Thursday, November 25, 2004

What's Wrong with Woman....

L:istening to a newscast about the latest indignity that woman have to suffer in the war against terrorism: being physically patted down at the airport (and it is women who will have to 'suffer' through this, as guess who will eventually be getting 'felt up' by some big fat slob at the airport who probably hasn't had a girlfriend since grammer school) I was struck by the instigators of this latest excess: other women. Female terrorists who recently hid explosives under their clothes to help their 'brother' Islamic Fundamentalists achieve independence from Russia and thus complete control to impose, you guessed it, Islamic Fundamentalism on THEM...


Sadly enough, it appears that there are women out there in the world who will fight tooth and nail to perpetuate their own enslavement...

AND this is NOT limited to the Islamic World btw, but exists in Western Societies as well...

I realized this when I came across this list last night and realized how MANY women were aiding and abetting the most recent social engineering movement within our court system to displace women in their role as mothers...

It has been said that women appeared to have suffered the most from the disorientation which took place in our society when they were handed the freedom that feminism had won for us...

Perhaps they were right...

I will go more into this in the next post...


Women Who Have Helped the Men's and Fathers' Movement and Who Deserve Recognition

Note: This list is a work in progress. To nominate a candidate, click here.

(List is in alphabetical order)

Bettina Arndt, an Australian lawyer and writer who supports men and fathers

Ileana Basil, a founding director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC).

Fair-minded Canadian columnist Christie Blatchford of the National Post.

Julie M. Batson, co-founder of the organization "Georgians for Child Support Reform" and the PAC "Georgians for Family Law Reform."

Each organization works for the right of children to have both parents in their lives.

Connie Brauer who, along with her husband Vic Harris, founded the Canadian Civil Rights Action Group, which fights against Family Court abuses and for Shared Parenting.

Jan Brown, the Founder and Executive Director of the Battered Men's Helpline in Maine.

Beth Bruno, a fair-minded freelance writer and editor with more than 20 years of experience in mental health and education. Bruno is the author of "Are Dads Welcome in School?"

Julie Carpenter-Hubin, board member of the Columbus, Ohio chapter of Parents And Children for Equality (PACE), which has a program to remove barriers preventing non-custodial parents--mostly fathers--from being more involved in their children's schools.

Mary Cleary, the founder of AMEN (Abused Men) in Ireland. Cleary is committed to the fair and equal treatment of all victims of domestic abuse, without regard to gender.

Canadian Senator Anne Cools, a former shelter director and a pioneer of the battered women's movement who is now a passionate fathers' rights advocate.

Rene Denfeld, author of The New Victorians: A Young Woman's Challenge to the Old Feminist Order Carol Ensign, director of the Valley Oasis Shelter in Lancaster, California, one of the few domestic violence shelters in the country which accepts men. See "Nowhere to Go: Why Does LA County Refuse to Help Male Victims of Domestic Violence?"

Activist Kim Eyer of "The Cop and the Survivor: A Collaborative Effort on Domestic Violence," who has fought to bring attention to male victims of domestic violence.

Carolyn Flores, an advocate for the victims of false accusations of rape, including her own husband, who was convicted without evidence.

Virginia Forton, Executive Director of Moms for Dads, the nonprofit group which, along with Dads of Michigan, is sponsoring Shared Parenting Legislation.

Stephanie Frostic, the founder of Paternity By Choice and an advocate of family planning rights for men.

Fair-minded journalist Marilyn Gardner of the Christian Science Monitor.

Lyndze Gladney, creator of the "Moms for Dads' Rights" club on Yahoo.

Writer Sheridan Hill, author of In Defense of Men.

Susan Horwitz, MSW, a highly respected psychologist working with the Children and Families Behavior Health Clinic at Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester NY. She is responsible for having recently conducted an intensive study on the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children. She has validated the Family Court complaints of thousands of men in Monroe County. German author and political activist Karin Jaeckel who first publicized in Germany issues like the disenfranchisement of divorced dads and domestic violence by female perpetrators.

