A Government Program is No Substitute for a Bear-Hug
By CareyRoberts Posted in User Blogs — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In this Father's Day essay, Carey Roberts analyzes how well-intentioned government programs have contributed to the rise of fatherlessness.For the better part of the last 40 years, policy experts and childrearing gurus relegated fathers to the parental minor leagues. Dads were seen as well-intentioned but inept Homer Simpsons who might be able to teach junior how to swing a baseball bat, but little else.
But kids see it differently. Mary Kay Shanley's book, When I Think About My Father, recites these love-words from Amanda, age 6: "At the end of the day when I go to bed, Daddy tucks me in. We talk together about our day. He reads me a story to help me sleep. We pray together. That is my favorite part."
Research confirms with Amanda's endorsement of fatherhood. It turns out that kids with hands-on dads have greater levels of self-esteem and social competence, get higher grades in school, and do better on a broad range of social and psychological indicators. Even in high-crime, inner-city neighborhoods, over 90% of children who grow up in two-parent families avoid becoming delinquents.
Sadly, government social welfare programs have a dismal track record in this area. It's not that they have just ignored the essential role of fathers. The problem is, they have offered inducements to actually remove dads from the lives of their kids.
This pattern can be traced back to the 1960s. Under Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, welfare benefits came with a catch: first, kick dad out of the house. As a result of this exclusionary "man-in-the-house" rule, the number of children growing up in fatherless homes rose dramatically.
Before long, people began to notice that poor fathers were "abandoning" their children. So beginning in 1975, the Congress passed a series of child support laws that targeted so-called "deadbeat" dads.
The reforms may have been well-intentioned, but they missed the mark on one key point: many low-income dads couldn't pay their child support because they were on Skid Row. But that fact didn't stop the federal Office for Child Support Enforcement, with a budget of $4 billion, from hounding indigent fathers and sending thousands to debtor's jail each year. [www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0310roberts.html]
But the government was not done with its task of dismembering the traditional family.
In 1994 the Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, a $1 billion-a-year feminist windfall that claims to combat domestic violence. One of VAWA's tools is the issuance of restraining orders.
The dirty little secret that feminists never like to admit is that they have stealthily broadened the scope of violence. For example, the National Victim Assistance Academy came up with this all-encompassing definition: "Domestic violence is a pattern of coercive behavior designed to exert power and control over a person in an intimate relationship through the use of intimidating, threatening, harmful, or harassing behavior." [www.nvaa.org/assist/chapter9.html]
As a result of this definitional sleight-of-hand, "domestic violence becomes whatever the woman says it is," according to columnist Phyllis Schlafly. [www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7713]
So when these "battered" mothers seek a restraining order, they also petition for divorce and custody of the children. Once again, the kids are left without a father.
The effects of these federal programs are predictable -- and tragic. In 1960, five million American children lived in fatherless homes. By 1980, that number more than doubled to 11 million. And now, 16 million children live only with their mothers.
The National Fatherhood Initiative issued this sobering warning: "Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional, and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior."
So consider the 16 million boys and girls who go to bed each night without getting a bear-hug from daddy, and it's easy to see why a 1999 Gallup poll found that 72% of Americans believe that "the physical absence of the father from the home is the most significant problem facing America."
On Father's Day, it's traditional to honor our fathers - those home-grown heroes who sacrifice their moments of quiet reflection, their comfort, and even their health to support and protect their families. This coming Sunday I will remember my own dad, thankful for all the good times we spent together.
Perhaps this Father's Day should also be a day of reckoning. It's time to ask, Why does the US taxpayer continue to subsidize government programs, to the tune of billions of dollars a year, that end up separating fathers from their families?
- declaring fathers irrelevant beyond their ability to provide sperm
That is a totally unfair characterization of the feminist movement. Fathers provide much more than sperm. They provide money.
at least in part, with Carey Roberts' point here.
Boys need their dads, desperately. So do girls. We need to be supporting programs that encourage rather than discourage the full participation of fathers in all aspects of their children's lives.
A good friend of mine has been going through this custody/child support minefield for years. It's been devastating to watch what has happened to his relationship with his daughter--her mother would have given up custody long ago but for the child support payments. I won't get into the extended version of the story, but suffice it to say that reform is certainly needed, and that courts must do better than to automatically presume based on gender (or income) that one parent is the logical primary caregiver. Minnesota is making some changes and I wonder how they'll work out.
And thanks, Nick, for...uh...taking up the feminist banner here.
The weird thing is that his ex wife was the one who fit the new definition of domestic violence (the lay person would describe her as nuts).
