UK: When teaching boys, actions speak louder than words

Posted Dec 28th 2005 3:08PM
by Karen Walrond
Filed under: Child Development, Lifestyle, Media

From the Telegraph: the underachievement of boys in state-run schools has been acknowledged by the British government, which has now set up programs to address the issue. According to the article, currently, boys lag 17% behind girls for writing at the age of 11 and in examination results where they are 8% less likely than girls to get good grades.

Senior teachers at Hampton school at West London tested the boys at their single-sex school, and found a large percentage of them learned most effectively through actively doing things rather than the traditional "talk and chalk" method. Paul Smith, the teacher coordinating the program, stated "We have found that boys work most effectively when they know how the lesson is to be organised and when there is a wide range of activities appealing to the full range of learning styles. Where possible we get them out of their seats and when that is not appropriate give them opportunities to compete with each other on active tasks and to 'beat the clock.'"

I love it when teachers get innovative with educating children. Now the students are writing rap songs describing the circulation of blood through the body, and actually acting out scenes from Shakespeare. While it's apparently too early to tell whether their new methods are working, the teachers believe the students are learning more easily, and remembering what they've done.

Click here for more.

Abuse of Temporary Restraining Orders Endangers Real Victims

December 28, 2005 by Wendy McElroy, wendy@ifeminists.net

On Dec. 15, Santa Fe District Court Judge Daniel Sanchez signed a temporary restraining order against CBS late-night host David Letterman, requiring him to keep his distance from Colleen Nestler.

According to Nestler, for more than 10 years Letterman has been sending coded messages over the airwaves that communicated his desire to marry her. (Nestler has also accused TV personalities Regis Philbin and Kelsey Grammer of communicating with her through televised code.) Letterman says he doesn't know the woman.
Nestler's TRO may be ludicrous, but it highlights a no-nonsense debate on the possible misuse of restraining orders.

A restraining order is a court order "directing one person not to do something, such as make contact with another person, enter the family home or remove a child from the state." They are usually issued to women in regard to domestic violence, stalking and divorces in which violence is alleged.

TROs are "often granted without notice ... until a hearing can be held to determine the propriety of any injunctive relief." Nestler's TRO was granted ex parte, meaning only one party was heard by the judge.

The purpose of a restraining order is to protect someone from a credible threat. But the Nestler case raises questions about whether restraining orders have drifted from their original intent.

That permanent restraining orders require a hearing does not reassure skeptics. The judges and courts that issue TROs are the same ones deciding on whether to validate their prior decisions.

Judge Sanchez's reaction to unflattering press coverage is not reassuring, either. According to the newspaper Santa Fe New Mexican, "When asked if he might have made a mistake, Sanchez said 'no.' He also said he had read Nestler's application."

The application accused Letterman of causing mental cruelty, sleep deprivation and bankruptcy. Nestler requested that Letterman not "think of me, and release me from his mental harassment."

Sanchez emphasized reading the application because lawyers in his district have alleged he "often doesn't read legal documents submitted." Since issuing a TRO is within a judge's discretion, it is difficult to say which scenario is more disturbing: an informed judge validating Nestler's delusions or a negligent judge not bothering to read what he signs.

Even more disturbing is whether frivolous or unfounded TROs are commonplace.

Women's groups maintain that abuse of TROs is rare; they believe the issuance and enforcement of restraining orders must be strengthened to save women's lives.

There have been heartbreaking cases.

Jessica Gonzales obtained a restraining order limiting her estranged husband's access to their three children. Nevertheless, he murdered the children before being killed by police.

In early 2005 Gonzales became a cause célèbre of organizations such as the National Association of Women Lawyers. She attempted to sue the police department for not taking her restraining order seriously. The Supreme Court ruled against her.

By contrast, men's and father's rights groups contend that restraining orders and TROs in particular have become standard paperwork in contentious divorces or cases alleging abuse. They consider many TROs to be merely a strategic move by which one adversary harasses the other or acquires leverage in matters such as child custody.

A litmus test of how vulnerable TROs are to abuse is how easy they are to obtain.

Procedures vary from state to state, but the Superior Court of California in Sacramento is typical. The court advises "no filing fees are required. ... [Y]ou must present the application to the clerk no later than 2:45 p.m."

The judge will make a decision on a TRO. Then, "you must personally appear at Window 3 of the Family Law filing counter at 4:00 p.m. [a little over an hour later] ... on the same day."

The court's Web page advertises a regular, free class on filling out the application offered by the group "Women Escaping a Violent Environment," which advocates for female victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

In Oregon, DivorceNet provides advice on TROs. As in most states, an applicant need only assert a "fear" of violence even if none has occurred. Some applications can be made by telephone.

The seeming ease with which TROs are issued constitutes a problem for those who wish all restraining orders to be taken seriously. Any court order that can be obtained over the phone by stating a fear, or picked up at Window 3 in a little over an hour, trivializes the process.

But a TRO is not trivial. It is a legal constraint upon another human being's freedom. It should be issued only in the presence of a real threat. False or frivolous applications should be viewed in the same manner as are false police reports.

The order against Letterman was lifted on Tuesday when a New Mexico judge ruled in his favor, but his prominence has placed him in a unique position to stir debate on the use and abuse of restraining orders.

In the '90s he was stalked by a schizophrenic fan who committed suicide after spending years in prison for breaking into Letterman's home.

Earlier this year, his baby son was targeted in an unsuccessful kidnapping-for-ransom scheme. It is unconscionable that an obsessed fan has obtained court approval to harass him further.

Nevertheless, I hope Letterman's legal vindication is not based on the technicalities advanced so far by his lawyers, technicalities such as the contention that the New Mexico court lacks jurisdiction.

I hope his victory is based on the principle that all restraining orders must meet legal standards of fairness and evidence if they are to demand respect.

Copyright © 2005 Wendy McElroy.
Wendy McElroy Home Page

Click here for more.

When Boys Are Not Worthy

Another teenage boy commits suicide - the son of Indianapolis coach Tony Dungy.

Rarely in the history of this country has there been such a mismatch between government programs and a genuine social need. Just a week ago, Congress ratified the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The most bigoted and hateful legislation since Jim Crow, VAWA is a gender feminist’s dream: money for Women Studies graduates specifically targeted at conducting a war on men, fathers, and now even boys.