Joan Kelly, Ph.D., a painstaking researcher and evaluator of research who has written for almost three decades of the importance of fathers in the lives of their children.

Kate Kennedy of the Independent Women's Forum and

Madhu Kishwar, founder and editor of the journal Manushi (the Woman) in India. Works for women's rights but has spoken up against misuse of laws by women.

Fair-minded Canadian columnist Donna Laframboise.

Author and ‘60s feminist icon Doris Lessing, who says that in modern culture men are "continually demeaned and insulted by women without a whimper of protest" and that it's time they stood up for themselves.

Australian Anne Lewis, a former victim of domestic violence who has advocated for male victims of domestic violence. She is the author of An Enquiry Into The Adult Male Experience of Heterosexual Abuse.

Kathryn Jean Lopez, executive editor of the National Review, who defended men and attacked feminist falsehoods in "Women Who Lie-- The empress with no clothes: women's studies".

Jayne Major, PhD, a divorce, child custody, PAS and parenting consultant, provides services for fathers to help them adjust to separation and divorce and to remain a significant part of their children's lives. She is the Executive Director of Breakthrough Parenting Services in Los Angeles.

Winnipeg community activist Louise Malenfant, who has been an advocate for men falsely accused of child sexual abuse during divorce proceedings.

Domestic violence researcher Coramae Richey Mann, for her courage to tell unpopular truths about men, women, and domestic violence. See "Domestic Violence: A Two-Way Street".

Melanie Mays, a member of Child's Best Interest, the nonprofit group which sponsored the Tennessee Shared Parenting Bill. See "Tennessee Shared Parenting Bill Could Help Children, Reduce Divorce".

Author and columnist Wendy McElroy, founder of Individualist Feminists

Canadian journalist Candis McLean, who treats men's and fathers' concerns seriously and portrays men fairly.

Canadian Ilana Mercer, fair-minded regular columnist with World Net Daily.

Lady Catherine Meyer, wife of the British Ambassador to the US. Meyer, a victim of an international parental kidnapping, works with the Children's Rights Council and other organizations to help promote every child's right to access to both parents.

Anne Mitchell, founder of the Fathers Rights and Equality Exchange (F.R.E.E).

Nev Moore and Heidi Palanza of Members of Justice for Families, which has fought Child Protective Serices on behalf of falsely accused parents.

Sandra Orozco of Stop Abuse For Everyone (SAFE), an advocate for both female and male domestic violence victims.

Patricia Overberg former director of the Valley Oasis Shelter in Lancaster, California, who courageously changed shelter policy in order to accept male domestic violence victims in the late 1980s.

See "Nowhere to Go: Why Does LA County Refuse to Help Male Victims of Domestic Violence?"

Camille Paglia, author and cultural observer.

Fair-minded columnist Kathleen Parker, who wrote "Were mothers routinely robbed of their children, barred from their homes and jailed for failing to pay extortionate sums, we would see blood in the streets".

Former Women's Studies professor Daphne Patai, author of Professing Feminism and Heterophobia.

Jocelyn Payne of Women Against Male-Bashing (W.O.M.B.).

Crime journalist Patricia Pearson, author of When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence.

British Author and journalist Melanie Phillips who has written in defense of male victims of domestic violence and against the feminist "women aren't violent" myth.

Paternity fraud activist Raegan Phillips, founder of Women Against Paternity Fraud.

Author/activist Erin Pizzey, who set up the first battered women's shelter ever in England in 1971 and now advocates for abused men.

Sue Price, a caring, dedicated, hard-working Australian Men's and fathers' activist.

Sociology professor Claire Renzetti, author of Violent Betrayal: Partner Abuse in Lesbian Relationships, for her courage to tell unpopular truths about men, women, and domestic violence. See "Domestic Violence: A Two-Way Street"

Katie Roiphe author of The Morning After: Sex, Fear, and Feminism on Campus.

Trudy Schuett, publisher of the Desert Light Journal, who has been denounced by feminists as a "fathers' rights whore".

