Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

New Fatherhood Initiative Leaves Some Dads in the Cold

By Amy DePaul, AlterNet. Posted January 31, 2007.


The Bush Administration's new initiative to improve fatherhood in America raises questions about how best to strengthen families: by encouraging parenting skills or by promoting marriage?
01312007story
01312007Story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Amy DePaul

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

"What's up, man?"

It's rush hour on Beverly Boulevard in East Los Angeles. Cars whiz past noisily as a man strolls into a Latino community center and extends a warm greeting to his companeros. A few more guys soon wander in and plunk themselves on chairs and couches that form a circle, helping themselves to iced tea and pretzels on a tray.

Nestled in a row of storefront shops and offices, the Calmecac Youth Center offers an array of services to the surrounding community, among them educating young Latinos on STDs and birth control. At this moment, however, the talk is not about preventing pregnancy but rather being a good father. The center is the site of a class on fatherhood for Mexican-American men of a variety of ages, and it offers a window into recent efforts to improve fathering in America.

New to the group, Bill shares a story about his ex-girlfriend not allowing him to see his newborn baby, even when his son was ill for two weeks. Bill is a huge bear of a man who tears up soon into recounting his struggles, prompting another man in the group to hurry over with a box of tissues. Once, Bill says, he was in his car when the mother of his son pulled up next to him and announced with gleeful vengeance that she would never let him see his child. "I miss him. I miss his cry, even when he wakes up in the middle of the night," Bill says, an ache in his voice.

It's hard for young men and women fighting over the children of a short-lived relationship to maintain respect for each other, for the sake of their kids, but respect is the key value that teacher Armando Lawrence tries to hammer home. Lawrence's group is called Con Los Padres, and its goal is to make life better for children by getting their fathers involved in their lives in an ongoing, reliable way. His class takes 16 weeks to complete, and most of the men come voluntarily to improve their standing in custody disputes, although some attend under court order.

In his classes, Lawrence focuses on personal dignity and encourages men to embrace the wisdom of their ancient forefathers, the pre-Columbian Toltecs in Mexico. Lawrence talks a lot about love and trust, but he doesn't talk as much about marriage and nuclear family. In this way, Con Los Padres may be increasingly out of step with the new wave of fatherhood programs recently funded by the Bush Administration.

No fathers left behind?

This fall, the Bush Administration awarded $42 million in grants to nearly 100 fatherhood initiatives around the nation, the first in a five-year funding effort. While the fatherhood funding is injecting new life into a long-neglected yet promising area of social policy, it could potentially leave many fathers, such as those in Con Los Padres, in the cold. That's because many of the men in Con Los Padres never married or have long since broken up with the mother(s) of their children; some have children from new relationships. Meanwhile, socially conservative policymakers in Congress and the White House are fixated on promoting marriage and traditional family life. (The parent organization of Con Los Padres, Bienvenidos Family Services, did not apply for Bush grant money, and Lawrence declined to explain why.)

The Administration's fatherhood initiative will test a variety of programs over the next five years, with grant recipients offering services in marriage education, parenting skills and, to a lesser degree, job training. But marriage education is a popular approach, leaving many family and policy experts concerned.

Vicki Turetsky, a senior staff attorney with the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), has long argued against fatherhood initiatives that mainly promote marriage. Instead, she believes, programs need to reach out to men who are no longer romantically involved with the mother(s) of their children, and thus for whom matrimony is not a solution

Turetsky also wants fatherhood programs to address economic challenges -- helping to get men into long-term employment so they can take greater financial responsibility for their kids. She calls family stability and economic security "two sides of the same coin," acknowledging the importance of marriage but favoring programs that include fathers with non-traditional family lives.

The marrying kind

In the heart of suburban Orange County, California, licensed therapist and relationship expert M.P. Wylie counsels married couples; she also advises mature single women seeking a compatible partner through her program Journey to Love. Wylie is busy putting her new $250,000 fatherhood grant to use.

