We're in the middle of my daughter's birthday party and the central theme or event of the party is a little movie that she and her friends are making at the party. They arranged it, did a script, acted it out, and I filmed it.

Now about 12 girls are standing outside my guest house/office as I write this, waiting for me to emerge with their movie on a DVD so they can all watch it. Except that as I transferred the movie from the camera to a DVD I just realized that during one of their movie's key scenes I...uh...didn't have the camera on.

My wife just came in and said, "Honey, they're all waiting they want to watch their movie, are you ready?"

I replied, "Ten more minutes, dear, 10 more minutes."

Anybody have any ideas? Quickly?

[Late note: Well, it turned out that the unfilmed scene wasn’t quite as important as I had thought. I decided to take the “if they don’t bring it up, I won’t bring it up” approach.

The girls were so excited over their movie and seeing themselves on film that nobody even said anything about the missing scene. Just consider me lucky…--GS]

To discuss this on my blog, click here.

UK Child Support 'Reform'--Sound Familiar?

Child support enforcement agencies with broad powers and little judicial oversight enforcing error-riddled orders--sound familiar?

From Joe Willis' new column Dads - the new terrorists? (The Northern Echo, 6/2/08):

It could almost be anti-terror legislation - the power to take money from bank accounts without consent and without a court order, the power to freeze accounts, seize the proceeds of house sales, impose curfews, and confiscate passports and driving licences.

However, this is not a new law to help MI5 tackle extremism. The powers are contained within the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill and have been designed to help the authorities recover money from non-resident parents - usually fathers - owed for their children's upkeep.

The Government announced a major overhaul of the child maintenance system last year and the legislation is currently working its way through Parliament and could be given Royal Assent within weeks. The bill will see the much-maligned Child Support Agency (CSA) replaced with a new more powerful body, the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (C-MEC).

Few people would question the need to abolish the CSA, which has been dogged by controversy and complaints ever since its launch in 1993. However, a leading North-East solicitor has warned the extent of the powers due to be handed to the new commission will only increase the heartache for separating families - and lead to even greater confrontation and friction.

Kim Fellowes, from North-East-based solicitors Dickinson Dees, sits on the National Committee of Resolution, a 5,000-strong association of family lawyers committed to the non-confrontational resolution of marital and domestic disputes.

She believes the commission's ability to take maintenance payments without prior approval from a court could prove extremely controversial. She says: "For fathers, this means the safety net of the court has been removed. Someone might not agree that they have been sent to prison for a criminal offence, but at least they know they have been tried before a court.

The difference here is that there is no court scrutiny.

"And if the father believes he is being unfairly pursued or harassed, that could mean a severe backlash for the mother as she will get the blame. The risk is that even a separation that was previously fairly amicable could become strained."

One of the most worrying aspects, according to Miss Fellowes, is that the powers are being afforded to the successor of an organisation like the CSA - which has a well-documented history of making mistakes. One report compiled during the agency's early days found errors in 86 per cent of cases.

Improvements were promised. But a fresh report carried out by the National Audit Office in 2006 revealed a one-in-five chance that payments were inaccurate. Miss Fellowes and others believe the powers included in the bill are so momentous that they may even breach human rights regulations. She predicts strenuous legal challenges once the powers begin to be applied, possibly in the autumn.

Read the full piece here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

The Feminist Dissident: Sexism on Feminist, Men's Rights Websites (Part I)

"Universal among feminists seems to be the idea that misandry definitionally cannot exist. They meet those who address it with mockery. In many discussions, mentions of individual male innocence are dismissed as 'Not my Nigel' whines, when the question of why men as a group should be maligned is never brought up."

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.

In Part I this week, Hari tackles misandry on feminist websites. Next week it's Men's Rights Activists' turn, as he will be detailing misogyny on men's activist websites.

Prejudice among Those Who Should Know Better: Feminists and Misandry
By Hari Narayan Singh Khalsa

I have had several exchanges on this site with regards to comments I perceived as misogynist. It became increasingly apparent that those conversations were unproductive and brought on my part in an impulsive and random manner that probably created more confusion than clarity. This is not to say I was wrong, I wasn’t. My failure was in not adequately explaining where I was coming from, not giving sufficient context for those observations that I had naively thought were obvious. My arguments needed the kind of context and clarity that only a dedicated post on the subject could bring. This is not that post, but it is related.

