A Child's Right

Have we created a Matriarchy that is bankrupting nations, abusing children?

Have we created a Matriarchy that is bankrupting nations, abusing children?

The new feminism (second wave [the radicals]) who have to be a part of everything male while acting in a misandric fashion are creating a sadistic Matriarchy across the globe. If Men and women split everything 50/50 and women get 50% of the man's 50 and 7/8ths of the remaining twenty five
percent as special entitlements that equals 97.25% - maybe that is why females make the majority of retail purchases.

I can envision men reading this crossing their legs, wringing their hands uncomfortably almost whining: I hope they read the rest of this, check out the links, STOP, breathe and then reflect: the truth is in the studies. We have for decades lazily subscribed to urban myth even though lies have been
proven and dispelled:

<http://dadsofmichigan.blogspot.com/2011/07/warshak-brief-in-lamagusa.html>

Warshak

Apparently the Jewish community is concerned with a dwindling male membership <http://dadsofmichigan.blogspot.com/2011/07/end-of-jewish-men.html>
The end of Jewish Men are not the Protestant and Catholic Communities facing the same situation?

Not all single mothers are sadistic but images of Britney, Lindsey and Casey should wake us up a little simply look up female violence on You Tube . "`Oh say it is not true" exclaim the gentlemen twisting in their seats, perhaps, but this material is not made up <http://antimisandry.com/abuse-dv/>
Bringing Attention to Abuse By Females it is true Google has tried to censor such material as hate speech preferring homosexual friendly comments (sorry their editorial preference and a true statement simply ask bloggers).

All mothers probably are not that violent despite the ones we have seen grabbing their children by the arm in the grocery store, we do know (even if we are afraid to discuss it) at least some moms utilize the electronic babysitter, we have been talking about it for decades, but could it lead to this: <http://westmichigandad.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/should-parents-of-obese-kids-lose-custody/>

Should parents of obese kids lose custody?

* We know Fathers petition Courts for custody, joint custody, shared custody, parenting time, access to their children everyday, and, everyday leave the Court Room broken hearted despite the evidence demonstrating the criticality of fathers to their children's development,

<http://antimisandry.com/forums/> Forum

<http://antimisandry.com/forums/#wisdom-library> . Wisdom Library

<http://antimisandry.com/facts-figures/> . Facts and Figures

<http://antimisandry.com/essential/> . Essential There are only about one hundred and six entries there you could also try <http://westmichigandad.wordpress.com/research/>
Research there are only thirty-eight hyper-linked references there.

The Public Broadcast System actually airs programming that touches upon religion, last weekend I listened to a Catholic Bishop lamenting the injury upon all of those poor families that the current budget debacle will cause.
I am certain the Bishop truly had in mind social injustice to less fortunate people _ I truly believe the Bishop had no conception at all he really is lamenting a minor loss in funding for the enabling of single mother homes whilst depriving children of their fathers.

There is no logic in promoting Fatherhood whilst denigrating Fathers. There is no logic in promoting a social system that separates children from their fathers whilst costing America three hundred thirty-six billion dollars annually Sex, <http://dadsofmichigan.blogspot.com/2011/07/sex-money.html>
money.and national bankruptcies.

Perhaps no one really cares enough to have read this far, or someone is yawning, or instead of twisting in their seat someone has urinated, can we seriously imagine grown adults so afraid of women, there are afraid to read this?

Mothers are sacred, mothers are scary, what am I thinking, well I am not the happiest camper in the entire world but I am not alone; <http://westmichigandad.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/mothers-day-2011-not-so-purdy-americass-pbs-documentary/>
Mother's Day 2011: not so Purdy - Americas's PBS documentary, <http://dadsofmichigan.blogspot.com/2011/07/mother-mother-where-are-you.html>
Mother, mother, where are you?, Another Broken Heart <http://antimisandry.com/father-children/another-broken-heart-40104.html#post266672> truth to tell this is but a minor glimpse of the anecdotal evidence.

