"Steve," a reader who is a stepdad, is a critic of our recent campaign against Fox's Bad Dads. He writes:

"I have been the step-father of two boys for 10 years now. They are 13 and 14. They are growing up to be responsible young men with normal lives and admirable values. I wonder where they would be today without their mother and I. For most of their lives, their father has shown up just often enough to prevent them from really bonding with me as father and sons. His once a year visits, and twice a year phone calls keep their hopes for a relationship with him alive, only for those hopes to be dashed as he abandons them again every time.

"He lives within 100 miles of us, and works until the DA catches up with his employer, then he quits his job and hides out. In 10 years I think we've gotten something approaching $500 total in child support checks. It's not like we care about the money. We really wish he'd just go away. We get along just fine without the child support he doesn't provide. Now if he'd just make himself that scarce.

"He knows he's always welcome to visit and we do not discourage contact or badmouth him to the kids. It's just that most of the time he has more exciting things to do. That's always been his problem. It's basically why he went to jail in the first place for robbing a bank to get drug money.

"Bad dads? Yep, we have living proof...when we can find him. So, you see, it's not all one way. Sorry, I just can't feel sorry for the sperm donor when I'm paying the bills, going to music lessons, soccer games, little league, and Boy Scouts, patching up cuts and bruises, and generally being 'Dad' because he only wants the title and none of the responsibility."

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Introducing the 'David Harris Fallacy'

There's a common fallacy in society's thinking about men, marriage and divorce which I'll call the "David Harris Fallacy." David Harris, as you may recall, was the victim of "Murder by Mercedes" killer Clara Harris. David Harris fell in love with another woman and Clara Harris killed him as he attempted to leave their marriage.

The press on both the left and the right poured derision upon David, and even the prosecutor, Mia Magness, expressed contempt for him, saying in court that instead of killing David by her own hand, Clara should have driven him to suicide by divorcing him and "[doing] like every other woman...get his house, car, kids -- make him wish he were dead."

Clara received widespread sympathy for her "betrayed wife who snapped" shtick.

I wrote several columns about the killing for the Houston Chronicle, and in one of them I argued that "upon closer examination the evidence is overwhelming that the bad spouse in this marriage was Clara, not David." I explained:

"David's daughter, Lindsey, says that her father had the affair in part because of the way Clara mistreated and neglected him. According to her testimony, David told his daughter on many occasions how lonely he felt. Lindsey also testified that her stepmother Clara made her feel unimportant and as if she were not part of the family, and that the only place where pictures of her were allowed in the home were in her father’s bathroom. By contrast, pictures of the twins (the children Clara and David had together) dominated the house. Lindsey also testified that Clara had physically assaulted David on at least one prior occasion...

"Clara also lies, as evidenced by her preposterous courtroom claim that she didn't know she was running over her husband, despite a video which shows her repeatedly circling and running him down with her Mercedes.

"Most importantly, David Harris was married to a person capable of killing an unarmed man as the man's daughter begged her not to kill her father. While we'll never know exactly what happened between David and Clara behind closed doors, can there be any doubt that a person capable of such a heinous crime was not exactly the perfect spouse? That David probably had good reason to distrust or dislike her and seek the affections of another? That somewhere along the line it might have been Clara's um......personality that might have created the problem?"

In other words, a man leaves his wife, she does something terrible, and we blame him and the fact that he left for her crime, or at least excuse it because "he hurt her by leaving her." That's the David Harris fallacy--by the women committing this crime, she reveals that her character was such that the man had damn good reason to leave.

According to testimony from David Harris' daughter, Clara had told her, "I could kill your father and get away with it," and then she did kill him. This aspect of her personality didn't magically appear after David left--it was there in effect before, and David probably saw it.

As a general rule I don't condone adultery or desertion, but when you're married to a woman like that, getting out is a good idea. He probably only stayed as long as he did because he didn't want to lose custody of his sons. (To learn more about the Clara Harris case, see my co-authored column Suppose Roles Had Been Reversed in Clara Harris Case, Houston Chronicle, 1/27/07, or click here).

This can be seen clearly if we switch the genders. If a man's wife leaves him for another man, and the man then kills his wife, would anyone believe his claim that he was an excellent husband who just "snapped?" Would anyone blame her for his violence?

In a recent English case we again see the David Harris fallacy. From the BBC article Mother jailed for kettle scalding (10/11/07):

"A mother who poured a kettle of boiling water over her five-year-old son to get back at his father who had left her has been jailed...The victim, now aged 17, suffered burns to more than 20% of his body.