I will be mucking quite thoroughly into the subject of misogyny among MRA’s next week; today I would like to talk about misandry. As a gesture of goodwill toward this community which I have not infrequently, and not always fairly, criticized, I will be discussing misandry as specifically expressed by feminists. Before getting into a subject that many of you are tired of hearing from me, I hope to demonstrate that I am capable of honestly and sympathetically discussing an issue that is of interest to masculists.

I have mentioned before that what drew me to feminist and masculist issues at first was a kind of voyeurism. I saw gender advocacy as a train wreck simply too morbidly fascinating to ignore. Though I have come to understand men’s and women’s advocates better in recent times I preserve some of that primordial interest in my regard to radical sites like I Blame the Patriarchy and the late Den of the Biting Beaver. These sites are fun to read for the same reason as Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh are fun to listen to—their asininity makes me feel morally and intellectually superior and is useful training for dealing with outrageous rhetoric.

BB was one endless rant about the awfulness of men and how MEN HATE WOMEN THEY HATE US SO MUCH AND ALL THEY DO IS RAPE US AND ABUSE US AND WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO BREATHE… with a depressingly large chorus of assenters.

The admittedly dazzlingly entertaining writer Twisty Faster of I Blame the Patriarchy is more sophisticated in her delivery of misandry. There is much artful handwaving about how women’s oppression is the result of this sprawling abstract institution called patriarchy, but her disdain for “honky dudes” seeps out at every corner, obfuscated as it is by her deft blurring of irony and sincerity.

If you have any doubts about the misandry pulsing in her swollen obsteporal lobe, however, look no further than her promotion of the SCUM Manifesto as material for “advanced patriarchy-blamers,” the most prominently linked such external document on the site...

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

Dr. Linda Nielsen: Children may pull away from dad after divorce because he's the parent willing to discipline them

"In cases where the mother continually excuses and tolerates the children’s infantile, aggressive, or inappropriate behavior, then the father can come across as much too uptight, inflexible, or demanding.

"Especially as teenagers, children in such situations sometimes pull away from their father after the divorce in part because he has higher expectations for them and is willing to discipline and to stand up to them when they are out of line."-- Dr. Linda Nielsen, President of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children

ACFC President Dr. Linda Nielsen, author of the book Embracing Your Father, wrote an academic paper for the Journal of Divorce & Remarriage called Disenfranchising, Demeaning, and Demoralizing Divorced Dads : A Review of the literature several years ago. One of the paper's most interesting sections is about the differences in parenting styles between mothers and fathers. It is excerpted below.

Nielsen has many citations to support her arguments--I have removed them but they can be found on page 6 of her paper.

Mother’s and father’s parenting style
Dr. Linda Nielsen

The father’s relationship with his children can also be influenced by how different or how alike his style of parenting is to their mother’s. When both parents are similar in terms of setting limits and disciplining the children, then the father isn’t as likely to end up being criticized or shunned. But in cases where the mother continually excuses and tolerates the children’s infantile, aggressive, or inappropriate behavior, then the father can come across as much too uptight, inflexible, or demanding. Especially as teenagers, children in such situations sometimes pull away from their father after the divorce in part because he has higher expectations for them and is willing to discipline and to stand up to them when they are out of line.

The bad news for many divorced fathers is that many mothers abdicate too much power and control to their children - especially if the mother hasn’t remarried and especially if the child is a boy. And sadly, these children often end up less socially mature, less self-reliant, less self-disciplined, and less psychologically well-adjusted than their peers.

These differences in parenting styles after divorce are not especially surprising, however, since it is often the father who is primarily responsible for setting the limits, encouraging self-control, and disciplining the children in married families. Moreover, even well-educated mothers with ample money after their divorce often provide too little supervision, household order, and discipline as single parents.
 