The fatherhood grant is "my dream come true," says the soft-spoken mother of five and grandmother of 10. Wylie formed the non-profit Relationship Research Foundation in 2000 through which she has trained more than 100 community and church leaders how to teach marriage preparation and relationship skills to couples. Using her grant, Wylie plans to maintain her focus on marriage education. The goal is to keep fathers in their homes with their children, says Wylie, who believes that, "The best way to do that is through happy marriages."

But Vivian Gadsden, the director of the National Center on Fathers and Families in Philadelphia, is wary of fatherhood programs that exclusively focus on marriage, saying they put the cart before the horse. Instead, she says, marriage promotion needs to be part of a larger effort that also helps fathers find work and raise their children successfully -- whatever their matrimonial status.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: fatherhood

Amy DePaul is a writer and college instructor who lives in Irvine, Calif. Her articles have appeared in The Washington Post and many other newspapers.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Sounds like more IMPERIAL ROMAN planning to me
Posted by: citizen chump on Jan 31, 2007 12:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See the writings of Suetonius - "The Twelve Caesars"
-reads like today's front/web page news.
-replete with commentary on family/ divorce in times of empire. Women, oddly enough were liberated if not actually
running the show more often than not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An ounce of prevention
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 31, 2007 2:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're going about this all wrong. They should be reaching out to potentially lousy parents and talking them out of marriage and kids while they're still single and childless.

They could have before/after pictures of people on their wedding day and 5 years later to show the ravages of marriage. I know scare tactics don't always work, but in this case I think they will.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An ounce of prevention Posted by: ALANHESTER
Let's get serious about marriage, reproduction
Posted by: Moonray on Jan 31, 2007 3:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The world is slouching toward a population crisis as reproduction continues to outpace diminishing resources. (Those who point to the handful of nations with declining populations conveniently ignore what's going on in developing countries.)

The U.S. should get serious by licensing marriage and parents separately. Would-be parents should be required to undergo training and testing just as would-be drivers do. Unlicensed parents would face stiff fines and other sanctions. Families should be limited to two children, with those who have more facing escalating fines, then criminal penalties.

Unless such measures are undertaken soon, our grandchildren's world won't be worth living in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Babatunde1945
Posted by: babatunde1945 on Jan 31, 2007 3:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should be just like Bush and love and protect our children just like him, and not let them go fight in wars that are unjust, teach them not to kill innocent people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» INNOCENT PEOPLE?? Posted by: gellero
» RE: INNOCENT PEOPLE?? Posted by: babatunde1945
» RE: INNOCENT PEOPLE?? Posted by: wheresarah
Inequitable Federal Tax Preferences, MAJOR FACTOR
Posted by: TonyGottlieb on Jan 31, 2007 3:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Child Credit, Earned Income Credit, Child Care Tax Credit and the Dependant Deduction along with a litany of entitlement programs which inequitably favor a "custodial" parent's role serve to alienate and thwart responsible fatherhood in low income parents. The dollar amount is staggering.
Excessive use of government sanctioned criticism towards deadbroke Dads who neither understand the preferences phenomema but are jailed for inadequately providing additional post tax income to the custodial parent tax free, (which the Bill Bradley amendment made illegal to amend retroactively), and which is enforced with jail and licence revocation penalties may be the perfect example of a government policy whose unintended consequence is to hurt the very children it sought to help.
If childhood development failure begins in the DNA (Daddy Not Around), it is important to note that people don't tend to stay where they are not invited. If marriage is the correct answer, turning low income men in to beggars and jail inmates of debtors prisons will not achieve this lofty goal.
You people need to wake up or face the consequences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ooops Posted by: Kelly
A Federal Power Grab
Posted by: gellero on Jan 31, 2007 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not see this for what it is....a Federal POWER GRAB in which HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars of our tax money is funnelled by the federal government to loyal senators and reps so they can say they bring home the bacon. This is Pork...pure and simple. Since when does the constitution authorize this sort of 'social service'???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Federal Power Grab Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: A Federal Power Grab Posted by: ALANHESTER
One of the results of abstinence only education
Posted by: Mamarianne on Jan 31, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to prevent births that result from short term relationships by discussing prevention of pregnancy and providing reality check education about what life will be like for parents and children a few years later. So many schools are offering only abstinence education as a means of preventing pregnancy. While some of these programs do discuss the consequences of early parenthood, the unrealistic take and often thinly veiled religious overtones of those messages result in a tune-out by teens. Many teens in these abstinence only classes have already been sexually active or have friends who are active. For them abstinence only education is a void of misinformation. They could, and would, benefit from realistic information. Recently, our local program passed out abstinence only T-shirts. I was tempted to ask if the shirts were available in maternity sizes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