Kimberly Schuld, director of the Independent Women's Forum's Title IX Play Fair! Project. See "Title IX Lawsuits are Endangering Men's College Sports".

Washington attorney Lisa Scott, who has advocated for male victims of domestic violence and against pro-female bias in the judicial system. She is the founder of Taking Action against Bias in the System (TABS).

Reverend Bunny Sewell, co-director of Family Resources and Research in Naples, FL , who has counseled and advocated for male victims of domestic violence.

Tracey Sisco of Moms for Dad's Rights, a paralegal who specializes in getting dads custody of their children after lawyers have given up.

Lisa Smith of U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud (US-CAPF). Lisa has helped counsel paternity fraud victims nationwide.

Megan Smith, the Director of Project Development for the Men's Health Network in Washington, DC. See "Men's ‘Silent Health Crisis' Cries Out for Men's Health Act".

Eeva Sodhi, who has been instrumental in getting Statistics Canada to eliminate much of its anti-male bias in reporting domestic violence statistics.

Domestic Violence researcher Reena Sommer, Ph.D., author of How Stats Canada Distorted the Public Perception of Domestic Violence in Canada.

Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism?

The War Against Boys Domestic violence researcher Susan Steinmetz for her courage to tell unpopular truths about men, women, and domestic violence.

See "Domestic Violence: A Two-Way Street" Ivy Stewart of the Independent Women's Forum.

Christine Stolba of the Independent Women's Forum, author of Lying in a Room of One's Own: How Women's Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students.

Ann Swango, a child advocate, a member of the Children's Rights Council in Washington DC, and the director of PACE of Kentucky. Swango has worked to set fair and realistic child support obligations.

Dianna Thompson is a founder and the executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC). She is the leader of America's "second-wives" movement and is the founder of the Second Wives Crusade (SWC).

Deborah Watkins, former President of the Tarrant County (Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas) Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and now the president of the Dallas-Ft. Worth Chapter of the National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM).

Cathy Young, author of Ceasefire: , Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve Equality.

Katherine K. Young, co-author of Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture, a painstaking expose of how men are portrayed negatively in movies and television The many female opinion page editors who have had the courage to swim against the stream and publish my pro-male, pro-father opinion columns.

Selective Use of Statistics to Smear Mothers

Once again I come across an article which demonstrates how statistics can be used for either 'support' (as in supporting your own beliefs) OR 'illumination' (as in opening your eyes to some basic truths). This article is a perfect example of how someone can use a few selective numbers, twist them around and come up with what is basically a lie to try to make it appear that women and men are equally violent...

I've taken a few of the excerpts from his article (in quotes) and posted them below with a few comments of my own to demonstrate what I am talking about...


"A Massachusetts study documents that 91% of chronic domestic violence offenders have a history of criminal behavior. Thus these people constitute a subgroup of the population and are not reflective of the general population. The people who do not have histories of criminal behavior and commit a smaller number of domestic violence homicides also do not represent the general populace. "

This is the ONLY sensible lines to be gotten out of this story...

YET although the author admits that this violent group represents a small subgroup of ALL OF THE REST OF US, he still couldn't rest until he picked up a few small discrepancies to make women look bad...


"In spousal murders women represent 41% of the murders."

As the author probably already knows this is a stretch of the truth as most of these murders are NOT committed by the women themselves but by b/f or other males either recruited or self-induced...Federal statues however changed a few years ago making it a crime equivalent to murder to engage in hiring or being an 'accessory' in anyway to a murder. Although the laws were passed to get mob and druglord 'kingpins' who actually hired hitmen, most states have distorted the use of them to charge women with murder if their b/f or husband kills someone.

For instance, the most recent execution in Oklahoma of a woman 'murderer' was of a white woman whose black b/f killed her husband. She wasn't even in the room when he did it and NO ONE believed she struck as much as one blow in the actual murder...YET, she received the death penalty and was executed based on forensic evidence provided by a forensic pathologist (who was herself under indictment for falsifying her lab results to help the Oklahoma police and DA)...

