Posted on 06/11/2005 3:28:21 AM PDT by familyop
On Father's Day, Americans should ponder the appalling fact that an estimated 40 percent of our nation's children are living in homes without their own father. Most of our social problems are caused by kids who grow up in homes without their own fathers: drug abuse, illicit sexual activity, unwed pregnancies, youth suicide, high school dropouts, runaways, and crime.
Where have all the fathers gone? Some men are irresponsible slobs, but no evidence exists that nearly half of American children were voluntarily abandoned by their own fathers; there must be other explanations.
For 30 years, feminist organizations and writers have propagated the myth that women are victims of an oppressive patriarchal society and that marriage is an inherently abusive institution that makes wives second-class citizens. Feminists made divorce a major component of women's liberation and their political freedom.
For three decades, feminists have toyed with the question that Maureen Dowd chose as the title of her forthcoming book, Are Men Necessary? That's just the latest version of Gloria Steinem's famous line, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
College textbooks portray marriage as especially bleak and dreary for women. Assigned readings are preoccupied with domestic violence, battering, abuse, marital rape, and divorce.
During the Clinton Administration, the feminists parlayed their hysteria that domestic violence is a national epidemic into the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This created a gigantic gravy train of taxpayers' money, known as feminist pork, that empowers pro-divorce, anti-male activism.
Not satisfied with several billions from the U.S. Treasury, 67 feminist and liberal organizations supported a lawsuit to try to get private allegations of domestic abuse heard in federal courts so they could collect civil damages against men and institutions with deep pockets. Fortunately, the Supreme Court, in Brzonkala v. Morrison (2000), declared unconstitutional VAWA's section that might have permitted that additional mischief.
However, VAWA's billions of dollars continue to finance the domestic-violence lobby, and there is a deafening silence from conservatives who pretend to be guardians against federal takeovers of problems that are none of the federal government's business. Local crimes and marital disputes should not be subjects of federal law or spending.
Billions of dollars have flowed from VAWA to the states to finance private victim-advocacy organizations, private domestic-violence coalitions, and the training of judges, prosecutors and police. This tax-funded network is, of course, staffed by radical feminists who teach the presumption of father guilt.
Legislating a special category of domestic violence is very much like legislating a special category of hate crimes. Both create a new level of crimes for which punishment is based on who you are rather than what acts you commit, and the "who" in the view of VAWA and the domestic-violence lobby is the husband and father.
A Justice Department-funded document published by the National Victim Assistance Academy established a widely accepted definition of "violence" that includes such non-criminal acts as "degradation and humiliation" and "name-calling and constant criticizing." The acts need not be illegal, physical, violent, or threatening; "domestic violence" becomes whatever the woman says it is.
The Final Report of the Child Custody and Visitation Focus Group of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges admitted that "usually judges are not required to make a finding of domestic violence in civil protection order cases." In other words, judges saddle fathers with restraining orders on the wife's say-so without any investigation as to whether it is true or false.
The late Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN), a big advocate of VAWA, admitted that "up to 75 percent of all domestic assaults reported to law enforcement agencies were inflicted after the separation of the couple." Most allegations of domestic violence are made for the purpose of taking the custody of children away from their fathers.
The June issue of the Illinois Bar Journal explains how women use court-issued restraining orders (which Illinois calls Orders of Protection) as a tool for the mother to get sole child custody and even bar the father from visitation. In big type, the magazine proclaims: "Orders of protection are designed to prevent domestic violence, but they can also become part of the gamesmanship of divorce."
The "game" is that mothers can assert falsehoods or trivial marital complaints and thereby get sole custody orders that deprive children of their fathers. This "game" is based on the presumption (popularized by VAWA and the domestic-violence lobby) that fathers are inherently guilty and dangerous.
Congress should not be spending taxpayers' money to deal with marital disputes, and courts should not deprive children of their fathers on a presumption that fathers are dangerous. Congress can help us celebrate Father's Day this year by refusing to reauthorize the costly VAWA boondoggle.
Mrs. Schlafly is the author of the new book The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It (Spence Publishing Co).
their 'own' fathers
i guess the old bitty doesn't mind dis'ing us stepfathers to make her statistic as impressive as possible
Is Phyllis Schlafly too old to run for POTUS in '08?
They got what they wanted.
So you wanna fend exclusively for yourself, ma'am? Have fun.
Don't come beggin'.
This is the classic 'Elijah vs. Jezebel' war.
The spirit of Elijah exists to turn the hearts of the fathers to the sons, and the sons to the fathers.
Jezebel opposes this for motives of selfishness and power, to the point of sacrificing her own children.
