From Shawn, a reader who works in a hospital:

"I guess this commercial is supposed to be funny somehow--these men are in the Emergency Room with horrible injuries because they bought their wives the wrong gift for Christmas."

The UK commercial is from 2005. The company's press release describing it--"LX Direct knows what women want"--is below.

To watch, click here.

Press Release: LX Direct knows what women want
Release Date: 20 December 2005
Home shopping retailer launches innovative Christmas viral campaign

Home shopping retailer LX Direct, launched a Christmas e-mail campaign with a difference this week, surveying 5,000 of their customers to uncover 'What Women Won't Want For Christmas' this year. Designed to be a guide for the hapless blokes of Britain - the campaign was the gift guide equivalent of 'What Not To Wear'.

The viral email campaign centred on a short film featuring a group of sorry looking men in a hospital casualty department at Christmas who had all evidently bought inappropriate gifts for their partners and were now nursing slapstick minor injuries. One man has a stiletto lodged in his skull and another has a vacuum cleaner hose stuck in a rather unfortunate place! After watching the clip, LX Direct female customers were then invited to enter the festive survey. What gifts did they really not want to see under the tree on Christmas morning?...

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

The American Coalition for Fathers and Children The American Coalition for Fathers and Children is dedicated to creating a family law system which promotes equal rights for all parties affected by divorce. Contact the ACFC at 1-800-978-3237 or visit them on the web at www.acfc.org.

Parenting Plan Calendar Software Shared Ground (R) is an easy-to-use software program designed for divorced parents to track their parenting plan schedules over many years. Do-it-yourself or let us build your approved parenting plan into a multi-year calendar so that you can print, share, or modify the calendar later. Parents, attorneys, arbitrators and mediators can generate equitable parenting plans, which is especially useful for parents seeking fair division of their children's time. FREE ASSISTANCE TO OUR CLIENTS- $49.95 one-time charge, FREE TRIAL & MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE. Click here for more information.

"When one man says 'No', all Rome begins to tremble."--Spartacus, gladiator and leader of the largest slave rebellion in ancient history

For many of my readers, the Christmas holiday is not a joyous one, but instead a time of incomparable sadness.  Many, many fathers have been driven out of their children's lives, or to the edge of them.  For them, the holidays are more a time to grieve than a time to celebrate.

These men are the victims of one of the worst tyrannies in our society's history, and one largely unheard of before the modern era--the tyranny of being denied the right to play a meaningful role in the lives of their own children.

It is also during this time of year that I think of the heroism of so many modern fathers.  In the era of the so-called "deadbeat dad," hundreds of thousands of men have fought long, hard, costly battles to remain fathers to their children.  This struggle, this heroism, goes almost completely unrecognized in our popular culture.

There is one man who above all others for me symbolizes this heroism--David Chick.

The mayor of London compared Chick to Osama bin Laden. He was dubbed a "menace" holding a city for "ransom," as well as a lunatic and an extremist.

What did this middle-aged window washer do to arouse such anger? He loves his little daughter, from whom he was forcibly and unjustly separated, and he had the courage to do something about it.

Chick launched a world famous, traffic snarling, six day, one-man protest atop a 150 foot high crane near the Tower Bridge in London in November 2003. Dressed as Spiderman because that is his little daughter's favorite comic book character, Chick had been to court 25 times and spent the equivalent of $30,000 in unsuccessful attempts to get English courts to enforce his visitation rights.

Chick explained:

"[My daughter] is the most precious thing in my world. I was there for the scans when she was still in the womb. I was there for her birth. I fed her, bathed her, got up in the night with her, cuddled her when she cried.

"Now I'm just another statistic--another dad who has no part in his daughter's life. For me, it is a living bereavement."

Facing a prison sentence for his protest, Chick was acquitted by an English jury, some of whom were reportedly moved to tears by his testimony. In 2003, Chick came in second in the Evening Standard London Personality of the Year contest and was the runner-up Political Personality of the Year on a major English television station.

In September 2004, Spiderman struck again, climbing the London Eye (pictured), an enormous 450-foot-high Ferris wheel on the banks of the River Thames. Chick spent 18 hours there--one hour for every month that had passed since he had been able to see his little daughter. Nearly 20,000 people were prevented from visiting the attraction because the police closed it down during the protest.

Popular still, a London jury again acquitted Chick of causing a public nuisance. Moreover, Chick was able to successfully fight his way back into his little daughter's life...

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

I never particularly cared for Van Halen, but you've got to like this story. During a recent Van Halen reunion concert, Eddie Van Halen's 16-year-old son, Wolfgang, played the bass and sung back-up vocals. According to the San Jose Mercury News article below, "For this, he received several kisses on the cheek from his dad."