Still took my bil to win full custody of his children, and it was a long bitter fight. He ended up having to tape every conversation they had, in order to make a case to get his kids, but I all a mom would have to do is file papers to be believed. It really opened my eyes to just how much our system sees fathers as unneccessary-and in many cases the villain.
Dr. James Dobson from Focus on the Family has discussed the statistical effects of divorce on children in relation to teen pregnancy, delinquency, drug use, etc. He also did a show once regarding sadness in children of divorce. Even though children, and people in general, recover from emotionally difficult circumstances, children of divorce indicated that they were sadder after 5 years than they were immediately after the divorce. In addition, most children expressed emptiness and a deep longing for the absent parent that worsened with time, as opposed to the expected response of adjusting to the changes.
Hearing those shows has helped me stay committed to marriage as few other things would have. Marriage is no walk in the park. It involves sacrifice and self-restraint that I am not really interested in giving, with only myself to consider. However, I love my children and am willing to change my responses for them.
I wonder if other people would have the same reaction and possibly stay married if they knew the detrimental effects. Too many people say, "The kids will adjust. You shouldn't have to stay in a marriage that isn't happy." Not enough people say, "Nothing is ever perfect. If you can stand it, it will be best for your kids if you continue to try."
I know there are some truly abusive men (and women) and I am not advocating forcing people to stay in those circumstances, but encouraging married people to stay married for the future of their children shouldn't be looked on as out-of-date either.
I wonder if other people would have the same reaction and possibly stay married if they knew the detrimental effects. Too many people say, "The kids will adjust. You shouldn't have to stay in a marriage that isn't happy." Not enough people say, "Nothing is ever perfect. If you can stand it, it will be best for your kids if you continue to try."
Obviously there are some marriages that are harmful to kids, but we need to get over this idea that kids adjust and don't have any problems.
... column Carey!
This entire VAWA/Family Court situation has gone beyond surreal. These laws and policies are built upon lies and myths, piled on top of bogus gender feminist ideology.
Washington State funds gender feminists to do anecdotal reporting of women (yes, women only) who suffered at the hands of their spouse/boyfriend. They stick to anecdotal stories because they now factual based statistics are not their friends. First, they show that the "problem" is no where near as enormous as they claim in the hysteria proned pronouncements.
Second, the statistics show that women instigate domestic violence more often than men.
Of course, you wont see this last point in the arrest statistics, because one of the things VAWA does is fund Women Studies graduate gender feminist advocates who troll police stations in order to harrass police officers if they ever arrest a woman. So, combined with the fact that men are 9 times more likely NOT to call 911 when being abused, and the fact that police arrest the man even WHEN HE CALLED THE POLICE, the arrest statistics only show that there is a huge ideological monster lurking, not the actual prevelance of DV by sex.
All of this mentality gets worked into family courts, where a man walks in guilty simply because he is a man. VAWA needs to be knocked down for the injust law that it is, then the rest of this horrible state of affairs will begin to tumble like dominos.
For the people that think people would avoid getting divorced if they knew about these problems: In 70% of divorces, it is the WIFE that files for divorce. So, if you want people to think your way, you should be talking to women.
However, I can't see how it benefits anyone for the state to hold misery and threats over the heads of people in order keep them married.
It's past time for us to move to something and someplace more optimistic that the man-hating gender feminist perspective or the bible thumping fundamentalist perspective.
While there may be a correlation between government programs designed to help single mothers and a rise in the number of single mothers, can you give any evidence that there is any causal connection?
I think that many conservatives over-estimate the extent to which poor families plan their lives around tax breaks and government programs. For every one scheming welfare queen manipulating the system, I willing to bet that there are dozens more women who are actually battered, whose partners left them alone to raise their children, etc. Do you really think that the best prescriptive measure to reduce the amount of single mothers is to take away any and all programs that might benefit them?
Lyndon Johnson instituted programs in order to combat "Father Flight." Men abandoned the pregnant women with which they had sex. These men refused to support the women they had unprotected sex with and the resultant children. Furthermore, this cultural phenomenon is not restricted to any specific race. You have been brainwashed by the Bush Administration and the RNC. HAHA! Suckers! By the way, all of the democrats I know hold well-paying jobs and are responsible citizens. That is quite a feat, considering the Bush economy. Have fun roasting in hell, evildoers! "W" stands for WRONG.
Love, Gabriele (the messenger, check your King James)
one of the major areas where the feminist movement took us wrong, was in all but declaring fathers irrelevant beyond their ability to provide sperm.