Posts Tagged ‘family annihilation’
What kind of choices are THESE for women!?! 1. Marry, legally WIN custody of child from former partner, and possibly die, possibly with others. 2. Due to “unhealthy alliance (marriage?),” Get a domestic violence restraining order and possibly die. 3. DON’T seek a domestic violence restraining order, and possibly die.
Or, 4. like I did
a. Obtain a domestic violence restraining order, in hopes NOT to die.
b. See ex given almost immediately (Search this blog for “Access Visitation Grants” or “SAVP”) liberal, unsupervised overnight visitation.
c. Comply with it, consistently, and try to insist he does also
d. After warning authorities and all involved of one’s concern about abduction, (and seeking child support enforcement), have them abducted an overnight unsupervised visitation to nearly permanently (or permanently) lose contact with them.
That at least beats some of the ALTERNATE version of Choice 4 (Obtain a Restraining Order)
4.d.1 REISER: YOU go “MIA” on an unsupervised visitation exchange of the children, and show up years later (as part of a plea bargain of DA’s with husband who murdered you, with kids present), a few (less than 6) feet under — Google “Hans Reiser,” only a moderate tweak of too many others to categorize, where MOM was either murdered, or an attempt was made to murder her, during an exchange.
4.d.2. CASTILLO, GONZALES, CONNOLLY, OTHERS, SOME OF THEM NOW BEFORE AN INTERNATIONAL COURT: After warning the courts and others that you feel visitation is unwise (or he just failed to return them at the appointed time), have your children drowned, shot, hung, or gassed to death – on an overnight visitation. Note, like some of the driving theories behind families, this is now international in scope.
4.d.2.a. Possibly go homeless from inability to retain work after so many years in the system, and so much prolonged exposure to stress and trauma that chronic PTSD, plus the unstable job history renders one unemployable.
(I know currently two women who became homeless after the custody switch following domestic violence, and many more who are impoverished and unemployed, but thankfully not yet homeless).
There are endless varieties of option 4, and sequential consequences to it, none of them, for the most part, helpful for the children, or society at large, so long as the current AFCC-run, Mediation-focused, due-process eradicating family law system continues to be the next step after domestic violence restraining orders. The venue, players, and stakes just get higher, if this be possible, than when they were originally. And are likely to remain so until one of these 3 possible consequences follows, at which point, there simply is no more money, or press, or government program to be squeezed out of the situation, just possibly a few press headlines for the first one below:
1. Someone is killed.
2. Someone, or both parents — and their allies — are destitute.
3. All children have turned 18.
NOW ABOUT THE PAST 2 SUNDAY/MONDAYS IN THE GOLDEN STATE, THE STATE OF THE +/- $1 MILLION/YEAR OF ACCESS VISITATION GRANTS FUNDING (AND I HAVEN’T EVEN POSTED THE HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT INFO YET) . . . . WHICH HAS (FYI) BEEN GOING ON AT LEAST SINCE 1998. . . . . (which for all I know simply represents when the on-line database geared up)
Some readers may wonder why the motto (top right, button) on this blog reads:
Not a private matter —
why “family” “law” hurts us all
Just another two sunny Mondays in Sunny California
illustrate the under-publicized dangers of actually
WINNING in court:
1. Under, “win custody and possibly die”:
Monday, 07/06/09 San Jose
No independence week for her:
Bitter Ex Loses Custody, so “Wins” with a Gun.
THEIR Daughter, Her StepDad, the Neighborhood, and everyone else involved, LOSES.
Two reported dead at San Jose townhome after shooting and hostage situation
By Mark Gomez and Lisa Fernandez
- Shortly after 8 a.m. Monday, a neighbor bleeding from a gunshot wound ran by Anthony Gallardo’s San Jose townhouse shouting that a man had shot his wife in the arm and taken her hostage.
- A relative who asked not to be identified said Coffman was wounded in the earlobe by a gunman who had entered his home and taken his wife hostage. Gallardo let the neighbor and a hysterical 9-year-old girl into his garage to call police.
- The woman had recently won a drawn-out and bitter custody battle with her ex-boyfriend over the 9-year-old girl, the relative said.
- That was how a 5 1/2-hour standoff started in the upscale Montecito Vista townhouse development Monday. It ended when San Jose police, failing to make contact with the gunman, entered the townhouse and found the bodies of a man and woman.
- Police declined to identify the victims but said the shooting appeared to have stemmed from “a family dispute.
- Damon Cookson, manager of an evacuated mobile home park near the townhouse, said mobile home park residents were let back into their homes at 2:45 p.m.
- Police had evacuated homes in the townhouse complex and a mobile home park located next door so quickly that some left their homes shoeless, without money or cell phones. Other residents were picked up by friends or relatives so they didn’t have to stand outside in the sun.
According to the “Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fatherhood” advocates, she did the right thing. She had a man in the home and was married to her; possibly she ran across one of their ubiquitous classes and, or had a religious conversion, and realized that having children with boyfriends (as opposed to committed and financially self-supporting, faithful spouses — like, say, Steve McNair?) was not the upright thing to do for herself, health, or her daughter. Perhaps there was even a child support order in place on the Dad, which may or may not have contributed to the bitterness of the divorce. THAT 9 YEAR OLD GIRL WAS IN A HETEROSEXUAL 2-PARENTS, MARRIED HOUSEHOLD. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES WOULD’VE HAD NO ISSUES OR INTERVENTIONS IN PLACE FOR THIS HOUSEHOLD.
Perhaps the man who married her (let’s hope) really loved her, and vice versa, enough to take public vows and make it legal. ACCORDING TO THE DESIGNER FAMILY MENTALITY, THIS ONE SHOULD’VE WORKED. SHOULD THEY TAKE IT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND PUT A FEW $$MILLION ON HOLD BEFORE SOMEONE ELSE GETS KILLED AND SOME OTHER KIDS ARE ORPHANED? WAS THIS HOSTAGE/SUICIDE/FEMICIDE SITUATION PREDICTABLE?)
History of domestic violence, stalking, or other criminal activity, or NO history of domestic violence, stalking or other criminal activity, her attempt to pursue child support on behalf of the child, the answer is: YES. Being stuck in family court is rough on everyone. Rules of evidence are weakened in this venue (See link in my last post), making hearsay accusations easier. Psychology reigns, and there are people who profit from this. Money trades hands for sure.
YES, in the fathers rights vs. feminists (supposedly this is the war) climate overall, it was probably predictable, though maybe not perhaps not the timing of it.
Will people sit up and take notice, and change policies because of this death?
I doubt it.
She was married to Coffman, who texted the relative short updates all day long. The woman was a respiratory therapist at a local hospital.
(More detailed background story, and link, on this case at bottom of today’s post)
This case was not a week old before another one in Northern California hit the press, and the late-night TV stations:
2. Monday, 07/13/09, Novato (not including multi-county Amber alert)
File Under, “Win a temporary domestic violence restraining order, and possibly die, leaving your infant with Child Protective Services,
after she experiences a nice little kidnapping.”
(Did the infant witness her mother being beat to death with a baseball bat also?)
Actually this was a SUNDAY, and the father was caught, apparently on Monday. Good thing, being as he was a murderer, son of a murderer, a child-stealer, his brother had a drug habit and he himself was in the family porn industry (makes one question the advisability of the match, for sure). I wonder if Access Visitation Grants funding would’ve come into play under THIS one. Maybe when he’s been in prison long enough, they will come after him to make contact with his daughter, after all, there IS a plague of fatherlessness, and he WAS (apparently) his little girl’s father.
Which is likely what he was thinking when he killed the Mom and kidnapped her, too. How DARE that woman separate me from my kid and accuse me of violence! I’ll show her what violence is!
I cannot stand to read every report on this one…
Porn King’s Son held in Baseball-Bat Beating Death
NOVATO, Calif. — A 1-year-old girl was safely recovered early Monday and her 27-year-old father in custody after he allegedly brutally beat the girl’s mother to death with a baseball bat, authorities said.
He was suspected of beating Danielle Keller several times with a baseball bat before fleeing with the girl — who was celebrating her first birthday — and threatening to kill any law enforcement agents who came into contact with him, according to police.
The baby has an age. The murderer kidnapper father has an age. Is there any particular reason why the Mom in this story doesn’t merit one?
Family members told KTVU that there was a history of domestic abuse and restraining order had been issued against Mitchell in both San Francisco and Marin. Keeler’s mother, Claudia Stevens, said Mitchell had stormed into her Novato home three weeks ago and threatened violence. He also had been making threatening phone calls, she added.
…And this did not result in his IMMEDIATE arrest and incarceration for violation of restraining order WHY?
Mom didn’t know? Courts didn’t function? Mother still traumatized, didn’t register the importance of this? Police were called on the violation, but didn’t do anything? Police weren’t called? Police reported, but no one prosecuted? No precedent that this was a danger sign existed?
3 weeks. Hmmm. Was the case was in family court? Had they been to the mediator yet? Did the mediator say to them, as the mediator did to ME (shortly after I filed domestic violence restraining order with kickout, AFTER the violence had escalated to the guns, knives, serious injury phase,putting this “family matter” at a clear domestic violence, felony, not misdemeanor) “just peaceful communications about the (children)” — and totally failed to specify: Place of exchange. TIME of exchanges around holidays. Or child support, resulting in the soon thereafter need to resort to welfare, until I could rebuild some income.)
Excuse me. File under,
“Another needless death, another burden on California taxpayers, another traumatized little girl,
family, and neighborhood”
(I imagine it also might be filed under, don’t hook up with men involved in the porn business. What are women, desperate these days? Was she attracted to his testosterone? There are down sides of too much of that, I suppose….)
This is a cruel thing to say, but I am searching about for WHY this bloodshed just doesn’t stop, no matter how many policies or laws are in place. There HAVE to be a few consistent reasons. Added to my concerns are, why is that our nation is raising — or inhabited by — so many dysfunctional adults of criminal nature.
Perhaps the problem is with the concept of the Nation (as opposed to individual families) raising them. But, as I say sometimes, this is a family law blog, not an education blog. Perhaps the problem is religion, as I KNOW this is a factor in many domestic violence cases. Perhaps the problem is LACK of religion (morality / common sense // ethical behavior). Perhaps the problem is an alienated populace — from each other as well, except within the various cliques. Perhaps the problem is fatherhood vigilanteeism (actually, I think this is VERY close to the truth, and filed, at least in part, under religion). Perhaps the problem is that reaction against feminism, AND against the perceived lack of religion nationwide, breeding neo-con and worse versions of what went before.
OH — PERHAPS it’s that we don’t teach women how to defend themselves, or that this is a feminine and desireable life skill.
PERHAPS it’s that we don’t teach women boundaries, and how to defend themselves.
PERHAPS it’s that WE think someone else is teaching or doing something else that, in former centuries, “we” had to do ourselves. Like, raise and prepare food, learn to read, teach our kids to read, and so forth.
LAST ONE, MORE RESULTS. . . .
Amber Alert Novato, Search Results 48,000
Brewer, Victoria E. & Derek Paulsen (1993, November). A Comparison of U.S. and Canadian Findings on Uxoricide Risk for Women with Children Sired by Previous Partners. Homicide Studies, 3(4), 317-332.
Bunting, Helen. (2008, February 19). Women and Daughter Killed in Chile’s Latest Femicide. The Santiago Times, http://www.santiagotimes.cl/santiagotimes/news/feature-news/woman-and-daughter-killed-in-chile-s-latest-femicide.html
Bunting, Helen. (2008, February 6). Femicides in Chile: 10 So Far This Year; Three in 24 Hours. Santiago Times, http://www.santiagotimes.cl/santiagotimes/news/feature-news/femicide-chile-10.html
Bunting, Helen. (2008, January 24). Three Femicides Recorded So Far in 2008. http://www.valparaisotimes.cl/content/view/296/1/
And the well-known, and still not part of policy in family court matters, studies by Jacquelyn Campbell:
- Campbell, Jacquelyn C. (2004, December). Helping Women Understand Their Risk in Situations of Intimate Partner Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(12), 1464-1477.
- Campbell, Jacquelyn, Carolyn Block, & Robin Thompson. (1999). Femicide and Fatality Review. Next Millennium Conference: Ending Domestic Violence. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/184570.pdf
- Campbell, Jacquelyn, Nancy Glass, Phyllis W. Sharps, Kathryn Laughton & Tina Bloom. (2007, July). Intimate Partner Homicide: Review and Implications of Research and Policy. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8(3), 246-269.
Oh, Mea Culpa. The word “femicide” is for a specialized field of study. Maybe it’s under “homicide/suicide.” Better also be more specific, since “homicide/suicide” would jam my software again, too large.
San Jose homicide/suicide— Google results
Was THIS one avoidable? Answer: YES!
“San Jose man recounts murder-suicide that left wife dead.”
Mercury News, 07-10-09 8:49am updated
The couple had long been leery of Liang and worried he could be capable of violence. A 2003 stalking charge was dismissed against Liang for threatening to kill the two of them, even though Coffman said neither he nor his wife were called as witnesses.
Ying He and Liang came to the United States from China in 1999, Coffman said. They had a baby girl in the Bay Area on June 14, 2000. Liang sent the girl to live with his wealthy parents in Guangzhou, and because Ying He had pending immigration status, she couldn’t freely travel between the countries.
In 2006, Ying He discovered her daughter and Liang were living in Southern California. She also discovered, Coffman said, that her ex-boyfriend, a gambler, was short on cash.