That's the profile of a female murderer who was judged depraved enough to warrant the death penalty in Oklahoma...a far cry from the average male capital murderer...

So clearly racism was more of a factor here in her execution then anything else...


"In the murder of their biological children, women account for 55% of the murders."

This particular statement is NOT true...

Men account for the majority of deaths of children both their own and others...and biological fathers DO kill their OWN children at a higher rate then mothers do...

The statistics he is using are probably from the years BEFORE fathers started fighting for custody of their children to avoid paying child support...Now that we've had 10 years or so of this nonsense going on we have new data to examine, so it's now become clear that fathers, are, the more likely parent to kill...

MOST of the mothers arrested for these 'crimes' he mentions are charged with 'accessory after the fact' or 'endangerment'...

For instance in my state New York a woman that allows her children to WITNESS her being beaten more than ONCE can automatically be charged with endangerment and face prison as well as loss of her children...

We currently have an appeals case which was just settled about 2 weeks ago addressing this issue...It's still allowed but under stricter MORE women in New York will continue to be charged with crimes committed by men...

I, however, do agree with this to a certain extent as women DO need to become more aware of the men they bring into their homes especially with children around...But let's not make any mistakes about it, no matter how many women are charged, MEN are still by far the more likely perpetrators of violence against women, children as well as other men...


"In fact given this data the argument can be made that given the total number of murders committed by women, the home is more dangerous for men than women and women are more dangerous in the home than are men."

Like I said, this author has taken little discrepancies within his numbers to try and paint a picture about the essential natures of men and women which is simply not true...

Men kill more, hurt more, rape more, assualt more either in the home or outside of it.

His numbers have been achieved by a combination of laws and statistics being distorted to favor a politically correct gender-neutral point of view that men and women are equally aggressive, violent and anti-social in their natures...

It's simply a distortion of history, biology, statistics and plain common sense...not supported by the facts...


"Let us not look back in anger or forward in fear, but around in awareness. - James Thurber"

Right...this is a good idea... Someone should suggest to the author that he uses it before he published his next article...

Statistics can be used either as 'support' for an idea you already have OR as 'illumination' to show you a portion of the truth...

I, myself do not believe that statistics tell the WHOLE story; but they can steer you in the general direction of truth by illumination...

Thank God this guy is not a police officer anymore...

I'd hate to think about how many poor MEN he got put away by his tendency to selectively highlight the facts that support his own position...


Home Sweet Home

Feminist Domestic Violence Fallacies

November 20, 2004

by Richard L. Davis

Let us not look back in anger or forward in fear, but around in awareness. - James Thurber

It’s generally thought that the home is a more dangerous place for women than men. This myth is what fundamental feminists want us to believe. The fact is that our homes and neighborhoods can be a dangerous place for both males and females. The vast majority of homicides are not committed by strangers. The majority of homicide offenders and victims are intimate/family members or acquaintances. The FBI Supplemental Homicide Report (SHR) defines intimate/family members as relatives, step-relatives, in-laws, and common law or ex-spouses. It defines acquaintances as boyfriends, girlfriends, ex-husbands, ex-wives, employee, employer, friend, homosexual relation, neighbor, and other know individuals.

The SRC documents that between 1981 and 2000, 28,586 females were the victims of a family/intimate homicide. During that same period there were 31,509 male victims. From 1981 to 2,000, 120,095 males and 33,088 females were murdered by an acquaintance. During that same time period 49,424 males and 8,518 females were murdered by a stranger. To paraphrase Pogo, we have met the enemy and the enemy is us.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics, Homicide Trends in the United States, documents that females account for 24% of the total number of all homicides victims. Of that 24%, approximately 30% of females are murdered by a husband or intimate partner Thus, female intimate partners who are murdered by their spouse or intimate partner account for approximately 7% of the total number of homicides.

