This was not Slate.com's finest hour. One thing this article could never be accused of is objective reporting.
On Nov. 5th, the very same day the Double X article appeared, Salon.com's Broadsheet published an article by Judy Berman entitled "'Men's rights' groups go mainstream" <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote3sym> 3 that adds no new information, and simply seems to be an effort to repeat the Double X article to Salon's readers.
"More than a quarter-century ago, British feminist philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards wrote, 'No feminist whose concern for women stems from a concern for justice in general can ever legitimately allow her only interest to be the advantage of women.' Joyce's article is a stark example of feminism as exclusive concern with women and their perceived advantage, rather than justice or truth."
In "Journalistic Misrepresentation at Slate's New Woman-Oriented Publication 'Double X'" <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote5sym> 5, RADAR's Mark Rosenthal explained how the article had misrepresented his comments and also took issue with the article's characterization of Murray Straus as someone "who has written extensively on female violence," saying:
"The characterization of Straus as someone who has written extensively on female violence is like characterizing Susan B. Anthony as someone who wrote extensively on temperance - true but misleading because of what it leaves out. Straus has devoted his professional career to the study of all forms of family violence - parent-to-child, child-to-parent, sibling-to-sibling, as well as partner violence in all its configurations - male-to-female, female-to-male, and mutual. He has never focused exclusively on female violence."
"The articles discuss various aspects and actors in the [men's and fathers] movement, and also quote and misquote me. ... I specifically, repeatedly, and emphatically told Joyce that any linkage between the men's & fathers' movements' grievances and Sodini is not my view, but I guess she was determined to jam it in there anyway."
Mahatma Gandhi is reputed to have said: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." The joint Slate/Salon attack pieces are a good indication that we're well past stage 1. Congratulation to all RADAR supporters and allies for getting us this far. Let's keep it up!
R.A.D.A.R. - Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting - is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence. http://www.mediaradar.org
The use of a white male child as the
abuser and black female child as the abused by Family Place
and DART http://www.dart.org/about/contactdart.asp
is a blatant example of gender and race bias. The truth is that even
in Big D women are just as likely to abuse as men are, it's just that
men are ten times more likely to take it without complaining to the
government. It amazes me that a supposed journalist would take the
word of the self promoting Family Place Red Neo-Fems' for the truth
about DV. The truth is that they are using the victimization of both
women and minorities to increase the size and scope of their program
and tax payer funding. If they where truly interested in ending
"family" violence they would have portrayed a group of
people of varying races and both genders along with a large note of
how bad it is to falsely accuse fathers of abuse to gain an advantage
during custody battles! Remember, you reap what you sow, if our
society keeps promoting men as bad and women as victims and denying
men the justice they deserve then our society will never actually
solve DV just keep perpetuating it. It is time to reform DV by
starting with changing the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
by Joe Biden to End Family Violence Act with equal funding for both
genders with a demand that states sanction those who use false DV
charges in Family Court cases. Even better, abolish the federal
component, reduce federal taxes, legislate presumed equal parenting
unless there is clear and convincing evidence of abuse so that false
abuse claims are reduced which will allow the states to deal with
the issue on their own.
As I watched the All-Star game the other night (What a long, but great game!), I reminisced about the great tradition and history of Yankee Stadium. The era of greats gone by, most of them long passed before my being graced this earth, moved me in a moment of nostalgia. I was happy that MLB decided to host this year’s game at the Old Yankee Stadium, rather than, waiting until 2010’s game at the New Yankee Stadium. As baseball goes, the next All-Star game at the Yankee’s home park should not occur for another thirty years. Sometimes the old is worth retaining. Other times, the former needs to be released and the new necessarily should be ushered in!
Well defined within our Michigan history is a family right’s movement that began thirty plus years ago with folks like Al Lebow. Al, along with others, began to challenge the Family Court’s determination in establishing one parent as non-custodial. They laid the foundation for the reform that is our agenda today. From the bottom of our hearts, we thank you Al for your years of dedication and service for our children’s sake.