“They made a deal,” Coffman said. “Brandi said she’d give Nelson some money and he said he’d give her their daughter.” {{NO CONTACT WITH MOM FOR SIX YEARS…..}}
But Liang reneged on his part of the deal, Coffman said, and disappeared with the girl. Coffman and his wife hired an attorney to find Liang and fight for full custody. After about two years, Liang and the girl surfaced again in Southern California. In March, Liang didn’t pick his daughter up from school one day, and police reports show Liang told school officials in Arcadia that he no longer wanted to care for his child. He was soon arrested and pleaded no contest to child endangerment. The girl was put in state care
Let’s get that timeline again:
2000 — baby born
Shortly thereafter — Dad sends baby away, no contact with mother.
2003 Dad found stalking and threatening to kill Mother AND her new husband. (SOUND FAMILIAR?) Doesn’t apparently even make the DA’s radar, although there are anti-stalking laws in California, and stalking has been listed for many years among lethality indicators. Perhaps he also had some concept of maybe extorting the new couple (in re: gambling habit?).
Also (sounds like my own case in this regard), stalking as seen as irrelevant to child’s welfare. Dad retains custody, and this couple is not really on the map, or the child, legally speaking??
Unclear (here) whether they still thought daughter was in China (no mail or phone contact?)
2006 – child is located, and mother and new husband invest money and time attempting to get her in their household.
Father receives money in exchange for daughter, obviously they were trying to settle out of court. Father agrees, takes money, and doesn’t turn over daughter. Possibly the FBI should’ve been involved here?
2008?– Father, changing his mind again, abandons daughter (note: that he sent his daughter back to China MIGHT be an indicator he didn’t want custody, right?) and the state picks her up. It MIGHT be deduced from the court records, by “the state” that a parent who wants the daughter, and is in a stable situation, exists. However, that parent was a mother….
2009 – April. State figures it out, and gives child back to mother. Child-endangering, stalking Dad still has visitation rights:
Liang still had visitation rights and weekly phone calls.
Why doesn’t that surprise me? You still in favor of shared parenting, frequent visitation, fathers — ANY fathers — return day? If not, find out which Congressmen (and if any women) voted for this in 1998 and 1999 in the U.S., and write them why they should re-think the resolution — what WAS that about, opting for population control by homicide/suicide??
Which tells you about family court in California: Far be it from Family Law Judges to notice that trivialities such as sending kid back to China, where her own mother couldn’t nurture or see her for YEARS, while staying here and racking up a gambling debt, stalking and threatening to kill the mother and her new partner, and child endangerment by abandonment, should be taken into account in designing a custody/visitation order!
On Sunday, the day before the shooting, Liang called to speak with his daughter, asking her strangely specific questions about her schedule. Coffman believes Liang was casing the family for the attack.
My question: WHEN did Coffman or his wife hear of those strangely specific questions? Was the daughter alarmed? DId no one catch the anomaly. That instinct of “this is strange, isn’t it?” can save lives — in a family, even if the state misses the boat… I suspect they hadn’t processed that information yet, and didn’t think that Liang would act so quickly.
ALWAYS play it safe!
I see we bloggers are going to have to work harder at getting the news out: Before entering family court situations with difficult custody battles, get martial arts training — and exerrcise your second amendment rights.
QUESTION OPEN: WHY DID THE COUPLE COME TO THE U.S. TO HAVE THE BABY?
ENDNOTE: China is known for not valuing girl babies as much as boy babies.
But the U.S. ought to have understood when children are viewed as poker chips in a high-stakes custody battle.
I think this one might be more gambling debt as much as jealousy contributing to the problems
IT TAKES MORE THAN MONEY TO BE A GOOD SECOND DAD WHEN THE FIRST ONE WAS A NUT CASE.
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
July 13, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Posted in "Til Death Do Us Part" (literally), Context of Custody Switch, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Fatal Assumptions, History of Family Court, Lethality Indicators - in News, Split Personality Court Orders
Tagged with 2nd Amendment, custody, family annihilation, murder-suicides, parental kidnapping
How bad Is it? ~ Skirting the Truth at Cairo, Telling it in America, Turned Down at Brown, Left to Tell after Rwanda
I was told to shorten my titles. This was the original:
In Cairo, Obama Delicately Skirts the Issue of Islamic Violence Towards Women, but Chesler (Honor Killings), LetsGetHonest (DV and Christianity), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Infidel), Nonie Darwish (They Call Me Infidel), Immaculee Ilibagiza (Left to Tell, 91 days in a Rwandan bathroom) shoot from the hip on the dangers of ANY pride/shame/hate-based culture
Note: Of the above “notables” obviously President Obama’s OFFICE outranks the rest of us, but I’ve put 4 famous female voices (& mine) to 2 male to underscore, well, who and what the others have downplayed
[Have been told to shorten the posts, too, not just the titles. Working on it!]
This post, July 2 (2 days before “Independence Day” USA) had been on hold. Unlike several women featured here, I added my voice to theirs, telling it like it is, then self-censored out of fear: I felt MY contribution was too radical, too out-spoken, and too indignant.
Well . . . .
BUT, I have noticed the headlines since July 2nd — a litany of murder/suicides, family annihilations, and slaps on the wrist for men punching, stalking, kidnapping or threatening to kill women, after which they then kill. I had my children stolen for daring to report abuse, violations of court orders, and for refusing to “submit” to arbitrary orders on how to dumb down my smart daughters. I know what “shunning” is. I know what “enabling abuse” is.
I have never experienced fundamentalist Islamic violence against women, but the sense of the Christian version of it over here is starting to feel like a sort of ritual purging process. It is starting to ffeel like “No Exit” unless there is a miraculous parting of the Red Tape, a CLOUD covering my behind and a FIRE leading the way. We already tried the “appeal to reason” paradigm, or the “appeal to law” ONE, ALSO. We also did the “it’s not in your best interest” reason, but some people will pay a lot of money for the privilege of refusing to stop abusing. Like they say, truth is on the auction block, and was sold cheap, Lies fetched a higher price.
I pay attention, and have SEEN Protestant so-called Christian Caucasian men drilling young men how to dominate women twice their age in the name of their god, and been subjected to this as well. Recently. Yeech — Retch! What kind of “sanctuary” is that??
However, now that a suburban California back yard finally released ,29-year-old Jaycee Dugard and her 11 year old and 15 year old girls fathered by the man who kidnapped HER when she was only 11, I felt this post is quite appropriate:
This case is shocking for its combination of statistics (18 years! Missed opportunities! “We never knew!” “But they looked like a nice couple!” “I spoke with Jaycee on the phone, she was courteous and professional” (She was not only a sex slave, but also supported this man’s business while living in shack-like conditions in a back yard with her kids). A WOMAN called the police reporting that people were living in the back yard. Like my calls and reports to police that another man, their father, was going to kidnap MY daughters, her voice was not heard.
Are we willing to listen and change behavior YET? The behavior “we” need to change is to get smart and act on hunches. While people who take the scriptures too literally are castigated and censored, disdained in public media, how about some of us in the U.S. start taking the 3 charters of freedom: Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights literally for a change? Starting by knowing their INtents based on their CONtents! And then recognizing that humanity is a DNA thing, not a color thing or a gender thing! And the usage of “all men are created equal” in the first was NOT “men vs. women” and did not say, although it was so practiced, “all Caucasian landowning males.” It meant ALL EQUAL and not to be colonized, or, like Miss Dugard (sr.) was, pimped.
I am United States citizen by birth, and was never beaten, or degraded because of my gender before I married. Nor was I forced into marriage. But women of faith or no faith nowadays who attempt to leave, risk being stripped of children, or killed, for the act of — leaving their marriage and asserting legal rights they already have.
While our current President has described the angst and sense of loss he felt not having his father in his life growing up, the rest of us describe some of what it’s like to be a target of violence and punishment for the crime of having been born without a Y chromosome, for some, a life sentence punishable by death.
President Obama, pre-election, helping out Senator Bayh in Indiana, with some more Mother-Omission:
2006 – EVER TRYING TO RAM THROUGH ANOTHER BILL, FINE-TUNING & REDEFINING FATHERHOOD AND HEALTHY MARRIAGE
As one of my fellow-bloggers commented in Indiana Mothers for Custodial Justice: Evan Bayh is not his Father’s Son,
Senator Evan Bayh’s (fatherhood-promoted) own father Senator BIRCH Bayh, was in favor of equal rights for women: so much for a chip off the old block, and passing down values from father to son, politically.
According to this post (Verifiable Here) both Senator Evan and then-Senator Obama co-sponsored YET ANOTHER “Healthy marriage and Responsible Fatherhood” bill, which was defeated in 2006.
Like this Senator, and another well-known FR attorney from the Chicago Area, both the Senators also remembered all the Hoopla around Father’s Day, Fatherhood, Father Celebration, and etc., etc. (can we say “patriarchal?”) in June PR (June is Father’s Day month, FYI), but forgot the same on Mother’s Day, in May. Actually, in 2009 and (I found) 2008, PR around now-President and then-Senator Obama eclipsed this acknowledgement of where they came from, literally (they had mothers, right?), as the word “Mother” has become, as I blogged elsewhere, virtually invisible linguistically in connection with “families” on the whitehouse.gov site. The preferred term, for those of you not in the know, is “Parent” when it comes to the divorce situation, and “Women” when it comes to who’s having violence (including murder) perpetrated against them by, often enough by the father of mutual children.
~ ~ ~ ~
It is difficult to control a population aware of their “unalienable rights,” not intimidated by verbal derogatory talk, or economically dependent upon abusers or captive to them by the threat of death as they leave. Now one factor that often gives a mother courage and motivation to LEAVE abuse is precisely her motherhood, so no wonder it would be threatening to any:
Fear/Shame/Pride-based culture or religion.
The mother/daughter/son bond, culturally needs to be degraded and broken (stepmothers will do) if we are to have a truly sheepish culture that will do what they are told without protest. Family Court venue is GREAT for this, and I happen to believe was designed for the purpose, despite all the hoopla from under-funded (??), under-recognized (????????) fathers, especially those who like to minimize their own violence towards their own women, often prompting separation, which even that bill (above) recognizes is a primary cause of separation!
@@@
The link “parsing Obama” caught my attention, and led to an article from “Real Clear Politics” on the Cairo Speech.
I have just written on “Women” vs. “Mother” and the weak (# occurrences) presence of both when it comes to Family Issues being discussed under the current US Administration’s “White House” page. Not only were the words barely absent, but their usage (which I didn’t analyze and post — but noticed) was also weak. In looking for the word “mothers” I would have to assume that after the age requiring home nurse visitations, we don’t exist. For example, the President’s own mother was transformed into the word “parent” in a sentence highlighting absence of a father. To people who haven’t been through systemic prejudice against their “mothering” it may not register, but when examined, it’s blatant PR omission. It undermines the credibility of the whole page. (granted, the month was the month of Father’s Day, however, if someone has a record of this page during May and wishes to countradict my post, please feel free to comment).
SIMILARLY, when it comes to speaking in this nation, Egypt, the mention of Islamic violence (not bias, but violence) toward women, the omission is just as loud.
So, I just slapped up the article, with someone else’s commentary on it, for your consumption. Then I searched out and pasted up interviews, articles or book reviews from several women who do NOT Delicately skirt the issue of violence towards women, and hate talk in general. Two of these women came to America, and one of them, since coming, has converted from Islam to Christianity.
A third woman from Rwanda didn’t convert, but was already Christian. Her story isn’t about gender violence, but it was another “can’t put down” book of survival in the face of hate, and refusal to hate back. The individual verbal abuse or hate talk that often DOES escalate to physical domestic violence got me (in marriage, after marriage) sensititve to moods and fluctuations in language that might indicate an “event” about to erupt also precedes genocides or attempted genocides. The speech sometimes works the speaker or groups of speakers up, or justifies the abuse. Whether the Holocaust or Rwanda, hate talk is a danger sign. Just as PTSD from domestic violence does indeed have similarities with PTSD from actual war.
So, this had me also noticing books and commentaries on the languages preceding genocides or attempted genocides; Rwanda had caught my attention earlier from the book on which the movie “Hotel Rwanda” was based. This book details times when pastors protected, and times when pastors betrayed, those that were being hunted down. So I include the “Left To Tell” book because it seems relevant.
And I added my two bits. And a few links indicating that this fatherhood stuff is turning to vigilante behavior, unfortunately. And pointed out, again, what our Declaration of Independence was about….
On my blogroll to the right, is a little Youtube showing just how low my President bowed, casually, quickly, to the leader of a Muslim country, in the company of Queen Elizabeth and a G20 meeting. This disturbs me, and was of some serious debate in a blogtalkradio dialogue (as I recall the source, anyhow) moderated by Dr. Phyllis Chesler and Marcia Pappas of NYS NOW. Is he the leader of the free world, or at least part of it? Then what’s that obeisance about? Would he kneel to the Pope to be politically correct, kiss the ring and insult all those boys and girls abused by priests, and the concept upon which this nation was founded, Bill of Rights Number I?
I myself am VERY disturbed at how domestic violence killings are starting to take on a vigilante nature, as if in retaliation to a woman leaving a family, or exposing a sin, how DARE she? As a mature woman and mother who has been dumped by the roadside by a combination of my own family and my ex-batterer, apparently for — again, exposing family something or other — I am thinking about:
- How
- Why
- Who ARE these people?
- What IS this world?
How many OTHER myths have I believed about life, my country, my family, the legal system, etc.? I will tell you one I have let go of: “The American Dream.” I have switched this my dream from anything material, and am changing it to a character issue, a personal one with myself.
I am calling upon the combination of my God (NOT the one that is a respecter of persons, or genders, or legalistically profiling and whimsical in judgment, that I have seen in certain places), and my courage, and putting my intellect a good bit lower, respectively, than it used to be. Plus, from within, my emotions of concern and compassion for others, and whatever picture I can imagine. Indignation about injustice only goes so far, and as the injustice basically never stops, another motivation must be found.