"He told Cardiff Crown Court his mother called him to the kitchen and said 'I'm sorry I've got to do this.'

"The judge at the trial said:

"'You built up a resentment for your position as being left as a single parent. Your son's father did not turn up that day as intended and over the course of the day your resentment drove you to behave in a way no mother should. You entirely lost your patience with your son and carried out this appalling act of pouring boiling water over him. You punished your child for wrongs you believed have been done to you by your former partner.'"

Get it? He buys into the David Harris fallacy. The woman is wrong because she let her anger over her husband leaving her consume her and make her do this evil thing. He more or less accepts that the woman had good reason to be mad, that the father was wrong for leaving her and making her a "single parent," but she shouldn't have taken her presumably legitimate anger against the father out on the son.

Yet there's a much more logical way to look at this. The father left the mother because he saw she was capable of cruelty and violence , and perhaps she had previously acted cruelly or violently in a way we don't know about it. He had damn good reason to want to get away from this woman, and she is in no way his victim.

I also doubt she scalded the son because the father (allegedly) didn't show up. The five-year-old was probably scalded because he expressed affection for his father, and this was the vindictive woman's way of punishing him for it.

The mother had also "been before the court on five previous occasion for a total of 13 offences involving dishonesty"--was that her ex-husband's fault, too?

Thankfully, at least the now-teenage son knows the score. He said:

"I got my burns for nothing. I don't deserve to have these scars - I have been punished for nothing - because one woman never loved her son."

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

Single Dad Saves His Remarkable Daughter

Aaron, a reader, sent me this touching story about a remarkable young woman whose single dad saved her from drugs and an alcoholic mother:

Her past leads push for school for homeless
By David Hunn
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 5/16/08

Set aside, for a moment, that Stephanie Kilstein is creating a charter school for homeless teens in the city. And that she spends every free minute canvassing civic leaders and businesses to support a plan that just might work.

Today is not about that.

Kilstein is graduating from Washington University this morning with a master's in social work. And, in this season of graduations, her own path onto this old wood stage inside Graham Chapel is worthy of discussion, by all accounts.

Kilstein, just 22, is being awarded not her first, but her second higher degree. At 18, when most are graduating high school, she was teaching migrant fifth-graders. At 16, she entered college, finishing in just two years.

And at 12, she ran away from home, for just the first of many times.

Kilstein's past is one of a broken and chaotic suburban family in Pennington, N.J. It passes through despair, rehabilitation, rebirth and, now, her singular drive to reclaim others like her.

It's a story told by a family, partially healed, and reunited for this graduation. The Kilsteins, their friends and even local law enforcement describe it this way:

Mom drank so much she disengaged for days at a time. Dad, a state bureaucrat and then a policy analyst for a national drug company, left before dawn, and returned after dark. Eventually, he moved out, got a small place across town, and did his best to be there for his children.

Still, for much of junior high and early high school, Stephanie cared for her three younger brothers. She picked them up from school when they were sick. She cleaned the house, served up noodles and tuna fish sandwiches, and, generally, acted much older than she was.

"Hanging out at her house was really fun," remembered childhood friend Elise Thompson. "There was no real parent supervision."

The Kilstein home was the kind of place mothers don't want their kids to visit, the kind of place local police still remember.

But the troublemakers, the druggies and drinkers found solace there. They hid in closets, fleeing parents and cops. They sat on the couch, ate pots of macaroni and cheese, and smoked.

"They felt safe because they knew what we were going through," said Stephanie's mother, Laurie Kilstein. "We were the haven for the runaways."

The eighth grade was the last year Stephanie completed.

By the start of high school, Stephanie was skipping class, stealing toilet paper from gas stations, and coming home drunk night after night. She ran away when she tired of the pressures of home and returned to clean up.

After months, her father went to her school.

"There was an amazing substance abuse counselor at the high school who I went to speak to and just said, 'Um, I am seriously afraid if we don't intervene soon that something terrible is going to happen to Stephanie,'" said her father, Saul Kilstein.

Together, they sat her down and gave her two options: Go to a home for runaways in nearby Trenton. Or go to rehab.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Atlanta TV Station Investigates Abusive Practices by Private Child Support Collector

Dana Fowle (pictured, center) of Fox 5 News in Atlanta recently did a two-part series on the abuses committed by a private child support collection agency. According to Georgia officials, one of the collection agencies operating in Georgia deceived both custodial mothers and noncustodial fathers into thinking that they are a government agency with state power.