Even better, actress Valerie Bertinelli, Eddie's ex-wife and Wolfgang's mom, was in attendance. The story is below.

Van Halen family reunion
By Shay Quillen
Mercury News, 12/18/2007

This time, they left the Jack Daniel's whiskey and the Cabo Wabo tequila on the shelf.

Van Halen's show Sunday night at HP Pavilion - its first in the Bay Area with singer David Lee Roth in more than 20 years - revealed a fun but thoroughly professional hard-rock band whose ethos has evolved from "lock up your daughters" to "bring along your sons."

Over two hours and 10 minutes with nary a power ballad in sight, a newly sober Eddie Van Halen expertly spun out his epochal guitar riffs while brother Alex pounded out rhythms and Eddie's 16-year-old son, Wolfgang, the band's newest member, competently reproduced the bass and vocal parts of exiled founder Michael Anthony. For this, he received several kisses on the cheek from his dad. (In keeping with the familial theme, Wolfgang's mom, actress Valerie Bertinelli, was spotted in the crowd.)

Meanwhile, Roth was positively aglow at his chance to be part of this family reunion, and to be back in front of an enthusiastic crowd made up mostly of folks old enough to have seen the band in its 1978-85 heyday, many with sons in tow.

Now free of the long blond mane that let him assume the role of '70s sex god, the clean-cut 53-year-old front man was revealed as a showbiz pro, a born performer who would have been slinging one-liners and doing song-and-dance in the Catskills if he'd been born 25 years earlier.

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.  Thanks to Paul, a reader, for sending it to me.

Background: For fathers and the children who love them and need them, Massachusetts sometimes looks a lot like feminist hell. In this series, Ned Holstein, Executive Director of Fathers & Families, points to four um...problematic...Massachusetts family law bills. The first bill Holstein cites is Massachusetts HB 113--to learn more, see my blog post Amazing New Bill Says Dads Can Be Arrested for Leaving the State.

From Holstein:

More Restraining Order Follies--HB 1396

Under HB 1396, your restraining order could be extended by the court without ever notifying you of the proceeding if you had previously been convicted of violating the order.

So here's a scenario I guarantee will occur within the first month:

Mom is abusive to the kids and ruthless towards dad. He gets a new girlfriend, so she gets a restraining order against him out of spite, claiming that she is in fear.

Unfortunately, he is the kids' only protector. One day they text message him that mom is drunk and is hitting them. They beg him to pick them up. He goes over and calmly and quietly rescues the kids. The DA, naturally, prosecutes dad for violating the restraining order, since he/she is not allowed to use discretion and drop such cases, and wins a conviction.

A year later, mom goes to court under the new bill with no notice to dad, so there is no one to tell the judge about her multiple encounters with the child protection agency for child abuse. Dad has the restraining order against him extended another year in his absence. Meanwhile, the kids are getting the living h... beaten out of them by mom, with no one to protect them. Somehow I don't see the judge or the social worker or the domestic violence "victim advocate" being there Saturday evening at 9:00 PM to protect them...

Of course, bills like these make some sense if you buy into the vision of a cruel, calculating, implacable, life-threatening batterer. No problemo   -- except that the courts utterly fail to make any attempt whatsoever to determine the truth of the matter. This lack of procedural and substantive rights pollutes and corrupts this entire area of law and turns it into tyranny. It is astonishing that our guardians of civil liberties continue, after all these years, to turn a blind eye to this enormous affront to civil rights.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

To discuss this issue on the Fathers & Families blog, click here.

I've criticized Christian conservatives on numerous occasions for their often meager efforts to defend marriage and fatherhood from the ravages of our current family law system. I've also criticized them for focusing on sideshow family issues like gay marriage, as well as their sometimes mean-spirited attitude towards gays. For some examples, click here.

I'm pleased to say that there are indications that some leading religious figures are starting to address real family issues, such as divorce, custody, and the way millions of fathers have been driven out of the lives of the children who love and need them. One of them is Michael McManus, the founder of Marriage Savers. His group works with troubled couples, and his program is said to have helped save 100,000 marriages over the past couple decades.

I've previously praised McManus for his efforts to help struggling couples and prevent divorce--for one example, click here.

Over the past 12 or 18 months McManus has been increasingly vocal about the need to meaningfully address the family law system and divorce, and he has endorsed Shared Parenting. In McManus' new Marriage Savers Report Card 2007, he writes:

"If parents agree to a divorce, they should have equal access to children - Joint Custody or Shared Parenting. Today's norm of Sole Custody removes one parent from the lives of their children, I argued. However, of the six states that passed the strongest Joint Custody laws, five experienced the largest drops in the divorce rate: Montana, Kansas, Connecticut, Idaho and Alaska. Why? 'If a parent knows they will have to interact with the child's other parent while the child is growing up, there is less incentive to divorce,' says David Levy of the Children's Rights Council.'"