I think part of the trouble around here is that people pretend to be neutral and detached (a high value) when they aren’t anything of the sort. They can incite to violence, ride roughshod over families, due process, and civil rights, as easily as any other nation or culture, but claim this is based on “evidence-based practices.” In one place on this post, I included a Rwandan woman — the issue was not on men versus women, but the same principles: hate talk towards a certain group of people (Tutsis) and how quickly it ignited.
We have become an incredibly morally bankrupt place (as well as fiscally — and they are related), while drowning in certain materials and products. However, the solution to this is not to be found in the institutions, but rather in the people who are aware that these institutions are not going to replace human basic functions of: produce, protect, educate, alleviate, CREate (when it comes to arts, ideas, concepts, etc.), that which we have procreated. If you’re new to this blog, you’ll notice that when I have a strong emotional reaction to a certain thing (or idea), I pile on labels, like sauce on a hamburger, or whipped cream on a milkshake, or, . . . . or. . . .
I was referring to the churches, some of which I left voluntarily, and one of which I got thrown out of last month for being female, having understanding of a Biblical passage, and speaking up (even with permission). How dare I think I knew something!
See:
“Family Values” Pundits not so upstanding themselves.
This is a new site to me: REAL CLEAR POLITICS. This dates to June 2009
I simply posted the whole article. Any italics are my emphasis, some (not all) of the other style changes are mine, too:
Did Obama Say Enough About Women’s Rights?
Posted by Cathy Young | Email This | Permalink | Email Author
As I said in my previous post, I had a largely positive reaction to Obama’s Cairo speech. However, I agree with David Frum’s criticsm of Obama’s comments about women’s rights — which should have been a key part of an “outreach to Muslims” speech. In contrast to Obama’s strong affirmation of the principles of democracy, his discussion of women’s issues and Islam was too general, too weak, and afflicted with excessive even-handedness.
{{with which “even handedness, as I have beLABORED in previous posts, the Whitehouse.gov agenda on families is not even remotely afflicted. It flat out ignores the fact, practically, that mothers exist. Period.}}
Here is the passage in its entirety: (OBAMA):
“The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights
“I know there is debate about this issue. {{“debate”?!?}} I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam.
{{EXCUUUUUSE me? Is this or is this not a dodge, or an understatement? Was there a political or safety reason for this understatement at this particular conference?
http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/211/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence
I have posted an excerpt below. And photos. OK, now you may continue reading President Obama’s speech…}}}}
“In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.”
Frum takes issue, in particular, with Obama’s remarks about the head-covering issue: he points out that not only “some in the West,” but many women in the Muslim world regard the hijab as a symbol of female submission (not to God but to man), and that many women who “choose” to cover themselves (sometimes not only their hair but their face) do so because of coercion and intimidation either by family members or by radical Islamic militias. I do believe Obama was right to affirm a woman’s right to choose hijab; quite a few Muslim feminists regard it as a legitimate and positive form of religious expression, no different from the Jewish yarmulke, and quite a few moderately traditional Muslims are alienated by the categorical rejection of the hijab as oppressive. However, it would have been fitting to balance his statement with an assertion of a woman’s right to choose not to cover their hair — a right that, in some countries, they are denied not only by informal pressure and harassment, but by law and official policy.
As for the rest of this passage, it was nice of Obama to assert the importance of educational opportunities for girls and women, but that’s about as uncontroversial as it gets: who, except for the Taliban, disagrees? In all too many Muslim countries, the main problems facing women are far more severe: forced marriage, vastly unequal treatment when it comes to divorce and child custody, and socially sanctioned violence. How can one talk about women’s rights in the Muslim world and not mention honor killings? Or the horrific recent public flogging by a Taliban militia in Pakistan of a 17-year-old girl whose apparent offense was to have stepped outside her house without a male relative escorting her? Or cases in which Islamic courts have sentenced rape victims to death for fornication or adultery when the rape could not be proved under a stringent standard requiring two male witnesses? (While we’re at it, how about the fact that in Islamic courts, the word of a female witness is officially given half the weight of a man’s?) What about female genital mutilation? Against the backdrop of these genuine horrors, literacy programs and micro-financing for young women’s employment look like a rather feeble response. How about first ensuring that the girl who participates in a literacy program doesn’t get brutalized for showing a strand of hair in public?
In this context, Obama’s comment that “the struggle for women’s equality” is also a problem in America is also, to say the least, unhelpful. Yes, there are still gender disparities in the U.S., though I think many of them are due to, as Obama put it, women not making the same choices as men. But to mention what sexism still remains in American society in the same breath as the violent misogyny and patriarchal oppression still pervasive in much of the Muslim world today is a truly misguided attempts at even-handedness. It’s a bit like saying that of course it’s a bad thing that of course it’s a bad thing that Joe locks his wife in the closet, beats her senseless, forbids her to talk to any other man and monitors every penny she spends, but hey, Bill spends only half the time his wife does on housework and child care and treats his own career as more important than his wife’s, so if he voices disapproval of Joe he’d better mention his own failings too.
Yes, of course it’s not only in Muslim countries that women face severe oppression. (The issue of women being elected to lead in deeply patriarchal cultures is a separate, and fascinating, one, but I don’t think it’s a good measure of the overall status of women in society.) And I know there is a vigorous debate about whether Islam is inherently more female-unfriendly than other major religions and whether an Islamic feminsm is possible. Nonetheless, the fact remains that in recent decades we have seen a rollback of women’s rights in many societies — sometimes a drastic rollback — due to the influence of Islamic extremism. Obama’s failure to mention this fact was extremely disappointing. Talk about a missed opportunity. In my previous post, I said that Obama’s comments on women’s rights deserved no more than a B-. Analyzing them now, I’m lowering the grade to a gentleman’s C.
I give it an “F.” See below:
PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE: I PASTE ENOUGH TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO GET OVER THERE AND READ IT!
Dr. Phyllis Chesler:

Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence? (title is URL)
by Phyllis Chesler
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2009
Families that kill for honor will threaten girls and women if they refuse to cover their hair, their faces, or their bodies or act as their family’s domestic servant; wear makeup or Western clothing; choose friends from another religion; date; seek to obtain an advanced education; refuse an arranged marriage; seek a divorce from a violent husband; marry against their parents’ wishes; or behave in ways that are considered too independent, which might mean anything from driving a car to spending time or living away from home or family. Fundamentalists of many religions may expect their women to meet some but not all of these expectations. But when women refuse to do so, Jews, Christians, and Buddhists are far more likely to shun rather than murder them. Muslims, however, do kill for honor, as do, to a lesser extent, Hindus and Sikhs.
{{Everything underlined here, was an issue in my Western, non-Muslim marriage. I snuck education. I was stalked, through my own family and individually for leaving to the point that I have had major fear to finalize this divorce, and have not; I experienced retaliation consistently of engaging in activities outside the home, specifically anything that related to my former profession. This retaliation could come in the form of interfering with me getting out the door, or sabotage — allowing me to start, but making it hard to complete, a simple season’s engagement; complaining about or withholding funding for something as elementary as a simple black skirt and shirt to perform in; display of weapons immediately after returning from a rehearsal, leaving the car with insufficient gas to get back from one, and other night-mare-inducing behavior. This extended also to times my daughters were engaged in music as well; UNBELIEVABLE. I have watched my piano be physically attacked, buried under virtual trash, and then I was mocked for not practicing it enough, which I barely could find time to do in a day. I left home once, with an infant, in another state, for a week. I was given extra tasks to complete before leaving, and I came back to a house that was dangerously trashed –NO dishes had been done, broken glass on the floor (and we had a baby), and a special plant/bush I’d given him had not been watered, and was dead. Food in pots was moldy; I was stunned. In subsequent (to marriage) public times, in court, he repeatedly talked about the condition of the house, as if I didn’t also work, or was solely responsible. I had an unbelievable time getting access to a car, which was resented.
Finally, when I was able to leave the family home for two weeks, for a music camp, with daughters, when I returned, I’d been thrown out of the bedroom, a lock installed, and in short, this was when I determined to leave. These TYPES of activities continued, to this day, post-separation. Every decision I made that entailed putting daughters in a music class, or lessons, was permitted reluctantly, but eventually stopped. Then public declarations were made that I was isolating and depriving them. I attended a VERY liberal Midwestern college, and as a young person, was not restricted or berated for anything regarding my gender. The place I met this man was not illiberal — it ordained women, we preached in teams, and sometimes lived together.
During this marriage, I began to doubt that I was indeed in America. I had never heard of any experience like this, or known anyone who had experienced a situation like this violence, and abuse. Speaking of it to the variety of people I did, indeed, come in front of year after year, few of them had words to describe this thing that was happening to me. To this day, my “liberal” relatives will not use the word “domestic violence” or “abuse” in front of me, practically, and appear to be furious that I have actually spoken in these terms and insisted that this is indeed what happened. The denial has taken it beyond the legal terms — there has been, within my family — a literal denial that any of the laws to protect people from domestic violence exist, apply, or have anything to do with our case, or my many difficulties. Experientially, it needs a name. Now, gradually, through blogging, networking, reading, talking — and I have not been through ANYthing like the women below here — I have come to understand that this is a serious moral / emotional / social crisis our country is in. There are powerful political factors that HAVE to say the words “domestic violence” with their mouths, because the cat is out of the bag, and the horse is out of the barn. BUT, they are diluting, reframing, derailing the conversation and attempting, in many and disturbing ways, to turn back the clock on this matter of women saying NO! You can NOT do this! and saying it through the courts.
Every woman has to determine how she is going to respond to this shunning, when women in our world survive, and are emotionally supported primarily through their connections with others. that is the value that is respected (often) with American women. We are in our communities, we have children OR, we have careers, or juggle both. For women of my age (middle, OK?) to have both lost children AND career, and contact with their family, but not be a radical feminist, is indeed interesting. We can come into the church perhaps as ministers, acolytes (so to speak), or servants supporting its infrastructure. I, for one, no longer care to support the infrastructure of anything so dysfunctional. I consider myself to be courageous and independent (in certain ways), but there comes a burnout level. I have PTSD, and when exposed to more “women, get thee behind me, Satan” talk in certain denominations (many of them), I simply have to speak up, then leave. I will not hang out there. At least I have a few options.
To survive abuse, sometimes, one has to become two people: a public one and a private one. This includes sometimes with one’s spouse. At some level, my soul was not going to show itself any more, for another verbal beating for mere existence. Instead, I took the verbal tirades for being, supposedly, apathetic, wimpy, not caring and passive. Well, being anything else got me physically assaulted, or some other form of escalation, sometimes involving property destruction, or attack on pets. Children were in the home. I just couldn’t keep that up, and guess what: No one was backing me up. No one was confronting this man, really. At the end of the day, I had to come home to sleep. He began accumulating guns, and large knives. I don’t use these, or know how to, and it wasn’t too long (although more than a year) after this that I realized — we had to separate. I cannot tell you the level of shame and embarrassment I had, with or without children, having to hide my mail, ask strangers for rides, or a few $$ to put in the ggas tank (if I had a car). One night, I got stranded late at night in a downtown urban area after my night job. I took a ride with what might have been a drug dealer to get to a gas station. My ex came and got me, but with the news that someone had run over the cat that day, my favorite one (I always found this suspicious timing). The concern for my personal safety was at zero level. I kept journals. My journals were targeted, and I had to remove them from the home for safekeeping. He went after, and befriended the people keeping them, I got them back.
NOW: Now, I cannot live that dual personality way, and will not. When I go into a church and am expected to adopt a certain demeanor — I won’t. It’s like violence to the soul. I am one person: I will tell someone (in my family) if I am upset with them, and why.
The Court System:
The Family Court system in this country has become a charade. It rewards short-term performance in front of evaluators, mediators, judges, and other people. No one really looks behind the scenes — there is no interest, time or resources to fully check facts. For the most part. This system rewards the batterer “snake” personality: Charming, manipulative, dissembling. Or, alternately, wounded and looking helpless. I have seen a (female) judge leap to aid my ex, to the extent of testifying for him, as if he could not speak. I have watched him interrupt an attorney and derail the direct question, and get away with this. When I go to court, I am primarily PTSD, although I try pretty hard. All such a person needs to do is get through the next appearance with some person in authority, get their way, and afterwards, do whatever they want.
There are too many similarities between the hypocrisies and coverups of fundamentalist religion, and what I see in these courts. It is going to take women, feminist women, to address it. The other factor is, in this court, children are involved. We are not always 100% on board with the radical feminist regimes. I cannot tell you how many women in my situation, leaving batterers, losing their kids to stand by helplessly as their kids are showing symptoms of abuse, including child sexual abuse, are themselves religious. Many of them, their husbands or partners specifically targeted them in these circles — because the environment is male-domination-friendly.
When I say in my posts, that churches are NOT havens for women leaving violence, or necessarily shelters for them, I am absolutely in earnest. i hope, in my way, to be able to speak to this and do something about the shameful failure to support — or even SPEAK about — the laws against violence towards women, and children — in these venues. They are in their own ether, with their own agenda, and their own intents. I do not believe this is the genuine religion of, in my case, the man Jesus Christ as I read about him in scripture. I read nothing about his abusive or dismissive treatment of women; in fact it is the opposite. I think what we have now is a charade of that. For the most part. I don’t think most people have the guts to do what he did, but some do.
(WOW — where did THAT come from? Well, I’ll post. I may erase some of it another day…..)

Amina Said (L), 18, and her sister Sarah, 17, were shot dead by their father Yaser at their home in Irving, Texas, in January 2008. Said was upset by his daughters’ “Western ways” and was assisted in the killing by his wife, the girls’ mother. The victims of honor killings are largely teenage daughters or young women. Unlike ordinary domestic violence, honor killings often involve multiple family members as perpetrators.