According to the station, the agency "Threatens to throw [fathers] in jail--even when they've paid," and builds in numerous hidden "fees" so that little of the money the fathers pay actually gets to the custodial mothers. The fees are in addition to the 35% they take of everything they collect.

The first TV report deals with the problems faced by mothers, and the second one focuses on the problems the agencies create for fathers. To watch, click here and here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Some Thoughts & a Question about Saving Private Ryan

I know I'm about 10 years too late to be commenting much about the movie Saving Private Ryan, but I finally saw the movie the other day and there was something in it that didn't seem quite right.

You may remember that at one point the American squad assaults a German machine gun nest, kills two of the three Germans (and captures the other) and suffers one casualty themselves.  The American soldiers are enraged that one of their comrades has been killed, and they want to kill the German who surrendered.

They almost do it, but Cpl. Timothy P. Upham, a translator with the unit, intervenes on the German's side.  The German begs for his life.  In the end, Captain Miller (played by Tom Hanks), prevents his soldiers from killing the German, and tells the German to march back to the American lines and surrender to the next Allied soldier he sees.

Later on they are in a battle against a larger German unit in a nearby town.  Most of the Americans are wiped out. The German soldier who had surrendered earlier is back with the Germans, and shoots Captain Miller during the battle.

Upham, who had been cowering and too afraid to do his duty during the battle, ends up accidentally being behind several of the Germans, including the soldier they had let go. He takes them prisoner.  The German soldier tries to talk to Upham, but Upham shoots him and kills him.

This seems to be portrayed as a good thing, or as justice, but it didn't seem like it to me.  Why should the German soldier have been executed?  He was only doing his job.  He came across some German units after he was released by Captain Miller.  What was he supposed to tell them -- "Gee, Colonel, you know I would like to fight for you, but I can't because I promised an American officer that I would surrender to the Americans."  I don't think so.

I would add that the soldier was probably just a draftee, not a volunteer, and more importantly, he was part of the Wehrmacht, the regular German army, not the SS, who committed most of the atrocities against civilians and Jews.  I don't see why he should have been executed -- am I wrong?

My favorite part of the movie was just a little scene.  It is after the Americans have gotten a foothold in northern France, and they have captured a German unit.  Some American soldiers are marching the German prisoners of war in a column, and Private Stanley Mellish, a rifleman, stands by the column and taunts the German soldiers, pointing to a Star of David around his neck and saying, "Juden, Juden" (Jew).

Mellish kind of reminds me of a relative of mine who escaped from a German camp, somehow made his way to the United States, and volunteered. He came back to Germany as a soldier in the American army and helped guide his unit through Germany because he spoke the language and knew where everything was. 

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

'The innocent parent naively believes that by doing what CPS wants, he/she will be left alone...the parent soon finds out they were wrong'

The recent furor over the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (aka Child Protective Services) raids on the Texas Yearning for Zion Ranch polygamist group reminded me of a nice primer on CPS by Texas criminal defense attorney Paul Stuckle (pictured). It is particularly interesting in light of the recent ruling that the raids were unlawful.

I often get letters from parents who are targeted by CPS, and their stories can be horrific and heartbreaking. Stuckle writes:

"Many parents find themselves overwhelmed when contacted by CPS and for good reason. CPS investigators and caseworkers are able to manipulate parents through fear and intimidation, making the innocent parent feels helpless. CPS has the legal power to take children away from their parents.

"Under these circumstances parents who are not aware of the underhanded nature, shoddy investigative techniques, and financial motivations of CPS readily sign safety plans, service plans, allow CPS into their homes, submit to interviews, and essentially do anything the CPS investigator asks. The innocent parent naively believes that by doing what CPS wants they will be left alone.

"The parent soon finds out they were wrong."

Below Stuckle provides a list of questions to ask yourself when dealing with CPS.

Are You Being Treated Fairly By CPS and the Court System?
By Paul Stuckle, Esq.

1) Was your child contacted by the authorities, questioned or photographed without your knowledge or consent?
2) Did CPS have your child remove his or her clothing without your knowledge or consent?
3) Was CPS contacted by an anonymous informant whose identity was not disclosed to you?
4) Was CPS contacted by a mandatory reporter (teacher, doctor, counselor, etc.) who may lose their job if they don’t report even the slightest suspicion of abuse?...

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

Hugo Schwyzer: Rejecting the stereotype that a man getting a gender studies major is most likely to be gay

In his recent blog post “A man getting a gender studies major is most likely to be gay”: on the importance of refuting that problematic stereotype, my friend Hugo Schwyzer (pictured), a feminist blogger and Women's Studies/Gender Studies professor, writes:

"As a heterosexual man who teaches both women’s history and LGBTQ studies at the community college, I reject the implication that men who are drawn to these vital subjects are 'most likely' to be gay.