McManus also notes:

"America's divorce rate is the world's highest because the law permits one partner to unilaterally end a marriage even with no allegation of adultery or abuse. What was begun by two people willingly is terminated by one person against the will of the spouse in 80% of cases. This is called 'No Fault Divorce,' because no fault need be alleged to get the divorce. Result: innocent children are scarred for life; they are three times as likely as those from intact marriages to be expelled from school or to have a baby out-of-wedlock, five times as apt to live in poverty or to commit suicide, and 12 times as likely to be jailed. Also, the divorced live 4-10 years less."

His solution is one which has both merits and problems--Mutual Consent Divorce. He writes...

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Background: Dwayne Allen Dail, who was pardoned after spending 18 years behind bars for a rape he didn't commit, was recently sued for back child support. Dail, 39, was cleared in August of the 1987 rape of a 12-year-old Goldsboro girl. The girl identified him as her attacker and hair found at the scene was similar to his. But DNA evidence found on a fragment of the girl's nightgown years after the trial proved Dail wasn't involved in the attack.

Dail will receive a chump change $360,000 from the state--$20,000 for each year he spent in prison. Upon his release he was served with a lawsuit by ex-girlfriend Lorraine Michaels, the mother of his son, who is seeking back child support. Dail said he was devastated by the suit, and that his son had recently moved to Florida to live with him. To learn more about this case, see my blog post This Takes Being a Greedy Ex to a Whole New Level.

Thankfully the child support lawsuit against Dail has been dropped:

Child Support Lawsuit Dropped Against Dwayne Dail
WRAL.com
12/21/07

Goldsboro -- A child support lawsuit for back child support against a Wayne County man who spent 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit has been dropped.

Dwayne Dail said the suit, filed in November by his former girlfriend Lorraine Michaels for back child support while he was in prison, was dismissed Friday.

But he said he could not comment on the deal but was happy the matter was resolved.

"I am very happy and relieved to have this black cloud removed from me and my son's bonding process," Dail said. "And I hope that there can begin some healing between me and Lori, too. This has been extremely difficult for everyone involved."

Michaels sued for a "reasonable sum" of a $360,000 compensatory payment Dail is due from the state for his wrongful imprisonment...

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

I've never been a fan of strip clubs--I see them as being rather dehumanizing both for the strippers and for the male patrons. However, this new Texas law to tax male strip club patrons to fund rape-crisis centers is another example of how our society stigmatizes and punishes male sexuality. According to the Associated Press:

"In what some have dubbed the 'pole tax,' the Lone Star State will require its 150 or so strip clubs to collect a $5-per-customer levy, with most of the proceeds going to help rape victims. The tax goes into effect on New Year's Day.

"Club owners and some of their customers say the money is going to a noble cause, but they argue that the tax infringes on their First Amendment right to freedom of expression, that it will drive some bars out of business and that it unfairly links their industry to sex crimes...

"The strip clubs are suing to block the tax, which state officials estimate will raise more than $40 million a year, based on liquor sales figures...

"Strip clubs occupy a mythic place in Texas lore as a spot where young women can work their way through college and small-town girls with dreams of Hollywood stardom get their start on the lowest rung of show biz...

"Some customers and clubs say it is not the extra five bucks; they resent the implication that strip clubs lead men to commit sex crimes.

"[One club owner says his club] already pays the state $1.3 million a year in taxes, and the topless tax will be an additional $60,000 per month...

"In their lawsuit, the clubs said nude dancing is protected by the First Amendment and the state can't selectively tax it, even if it is conduct some may find offensive...

"Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University, said the Texas tax goes too far.

"'It seems clear legislators are targeting strip clubs because they're unpopular,' Turley said. 'Laws like this would expose any unpopular industry to punitive taxes. It could be abortion clinics.'"

Another question--according to the article, state Rep. Ellen Cohen, the Texas legislator who sponsored this bill, just happens to be the president of a women's center which could get funding from the bill. Isn't that a bit of a conflict of interest? Or do we close our eyes to it because the bill addresses female victims? Or are conflicts of interests only an issue for male politicians?

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Background: Tim Russert's Wisdom of Our Fathers has hundreds of stories men and women tell about their fathers. It's a remarkable book--to learn more, see my co-authored column America's Father Hunger (World Net Daily, 10/13/06).