As the men continue to cringe I can imagine someone uttering a derogatory remark. Do we even know how to educate males STOP, please do not be so sure about yourself, have you read anything found here: <http://www.michaelgurian.com/books_dvds.html>
Michael Gurian , any of these Books for Fathers .
<http://dadsofmichigan.blogspot.com/p/books-for-fathers.html>
Do we really know what we are advocating for: In the matter of: <http://dadsofmichigan.blogspot.com/2011/07/in-matter-of-pornography-v-romantic.html>
pornography v, romantic fantasies , <http://dadsofmichigan.blogspot.com/2011/07/parental-alienation.html>

Parental Alienation
<http://dadsofmichigan.blogspot.com/2011/07/in-our-good-do-we-do-bad.html>
In our good do we do bad Long letter, nothing is simple, our children deserve their Fathers, our Boys
deserve to be treated for who they are, our Congregations, Synagogues and Parishes deserve participation from both sexes.

IOWA Shared Parenting HF 345 Passes Out of Committee - Eligible for Floor Debate

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IowaFathers

HF 345 Passes Out of Committee - Eligible for Floor Debate

March 4, 2011

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Dear Jim,

 

Great News! House File 345, passed out of the House Judiciary Committee this week 11-10.  The bill, which creates a rebuttable presumption of joint physical care, is now eligible for debate on the House Floor.  A rally date at the Capitol is currently being planned and the details will be released soon!

 

Please send Rep. Kaufmann, Rep. Rogers, Rep. Abul-Samad, Rep. Rasmussen, Rep. Sands, and Rep. Muhlbauer an individual thank you for introducing this bill and for their hard work in getting HF 345 through committee.

 

In order to successfully pass HF 345 on the House Floor, we need to gain more support.  I'm asking all members and concerned citizens to please start emailing all members of the Iowa House of Representatives asking them to support HF 345.  For your convenience, all Iowa House Representatives email addresses are listed below for copy and paste:

 

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 

[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; 

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 

[email protected]; [email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected]; 

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected]; 

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 

[email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected]; 

[email protected]; [email protected];  [email protected]; [email protected];

 

Below is the email I am personally sending to the entire Iowa House on HF 345.  Please feel free to use my research in your email.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dear Iowa House of Representatives,

 

I'm hopeful you will allow children the opportunity to have equal access to both parents by voting in favor of HF 345.

 

Click here for a thesis explaining in-depth the legality need along with the social need for a rebuttable presumption of joint physical care here in Iowa.  

 

A few key points that I would like to stress are as follows:

 

•         Joint physical care or shared parenting is when both parents share physical placement of the child(ren). Simply defined, joint physical care allows the child(ren) to live with each parent 50% of the time during the year.

 

•         In all thirty-three comparative studies in the U.S. comparing the outcomes of children in joint physical care to those in the care of only one parent found that children in joint physical care have better outcomes (Bauserman, 2002).

 

•         The percentage of all births that were to unmarried women more than doubled between 1980 and 2008. In 2008, 41 percent of births were to unmarried women, up from 40 percent in 2007. Increases have occurred for women in all age groups, with the largest increases measured for women in their twenties (America's Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2010).

 

•         Mothers win primary physical care in 84.4 percent of the cases (Support Providers: 2002, 2005).

 

•         According to recent studies, approximately 40 percent of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone; another 18.3 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone; 17.3 percent were abused by both parents (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2007).

 

•         On specifically neglect, a study found that children living with just one parent, under any living arrangement, had significantly higher rates of Harm Standard neglect with 27.0 per 1,000 children compared to those living with two married biological parents with 4.2 per 1,000 children (Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4), 2010).

 

•         Research by Dr. Judith Wallerstein and Dr. Joan Berlin Kelly revealed that 50 percent of mothers either saw no value in the father's contact with his children and actively tried to sabotage it, or resented the father's contact (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1996).

 

•         According to the U.S. Department of Justice, an estimated 2.11 million persons under the age of eighteen were arrested in 2008, where 1 in 10 arrests were for murder and 1 in 4 arrests were for robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. The report further showed that Iowa (92% reporting coverage) reported 252 juvenile violent crime arrests, 1792 juvenile property crime arrests, 396 juvenile drug abuse arrests, and 52 juvenile weapons arrests (Juvenile Arrests 2008, 2009).