"The three classic assumptions we make about men who take gender studies are that they are gay; wolves in sheep’s clothing trying to hit on vulnerable women; filled with deep self-loathing of their own masculinity. There’s nothing wrong, of course, with gay men taking gender studies. There is something very wrong with the assumption that men who take a strong interest in this field are 'most likely' gay."

I agree with Hugo about the assumptions that men in Gender Studies are either "trying to hit on vulnerable women" or "filled with deep self-loathing of their own masculinity." Some of the posters here throw these stereotypes at feminist men like Schwyzer and bloggers Barry Deutsch and Dan Oppenheimer, and I dislike the tactic for about 50 reasons.

Having been on the receiving end of unfair stereotypes many times, I don't have a very high opinion of people who use stereotypes to try to discredit an opponent's argument, as opposed to addressing the argument itself. Whenever this is done to me in a radio debate, for example, by labeling me "anti-woman" or a "misogynist" or whatever, I just smile--I know the other side has lost the debate. (That is not to say that there aren't genuine misogynists on our side--there's no shortage).

On the specific issue of male Gender Studies/Women's Studies/Men's Studies students being gay or largely gay or often gay, I think there's some truth to this, for a reason that Dr. Schwyzer's feminist blinders make it hard for him to see.

Heterosexual men are judged by their success, their careers, and their ability to support a family. Heterosexual men may be interested in Gender Studies--as Schwyzer does note above--but few will want to take it as a major, because it's worthless (or largely worthless) in trying to get ahead in the world. A heterosexual male's access to love, companionship, and sex is shaped in part by his ability to earn a living, and being a Gender Studies major is a poor move.

By contrast, gay men for the most part don't have that concern, so it would not dissuade them from being Gender Studies majors.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

'I am raising our daughter and she has none of our kids--how could they label me a 'deadbeat dad'?'

Background: I've criticized Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on numerous occasions, including my co-authored column When Beating up on 'Deadbeat Dads' is Unfair (Houston Chronicle, 1/7/07).

Abbott often beats his chest during his frequent crackdowns on low-income fathers he labels "deadbeat dads." I get as many complaints about Abbott and the Texas Attorney General's Office as I do about Child Support Enforcement in all other 49 states combined. To learn more about Abbott and his abuses, click here.

Below is a letter from "Jeremy," a father who says he is being manhandled by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's office.

"Dear Mr. Sacks,
 
"My ex-wife and I have been divorced for 12 years, most of which has been amicable. Until last year everything has been fine. I have had our kids most of the time and we have each paid each other as we both agreed (without using the state or lawyers).

"Unfortunately, nothing is in writing because last year she went to the Texas AG and filed our divorce decree to 'get me'. So for the last year they have attacked me as a deadbeat dad in every way possible.

"I have an attorney in Austin, Texas but as she puts it they are in no hurry now to settle because they/she are getting their money now. Isn't there anything I can do?

"Obviously I am not a deadbeat dad, she just used the system to hurt me! I currently have an automatic deduction from my paycheck, for what they say is a $50k in arrears debt, while I am raising our daughter and she has none of our kids. How is this fair? Isn't there anything else I can do other than 'take it'?"

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

An Interesting Question Concerning Criminals

One of the books I've been reading lately is Rudolph Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz, the autobiography--yes I said autobiography--of the first commandant of Auschwitz concentration camp. An estimated 1 to 2.5 million people (mostly Jews) were killed at Auschwitz, and it was Hoess who perfected the techniques of mass killing which would make Auschwitz the most deadly concentration camp.

Hoess was captured in 1946 (pictured) and wrote his autobiography (pictured) while awaiting execution. He was hung at Auschwitz in 1947.

There are many, many things to write about this book, but in this post I'll mention only one. The other day I was speaking with John Dias of www.dontmakehermad.com. John was telling me about his arrest on false domestic violence allegations and what it was like in jail. While Dias was eventually cleared, he told me "just being in jail for a little while was hell--you'd do anything, anything to get away from some of the criminals there."

What he said reminded me of one of the themes of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's prison memoirs The Gulag Archipelago, one of my favorite books. Solzhenitsyn said one of the worst parts about being in a labor camp was the way political prisoners like himself were terrorized and manhandled by the prisoners who were ordinary criminals.