Al was not alone in his endeavors. Today, thirty plus years later, Michigan’s family rights movement boasts of membership in the tens of thousands. A visit to the web shows groups meeting every day of the week. There are social programs, education programs, legal help programs and more. All for the individual caught up in Family Court! While most groups have a particular agenda- Children Need Both Parents, SplitNTwo, Get Off The Bench, A Child’s Right, Family Rights Coalition, Dads and Moms of Michigan, Fathers For Justice and the list goes on. Most of these groups have undergone a metamorphosis lately. Recently posted on a local family rights blog was the following apropos statement, “A new generation of professionals, well educated, well trained and just the right amount of pissed off, have taken up the mantle through advocacy to dissemble corrupt government at its core! Along with, assuming the responsibility to- educate, train and mentor individuals to claim/ assert their unalienable rights whether in family courts, in states' courts, in federal courts, in states' legislatures, in federal legislature or, most importantly, at the ballot box!”
I cannot agree more. Today’s professional has put career, financial security and the pleasure principle on hold, in order to wage war against our government in its kidnapping of our children. But, we have not stopped there! We have claimed all elements of governmental corruption as our agenda. None is safe from our exposure. We have aligned with any/ all groups. We know no lines of distinction, save the people’s right to control and cause to submit those who shall be our servants- our elected officials!
In August, on the 15th and 16th, all citizens shall gather together at Upper Senate Park in our Nation’s Capital to voice both our concerns and our grievances to our US Government, to We The People and to the Public Media. Law makers, law enforcers, personalities, experts and professionals shall be in attenDeletece. US Citizens of all genders, races, political persuasions and social economic statuses shall declare, in one collective voice, their demand for an immediate, none mitigating reform of government as we know it! Join us! Your attenDeletece is necessary! Your input is invaluable!
Last week I learned something from my daughter’s readings. The Constitution in its original signing did not contain any affirmative statements of our rights! Yep! The Bill of Rights, which we all know, was added as Amendments after the Constitution was written, was signed and was adopted by the thirteen colonies. Some Framers, as James Madison, were none-to-happy with these exclusions. The thought, in their exclusion, was that the Constitution assumed each of these Rights, not needing to be re-iterated as redunDeletet. Some, though, were wise beyond their years in requiring their inclusion post the Constitution’s adoption by the states. So allow me to ask you- Do you know which aspect of which Amendment is arguably the most abused by our Government? It’s our 1st Amendment Right to Petition!
Our Constitution explicitly states in the 1st Amendment, “The Right to Petition government.” Today, that is considered over-broad. The history of this Right stretches back to England forward through our Continental Congress arriving as an assumptive given within the Constitution. Despite the arguably redunDeletet inclusion of the affirmative Amendments of our Bill of Rights, the “Right to Petition government” was assumed, therefore, it was not fully defined in said Bill of Rights!
The Right to Petition during the era of our Continental Congress was for each and every person’s right to bring a petition of grievance before Congress. Yes, Congress! That’s the Legislative Branch folks! Once the Constitution was adopted in 1787, the Right to Petition included the Judicial Branch while continuing for the Legislative Branch. This right granted any citizen access to both the federal court and to the federal legislature for re-dress of any alleged grievance! My, how have things changed in 200+ years?
Today, We The People, must overcome Abstention Doctrines to gain access into our federal courts for re-dress of any grievance alleged against our states; notwithstanding these restrictions on our access to the federal courts, we now have no access to our legislators for said grievances. What happened? Stare Decisis! The federal courts legislated, from the bench, their own laws, which have restricted and/ or rescinded We The People’s access to both the courts and the legislature for our grievances against the states!
We The People have been robbed of our 1st Amendment Right to Petition and we aim to re-claim it back from our government. For more information regarding activist groups concerning WTP and our 1st Amendment Right to Petition click the web link http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/.
Our fundamental Right to Petition our government is foundational to our controlling our government. This was assumed and always believed by our Constitutional Framers. Our states have aggrieved our rights. And, the federal government has barred us from re-dress of these said grievances! We must assert our Right to Petition against our states!
[W]hy then do parents who have NOT abandoned their child(ren) accept being classified as “non-custodial”??? Doesn’t accepting the label of “non-custodial” further the idea that legal positivism will be tolerated rather than attacked ferociously as well?
I agree with your implications. Legal Positivism is the denial of morality in law. While it might be argued not every law has moral implications (although I would present a different thesis), the legal positivist would assert no law has any moral implication. The law and morality are separately defined circles that never overlap. Our defense against legal positivism is founded in our basic assumptions. Or, as I am want of saying, our belief system!
That we the people, ever claim to have any rights must necessarily be derivative from an Authority. That we insist, that we have unalienable rights inherent within our beings, necessarily requires that those rights come both from said Authority and are also embodied within that said Authority, not the law. Otherwise, we begin down the slippery slope of relativism- non-absolutes. Thus, emerging with the reigning power self-granting its own authority- by law, according to its own agenda- sovereign’s will, to the degradation of the masses' once assumed unalienable rights, now absent Authority. The telos- The ultimate result, leads to totalitarianism!