Let’s Get Honest comments:
In “ordinary domestic violence” family members could be either hostages, victims, OR enablers. The truth is, it takes enablers for a PATTERN of domestic violence to thrive and grow. There is denial, there is incompetence, there is scapegoating, there is helpless ignorance in what to do. Many people in my culture have very strong emotions, but in certain classes and circles, this is not “socially acceptable.” So they suppress them behind circuitous speech, evasive answers, or simply no answers. When I got, out, I had some strong emotions (anger) as I began to stop hating myself (which was safer) and be angry. My anger was noticed – his violence, and the danger this represented — was not. I only recently simply decided to forgive, and do this entirely detached from any reason to, other than a decision, and a desire to be free from anger, and reactionary mode, which is typically either anger, or depression, when the insults, aggressions, etc. continue. That’s how I am choosing to handle it at this point.
I am posting quite a bit here about Islamic violence towards women. However, I am doing so with an understanding that forms of Protestantism (mainstream and nonmainstream) Christianity can still kill, destroy, and maim — physically and emotionally. I am here to warn out country not to ignore this hate talk from governmental circles towards women. In the lingo of domestic violence, denying it is a form of it (a.k.a. crazymaking). Below, is a passage from “Infidel” about “baari.” If I am able, I will find the passage from a Focus on the Family publication that sounds uncomfortably similar. And I will say, the “shunning” and patronizing (social, psychological) takes a different form, but still exists, when a Christian woman throws out an abusive husband and then shows up in church unapologetic.
And expecting to be treated with respect. Or worse, looking for an opportunity to actually speak or teach the Bible (this was why I got thrown out of the last place, and I was entirely too submissive in that as well). I finally came to the conclusion that it was safer outside those buildings.
Another alarming trend, vigilante-style behavior — AND TALK — around the issues of the family courts. Continuing on the topic of Honor Killings, which was “skirted” nicely in the Cairo speech, above….
The United Nations Population Fund estimates that 5,000 women are killed each year for dishonoring their families. This may be an underestimate. Aamir Latif, a correspondent for the Islamist website Islam Online who writes frequently on the issue, reported that in 2007 in the Punjab province of Pakistan alone, there were 1,261 honor murders. The Aurat Foundation, a Pakistani nongovernmental organization focusing on women’s empowerment, found that the rate of honor killings was on track to be in the hundreds in 2008.
There are very few studies of honor killing, however, as the motivation for such killings is cleansing alleged dishonor and the families do not wish to bring further attention to their shame, so do not cooperate with researchers. Often, they deny honor crimes completely and say the victim simply went missing or committed suicide. Nevertheless, honor crimes are increasingly visible in the media. Police, politicians, and feminist activists in Europe and in some Muslim countries are beginning to treat them as a serious social problem…
(SO WHY ISN”T OUR PRESIDENT?)
PLEASE ALSO, READ THESE TWO BOOKS. OK, THREE. I DID. I COULDN’T PUT THEM DOWN, IN FACT. AND I FELT I WAS READING ABOUT MY OWN FAMILY. I LIVE IN THE WEST. I LIVE IN THE USA. I DIDN’T EXPERIENCE, PHYSICALLY, AT ALL THE SAME AS THESE WOMEN. WHY DID IT FEEL FAMILIAR?
I FEEL AS THOUGH OUR FAMILY HAS BECOME LIKE A POLYGAMOUS CULT, AND WE ARE A SMALL, NUCLEAR, PROFESSIONALLY INVOLVED FAMILY, ABOUT 3RD GENERATION IN THE COUNTRY. NO ONE HAS BEEN JAILED. WHY DID THE BEHAVIOR SOUND SO FAMILIAR, AND WHAT’S GOING ON? I BELIEVE THAT IT IS THE EMOTIONAL, SPIRITUAL CONTENT OF THE BEHAVIOR WHICH IS THE SAME, FROM CULTURE TO CULTURE, EXPRESSED DIFFERENTLY. HATE IS STILL HATE.
This book, and woman, are so well-known, I don’t think there is too much to be added. However, if not, READ.
WIKIPEDIA: (evidently not fully current)
Ayaan Hirsi Ali (
pronunciation (help·info); Somali: Ayaan Xirsi Cali; born Ayaan Hirsi Magan 13 November 1969 in Somalia)[1]is a Dutch feminist, writer, and politician. She is the estranged daughter of the Somali scholar, politician, and revolutionary opposition leader Hirsi Magan Isse. She is a prominent critic of Islam, and her screenplay for Theo Van Gogh‘s movieSubmission led to death threats. Since van Gogh’s assassination by a Muslim extremist in 2004, she has lived in seclusion under the protection of Dutch authorities.
When she was eight, her family left Somalia for Saudi Arabia, then Ethiopia, and eventually settled in Kenya. She sought and obtained political asylum in the Netherlands in 1992, under circumstances that later became the center of a political controversy. In 2003 she was elected a member of the House of Representatives (the lower house of the Dutch parliament), representing the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). A political crisis surrounding the potential stripping of her Dutch citizenship led to her resignation from the parliament, and led indirectly to the fall of the second Balkenende cabinet.
She is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, working from an unknown location in the Netherlands.[2][3] In 2005, she was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world.[4] She has also received several awards for her work, including Norway’s Human Rights Service’s Bellwether of the Year Award, the Danish Freedom Prize, the Swedish Democracy Prize, and the Moral Courage Award for commitment to conflict resolution, ethics, and world citizenship.[5]
HERE IS A LINK TO A 2007 Interview (NY Mag Review of Books). “The Infidel Speaks,” by Boris Kachka, Feb. 4, 2007
SHE SAYS SOME EXTRAORDINARILY RELEVANT THINGS.
I THINK IT EXTRAORDINARLY REMARKABLE THAT MY PRESIDENT DIDN’T MENTION MUCH ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF WOMEN, OR ANY OF THESE EXTRAORDINARY ONES, WHEN VISITING A MUSLIM COUNTRY. NOTE (AS TO “CAIRO SPEECH”), NONIE DARWISH, BELOW, FLED EGYPT FOR THE USA, AND CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY. HER YOUTUBE AND A PARTIAL INTERVIEW IS BELOW (SO LABELED: THIS IS THE SOMALIAN SWEDISH AMERICAN WOMAN HERE:
To her admirers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a maverick, bravely defying the Netherlands’ political correctness to address Europe’s growing cultural rifts. To detractors, she’s a charismatic bomb-thrower with as little regard for her adopted nation’s safety as for her own. Both sides would have to admit that the former Somali-Dutch politician is a master of self-reinvention. After a rough childhood (circumcision, daily beatings) in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Saudi Arabia, she escaped to Holland from a forced marriage, eventually joined the Dutch Parliament as a Muslim criticizing her own culture, and made a provocative film with Theo van Gogh that got him killed and sent her into hiding.
This is why I think that, just perhaps, President Obama might have been a little remiss to simply not address this issue in a Muslim nation. Nonie Darwish’s father was killed in jihad, and she left Egypt for the US. Now here is an American leader back in Egypt, speaking on this topic, and nothing substantial?
When a rival threatened to revoke her citizenship, the resulting furor toppled the governing coalition. But Ali just moved on, resigning and moving to Washington, D.C., where she now works for the American Enterprise Institute. It’s all retold in her eloquent new memoir, Infidel. Stopping by Soho House recently, she spoke with New York about life and politics in her latest adopted land.
You’ve been here for six months. How do you like the U.S.?
That is the question they all ask! I love it. The most comforting thing is the anonymity. I’m not allowed to talk about security—to tell you who in this room is security and who is not—but the pressure cooker of Holland is over. I am now just one individual in the melting pot.
You’re at a conservative think tank—perhaps an odd place for a harsh critic of religion in political life.
I consider myself nonpartisan, but I’m a liberal—not in the American sense, because Americans seem to refer to communists as liberals. What we see in Europe, because of the welfare state, is government pretending to provide all sorts of services they shouldn’t be providing.
Let’s Get Honest comment: My point EXACTLY, in many of these posts!
But what do you make of Christian conservatives in your ranks?
No one in the American Enterprise imposes their beliefs. We clash, and I think that’s what the West is all about.
But you’re with them on the whole “clash of civilizations” thing?
When I was in Holland, the idea was, all cultures are equal and all are to be preserved. My idea was, no, all humans are equal but not all cultures are equal. In the culture of my parents, we never seemed to be able to succeed in such basic issues as getting food, interacting and living in peace with each other, or adapting to our environment, and the West, they’ve succeeded in all those. I’d been taught Western culture’s only bad. Maybe that’s good for your self-esteem, but it wasn’t taking us anywhere.
This woman comes from WHERE? And she understands the Declaration of Independence (principles) better than we do? It’s not the CULTURE, it’s the HUMANS:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENTS. NOT DISHING OUT HAPPINESS AND HEALTH, BUT SECURING THOSE RIGHTS!
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
LOCALLY SPEAKING, SOME WOMEN NEED TO DISBAND THEIR FAMILY UNIT, TO SECURE THEIR SAFETY. WHO THE HELL IS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO UNDERMINE THAT DECISION BY GOVERNMENTAL DECREE, AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE FATHERHOOD RESOLUTIONS, GRANTS, INITIATIVES, AND TASK FORCES ?? ???
THE MAIN QUESTION IN THESE MATTERS IS WHETHER OR NOT WOMEN ARE INCLUDED IN THE INCLUSIVE NOUN “MEN” NOW, WOMEN HAD TO FIGHT FOR THIS, BUT IN 1920, AFTER SLAVES, WE MANAGED TO GET THE RIGHT TO VOTE. THIS WOMAN CAME FROM A RELIGION, THE NAME OF WHICH MEANT, “SUBMIT.” THE NAME OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, PER DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE FROM GREAT BRITAIN, ABOVE, IS IN ESSENCE, PERMIT.
NOW AS TO FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES, I’D LIKE TO CITE THE PRIMARY CHRISTIAN VERSE USED TO JUSTIFY WIFE-BEATING:
You’ve dismissed accusations that you’re lashing out because of childhood traumas. So why write a memoir graphically detailing the abuse you and your siblings suffered?
It became important to say, “Okay, you guys keep accusing me of using my past. Let me tell you my story, and my story shows that I do not blame the death of my sister on Islam. I do not blame female genital mutilation on Islam.” My whole awakening was triggered by the eleventh of September, and it did not affect only me, it affected a lot of people.
Do you regret certain things you said about Muhammad—like that he was a pervert and a tyrant?
I don’t regret that. I’m still convinced that for Muslims to integrate fully into modern society, we cannot avoid discussing the prophet. We didn’t only deal with communism militarily, but we said it is a bad idea. The works of Karl Marx were discussed.
Maybe academia would have been a better—and less dangerous—venue.
Politics is not a good thing for me. But I wanted to bring out the issue of Muslim treatment of women in Holland, and I could only accomplish that in Parliament. If I had been a professor, it would just have disappeared in a cabinet.
“the Territory that is now Somalia was divided between the British and the Italians, who occupied the country as colonizers, splitting it in two. In 1960 the colonizers left, leaving behind a brand-new, independent state. A unified Somalia was born.”
“If in the process of baari you feel grief, humiliation, and everlasting exploitation you hide it. If you long for love and comfort you pray in silence to Allah to make your husband more bearable
AND:
“They call me infidel”. Ex-Muslim Christian Nonie Speaks out
This was of interest to me because the author had experienced a regime change within her home country, and then come to America and experienced a change of religion. So she spoke of the qualitative differences.
(11/20/2006)
Egyptian-born Nonie Darwish is “too controversial” to speak at Brown University, where her invitation to speak was just taken back. The title of her new book about says it all Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror . Good luck with that one. Here, where we’ve been attacked by jihadists, we don’t like to hear about the enemy we face.
(THIS IS AN INTERVIEW. EXCERPTS, HERE:)
LOPEZ: Are the majority of Muslim women oppressed? What can be done for them?
DARWISH: The majority of Muslim women are oppressed and that is due to Islamic sharia law which severely discriminates against women. Even the most educated and powerful Muslim women are faced with a legal system that is very discriminatory against women. Muslim women start the marital relationship from a weaker position. The Muslim marriage contract itself is unfair to women because Muslim men can add three more wives if he wishes. That changes the dynamic of husband/wife relationship even if a Muslim man does not exercise this right. Polygamy has a devastating impact on families. There are chronic social ills and tragedies stemming from this single right.
The court system is designed to oppress women, without a doubt.
{{Commentary: I read her book. She talks about how polygamy (one man, many women) pollutes relationships not just between the man and the woman, but also between women: backbiting, whispering, intrigue. I remembered my own case, which has many women involved in protecting a single man, vigorously defending his behavior, which was criminal, as though it were honorable, and I were the criminal for speaking up. I could not put this book down, asking WHY? does this sound like my family? I think these are spiritual issues, and that while the West does NOT endorse polygamy, within the court systems, at least, many of these dynamics are at play — first wives, second wives, etc. They are used against each other, undermining ALL women. }}
LOPEZ: How prevalent is “honor killing”?
DARWISH: According to Islamic law sex outside marriage is prohibited and the penalty for that is often death. The woman is always to blame because she is regarded as the source of the seduction. Muslim men’s honor is dependent on their women’s sexual purity. It does not matter how honorable the character of the Muslim man; but if his female relatives commit any sexual taboos, Muslim society will dishonor him. Arab culture is based on pride and shame** and a Muslim man cannot survive with this kind of shame unless he kills the source of that shame which is the female relative who have had sex outside of marriage. It is not known how common this crime of honor killing happens since it is often goes unreported and the police often looks the other way, but I believe it is common in certain parts of the Muslim world if the girl is discovered to be no longer a virgin or pregnant. That is why most girls in the Middle East remain virgins till marriage and there are very few births out of wedlock in the Middle East.
