to address the delegation with, which should concern all fit parents:

1.   Currently, Ch. 61.30 of Florida's statutes defines a substantial amount of time for a parent and child to spend with each other as 146 or more overnights out of the year. This is not a rhetorical question. But, straight and to the point, as state legislators, do you believe that fit parents and their children ought to be allowed to share a substantial amount of time with each other?

2.   Florida's child support formula was found to be flawed by the House Judicial Oversight Committee back in the fall of 2001, and again this past spring by the Economics Department at Florida State University. In fact, it's so bad that it doesn't even work at 50/50 time and identical parental incomes. Naturally, all parents ought to provide for the needs of their children 365 days out of the year. Unfortunately, the arbitrary threshold contained within the current guidelines, places more importance on parental designations than it does on the needs of children. This is not a rhetorical question either. Shouldn't the child support guidelines seamlessly apportion money between the parents, so that all children, across time sharing and parental income situations that are reality in today's society, can have their reasonable needs equitably provided for?

Hopefully, the citizens of Florida will soon get yes or no answers to those straight forward questions.

From:
http://www.glennsacks.com/nysp/

New York's Shared Parenting Bill has reached a critical point and we want to help give the bill a strong push forward.

New York is a battleground state for shared parenting and fatherhood. Family law has been in the spotlight there, as the New York Matrimonial Commission has held hearings on family law across the state. The Commission recently recommended no-fault divorce for New York.

A330, the New York Shared Parenting Bill, is sponsored by the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, the New York affiliate of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children.

What the Bill Would Do

Today joint custody is rare in New York and sole custody for mothers is the norm. A330 would "require the court to award custody to both parents in the absence of allegations that shared parenting would be detrimental to the child." It would place the burden of proof that shared parenting would be detrimental where it should be--on the parent requesting sole custody.

The bill also establishes an order of preference for custody, the top preference being joint custody. If the court decides against joint custody, it must state its reasons.

How to Take Action

The bill is slated to be heard by the New York State Assembly's Children & Families Committee within a few weeks. Nearly three dozen New York State Assemblypersons have signed on to the bill as sponsors or co-sponsors, giving the bill momentum. This momentum will be lost if the bill dies in committee. That's why I want all of you to write to the committee members with your support for this bill.

According to FAFNY, letters and calls from anywhere in the country help because they give the bill attention and show the broad national support for shared parenting.

Like California, New York is a battleground state for family law because what happens there has a great impact on the family law of other states. A victory on A330 would reverberate across the country, aiding in ways large or small every child of divorce.

Hearing from so many of you over the past several years, it would be hard to put into words the amount of pain and misery caused by our current family law system and its sole custody, win/lose orientation. Now is your chance to help change the system.

Go to the following web page to find further instructions and links to communicate with the committee members:

http://www.glennsacks.com/nysp/

Maligning fathers
By Cathy Young  |  January 23, 2006

LAST NOVEMBER, I wrote about the controversy about the Public Broadcasting Service documentary, ''Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories," which claimed that male batterers and child abusers frequently gain custody of their children in divorce cases after the mothers' claims of abuse are disbelieved by the courts. The film caused an outcry from fathers' rights groups. In response to these protests, PBS announced a 30-day review to determine whether the film met the editorial guidelines for fairness and accuracy.

Unfortunately, it seems that the review amounted to little more than a whitewash.

On Dec. 21, PBS issued a statement acknowledging that the film ''would have benefited from more in-depth treatment of the complex issues," but also concluded that ''the producers approached the topic with the open-mindedness and commitment to fairness that we require of our journalists" and that the program's claims were supported by ''extensive" research.

Those claims included some highly inflammatory assertions: for instance, that three-quarters of contested custody cases involve a history of domestic violence, and that wife and child abusers who seek child custody after divorce win two-thirds of the time.

Connecticut Public Television, which co-produced ''Breaking the Silence," has supplied me with two detailed reports -- one from producer Dominique Lasseur, the other from Lasseur and George Washington University law professor Joan Meier, the film's lead expert -- on which PBS drew to support its conclusion. To call these reports shoddy and self-serving would be an understatement.