we have to get more upstream
Posted by: nor cal surfer on Jan 31, 2007 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
*decades* of dismantling the educational system has provided rich soil for such a crop of emotional and intellectual peenuas ignoramusi.

look at our leaders. the feeble have trickled up to a point of making our laws! and by (ingeniously) injecting organized religion into the formula, they can continue their grip, as most organized religions these days seem to demand a lack of personal responsibility (eg: it's in God's hands). they don't call them followers for nothing. and how many thinking leaders are there in a 'flock'?

perhaps we now need to treat our leaders like a disease. love them. look at what they're telling us. then take proper action to remove them completely.

and since nature abhors a vacuum, we can heartily replace them with functioning, balanced, forward thinking, non-greedy civil servants - not career rats with money in the freezer, bridges in their honor, and private jet junkets from here to EveryTown.

i write this as a stay-at-home dad w/2 kids, a wife that works, and a life where i don't need God to tell me to keep my schlong in my pants, pick up litter, or work with my spouse to get through the tough times.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» LOL- i got snipped. Posted by: nor cal surfer
» RE: we have to get more upstream Posted by: ALANHESTER
Redo the tax laws
Posted by: cmaciain on Jan 31, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tax laws should be redone to give a tax credit and deduction for one child only. If people have more than one child, they should not get a tax break for the second child. And as promoting marriage, please. If the couple can't stand each other, they shouldn't get married. We need birth control, birth control education including abortion, and national enforcement on child support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HAVING CHILDREN IS NOT FOR EVERYONE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 31, 2007 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The time to learn about fatherhood (or motherhood) is not after the child is here. Meetings, groups, counseling, etc. won't make a difference to people who still need all this nurturing. How can they meet the responsibilities of parenthood when they still require a lot of care and attention themselves. Too many children have children for parents. It's not working. It's about reliable birth control for men and women and they have to use it. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks Alternet
Posted by: mysticalrae on Jan 31, 2007 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for headlining this story! I know there are probably a few ulterior motives tied into the grant monies given, but hey! its a start! What a great project to bring together little ones and their daddies. Not only warm fuzzies, but have you ever seen a young man staring at his baby with that pride and love glowing from every part of him? That is the future of humanity -- and we need to honor any effort by any young man to be a part of their child's life.
There isn't much coming from the Bush administration that I can applaud, but I do give this a "two thumbs up!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Piff-poff
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Jan 31, 2007 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
> Turetsky also wants fatherhood programs to address economic challenges -- helping to get men into long-term employment so they can take greater financial responsibility for their kids.

In other words, making them better slaves.

> ...answers to the question of how to strengthen fathers' bonds with their children may well emerge in the next few years.

What rock has this writer been living under the last couple of decades?

> ...its goal is to make life better for children by getting their fathers involved in their lives in an ongoing, reliable way.

Two words: father custody
________________________________________________

Why is it that a initiatives to improve mothering involve listening to what women say they need/want and then giving it to them, while a 'fatherhood initiative' basically amounts to various parties dictating to men what their role/responsibility/duty is? What kind of double-standard is that?

