Jeff Brown, an astute reader, sent me the incredible ad above, which has been appearing on the front page of the Detroit News' website this week. It urges men to buy the women in their lives sufficient Valentine's Day gifts or they'll get a punch in the face (note the man's black eye). The caption is "Don't let this be her response."

To protest this outrage, write the Detroit News' four leading advertising executives by clicking here.

Their individual emails and phone numbers are:

Patricia Kelly
Sr. Advertising Director / Sales Support & Adm
(313) 222-6504
pdkelly@dnps.com

Danial J. Kim
VP / Media Integration
(313) 222-2424
dkim@dnps.com

Caryn Manning
VP / Advertising
(313) 223-4771
cmanning@dnps.com
 
Michael Quinn
Interim Sr. VP / Advertising
(313) 223-4771
mquinn@dnps.com 

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

I've written before about the highly-publicized ruling in the Virginia/Vermont lesbian child custody battle between former civil union partners Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins. After their breakup, Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia with their daughter Isabella, won sole custody, and excluded Jenkins from the girl's life.

I've noted that Miller's actions read like a checklist of what heterosexual women sometimes do to the fathers of their children, including: move the child far away; deny the noncustodial parent the opportunity to visit or co-parent the child; make an unsupported, dubious and oh-so-convenient accusation of abuse against the noncustodial parent; and pretend that the noncustodial parent is out-of-line or acting against the child's best interests by wanting to continue the relationship with the child.

Like most divorced dads do, Jenkins soft-pedals her ex-partner's appalling behavior, trying to avoid conflict in the interests of their child. She says that if she does win custody (which she should), she will be very careful to make sure that her former partner's relationship with her daughter is protected and respected.

A new article in the Washington Post Magazine by April Witt called About Isabella demonstrates that Miller's actions are straight from the playbook unscrupulous divorce attorneys use to help vindictive mothers convince the courts that they were mistreated or are in fear of their exes. According to the article:

"Lisa later testified that Janet was physically and emotionally abusive to her -- allegations Janet denied under oath...Lisa testified that Janet regularly blew up and belittled her, allegations Janet called a fiction designed to discredit her. 'Again, it was the monthly blowups,' Lisa testified. 'She would restrain me from going into another room. She would ask me for a divorce again. She would tell me, though, that I couldn't make it on my own'...According to Lisa, Janet continued to have an explosive temper."

The article also mentions, in passing, Lisa's attempts to demean Janet in their daughter's eyes and to push Janet further out of her life:

"Lisa...penned a little note, ostensibly from Isabella, on [an] Easter card. That note referred to Janet by a new nickname: 'Up' because Isabella sometimes said 'Up' or 'Uppy' when she wanted Janet to pick her up. Janet, who wanted to be called 'Momma,' later testified that she felt Lisa was orchestrating a demotion of her standing in Isabella's eyes.

"Now Lisa made it increasingly difficult for Janet to see Isabella, Janet testified. Janet flew to Virginia and showed up at Lisa's door to pick up Isabella, only to find no one home, she said. Janet telephoned daily; Lisa said Isabella didn't want to talk to her, Janet testified.

"'I cried every day,' Janet said."

Eventually a judge took a hard line against Miller's efforts:

"Nobody was leaving the hearing that day, the judge said, until both sides worked out a temporary visitation schedule that allowed Isabella, 25 months old, to spend time with both Janet and Lisa. He would decide final custody later.

"[Jenkins' attorney] told the judge that in addition to visiting Isabella in Virginia some weekends, Janet also wanted to bring her to Vermont at least one week each month.

"'We're going to grant the request,' the judge said.

"Lisa was devastated. 'I felt like Isabella had become a political hostage,' she said."

This is one of my favorite alienating mothers' tactics--pretend to be "devastated" and "shocked" that (gasp) the court is actually calling her on her behavior and forcing her to do what she should have done from the beginning without a second thought--allow her ex to remain a part of their child's life.

I'm in Janet Jenkins' corner on this one all the way. To learn more about the case, see my co-authored column Ruling in Vermont Same-Sex Child Custody Case: Lesbian Moms, Divorced Dads in Same Boat (Rutland Herald, Montpelier-Barre Times Argus, 12/10/06 and others) and my blog entry Sad but Delicious Irony--Lesbian Mom Describes How She Got the Dad Treatment.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Ann Bartow of the Feminist Law Professors blog asserts that 'sexism' is one of the driving forces behind the backlash against feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte's appointment to be presidential candidate John Edwards' 'blogger-in-chief.' She notes that Michelle Malkin, Outside the Beltway, Instapundit and others "have been aggressively attacking her since her new position was announced."