The majority, but certainly not all, domestic violence homicides are committed by people who have histories of criminal behavior, long histories of violent and aberrant behavior inside and out side the family, were physically and/or sexually abused as children and/or suffer from alcohol or substance abuse. National Institute of Justice data document that in 74% of familial murders, the murderer has a prior criminal record of arrest or conviction. In fact 44% of the victims also had a prior criminal record. A Massachusetts study documents that 91% of chronic domestic violence offenders have a history of criminal behavior.

Thus these people constitute a subgroup of the population and are not reflective of the general population.

The people who do not have histories of criminal behavior and commit a smaller number of domestic violence homicides also do not represent the general populace. They often appear to be people who display extreme narcissistic behavior, have alcohol or drug problems, display pathological jealousy, become extremely depressed at the prospect of losing their partner and blame their intimate partners for the loss of their economic standing or professional and personal esteem.

In fact, approximately one in every four domestic violence homicides is a murder/suicide.

Between 1976 and 1996, 64% of female intimate partner victims were killed by their husbands, 5% by ex-husbands and 32% by partners/boyfriends.

Of male victims, 62% were killed by their wives, 4% by ex-wives and 34% by partners/girlfriends.

This data documents that the home is a more dangerous place for males than females.

The fact that the number of male offenders is higher than the number of female offenders does not change that fact.

Approximately one third of family murders involve a female as the murder. In sibling murders they account for 15% and for the murder of parents it is 18%. In spousal murders women represent 41% of the murders. In the murder of their biological children, women account for 55% of the murders.

In fact given this data the argument can be made that given the total number of murders committed by women, the home is more dangerous for men than women and women are more dangerous in the home than are men.

Mothers: Other Name for Natural Advocate of Childrens' Best Interest.

Friday, November 19, 2004

AND They Wonder Why Women Do NOT want to Have Children Anymore...

This sort of ruling (which by the way goes on continuously) is clearly discriminatory against women...

I've been reading a lot lately about how women are having so few children that western societies are facing many serious problems in the future due to our current low reproductive ratio...WELL here's another good example of why women DO NOT wish to take the 'leap of faith' involved in having children...

First of all this father should NEVER have been given physical custody to begin with as it's clear that an active duty member of the military can be deployed AT ANY TIME...ANYTIME...and countless women in the military, countless, LOSE custody for this very reason CONSTANTLY... with Judges claiming that the military lifestyle is too unstable to support single parenting.

Actually threats of losing custody appears to NOW be commonly used as a weapon against women in the military as a way to drive single mothers out of the services...

Perhaps single mothers SHOULD NOT be in the service, but that's a different issue and should be openly discussed and addressed w/o dragging these bias issues into it...

However this nonsense of a DOUBLE standard for men who deploy should be addressed and STOPPED immediately as when men deploy, children should be sent immediately to go live with their non-custodial mothers and NOT be dumped off on grandparents and certainly NOT a female step-person EVER...JUST THE SAME AS COURT RULE WHEN CUSTODIAL MOTHERS IN THE MILITARY ARE DEPLOYED...THE SAME WAY...

Clearly this is NOTHING but an attempt by men in the military to avoid paying child support while they are deployed and certainly NOT in childrens' best interest...

It's simply outrageous that these Judges should be helping them get away with this, simply outrageous...

I couldn't fit the entire decision here but just enough to show the sheer outrageousness of the ruling; and another reason WHY women must begin to get involved in politics, particularly the election and/or appointments of Judges to Federal courts...



No. 4-468 / 03-2100

Filed November 15, 2004


Appeal from the Iowa District Court for ButlerCounty, Paul W. Riffel, Judge.

Michael Grantham appeals the judgment of the district court modifying the decree dissolving his marriage to Tammara Sue Grantham.


Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel, Zimmer, Hecht, and Eisenhauer,

JJ.VOGEL, J.In this appeal, we consider the implication of the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act (SSCRA), 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 501-591, when a parent, enjoying physical care of his minor children under a decree of dissolution, is called to active military duty. We conclude the district court erred in not granting a stay of the modification proceedings pursuant to this Act and further erred in entering a temporary change of physical care on a petition to modify.