Perhaps not listening to the men who are the targets of these various programs is a fundamental aspect of the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Piff-poff - Indeed! Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: Piff-poff - Indeed! Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Piff-poff Posted by: smAshley
» two words Posted by: Kelly
The Christian Right at work in our government
Posted by: jdub on Jan 31, 2007 8:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush's "father" policy is a perfect example of the impact that the Christian Right has had on public policy in America. It may not seem like it, but it's one small step toward facism in the U.S. If you haven't seen it, read Chris Hedges's American Facisits: The Christian Right and the War on America (NY: Free Press, 2006).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What the F*ck is happening to this country??
Posted by: MAD on Jan 31, 2007 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Turetsky also wants fatherhood programs to address economic challenges -- helping to get men into long-term employment so they can take greater financial responsibility for their kids."

How about a little more focus on jobs for ALL of us? I'm more than a little upset at this outpouring of state money to fund programs for people dumb enough to procreate when they were in no way prepared to care for them in the first place. Only shithead conservatives like Bush would fail to make the correlation between lack of reality-based sex ed. and the "need" for such programs.

Moreover, where our Mexican friends are concerned, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to muster up much sympathy when many of the dummies follow Catholic teachings, i.e. no "evil" condoms and certainly no abortion. This applies to all religious morons who eschew birth control because it "gets in the way of their pleasure" seeking. It's a real pleasure to be surprised with a gift that keeps on giving for 18 years afterwards, isn't it? It's even more fun when we [taxpayers] have to pay some shrink who couldn't cut it in the real world $50-75 and hour to help you boost your self-esteem in a wet hanky, group setting.

"The fatherhood grant is "my dream come true," says the soft-spoken mother of five and grandmother of 10. Wylie formed the non-profit Relationship Research Foundation in 2000 through which she has trained more than 100 community and church leaders how to teach marriage preparation and relationship skills to couples."

I just bet it's your dream come true Mrs. Wylie. Where else but America would someone give you a quarter of a million dollars to train people for, uh uhhmm, "MARRIAGE PREPARATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS". My god this country is in serious decline. I know this is a rather paltry sum to many, but imagine how many immunizations that is? This kind of PORK sickens me. It may be "non-profit" but you can bet your sweet ass someone is getting that money. Usually a friend of Mrs. Wylie who sells the exorbitantly expensive training materials, etc.

Programs like these are designed to put money in the pockets of normally underqualified shrinks, or ones who are just seeking a little supplemental income. It's like alchohol counseling and all other court mandated counseling. In the end, it amounts to nothing but waste, and in most cases, fraud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» apparently Posted by: nor cal surfer
» Yes!!!! Posted by: Kelly
That's not all fatherhood programs do
Posted by: silverside58 on Jan 31, 2007 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Left unsaid are the abuses of these fatherhood programs, which is using them as a vehicle for promoting more visitation (regardless of the father's history re drugs, alcohol abuse, domestic violence) so as to reduce child support obligations. These programs in the past have provided free legal support to fathers, while not providing similar services to mothers under custody siege. This abuse has been seen in Head Start programs as well as others.

There is NO real evidence that these fatherhood programs have really promoted their expressed ends. They are make work programs for social service people, while creating more legal tangles, harrassment, and fewer resources for mothers and children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» He can't help it Posted by: Kelly
By Design
Posted by: mite on Jan 31, 2007 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get off your lazy ass people and research the truth, because your not going to get it from any alphabet news agency (CIA) the press, through the education system as it is all designed to dumb-down America.

Start with the facts, not propaganda, only through investigative actions of reading history will you learn the truth.

Do you really think the government, banks, rockefeller's, bildenbergs, etc can not control your thinking and responses to their brainwashing? Think again!