{{**I am concerned about the culture of “manhood” in the west being based on the same things. It is not a good basis. I also believe that, despite the level of indoctrination being nothing of the like, this same BASIS of education in the U.S. exists — and that is not a good basis for human behavior. Rather, how much better, to respect accomplishment in a variety of life situations. But school is NOT a variety of life situations, it is ONE of life’s many situations. To teach people to be puffed up, or feel inferior, based on their grade performances (although it is good to study and learn, and be able to have those skills), is simply wrong. How much better to be, rather engaged in the process of learning, and let that be the intrinsic reward. We will have better people.
I believe (opening up a bit here) that what happeend to me in music was, I was allowed to be more expressive, and less analytical, also less about, producing a grade. I didn’t value grades — already had them. They did nothing for me socially and weren’t hard enough to earn. They di dnot increase my sense of self-worth at all, as an adolescent. I learned to be ashamed about things that had no basis in shame, including my (good) grades, and so forth. The act of going to and from a classroom is not exactly a major accomplishment in life. The ability to help others learn to do something, or to engage as a human being; to build something, to design something, to perform something. But to fill in the correct multiple choice answers on a test sheet according to data you were fed in a textbook? That’s nothing; it’s for the convenience of the school comparing you to everyone else. . . . .. I remember failing on purpose, just to see what it felt like. I still graduated at the top of my (public high school class). The skills needed in college were entirely different. Thank God, there were pianos and there was singing, which led to different types of social interactions.
I believe that what I noticed about this book was when she spoke about the intense hatred, rivalry and bitter suspicious, ongoing, between women in particular. I have been dealing with this for the many years since I left my ex-husband, after the difficulties while dealing personally with him in the home. It really is wearing to the soul, and saddening. I am still seeking and believing for some of these family issues to resolve, but I feel sad when I see that, for the sake of eradicating my world view and values, my children were, literally, uprooted from contact with me, as if I might contaminate them somehow, with self-confidence, and the courage to be different. The courage to expect a woman to have equal legal rights to a man, in America, our country. So far, “NO DEAL”!!}}}}
LOPEZ: What’s it like to be a journalist in Egypt? Worse than life under the Patriot Act?
DARWISH: I was a journalist in Egypt in the early seventies when I worked at the Middle East News Agency in Cairo, Egypt. I was an editor, translator, and censor. As a censor I decided what was to be allowed for publication and what was not allowed. Egyptian media outlets at the time were controlled more or less by the government. Journalists were not really journalists in the Western sense of looking to expose government corruption and internal problems; they were more concerned in blaming the outside world. Military information was totally off limits in reporting. I once said to a fellow journalist that I met a Jew in one of my trips and that that was the first time I met a Jew. The colleague warned me that Arab journalists who communicate with Jews in foreign countries come back to Egypt in a box. Very few Arab journalists were even aware of the true role of media in a society. As to Western life under the Patriot Act, I think it the opposite Arab government controlled Media. In the West it has often become Media controlled government where freedom of the Press (having too much of a good thing) often comes before other important things in Western society, such as for example national security. Sometimes Western media has no tolerance for any restrictions and that can help America’s enemies.
LOPEZ: What made you leave Egypt?
DARWISH: I always regarded America as the land of hope, equality, and opportunity and that was my motivation. I also wanted to leave the Middle East with its problems, its jihad, its pride, anger, and anti-Semitism and above all the constant state of war with Israel.
I CAUTION, the United States of America, I CAUTION them to monitor the “us/them” mentality in every area of life. I CAUTIOn them to keep a lit on this vigilante return to Fatherhood, and the farming out of any conscience, guidance, and education of their young to anyone such as those in those in the Executive Branch of Government, who are presently engaged in establishing, on one hand a national religion (through a variety of means) and on the other hand, a totalitarian system in which choice is the heresy. Opting out of government involvement in the basic processes of life is a heresy.
There are aspects in which the fatherhood movement — as practiced, reminds me of the KKK. It is the same type of hate speech.
I am going to talk about another, very uncomfortable genocide I have read in some detail about (it just came up, and I continued reading, OK? It’s what I DO!) Rwanda. This is of interest to me because some churches protected, and some betrayed. Here is a personal, amazing story I ran across. Again, it is told by a woman:
“LEFT TO TELL“

In 1994, Rwandan native Ilibagiza was 22 years old and home from college to spend Easter with her devout Catholic family when the death of Rwanda’s Hutu president sparked a three-month slaughter of nearly one million ethnic Tutsis. She survived by hiding in a Hutu pastor’s tiny bathroom with seven other starving women for 91 cramped, terrifying days. This searing firsthand account of Ilibagiza’s experience cuts two ways: her description of the evil that was perpetrated, including the brutal murders of her family members, is soul-numbingly devastating, yet the story of her unquenchable faith and connection to God throughout the ordeal uplifts and inspires. This book is a precious addition to the literature that tries to make sense of humankind’s seemingly bottomless depravity and counterbalancing hope in an all-powerful, loving God.”
-Publisher’s Weekly, Starred Review, March 2006
We all ask ourselves what we would do if faced with the kind of terror and loss that Immaculée Ilibagiza faced during the genocide in her country. Would we allow fear and desperation to fill us with hatred or despair? And should we survive, would our spirit be poisoned, or would we be able to rise from the ashes still encouraged to fulfill our purpose in life, still able to give and receive love? In the tradition of Viktor Frankl and Anne Frank, Immaculée is living proof that human beings can not only withstand evil, but can also find courage in crisis, and faith in the most hopeless of situations. She gives us the strength to find wisdom and grace during our own challenging times.”
-Elizabeth Lesser, co-founder of the Omega Institute, and author of Broken Open: How Difficult Times Can Help Us Grow
“Left to Tell is for anyone who is weary of the predictable “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” trance most of the world suffers from. Immaculée Ilibagiza breaks that spell by bravely quelling the storm within, and contacting a force so powerful that it allows her to calm the storm “without,” and more important, to forgive the “unforgivable.” Her story is an inspiration to anyone who is at odds with a brother, a nation, or themselves.”
-Judith Garten, teacher and counselor of The 50/50Work© and a child of the WWII Holocaust

(As far as I got on this post July 2, 2009
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
July 1, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Posted in "Til Death Do Us Part" (literally), After She Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Fatal Assumptions, in Studies, Lethality Indicators - in News, My Takes, and Favorite Takes
Tagged with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Cairo Speech, Christian male violence against women, domestic violence, Due process, Evan Bayh, family annihilation, Feminists, Honor Killings, Imaculee Ilibagiza, Indiana Mothers for Custodial Justice, Left to Tell, murder-suicides, No Safe Place, Nonie Darwish, Not a Chip off the Bayh Block, obfuscation, Phyllis Chesler, President Barack Obama, Rwandan Genocide, social commentary, Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints, Teaching men to dominate, trauma, Turned Down at Brown, women's rights
Can we call it a day on these “Days” ?? What are they worth, to you?
Hey, people – – can we talk?
You can see from the gadgets to the right (Feedjit, Statcounter, etc.)
some people are at least zipping through the site. Let’s talk, or load page-views and just snatch data from each other
June 21st was Father’s Day. In May was Mothers’ day. In April, it was the next two holidays, and the other ones below
are of older origins.
If it saved even TWO lives, would you give up the “Days”?
Even if you worked at Hallmark cards, a flower shop, or a newspaper?
Now, I realize that all religions require sacrifice, sometimes (often?) entailing blood, sometimes human, often children.
But perhaps we could simplify, and get it down, nationally at least (or internationally?) to the long-standing world religions, and for good measure, “Bill of Rights” Day in the U.S., with particular emphasis on Amendments I and II, which entails that the Government shall protect our right not to believe in any god, or as a nation worship one, or have our money — our offspring– poured out at its altar.
Bill of Rights
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I am beginning to think that part of every young person’s education should be memorization, by rote, of these amendments, and training in self-defense, by arms, not just karate. A karate kick doesn’t stop a bullet.
(RECOMMENDED: Intercollegiate Studies Institute //American Civic Literacy Program)
Discussion continued, AFTER you take a good look at two children murdered by their father (along with himself, a.k.a. suicide) last year for this reason: His (younger) wife dared to leave him, in May, and he wasn’t going to have them on Father’s Day, in June:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/02/09/wife-tells-of-ex-husban-s-sick-plan-to-murder-kids-then-blow-her-up-after-father-s-day-115875-21109000/
Twisted dad Brian Philcox – who murdered his two young children because he couldn’t see them on Father’s Day – planned a “spectacular few days of destruction” from beyond the grave.
He drove Amy, seven, and three-year-old Owen to a country lane, attached a hosepipe to the exhaust, fed it through the window and left the engine on.
All three died huddled in the back of his Land Rover at a North Wales beauty spot last June.
It was just the start of a day of horror that evil 52-year-old Philcox had carefully planned.
He had booby-trapped his home in Runcorn, Cheshire, in an attempt to kill his estranged wife Lyn McAuliffe.
And he sent a parcel bomb to her son Ryan, 18. Fortunately, none of the devices exploded.
Speaking for the first time since the tragedy, Lyn, 37, said: “He had planned the whole thing for a spectacular few days of destruction. He wanted to blow me up in his house before murdering his own children.
“He also sent a bomb in the post to my son Ryan. He planned for it to arrive the day after Father’s Day, when me, the kids and Brian should already have been dead.
And in another article:
Gassed children unlawfully killed
Those are the children above. I’m a little unclear on when it might be “lawful” to kill children — on what grounds, self-defense?
The 52-year-old karate expert had separated from his wife in May 2008 after eight years of marriage.
The children’s mother, Lyn McAuliffe, 38, from Runcorn, Cheshire, wept as details of the deaths were read.
![]()
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A typical court order, at least over here (US), will say: Children to be with their Father on Father’s Day, Mother on Mother’s Day, and then will specify the usual holidays — geared typically to the school year, which itself is generally arranged around (oddly enough) major Christian holidays, although Christianity, if not talk of “God” (as if real) is out of favor in many educational systems these days.
In my case, zero of these were enforced for the past almost 3 full years. The last time I attempted to stick up for this, there was retaliation. NONE of the “Shared Parenting” advocates seem too bothered when mothers, as opposed to fathers, are not seeing their children — sometimes removed on grounds of “Parental Alienation” (a.k.a., reporting child sexual abuse, or some other criminal behavior. In my case the criminal offence, I gather, was expecting, and saying openly, to everyone involved (including agencies) that I expected my ex- to be held accountable to obey all court orders, like I was. And to work, like I was…..”
WHY I DIDN”T POST ON FATHER’S DAY:
For one, grief. This news article came across my inbox, and others.
I am a mother. I was unable to see my own daughters on Mother’s Day in: 2005, 2006, and 2007. I did not make plans to blow anyone up or get vengeance. I had a hard time, I’ll admit this Father’s Day — especially that now I’ve done some research on the state of “Der Vaterland” religion in my country here — and did not post. It was a hard day for many noncustodial mothers worldwide, which I know because we talk with each other sometimes.
I also received another no-answer call, from a cell phone, from the same geographic vicinity as my ex, who has recently (though having won in court and happily ensconced with a new woman, and who would think in need of yet another “victory” or some sort) been both texting, calling, and at least once, showing up at my doorstep unannounced and unwanted. This, in this context, is called Stalking. If it was not him, still, the fact that I should have to do a reverse phone lookup, because it was so disturbing and part of an unbroken pattern is significant.
Here’s what the holidays meant for our family — and I know many others who have divorced, not amicably — occasions for incidents.
The national religion is, we are supposed to be happy, rejoicing, and ensconced in a family or extended family setting at these times. Or in a soup line for the homeless, being charitable (or, eating).
Add to this, I’m a musician, and major music events occurred around them, they were also financial fiascos. What should then, have been a joyful occasion became for me, a cause for anxiety and trigger to post-traumatic stress. With good cause, too. This was true BEFORE we separated, as well. We had to perform as a family. My ex apparently had performance stress, and one of my most major, earliest (though not THE earliest) memories of an outrageous physical (assault & battery, now that I know the proper term) of me, while pregnant, happened seconds after a nice family dinner event around Christmas, with my relatives. He had been embarrassed, somehow, and I was going to pay. One kid was dashed into the bedroom and dumped into a crib so two hands would be free to punish me properly. The other one had no choice, not having been born yet.
Let’s reduce the occasions for violent incidents!
Let’s move away from nationalized, attention-deficit-friendly, polytheism and ADD closer to either monotheism, or atheism?
It might give us more time to breathe, reflect, THINK, and memorize our national constitutions.
Here — this is only >>one<< instance of incidents planned for Father’s Day. There were others for Mother’s Day, for example, major political leaders in the US gearing up for the 10th Anniversary of Father’s Day (right around Mother’s Day), and (lying) to the public about how neglected and underfunded the concept of fatherhood was, and how we need to pass more laws, and send more money, of course, hire more experts, to protect the concept.
Included in such proclamations are the usual (gag….) statistics on how female-headed (formerly called “single-mother” only we are now carefully avoiding the use of this word “mother” in public arenas, except YOUNG ones that might generate home nurse visitation programs, also part of the agenda under Health and Human Services, USA). It’s no longer MOTHERS, it’s Children and Families. And, of course Fathers.
Absent from those statistics would be, for example, children such as Amy & Owen above. They are no longer “at risk” for anything at all, except, depending on your version of reality and the universe, possible resurrection, or is it fossilization. Their long-term futures are not going to be part of any Head Start, Healthy Families, or Low-Income Maternal/Parental bonding studies. So if you are reading any of these studies, generally footnoted by a number of Ph.D.’s, LCSW’s, MFTs, etc. (as are some of the contrary studies), just remember — the statistics are skewed. SOME kids never make it this far, and THAT is one reason why “FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS” can — yes indeed — be dangerous to children.
Especially as mediated by a court system that doesn’t take this possibility into account.