And regardless of income, education, or marital status, the woman who did not have a secure, loving relationship with her own parents while she was growing up is the most likely to be overly indulgent and overly submissive with her own children. This certainly isn’t to say that divorced mothers are always more indulgent and more lax than divorced fathers. In fact, whichever parent feels the guiltiest about the divorce is often the one who does the worst job when it comes to setting limits, saying “no” to, or disciplining the children. And whichever parent is guilt-ridden often goes to great lengths to deny that a deeply troubled child has any problems whatsoever.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

His Side with Glenn Sacks Radio Commentary: Lesbian Divorce/Break-ups

My recent His Side with Glenn Sacks radio commentary for KLAA AM 830 in Los Angeles discusses the way lesbian break-ups.

When two lesbians agree to have a child together, and when the child has bonded with both his or her biological mother and his or her social mother, I believe that the relationship between the child and the social mother should be protected after the lesbian couple breaks up.

To listen to the commentary, click here or on the audio button below.

To learn more, see my blog post 'The lesbian biological mom does to her ex exactly what heterosexual mothers so often do to their ex-husbands...' or click here.

His Side with Glenn Sacks radio commentaries are broadcast daily on KLAA AM 830, a 50,000 watt talk station in Los Angeles and Orange County. KLAA AM 830 is owned by Arte Moreno, owner of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

From 2003-2005, His Side with Glenn Sacks ran in a syndicated talk show format in Los Angeles, New York City, Boston, Seattle, and other cities. To listen to show archives, click here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

A Feminist Disputes the 'Marriage Strike'

Antigone of www.punkassblog.com recently wrote a post about a couple of my recent blog posts. She writes:

I am on Glenn Sacks' mailing list. Sometimes, I even go read his articles and it doesn’t make me despair for the human race (although, I’ve never being able to get through a comment thread without seeing red).

Then there are the vast majority of his articles...

Antigone is not friendly, but on the positive side, she is indicative of an ethos I try to promote among both Men's Rights Activists and feminists. The ethos is this: don't assume the other side is wrong or evil, and don't assume your side is noble and correct. Be familiar with the opposition's arguments and give them a fair look, even if one disagrees and is critical. Antigone, to her credit, makes an effort to do this.

Unfortunately, it wasn't a very successful effort. She writes:

[Sacks'] “New Study: Men on Marriage Strike Because They Fear Divorce” popped up on my feed. “Oh my god,” I think. “Has it finally happened? Have feminists pushed men TOO FAR and now they never want to get married?”

Well, no actually. The real “study”* says that most men don’t want to marry the wrong person, not that they are striking on marriage. It also found that most guys would rather live unmarried than marry the wrong women. The survey itself didn’t say anything that any person with a functioning brain couldn’t tell you, and mirrored what most single were saying “I might marry if I find the right person, but I’m not particularly broken up about my single-life, thank you very much”. No marriage strike, no evil feminists: just further evidence that marriage isn’t for everyone.

Some of what Antigone says is true, but she misses even more. Regarding the study, according to Reuters' Men prefer being solo over a bad marriage: study (6/2/08):

...men were not afraid of marriage -- but they were afraid of a bad marriage.

"Men are 10 times more scared of marrying the wrong person than of never getting married at all," Weisman told Reuters in a telephone interview.

"This is the first generation of people who have grown up with bad divorces. People assume there is something wrong if you don't marry but these are men who have made a different choice and not given in to social pressures"...

But while 72 percent of respondents said they were not afraid of marriage, about half of them said the situation that scared them most was marrying the wrong person...

Weisman also found that financial issues, both positive and negative, played a large part in men's fear of commitment...

"[T]hose who are financially sound were terrified what a bad divorce could do to them."

"Terrified what a bad divorce could do to them"--that sure sounds to me like men are afraid of marrying because of the family law system, thus a "Marriage Strike."

Antigone seems to think I put all blame for the problems with the family law system on feminists, but that certainly isn't true and certainly isn't what I've maintained. Feminists are part of the problem. Traditional chivalrous males (like most judges) are part of the problem. Attorneys are part of the problem, and the government is part of the problem. And while feminists have certainly caused great harm in family law, they certainly aren't always wrong, either.

Back to the subject of the "Marriage Strike," this analysis does have limitations, too. They include:

1) Men have usually throughout history been hesitant to get married to one degree or another. This was true long before the era of divorce and anti-father family courts.