 

The negative impacts of fatherless children cannot be ignored. Please support HF 345 which will create a rebuttable presumption of joint physical care and help ensure that Iowa's children gain access to both parents!

 

Sincerely,

Bryan Iehl

Founder & President

IowaFathers

PO Box 2884

Waterloo, IA  50704-2884

[email protected] 

 

 

 

 

Quick Links...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our Website

Message Board

Events Calendar

IowFathers PAC Website

Michigan Parental Rights Resolution HCR 45 Action

Dear Friend of Parental Rights in Michigan,

Through your phone calls and the diligent efforts of our allies at
Citizens Alliance for Life and Liberty (CALL), a resolution calling
for the Parental Rights Amendment has made significant progress in the
Michigan legislature. Currently, the resolution - HCR 45  - has 60
cosponsors in the 110-member House, a clear majority.

However, HCR 45, championed by Rep. Dave Agema, must pass the House
Judiciary Committee to reach the floor for a vote, and that committee
is headed by Rep. Mark Meadows. As the chairman, Rep. Meadows has the
authority to decide whether the resolution will receive a hearing, and
whether or not it will be put to a committee vote.

We believe HCR 45 will pass if we can get it to a vote, so we need
your help to pursuade Rep. Meadows to give it that chance.

Next Thurs., April 29, at 11:30 Director Steven Dennison of CALL has a
30-minute appointment with Rep. Meadows to discuss this issue. April
29 is also Rep. Meadows' birthday.

Here, then, is what we need you to do:

Send a card as soon as possible wishing the Representative a happy
birthday;
Include in it a cordial request that he grant HCR 45 a vote in the
Judiciary Committee
Forward this email to as many friends and family members in Michigan
as you can and ask them to join you.
Please send your cards to:

The Honorable Representative Mark S. Meadows
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514.

Rep. Meadows may not be your local representative, but he represents
all of Michigan as the chair of the Judiciary Committee, especially in
deciding on matters like HCR 45. Your efforts are invaluable in
helping Michigan to pass this resolution in support of parental rights.

Sincerely,

Jason Heki
Regional Coordinator

Best Interest Of The Family Radio

http://www.bestinterestofthefamily.com/
At Best Interest Of The Family Radio, we remain steadfast in our commitment to providing quality programming that educates and inspires needed Family Court Reform that unites parents with their children and exposes corruption within systems and processes that are otherwise in place to serve the needs of all families.

Never give up on your children just because a Child Protective Services (CPS) worker, Department of Human Services (DHS) agent, Friend Of The Court (FOC) worker or Family Court Judge is making subjective rulings over the lives of your children and your parental role.

Together we will bring about the change needed to reclaim our families and build an America our kids will be proud of. Tune into BEST INTEREST OF THE FAMILY Radio where we believe "Children Need Both Parents!!"

Join us for Tuesdays broadcast at 8PM est.

The Domestic Violence Industry’s War on Men

The Domestic Violence Industry’s War on Men



By painting all males as brutes, feminists hope to reduce half the population to a state of dhimmitude.


January 21, 2010 - by Barbara Kay


The industry that has grown up around domestic violence (DV), or, as it is more precisely situated these days in research circles, intimate partner violence (IPV), began in good faith decades ago as a legitimate campaign to help women trapped in abusive relationships.

Over the years, as the triumphalist feminist revolution’s long march through the institutions of the West proceeded with eerily unchallenged vigor, DV emerged as a highly politicized touchstone justifying women’s entitlements — legal, economic, familial — at the expense of boys’ and men’s human rights.

A tipping point in the DV chronology, when the focus amongst militant feminists shifted from helping individual women to the more totalitarian ambition of reducing the male population to cultural dhimmitude, can be traced back in time to December 6, 1989, and in space to a school two miles north of my front door.