Incidents like this arouse emotions in the rest of us — of course. When people’s emotions are at high pitch is not always a great time to make major decisions, and it is DEFINITELY not a great time to analyze government spending. SOMEONE’s money is going to transfer hands, on the basis of these things. Some grants are going to get funded, adn for sure a few print newspapers were sold on the backs of those two kids, as well as the on-line search ratings.
Since I began this blog, I noticed that by the time I had one incident up, or narrated/commented on, another one had hit the news. It was impossible to intelligently keep up commentary with all of them, let alone analysis:
Search Results
-
Brian Philcox Inquest: Killed Children Amy And Owen In Llanryst …
Feb 20, 2009 … A father “unlawfully killed” his two young children and rigged up a makeshift bomb at his house before committing suicide, an inquest has …
news.sky.com/…/Brian–Philcox…Lyn–McAuliffe/…/200902315226750 – Similar – -
Man who killed himself and his two children left ‘Bitch’ note …
Feb 21, 2009 … Lyn McAuliffe is helped into the inquest into the deaths of her two … Mr Gittins told Miss McAuliffe: ‘When Brian Philcox took Amy and …
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Man-killed-children-left-Bitch-note-rigged- homemade-bomb-wife.html – Similar – -
Lyn McAuliffe: Birthday visit for tragic mum – Liverpool Echo.co.uk
Feb 10, 2009 … Brian Philcox 320. A WOMAN whose two children were gassed to death by her … Lyn McAuliffe, 38, said she would go to the graveside of her …
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/…/lyn–mcauliffe-birthday-visit-for-tragic-mum- 100252-22893336/ –Similar – -
Daily Post North Wales – News – North Wales News – Mum of children …
Feb 21, 2009 … Karate expert Brian Philcox drugged his two children, Amy, seven, …Philcox’s then wife Lyn McAuliffe had begun divorce proceedings …
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/…/mum-of-children-killed-in-north-wales-will-not- forgive-dad-55578-22975841/ – Cached – Similar – -
Brian Philcox: Philox killed kids and planned to kill 2 more …
Brian Philcox, 53, of UK, devised a homemade bomb to kill his wife and mother of his 2 children. … Philcox later called McAuliffe to ask her to enter his home. … India News, Jade Goody, Jamie Hince, Jamie Lynn Spears, Janet Jackson …
celebgalz.com/brian–philcox-philox-killed-kids-and-planned-to-kill-2-more- photos/ –Cached – Similar – -
Mama Liberty
-
26 February 2009 – Local Runcorn & Widnes news …
Feb 26, 2009 … Lyn McAuliffe describes Amy and Owen Philcox’s killer as evil and … Child killer Brian Philcox had glittering career in world of karate …
http://www.runcornandwidnesweeklynews.co.uk/runcorn…/26/
Now, the United States, and I believe other countries, are in the grip of a nationalized religion, but one that still hasn’t — other major world ones, stood the test of time — I mean, thousands, or at least hundreds, of years.
We have a nationalized public educational system, and it has to get organized around SOMETHING, as far as schedule. Ironically –according to at least one of my readings on the history of this system — it was pushed and promoted in part as a RE-action by Protestant Christians against an influx of Catholic immigrants from Southern Europe, and/or Ireland. I don’t think Jews or Muslims made honorable mention in this, let alone Hindu, Buddhist, or anything else. There were also the Harvard Unitarians versus the mainline Trinitarians. It was basically fear-mongering about the incoming religions (plus economic and sometimes military, force) backing it up. A land grab was involved of church properties. If you’re really interested, submit a comment, and I’ll submit some bibliography.
So what do we have now, in the school schedules, and reflected in the family court visitation orders (schedules) as well? Ironically, we have some of the most Catholic in origin holiday schedules: Christmas, Easter, Halloween. Google these, and you’ll get somewhere back to the time of Constantine, Rome, and recognize that they, too, had a national religion, and had to sort of, er, do a melting pot. Polytheism was patriotic, monotheism was, well, unnatural.
Jews, and later, Christians, protested, refusing to sacrifice and well, this was entertainment and gladiator fodder. They were made examples of, and you can read history on your own times for a better version of the word “holiday.”
I’m working on this theme, but it seems to me that any national religion pushed down the national throat — is going to produce a reaction, and reactionary elements, and they will kill. There will be war.
What I see right now is Male Supremacists versus “Ms.” and I see LGBT vs. Healthy Marriage enshrined, and I do mean that.
I also see — and if you follow my blog, or others linked to it (see the buttons), or if you simply are motivated enough — how with ONE side of the mouth, our government is taking advice from “faith-based initiatives” on how marriage is ALWAYS just so wonderful, that we should play matchmaker, federally speaking. What do do about cases like the young man in Tennessee, who had 21 children by 5 (or was it 15?) different women is a little unclear. And a moot point — he wasn’t earning much. A
And from another Department (of Education), same Branch (Executive) — there’s a battleground for conttrol of our children in the K-12 school system, i.e., “It’s Elementary” and “Days of Silence,” spawning all kinds of nonprofits justice groups to track this, and defend that. Generally speaking, the ACLU is probably going to come up the other side of, say, Pacific Justice Institute, who tend to defend the conservative Christian groups. WHICH (in case you wondered), I’m not. Primarly because they won’t stick up for women when their own are being beaten, nor was I raised thus anyhow.
So what we have here is:
So you have a built-in war between the EDUCATION system (if you’re rusty, EXECUTIVE Branch) and the COURT system (JUDICIAL BRANCH). One way to also conceptually phrase THAT war could be on the basis of sexuality (LGBT vs. Hetero, plus Dads Rule), OR, it could also be considered, Religion versus no religion.
THIS CREATES BUILT-IN CONFLICT AND POVERT – for some, and professions — for to.
See my (hopefully) upcoming post(s) on Responsible Citizenhood (Parts III, IV and V) and
“Survival of the Fittest: Study and Prosper, or Be Broke and Be Studied” a.k.a.,
“Multiple (Life) Choices in a New Brave World: (1) Etymologist or (2) the Bug on the Plate”
NOW – I have a recommendation (See top of post):
Can we reduce our specialty days, in the courts, and in the educational systems to perhaps FIVE? or SEVEN?
And no two in the same month:
- One for atheism.
- One (or you say how many) for polytheism.
- One, or at most 3, for each of the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam (In chrono order). Or, Christianity, Islam, Judaism (in alpha order). Or . . . . .
(Kind of like mono and poly unsaturated fats, right?)
Or, extend the school year, and shorten the work week, as Friday, Saturday and Sunday characterize these weekly holy days, right?
(The naming, versus numbering, of the days of the week is itself a pagan concept.)
And teachers, you will have to find some other “themes” (such as skills development?) around which to build the school year, not, respectively, (Sept.-June):
Labor, Halloween (DV awareness), Thanksgiving, Hannukah-Kwanzaa-Christmas, Presidents, Martin Luther King, Jr., St. Patrick, Easter (SA/CA/PAS awareness), Veterans & Mothers ((although the parallel seems appropriate in some contexts…), Fathers, and Hallelujah, summer vacation — or school, depending on how well your children concentrated the above in one piece).
No WONDER pharmaceuticals are needed to keep kids focused.
Independence Day (July 4th, US), is coming up. Now, I know the above is ludicrous — but I hope I showed at least that these federally-sponsored (that’s your tax dollars, USA) institutions:
- National Holidays
- PUBLIC School
- Courts
- Government Institutions (at least a few of them)
- Religions
are all intertwined. These institutions also affect the workforce.
WHAT LEVEL OF ATTRITION (translation: Crime, death, waste) IS ACCEPTABLE? IN ORDER TO JAM A NUMBER OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS INTO SEVERAL OF THESE INSTITUTIONS, CAUSING “WARS” AMONG THEM, AND WITHIN SOME OF THEM, MEANWHILE PROCLAIMING THAT CONGRESS IS NOT, IN FACT, MAKING A LAW ESTABLISHING A RELIGION?
Let’s talk profession — remember the joke: What is the “oldest profession in the world”? (Put one of two possible answers). Now you just saw the oldest religion too.
Sex, for money. So who is being sold what?
I note that Mr. Philcox, having been booted out of the house (guess that was HIS religion) opted –quickly– to kill his entire family and himself, and partially succeeded. Guess we know what religion THAT was. He picked up a single mother (who had a son at around age 20), about 15 years his junior, and quickly made some babies, was aggressive towards the son NOT of his gene pool, and when those who WERE of his gene pool were not allowed to live with him, apparently, he wiped them out. Possibly Darwinist?
Would you give up at LEAST: Mother’s and Father’s Day to save a few children’s lives?
Note: This might affect which Congressperson you elect next term. There is no “motherhood” initiative, but there sure as hell– and it’s been hell on Moms, and kids — a “Fatherhood” one! And I already posted who voted for it, in both Houses of the Legislature.
Or do you believe that female-headed households are dangerous and should be eliminated, by hook or by crook, or by pipe bomb?
You know, some prophesies are self-fulfilling, and at this rate, unless some major institutions are somewhat re-arranged (NO, I am NOT advocating the overthrow of anything United States — particularly not the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and due process in all 3 branches of government), it looks to be heading towards Armageddon.
PERHAPS — just PERHAPS — if we could dissolve some of the more monolithic aspects here, and allow a bit more fluidity and dynamic response to actual situations (within the scope of, of course, law), there would be fewer reactionary fundamentalist factions proclaiming, pronouncing, warring, and killing — or stealing. Kids, and dollars.
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
June 24, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Keeping Uncle Sam Away from Toddlers (IWF article)
For once, I agree with “Independent Women’s Forum”
Brief #22
IWF Policy Brief
Cutting-edge analysis of the news of the day from the Independent Women’s Forum
June 11, 2009
Keep Uncle Sam Away from Toddlers:
The Case Against Government Funding for Preschool
By Carrie Lukas
Executive Summary
The President has suggested that greater federal
government support for early childhood education is an
important component of improving educational
opportunities in the United States and would be an
investment in our human capital. Yet there is little
evidence to support the case for greater federal
involvement in preschool.
While policymakers assume that an investment in public
preschool will lead to improved student outcomes, the
research on the effects of preschool is far from
conclusive. Some studies have linked preschool
attendance with short-term gains in student test scores
and other education-related outcomes, but those
improvements fade over time. Additionally, most studies
that have found significant gains associated with
preschool have focused on lower-income or at-risk
student populations. There is no reason to think that such gains would also occur among the general
student population, which is the target of most “universal” preschool proposals. Still, other studies
have linked increased time in preschool with negative social behavior, which would suggest that
encouraging greater use of preschool could contribute to as many problems as it solves.
LINK:
http://www.iwf.org/files/ccd51591aa7467a111d9f4437830ea9c.pdf
This is better viewed as PDF than on here.
However, as a reminder:
The words School, Education, and Learning are not synonymous, if you think about them.
The attempt of the present (and past) administrations to equate the U.S. Public School Educational system with either Education, or Public, is linguistically and financially ridiculous.
Language is not math. For example, anyone declaring, openly, that
10+10 =/= 20
would probably not become President, Governor, or a U.S. Senator or Assemblyperson. It lacks a certain credibility. It creates a certain cognitive dissonance, until the missing data shows up, such as, perhaps:
10(-15+5)+10=/=20
EVEN a US public school 4th grader PROBABLY (wish I could say this for sure) would recognize that something was amiss with that equation. If they knew the symbol “=/=,” which is unlikely, come to think of it. It is simply my intent — in this blog — to show some of the missing math behind the Linguistic Cognitive Dissonance of Government Proclamations that are getting people killed, or raped, or keeping them artificially on welfare. This is NOT rocket science, it simply takes — like the best most effective kind of learning will — being highly motivated to know, and being willing to remove a few blinders and sunglasses that have made the glaring facts a little less difficult to handle.
Unfortunately, we have had Presidents (plural), and U.S. Senators AND Representatives (I haven’t checked all the “governors” yet) pronouncing a similar epidemic and supposed problem without substantial questioning of it — from the general public. Now, that simply lacks credibility. I posted, after Mother’s Day, the data that “fatherhood” was NOT woefully, federally underfunded in 2009, 2008, or at any identifiable time since about 1995.
There’s perhaps more than one reason it’s sad that “religion” (supposedly) was deleted from the public school system. Now, as a person who has taken some serious hits — literally — under the guise of “wives submit” as from the Bible, I have seen its underbelly. But there are SOME upsides to some of the wisdom in some of these holy writs of the major religions. For example, how sad that all women about to engage in a sexual — let alone marital — relationship, didn’t understand this simplicity:
(I’ll give a version I have no respect for — it even comes across in this one):
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
A gullible person believes anything, but a sensible person watches his step.
Now, when nearly an entire nation is this gullible, on one of the FIRST places I would look is at the educational system.
“misogyny”
What motivated me to find out WHY Family Court AND the child support system uniformly didn’t do their assigned and proclaimed jobs was being slapped in the face (while minding my own business) when they didn’t. It bounced me out of work and back onto dependence. The LAST thing I wanted after leaving domestic violence, and the last lesson I wanted my smart children to absorb: Sell your soul to the highest bidder, and cast your lot with whichever parent is NOT under prolonger, personal fire.
Language is NOT math, yet it does have a FEW logical rules attached, for example as a thesaurus would show, NOT all nouns are synomymous.