One cannot insist he/ she has unalienable rights without granting that said unalienable rights are both embodied within and derivative from God! Once, we allowed the government to convince us that God was not allowed in the schools, thirty plus years ago, we began down the slippery road of relativism; Utilizing the replacement theology of existentialism; interpreting with the hermeneutic of modernism (and now post-modernism) resulting in the employed methodology of legal positivism to not only law, but also life. Absent of God, we have become absent of morality.
While woman for several decades have been moving their collective agendas through the legislatures and the courts, we men, more broadly IV-D and IV-E non-custodial victims, have nobody but ourselves to blame! We stood passive far too long ago, discharging our duty in the belief that- unalienable rights have no requisite in corresponding duties! Simple contract law asserts that "no right exists without a corresponding duty!" While assigning our duty to our elected officials we also, ignorantly, discharged our right to control government.
It is no wonder, within our ranks, that we see the evidences of our discharged duty. On the one hand, we have tyranny, ranging from ranting to, in some cases, full fledge gun assaults. On the other hand, we have tyranny's logical antithesis- apathy! Such has gathered us to this day!
“The fatuous path of the amoral person is the silent anesthesia of doom!”
pe•cu•ni•ar•y / piˈkyoōnēˌerē/ • adj. formal of, relating to, or consisting of money: he admitted obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.
As a boy growing up in the 70’s, my father taught me a valuable lesson towards understanding, often times, the seemingly peculiar chain of events of an incident. He said, “Just follow the money trail. Then you’ll know both why and what has and will happen.” Sage words of wisdom from the “Ole man!” These words were not any more truthful then, than they are now!
As I progressed thru my divorce proceedings, ultimately believing the judicial system would soon discover the truth about myself- contrary to how my Ex portrayed me; the truth of my ability to raise my kids- contrary to how my Ex portrayed me; and, the truth of the need for my four young children to have both parents equally involved in their lives, I became disillusioned, contrary to my formerly held belief, over the continuous Orders rendered by the Court! First in its sole custody award to my Ex. Then, its outrageous child and spousal support awards- triple the state’s mandated formula. Finally, as a death knell, an order of visitation, with my kids, for only four days per month! There were no summer vacations, only six half days of holidays and not any time on their birthdays. I was devastated. I couldn’t believe it! I fought back, only to lose again, and again.
After my third stint in the county jail, for allegedly being in Contempt for support arrearages; I guess over 80% garnishment of my check was not enough; I began to research this obvious injustice from my father’s old adage- “follow the money trail.” I soon discovered my Court’s pecuniary interest in: Making me a non-custodial parent; Ordering support triple the state’s formula; Refusing to reduce my support despite proof of my wage; Illegally editing the Official Court Record; Repeatedly incarcerating me for alleged contempt; Refusing to provide me with a Court appointed attorney as an indigent; And, Worst of all, taking my kids away from me by suspending my parenting time!
The Court had developed a racket, a term commonly applied to syndicated crime families. The law had become the mob! Back in 1995, the Federal Legislature re-worded its laws for Welfare, Food Stamps, etc. The old wording was “a mother with child(ren) who has an absent father,” to the new wording, “non-custodial parent.” The seemingly innocuous re-wording was intended to defray the huge expenses the Feds were paying out to states in Food Stamps, Welfare, etc by incentivizing states to begin collecting child support from the absent father, now called the non-custodial parent. These, seemingly were the proper things to do. Why should children be allocated tax dollars for their care instead of parents paying to care for their own children? Ah, but we missed that third variable didn’t we? “The Federal Government wanted to incentivize the states.”
The states’ incentive is called Federal Title IV Block Grant Funding. The states receive funding from the Federal Government at a 2:1 match. (There are actually additional incentives for states beyond this figure tied to their performances) These block grants go straight to the County Court. Ah ha! My father was right! “Follow the money trail.” Now the injustices made sense. Now the kidnapping of my children made sense! Now the senseless incarcerations made sense. Now the erasing of Court documents made sense. Now the falsely claimed, irrationally applied, “Best Interest of the Children” made sense! Now the state’s hypocrisy made sense!
The next time you wander into a Family Court in MI and you hear a non-custodial parent attacking the court for its pecuniary interest, remember what my “ole man” said, “follow the money trail!” Sage advice for those of us who have children!