2) To some degree the decline of the rates of people marrying is not caused by men, "Marriage Strike" or no, but instead by women not wanting to marry.

3) Much of the societal pressure to marry is gone.

Still, I believe that this strike is happening, and that this study helps to confirm it.

Antigone's full post is here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

His Side with Glenn Sacks Radio Commentary: Media Bashes Men over Housework

My recent His Side with Glenn Sacks radio commentary for KLAA AM 830 in Los Angeles discusses the unfair, anti-male spin the media put on a recent housework study.

To listen to the commentary, click here or on the audio button below.

To learn more, see my co-authored column Media Reaction to New Housework Study Minimizes Men’s Work, Sacrifice for Their Families (Tucson Citizen, 4/1/08).

His Side with Glenn Sacks radio commentaries are broadcast daily on KLAA AM 830, a 50,000 watt talk station in Los Angeles and Orange County. KLAA AM 830 is owned by Arte Moreno, owner of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

From 2003-2005, His Side with Glenn Sacks ran in a syndicated talk show format in Los Angeles, New York City, Boston, Seattle, and other cities. To listen to show archives, click here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

'Don't Drop the Soap' Board Game Mocks Male Victims of Violence

A letter from Tim Murray, a reader:

Dear Glenn:

Here's a board game that's sure to rival "Monopoly" in popularity and please everyone: Don't Drop the Soap. The goal is to fight your way through various prison hazards to achieve parole, all the while trying to avoid "being cornered" (a code word for "raped") in the prison shower -- hence the hilarious name, "Don't Drop the Soap."  It comes with its own Soap Dish Parole card holder.  And this delightful game can be yours for just $34.99.

Delightful, because we all know how funny prison rape is.

The prevalence of prison rape is staggering, see this, for example.

The typical victim of an assault is a non-violent young, gay or trans male. For more information, click here.

Imagine the outcry if a board game was released called "Date Rape," and the object was to avoid landing your token on the GHB space.  The purveyors of any such game would be barraged with outraged emails.  And rightly so.  "Date rape" should not be a joking matter.  But prison rape -- where young, non-violent, totally defenseless males are subjected to often brutal sexual assaults -- is hilarious, right?

The victims of neither date rape nor prison rape deserve it, so why the double-standard?  The only significant difference between the typical victim of the two kinds of rape is gender.  In short, prison rape is dismissed as just more male-on-male violence and does not have a prominent place in the feminist sexual assault metanarrative, which has dominated the public discourse on rape for decades. 

The game was developed by John Sebelius, 23, the son of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (mentioned as a possible VP candidate on the Democratic ticket. To find out more, click here.) and a U.S. magistrate judge.  They should be very proud of their little boy.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Advice Columnist Amy Dickinson Insists on Being Clueless

In Advice Columnist Amy Dickinson Gives Some Harsh Advice to Woman about Her Man, I recently quoted from one of Dickinson's advice columns:

"Dear Amy: My boyfriend and I were watching my 5-year-old niece. She came to me and told me that my boyfriend said he was going to punch her in the nose. I know that when my boyfriend is playing with the kids he plays around and says things, but he is adamant that he didn't say that.

"I spoke with my niece's parents, and we chalked it up as a misunderstanding.

"But now my boyfriend does not want her playing with him, and he refuses to watch her unless someone is with him every minute.

"He is in law enforcement and says he sees things like this all the time, situations in which a kid accuses an adult of doing something and the adult gets in trouble. His exact words were, 'God forbid she said I touched her.'

"I don't know how to get him to understand that she is a 5-year-old kid with a vivid imagination, and I feel this might be the end of our relationship.

"HELPLESS AND CLUELESS"

I thought the boyfriend in the scenario above was overreacting a little but I was floored by the response by advice columnist Amy Dickinson. Dickinson writes:

"Most of what young children say has some basis in reality. You should believe your niece but also assume that perhaps your boyfriend was horsing around and that his statement was taken out of context.

"Your boyfriend is the adult in this scenario, and it is his job to put things in perspective. Being in law enforcement, he should be more -- not less -- understanding about this incident. The fact that he is so punitive and blames a 5-year-old for this incident highlights his own immaturity.