Additionally, upon our de novo review, we find no permanent and substantial change of circumstances warranting a change of physical care.

Therefore, we reverse and remand.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

Michael Grantham’s and Tammara Sue Grantham’s marriage was dissolved on July 11, 2000. The stipulated decree provided for joint custody of their two minor children, then ages ten and six,

...with physical care to Michael...

In mid-August 2002, Tammara was informed by one of the children that Michael,

a National Guard member for over eighteen years,

had been called to active duty and that the children would be residing

with Michael’s mother, Irmgard Grantham. Michael was officially called to active duty on August 21, 2002, and reported to his unit’s armory on August 24. He returned home on a short leave on August 27. While home on leave, Michael reviewed his existing “Family Care Plan” with his lawyer and mother and executed the documents necessary to allow Irmgard, who had been a frequent care giver of the children, to care for the children in his absence[1].

A Family Care Plan is prepared as a part of a soldier’s regular duties and is meant to provide for the care of a soldier’s family.[2] A Family Care Plan is required by military regulation and reviewed when a soldier is called up for active duty.[3] An existing Family Care Plan may be changed; it is not set in stone.[4] A soldier is not deployable until a Family Care Plan is validated and approved, and only the soldier’s commander may approve a Family Care Plan.[5]

Also on August 27, 2002, Michael and his attorney met with Tammara and her attorney at her attorney’s office in Waverly, Iowa. Discussed at this meeting was the possibility of Tammara caring for the children in Michael’s absence instead of Irmgard. Tammara’s lawyer subsequently drafted a proposed stipulated agreement providing for this arrangement, which was provided to Michael later that day.

The following day, Michael returned to National Guard duty at Camp Dodge in Des Moines. After reviewing the proposed agreement with his JAG (Judge Advocate General’s Corps) officer, Michael decided not to enter into the agreement. On August 29, Michael was counseled by his commander on his responsibilities to the military and to his family and Michael filled out a new DA Form 5305-R (Family Care Plan) which provided that Irmgard would care for the children in his absence. Later that same day, Michael’s commander reviewed and approved the Plan.

On September 4, Tammara filed a petition seeking physical care of the children, temporary and permanent support, and suspension of her child support obligations. On the same day, Tammara obtained an ex parte order from the district court setting a hearing on her requests for temporary relief for September 20. Michael was served with the Petition on September 5 while at his unit’s armory in Estherville, Iowa. On September 7, Michael left with his unit for Fort Knox, Kentucky. On September 10, Michael filed a motion requesting a stay of the proceedings pursuant to the SSCRA. No hearing was set on Michael’s motion. On September 20, in his absence, a hearing on temporary placement and child support was held. Although not scheduled, the Court also took up the issue of Michael’s request for a stay at this hearing. Michael’s counsel made a professional statement indicating that Michael was not able to attend the hearing due to his military duties and offered to call his commander to verify this statement.

In a ruling filed October 3, the district court denied Michael’s request for a stay and set a scheduling conference for October 10. The district court based its decision on its finding that [t]he record herein fails to reflect that [Michael] made any showing for a stay other than to state in his unverified filing on September 10, 2002 that he had been placed on active duty and could not appear in court. The record does not reflect by affidavit or otherwise that the Petitioner made any effort to obtain a leave of absence to enable him to be present at the hearing or made any effort to participate telephonically in the scheduled hearing.

Additionally, the record reflects that the Petitioner

acted in bad faith in attempting to exercise his rights under the act by deceiving the Respondent into believing that he was making a good faith effort to reach an agreement when in fact he had no intention of doing so and was merely delaying matter until he had to report for active duty.