Solzhenitsyn said that one common theme among the political prisoners during World War II was "wait until the Red Army veterans start coming to the camps--they'll put the criminals in their place." Yet Solzhenitsyn reported with amazement that when the Red Army prisoners did begin arriving in 1945 and 1946, they were manhandled and terrorized by the common criminals just as badly.

Men who had defeated the Nazi armies--and 90% of Germany's WWII casualties were on the Eastern front--couldn't stand up to them. Men who had fought in the two most important battles in all of human history--Stalingrad and the Kursk Salient--were incapable of organizing and resisting the criminals. It amazed me when I read it.

Now, 15  years after pouring through the Gulag Archipelago, I see a passage on this same subject in Rudolph Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz. Hoess fought in World War I and later was part of the German Freikorps, which resisted the French occupation. He was imprisoned along with many of his comrades in the early 1920s. Hoess writes:

"As a political prisoner I was kept in solitary confinement. At first I was not at all happy about this...but later on I was quite thankful, in spite of the many small amenities that life in the larger communal cells offered...[in solitary] I escaped the hideous bullying practiced by the real criminals in the larger cells...[their] bullying is directed mercilessly against all who do not belong to the criminal fraternity...even the strict supervision of a Prussian prison was unable to prevent this terrorism."

The same theme as Solzhenitsyn--Hoess and his comrades were all World War I veterans who had faced machine gun fire, poison gas, and all the horrors of trench warfare, yet they were "terrorized" and "bullied" by common criminals.

I can't say I really have much of an explanation for this. I suppose one reason would be that Hoess and Solzhenitsyn and all the military veteran prisoners still had their eyes pointed towards the outside world, whereas criminals are accustomed to the prison environment and are focused on how best to achieve advantages and privileges there. It would take quite a change of mind for a noncriminal prisoner to reorient himself this way.

Anybody else have any theories?

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Out of everything black Americans are facing, THIS is the 'serious moral issue' that black churches need to tackle?

"The time is now for conservative black churches to join with white Christians in opposing this ruling. For far too long churches have sat on the sidelines while serious moral issues have been decided without their participation. This issue is about right and wrong.

"Changing the definition of traditional marriage to include homosexuals is wrong and Christians have a moral duty to speak out against it. Black ministers must encourage their congregations to support grassroots coalitions that seek to protect traditional marriage."--Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, President of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, on the recent California Supreme Court pro-gay marriage decision

Are you kidding me? Seventy percent of all black children are born out of wedlock, most are growing up without a father in their homes, the black family has been shredded, black noncustodial fathers are harassed and jailed over unrealistic child support demands and are only marginally able to participate in their children's lives, and the good reverend with a straight face tells us that the problem black churches need to focus on is...gay marriage?! Out of everything black Americans are facing, this is the "serious moral issue" that black churches need to tackle?

I would love for Jesse to explain the connection between gay marriage and the woes faced by black families. My opinions on the recent court decision are elaborated in my recent post Christian Groups' Hysterics over New CA. Pro-Gay Marriage Decision.

I had an odd run-in with Peterson when we were both on a speaker's panel at a Los Angeles discussion during a screening of the documentary "Before the Fact" at the Raleigh studios in Los Angeles in 2005. He and I were on the discussion panel, and we clashed after he made several wild and insulting generalizations about women, including "99% of [family] violence is coming from women."

After I distanced myself from his clownish comments he accused me of wimping out, and he and I got into a brief, angry jawing match in front of everybody. It was strange, to say the least. I've watched with mild amusement as Peterson's prominence and media profile has continued to increase--it tells you more about the way the media works than you want to know.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

The Feminist Dissident: Men's Activists Unfairly Blame Women for Low Conviction Rates in Rape Cases

"Men’s activists have a narrower focus of blame [for acquittals in rape cases]: the women themselves. If women weren’t lying cows, real victims would get their justice. They base the lying cow theory on a high plurality of cases considered by investigators to be unfounded."

The purpose of "The Feminist Dissident" is to give feminists a chance to speak directly to my audience, and my audience to debate the issues with them in a civil manner. To read previous entries, click here.

Contributors include/have included Micky M. (aka Michelle), Dan Oppenheimer and Jamie Berger of the blog Masculinity and its Discontents, and Hari Narayan Singh Khalsa (aka Harq-al-Ada). If you are a feminist and are interested in submitting a blog post, please email me at glenn@glennsacks.com.