"I do agree with him about this one thing, however: He should not be alone with your niece because he can't be trusted to treat her well."
 
The full column is Boyfriend defensive about girl's comment.

To Amy's considerable annoyance, a bunch of my readers wrote to her protesting her anti-male advice. In her latest column, she reprints one gentleman's letter. He wrote:

DEAR AMY: Your advice to "Helpless and Clueless," the woman whose 5-year-old niece told people that her boyfriend had threatened to punch her, is also clueless.

You said that he should have been more understanding and not so punitive.

I think his recognition of a potential false allegation in the future and his insistence that he does not wish to be alone with the 5-year-old is in itself proof of maturity.

The immature one is the girlfriend in wanting him to ignore a potential problem. After all, he only desires a witness for his protection.

If the girlfriend cannot accept that, he is better off without her. What he did shows that he can be trusted. - Retired Law Enforcement

Amy's a slow learner, though. She responds:

DEAR RETIRED: Many people have written in, echoing your stance that this man was correct in refusing to be alone with the 5-year-old.

I agreed that he shouldn't be alone with the little girl, but for entirely different reasons. In my view, the man displayed such a level of anger over the girl's statement that I didn't think he could be trusted to behave well in her presence.

Interesting too that she pays so little heed to what two law enforcement officers say about cases like this. I'd bet they know a lot more about what can happen to falsely accused men than Amy does.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Thanks to Kelly, a reader, for sending me the story.

Shared Parenting Bill 'Exemplifies American values, is held up in Legislature for all the wrong reasons'

As I've previously noted, Michigan shared parenting groups have been fighting to pass HB 4564, a shared parenting bill, and have gained considerable support in the process. Several Michigan shared parenting advocacy groups, including Dads and Moms of Michigan, an affiliate of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, testified in the Michigan House Judiciary Committee's May 7 testimony-only hearing.

To learn more about the shared parenting bill, see my recent co-authored column, Shared Parenting Bill Will Help Michigan’s Kids, Overburdened Court System (Oakland Press, 5/5/08), or click here.

This week the Oakland Press' editorial board wrote an excellent editorial in support of the bill. In Legislature must quit stalling parenting bill (6/4/08), they write:

A bill that exemplifies many traditionally American values - such as fair play, equal rights and family - is being held up in the state Legislature for all the wrong reasons.

House Bill 4564 sits in the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Southfield Democrat Rep. Paul Condino. It doesn't appear to be going anywhere, and that's a shame. The bill is really an attempt to correct an injustice that has existed in our nation for decades.

The bill sets into law a reasonable request - it calls for equal parenting time for fit parents....

It's a shame a bill like this is needed. Historically, fathers have been on the short end in court cases involving custody and visitation when the parents divorce.

The best interest of the child should always be the top priority, but too often that leaves fathers out of the equation.

Judges have expressed concern that the bill may take away some of their judicial discretion.

In fact, among the two groups that oppose the bill are the Michigan National Organization for Women and the State Bar of Michigan, which have submitted arguments against it, saying mandatory joint custody takes discretion away from the judge and also may not be in the best interest of the child.

But we believe the excuse is weak.

We can't understand why these groups would oppose the bills.

If we didn't know any better, we'd say the bar association was more concerned about maintaining long custodial court battles and the high attorney fees that accompany them.

As for NOW, we thought it was an equal rights organization, but it appears the only "equal rights" they're concerned about is for women. True, women should be their primary concern, but you would think that they would favor what's fair for everyone.

Reverse discrimination and winning your rights at the expense of someone else is a biased, self-righteous and self-centered position to take. Here, the prejudice is against fathers and their rights...

We think anything that helps good fathers stay "good dads" is worth passing. If the law has to be tweaked so that some judges don't feel so put upon, then make the necessary changes.

But it's also time the state Legislature stood up for fathers. Dads have some rights, too.

Read the full editorial here. To write a Letter to the Editor of the Oakland Press in praise of this editorial, click on vop@oakpress.com.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Court Ruling: In Child Support Cases, Burden of Proof Is Still on Prosecution

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals just made a good ruling on the issue of jailing child-support debtors.  As we've discussed on many occasions, while it is certainly true that there are fathers who do not come through for their children, many child-support obligors are punished and even jailed simply because they are too poor to pay the child-support that the family law system demands of them.