This story is from Frank A. Zedik of Vestal, NY about his father Frank J. Zedik, a state trooper. It's called "The Bicycle":

"My first bicycle was a Christmas present when I was seven. This was in 1943, right in the middle of the war years, and there wasn't a new bike to be found anywhere. All available metal, including scrap iron, was being used to support the war effort.

"At the time, I just had to have a bike. I can remember pleading with my dad for one (Santa having been exposed as a fraud during the previous year)--any kind, as long as it had two wheels. He was very patient with me and explained that it just wouldn't be possible that year. Deep down I understood, but a little begging never hurt, so I persisted.

"Christmas Eve finally arrived and I looked everywhere; there wasn't a bike in the house. But as I came downstairs the next morning, my eyes almost popped out of my head. There, right next to the Christmas tree, stood the biggest, most beautiful red and silver bicycle I had ever seen. I don't think my feet even touched the bottom stairs as I dashed to inspect that miraculous sight.

"The bicycle had big widespread handlebars, a bright red frame, silver fenders, and a large leather saddle supported by two coiled springs. But the most impressive feature was that it had just two wheels. What a wonderful sight to behold!

"There was a light dusting of snow Christmas morning, and I had to wait another whole day before I could take that bike for a spin. Soon I was happily riding all around the neighborhood, oblivious to everything but the wind in my face.

"Several days later, I began to notice a couple of imperfections on my marvelous machine--an almost invisible dent on the fender, a little smudge on the paint--just enough to make me realize that the bike wasn't new. I waited a few days, trying to get the courage to ask my dad where and how he got it. When I finally asked, he told me how he and a friend had scoured swap shops, junkyards, and other friends' basements looking for bicycle parts. After a month of searching, they had three unworkable bikes from which they assembled my red and silver beauty. Dad was somewhat apologetic as he told the story, but there was no need to apologize for giving me the best Christmas present I ever had."

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

One of the modern phenomena that I find amusing is the common feminist assertion, often parroted in the mainstream media, that the internet is a hostile place for women. These claims are usually supported by perfectly legitimate examples of men writing terrible letters or blog comments to feminist or female writers and bloggers. What I don't understand is why they think it does not also go in the opposite direction.

If we are going to look at the letters that feminist writers get from hostile men, before asserting that there is sexism here or generalizing, we should also look at some of the mail that men's advocates such as myself get from hostile women. Not surprisingly, this is rarely done. However, I can assure you that there is little difference in the venom spewed by men at feminists and the venom spewed by women at men's advocates. (To be clear, most of the letters I get from women are very positive and supportive, and I am not referring to these women in this blog post.)

There are, of course, differences in style between hostile men and hostile women. A hostile man will threaten violence. A hostile woman will threaten to spread the rumor that you are molesting your daughter. A hostile man will threaten violence. A hostile woman will threaten to go to the court in your area and carefully examine your divorce papers, so that she can publicly trumpet whatever terrible things your ex-wife said about you. These women are always very disappointed to find out that, thankfully, I do not have an ex-wife.

Anyway, below is another example of the nice, sweet letters/blog comments that men's advocates such as myself get from women who oppose their views. It was posted on the blog www.feministing.com. It reads:

"Sacks is an assface who thinks women are either 1) fuckholes or 2) baby incubators. Get your fuckhole on the pill or it'll turn into a baby incubator. If he wants to spend his life trying to make life worse for over half of the world's population, then I REALLY want to believe in hell, because if there IS a hell, there's a special place reserved for people like Sacks."

Nice lady, huh?

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Below are some recent articles and items of interest from Fathers & Families' latest News Digest.

Keen interest in gentler ways to divorce (Associated Press, 12-19-07)

Briggs says he'll do right by daughter (Chicago Tribune, 12-20-07)

Hasselhoff agrees on divorce terms (Associated Press, 12-21-07)

New power to seize passports (UK Online, 12-23-07)

Divorce class helps parents (The Gainesville Sun, 12-23-07)

Military divorce on rise (Salt Lake Tribune, 12-23-07)

Illinois enacts deadbeat-parent strategy (Associated Press, 12-24-07)

Job loss, divorce forces mom to look for fresh start (The Detroit News, 12-24-07)

Agencies partner to help Illinois collect $420,000 in past-due child support (Chicago Tribune, 12-24-07)

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Some Good News in the Racist 'War on Drugs'

Background: I oppose the War on Drugs, and am particularly appalled that we've locked up--warehoused, really--God knows how many minority men for nonviolent drug crimes. And yes, I do absolutely believe that if it were young white men (or women) being locked up for these crimes, the laws would've been changed a long time ago. Nor would we be willing to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of women for nonviolent drug offenses, as we've done with men.