Thus, the reports cite the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's Gender Bias Study of 1989 as proof that fathers who seek custody receive it at least 70 percent of the time -- even though this study does not distinguish custody disputes from cases in which the father got custody by mutual agreement. Other sources used to support the claim of male advantage are even weaker: They include the Battered Mothers' Testimony Project from the Wellesley Center for Women, which used a sample of 40 women with grievances about the family courts. No mention is made of much larger, representative studies of divorcing couples (such as the one reported by Stanford University psychologist Eleanor Maccoby and Harvard law professor Robert Mnookin in the 1992 book ''Dividing the Child") showing that far fewer fathers than mothers get the custodial arrangements they want.

Assertions that abusive men are especially likely to seek custody of children and are likely to prevail in court are backed by similarly slipshod evidence.

Defending the claim made in ''Breaking the Silence" that children are in greater danger of abuse from fathers than from mothers, Lasseur and Meier point to several limited studies that often lump together biological fathers with stepfathers and mothers' boyfriends (who, statistically, pose a far higher risk). Yet even these cherry-picked statistics show that a significant proportion of perpetrators of severe child abuse are mothers -- which makes the film's exclusive focus on abusive fathers difficult to defend.

The producer's account of how he went about researching the film reinforces the impression of bias. Battered women's advocates are presumed to be disinterested champions of victims, even though many of them have an ideological agenda of equating family violence with male oppression of women and children; advocates for divorced fathers or abused men are seen as tainted with ''antiwoman bias." In the same vein, Lasseur's report is supplemented by a letter signed by ''98 professionals" who support the film's conclusions -- but a number of those ''professionals" are feminist activists, including National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy.

Lasseur and Meier profess to be shocked that anyone could see the film as collectively maligning divorced fathers when it focuses only on abusive fathers in contested custody cases. Yet the film clearly suggests that if a divorcing father decides to fight for custody, chances are he's a batterer who's using the custody suit as an abuse tactic -- and that if he's accused of abuse, he's most probably guilty. And that's not prejudicial?

Notably, PBS ombudsman Michael Getler and especially Corporation for Public Broadcasting ombudsman Ken Bode have taken a far more negative view of the film than did the PBS review. On Jan. 4, Bode wrote, ''After close review including discussions and e-mail exchanges with those involved with the program or closely affected by it, I found the program to be so totally unbalanced as to fall outside the boundaries of PBS editorial standards on fairness and balance."

The one silver lining in this mess is that PBS has decided to commission another, more in-depth film on the subject of abuse and child custody. Let's hope that this time, it tackles the subject with real ''open-mindedness and commitment to fairness."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/01/23/maligning_fathers/

Sorry, I haven't been posting on the boards for a while. The SPARC boards are the best. I've still been chatting at SPARC, but a lot of my time has gone towards enlightening others at different sites. But, I consider SPARC my home. I wanted to share with my SPARC family some of what has been going on.

I chose to start posting on the JohnKerry.com website mainly for two reasons:
1) The site has forums which allow for posts to be made.
2) John Kerry is the first presidential candidate who is a divorced dad.

Before anyone gets too worked up about political party partisanship, that is not what this is about. I can show many members from each party who stand on both sides of the issues that affect us all. I'm a political praSLURPist. I don't really care what politicians call themselves as long as they do what I want. As such, I'm always looking for opportunities. The current political climate allows us to help reshape the political agenda.

When I first started posting on the JK site a couple of months ago, there were a fair number of regulars who posted adversarial comments about joint custody, equitable child support laws, and even about men in general. That did not discourage me; I saw it as a target rich environment. As you might imagine, I was the subject of much ridicule. Hey, so what, I've been through a divorce. It would be kind of hard for them to hurt my feelings, LOL  Instead of getting into personal spats with them, I backed up my arguments with the facts. Of course, it was hardly a fair fight with the resources that SPARC provides. The only rebuttals I've ever faced there were like, "that's not the people who I know."

Troubledmom came over to one thread. It was great to have a wingman, or wingmom as I called her. In that 60 some post thread, I was forced to call someone a bigot. Those are kind of harsh words, but I saw no other recourse for someone who continually made bigoted statements. Early on in the thread, I asked for the site administrators to look at the thread, but there was no intervention. So, I did what my dad taught me to do when I was being picked on and no one else was around. I didn't see walking away as an option, because to me that would be like walking away from the needs of my son. So, I fought back. Again, the resources of SPARC alone made it an unfair fight.

To my surprise, after we were already spatting, I realized that I was dooking it out with one of the moderators for the JK site. That's about the time I figured I would soon be posting more often back at our SPARC boards, because I didn't think I'd be around there much longer. Interestingly though, it was her posts that were finally edited/deleted and not my own. Mine were only edited where I called her a bigot, but all the posts of hers that substantiated that claim were removed. Somehow, POC had survived to post another day. But, the moderator was relieved of her duties.