The California Department of Child Support Services itself recently recognized this in a report -- to learn more, see Glenn's co-authored column New LA County Campaign Against ‘Deadbeat Dads’ Unfairly Targets Low-Income Fathers (Los Angeles Daily News, 3/26/08).

Court--Even in Child Support Cases, the Burden of Proof Is Still on the Prosecution

One of the ways that child-support obligors' rights are violated is that in some cases the burden of proof has been shifted from the state -- where it normally lies in criminal prosecutions -- onto the debtor.  The result has at times been de facto debtors prisons for child-support obligors. According to this story:

"West Virginia legislators violated state and national constitutions when they forced fathers facing felony child support charges to prove they couldn't pay, the Supreme Court of Appeals decided May 23.

"The Justices unanimously erased a law stating that in child support prosecutions 'the defendant's alleged inability to reasonably provide the required support may be raised only as an affirmative defense, after reasonable notice to the State.'

"The law 'unconstitutionally shifts to a defendant the burden of disproving an element of the offense,' Justice Robin Davis wrote. 'We have previously observed that it is a foundation of criminal law that the State must prove all the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'

"The law violates due process under Article III of the West Virginia Constitution and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, she wrote."

The full article can be seen at Justices say Legislature wrong on felony child support (West Virginia Record, 5/29/08).

An Unsympathetic Defendant

While we support this Court's ruling, we're not terribly enamored of the defendant in whose favor of a court ruled. Gabriel Stamm was ordered to pay a whopping $167.52 a month in child support.  Apparently he claims he was unable to pay it, and maybe that is true, but it seems unlikely.

Every day we deal with child-support obligors who, at least as the facts are laid out in this article, are far more sympathetic than Gabriel Stamm.  On a larger level, the important point is the legal principle, and its impact on child-support obligors as a whole, as opposed to the defendant in this particular case.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Trudy Schuett: Man-Friendly Fiction for Real People Never before has an author approached the subject of domestic violence with such clarity and compassion. Friends to the End is the story of a man's journey through an abusive relationship. Neither he or his best friends ever saw it coming. No one understood how this could happen to someone who was so smart, accomplished, and strong. To order the book, 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

Dad-Bashing in Father's Day Cards

From the Associated Press' In Father's Day cards, Dad is often portrayed as a lout (5/22/08):

Fathers sleep a lot, and they snore loudly. When they're awake, they like to fish or golf, but they're comically bad at both. They drink so much beer they're practically alcoholics, and they're complete couch potatoes, always watching television and hogging the remote.

At least, that's the less-than-favorable image of Dad on Father's Day greeting cards. It's a striking contrast to the poetic praise often expressed at Mother's Day. Many men say they are tired of the "put-down" cards and would like some affirmation for a change — and at least one greeting-card company is listening.

One father in Washington, D.C., who used to stay home with his kids and blog about his life as an at-home father, says the golf and fishing cards don't bother him, but he doesn't like the ones that make dads look incompetent.

"This idea that men are somehow biologically incapable of caring for their children is the sort of thing that I don't find particularly funny," said Brian Reid, father of two.

Not only greeting cards, but television and movies often convey the idea that Dad is unreliable with every parental duty from changing a diaper to picking the kids up at school, he says.

Greeting cards can be a good litmus test for the way society perceives various relationships and people. Companies want to sell cards, so they aim to hit a spark of truth. But generalizing in order to reach people can lead to stereotypes that then get perpetuated and take on a life of their own.

In an age where about 159,000 dads stay home with their children, according to 2006 U.S. Census numbers, it's hardly accurate to say that dads don't know what they're doing.

One Hallmark card at a Stop & Shop this season showed a cartoon depiction of "When dads pack lunches."

In the picture, some kids are eating lunch together, and one says, "Looks like I got a peanut butter and salami sandwich and a can of WD-40."

There you go: the stereotypical incompetent (and tool-obsessed) father.

On the positive side, apparently Hallmark has decided to change its ways:

"Men have told us they would like to feel a little more appreciated," said spokeswoman Deidre Parkes. "That doesn't mean you can't give your dad a funny Father's Day card, but it can be maybe complimentary humor rather than a negative card"...