I also believe that while our society insists on treating drug abuse as a criminal justice problem, it is in reality a public health problem. I suppose one could argue that locking them up separates them from their drugs, but I doubt this is true--there are plenty of drugs in prison.

One time I heard a radio interview with an ex-convict who said that he used to sneak under the guard tower at his prison, meet his dealer and do his drugs. I remember thinking, "Here's a guy who's locked up in prison, surrounded by huge cement walls and barbed wire, standing underneath a tower with two guards and a machine gun, and he still got his drugs. Prison is not the answer."

I discussed our society's misguided drug policies on the His Side with Glenn Sacks show Warehousing Minority Males (3/14/04) with Judge Jim Gray, former Libertarian Party candidate for US Senate in California, and David Borden, Executive Director of the Drug Reform Coordination Network. The two are among America's leading opponents of the "War on Drugs."

I very much oppose the vastly disparate penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine--a disparity which treats black offenders far worse than white offenders. Apparently we have some good news in this area--the United States Sentencing Commission has approved a reform for federal prisoners serving time for crack cocaine. From the Sentencing Project:

"The day after the Supreme Court affirmed a judge's decision to sentence below the guideline range based on the unfairness of the crack cocaine sentencing disparity, the United States Sentencing Commission today voted to make retroactive its recent guideline amendment on crack cocaine offenses. The USSC's decision, effective March 3, now makes an estimated 19,500 persons in prison eligible for a sentence reduction averaging more than two years. Releases are subject to judicial review and will be staggered over 30 years.

"The Sentencing Project applauds the USSC for responding at this heightened time of public awareness about excessive penalties and disparate treatment within the justice system.

"'The Commission's decision marks an important moment not only for the 19,500 people retroactivity will impact, but for the justice system as a whole,' stated Marc Mauer, Executive Director of The Sentencing Project. 'Today's action, combined with the Court's decision yesterday, restores a measure of rationality to federal sentencing while also addressing the unconscionable racial disparities that the war on drugs has produced.'

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

'Back in My Day, We Had Recess'

From Chuck Asay of the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph. Given the way recess and physical education time are being pared back in our schools, I'd add a third box--'Back in My Day, We had Recess.' Christina Hoff Sommers, in her book The War on Boys, describes this new trend and its particularly negative impact on boys

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Liberal Talk Show Hosts Stewart and Colbert Scab on Writers' Strike

One of the fundamental principles of the left is that you don't scab on strikes, but I guess that doesn't mean too much to liberal talk show hosts Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, both darlings of the left. They recently announced that they are scabbing on the writers' strike.

Yes, I understand that they're in a competitive business and are often under great pressure, but it doesn't seem like much of a way for Stewart and Colbert to treat the men who helped make them what they are today. And I can guarantee you that if they and some of the other big boys who are scabbing--Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien and Jimmy Kimmel--instead said, "We won't work with scabs," the strike would be over much, much sooner.

To learn more, see Colbert and Stewart Return (Associated Press, 12/20/07) and FAQs about writers' strike (Associated Press, 12/11/07).

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

A Sad Reminder of the Weakness of Our Movement

I appeared last week on the nationally-syndicated Lars Larson Show (pictured) to discuss my co-authored column, Biden's Misguided S1515 Will Exacerbate Domestic Violence System's Problems (Philadelphia Daily News, 12/7/07). The guest who was on the show before me was presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, and it served as yet another reminder of the weakness of our movement.  What I mean is this:

I was on the show to briefly discuss the problems faced by fathers whose ex-wives or ex-girlfriends have used false allegations of domestic violence as a way to separate the men from their children.  In Romney's home state of Massachusetts, the restraining order/false allegations problem is perhaps the worst of any state.

In Massachusetts, "209a" protection orders/restraining orders have been used to drive tens if not hundreds of thousands of decent fathers out of their children's lives, without meaningful judicial overview. Many of these charges are spurious, and most of the men victimized never had a legitimate chance to present their side of the story in court. Many of these abuses occurred from 2003 to 2007, while Romney was governor. Yet in this entire presidential campaign, will he be asked once about the restraining order issue? Will there be one time during a debate or an interview where he will be asked why these abuses took place while he was governor?

He has been asked many times about women's issues, and will continue to be.  He certainly has been asked many times about the sideshow family issue of gay marriage, and will continue to be.  Our movement will have made substantial progress the day Romney has to fear that someone will ask him questions about the 209a abuses, and that he could lose votes or support over the issue. Sadly, we're not there yet.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Feministing.com Takes Cheap Shot at Bush, Dads

I'm not a particular admirer of President Bush, but the leading feminist blog www.feministing.com took a cheap shot at Bush recently. It's one thing to criticize Bush's policies on the war in Iraq, or immigration, or his head-in-the-sand approach to climate change, but to criticize Bush as a father--particularly in this manner--seems rather low rent.