Meanwhile, our boys, men and fathers are suffering. As Glenn Sacks accurately describes, billions of dollars of federal money are spent each year incarcerating men because of child support arrearages loaded up with penalties that are several times the average annual incomes of these men. In states that are especially rigorous in the gender war, such as Washington State, nearly half the state’s children live in homes where their natural fathers are not present. Many of these men have been forced unwillingly out of their children’s lives. The picture is even more bleak as you look to the next generation, where you will find boys failing miserably in public schools that ignore their needs for action oriented learning environments.

If you don't already want to call in the fire brigade, consider the fact that men and boys commit suicide at alarming rates. There are no special government programs to address this problem, even though the number of male suicides in our country is at least 25 times the number of women killed due their intimate partner. Teenage boys kill themselves at five times the rate of teenage girls.

Dungy is part of the culture that contributes to the problem. While girls receive the message that value and power come from victimhood, boys are taught that to have value they must do something extraordinary. For those gifted with exceptional athletic ability, there is the NFL. For those that are more like the rest of us, there is the military. For the son of a successful football coach surrounded by some of the best athletes in the country, it must have been especially difficult.

Instead of providing a positive message to our boys, telling them of their worth and providing constructive avenues for them to find their own talents and secure a productive future, our country spends billions tearing them down. They are told they must sit still and, if not, be medicated to cure them of their “disorder.” They are taught that they are innately prone to violence against women. And, thanks to a new provision in the “new” VAWA, they will be told that they are rapists.

Sadly, neither the media nor the government seem to recognize the problem. While everyone is temporarily sad for the pain suffered by Dungy, the underlying problem will be missed. With the genderist onslaught reinvigorated by increased federal funding for an expanded gender war, the male suicide rate is likely to continue rising.

Not to worry, though, because the Super Bowl will be played this year as always – by the only worthy men around.

Click here for more.

OHSU board nominee bows out after joke falls flat

I don’t know former Senator Neil Bryant of Oregon, but I do imagine what was going through his mind when he wrote white/male under disability on his gubernatorial appointment form recently while being considered for appointment to the OHSU board.

Please, just for a moment, join me in considering what he could have been thinking. We are told we have the ‘male privilege’, yet when we look around, we don’t see it, feel it or benefit by it anymore.

Men work longer hours, at more hazardous jobs, with longer, more brutal commutes. We commit suicide more frequently, are handed longer jail terms, and serve more of those terms once convicted. The expectation is still, in this era of equality, that we will earn more money, open doors, practice deference, and take care of ourselves last, after our families.

Men, generally, don’t mind that so much. When we vocalize about our lot in life, that there are fewer “programs” for us, less spending on dedicated men’s health research even though we die years earlier, that our children are ripped away in divorce and that when we get hurt or laid off, and have difficulty supporting them, we are thrown in jail, we are called bitter or resentful.

Imagine, just for a moment, that those things were running through the good Senator’s mind when he made that comment. I see, and I hope you do too, that his response was not so off the wall.

I am reminded of what my friend Glenn Sacks says, “when I am beseeched to ‘take it like a man’, I generally find that it is not to my advantage to do so." The Senator may have been just speaking his, and many other men’s, subconscious truth.

Click here for more.

Will Bush Betray Soldiers in Iraq?

It's time someone asked the question.

By ratifying the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Congress stated clearly that it will continue to implement the genderist agenda of male punishment and family destruction.

Yes, the many men and fathers’ rights groups that worked hard to defeat VAWA did manage to get a statement or two in about the law being gender neutral. But, with a pejorative title, and little that stands in the way of genderists slurping up their pork to fuel their hateful war on the patriarchy, we all know that we are in for another five years of civil rights violations for men.

Worse, since VAWA now includes a war on the nebulous concept of “date rape,” genderists have extended their war on males to teenage boys. Teenage boys are already suffering mightily in feminized public schools that appear to be deliberately interfering with their education in order to diminish their ability to succeed later in life. Success later in life, according to genderists, provides the economic muscle for men to perpetuate the patriarchy.

But, with the Napoleonic legal code implemented by VAWA, our teenage boys will be considered guilty from the moment a date rape charge is made. Their self-respect will be further diminished by VAWA funded programs teaching that within all teenage boys is a date rapist trying to get out.

While some men’s rights activists are happy with making an ever-so-slight dent in a small portion of VAWA’s language, I am having trouble being so sanguine. I believe we are in for an even worse five years of civil rights abuses and male oppression. When an organization like NOW applauds the ratification of a law such as VAWA, you have to wonder.

Up to now, I have supported Bush’s adventure into Iraq. Islamic-fascist extremism can only be fought by changing the Middle East. I never believed the WMD arguments for going to Iraq, but always agreed that creating a beacon of democracy in the heard of the Middle East would provide substantial long term benefits for the not just the US, but the entire global community.

Changing Iraq helps to protect our Constitutional form of government over the long haul. It helps to protect our citizens from attacks by terrorists over the long haul. It helps to protect our freedoms and our civil rights.

Unfortunately, men are dying in order to this. This is as it has always been. But, back home, these same men have lost their guarantee of involvement in their children’s lives. They have lost their civil rights due to a federal government happy to feed on hysteria. In short, while they may not all realize it yet, these men are fighting for a hollow promise back home.

If Bush does not veto VAWA out of respect for the more than 2,000 men that have died in Iraq, and the others that have or continue to risk their lives, he will find that he has lost another supporter of his war. In fact, I will loose such faith in the man and our federal government that I will be happy to stand beside the most pathetically defeatist and anti-American socialist the Democrats have to offer and call for Bush to bring our men home.

Not another American soldier should die to protect America until America renews its comment to them.

Click here for more.

The Choices Women Make

Here is a classic example of holier-than-thou genderism that should lay to rest any lingering doubts you have about contemporary feminism’s aims for the American family. Linda Hirshman laments the fact that many college educated women still opt for a family life. Or, as Hirshman puts it, "opt out" of her plan for them. She claims that feminism has not been “radical enough” in changing America because it has not yet been able to have an impact on the choices women make regarding family life. Turns out, according to Hirshman, feminism has not yet “reconstructed” the American family.