Bartow also criticizes one blogger for mocking Marcotte's looks. I'm with Bartow 100% on that--I've always disliked the way anti-feminists sometimes mock feminists on the basis of their physical appearance. Bartow would say that it's "sexist," and she's right, but to me it seems much more like a child's cruelty on the schoolyard. Either way, it's not good, and I don't do it.

(For the record, I have no idea how Marcotte looks--she was on my radio show but I've never met her face to face. She does, however, have a nice, soft voice and an easy laugh, but I guess I'd be "sexist" to compliment her on it.)

As for "sexism" being the driving force behind the anti-Marcotte forces, I'm very skeptical. Marcotte is talented, and her overblown, hyperbolic, in-your-face writing style is very entertaining, but it provides a target rich environment for a candidate's opponents in a major election. Were it a man writing the same content as Marcotte, does anybody doubt there would still be a controversy?

I submit there would've been a far bigger controversy--in fact, he never would've been hired at all...

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

From time to time I ponder why there is such a divide between the feminist movement and the fatherhood movement. I wish this divide didn't exist, or at least that it were smaller. Yet sometimes I read things which make me believe that the divide will never be breached. Such is the case when I read the exchange below on the feminist website Truth and Justice: Family Court Reform.

There was a discussion of Parental Alienation Syndrome and criticism of my co-authored column Protect Children from Alienation (Providence Journal, 7/8/06). PAS occurs when, after divorce or separation, one parent turns his or her children against the other parent, destroying the loving bonds the children and the target parent once enjoyed. In the discussion feminist bloggers and commenters portrayed PAS as a nonexistent fraud used by battering and/or molesting fathers to wrest child custody away from protective, loving mothers.

As part of the discussion, one father, who identified himself as "amanwhocares," wrote:

"[Those] who want to think or imagine that PAS...does not exist, have your heads in the sand...The case of myself and my daughter is classical...Much of the reason for certain individuals vitriolic rejection of PAS as a credible and epidemic symptom of disease is that they themselves are suffering from DENIAL...My daughter and I fought the good fight but everybody we encountered would not do their jobs. They cared not for truth or justice. They only wanted the money.

"Today my daughter, twenty years old, returned to her mother by some deeply confused zealots from the Justice for Children, Houston, Texas, just had a baby, moved back in with her mother, having dropped out of high school two years ago. Don't one of you tell me PAS does not exist. Had she remained with me she would likely be now about to finish her college education and headed onward for a medical degree."

The feminist response is:

"I think 'amanwhocares' posting is a wonderful example of the fuzzy logic spewn by maligned, arrogant and irrationally-minded batterers. His is a typical, asinine and patently denial-laden, delusional response from batterers: his assumed superiority and his accusing his victims of his own criminal conduct and malevolent motivations.

"His response also shows the depth of a batterer's personality disorder...[asserting] that all the legitimate research from learned scholars is just 'lies' is a good glimpse into the defective psyche of a batterer.

"His posting also shows that the only successful approach in holding batterers accountable is an aggressive criminal justice response from legitimate men in law enforcement."

Interesting--the man complains about being separated from the daughter he loves, and the feminist response is to label him a "batterer," and then pontificate on how his sad, angry letter is reflective of a "batterer's mentality."

Like the feminist quoted above, I know little about this man's case. But if his response is indicative of a "batterer's mentality", I wonder how a non-battering man is supposed to react to having his loving bonds with his children eviscerated?

I suppose the feminist would respond that such an injustice would never happen in our pro-male/anti-woman family law system. Lady, you must be kidding...

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Obviously I'm a frequent critic of the National Organization for Women and its president, Kim Gandy. However, though NOW is often wrong, it doesn't mean that they're always wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean they're responsible for every damn thing which is wrong in the world of gender relations. NOW is often scapegoated, and is the target of incessant stupid criticism from conservatives and religious groups.

A recent example of unfair NOW-bashing is the article Catholic school faulted for inviting pro-abortion speaker from the USA Religious News (2/5/07):

"A Catholic pro-life activist is expressing outrage over a decision by Loyola University Law School in New Orleans, Louisiana, to have a prominent leader of the abortion rights movement speak at a forum...

"Last Friday, National Organization for Women (NOW) president Kim Gandy delivered a lecture at Loyola Law School, despite calls for the forum being hosted by the law school to be held off campus. Gandy, an alumna who once received a public service award from Loyola's liberal Gillis Long Poverty Law Center, was elected president of the feminist NOW organization in 2001 and re-elected in 2005.