The October 10 scheduling conference was held without Michael present and reset the hearing on temporary matters for October 29. Michael, although he was represented by counsel, was unable to participate in the October 29 hearing because of his continuing military duties. At that hearing, Michael’s attorney again sought a stay under the SSCRA and in support thereof filed an affidavit and a letter from Michael’s commander stating that Michael could not attend the proceedings. Michael also moved to continue to a time when he could participate in the hearing. He further moved to dismiss on the grounds that there is no temporary custody remedy available in Iowa Code chapter 598 (2001) for modification proceedings.

On October 30, the district court entered an order denying these motions, temporarily placing the children with Tammara, terminating her support obligation, and requiring Michael to pay child support.

In so doing, the district court did not rule on the merits of Michael’s reapplication for a stay, instead stating that it would not “take issue with [the October 3] ruling” on this matter.Michael sought discretionary review from the Iowa Supreme Court and requested a temporary stay. A stay was granted on November 1. However, on November 8, the court denied discretionary review and vacated the stay. Although Michael was technically on active duty until September 2, 2003, he had returned home early in August 2003 and trial on the merits of the petition for modification was held shortly thereafter, on August 27.

In its subsequent ruling, filed on November 19, the district court granted the relief requested in Tammara’s petition changing physical care of the children to her and entering related orders of visitation and child support.

Michael appeals this ruling and each and every other order therein, contending: First, the district court erred in not staying the proceedings leading up to the November 19, 2003, judgment as required by the SSCRA. Second, the district court erred in entering a temporary change of physical care order on Tammara’s petition for modification. Third, no permanent change in circumstances existed justifying the district court’s change of physical care of the children to Tammara.


Sunday, November 14, 2004

What's the point of this....

Can anyone explain to me how offering fathers paid leave from work for a year will somehow convince MOTHERS to have children?

I don't get the logic of the thinking here at all. Currently our society, as in ALL the societies of the West, the problem exists of women having too few children. So how does this policy address that rewarding men? Somehow the solution, no matter the problem, always appears to be let's give men more control, more rewards, more status...

Forgive me for saying this but it's women who are the future mothers here that need to be 'stroked' shall we say, not men whose role in this area is limited...If the problem is women not wanting to have children because they are working too much and don't have the resources or time they need to devote to their children, then let's try a novel idea here and GIVE ANOTHER YEAR OF PAID LEAVE TO MOTHER...What about that idea? Let's give mothers two years of paid leave to convince HER to want to have children or more children if she already has that is the sort of incentive that will move the pivotal person involved here in the decision making process...

Which is clearly WOMEN...

Mother uses the year or so of staying at home NOT just as time to bond with baby, but as a period of recovery and recuperation from the ordeal she just went through, that's why it's usually included under a medical leave...Right now the last thing mothers need during that period is to have to justify herself wanting that period with a fight over who gets to stay home with the baby for the first year or so...

It should obviously be MOTHER and if you need to ask why, you probably shouldn't have bothered becoming a parent in the first place...

The GuardianThursday
November 11, 2004

Tories offer fathers share of baby leave

Howard tries to outflank Labour with paid leave plan for new parents

by Lucy Ward and Michael White

Fathers would be able for the first time to share with their partners up to a year's paid leave from work after the birth of a baby, under proposals to be unveiled by the Conservatives today. With family issues increasingly seen as a key battleground of the coming general election, both main parties will today seek to seize the initiative of maternity and paternity rights, and childcare. The Tory leader Michael Howard will outline his party's plans in a speech this morning just as the prime minister, Tony Blair, addresses a major childcare conference. Mr Howard will attempt to outflank the government by proposing a minimum £150 weekly payment, almost £50 more a week than at present. Initially it was thought that this payment would be for the full 12 months of the child's first year. But last night there appeared to be some confusion in Tory circles over the exact terms of their offer to parents. The initial offer of a full year's paid leave was being whittled down by party policy-makers to six months - the same period available to parents under existing welfare legislation. But in an unprecedented concession to the growing number of men who want to play an active childcaring role, Mr Howard will also promise fathers the option of sharing the leave for the first time. Both proposals are aimed at pre-empting similar moves planned for Labour's election manifesto, to be included in the government's 10-year childcare strategy before Christmas.