Conservatives contend that the dropouts prove that feminism “failed” because it was too radical, because women didn’t want what feminism had to offer. In fact, if half or more of feminism’s heirs (85 percent of the women in my Times sample), are not working seriously, it’s because feminism wasn’t radical enough: It changed the workplace but it didn’t change men, and, more importantly, it didn’t fundamentally change how women related to men.

Well, isn’t it interesting that Hirshman would declare that her fellow sisters must change in order for her to realize her dream of a feminist utopia. This comes, of course, from her own negative view of family life and, I suspect, her own mixed (to say the least) feelings about bearing and raising children. All of you women out there are supposed to think like Linda Hirshman, or better yet, stop thinking and let her do your thinking for you!

Here’s the feminist moral analysis that choice [author’s note: “choice” in this context refers to a woman’s choice to raise a family, not choice to have an abortion] avoided: The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks -- is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust. To paraphrase, as Mark Twain said, “A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read.”

That’s funny. Pretty much every woman I have known has experienced a strong draw to having children, and then to being with them after they are born. They describe an instinctive need to make and maintain a nest for them. Plans to quickly return to work made before childbirth are often changed once mother sees baby. Hirshman claims that this is not natural and, I suppose, a “social construct.” But, plenty of evidence suggests otherwise.

Linda goes on to provide advice as to how to acquire and maintain a powerful job in the private or public sector. This includes going to a good college (more than 50% of college students are female now anyway - any lingering doubt that the unfriendly atmosphere created for boys in public schools is not by design?), advice on which high earning majors to choose, and advice on finding a job that provides “power” and good finances. She advises women to do all of this in order to increase their bargaining power within their domestic relationships. Isn’t it telling that genderists like Hirshman only see relationships in the context of money?

Next, she provides advice on the type of husband to find. The ideal choice, of course, is a liberal husband. According to her calculation, he would be enough of a wet noodle to allow the woman full control. (And, I thought “control” was a bad trait of the so-called patriarchy). No partnership there. Other options include a much younger man, who she says will not have the financial power in the household and will therefore need to subordinate himself to the wishes of his older wife. A much older man can also be a possibility, since he will have more time on his hands for child-raising and might even come with the financial capacity to hire domestic help. The worst option on Hirshman’s list would be a man slightly older or of the same age.

Linda even gives advice on the number of children a woman should have:

If these prescriptions sound less than family-friendly, here’s the last rule: Have a baby. Just don’t have two.

She believes a woman should have just one child, because that dreaded second child could draw her back home to "unfulfilling" work as a plain old mother.

Hirshman lambastes women who choose to devote themselves, even temporarily, to families, which “allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government.” According to Hirshman, women that choose to do so are hurting all women.

Worse, the behavior tarnishes every female with the knowledge that she is almost never going to be a ruler. Princeton President Shirley Tilghman described the elite colleges’ self-image perfectly when she told her freshmen last year that they would be the nation’s leaders, and she clearly did not have trophy wives in mind. Why should society spend resources educating women with only a 50-percent return rate on their stated goals?

Well, it is frustrating when the entire world does not cooperate with your efforts to reconstruct the American family into your vision of a feminist utopia, isn’t it Linda? Better to have government force compliance, no? Especially when women are not cooperating because their priorities are not, like Hirshman’s, based on hate and anger, but rather love and family.

And, remember ladies, your interest in your family is just a “regime” within the patriarchal construct of “family.” Your love of your children is not an internal response, but rather something imposed on you from the outside and by the patriarchy.

We care because what they do is bad for them, is certainly bad for society, and is widely imitated, even by people who never get their weddings in the Times. This last is called the “regime effect,” and it means that even if women don’t quit their jobs for their families, they think they should and feel guilty about not doing it. That regime effect created the mystique around The Feminine Mystique, too.

I find it doubtful that the women who stay at home to raise their own off-spring find it bad for them. But, missing in Linda’s coldhearted assessment and recommendations for extending genderism into the home is consideration of the children. Parents love their children and that love and desire for their children to succeed in the world is the primary reason they make sacrifices, yes even career sacrifices, in order to raise them.

Sorry Linda, but I’m afraid that you will not be able to convince many people to cease doing what you find so deplorable. They find it natural, while your deconstructionist aims are anything but.

Hirshman should be more widely read though. Not because she provides a prescription for a healthy lifestyle, but because she reveals the motivation behind so much of the destructive social policy that underlies laws such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The real agenda in such laws is to "deconstruct" and then “reconstruct” the American family, by encouraging women to view their husbands and male partners as both alien and part of a conspiracy of female sublimation through violence, while attacking men with the blunt instrument of the justice system. Oppressive government, it seems, is always the answer.

With so many women behaving so, well, domestic, Hirshman must be cheering now that Congress has officially reauthorized VAWA - the genderists’ chief weapon for attacking the family “regime.” Some minor progress was made by groups representing the interests of fathers and men, who were successful in getting a few words expressing gender neutrality into a law expressly made for the graduates of Women Studies programs. But, the VAWA infrastructure is still an instrument of Hirshman’s war.

And, men and fathers will continue to feel the oppression of hateful people like Hirshman for the choices that women make.

Click here for more.

UPDATED:Ripped this off a newsgroup, but it is fairly accurate

A True Story,

INFANT DISCOVERED IN BARN, CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES LAUNCH PROBE

Nazareth Carpenter Being Held On Charges Involving Underage Mother

BETHLEHEM, JUDEA - Authorities were today alerted by a concerned citizen who
noticed a family living in a barn. Upon arrival, Family Protective Service
personnel, accompanied by police, took into protective care an infant
child, who had been wrapped in strips of cloth and placed in a feeding
trough by his 14-year old mother, Mary of Nazareth.

During the confrontation, a man identified as Joseph, also of Nazareth,
attempted to stop the social workers. Joseph, aided by several local
shepherds and some unidentified foreigners, tried to forestall efforts to
take the child, but were restrained by the police.