Men's Activists Unfairly Blame Women for Low Conviction Rates in Rape Cases
By Hari Narayan Singh Khalsa

My perception of men’s and women’s issues has been fraught with uncertainty and frequent change as long as I have had perceptions of them. When I first started reading feminist and masculist blogs during my Freshman year of college I approached them with a voyeuristic air. Who are these madmen and loony women who are so angry about supposed unfairness based on gender in this age? Why are they so pissed off?

The latter question I still haven’t answered, but I have grudgingly come to appreciate that both groups have valid points on many topics. On some issues though, feminists and masculists remain stubbornly, unwaveringly wrong. One of those is the prosecution rate for alleged rape.

It is human nature to see purpose and agency in all things; we do not like to think of important phenomena as being random or uncontrollable. The problem with this is that we are quick to blame someone when something goes badly. Anyone will do, but preferably a selection of scapegoats that helps our personal agenda.

The low prosecution rate of rape looks like a symptom of a broken system. Either countless victims are not getting justice or defendants are having their lives unnecessarily upset in large numbers, possibly both.

Feminists tend to blame a sexist culture that supposedly allows officials and juries to be swayed by testimony as to a woman’s dress, prior sexual activity, etc. Alleged rapists aren’t prosecuted, according to feminists, because of permissiveness about rape and society’s blaming of the victim.

Men’s activists have a narrower focus of blame: the women themselves. If women weren’t lying cows, real victims would get their justice. They base the lying cow theory on a high plurality of cases considered by investigators to be unfounded.

“Unfounded,” however, does not connote positive proof of falsehood, merely lack of evidence for verification. I agree with MRAs that alleged rapists, like other criminal defendants, should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and that that sentiment should extend beyond the courtroom. I also believe it should extend to those who might be suspected of giving false rape accusations; for some reason the standard of innocent until proven guilty is forgotten in such cases by some people.

A standard of evidence that favors the accused is a valuable part of our democracy. However, it will inevitably produce a lot of false dismissals and acquittals for types of crime that are difficult to prove. This issue, for me, comes down to a disappointingly banal factor: the nature of the evidence commonly available in rape cases.

A large proportion of rape accusations being of the “date rape” variety means establishing that sexual contact occurred is insufficient, that evidence concerning existence of consent essentially comes down to he said/she said. Given a legal system that wisely prioritizes physical evidence, neither society nor law officials can be blamed for the current state of affairs.

One could point out, as feminists do, that a sizable proportion of the public does think a woman carries some of the blame for rape based on how she dresses, etc. I prefer to be charitable and guess at a different causal relationship between prosecution rates and victim blaming: the low rate causes people to want to blame the victim. They need to alleviate the cognitive dissonance of seeing someone who probably was justified in her accusation come back from a courtroom defeated. In the inherently just world most people believe in, someone must be at fault after all.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

A Mexican Lesson in Teaching Respect for Elders

My daughter sometimes likes me to tell her Latin American folk tales as bedtime stories.  I learned quite a lot of them while getting my Masters Degree in Latin American Studies at UCLA.  There is one short story in particular that I remember, which I thought was a very effective way of teaching young people to respect and care for the elderly.

I'm sure somewhere on the web someone could find a better version of it than what I told her last night, but this is the story how I remember it:

"A family lives on a farm in rural Mexico and the grandfather lives with them.  The grandfather is old and sickly and the family is struggling economically.  Finally the father doesn't feel that they can take care of the grandfather anymore, so he tells his son to get a shovel and to come with him into the forest.

"The father brings the old man into the forest, takes the shovel and clubs him with it from behind, killing him.  Then the father and the son use the shovel to bury him and cover the hole.

"As the father and son are making their way out of the forest, the father notices that the boy is still carrying the shovel.  The father says to the boy, 'That's an old shovel--you can just leave it here.' The boy replies to his father:

"'No, dad, I think I'd better keep it.  I might need it someday.'"

[Late note: Apparently Linda Stofle of Bellflower [Los Angeles] California could have used this lesson. Today she was charged with murdering her 85-year-old widower father and burying him in her backyard. The most recent story about it is here--I just heard on the radio that she has now been charged.]

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

(The drawing above is of Dia de los Muertos/"Day of the Dead," and doesn't really have anything to do with my story, except that it is another aspect of Mexican folklore.)

A Sad Commentary on Our Education System

I just had this conversation with an insurance company phone representative:

Me: Hi, I need to straighten out a billing error.

Insurance Company Representative: OK, what state are you in?

Me: California

Insurance Company Representative: Northern or Southern?

Me: I'm in Los Angeles

Insurance Company Representative: Is that Northern California or Southern California?

Me: Los Angeles, ma'am.