...other than the small handful of "put-down" cards, most Father's Day greetings were thoughtful, appreciative and often quite mushy.

"I love you just like I did when I was little ... only now I appreciate you even more," reads one.

Another new Hallmark card with comedian Chris Rock carries the greeting, "Nobody ever says, 'Hey, Daddy, thanks for knocking out the rent. I sure love this hot water. It's easy to read with all this light.'"

This Father's Day remember: Dads are people, too. Choose your card wisely.

I like the Chris Rock bit (pictured) that is quoted. In that comedy routine he talks about the sacrifices fathers make to provide for their children.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

The full story is here--thanks to Kelly, a reader, for sending it.

An Important Win for Fathers, Children in Nebraska Supreme Court

We've often discussed anti-father bias in Child Protective Services cases.  Fathers are frequently marginalized and deprived of custody of their children when their wives/ex-wives/ex-girlfriends abuse their children.  This terrible Nebraska case detailed below is another example.

In the case, a mother abused her daughter and child protective services took the girl.  There were no accusations of abuse against the father.  Nevertheless, they deceived and manipulated the father into relinquishing custody of his daughter.

The girl was left fatherless -- can anyone guess what's going to happen to her?

Surprise, surprise -- without her father, the girl's life, in the words of the Nebraska Supreme Court, "spun out of control."  She lived the life that so many fatherless girls live -- doing drugs, running away from home, getting pregnant at a young age, etc.

Justice in these types of cases is rarely done.  In this one, justice came, but it came too late.

An important finding for fathers

The Nebraska Supreme Court said the girl had been "deprived of her right to a relationship with her father." One attorney noted:

"The ruling reinforces the principle that children have a right to a relationship with their parents, as well as parents having rights to their children."

In other words, the Nebraska Supreme Court has agreed with the central argument we put forward -- absent parental unfitness, children have a right to a relationship with both their parents.

The story is below--thanks to Les Veskrna, MD, Executive Director of the Children's Rights Council of Nebraska, for sending it.

Court says state erred in family meddling
BY MARTHA STODDARD
Omaha World Herald, 5/24/08

LINCOLN — A child welfare worker who wrongfully talked a Kimball, Neb., man into giving up his daughter for adoption must pay damages to the girl, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The high court agreed with the Kimball County District Court that Kelly Case, a caseworker for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, deprived the girl of her right to a relationship with her father without due process.

As a result, the high court said, the girl’s life “spun out of control.”

The girl, identified only as Amanda C., began doing drugs, ran away from her grandparents’ home, gave birth to a child out of wedlock and struggled financially.

“The evidence shows that the relinquishment that Case wrongfully orchestrated was a substantial factor in Amanda’s downward social spiral,” the Supreme Court said.

The high court upheld an award of $150,000 in damages and $64,697 in legal and other costs to Amanda.

Case was defended in the matter by the Attorney General’s Office and an HHS attorney. The state likely will pay the award...

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

UK F4J Protester Acquitted

In my blog post Arrest of UK F4J Protester--Much Ado about Nothing in March I wrote:

One problem for dads in divorce is that they can often be arrested and get bad publicity for things which really are quite trivial and meaningless. As an example, take the recent UK headline Spider-Man arrested for harassing ex-wife.

Sounds bad, right? Yet all that really happened is that fathers' rights activist Ray Barry (pictured as "Spiderman" at a Fathers 4 Justice protest) "was quizzed [by police] after distributing a leaflet containing details of his marriage split." According to Barry:

"The leaflet details my belief that the family courts do not deliver justice and so I have to seek it differently, through the public. The leaflet was not much different to one I had been using for the past four or five years."

The "58-year-old claimed not to have seen two of his three children for eight years and had only fortnightly access to the other."

So his crime? Distributing a leaflet complaining about his mistreatment in family court and by his ex-wife. Big deal.

For a variety of reasons I don't like it when protesters target judges' homes or their ex-wives' homes, and it isn't generally done. But here Barry has been unlawfully cut off from his children for 8 years and--gasp--distributes a leaflet complaining about it in the neighborhood, and he gets arrested?! Sounds pretty cockeyed to me.