Also being held for questioning are three foreigners who allege to be wise
men from an eastern country. The INS and Homeland Security officials are
seeking information about these wise guys who may be in the country
illegally. A source with the INS states that they had no passports, but
were in possession of gold and other possibly illegal substances. They
resisted arrest saying that they had been warned by God to avoid officials
in Jerusalem and to return quickly to their own country. The chemical
substances in their possession will be tested.

The owner of the barn is also being held for questioning. The manager of
Bethlehem Inn faces possible revocation of his license for violating health
and safety regulations by allowing people to stay in the stable. Civil
authorities are also investigating the zoning violations involved in
maintaining livestock in a commercially-zoned district.

The location of the minor child will not be released, and the prospect for a
quick resolution to this case is doubtful. Asked about when the child would
be returned to his mother, a Child Protective Service spokesperson said,
"The father is middle-aged and the mother definitely underage. We are
checking with officials in Nazareth to determine what their legal
relationship is.

Joseph has admitted taking Mary from her home in Nazareth because of a
census requirement. However, because she was obviously pregnant when they
left, investigators are looking into other reasons for their departure.
Joseph is being held without bond on charges of molestation, kidnapping,
child endangerment, and statutory rape.

Mary was taken to the Bethlehem General Hospital where she is being examined
by doctors. Charges may also be filed against her for endangerment. She will
also undergo psychiatric evaluation because of her claim that she is a
virgin and that the child is from God.

The director of the psychiatric wing said, "I don't profess to have the
right to tell people what to believe, but when their beliefs adversely
affect the safety and well-being of others - in this case her child - we
must consider her a danger to others. The unidentified drugs at the scene
didn't help her case, but I'm confidant that with the proper therapy regimen
we can get her back on her feet."

A spokesperson for the governor's office said, "Who knows what was going
through their heads? But regardless, their treatment of the child was
inexcusable, and the involvement of these others frightening. There is much
we don't know about this case, but for the sake of the child and the public,
you can be assured that we will pursue this matter to the end."

Merry Christmas!
From the Police State


**********************

This morning the Equal Justice Foundation received the following update on the case where a child was found in a barn after an anonymous call to Child Protective Services by a "concerned citizen."
______________________________
The mother "Mary" has been convicted of child endangerment and has been listed as a neglectful parent with the local authorities.
Joseph has been listed on the sex abuse registry after his substandard attorney stipulated improperly with the prosecutors. Apparently, his legal fee was too low and the attorney decided not to proceed with trial of any kind. Instead he sold Joseph down the river.


On a more unfortunate note, the child whom locals refer to as "Jesus" died. He was placed in a foster home under the auspices of Child Protective Services funded by the federal government. The child was found dead in a crib.
Apparently his foster parents were not properly investigated and the alcoholic foster mother forgot
she put the boy in the crib last week. Another child found a cell phone nearby and called 911.
The Police State

Click here for more.

Too bad it takes a Woman to say it to be taken seriously

Never heard of this woman, who writes commentary for the LA Times, but she is spot on for mentioning this.

Thank her for speaking out by writing her here, and write the Times congrats for running this piece here.

Below, the article, and following that, the commentary of Harry Crouch, who you can write here, if you think he is effin' brilliant, which he is, sayeth the Geezer.


Shouldn't men have 'choice' too?

FOR PRO-CHOICERS like myself, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s position regarding spousal consent for abortion seems like one more loose rock in the ongoing erosion of Roe vs. Wade. Even those of us who are too young to remember the pre-Roe era often see any threat to abortion rights as a threat to our very destinies. We are, after all, the generation that grew up under Title IX, singing along to "Free to Be You and Me" (you know, the 1972 children's record where Marlo Thomas and Alan Alda remind us that mommies can be plumbers and boys can have dolls). When it comes to self-determination, we're as determined as it gets.

But even though I was raised believing in the inviolability of a woman's right to choose, the older I get, the more I wonder if this idea of choice is being fairly applied.
Most people now accept that women, especially teenagers, often make decisions regarding abortion based on educational and career goals and whether the father of the unborn child is someone they want to hang around with for the next few decades. The "choice" in this equation is not only a matter of whether to carry an individual fetus to term but a question of what kind of life the woman wishes to lead.

But what about the kind of life men want to lead? On Dec. 1, Dalton Conley, director of the Center for Advanced Social Science Research at New York University, published an article on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times arguing that Alito's position on spousal consent did not go far enough.

Describing his own experience with a girlfriend who terminated a pregnancy against his wishes, Conley took some brave steps down the slippery slope of this debate, suggesting that if a father is willing to assume full responsibility for a child not wanted by a mother, he should be able to obtain an injunction stopping her from having an abortion — and he should be able to do so regardless of whether or not he's married to her.

Conley freely acknowledges the many obvious caveats in this position — the most salient being the fact that regardless of how "full" that male responsibility might be, the physical burden of pregnancy and childbirth will always put most of the onus on women. But as much as I shudder at the idea of a man, husband or not, obtaining an injunction telling me what I can or cannot do with my own body, I would argue that it is Conley who has not gone far enough.

Since we're throwing around radical ideas about abortion rights, let me raise this question: If abortion is to remain legal and relatively unrestricted — and I believe it should — why shouldn't men have the right during at least the first trimester of pregnancy to terminate their legal and financial rights and responsibilities to the child?

As Conley laments, the law does not currently allow for men to protect the futures of the fetuses they help create. What he doesn't mention — indeed, no one ever seems to — is the degree to which men also cannot protect their own futures. The way the law is now, a man who gets a woman pregnant is not only powerless to force her to terminate the pregnancy, he also has a complete legal obligation to support that child for at least 18 years.

In other words, although women are able to take control of their futures by choosing from at least a small range of options — abortion, adoption or keeping the child — a man can be forced to be a father to a child he never wanted and cannot financially support. I even know of cases in which the woman absolves the man of responsibility, only to have the courts demand payment anyway. That takes the notion of "choice" very far from anything resembling equality.

I realize I've just alienated feminists (among whose ranks I generally count myself) as well as pro-lifers, neither of whom are always above platitudes such as "You should have kept your pants on." But that reasoning is by now as reductive as suggesting that a rape victim "asked for it." Yes, people often act irresponsibly and yes, abortion should be avoided whenever possible. But just as women should not be punished for choosing to terminate a pregnancy, men should not be punished when those women choose not to.