The truth is out there people, turn off the TV, IPod, cell phone, and stop reading those newspaper-magazines owned by only 6-7 corporations through-out the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

YEA right
Posted by: silverside58 on Jan 31, 2007 11:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So while the companeros are hanging out and knoshing on pretzels, the poor ex-girlfriend of Bill is sleep deprived and caring for a sick baby. Then he can't figure out why she's not cool with him hanging around, bringing in new germs, or "disappearing" with the baby for a while. Somehow it sounds like Bill is all about Bill, with little concern for what a poor baby needs, much less a stressed mother.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: American fathers are the most exploited
Posted by: lmwilker on Jan 31, 2007 12:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is that you Al Bundy? It's been a while. How's Peg and the kids? Seen Seven lately?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where are the initiatives that even the playing field?
Posted by: djnoll on Jan 31, 2007 1:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My husband worked upwards of 80 hours per week when he was married to his first wife. She spent every dime of it, often leaving him with nothing for food or showers on the road (he was a long haul truck driver). She ran up over $25,000 in credit card debt he did not know about, did not pay bills in only his name, and often told her father (and their landlord) that there was no money for rent when in fact there was enough money in their joint bank account for the rent five times over. She skimmed over $200,000 from the joint finances in the last five years of the marriage according to an audit of their finances, lied in court documents and on tax forms about her actual income from her job, and when she did not get spousal maintenance in the divorce, set out to extort it with fraudulent child support claims with the help of her new boyfriend, the Support Collection caseworker.

Where was the father's rights when he took evidence into court that not only had she assaulted him, but was assaulting their daughters, both physically and sexually? Where was the system when he tried to get custody and the courts allowed her attorney to turn it into a question of child support? Where were the courts when he was injured and could not work, and the child support should have been reduced do to a change of circumstance? I can tell, you NOWHERE! Why because supposedly women cannot lie and are in capable of being violent abusive murderous bitches without consequences if they live in upstate New York!

When my husband and I lived in New York for a year trying to get justice for him and his children, we were threatened and stalked by this woman, and when she found out we were leaving the state, she tried to kill us, not once, but twice. Did anyone help us or even investigate the evidence or charge? Hell, no. We were the ones according to the judge who would not issue the restraining order who were creating the problems! WE were even threatened with jail time if we tried to ever get a restaining order again.

Father's initiatives that only promote marriage are the biggest bunch of bull I have ever heard of, and will only underscore the level of domestic violence from one generation to another. My stepdaughters already have had run ins with school officials for beating up boys in their classes without provocation, and their aunt and uncle will not let them near their male cousins because they fear for the boys' safety.

Until we as a nation stop giving women who batter a free ride and treating every father like an abuser of both partner and child, there will be no justice and no ability for men to truly be part of their children's lives. Change the domestic violence laws to gender neutral; train doctors, nurses, psychologists, psychiatrists, police, and the courts to understand that domestic violence perps are more than half the time women; and start teaching children that Daddy's are not monsters, and you might go a lot farther than getting fathers to be better parents.

As the result of the actions of his ex and the Courts in Jefferson County, New York, my husbnad has not had any contact with his daughters since October 2002. He lives everyday of his life hating himself for not kidnapping them and taking them to safety away from an abusive mother, but he is also a realist and now accepts that because of this monstrous woman, his daughters will grow up hating not only him, but every decent man in this country and there is nothing he can do to change that.

It is time to level the playing field and face the truth. But until we do, idiots like Bush and his fundamentalist Christians will force their ideals and beliefs on those who deserve it least, the good, decent, hardworking men who are good fathers but whose ex's are vicious, vindictive bitches that everyone treats as saints just because they have children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fund Universal Health Care, Subsidized Daycare and Divorce Plummets
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 31, 2007 3:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The state with the lowest divorce rate in America is Massachusetts. But the highest divorce rates are in the South, states like Mississippi and Alabama. So, if conservative, bible belt solutions would have worked, would we not have seen it? The truth is, the more support, help and services available, the less stress on families and the less likelihood of divorce. Give America universal health care, susidized day care, a living wage, and divorce will plummet. And, even when it does occur, it will be much easier for everyone to cope. It will mean a lot fewer "deadbeat dads," because child support amounts don't have to be astrononmical to pay for all the needed health and day care. Other ideas, like giving everybody gobs of therapy first (by a bunch of divorced or never married/childless therapists themselves), or licenses to marry, are all nonsense and "control freak" solutions. We need to look for the real problem and the real solutions and help our people, not harm them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