When the same President (and Administration) that tells us, an epidemic of fatherlessness just rained down from heaven, and female-headed households are doomed for disaster (Say, what? Are you or are you NOT President?) because struggle and hard times (or emotions) were involved, now says that:
Education = Public School Education only
Head Start actually helps long-term
(and this same President has virtually deleted the concept of ‘motherhood” and the word “mother” from public dialogue)
(and the concept of “educational choice” as allowing charter schools (which are also government-funded) ignoring that “homeschooling” DOES exist (and many times works better), and other such propaganda,
Then we have not only a linguistic, but also a financial crisis in credibility. We have a cognitive crisis becoming a mental health crisis. NOW, I have a question: Who stands to profit from an ongoing source of cognitive dissonance? (let alone “high-conflict” divorces). WHO is profiting from the womb-to-tomb, paid for by the people involved in it (and even others without children) cognitively dissonant proclamation that “Big Brother Knows Best” when it comes to “education.” The more correct word is mass-indoctrination.
Sound analysis of ANY problem comes from looking at the history of it, and linguistics are a GREAT clue.
And as it relates to family court matters — mine — as a single mother, I did not have time to waste, and as a mother (period), I didn’t appreciate having my daughters’ education slowed down while fighting my ex (who did not graduate from college, and at the time was not even working steadily, nor had he an exactly stellar track record as to lawful lifestyle — see prior domestic violence) and a member of my family with whom he’d had a male-bonding moment (who had not himself had children, nor taught extensively as I had, nor for that matter, bothered to report, refer, intervene, or acknowledge that when I filed that restraining order with kickout, there was a collection of weapons in the home, often used to intimidate me out of Independent Woman actions (such as participating in music events without ex present), and talk of suicidality. Which, incidentally, didn’t go away with the piece of paper.
On the pronouncement that I “couldn’t” do what I at the time both had been, and was, I was forced (by a family law judge) BACK into a lifestyle that had already been tried, and found VERY wanting, by my household — not the person driving the situation, which was not even a parent and had no legal standing to do so. When reminded of the “no legal standing” in a firm manner, I was then harrassed by mail repeatedly, and (being busy) was on the verge of taking legal action on this (simultaneously with attempting to renew a restraining order, which that mail in fact was enabling the father to break), only to find myself suddenly in a full-blown custody suit by the person who had attempted to offer his own daughters’ visitation time to this particular couple.
I thus believe that the basic problem in some of these discussions is simply that of common literacy.
The picture below is ONE usage of the word SCHOOL
If you want to understand the public school educational system in this country, in a paradigm, look at this picture:
5-
ot.
NOW: You are the parents of a beautiful child, or several children. You have to work a job (not own a business, learn to handle investments, inherited wealth, were raised in a Senator’s household, are not an attorney as is at least one prominent father’s rights advocate, Mr. Leving (very cozy with President Obama, and hailing from the same state), and because your job doesn’t pay too well, you and/or the partner (spouse) living with you, are going to MISS the most formative years and hours of your beautiful children’s upbringing. Every day, someone else is going to be their “prime-time” trainer and values assigner, and you will get the leftover of YOUR day and of THEIR day to remediate, inculcate, supplement, or HUG them — hopefully. YOu have been taught that this is how life is, and always will be. It isn’t for everyone, but right now, it is for you, and people you associate with you.
In the above picture, would you want your child to grow up to be a little fish in a pack of fish at the bottom of the food chain (almost), or would you want to teach him to be a shark (given only those two options?), and at least swim free for a while, and have some teeth, and respect. Heck, even have a blockbuster movie named after you ‘Jaws.”
Would you want to toss the dice and hope the shark doesn’t get YOUR kid (or rely on prayer), but understand that part of the deal is, darting this way or that IF a shark comes near during school hours (and certain types of personalities ARE attracted to crowds of children, it’s true), while one of their classmates is eaten up instead?
Would you want your child, for reasons of simple survival, to learn by example how to act like the shark and consider other human beings as part of his food chain (whereas, when it comes to humans, they ARE the same species, if not personalities).
This shark was designed to use its teeth, and swim, act, and behave in certain manners. PEOPLE do not have to.
Here’s another type of No Child Left Behind behavior, named after a different animal: Google (images for) “Goose-step. Even the phrase “No Child Left Behind” indicates none are excelling (which is on many levels also a lie, as it only refers to this one system). What a narcissistic mindset. If the government doesn’t do it, it can’t be done, or doesn’t matter. It doesn’t count.
FOLKS:
It’s not about “education” it’s about “Schooling.”
(Primary book dates back to 1990, “Dumbing Us Down.” Still true today).
AH WELL, Independent Women’s Forum is MUCH more moderate in its proclamations. Perhaps they are all still married, or have not lost children in the mix somewhere. I’ll stop. . . . No more comments from me below (I think one short interjection, that’s all). See the original site, above.
(BELOW HERE IS QUOTATION:)
2
“There is also reason for concern that greater government involvement in preschool could actually reduce the quality of
education available to and received by many children, and discourage parents from enrolling children in programs that
reflect their values.”
Depending on how programs are structured, government preschool programs could encourage parents
to switch from private preschool providers to subsidized public programs. The often dismal record of
our public school system in providing children with a quality education in kindergarten through 12th
grade should caution policymakers about the potential quality of public programs for three- and four-
year-olds.
It’s also worth noting that there is nothing in the Constitution that would suggest that providing early
educational opportunities {{LetsGetHonest comment: or any other education…}} is a proper use of federal power.
The care and education of children,
particularly children as young as three and four, should the responsibility of parents, not Uncle Sam.
Introduction
Among President Obama’s campaign promises was to
increase the federal government’s commitment to early
childhood education. Specifically, on their campaign
website, candidates Obama and Biden describe their
“Zero to Five Plan,” which would emphasize not only
expanding educational opportunities to three- and four
year-olds, who are typically not yet eligible for public
kindergarten, but “early care and education for infants.”
Specifically, President Obama pledged to create “Early
Learning Challenge Grants” that would be given to
states to support their efforts providing educational
opportunities for those under age five and to help move
states toward “voluntary, universal preschool.”1
The President and Democratic Congress have already begun to expand federal government support for early learning initiatives. The $787 billion economic
stimulus package (officially entitled the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) included more than $1 billion over two years for the federal Head Start program, which supports educational opportunities for three- and four-year-olds from low-income families, and $1.1 billion over two years for the Early
Head Start program, which supports initiatives for infants, toddlers, and pregnant women. Other money included in the stimulus package for education programs (such as funding for the Individual with Disabilities Education Act and Title I) will also be used by states to bolster early learning
programs.2 (footnotes below)
Individual states are also increasingly creating programs to subsidize or provide preschool opportunities
for parents. For example, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Florida already offer universal preschool, and
numerous other states (Arizona, New Mexico, Washington, South Carolina, Virginia, and West
Virginia) have all considered proposals that would move in that direction.3
3
Supporters of these programs believe they will better prepare young children for school, improve
student’s education, and lead to better life outcomes. For example, during a speech to the Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce, President Obama argued:
Studies show that children in early childhood education programs are more likely to score
higher in reading and math, more likely to graduate from high school and attend college, more
likely to hold a job, and more likely to earn more in that job. For every dollar we invest in these
programs, we get nearly $10 back in reduced welfare rolls, fewer health care costs, and less
crime.4
Yet as this policy brief highlights, policymakers shouldn’t assume that such results will come expanded
government support of preschool, especially as government’s support expands beyond the low-income
or “at risk” student population.
Does Preschool Improve Student Outcomes?
Those supporting increased government provision of preschool typically suggest that the money
invested in such programs pays off by creating much larger benefits for individuals and society at large.
They claim that high quality preschool programs lead to improved student outcomes and ultimately a
more educated, productive workforce and expanded tax base. Yet a balanced look at the available
research on the effects of preschool should give policymakers pause.
Most evaluations of preschool programs which are cited as evidence of their great potential benefits
have analyzed programs that serve low-income children and those considered at risk of failing to thrive
in traditional public school. And even when studies are focused on disadvantaged populations, the
research is far from a slam dunk in proving preschools’ long-term efficacy. As Darcy Olsen, an
education analyst and president of the Goldwater Institute, writes:
Taken as a whole, a review of the research shows that some early interventions have had
meaningful short-term effects on disadvantaged students’ cognitive ability, grade-level retention,
and special education placement. However, most research also indicates that the effects of early
interventions disappear after children leave the programs.5
The program that is most frequently touted as evidence of the great potential benefits of universal
preschool is the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. And indeed, this study, which began in the
1960s and has followed an experimental and control group for 40 years, has found meaningful benefits
enjoyed by those who participated in the program on a range of outcomes, including high-school
graduation rates, adult crime, and earnings. Yet researchers caution against assuming that the impact of
this program would be replicated by a universal preschool program serving the general population. As
education analysts from the Lexington Institute explain:
It’s important to note that there were only 58 preschoolers in the experimental group (and 123
in all, including the control group), and all were not only disadvantaged but deemed at risk for
“retarded intellectual functioning and eventual school failure.” They received one or two years
4
“Several states have
implemented aggressive
preschool programs and
there is little to suggest that
it is paying off in terms of
improving the states’ overall
education climate.”
of half-day preschool and home visitations. This was certainly not a large or representative
group, not even of the disadvantaged populations, and it is a real stretch to generalize results
into a rationale for pouring billions of dollars into public pre-K for all, including the children of
affluent families.6
Evaluations done on Head Start, the federal program
dedicated to providing preschool opportunities for low-
income families, are also not encouraging. Generally,
studies show initial modest gains in terms of student
abilities and outcomes, but those gains quickly dissipate.
By early elementary school, researchers could find no
differences between the test scores of those who had
participated in Head Start and peers who hadn’t
participated in a preschool program.7
Even many proponents of preschool programs for those in the low-income or at risk population have
cautioned against assuming that the benefits enjoyed by that population would translate into similar
benefits for the general population. James Heckman, a Nobel prize winning economist, makes the case
for increased investment in early education programs for disadvantaged populations because of his
belief in its potential for significant payoffs. However, when asked about universal preschool
programs, he reiterated the case for targeted programs, explaining “Functioning middle-class homes are
producing healthy, productive kids. …It is foolish to try to substitute for what the middle-class and
upper-middle-class parents are already doing.”8
And indeed, if more preschool was a surefire way to improve student outcomes among the general
population, one would expect to find ample evidence of that dynamic already occurring. Several states
have implemented aggressive preschool programs and there is little to suggest that it is paying off in
terms of improving the states’ overall education climate. As education analysts from the Reason
Foundation wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
[T]he results from Oklahoma and Georgia—both of which implemented universal preschool a
decade or more ago—paint an equally dismal picture. A 2006 analysis by Education Week
found the Oklahoma and Georgia were among the 10 states that had made the least progress on
NAEP. Oklahoma, in fact, lost ground after it embraced universal preschool: In 1992 its
fourth and eighth graders tested one point above the national average in math. Now they are
several points below. Ditto for reading. Georgia’s universal preschool program has made
virtually no difference to its fourth-grade reading scores.9
Rates of preschool attendance have soared during recent decades. The Department of Education
estimated that, in 1965, five percent of three-year-olds and 16 percent of four-year-olds attended
preschool. By the beginning of this decade, 42 percent of three-year-olds and 68 percent of four-year-
olds were enrolled in preschool.10 Yet the data on important educational outcomes—from
5
“There is significant
evidence to suggest that
there is a link between the
amount of time young
children spend outside of
their parents’ care and
behavioral problems.”
performance on nationalized tests to graduation rates—has shown no significant gains during this
period, and in some cases have declined.11
There is also cause for concern that encouraging greater enrollment in preschool may not just fail to
produce positive results, but it could lead to some adverse outcomes. Some researchers have found
evidence suggesting that increased enrollment in preschool programs could lead to problem behaviors.
For example, one study conducted by researchers at Stanford
University and University of California, Berkeley concluded
kindergartners who had attended more than fifteen hours of
preschool each week were more likely to exhibit aggressive
behavior in class.12
Negative behavioral effects would likely be particularly
pronounced if the government moves in the direction of
President Obama’s “Zero to 5” proposal to encourage the
enrollment of babies and young toddlers. There is significant
evidence to suggest that there is a link between the amount of
time young children spend outside of their parents’ care and
behavioral problems. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, for example,
conducted a study of children in ten geographic sites who were followed from birth to kindergarten and
found an association between greater amount of non-maternal care and behavioral problems:
The more time children spend in any of a variety of non-maternal care arrangements across the
first 4.5 years of life, the more externalizing problems and conflict with adults they manifest at
54 months of age and in kindergarten, as reported by mothers, caregivers, and teachers…more
time in care not only predicts problem behavior measured on a continuous scale but at-risk
(though not clinical) levels of problem behavior, as well as assertiveness, disobedience, and
aggression. It should also be noted that these correctional finding also imply that lower levels
of problems were associated with less time in child care.13
In summary, the evidence simply does not support the claims of universal preschool proponents that
an investment in early education will pay off in terms of improving the educational and life prospects of
the general population.
Crowding Out Private Preschool Providers
Another reason for concern about the potential for greater government involvement in preschool is the
potential that, as government expands its support for early learning opportunities, parents could end up
having fewer options for their children’s education instead of more. To the extent that the government
creates specific center-based programs or focuses its support on programs provided through the public
school system, policymakers would be putting private schools and early learning centers at a
disadvantage. Parents committed to enrolling their children in a preschool would face the choice of
paying for private preschool or sending their children to a subsidized public option. As a result, many
6
“Lawmakers would be
better off focusing on
identifying why the
public school system
regularly fails so many
of its charges instead
of expanding its
mandate in education.”
parents who currently pay for private early learning opportunities may switch to enrolling their child in
a public school. This dynamic could result in the elimination of private options, and fewer choices for
parents.
The potential crowding out of private preschool providers in favor of government-run options should
be of particular concern to those who see early education opportunities as critical not just for skill
development, but for children’s socialization and moral development. Given the reticence of so many
advocates of increased educational funding to allow any dollars to reach any organization that isn’t fully
secular (for example, through a voucher or other school choice program), it is likely that many states
would exclude preschools with a religious affiliation from participating in any government supported
preschool program. This means that many parent who currently choose a facility in part to support
their values and provide additional moral education will find themselves with a difficult choice of
forgoing the subsidized service (supported with their tax dollars) or forgoing the moral environment
they had hoped to provide to their children.