One problem, of course, is that the child is likely to bear the brunt of whatever punishment remains to be doled out. A father who terminates his rights, although not technically a deadbeat dad, has still helped create a kid who is not fully supported. And (in case you were wondering) there are dozens of other holes in my theory as well: What if a husband wants to terminate his rights — should that be allowed? What if a father is underage and wants to terminate but his parents forbid him? Should a father's decision-making time be limited to the first trimester? Should couples on first dates discuss their positions on the matter? Should Internet dating profiles let men check a box saying "will waive parental rights" next to the box indicating his astrological sign?

There's also the danger that my idea is not just a slippery slope but a major mudslide on the way to Conley's idea. If a man can legally dissociate himself from a pregnancy, some will argue, why couldn't he also bind himself to it and force it to term? That notion horrifies me, just as my plan probably horrifies others. But that doesn't mean these ideas aren't worth discussing. Though it may be hard to find an adult male who's sufficiently undiplomatic to admit out loud that he'd like to have the option I'm proposing, let alone potentially take it, I know more than a few parents of teenage boys who lose sleep over the prospect of their sons landing in the kind of trouble from which they'll have no power to extricate themselves.

And although the notion of women "tricking" men into fatherhood now sounds arcane and sexist, we'd be blind not to recognize the extent to which some women are capable of tricking themselves into thinking men will stick around, despite all evidence to the contrary. Allowing men to legally (if not always gracefully) bow out of fatherhood would, at the very least, start a conversation for which we haven't yet found the right words.

Actually, there's one word we've had all along: choice. We just need to broaden its definition.


Harry's comment follows:

Dear Editor,

Meghan Daum¹s insightful commentary ³Shouldn¹t men have choice too² might
be
enhanced with a bit of clarity.

Women¹s choices are pick a dad, abstinence, diaphragms, condoms,
spermicides, ³The Pill², injections, implants, ³Overnight Pill²,
intrauterine device, abortion, adopt-out, keep baby, give baby away, sell
baby, auction baby, infanticide.

Men¹s choices are abstinence, condoms, invasive surgery, cash, credit
card,
bankruptcy, prison, suicide.

Fairness and balance are long over due.

Harry Crouch
Director San Diego Men's Center
President PaternityFraudDNA.com

Click here for more.

Psuedo Befuddlement over Boys Education Crisis

The Everett Herald did the analysis that the Washington State education bureaucracy should have been doing with its own data. The Herald compared the scores of boys and girls on the WASL. It will be of no surprise to most visitors to this blog that boys are doing much, much worse than girls in Washington's public schools.

Of course, the reason the state never did this analysis, or at any rate never publicized it, is because they simply did not want to. They have spent more than a decade medicating large number of boys with powerful stimulants to treat them for ADHD. ADHD is just another way of saying “acts like boys.” Being a boy is now a disease.

Moreover, with “girl power” initiatives in public schools, “gender normalization” programs, and the feminization of educational materials, public school administrators and teachers in the State of Washington have literally been teaching boys to self-loath. In reality, all of these programs are designed to wring the so-called “patriarchy” out of little boys and, if all else fails, hold them back so they can't exercise their patriarchal power in the future.

As the genderists say, ""Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Patrimony has got to go." There may be no way to eliminate a patriarchy ghost that does not exist, but boys are in the process of being eliminated from college campuses.

It’s enough to make one sick to read the disingenuous quotes from state Legislators in the Herald article.

Sen. Paull Shin, D-Mukilteo, said the size of the gap between boys and girls "came to me as a total surprise, and I'd like to see why (it exists)."

… yeah, right. What planet have you been on, Senator Shin? This education gap has been well known since Christina Hoff Sommers authored her book, The WAR AGAINST BOYS: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men.

But, never fear, because another legislator is going to make sure we couch this genuine crisis in the PC terms of multi-culturalism.

"How much of it is cultural? How much of it is biological? And how much of it is leadership in the individual school district and school?" Schmidt asked. "In some ways, it's premature to do anything now because there's so many different variables."

Even more important, Legislators are now gearing up to throw money at a problem THEY CREATED!

All this pseudo-befuddlement from the State's lawmakers is tiring, if not downright insulting. The change that should occur is in the politically correct and genderist bureaucracy of Washington’s public education system. Stop beating boys down just for being boys. Stop holding them back from educational opportunity while calling that “girl power.” Reverse the feminization of public school materials and give the boys what they need – action oriented reading materials. Stop the animosity towards recess and let the boys get outside and run some of the energy off. Stop telling the boys that they are going to grow up to be wife-beaters and rapists. And, stop drugging them!

Our state's boys should not have to suffer through "gender normalization" and social engineering experiments conducted by public school administrators and bureaucracy who have a gender political axe to grind.

There has never been a better argument for school vouchers so that parents can get their sons out of public schools and into an environment that supports them and treats them with respect instead of loathing.

Click here for more.

W is for Wide Open Eyes

I was directed to melaniephillips.com following the London Bombings, and she has helped to give me insight into what is going on in England... But as time passed, I visited less, and to my great loss as I have missed until now this great post on the rediculous inequality posed on men by the family law machine. Great and huge excerpts follow, but you could just read it all:

