Date: Thu, 21 Jul
2005 11:45:51 -0400
From: "Wayne Cook" <waynevcook@rogers.com>
Subject: [Parents Without Rights]
The Deadbeat Dad
Myth: Strategies and
Research in Defense of Men in Divorce
(1992)
[Unpublished Manuscript, 1992]
William N. Bender, Ph.D.
Professor of Education
The University of Georgia
Renet L. Bender, Ph.D.
Truitt-McConnell College
Preface and Dedication
The Deadbeat Dad construct is a lie;
it is a half-truth which masquerades
as a truth, and that is, perhaps,
even more dangerous than a lie. The
available evidence, presented throughout
these chapters, will indicate that
the deadbeat dad phenomenon is, like
many of the negative images of men
presented in our nation's media, almost
entirely, a result of a biased court
system and an anti-male bias in our
society.
Men are not genetically predisposed
to abandon their children, nor do
they refuse to pay child support specifically
in order to hurt their children. Rather
men leave a court which, their attorney
explained, would be biased against
them. The available scientific evidence,
presented in this text, documents
that anti-male bias. Men have seen
their children, their homes, their
financial futures stolen from them
by that biased court. They are ordered
to deny their parental love for their
children and become a second-class
citizen--i.e., a "visitor"
in their child' life. Their human
right to actively parent their child
is stolen from them--most often without
any evidence that they did anything
wrong and they are told--inaccurately--that
this decision is in the child's best
interest. Their money is stolen repeatedly,
for the next 20 years as ex-wife support
rather than child support (There is
never any documentation that those
monies go to the child, so many men
refuse to call it child support--it
is ex-wife support). Men are angry;
indeed men are enraged by this discrimination,
and rightfully so. In response to
this bias, some men decide to not
participate in that system. The best
understanding of non-compliance with
the current child support system is
an understanding of an unorganized
non-violent civil disobedience movement,
founded almost exclusively on anti-male
prejudice in the courts. Some men
decide that they simply won't pay.
I salute them, and encourage them
in their courageous decision.
Furthermore this decision is the morally
correct one.
Men should make that decision. The
evidence and rational for this position
is presented throughout the text,
but a brief introduction is provided
here--the theses, if you will. First,
the scientific evidence demonstrates
that our current child support laws
are quite biased. Meyers and Garasky,
two government funded researchers,
documented in a recent study that
child support laws were enforced against
men and not against women. In point
of fact, even when women are the non-custodial
parents, they are rarely ordered to
pay any child support at all! On the
rare occasion when women are ordered
to pay child support, collection efforts
are not a vigorous.
Clearly, the application and enforcement
of these child support laws represent
sexist discrimination against men,
and they are merely one example. A
related example of the discrimination
against men may be found in federal
programs for "Families."
These programs would include federally
funded child support collection programs,
"family crisis centers",
federal welfare programs (i.e., Aid
to Families with Dependent Children),
and many non-government programs such
as Habitat for Humanity. When men
are excluded from families, and the
divorce creates financial hardship
on all parties concerned, these programs
tend to favor the parent with the
children. In point of fact, the vast
majority of "families" which
are assisted by these programs are
single parent, maternal custody families;
simply put, the automatic discrimination
against men at the point of divorce
disallows many men from participation
in many of these federal and private
relief programs. These programs would
more accurately be described as "women
support programs" rather than
"family support programs,"
and here, as elsewhere, the discrimination
against men is apparent for the honest
observer.
Another example of the bias against
men is the explosion of false allegations
of child abuse, sexual harassment,
and spousal abuse. The scientific
evidence documents that women commit
much more child abuse and slightly
more spousal abuse than men (the chapter
of this book). The information on
sexual harassment is particularly
revealing. According to Evan Kemp,
who served as the chair of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission
under President Bush, only one if
four allegations of sexual harassment
investigated by his office had any
legal merit. This indicates that 75%
of the allegations are lies, or misunderstandings
between parties.