In People magazine's end-of-the-year review with George Bush, there is the following exchange:

Q: Tell us about your future son-in-law, Henry Hager. Did he do right and ask for Jenna's hand?

The President: "He kind of sidled up to me and said, 'Can I come and see you?' We were sitting outside the presidential cabin here, and he professed his love for Jenna and said, would I mind if he married her? And I said, 'Got a deal.' [Laughter] And I'm of the school, once you make the sale, move on. But he had some other points he wanted [to make]. He wanted to talk about how he would be financially responsible."

In the blog post titled Sexist Quote of the Year, By Yours Truly, Vanessa of www.feministing.com writes:

"How lovely. Nothing like your traditional daughter-for-sale language from the leader of our great nation to get me all warm and fuzzy this holiday season. And shame on the magazine (not like we should expect much from them) to say that 'asking for a daughter's hand' is the 'right' thing to do. This isn't the fucking '50s, People."

So a warm, humorous moment where the president relates his future son-in-law's awkward but sincere attempts to do the right thing, to respect his future in-laws, and to respect his future wife, is, in reality, yet another example of our terrible patriarchy and the way fathers allegedly treat their daughters as property for sale. Bush isn't a proud dad, he's an "owner" who just completed a sale.

Whatever men do, it's always wrong.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

In a world where men matter and women don't, our nation's most masculine, patriarchal institution commits...

...an untold number of sailors and pilots to a dangerous struggle to save the life of a teenage girl at sea.

Navy comes to aid of girl in distress on cruise ship
Los Angeles Times, 12/19/07

Fourteen-year-old Laura Montero was aboard a cruise ship off Baja California late last week when her appendix ruptured, causing her agonizing pain.

The Dawn Princess was out at sea. The ship doctor lacked the anesthesia for an appendectomy.

The teenager from rural Illinois had been enjoying a vacation with 15 members of her family. Now Laura's mother, Trudy Lafield, began to worry that their long-awaited holiday idyll on the Mexican Riviera would prove fatal.

Then, 550 miles away, the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan, on a training mission in preparation for deployment to the Persian Gulf, answered a distress call.

At dawn Saturday, the carrier dispatched a rescue helicopter. Onboard were a doctor and search-and-rescue sailors trained to pluck downed pilots from the ocean.

A problem became clear immediately: The cruise ship didn't have a deck big enough for the Seahawk helicopter to land.

Instead, the big chopper would have to hover and hoist Laura up in a stretcher-basket before taking her back to the carrier for medical treatment.

The cruise ship, meanwhile, would have to position itself so the wind would give the helicopter maximum lift -- a tricky maneuver even for a skipper accustomed to helicopter landings...

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

News Flash--a Father Acts Like a Father and Isn't Criticized for It

In a culture where fathers too often hesitate to parent properly because they're afraid of being criticized, or of hurting their children's tender feelings by disciplining them, it's refreshing to see a father behave a bit like a father. The story is below.

[For a good example of masculine parenting, see my blog post We Need More Fathers Like This (Video Available).]

Dad buys his son a hard to get video game for Christmas and gives it to him early. When he catches him smoking pot, he sells the $90 video game on eBay as a punishment and gets $9000 for it!

MONTREAL (AFP) - After catching his 15-year-old smoking pot, a father sold the hard-to-get "Guitar Hero III" video game he bought his son for 90 dollars for Christmas at an online auction, fetching 9,000 dollars.

The sale took place after the father spent two weeks searching for the video game for the Nintendo Wii gameboard.

"So I was so relieved in that I had finally got the Holy Grail of Christmas presents pretty much just in the nick of time. I couldn't wait to spread the jubilance to my son," the father wrote on the eBay website.

"Then, yesterday, I came home from work early and what do I find? My innocent little boy smoking pot in the back yard with two of his delinquent friends."

The man, a school teacher, who kept his identity private, said he sold the coveted video game to punish his son and discourage him from smoking dope.

The sale was a boon for the family's bank account, since the game the father purchased for 90 dollars (US) was finally sold to an Australian who plunked down 9,100 dollars for it.

The naughty son, however, will not go without a present on Christmas.

"I am still considering getting him a game for his Nintendo. Maybe something like Barbie as the Island Princess or Dancing with the Stars ... I know he will just love them," the father said, tongue-in-cheek.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Some Thoughts on Dr. Helen's Piece 'Should Alimony Die a Quick Death?'