anecdotal crap
Posted by: silverside58 on Jan 31, 2007 6:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yea sure, there are abusive women. But statistically, they abuse in far fewer numbers with less severity than men. Men very seldom experience the emotional/financial control and threats of domestic violence. They very seldom experience the severe injuries that women experience, or death. They very seldom end up homeless because of abuse. The Department of Justice stats are very clear on this, as well as every major study. However, there are a lot of abusers who successfully charge their wives as starting it now, and it's been a very successful strategy. He's calm and collected (as abusers tend to be when they are getting their way), she's extremely upset.

And your are totally wrong about upstate New York. Anybody who has been in family court these days knows that the Fathers Rights people are very powerful, especially in conservative, rural areas. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Jefferson County has 1,024 fathers with no wife and children under 18 in the home, vs. 2,692 mothers with no husband in the home and children under 18 in the home. That's 27.5%. Are you going to tell me that 27.5% of the mothers in Jefferson County are unfit and deserved to be stripped of their children? I don't think so.

I did a statistical study of the Census data, and the only place with high percentages of single moms are the major cities (New York City, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse) where most of these women are lower-income, inner city with the father totally out of the picture (in prison, in jail, etc.) In rural areas, fathers --even unmarried fathers--have an excellent chance of taking the kids and avoiding child support, which is the main reason father attorneys push it. Then the kids aren't raised by the father or the mother, but by indifferent or abuse stepmom/girlfriend people, who really don't care about the kid at all. Just want to help "her man" screw his ex. Constant badmouthing, just as you see in the post above. Sorry, seen it TOOO often.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» just crap . . . Posted by: MAD
» RE: anecdotal crap Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: anecdotal crap Posted by: silverside58
» Questions... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Questions... Posted by: silverside58
» RE: Questions... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Questions... Posted by: silverside58
» RE: Questions... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Questions... Posted by: fork
» RE: Questions... Posted by: suprmark
» RE: Questions... Posted by: fork
» RE: Questions... Posted by: suprmark
» RE: Questions... Posted by: fork
all high school boys and girls from 9th grade up
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Feb 1, 2007 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
all high school boys and girls from 9th grade on up should have to spend a month per school year carrying around a 15 pound computerized doll that cries and pees and needs to be fed every 2 hours...

that would solve alot of the problem.

BIRTH CONTROL EDUCATION FOR ALL !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» sounds great! Posted by: nor cal surfer
» fake puke Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» Additional features... Posted by: mjabele
Legislating morality
Posted by: darkgrrrl on Feb 1, 2007 1:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Legislating morality always fails. Examples: Prohibition, the War on Drugs. Abstinence-only sex education will be next on the list.

No tax incentive or religious dogma is going to recreate in practice the sexist, classist, "traditional" ideals of 1950s America. This is another example of the Bush administration's attempts to will into existence a totally unrealistic outcome, as opposed to taking action within the current reality.

The resources wasted on No Child Left Behind would be much better allocated to "life skills" training within public schools. Real sex ed, managing relationships, finding and maintaining a job, managing money, etc. No standardized test score is going to help a young adult negotiate condom use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Legislating morality Posted by: MartianBachelor
part of the solution...
Posted by: mindcryme on Feb 1, 2007 7:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
one word: vascectomy.
i had it done last year.
;)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: part of the solution... Posted by: bluetoaster
» RE: part of the solution... Posted by: mindcryme