Insurance Company Representative: I don't know where that is--I was born in Florida.

I was a little appalled and said to myself, "I can see this happening if it's a call center in India, but how could an American be so clueless?"

Then I realized--if it were a call center in India, they would've known...

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

Some Thoughts on Child Support Amnesties

"When child support payments pile up, parents who owe money often stay away from their children for fear of being arrested.

"Genesee County is offering a solution: Turn yourself in between Mother's Day and Father's Day and you won't be arrested.

"It's a new amnesty program the county is trying out. It's called Parent Safe Surrender.

"Sitting in a cell, they wouldn't be able to pay, so the people at Genesee County Friend of the Court thought, 'Why not just let them turn themselves in?'"

This temporary child support amnesty program from the Genesee County, Michigan Friend of the Court is a good idea, I guess, although I trust Michigan child support about as much as I can dance ballet. I would also add that in a state hard hit by economic troubles like Michigan, a large percentage of the alleged "child support arrears" are fake, and are instead caused by  fathers' inability to get their child support modified downward after being laid off.

However, one thing in the story did interest me--the statement, "When child support payments pile up, parents who owe money often stay away from their children for fear of being arrested." Child support enforcement often criticizes child support debtor dads for not being in their kids' lives or they say "at least they should have paid some," but the reality is that the state's punitive measures often drive the fathers away. It is nice to see this acknowledged.

I made this point during my debate with Ohio Butler County Child Support Enforcement Agency Executive Director Cynthia Brown last year. Butler launched a highly-publicized campaign which put mug shots of the County’s “Most Wanted Deadbeat Parents” on pizza boxes. She said the "deadbeats" she was pursuing and publicly humiliating "had been gone for years." I replied, "Maybe they're gone because you've been chasing them."

The full story is Turn yourself in between Mother's Day, Father's Day, you won't be arrested (WJRT, 05/09/08)--thanks to Cecilia, a reader, for sending it. To watch my debate with Brown on FOX News, click here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Author Says Rebecca Eckler Misquoted Her in a 'Horrifying' Way

Background: In Author Says Divorced/Separated Dads Owe Their Exes a Mother's Day Gift, I criticized Canadian journalist Rebecca Eckler's recent article Get what you want this Mother's Day. Twist the ex's arm (Globe and Mail, 5/6/08).

Canadian journalist Lydia Lovric, a critic of Rebecca Eckler, posted on my blog about some of Eckler's history--see my post 'Rebecca Eckler put her kid in day-care and had two nannies--you can barely call her a mother...'

Canadian writer Vanessa Craft (pictured), author of Out of Character, wrote me about Eckler's piece and is fuming, claiming she was misquoted and misinterpreted. She asked me to post her letter below, saying she "wants the opportunity to clear my name."

Vanessa Craft responds to Rebecca Eckler

Hi Glenn,

I was pretty shocked by Eckler's Globe and Mail piece, and I wanted to make it clear that my comments were sarcastically and obviously in a joking manner at the end of the interview session.

I had already said numerous things about the great relationship I have with my daughter's father and how considerate he is towards me even though he is under no responsibility to do so.  I was under the impression that the article was about what single moms do to handle being on their own over mother's day, more of a 'Do you still get a card from your ex? Do you spend it with friends and family?' type of thing, not so much about how to collect presents from their former partners. Needless to say it was pretty horrifying when I saw the story.

I unfortunately assumed that I could expect to be quoted correctly - no fact checker called me, and I certainly wouldn't have agreed for that quote to have been used as I feel it was completely misrepresented.

Best and thanks for your time,

Vanessa

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Researchers Cite 'Myth' That 'Few Men Experience Domestic Violence'

An interesting new study from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Group Health Center for Health Studies on male victims of domestic violence. In the study, "The researchers defined domestic violence to include nonphysical abuse—threats, chronic disparaging remarks, or controlling behavior—as well as physical abuse: slapping, hitting, kicking, or forced sex." I think the results would be more meaningful had the researchers separated the two, or only counted physical violence.

Still, the researchers' press release cited five "myths" about male victims of domestic violence, including "Few men experience domestic violence," "Abuse of men has no serious effects," and "Abused men don't stay, because they're free to leave."