I have personally participated in
numerous courts--in my capacity as
an expert witness on false allegations--and
I have seen innocent men jailed for
years on the basis of unsubstantiated
allegations.
Unproven allegations do result in
evidence which I mention here is documented
in each related convictions in today's
climate; I have seen it happen, and
every man is at risk. One result of
this anti-male bias is the almost
automatic exclusion of the male role
model from the lives of young males.
Teacher salaries have not encouraged
men to pursue teaching credentials
for the lower grade levels, and the
court imposed disenfranchisement of
men at the point of divorce has removed
male role models from the homes of
young males in unprecedented numbers
during the last three decades. Of
course, young boys desperately need
these male role models in order to
grow and develop normally. Any unbiased
glance at the research data will indicate
that our nation's flirtation with
sole maternal custody has been a dismal
failure; the available psychological
evidence presented herein documents
that it is not divorce that hurts
children--it is paternal absence which
hurts children. The evidence documents
this quite clearly.
Further, it is not unwarranted to
suggest that this absence of effective
male role models has led to many of
the problems in our society. If, in
general terms, it is true that mothers
tend to be the more nurturing parent,
then it is likewise true that fathers
tend to be the disciplinarian in the
family. While some caution is in order
regarding these broad generalizations,
the facts suggest that to remove the
father from the lives of males is,
in many cases, equivalent to removal
of effective discipline for those
children. The child development research,
reviewed herein documents that mothers
have terrible difficulties in disciplining
children--particularly young males
after the divorce, and the available
research studies without exception
document that young boys adjust much
better on every measure when custody
is given to the father rather than
to the mother.
Courts ignore this research, in their
self-imposed bias against men, and
the lack of male role models for young
men continues. Further, this lack
of discipline and an effective male
role model plays a significant role
in our nation's crime, juvenile and
inner city problems. The vast majority
of inner city gang members have a
mother at home; what those young boys
need at home is a father. If our society
truly wishes to combat these tough
crime problems, we must reinvest in
fathers. This reinvestment would include
fatherhood training in high schools,
federal fatherhood support programs,
private agency fatherhood mentorship
programs, and affirmative action which
selects the father as the custodial
parent of choice for young boys.
Thus far, our political leaders have
expended their energies in punitive
actions, and calling fathers nasty
names, rather than reinvesting in
fatherhood in any meaningful way.
Perhaps this book can spell it out
for them; punitive actions alone do
not often solve society's problems,
and it is time for positive action
for fathers and men rather than negative
actions against this sex.
The pervasive anti-male bias represented
in the following chapters indicates
a fundamental truth that some men
have been aware of all along--that
our society has historically been
biased against both sexes--not merely
against women. While women were discriminated
against in employment and financial
matters, men have traditionally been
discriminated against in terms of
child rearing, national defense, imprisonment,
educational endeavors, parenting/nurturing
opportunities, and more recently,
in custody courts. The existence of,
and documentation for, these anti-male
biases is detailed in the chapters
below. While many women's groups tend
to, dishonestly, deny the existence
of this societal bias against men,
men have realized that this bias exists,
and men are--increasingly--demanding
that these biases be rectified.
This bias is so pronounced that a
national witch-hunt against men has
resulted, observable in the courts,
the media, our nation's legislature,
and in our national attitude. Some
women, apparently agree with Murphy
Brown, that fathers really are unnecessary
and irrelevant to raising children,
and this defies all of the scientific
data currently available (Again, all
of this data is presented in this
book; unlike some other books, this
text presents the cold hard facts,
rather than just the perceptions of
another angry male victim of these
discriminations).
For all of these reasons, then, men
in our nation need a defense strategy.
As John Leo, a U.S. News and World
Report writer recently noted, the
"Demonizing" of men has
become the national sport of many
feminists and media persons. One chapter
in this text presents specific examples
of overt bigotry in the national media,
presented, of course, as news. We
would do well to remember that such
demonizing through the courts, the
legislatures, and the media was utilized
effectively in Germany in the last
1930s, and the results were obvious.