"American Life League (ALL) president Judie Brown says she is appalled that an abortion advocate like Gandy was invited to speak on campus...

"ALL is not alone in its condemnation of the Catholic law school's decision to permit a pro-abortion activist to give a lecture on its New Orleans campus. Other pro-lifers are expressing similar outrage, including Loyola alumna Dorinda Bordlee, who heads the Bioethics Defense Fund.

"The bioethics advocate had strong words for those who made the decision to bring the head of NOW to the Loyola campus to speak. 'The invitation of Kim Gandy is akin to inviting [white supremacist and former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan] David Duke to speak at a university without a competing viewpoint,' Bordlee says."

Sorry, I don't buy it. For one, Gandy's and the Catholic's Church's stands on abortion do not constitute the total sum being of either one of them--it's one major issue that they disagree on, but nothing more.

It's also an issue which Americans are equally divided on, so one would think that each side would recognize that there are good and decent people on the other side whose voices should be listened to. (It is also perfectly true that NOW has not always been respectful of the views of abortion opponents, either). And, as far as one can tell, Gandy's speech was not even about abortion.

Moreover, Gandy is an alumna of Loyola University Law School who rose to become the leader of one of America's most powerful and well-known advocacy organizations. She deserves to speak at Loyola on the basis of "local girl makes good" alone. She also won an award from Loyola's Gillis Long Poverty Law Center--why on earth should she be denied the opportunity to speak? And Ms. Bordlee's analogy between Gandy and the Ku Klux Klan is plain stupid.

Part of what annoys me about this is that this type of reactionary reaction reinforces the feminist movement's bunker mentality. When it comes to gender issues--particularly family law issues--NOW is not likely to become reasonable and fair to men any time soon, but it's a lot more likely to happen if they don't feel that they are always under siege.

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

According to the Kansas News Report "Bill Proposes Change to Child Support":

"A proposed bill may force some Kansas parents to pay child support until their child reaches age 23. The bill was introduced last week in Topeka by the judiciary committee.

"It would require a parent to pay child support until the kids are 23 if they go to college. Right now, the law only requires child support until the children are 18."

This bill strikes me as being very discriminatory--after all, my son is 14 and, as a married parent, I don't owe him a thing after he's 18. Obviously my moral obligation to him will go on (and on and on), but the government can't dictate what I do.

To learn more about the proposed bill, watch this KAKE TV news report. (Note: when it comes to paying child support, "parents" is a code word for "fathers"). 

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

I discussed the Clara Harris case, anti-father family court bias, paternity fraud, and "deadbeat dads" on the Phil Cowan Show on KSTE AM 650 in Sacramento on February 6. The audio is available, though a little sketchy--to listen, click here.
 
To learn more about the case, see my co-authored column Suppose Roles Had Been Reversed in Clara Harris Case (Houston Chronicle, 1/27/07).

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Radical fathers' rights advocate Steve Hutchings wrote the following comment to the Rocky Mountain News as a response to my recent co-authored column 'Duped dads' bill could foster closer ties (2/7/07):

"'Child support' is code for alimony. Custodial egg donors and State Attorney Generals hide behind law enforcement to steal money by proxy. They are all cowards and racketeers. What upsets me more though is how many Fathers tolerate it, and how much money they waste on futile legal efforts (attorneys = racketeer) when they should take matters into their own hands.

"Unfortunately the only way to protect our children and next generation of fathers from bondage and restore justice is through a zero tolerance approach (bloodshed), like fallen hero Herbert Chalmers did when Attorney General of Missouri refused to stop stealing (known as garnishing) his wages for children that were not his. Every Father that fights, refuses and resists injustice ..... is part of the solution..."

Great--the mentally-imbalanced "radicals" at the extreme end of the fathers' rights movement have a new hero.

First it was Darren Mack, a despicable Nevada father who, unhappy with his family law case, stabbed and murdered his ex-wife and attempted to murder a judge. Now it's Herbert Chalmers, a child support obligor who went postal after being treated horribly by child support enforcement in Missouri.

Chalmers killed several people before killing himself. Chalmers certainly had reason for his rage but what he did was inexcusable under any circumstances, and hardly makes him a "fallen hero." 

Who's the next "hero" for these loonies--Tony Camacho?

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com

Subscribe to this E-Newsletter

Email this E-Newsletter to a Friend

Missed an E-Newsletter? Find all of Glenn's E-Newsletters here

GlennSacks.com

To be removed immediately from our list, send an email to remove@glennsacks.com with the subject line Remove.