December 6, 2009, marked the 20th anniversary of a unique tragedy in Western history, the systematic massacre of 14 women engineering students, with injury to 13 others, at Montreal’s École Polytechnique by a lone young gunman, Marc Lepine, who killed himself at the end of his shooting spree.

As an act of violence against women, the Montreal Massacre had no prequel or sequel. Lepine — his real name was Gamil Gharbi, but Lepine chose to identify with his québécois mother rather than his brutal, misogynistic, Algerian-born father — was a sociopath, unaligned with any faith, political movement, or identity grievance group. He was no jihadi. Although one could argue that the massacre presented elements of an honor killing, Lepine’s crime was essentially sui generis.

Ironically enough, if he were a jihadi, feminists would have been stymied in their rush to collective judgment, for the standard reflex following jihadist incidents is to repudiate any linkage of the act with Islam and to warn against expressions of Islamophobia.

But in the case of the Montreal Massacre, a diametrically opposed instinct prevailed. Because Lepine’s only distinguishing feature was his maleness, the tragedy sanctioned unbridled hostility toward all heterosexual men. Indeed, for elite feminist apparatchiks, then in their most muscular and misandric phase, bliss it was in that bloody Montreal dawn to be alive.

Brazenly, without bothering to adduce any substantiating chain of evidence, there being none, feminist spokeswomen linked the horrific crime of a lone sociopath to the general phenomenon of domestic violence against women. Marc Lepine “became” all men who want to control women — eventually all heterosexual men — and December 6 achieved instant sacralised status as a day of national mourning that, for fevered rhetoric and solemnity, eclipsed even 9/11 memorials.

As I wrote in a December 2007 National Post column:

By contrast [to Americans’ lessening interest in 9/11 memorials], the Canadian public never seems to weary of the annual December 6 tribute to the 1989 Montreal Polytechnique shooting massacre of 14 women. Indeed, 12/6’s branding power burgeons with every anniversary: The theme of violence against women dominates the media; new physical memorials are constructed; additional programs decrying domestic violence against women are entrenched in school curricula; masses of white ribbons are distributed; more stringent gun control is more strenuously urged.

Their cumulative effect is to link all Canadian men to a global conspiracy against women of jihadist proportions.

Feminists everywhere in the West appropriated its emotive themes to lend greater credence to an already widespread pernicious tripartite myth: namely, that all men — the “patriarchy” — are inherently prone to violence against women, that all women are potential victims of male aggression, and that female violence against men is never unprovoked, but always an act of self-defense against overt or covert male aggression.

The unspoken corollary to these falsehoods is that violence perpetrated against males, whether by other males or by females, is deemed unworthy of official recognition or more than minimal legal redress, and that while female suffering must be acknowledged as socially intolerable, male suffering may not make a parallel moral claim.

In fact, as any number of peer-reviewed research and government statistics make clear, although women are far more likely to report domestic abuse, equal numbers of men and women experience some form of DV during their lifetimes; men and women initiate abuse in equal measure; and far from any inherent “patriarchal” instinct to control women, DV — in Judeo-Christian culture at any rate — is almost always attributable to individual psychological dysfunction (see citation for Abusegate RADAR report below).

For the overwhelming majority of boys and men who harbor no ill feelings toward women and no wish to control them — indeed, whose impulses are largely chivalric; feminists have never explained why all those “patriarchal” and “controlling” men on the Titanic died after voluntarily ceding the lifeboats to women and children — the social and cultural fallout from feminist misdirection about DV beggars any honest observer’s descriptive powers to summarize.

The unjust loss of children in biased family courts under judges trained by feminist DV “experts,” lives ruined by unchallenged false allegations of abuse, men’s ineligibility for psychological and logistical services lavishly provided for women — these are just a few of the human rights abuses men routinely endure because of DV industry myths.

At the heart of the myth-propagation problem is the 1991-initiated White Ribbon Campaign, impulsively organized by leftist male Canadian politicians eager to ingratiate themselves with politically influential feminists in the hysterical wake of the tragedy.