In point of fact, some of the most
effective hate propaganda which I
have read lately, I found in the pages
of feminists newsletters.
I hope these theses have piqued your
interest. Like Martin Luther tacking
his theses to the door, I seek open
and honest debate on these points.
Each idea herein is true and defensible
given the best available evidence.
While this book is not politically
correct, in today's anti-male climate,
it is, to the best of my ability factually
correct. Further, I also believe that
this text is morally correct. While
men's anger is certainly justified,
I do not preach hatred or violence
herein; rather I preach justice. Books
which have attended to these issues
before tended to be very "Angry"
and not to concentrate on the available
solutions. Those perspectives, while
quite justified, have been routinely
ignored, and perhaps they should have
been.
This book, in contrast, presents solutions
which can lead to a society in which
justice is available for all, and
which, because fathers and fathering
is supported, less male juvenile delinquency,
less crime, and fewer societal problems
result.
I offer then, this book to my brothers
in this struggle. The research reviews
present the evidence which men should
highlight in their own defense. The
strategies suggested represent the
strategies which I and others have
successfully used to defend ourselves.
While there is a tremendous bias against
men in the courts, these ideas do--sometimes--
work. I have used these strategies
when I have been falsely accused,
and in othercases as an expert witness;
they work.
It is my earnest hope that men wake
up soon to these lies and begin to
defend themselves together. We all
stand together, out of necessity;
every man is at risk. We must face
this challenge to our freedoms with
facts, with courage, and with each
other. We must fight together, or
we will all die alone.
I make no special claim to insight,
but I have been so victimized by this
system, that I have committed myself
to change this. The child that was
stolen from me by this biased system
was male, and he has a 50/50 chance
of divorce when he matures. I will
not allow this nation--supposedly
founded on freedom and judicial fairness
for all--to rob him of his children,
his right to obtain a job without
having to be "better" than
all the women who apply, and his future.
While my son is forever dead to me--in
terms of a meaningful parental relationship--I
will change this system before his
children are born. I will give everything
that I have and everything that I
am to assure that He will live in
a free and fair country, which does
not discriminate against men or women.
I truly love my son, and I can do
no less.
This, then, is my legacy and my dedication
to my son; I will strive, for him,
to create a land that is truly free
from sexist discrimination. This book
is dedicated to him.
We are Fathers, Mothers, Grandparents.
We exist for benefit of our children.
Parents Without Rights was founded
in 1991 by Rocket Scientists and Engineers
on Kennedy Space Center. The Divorce
Industry courts routinely make decisions
that are illegal and unconstitutional.
Managing your Subscription to Parents
Without Rights on Yahoogroups.
Yahoo groups provides you with several
options with respect to receiving
Emails from this group. These options
are:
a) Individual emails. Send individual
email messages.
b) Daily digest. Send many emails
in one message.
c) Special notices. Only send me important
update emails from the group moderator.
d) No email. Don't send me email,
I'll read the messages at the Web
site.J.A.I.L. for Judges has come
to Florida and Parents Without Rights
is proud to be a sponsor of J.A.I.L.
for Judges.
Please visit www.jail4judges.org and
www.FloridaJail4Judges.org
Parents Without Rights is proud to
be a sponsor of the Million Dads March.
Please visit www.MillionDadsMarch.org
Parents Without Rights sponsors Michael
the Black Man and Boss Radio 104.
They are "the jazz" radio
station of South Florida, broadcasting
on the air and on the internet. Please
visit www.BossRadio104.net
-------------------------
Grayson Walker
954-630-3655
Parents Without Rights of Florida
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ParentsWithoutRights
http://www.ParentsWithoutRights.org
We exist for benefit of our children.
We are working to help the victims
and survivors of the Divorce Industry.or
benefit of our children. We are working
to help the victims and survivors
of the Divorce Industry.
|