The Feminist Anti-Kid Crusade

http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2006/0...d-crusade.html

The Feminist Anti-Kid Crusade
By Carey Roberts

The rad-fems are at it again -- this time they've set their sights on
children.

Call it one of those simple yet profound truths: only a father can help a
boy become a man. And only a daddie can teach a girl about healthy
male-female relationships.

Both dads and moms are unique and special. Maybe that's why dads love to mix
it up with rough-and-tumble play. Perhaps it's why fathers teach kids a
thing or two about risk-taking. And no doubt it has something to do with
that tough love thing.

Countless studies point to the same conclusion: kids with hands-on dads do
better in school, in the community, and in life. I could almost write a book
about it - and fortunately, someone already has.

But there's a somber side to this story. Kids who lose their father are two
to three times more likely to get in trouble with the law and are more
likely to suffer from a broad array of social pathologies.

The saga can be traced back to the mid-1960s when marriage was portrayed as
an oppressive institution and no-fault divorce laws arrived on the scene.
Within 10 years, the U.S. divorce rate almost doubled.

And what happened to the million-or-so kids whose parents divorced each
year? Operating under the "tender years doctrine," family courts almost
always awarded custody of the youngsters to mothers.

But the tender years apple cart was upset in 1971. That year the Supreme
Court ruled in the landmark Reed v. Reed case that the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents courts from basing opinions on
sex. Before long, gender-neutral custody statutes had replaced maternal
preference standards in almost every state.

Despite those changes in the law, judicial bias persisted. In 1994, mothers
were awarded custody in 85% of cases. Eight years later, according to the
U.S. Census Bureau, that number remained unchanged.

Keep in mind, every time a father is relegated to the status of an
every-other-weekend visitor, it's the children who lose out. It's those same
kids who end up as social misfits and statistics in your newspaper police
report.

So children's rights advocates began to push for laws based on a presumption
of joint physical custody.

Not only is joint custody firmly rooted in the notion of gender equality,
it's also ideal for kids. As Dr. Joan Kelly, former president of the Academy
of Family Mediators concluded, shared parenting "is a desirable outcome
which clearly is in the best interests of children and families." By 1991,
over 40 states had shared parenting laws in place.

But the M.O.M.s - Mothers Opposed to Men - were not going to remain silent.
In 1996 the National Organization for Women passed a resolution that began
with this chestnut: "many judges and attorneys are still biased against
women, and fathers are awarded custody 70% of the time when they seek it."

So there you have it - the fact that mothers were winning custody 85% of the
time was proof of widespread anti-female bias in the legal system.

The M.O.M.s then proceeded to do everything in their power to throw dirt on
the joint custody idea. But nobody would listen to them. In fact powerful
politicos - Republicans and Democrats alike - began to speak out on the
importance of fatherhood.

So three years ago the M.O.M. Squad met at tiny Siena College in upstate New
York to plot their next move. This time they decided to drag the domestic
violence boogeyman out of the closet.

Soon the M.O.M.s were cranking out red-meat claims like, "In custody cases
where the mother alleges battery by the father, the father is awarded
custody two-thirds of the time." That shrill allegation made its way into
the recent PBS fake-umentary, Breaking the Silence.

But once again, the M.O.M.s were blowing smoke.

Despite the fact that kids with involved dads do better, regardless of all
the joint custody laws, and in spite of the laughable antics of the M.O.M.
brigade, mothers continue to be favored in custody decisions by a 7 to 1
margin.

All this, of course, is done in the name of the "best interests of the
child."

Family researcher Judith Wallerstein once lamented, "I have been deeply
struck by the distress children of every age suffer at losing their
fathers." Maybe we should all begin by listening to the voices of the little
ones.