The “educational” and commemorative campaign, which rapidly spread to 57 countries, is based on scaremongering falsehoods perpetrated by feminists pulling the communications levers of the DV industry, such as the canard that one in three (in some accounts, four) women will be a victim of male aggression in her lifetime, or that spousal homicide is the leading cause of death for women (in fact, it is not even on the list of leading causes).

Credible information on DV is easily accessed, but the largely liberal media compliantly channel the disingenuous “findings” and “reports” churned out by hopelessly biased advocacy groups, whose methodology does not, to put it kindly, meet the gold standard of community-based, peer-reviewed research, or who use definitional ruses, or who collect only male-on-female violence information, or who withhold data on female violence — and I could go on.

The controversial and irrefragably anti-male Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is coming up for renewal in Congress this year. VAWA partakes of exactly the same philosophy as the White Ribbon Campaign and doubtless owes its provenance in large part to the Montreal Massacre juggernaut.

Is there hope for a breakthrough in correcting the public’s perception on DV, the necessary precursor to a gender-neutral approach to support for DV victims by policymakers?

One encouraging indicator has surfaced this month in the form of a high-profile Abusegate campaign, organized by a coalition of groups and individuals working to reform domestic violence laws. The campaign will include a concentrated lobbying effort on Capitol Hill explaining how flawed information leads to flawed public policy. It will also feature a series of radio interviews with internationally respected domestic violence expert Dr. Donald Dutton of the University of British Columbia, author of Rethinking Domestic Violence.

But Abusegate’s most tangible contribution to public exposure of the DV industry’s willful deception of policymakers and the public is encapsulated in a scrupulously referenced special report drawn up by a reliable research group, RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting): Fifty Domestic Violence Myths.

The report deserves widespread distribution in the media, as well as in political, educational, and legal circles. It completely debunks the received wisdom on many aspects of DV. For example, it tells us that: women are as likely as men to be controlling; fewer than 1% of hospital visits by women — not 22% as often touted — are attributable to DV; the actual annual number of rapes reported by the FBI is 90,427, a tenth the number claimed by feminists; 71% of children killed by one parent were killed by their mothers; and 46 other little-known facts the DV industry would prefer you didn’t know.

This report will not have relevance for everyone: it is only for men and for those women who have, or have had, or may have in the future kind thoughts for a father or male partner or brother or son or son-in-law or male friend or, indeed, any man who has, or may someday, contribute something positive to their lives or to the lives of those they love.

So as I say, this report may not be relevant to you, in which case you should not feel obligated to pass it along to anyone else. For those to whom it is relevant, you owe it to the men in your life to share it with others.

Barbara Kay is a weekly columnist in the comment pages of Canada’s National Post newspaper.

Midwest Father's Conference 2010

Here is the information on this years conference in Michigan at the Oakland School's Conference Center 2111 Pontiac Waterford, MI. Midwest Father's Conference 

Download 10th Midwest Fathers Conference

Subject: [Update] Fathers for Equal Rights of America, Inc.

I am happy to report along with a very large number of internal
organizational accomplishments, Fathers for Equal Rights of America, Inc.
has been listed in the IRS Publication 78 as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt charity.

Search for Charities, Online Version of Publication 78
Publication 78, Cumulative List of Organizations described in Section 170(c)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, is a list of organizations eligible to
receive tax-deductible charitable contributions. This online version is
offered to help you conduct a more efficient search of these organizations.
IRS Non-profit Search
_____

Earn $50 for yourself and $25 for Fathers for Equal Rights of America, Inc

If you would like to earn yourself $50 and another $25 for Fathers for Equal
Rights of America, Inc. simply open a TCF bank account and list FERA as the
referrer on your account application. TCF Bank is currently running this
promotion and it works as advertised:

Sincerely,

Dan Diebolt

Congrats Dan! This is exciting news for Michigan!!

Robert Pedersen

<http://www.parentalrights.org/> Support the Parental Rights Amendment

RADAR ALERT: "First they ignore you, ..."

RADAR ALERT:

"First they ignore you, ..."