Someone should put the Child Support Agency out of its misery, and quickly. It has been a calamity ever since it was brought into being by a Tory government twelve years ago.
[...]
From the start, its aims were confused. Its main purpose was to cut public spending through reducing state support for lone mothers by loading such payments onto fathers instead. Ministers claimed that this would restore parental responsibility. But the one did not follow from the other.
The argument was that men were financially responsible for their children whether or not such fathers were part of the family household. This was surely a profound mistake. Men’s responsibility is to be committed parents who look after their children by actually living with them.
But the CSA formula reduced fathers to being merely walking wallets, and helped redefine the family unit as the autonomous mother and child alone, serviced through payments from a distance by absent men.
As a result, Tory expenditure-cutters lined up in an unholy alliance alongside the ultra-feminist left. The feminist case was that lone motherhood was a right, and that although men might be too awful to be husbands they nevertheless had an obligation to pay for the upkeep of their children.
The result was that the CSA helped fuel gross injustice, galloping irresponsibility and the accelerating breakdown of the family.
When their wives or partners walked out taking the children with them, men were not only faced with the destruction of their family but were also — intolerably — forced to pay for it, even if the mother had begun a new relationship which was bringing money into their children’s household.
[...]
Far from restoring the concept of responsibility to family life, this emptied it of meaning.
It also ignored the fact that the catastrophic phenomenon of mass lone motherhood has been largely driven by women.
Of course, there are many cases where mothers have been deserted by faithless husbands, and where it is right to pursue fathers for maintenance just as one would force anyone who breaks a solemn agreement to meet his responsibilities. But in most cases, it is the woman who either breaks the marriage or is content to have a baby without the father being involved.
This is because, consciously or subconsciously, she makes a calculation that she can go it alone financially, either because the state will provide or because, even if she is currently working, she knows that the state is showering benefits on lone mothers with children, including — in theory — child support payments.
If an unmarried woman chooses to give up work when she has a baby, this is presented by feminists as an unarguable case for mandatory payments by the father. But why? There is already a perfectly good social arrangement to give mothers precisely such support. It is called marriage. The problem is that the woman may not want marriage to the man, but she does still want his money. What kind of equality is this?
[...]
In fact, most of these girls assume that having a baby is a passport to an independent life— an assumption underpinned by the expectation of an income supplied or enforced by the state.
[...]
At the heart of this problem is that child support policy is explicitly not intended to repair the family. Politicians are terrified to go down this road, taking refuge instead in the apparent neutrality of financial support for children.
But it is not neutral at all. On the contrary, it is fuelling further family breakdown by failing to acknowledge that the principal motor behind this phenomenon is the behaviour of women.
[...]
It is women above all who should be made to take responsibility for their behaviour. If they choose to tear up a marriage contract or to have children without committing themselves to the father, they should bear the financial burden. Instead of being propped up with benefits or money extorted from rejected men, they should be expected to support themselves through work.
This may sound harsh. But if women were forced to recalibrate where their interests lie once they become mothers, the steam would go out of the lone motherhood industry almost overnight.
Far more harsh, after all, is the plight of fatherless children. In treating women instead as victims, the government ignores the real casualties of the egregious failure of its family policy.

So amazing and refreshing to hear a clear woman's voice, calling it as it is.

-M

Simulposted at MIsForMalevolent

Click here for more.

On the hunt for a conspiracy theory

It is surprising to me to find some of the better news and opinion out there in something called "The Christian Science Monitor", somehow I expect it to at least to have an obvious religious bent, but it really doesn't. To read their "about us" page is enlightening as to why not, but there's nothing like a clear example of excellent, clear-headed, logical reasoning to show what they might be about.

Take the article "On the hunt for a conspiracy theory", which talks much better than I have been able to about the dangers of conspiracy theories in general and clearly has applicability in areas that the author, Frank Furedi, does not specifically mention.

Quickly getting to the root of the problem, Mr. Furedi says:

"Conspiracy theory offers an explanation of the causes and motives for otherwise inexplicable developments. Such theories are appealing because they provide us with a semblance of control over powerful forces that influence our lives. Today, acts of misfortune are frequently associated with intentional malevolent behavior. Nothing happens by accident."

And:

"People always search for meaning. But in our confused and ever changing world we feel particularly perplexed when it comes to making sense of the problems that confront us. One of the most important ways in which an absence of meaning is experienced is the feeling that the individual is manipulated and influenced by hidden powerful forces..."

The author could almost be talking about crude superstition, ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggedy beasties are blamed for anything that goes bump in the night. He isn't, he's exploring the seductive idea that dark and malevolent intelligence may be behind unjust and destructive behavior. But this really is an extension of superstition - instead of crouching in the corner with a baseball bat in our hands with all the lights turned on full waiting for the monster to crawl out from the dark that remains under the bed, we make ourselves equally ridiculous by generating and giving credence to fringe political ideas. Moreover, and paradoxically, just as fear of non-existent monsters makes us manipulable by those hucksters who might try to sell us snake oil remedies, fear of non-existent conspiracy disempowers us when it comes to dealing with the quite real injustices that are supposed to derive from them. That disempowerment makes us easy prey for those that stand to gain from the supposition of a conspiracy who then become powerful themselves as manifestations of that conspiracy. In any war, your enemy may be made so just as much by your own fear of him as by his actual behavior.

Furedi goes on:

"Today, conspiracy theory has become mainstream and many of its most vociferous supporters are to be found in radical protest movements and among the cultural left. When Hillary Clinton warned of a "vast right-wing conspiracy," it became evident that the politics of the hidden agenda have been internalized in everyday public life. Today, the anticapitalist and antiglobalization movement is no less wedded to the politics of conspiracy than its opponents on the far right. From their perspective a vast global neoconservative conspiracy has turned into an all-purpose explanation for the many ills that afflict our times."

In fact, one might almost suggest that this is a conspiracy!

"The simplistic worldview of conspiracy thinking helps fuel suspicion and mistrust toward the domain of politics. It displaces a critical engagement with public life with a destructive search for the hidden agenda. It distracts from the clarification of genuine differences and helps turn public life into a theater where what matters are the private lives and personal interests of mistrusted politicians. "

This is partly why I have a hard time accepting the idea that there is some loonie feminist cabal setting out to destroy our families, reduce men to sperm- and money-producing drones, and set up a matriarchal state. Likewise, it is equally ridiculous to suppose that men's and fathers' rights activists are a bunch of supremicist men looking to preserve the priviledge of a patriarchy that never existed in the first place. Arguments along these lines are the rhetoric of a failure to communicate and generate lots of heat and noise, but no progress.