And why have there been no legal consequences for the wife cutting Barry off from his children?

The article is Spider-Man arrested for harassing ex-wife (Birmingham News, 3/17/08). I met Ray at the Men's Equality Congress in Washington DC last year--seemed like a nice guy.

Surprise, surprise--the man who was accused of nothing has now been acquitted. Ray sent out this press release about it:

Spiderman acquitted

The Birmingham Evening Mail ran a story about me on the 17th of March, headlined:

"Spider-man arrested for harassing ex-wife."

I would be nice if similar coverage were given to my acquittal yesterday. I was found not guilty yesterday by Judge Qureshi at Wolverhampton Magistrates Court of harassing my ex-wife. I was charged with harassing her by distributing booklets about her. My defence was that the High Court had previously ruled I could do so, and that I was arrested for doing exactly the same thing in 2001, and on that occasion, the CPS read the booklet and said there was nothing unlawful in it...

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

More Child Support Enforcement Screw-ups--This Time with a Twist

Typical child support enforcement screw up, messing up an innocent parent's life and then continuing the harassment. The only difference is that this time the victim is a woman. From Woman Forced To Pay Child Support For Adult Son (WFTV.com, 6/1/08):

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- An Orange County Bus Driver is at risk of losing her drivers license, and job, if she doesn’t pay child support for her 18-year-old, married son.

After Kaila Stephens’ son got married last year, a judge ruled she could stop paying child support. She did, but the state is still trying to collect. Now, it’s threatening to take away her driver’s license, and in turn, her job.

Kaila’s son, David, is now a married man turning 19 this year. Records show a judge ruled in March she has “no money owed” in child support, but the Florida Department of Revenue didn’t get that message.

Every month she gets another letter in the mail threatening if she doesn’t pay, the state will suspend her license and seize her next paycheck....

Read the full article and watch the video here. Another question--even if she were really behind on her child support, how would taking her driver's license and costing her her job help?

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Woman 'Not Sexually nor Physically Abused by Her Husband,' but She Still Uses 'Battered Wife Syndrome' as a Defense

Background: Evan Stark (pictured) is a prominent feminist advocate for domestic violence victims and the author of Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (Interpersonal Violence) and numerous other DV books. I've discussed his work many times--to learn more, see my recent blog post Prominent Hard-line Feminist Shows Some Class, Apologizes for Calling Me a 'Notorious Right Wing Nut Case' or click here.

Stark was an opponent of our successful Campaign Against PBS's Father-Bashing Breaking the Silence in 2005.

The good Dr. Stark is at it again, this time trying to get a killer off on "Battered Mother's Dilemma" and "Battered Wife Syndrome"--despite the fact that the killer mom was "not sexually nor physically abused by her husband." In other words, she's a battered wife except for the fact that, um...she wasn't battered.

From Wife 'felt like a hostage,' expert testifies (Ottawa Citizen, 5/30/08):

On the night Teresa Pohchoo Craig killed her husband, she was caught in the coils of a psychological trauma called Battered Mother's Dilemma, a court heard yesterday.

Dr. Evan Stark, author of Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life, testified that Jack Craig systematically isolated, controlled and degraded his wife over the course of their 12-year relationship.

In a report prepared for the defence, Dr. Stark said Mrs. Craig also suffered from Battered Wife Syndrome and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, although Mrs. Craig was neither sexually nor physically abused by her husband.

Uh-huh. The section below is particularly humorous:

Mrs. Craig faced the sort of terrible choice that defines Battered Mother's Dilemma, [Stark] said. She could either leave the marriage for her own safety and freedom or protect her son's well-being by staying with her abusive husband. He also said the dilemma was "the primary dynamic" leading up to the killing of Mr. Craig...

Mr. Craig, 54, died of stab wounds on March 31, 2006. Mrs. Craig is charged with first-degree murder. Dr. Stark described how Mr. Craig frequently told his wife it was, "My way or the highway," and she could leave at any time.

But Mr. Craig warned his wife that if she left, he would get custody and she would never see their son again. "She felt like a hostage," Dr. Stark said.

The dad would get custody? On what planet?

Hope this gig pays good, Evan...

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Thanks to Jeremy Swanson for the story.

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