Two weeks ago, Slate.com's short-lived
<http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote1sym> 1 publication
"Double X" published an article by Kathryn Joyce entitled "'Men's Rights'
Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective."
<http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote2sym> 2

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.

Since the Double X article appeared there have been several analyses of its
flaws, the most recent being Cathy Young's article in Forbes: "Feminism
should be about equality-for males too"
<http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote4sym> 4 which says:

"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."

And in a series of articles beginning with "Slate.com & Salon.com Criticize
the Fatherhood Movement (Part I)"
<http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote6sym> 6, Glenn Sacks
critiques the quality of the reporting, saying:

"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!

_____

1 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote1anc> "Double X
closes up shop",
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/11/16/double_x_folds/index.html

2 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote2anc> "'Men's
Rights' Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective.", Slate.com,
http://www.doublex.com/section/news-politics/mens-rights-groups-have-become-
frighteningly-effective

3 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote3anc> 'Men's
rights' groups go mainstream, Salon.com,
http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/11/05/mens_rights/index.ht
ml

4 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote4anc> "Feminism
should be about equality-for males too",
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/mens-rights-feminism-equality-violence-opin
ions-contributors-cathy-young.html

5 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote5anc> "Journalistic
Misrepresentation at Slate's New Woman-Oriented Publication 'Double X'",
http://www.breakingthescience.org/DoubleXMisrepresentation.php

6 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote6anc> "Slate.com &
Salon.com Criticize the Fatherhood Movement (Part I)",
http://glennsacks.com/blog//?p=4359 <http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4359>

_____

Date of RADAR Release: November 23, 2009

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

US HR 739 SAFE DV Industry Act

H.R. 739 ‘SAFE’ Act – Ignoring…

An Industry

Battered by Reality

H.R. 739, the SAFE (Security and Financial Empowerment) Act has been introduced in the House to address alleged discrimination against victims of abuse.

But if we want to curb domestic violence, we first need to ask why existing domestic violence policies and programs have done such a poor job in helping victims and stopping abuse.

Evidence of the pervasive problems began to mount six years ago:

1. Ms. Foundation for Women: Minorities Harmed by Arrests

The original VAWA law provided millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies to implement mandatory arrest laws. But such policies have turned out to be ineffective, and the impact on minority communities has been devastating. 

In 2003, the Ms. Foundation for Women concluded: “Criminalization of social problems has led to mass incarceration of men, especially young men of color, decimating marginalized communities.”^[1]

2. OMB and DoJ: No Evidence of Effectiveness

In 2004, the Office of Management and Budget rated the effectiveness of abuse shelters supported by the Family Violence Prevention and Services Program. The OMB rating states flatly, “Not Performing: Results not Demonstrated.”[2]

That same year, Angela Moore Parmley of Department of Justice admitted, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.”^[3]

3. National Academy of Sciences: Programs ‘Driven by Ideology’

The following year the National Academy of Sciences released its report, Advancing the Federal Research Agenda on Violence against Women. The report concludes that many domestic violence programs are “driven by ideology and stakeholder interests rather than by plausible theories and scientific evidence of cause.”^[4]

4. Researcher: ‘Factoids from Nowhere’ are Common

In 2007, University of Pennsylvania researcher Richard Gelles published a report documenting the widespread use of misleading and false claims by representatives of the domestic violence field. Professor Gelles concluded such “factoids from nowhere” could turn out to be “harmful to women, men, children, and the institution of the family.”[5]

5. CDC: Women More Likely to Abuse

Later that same year, the Centers for Disease Control released a national survey on partner aggression. Published in the May 2007 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, the study found that women were the aggressors in 7 out of 10 cases of one-way partner violence.[6]

This study confirmed over 200 other studies showing women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner violence. And last month, former NFL quarterback Steve McNair was murdered in his sleep by his ex-girlfriend.

Despite such compelling evidence, the domestic violence industry consistently refuses to acknowledge that violence-prone women need help.

6. Lawsuits

In recent years, a number of lawsuits have been filed against domestic violence programs.

·         In California, a ground-breaking lawsuit resulted in the Third Court of Appeals ruling that domestic violence programs in the state were engaged in illegal sex discrimination.