I am not saying that injustices don't exist. Far from it. I know for a direct personal fact that people are prejudiced, constantly jockeying for position and power and will use whatever advantage they can find or generate. We do live in a time where men and fathers face societal obstacles that derive primarily from their gender and, while some of those obstacles are new, many are not, many have always been there. But they are not the result of a conspiracy; no amorphous gang of resentful wimmin has set out to generate those obstacles with the complicity of their 'whipped, metrosexual cronies. Simple human ignorance and self-interest will suffice and those are the true malevolent forces that must be fought against. They are not organized, they are not intelligent, they are not ideologies, and their malevolence derives from their effects not from their perpetrators. Nevertheless, they will happily hide behind whatever organization, intelligence and ideology in which we are too easily inclined to dress them. We give power to ignorance and self-interest by reacting to them as if they already had that power.


(Simulposted on Just Another Disenfranchised Father)

Click here for more.

Breaking the Propaganda

The recent PBS “documentary” entitled Breaking the Silence has created quite a brouhaha. Various men and fathers rights groups have rightfully raised concern over how such a biased and one-sided documentary could be broadcast on a tax supported public network, particularly without any counterbalancing perspective.

In a very small nutshell (which is about all this documentary deserves), Breaking the Silence uses a small number of extreme cases within the family court systems of a few localities to suggest that all family courts are biased against mothers and woefully insensitive to the needs of children. Using cinematic license, the documentary presents these isolated cases as if they are the norm, rather than the exception. And, of course, avoids the issue of how fathers are routinely maltreated in family courts.

Worse, Breaking the Silence presents statistics and other information as if it were fact, but provides no evidence and cites no research in their support. For example, the documentary states unambiguously that the majority of fathers fighting for joint custody of their children are actually “abusers.” This, on its face, is untrue. Unless, that is, one were to stretch the definition of abuse to include a man loving his children against the wishes of their mother.

One of the producers of Breaking the Silence, Dominique Lasseur, has defended himself and his misguided documentary extensively. Within his defense, one can see the clear signs of ideology driven advocacy, even though he would like us all to believe otherwise. Lasseur uses many of the tricks used by gender feminists (or, genderists, as we call them now) to corner people into suspending disbelief. For example, Lasseur says, “Domestic violence is notoriously difficult to report on because of the emotional nature of the issues involved.” So, according to him, his reporting on the topic should not be criticized. He should only be commended for his bravery, regardless of the misinformation and propaganda presented in his documentary.

Lasseur does not stop there:

“Our open mindedness did not include the opportunity for fathers who had a destructive political agenda to be represented in the piece. We spoke with members of fathers' rights organizations and did extensive research on their views. We made the decision not to interview them on camera because they would not have provided any balance and fairness to the piece.”

That quote pretty much sums of the attitude, indeed the totalitarian-like restriction, of Producer Lasseur towards any thought that counters his ideological and political viewpoint. A father who believes that he has a right to at least joint custody of his children is deemed to have a "destructive" point of view.

Interestingly, Glenn Sacks revealed that one of the mothers in Breaking the Silence was actually convicted of child abuse in a criminal court. But including her side of a concocted story without even mentioning her past conviction is not destructive? Obviously, Lasseur was screening for message as opposed to facts. And, that message is the victimhood and anti-patriarchal (whatever the patriarchy is, which we are still trying to figure out) message of contemporary genderists.

But, the many complaints to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and PBS are not falling on deaf ears. Michael Getler, PBS Ombudsman, has made his position on the documentary quite clear:

My assessment, as a viewer and as a journalist, is that this was a flawed presentation by PBS. I have no doubt that this subject merited serious exposure and that these problems exist and are hard to get at journalistically. But it seemed to me that PBS and CPTV were their own worst enemy and diminished the impact and usefulness of the examination of a real issue by what did, indeed, come across as a one-sided, advocacy program.

I'm not saying that there is necessarily another side to tragic cases where a child is abused and handed over to the abuser. But this is a broad issue, often complex, hotly debated and contested, with dueling statistics pouring out of both sides. Yet, there was no recognition of opposing views on this program. There was a complete absence of some of the fundamental journalistic conventions that, in fact, make a story more powerful and convincing because they, at a minimum, acknowledge that there is another side.

This presentation made no concession to the viewer and to the legitimate questions one would have or expect. Not only were no fathers heard from to state their side of the individual stories presented, there was no explanation (with one exception) as to whether the producers even tried to get their views, or if the fathers were asked but declined, or, as we now know from Lasseur's statement, that there was a decision not to give air time to critics or groups holding opposing views.

The one exception was a disclaimer printed on the screen, but with no voice attached, after the filmed portion of the program ended, that a father of one young woman, who continues to seek custody of his daughter in the court, declined to be interviewed.

The studies that one presumes back up the statistics stated on the program are not cited. Research that Lasseur uses to back up the program in his response to critics is not cited in the film; nor are the statistics cited by critics.

It is not clear when several of the interviews with mothers and children took place, nor how old the cases are. In a few interviews, references are made to the mid-1990s. Some of the talking heads that make lengthy and numerous appearances as explainers on the program are scantily identified with a sub-title. Lundy Bancroft, who plays a major and informative role as explainer, is only identified as an "Abuse Intervention Specialist." Richard Ducote, also a major explainer, is identified only once in a sub-title as an "attorney," and if you blink you'll miss it.

It seemed to me that what was badly missing in this presentation was a reporter, or skilled presenter, who could provide at least some of the context and controversy surrounding this issue, explain the cast of characters, and deal with the basic questions of fairness and balance that come quickly to mind. Even in Port's very positive review, he writes: "Some facts are in order here. We're talking about a big but very narrow problem. Custody is not disputed in court in the overwhelming majority of divorces, as many as nine in 10 cases settle amicably, according to studies. In uncontested custody, mothers win out over fathers, taking custody about 2-1, although this is partly because some fathers see trying to win custody as futile.

It was refreshing to read Getler’s letter. Finally, someone is calling BS on at least one example of genderist propaganda and their myth making machine. That machine is well oiled by billions of federal dollars streaming to them as a result of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The tactic of stating opinion as fact, misusing statistics or using invalid statistics, applying statistics that come from one universe to a different universe for which they are not applicable, and dramatically and emotionally baiting viewers, are all in widespread practice by genderists.

In the short term, PBS must work on its credibility by ending all airings of Breaking the Silence and admitting its mistakes. Or, PBS could produce a documentary giving the father’s side of how they are treated in family court. Preferably, they could, and probably should, do both.

