What Have Feminists Done to America's Fathers?
What Have Feminists Done to America's Fathers?
by Phyllis Schlafly
Jun 10, 2005
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.
by Phyllis Schlafly
Jun 10, 2005
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.
Labels: Dads, Feminist, Phyllis Schlafly, VAWA
posted by Meg at 8:14 PM
3 Comments:
Okay, I'm not a fan of many 'victim' laws / bills, myself. It does seem a convenient way to circumvent bothersome civil liberties by way of popular opinion of the moment, etc. etc.
However, I find your use of "statistics" on domestic violence to be misleading (can you even cite your refrences, or did you just make the numbers up?)
I also find your attempts to factualize some of your personal opinions transparent (at best). Most allegations of domestic violence are made solely to strip custody rights from fathers? Can you back that up in reality, with properly cited numbers, quotes from real experts, or were you just hoping that if you slipped that statement in the middle of a bunch of quotes taken out of context everyone who read this blog would accept your opinions as bonafide fact without question?
I'm sure there are plenty of examples of women using popular public opinion, domestic violence bills etc. as ammunition against good fathers seeking child custody. I don't think that fact warrants the blanket claim that "most" domestic violence allegations are complete fabrications. A solid mix of half-truths and outright falsehoods---- Wow, you have a genuine recipe for propaganda! Congratulations.
Anonymous
If you look again at the post, you will see it is clearly attributed to Phyllis Schlafly and you can link to the article directly by clicking on the title (in orange).
Here is her bio that you can see at: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BIOS/cbschlafly.htm
Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not an Echo. She has been a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972, when she started her national volunteer organization, now called Eagle Forum.
Schlafly's monthly newsletter is The Phyllis Schlafly Report, and her weekly commentary is heard on 40 radio stations. She is the author of 16 books on subjects as varied as family and feminism (The Power of the Positive Woman), nuclear strategy (Strike From Space and Kissinger on the Couch), education (Child Abuse in the Classroom) and child care (Who Will Rock the Cradle?). Her most recent book, First Reader, is a system to enable every parent to teach his or her child to read.
Schlafly is a lawyer who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to serve as a member of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution 1985-1991. She has testified before more than 50 congressional and state legislative committees on constitutional, national defense and family issues. She is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Washington University, received her J.D. from Washington University Law School and her master's in political science from Harvard University. Ladies' Home Journal named her one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century.
If you would like to direct your commentary to Ms. Schlafly, you can do that on this page: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/ps20050606.shtml and scrolling all the way down to the Contact Phyllis Schlafly button. Alternatively, if you would prefer, I will go ahead and send it her way. Just let me know...
Look, I have no problem with you having a problem with something I HAVE ACTUALLY WRITTEN - but do not use my blog to try to take me to task for the work of someone else.
Meg
Intersting how Anon makes a bald-faced assumption and then converts it into a personal criticism on a stranger who posts a link to a columnist with abundant personal experience. No problem; clearing decades of PC is so gratifying...especially when PC self-victims then emotionally refuse the plain truth, which is typical. Tends to support those same facts.
This isn't my blog, but if you want I can cite most of these sources, Anon, not that you deserve them. The rest are just self-evident:
1. Thousands and thousands of references in one private study that show domestic violence (DV) to be gender neutral.
2. Federal stats showing DV to be at least a third committed by women...and additional hard data that previous fed studies were wrecked by feminist agendas. Ask the wrong questions, get the right answers...
3. DV against kids is about 60% by women. Fed stats, state stats, you name it.
4. No fault divorce raised divorce roughly 25%. Most divorce is initiated by women. Approaching 89% of sole custody awards go to mom. Only about 15% of all custody is joint. 66% of every child support dollar is kicked back from the feds under Title IV-D to the states. Presumption of DV guilt is how moms take kids, income, and property; i.e., DV plays to the 95% against-women myth for fun and profit.
5. Jailing folks for not being able to pay federally incentivized "support" is against anti-servitide laws going back to the founding of this country. Such is the only current way you can go to jail without committing a crime. Well, excepting mandatory arrest DV laws.
6. Dozens of supreme court rulings in the states and in DC call parenting an inalienable right, as important as literally any other.
7. Concerning involuntary loss of custody, typically by fathers, nearly 50 states have recently been served the largest class-action suit in US history for discrimination and violation of constitutional protections.
And on and on and on. The rad-fem anti-family Emperor simply has no clothes.
Somebody once said being victimized by deceit was a flaw but perpetuating it was a crime. I wonder if deceiving yourself is a flawed crime or a criminal flaw...
Post a Comment
<< Home