Thank God for guys like you! I for one appreciate the sacrifice of a man who takes up a responsibility that was never yours in the first place. It doesn't go unnoticed by God, so be blessed!
Mrs. Schlafly makes some good points in this article (certainly, the importance of fathers in their children's lives hasn't been given the respect it deserves; kids need their fathers, or a healthy, stable male figure in their lives), but she is a bit flippant on the issue of emotional abuse within a family. It happens, and it often escalates to physical abuse.
And women are just as able to dish it out as men are.
Preaching responsible behavior to young men, rather than blaming young women might help.
Today,both young men and young women could use a littleeducation in responsability.
Well said.
It's not hard to father a child :), but it's something else entirely to actually be a dad for the long term.
So happy Father's Day, dwills. :)
"This is the classic 'Elijah vs. Jezebel' war. "
You have a point. But I would argue simply note this: feminism is simply a symptom of a genuine problem that exists in the hearts of most men: cowardice.
Homosexuality, infidelity, illegitimate kids, etc, all are connected to the loss of the ability to teach boys to endure discomfort. Thus, as boys trapped Men's bodies, they continue to be comfort-seekers, aka "mama's boys".
To be sacrificial is to endure discomfort, especially with a woman; for Lord knows, no matter what woman you marry, sacrifices are ahead for you one way or another.
Either you will sacrifice your comfort and struggle onward through times of dischord and frustration, or you will sacrifice your own manhood in the Name of Peace. Many, many cul de sacs this morning are filled with peaceful, and very, very feminine homes.
And absolutely miserable men. But never ever blame the wife in the house for this state of affairs. It is all his fault, and abdication is as much his fault, worse even, than all else.
In short, 'Elijah vs. Jezebel', is ok. But much better is 'Adam and Woman' .... where Adam, who was with her, remained silent all the while she did the dirty work for him. And then, when caught, he did the boy road: "But God! The Woman YOU GAVE ME ...".
Feminism is the mold upon society that Adam inflicted upon us, and that God allows to get our attention. But, sheesh, I can't write anymore! Sportscenter is on!!!!
I agree 1000%. Good catch there in Gen. 3. Adam absolutely blew it because of his silence during the assault on his wife's mind.
I agree on this. I think the author treats the issue of abuse lightly.
Yes, in the heat of a custody battle, women (or maybe even men! after all, they're human too) say horrible things about each other that may not be true.
But to go from that point to stating that "most allegations of abuse" are unfounded is not warranted.
Could you help me understand what "emotional abuse" is? Physical abuse is pretty easy but I can't quite understand what constitutes emotional abuse. Thanks.
Women are more likely than men to lie about their sex lives, reveals a new study. Women's coyness about their sexual behaviour was unveiled by a US study involving a fake lie detector test.
In surveys since the 1960s, men typically report having more sexual partners and than do women - a statistically impossible feat. For example, British men boast an average of 13 partners over a lifetime compared with an average of nine partners for women.
Scientists previously explained this anomaly by suggesting men were exaggerating their tally, while women were understating their total. But now Terri Fisher at Ohio State University and Michele Alexander at the University of Maine suggest that men are in fact more truthful in such surveys.
Women change their answers depending on whether or not they believe they will be caught out not telling the truth, the researchers found. The number of sexual partners a woman reported nearly doubled when women thought they were hooked up to a lie detector machine.
"Women are more sensitive to social expectations for their sexual behaviour and may be less than honest when asked about their behaviour in some survey conditions," says Fisher, a psychologist. She says women appeared to feel under pressure to meet expectations of being more relationship-orientated and not promiscuous.
Completely anonymous
Fisher and Alexander surveyed over 200 unmarried, heterosexual college students aged 18 to 25.
One group filled in questionnaires having been told the researcher might view their responses. A second group filled in the survey completely anonymously, alone in a room.
A third group had electrodes placed on their hand, forearms and neck and were told they were being attached to a polygraph or lie detector machine - although there was in fact no working machine.
Women who thought their responses might be read said they had had an average of 2.6 sexual partners, compared with 3.4 partners for those who thought their answers were anonymous. But those who thought they would be caught out by the polygraph reported an average of 4.4 partners.
In contrast, men's answers did not vary significantly. Those attached to the lie-detector reported an average of 4.0 partners compared with 3.7 for men who thought their answers would be read.
The researchers think the results explain the previously reported differences in men and women's sexual behaviour, with women being afraid of getting labelled as "whores".
"We live in a culture that really does expect a different pattern of sexual behaviour from women than it does from men," says Fisher.
Journal reference: Journal of Sex Research: (vol 40, p 27)
,,, "counsellors" - that's a big word stretched from a four letter one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.