For the long term, in order to get some sanity back into to the highly politicized topic of relationships between the sexes, and temper the government’s involvement in attempting to social engineer the American family, it would be good if the misdeeds of Breaking the Silence became a tipping point for a larger movement in our society. It is well past time that the tide turned and the extreme and hateful nature of genderism be pushed back to the fringe where it belongs, as opposed to literally writing public policy, as it has done since the Clinton administration.

This group of Women Studies graduates, quick to blame every social ill on the phantom called “the patriarchy,” has met no resistance for thirty years. The producers of Breaking the Silence are transparent in their confusion, because finally the voices of men and fathers have become organized enough to be heard. Talking about "silence"! It may just be that the silence of men and fathers has finally been broken by this documentary.

Now that we have seen the genderist vision of a legal system that operates differently for men than it does for women, and we see the results, it’s high time that resistance to their strange ideology became a full fledged political movement.

Click here for more.

Westneat and Seattle Totalitarianism

Danny Westneat complains of others spinning Cpl. Jeffrey Starr’s letter home to his girlfriend, while he spins it himself.

This is so typical of the mindset of Seattle. People will decry something like the Patriot Act, because it stomps on our civil liberties. But, at the same time, they will promote a whole variety of laws that limit those very same freedoms. Mayor Nickels’ obsession with strip clubs, driven in large part by his alignment with Seattle’s hegemonic feminism (dressed in right wing moralist virtue in this case), is a case in point.

Westneat can’t spin Jeffrey Star’s letter by accusing others of spinning it only because he thinks the point he wants to make is more righteous than the point others want to make. Well, he can’t do it without transparently being a hypocrite.

Similarly, politicians can’t pick and choose among which civil rights and freedoms to limit because they think their reasons for limiting our freedom are “righteous enough.” Every inch of rationalization for freedom taken by government, regardless of the reason, opens a miles wide opportunity based on precedent for more restriction.

Click here for more.

Fem-think and the civil rights of men

By Carey Roberts
November 29, 2005

I have never met Ben Stein and harbor no ill-will towards him. But last week the former TV game show host wrote an article that somehow reminded me of the Holocaust deniers.

Referring to the precarious situation in Iraq, Mr. Stein posed this question: are "we already eager to surrender to the man who murdered women and children"?
[www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9051]

Women and children?

If there's anything we know about Iraq under Saddam Hussein, it's that men suffered the most horrific cruelties. Remember the stories about Saddam's infamous meat cutter machine? About alleged Army deserters who had their ears cut off? The children forced into combat? And the 600 civilians gunned down in Basra for not having ID cards?
[www.ifeminists.net/introduction/
editorials/2003/0506roberts.html]

The victims were almost all male.

I have to assume Mr. Stein is a reasonably decent fellow. So how did he get lured into this sad example of re-writing history to satisfy the agenda of the politically correct?

The answer can be traced back to Fem-think, which insists that in patriarchal society, women are not only the biggest victims, women are its only victims. Despite the absurdity of that proposition, the gender warriors endlessly advance that idea. Repeat a lie a thousand times, and people begin to believe it.

And now a major human rights organization, Amnesty International, has become beholden to that mindset.

Fem-think at AI goes back 10 years when Amnesty began to release reports that highlighted the human rights violations of women.
[www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/050604]

Before long an unmistakable gender bias began to emerge. The 2001 AI report, Afghanistan: Making Human Rights the Agenda makes this statement: "During 2000, at least 15 people were executed in public, including one woman who was stoned to death.'

Why highlight the tragic demise of one woman, and gloss over the deaths of the 14 men?

Kosovo is another example of a recent civil conflict that killed thousands of innocent civilian men. One report from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe documented the widescale abductions, torture, and executions, and noted, "young men were the group that was by far the most targeted in the conflict in Kosovo."
[www.osce.org/kosovo/reports/hr/part1/ch15.htm]

But don't forget, the notion of male victimization is just another example of patriarchal revisionism.

So when the matter of the sex-specific slaughter in Kosovo was raised at a recent meeting of the Canadian section of Amnesty, the issue was met with derision and contempt. And a resolution calling for the group to "condemn all large-scale gender selective human rights violations of men and women" in Kosovo was soundly defeated.

No doubt the correct-thinking AI delegates reasoned, "We certainly can't approve that, it might distract from the good work we're doing to highlight the human rights violations of women."

As human rights activist David Buchanan recently put it, Amnesty International has "flinched from clearly documenting large-scale patterns of male-specific conflict during armed conflict."
[www.gendercide.org/g_and_g.htm]

But Amnesty International is not content to merely ignore widespread violations against men. Or to sanitize reports of sex-specific atrocities. Now it has decided to actively suppress men's basic human rights.

Female-on-male domestic violence is just as common as the male-initiated variety. [www.mediaradar.org/ja_sex_differences.php] But that didn't stop AI from unveiling a campaign called Stop the Violence Against Women, its one-sided focus being only on the female sex. Now Amnesty chapters in Sweden and Ireland have published reports on domestic violence that are filled with tiresome feminist slogans about patriarchal oppression.

And if anyone still doesn't get the message, last Friday Amnesty celebrated its International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, designed to kick-start the perpetually downtrodden into a frenzied "16 days against gender violence."
[http://web.amnesty.org/actforwomen/index-eng]

In the United States, AI has gone on record supporting the Violence Against Women Act. The concern with this controversial law is not just that ignores half the domestic violence problem, the real problem is that it tramples on men's civil rights.

The Violence Against Women Act discourages the provision of treatment services to abused men. The law bribes local law enforcement agencies to implement mandatory arrest policies that are targeted to men. VAWA encourages prosecutors to adopt "no-drop" policies, even if the woman wants to drop the complaint.

VAWA also encourages judges to hand out back-door restraining orders based only on the woman's say-so. Referring to the widespread abuse of these orders, the Independent Women's Forum recently expressed the concern that "their issuance and enforcement has troubling implications for civil liberties."
[www.iwf.org/specialreports/specrpt_detail.asp?ArticleID=815]

So as Fem-think spreads and as we slide towards the Feminist World Order, what will come of the civil rights of men?

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2005 by Carey Roberts

Click here for more.