Men experience domestic violence, with health impact, Group Health study debunks five myths about abuse of men
(5/19/08)

SEATTLE—Domestic violence can happen to men, not only to women, according to Group Health research in the June American Journal of Preventive Medicine. "Domestic violence in men is under-studied and often hidden—much as it was in women 10 years ago," said study leader Robert J. Reid, MD, PhD, an associate investigator at the Group Health Center for Health Studies. "We want abused men to know they're not alone." His findings confirm some common beliefs but also debunk five myths about abuse in men:

Myth 1: Few men experience domestic violence. Many do. In-depth phone interviews with over 400 randomly sampled adult male Group Health patients surprised Dr. Reid and his colleagues: 5% had experienced domestic violence in the past year, 10% in the past five years, and 29% over their lifetimes. The researchers defined domestic violence to include nonphysical abuse—threats, chronic disparaging remarks, or controlling behavior—as well as physical abuse: slapping, hitting, kicking, or forced sex.

Myth 2: Abuse of men has no serious effects. The researchers found domestic violence is associated with serious, long-term effects on men's mental health. Women are more likely than men to experience more severe physical abuse, said Dr. Reid. "But even nonphysical abuse——can do lasting damage." Depressive symptoms were nearly three times as common in older men who had experienced abuse than in those who hadn't, with much more severe depression in the men who had been abused physically.

Myth 3: Abused men don't stay, because they're free to leave. In fact, men may stay for years with their abusive partners. "We know that many women may have trouble leaving abusive relationships, especially if they're caring for young children and not working outside the home," said Dr. Reid. "We were surprised to find that most men in abusive relationships also stay, through multiple episodes, for years."

Myth 4: Domestic violence affects only poor people. The study actually showed it to be an equal-opportunity scourge. "As we found in our previous research with women experiencing domestic violence, this is a common problem affecting people in all walks of life," said Dr. Reid. "Our patients at Group Health have health insurance and easy access to health care, and their employment rate and average income, education level, and age are higher than those of the rest of the U.S. population."

To read more, click here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Florida Court: It's OK to Look up a Woman's Skirt with a Mirror, as Long as It's a Public Place

"Former teacher Brian Presken, 32, was accused of using a mirror to look under a woman's skirt last summer at Barnes & Noble Booksellers on Airport Boulevard in Pensacola.

"Defense attorney Katheryne Snowden argued that the voyeurism charge should be dropped because Presken's accuser didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place under Florida law.

"The law under which Presken was charged states, 'It is illegal to secretly observe someone with lewd, lascivious and indecent intent in a dwelling, structure or conveyance, and when such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy.'

"Snowden said the statute her client is charged under — 810.14 — doesn't define the phrase 'reasonable expectation of privacy.'

"Judge George J. Roark III agreed and dismissed the charge Friday afternoon."

The feminists are up in arms over this case, and at least as it is explained in this newspaper article, I can't blame them.  A woman goes to a Barnes & Noble bookstore, a man apparently uses a mirror to look under her skirt, and his attorney argues that it's okay because she was in a public place and thus "didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy"?!

That is an outrageous claim, but defense attorneys say all sorts of things, so I don't worry about that too much.  What is troublesome is that the judge agreed and dismissed the charges.  Do they really expect us to believe that just because a woman is in a public place it is okay to use a mirror to look up her skirt?

Another interesting part of the story is this -- "Assistant State Attorney Greg Marcille said the ruling will not be appealed. 'We intend to ask the Legislature in next year's session to consider amending the statute to cover situations such as what occurred in this case.'"

Here we have a quirk in the law, and the legislature will probably fix it ASAP. While I would agree with Marcille in this case, it shows you what good politics feminism is, and how quickly legislators and officials often respond to women's concerns.  The full article is Voyeurism charge tossed (Pensacola News Journal, 5/17/08).

Vanessa Valenti of www.feministing.com wrote about this decision with considerable dissatisfaction in her recent blog post 'Peeping Toms' gain popularity in the courts.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Mary Winkler discusses her visitation with her daughters

"My girls are my girls, and I'm their mother.  We were just put back together, and we picked up where we were separated."--Mary Winkler, from Mary Winkler Breaks Her Silence (WREG-TV, 5/16/08)

Yes, Mary, you just pick up right where you left off.  Please don't let the fact that you shot these children's father in the back and then allowed him to slowly bleed to death -- even pulling the phone out of reach so the man couldn't dial 911 to save himself since you wouldn't -- interfere in your relationship with your girls.  Just get the girls back and it will be just like old times.

And of course television reporter Brian Kuebler can't bring himself to utter one word questioning this happy scene or implying that anything could be wrong.  His e-mail address is brian.kuebler@wreg.com.  The full article can be seen here.

To learn more about this case, see my co-authored column No child custody for husband-killer Mary Winkler (World Net Daily, 9/14/07).

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