·         In West Virginia, a pending lawsuit alleges discrimination and dissemination of false and misleading information.

7. Florida IG: Cover-Ups

Last month the Florida Inspector General released the results of investigations of two abuse shelters in the state: Another Way and Harbor House.

Both investigations document attempts by top managers to thwart the reporting of child neglect and abuse that had occurred within the shelters. The similarity of the cases raises questions why two abuse shelters were engaged in such cover-ups.

8. California: Draconian Budget Cuts

Facing a $14.5 billion deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently cut the budgets of almost all state departments by 10%. But when it came to abuse shelters, the governor opted to slash all – that’s 100% -- of the state funding.

One wonders if the governor will now demand accountability and proof of effectiveness before restoring funding to these abuse programs.

12-Point Plan to Rescue VAWA

Beset by a myriad of complaints, lawsuits, and budget cuts, the domestic violence industry has fallen into dire straights. But the industry refuses to acknowledge a problem even exists.

The upcoming renewal of the Violence Against Women Act provides a historic opportunity for lawmakers to institute long-overdue reforms. These are the changes that are needed:

1. Respect the wishes, decisions, and autonomy of victims.
2. Assure policies and programs are based on sound science, not rigid ideology.
3. Assure policies and programs are culturally-sensitive to the needs of African-Americans and other minorities.
4. Assure fairness and equal opportunity in funding for culturally-sensitive domestic violence programs.
5. Assure that services are made available to all groups. Avoid discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
6. Assure programmatic and financial accountability.
7. Assure the criminal justice system respects due process protections. Phase out mandatory arrest laws that have been proven to be harmful.
8. Assure training and community education programs provide accurate information, and do not promote harmful gender stereotypes.
9. Assure that persons who provide services to victims and offenders have the necessary academic credentials and training.
10. Reform VAWA’s immigration provisions to restore due process and protect the rights of the falsely-accused.
11. Base services on a careful needs assessment that takes into account the many factors that can cause intimate partner aggression.
12. Respect the integrity of the family. Encourage counseling over incarceration.

HR 739 shrugs off the pressing need to revitalize the faltering domestic violence industry. We ask you to assure the upcoming Violence Against Women Act addresses the 12-point plan for VAWA revitalization.

Do victims of abuse deserve anything less?

For more information, contact:

African-Americans for

VAWA Reform

P.O. Box

8701

South Charleston, WV

25303

(304) 342-7752

www.aavreform.org

---

References

[1] Ms. Foundation for Women. Safety and justice for all.

New York

, 2003. http://www.ms.foundation.org/user-assets/PDF/Program/safety_justice.pdf

[2] Program Assessment: Family Violence Prevention and Services Program. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10002150.2004.html

[3] Parmley A. Violence against women post VAWA. Violence Against Women Vol. 10, No. 12, 2004. p. 1424.

[4] Kruttschnitt C, McLaughlin BL, and Petrie CV (eds). Advancing the Federal Research Agenda on Violence against Women.

Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2005, p. 6.

[5] Gelles RJ. The politics of research: The use, abuse, and misuse of social science data—The cases of intimate partner violence. Family Court Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2007.

[6] Whitaker DJ et al. Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 97, No. 5, 2007.

Puple Heart"s Final Beat

Posted by: "Dan" [email protected]   dandiebolt

Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:17 pm (PDT)

This is one of the most disturbing videos I have seen come out of our movement and it should move any legislator and judge to shame for the way soldiers and fathers are treated in our family courts. Additionally, it is very well scripted and produced here in Michigan. In fact, I think the producer should apply for Michigan Film Office for the tax credits so he can fund additional videos.

We need a concerted campaign to drive this video up in the number of views, add supportive comments and video replies. Lets help it go viral.

Purple Heart's Final Beat - A Soldier Suicide Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_StCzStBy0

 

This is why each state needs to have a US Hero Parent Child Custody Protection Act that does not allow the FOC and Family Court to use any time spent deployed in the service of our country against a parent in a child custody decision.