For the most part, the JK site skies are now clear of jont parental adversaries. That is not to say that there aren't plenty more on the ground, waiting to take off and spew their venom if they think big brother is not hovering in the skies above. But, now there is a real opportunity to help reshape the agenda. The John Kerry site has pinned a topic to the top of a board entitled, "Parents Without Rights, Child Custody Laws".

Initially, the thread was not pinned and my reply to it was deleted. I figured I would receive some moderator action email warning that it might be the last time I was being warned. So, I replied to the thread again saying others knew what she was talking about, but not everything is displayed in the forums. This morning, I went to see if that was deleted too, and is when I found out that my original reply had been re-displayed and the thread had become a pinned topic.

I strongly encourage all of my SPARC buddies to make your thoughts known. I've had private conversations with some of the moderators at that site that John Kerry could make a statement about this issue. They seem to be wavering where once before, I don't believe that was a consideration. They need to hear from the millions of parents who have remained mostly silent until they get to court. If you guys speak up loud enough and often enough, there might not be so many of us being forced to be heard in court rooms.

Please share your thoughts on this pinned topic at the JK site:

http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php?showtopic=34787

NBC Says Dads Can't Care for Their Kids
in New Series

August 4, 2005


Glenn Slams NBC's Meet Mister Mom on Air America's Charles Goyette Show
I slammed NBC's new "reality" show Meet Mister Mom on the Charles Goyette Show on Air America KXXT AM 1010 in Phoenix, Arizona on August 4. The tone of the show can be gathered from the intro:

"For most dads, 'man of the house' is more of an honorary title. Give dad a wrench or a carving knife and...well, he still needs lots of supervision. Sure, he'll squeeze a melon, but he has no idea why. Many dads go off to work and leave the tough job to mom--until now.
[Mom says goodbye, kid says 'we're doomed,' and an overwhelmed dad says 'I'm sweating']

Coming to NBC Tuesday, dads take on their greatest challenge--being a mom, and find out that doing mom's job can be a real mother.

[Overwhelmed dad says 'this is horrible' and then asks 'when's my wife coming home?']"

I contest the show's message that mom has it rough while dad has it easy, mom is smarter than dad, and mom is always right.

To watch excerpts of Meet Mister Mom, click here. To comment on Meet Mister Mom, click here.

To learn more about the contributions fathers make to their families, see my columns: Indiana Woman's 'Housework Strike': Maybe It's Husbands Who Should Strike (Gary Post-Tribune, 11/8/02) and Stay-at-Home Dads: A Practical Solution to the Career Woman's Dilemma (Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/29/02).

To learn more about unfair media depictions of fathers, see my column Why I Launched the Campaign Against Verizon's Anti-Father Ad (Pasadena Star-News, 11/18/04) and the His Side Campaign Against Anti-Father Verizon Commercial.

The show got lousy ratings and is being critically panned, so hopefully its run will be mercifully short.

Glenn Sacks




POC's Letter to NBC:

To Whom it May Concern:

In this day and age when the biggest barrier to good dads being able to spend more time with their kids is a court order, not a lack of desire, it is disheartening that NBC chooses to depict fathers as morons. It is about as funny as running a spoof telling black people to get to the back of the bus. If ever given the opportunity to participate in televison ratings I will make sure that even if I want to watch an NBC show that it is on one of my TV's that is not being monitored. That will be my form of protest until your company decides to air programs that portray families who value fathers. I will share this correspondence with friends and family and ask that they do the same.

Sincerely,


POC

Minister tells fathers: Don't be wet
By Paul Waugh Deputy Political Editor, Evening Standard
28 October 2004
Fathers should spend more time alone with their children to help build up bonds that cannot later be broken by divorce, the Government's new minister for the family said today.

Lord Filkin also said fathers who gave up on their children because they received a brushoff from their former partners were "a bit wet" and should persevere in making contact.

The minister, himself a divorced father of three, said the protests of groups such as Fathers 4 Justice were "extreme" but insisted more needed to be done to improve relations between separated parents and their children.

While the state should not tell them what to do, fathers should be "going to the school open day" and also "cooking a meal occasionally or taking children on an outing by themselves".

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/14339105?source=Evening%20Standard