Dr. Helen has a new article out called "Should Alimony Die a Quick Death?" (Pajamas Media, 12/19/07). Dr. Helen writes:

"Personally, I have a hard time justifying long term alimony payments to men or women in today's society. Years ago, when one spouse (typically women) was expected to stay home with the kids, tend the house and generally had no training or as many opportunities to make a living as women do today, I would say that alimony might have been more fair.

"However, in today's world, in which women have fought for the right to equality, alimony seems more like a kid getting an allowance from daddy and I believe it should be abolished altogether except for extremely dire circumstances where a spouse is older, cannot work at all, and for only a short term period. No man or woman should be held to being a slave to an ex-spouse after a marriage ends."

The concept of  "alimony as slavery" is common in the men's and fathers' movements, and it is valid, but only to a point.  Dr. Helen makes some good points above, but she goes further than I would.  I am not against the concept of alimony, I am against the abuse of it.

When alimony is part of a "don't get mad, get everything" type of post-divorce fleecing, I am opposed.  When it is done out of vindictiveness, as in the divorce attorneys' anti-male ad pictured, I am opposed. When it is done because the law demands that a divorced man support his ex-wife at the standard of living to which she is accustomed, I am opposed, because I believe that this is an unfair and unrealistic burden.

That being said, however, I believe there are situations where alimony is called for.  Let's say that Bob and Jane got married in 1995, and had three children.  The couple realized that it is very difficult for the children and for the family in general if both parents have demanding, go-all-out careers. In light of this, they decide that one of them will stay home, or will work part-time, or will do a job that is not as demanding or gives flexible time, so that someone is there for the children.

In the majority of cases, this will be the woman instead of the man, but the gender is irrelevant.  Over the subsequent period, Bob works 50 hour weeks and now has a career which earns him $120,000 a year.  Jane works 30 hours a week and is the primary caregiver for the children, and earns $25,000 a year.

Now it is 2008 and Bob and Jane are divorcing. (I will leave aside for the moment why they are getting divorced, issues surrounding no-fault divorce, etc.).   I believe that both Bob and Jane, absent a finding of parental unfitness, should have shared parenting and a relatively equal timeshare with their children.

I also think it is entirely appropriate for Bob to pay Jane both child support and alimony.  Not an extortionate amount, not an amount designed to punish him, not an attempt to preserve her living standard while impoverishing him, but a reasonable amount to take into consideration Bob's vastly greater earning capacity.  This vastly greater earning capacity did not come about because Jane is lazy, or because Jane lacks talent.  It came about because her contributions to the household were different than Bob's.

Dr. Helen's full article can be seen here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Dr. Warren Farrell's Shared Parenting Evidence Kit--What You Need to Win Shared Physical Custody Dr. Warren Farrell, a top expert on children of divorce now offers a complete evidence kit to help you win shared custody.  The DVDs, audio CD and electronic files summarize the best scientific research available collected over decades.  Scientific research has proven that children do far better with near equal time with both parents with minimal conditions.  This video set was developed to educate parents, judges, lawyers, psychologists and other divorce professionals. Most judges are doing exactly what is worst for children with sole-custody.  Submitted as evidence this will maximize your chances. Divorce Reform groups call(508) 381-1450 to use as fundraiser. www.BestInterestofChildren.org

Help for Michigan Dads Michigan family law attorney Mindy L. Hitchcock has experience fighting for noncustodial parents against Michigan's abusive FOC. Her holistic approach to divorce gets results for her clients while avoiding the scorched earth approach to law that leaves families emotionally and financially devastated. Lady4Justice.com

'At that moment, Joba Chamberlain understood the depth of his father's love'

"[Joba's] father Harlan...suffered the crippling effects of polio since childhood and who raised Joba on his own after he and the boy's mother divorced. Joba had left-knee surgery as a sophomore at Nebraska, and he spent his first hours of recovery sprawled out on the couch at their Omaha home. At 5:30 in the morning, Harlan hobbled into the living room on crutches and saw the bag of melting ice on his son's swollen knee.

"'We need to change that,' he said. Then, taking the bag between his teeth, he labored slowly to the kitchen for a refill. At that moment, Joba understood the depth of his father's love."--Buster Olney, ESPN, 12/5/07

New York Yankee rookie phenom Joba Chamberlain was raised by a single father, Harlan Chamberlain, who was partially crippled with polio as a child and grew up in foster homes. Harlan also raised Joba's sister. Last season Chamberlain made 11 appearances for the New York Yankees before giving up a single run.

Joba says about his dad:

"If I can be half the man and half the father he was, I'll be very, very happy and have a great life...He was out there after work, and doing the things he did with one arm. We made do with what we had...to be given what he was given and never to bat an eye, never look back."

According to Wikipedia:

"Joba Chamberlain grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. At age 3, his parents divorced, and his father Harlan, a counselor at the Nebraska State Penitentiary, took custody of Joba and his older sister Tasha. The family lived in poverty, with Harlan often pawning his possessions to buy things for the children...Chamberlain's father was born on a reservation for the Winnebago American Indian Tribe, but had to leave to be treated for polio. Harlan spent his childhood in hospitals and foster homes and now uses a motor scooter to get around."

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Sadly, Feminist Commenter Turns out to Be a Rather Ungrateful Guest

Sadly, it appears that feminist blogger/blog commenter Melissa L. has turned out to be a bit of an ungrateful guest here at www.GlennSacks.com. Melissa has been commenting frequently at my blog over the past few weeks.  I was surprised and a bit disappointed to see her new blog post "The Lost Boys- My Time with Men's Rights Activists." Melissa describes my website as "a brand of crazy I didn't know existed." I have a few comments and complaints:

1) Melissa writes:

"I also found it interesting that Mr. Sacks e-mailed me TWICE this month, once to counter a point I had made (not opening it for discussion on his blog) and a second time to thank me for posting there. Which, yeah--whenever I open my mouth, the thread shoots up from 25 posts on average to 100 or more. That's better for advertising."

This is a rather rude and unpleasant distortion. I e-mailed her twice in response to comments that she made on my blog--as most of you know, whenever a comment is made, I receive an e-mail with the comment and the commenter's information. Occasionally I reply. Melissa's assertion that I wrote "once to counter a point I had made (not opening it for discussion on his blog)" makes it sound like I was trying to muffle dissent or something, and is factually in error. The point in my email was up for discussion on my blog--it's here.

More importantly, I object to her comment "[Sacks wrote] a second time to thank me for posting there. Which, yeah- whenever I open my mouth, the thread shoots up from 25 posts on average to 100 or more. That's better for advertising."

What I wrote was "Melissa--I'm genuinely glad you're posting here--we need more voices like yours," and the comment was sincere.  I want dissent on my blog.  I want different voices on my blog. Melissa might also have noted that while she has made nearly 100 comments on my blog in the past few weeks, she has never once been censored or edited.  Not once.  From what I'm told by my readers, it is very unlikely that a men's rights activist would have the same freedom on www.feministing.com, which Melissa says is her favorite blog, or most other feminist blogs.

And no, I did not welcome her presence as a maneuver to increase blog traffic. I hardly need it--my web traffic has always been good and has been steadily increasing since I began this blog last December, and we are currently on pace for 400,000 unique visits a month.

2) To be fair to Melissa, despite the unpleasantness above, she has done a few things which show some class.  Her blog comments here seem to have avoided personal attacks or cheap shots. Moreover, her quotations on her website from various comments on my blog are not hand-picked examples of lunacy, but are instead a fair attempt to convey the views expressed by my readers.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Woman's False Rape Claim Sets off Police Manhunt for Innocent Man

First an excerpt from the article, and then a few thoughts:

Rape claim was cover for cheating on husband, charges allege
Minneapolis Star Tribune
12/18/07

A St. Paul psychologist who claimed she was raped by a patient in her office in October 2006 has instead been charged with falsely reporting a crime.

Authorities say that Jill Ajao, 41, made the rape claim to conceal an extramarital affair and to "protect herself and her family." The false report prompted a detailed police investigation, the release of a suspect sketch and surveillance photo and the sifting through of hundreds of tips, according to the criminal complaint filed last week.

Police spokesman Tom Walsh said Tuesday that it was unusual for his department to seek the charges against a woman who claimed to be a victim and police did so only after a thorough investigation.

"It's extremely rare. It's rare because we don't want victims not to report" a crime, he said. "But it's very clear that this young woman was not sexually assaulted. And given the fear that she created in our community, we felt that this action was necessary."

Falsely reporting a crime is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine...

"A factor in seeking charges, Walsh said, was that the man she said raped her had been subjected to public attention when his photo was shown in the media to help police solve an alleged rape"...

A few thoughts:

1) It is interesting that the police spokesman said that it is unusual for his department to charge women who have made false rape reports.  For one, he does not deny that false claims happen, or try to say they are rare.  Also, he sounds almost apologetic about charging the woman.  Here the woman did great harm to an innocent man, and at worst she may get a whopping 90 days in jail, yet the police seem almost embarrassed to be bringing charges.

2) In these types of cases usually everybody ignores another factor-- this man was publicly identifi