Problems with Existing Government Run Schools
Before lawmakers extend the responsibilities of the public
education system to include three- and four–year-olds, it would
be prudent to examine how it is performing its existing duties
in serving students eligible for kindergarten through twelfth
grade.
President Obama himself has been critical of the performance
of many public schools:
And yet, despite resources that are unmatched
anywhere in the world, we’ve let our grades slip, our
schools crumble, our teacher quality fall short, and other nations outpace us. …The relative
decline of American education is untenable for our economy, it’s unsustainable for our
democracy, it’s unacceptable for our children — and we can’t afford to let it continue.14
And indeed, a look at the statistics about our public school system’s performance is sobering. The
National Assessment of Educational Progress, a standardized test designed to assess the overall
performance of American students, regularly shows that the system is failing too many of its students:
in 2007, one third of 4th graders and one quarter of 8th graders scored “below basic” in reading, and
nearly twenty percent of 4th graders and 30 percent of 8th graders scored “below basic” in math. More
than one-quarter of American children don’t graduate from high school. And, as President Obama
noted, the United States often lags behind other developed nations on academic tests despite spending
more on education.15
The disheartening performance of the public school system should caution those who would believe
that greater government involvement in the lives and education of our youngest children will necessary
7
“Government programs
that support preschool
also fail on the measure
of fairness: they
support the choices
made by some parents
over others.”
improve their prospects. Lawmakers would be better off focusing on identifying why the public school
system regularly fails so many of its charges instead of expanding its mandate in education.
There Are Better Ways to Support Parents with Young Children
Government programs that support preschool also fail on the measure of fairness: they support the
choices made by some parents over others. For example, many parents believe that they are their
children’s best teacher and would prefer to keep a parent at home with their three- or four-year-old.
And, even if preschool were generally associated with benefiting most four-year-olds, certainly there are
some who would do better with another year at home. Parents are
best positioned to determine if preschool, and what kind of
preschool, will benefit their children. Government programs that
subsidize specific services, instead of children, would discourage
parents from making decisions based on their children’s unique
needs.
If the real goal is to support the educational development of young
children, lawmakers would do better by providing a refundable tax
credit to families with children of an eligible age, which could be
used to pay for preschool, other educational services, educational
materials, such as books and age-appropriate curriculum, or even to compensate for the reduced
earnings enjoyed by families that opt to keep a parent at home. Such a tax credit would give parents
more latitude to make decisions based on their personal beliefs and situation, and would be superior to
merely expanding government services to provide for a select group of children.
Conclusion
While lawmakers rarely seem concerned about the founders’ intentions, it is worth noting that there is
nothing in the Constitution to suggest that using taxpayer money to support preschool programs in a
proper role for the federal government. Policymakers claim that using taxpayer money to fund more
access to preschool enhances the greater good, but there is little evidence to suggest that this holds true
for the general population. There is also reason for concern that there would be unintended
consequences to pushing greater enrollment in publicly-supported preschool programs, both for
individual students and for the education system as a whole.
Lawmakers would do better by focusing on improving the existing K-12 education system, instead of
seeking to expand it, and to helping families provide for their children by reducing their tax burden.
About the Author
Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women’s Forum and
author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.
{{I said above, I do not swim in the same direction on ALL the issues here, particularly domestic violence and feminism. The thing about feminism is the backlash, My goodness. . . . }}
8
Endnotes
1
Available at: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/index.php#early-childhood.
2
Christina A. Samuels, “Stimulus Providing Big Funding Boost for Early Childhood,” Education Week, March 27,
2009.
3
Darcy Olsen and Lisa Snell, “Assessing Proposals for Preschool and Kindergarten: Essential Information for
Parents, Taxpayers, and Policymakers,” Reason Foundation, Policy Study No. 344, May 2006, p. I.
4
“President Obama’s Remarks to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,” New York Times, March 10, 2009.
Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10text-obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=3.
5
Darcy Olsen and Jennifer Martin, “Assessing Proposals for Preschools and Kindergarten: Essential
Information for Parents, Taxpayers, and Policymakers,” Goldwater Institute, Policy Report No. 201, February 8,
2005, p. 4.
6
Robert Holland and Don Soifer, “How Sound an Investment? An Analysis of Federal Prekindergarten
Proposals,” Lexington Institute, March 2008, p.10.
7
Shikha Dalmia and Lisa Snell, “Universal Preschool Hasn’t Delivered Results,” San Francisco Chronicle, October
17, 2008.
8
Robert Holland and Don Soifer, “How Sound an Investment? An Analysis of Federal Prekindergarten
Proposals,” Lexington Institute, March 2008, p.9-10.
9
Shikha Dalmia and Lisa Snell, “Protect Our Kids from Preschool,” The Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2008.
10
Darcy Olsen and Lisa Snell, “Assessing Proposals for Preschool and Kindergarten: Essential Information for
Parents, Taxpayers, and Policymakers,” Reason Foundation, Policy Study No. 344, May 2006, p. 6.
11
Dan Lips, Shanea Watkins, Ph.D. and John Fleming, Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic
Achievement?,”, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2179, September 8, 2008. Available at:
http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/bg2179.cfm.
12
Shikha Dalmia and Lisa Snell, “Protect Our Kids from Preschool,” The Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2008.
13
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network, “Does
Amount of Time Spent in Child Care Predict Socioemotional Adjustment During the Transition to
Kindergarten,” Child Development, July/August 2003, Volume 74, Number 4, 989.
14
“President Obama’s Remarks to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,” New York Times, March 10, 2009.
Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10text-obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=3.
15
Dan Lips, Jennifer Marshall, and Lindsey Burke, “A Parent’s Guide to Education Reform,” The Heritage
Foundation, September 2, 2008.
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
June 19, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Let ~Behavior~ not ~Gender~, Determine Custody once Crime has Occurred. FYI, Law, not Psychology, Defines Crime.
“Peace” without “justice” is not peace.
Any child’s and any woman’s right to physical life and freedom from molestation and abuse ALWAYS should prevail over the child’s purported need to access to both parents, when one is abusive.
One wants to ask why, in the domain of “Family Law” that “family” should always prevail over “Safety” when kids are involved. Suppose there were no children? Would someone dare to tell an adult woman, she has a “right” to the man she just left, and is incomplete without him? Or some other man.. Or cannot earn a living without him?
One woman without an in-home abuser, or without one stalking her after being evicted, is ALWAYS more competent, and her children in better hands, than that same women with no exit from the abusive relationship. The fact that so far all are alive should be enough testimony to networking and someone’s bravery. MOST communities to NOT confront a man that is paying some of their bills. The fact she got out probably relates to initiative and resourcefulness, which are transferable skills.
FYI, Domestic Violence, and its response, The Fatherhood Movement, are industries like any other. Solve the main problem — put an IN-HOME deterrent to men beating their women, or thinking this is acceptable, – – – and 9 times out of 10, she’ll probably stay. IF she leaves, then she gets the children, and too bad, sir — abuse was a choice. These two industries are then out of commission and will have to go find something else to fight about that does not have human casualties, preferably. And the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services will have to go find someone else to study, and then administrate and “serve.” They can keep their essential departments, and delete those millions going towards grants to “promote responsible fatherhood” and “collect child support” and going into prisons to find men to seek increased access to their children in exchange for lowered child support arrears, which is simply a way to pass the “buck” off to a different set of professionals that come into play when the mothers, naturally, resist and protest this insult. ONce they find out about it….
IS it better for the greater good that families continue to be wiped out (fewer mouths to feed?) than that we stop this insanity? These family wipeouts, or woman-wipeouts, accompanied at times by kid- or father-wipeouts (or, the intergenerational perpetuation of PTSD, the trauma that accompanies war, which FYI, this is…) will not stop until the myth that ALL the people operating under EITHER DV initiatives OR Fatherhood Initiatives are doing so out of pure motives and the wish to save individual families, or families as a whole.
They aren’t. They are busily either bouncing angrily off each other, and frequently interbreeding, endlessly, draining the lower ends of society and enriching the upper (Harvard, Yale, Indiana, George Washington, other institutions that receive grants to study these problems). Middle classes continue to muddle along, thinking mindlessly that those experts have it all under control, to this day.
The last incidents I heard/read of were yesterday — a 15 year old girl reported missing 2006 shows up — buried — in her father’s back yard. He was already in prison on some other charge, and supposedly methamphetamine was involved. I didn’t finish reading about it. “National Father’s Return.” He was a biological father and a father figure. Not too bright, apparently.
And a friend of mine, who had to (first time in her life) preside over a memorial service and subsequent cremation for a youngish- (45 yr old) male who had thrown his 70 year old female mother across the room in retaliation for her having tried to surreptitiously call 911. She managed to flee (NB: her own home where her son was living) to a neighbor, 911 DID eventually come, along with a SWAT team, and after the man, having realized I gather he had crossed the Rubicon, shot up the place (including several windows, and a few cats, as it was a cat rescue place), and eventually himself. My friend, whose husband was ordained but out of town, stepped in and presided over the thing, as well as helped participate in cleaning up the mess. That was less than 24 hours ago, and only a sampling. We cannot keep up with the atrocioties. That was not a custody case, but it WAS a male adult who somehow felt like a failure, and spread some of this around the neighborhood.
This same state just received (I also read yesterday), $2.8 Million to prevent “Violence Against Women” as its own Senator promotes a yet larger, more ambitious Fatherhood Initiative, press says. WELL, make up your mind — which do we want? Nationalized Fatherhood with ongoing fatalities, or a balanced budget without them?
More likely, a perpetual cash flow in the direction of mental health professionals is the end game. I will bite my tongue and stay on topic here.
Regarding my last post, about a young woman who fled to Australia from England (from her Serbian husband), and was ordered BACK there to determine custody, whereupon she was shortly after asking police to drive her to a “safe house, ” dragged from between her two sons, in the back seat of a car her mother was driving to flee for safety, and (by this same man) stabbed to death in front of them all — there is a simpler answer which was proposed in at least 1992, and has been systematically fought in Family Law courts throughout the U.S., as well as in others.
It is a rare woman who can afford to fly to another continent for safety as fast an effectively as these dangerous & deadly ideas, applied in the context of previous domestic violence, are flying around the internet, and their proponents around the globe promoting them.
This simple, sane answer ALSO has been written into laws in most (U.S.) states, containing the words “rebuttable presumption against custody being granted to a batterer…“
What’s a good upstanding batterer to DO? The women are getting uppity? Easy – retreat to certain venues (where those feminazi radical _ itches are not welcome, — and the existence of which women fleeing violence are not informed. If such a woman WAS informed, the average one can’t afford to attend anyhow…) and focus on other, nonjudicial processes, are ignoring, at least until said laws can be diluted, and overturned, and stomped on, and out of the public conscience — kind of like some people are, in this form of violence.
Folks, the protective laws are already on the books — they are just not being enforced! Initially, this confuses people coming to court for that purpose — the legal process, and contempt for its violation. BUT, I say, Family Court ITSELF exists as a practice and as a venue, to overturn those laws. It, like them, has a history. I didn’t know til I studied, nor will most. Here’s part of it:
http://www.canow.org/fam_report.pdf
From their Intro:
By the mid 1990s California NOW began receiving an increase in letters and phone calls from
mothers throughout the state who were being victimized by judges,lawyers,mediators,evaluators
and attorneys for children in the Family Court system. Some women were being cheated in the
process of dividing marital property and assets,while other women were unable to get the court’s
assistance with child support collection.{{THIS IS KEY AND A PART OF THE PROCESS}}
The vast majority of communication,however,came from
women who were fit mothers and the primary caretakers of their children who had custody
revoked from them and given to the father.Decent fathers did not take wrongful advantage of the
courts situation; it was the abusers who did. Too often the communications came from citizens
whose children had made allegations of abuse against their fathers, although a smaller number
came from those experiencing domestic violence and those for whom joint custody was simply
unworkable. It appeared from the volume of communications that the problems, loss of custody
through gender bias, denial of due process, fraud and corruption and alleged syndromes such as
parental alienation,were occurring throughout the state,and that it was not being addressed effec-
tively,if at all,by any branch of government.More recently,women who have experienced this have
become organized at the grassroots level for the purpose of shedding light on this growing prob-
lem.These groups turned to CA NOW for assistance.The increasing communications from these
individuals and groups have demanded action from CA NOW to address the lack of governmen-
tal response and initiate reform in the Family Court system.
I would never have called CA NOW if I had not tried other arenas without success first. As a “woman of faith” (sic), this organization as a whole did not speak for my interests and beliefs. Yet, no faith community or government agency was. The nonprofits had played into the hands of my abuser (see above description), nor could I get law enforcement to enforce what I had, by now, learned the laws were — or even an existing custody order. Increasingly frustrated and indignant at the ongoing, perpetual interruption of my life, and resumption of my rightful, nontraumatized, contributing place in a new community I’d moved to (for some — but not too far from their father — distance), I had already learned from national organizations, such as “NCFJCJ” that mediation was inadvisable for people in my situation, yet it was being rammed down my throat every time an incident was created that brought us to court. I had also, as my manner is, studied this topic of domestic violence (I study things that affect my family!), and found more than one author who directly spoke to my situation, including Lundy Bancroft’s cogent analsyses, “Why does he DO that? ” and “The Batterer As Parent.” I had experientially determined that the local DV supportt group could provide moral support to endure abuse, but at this point, my concern was to STOP it, not endure it more graciously — and this is where I returned tos etting firm boundarie,s in my situation, and saying “NO” or “MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS ON YOUR OWN TIME” more often.
It is devilishly hard to analyze a situation as it enfolds, and when survival is an issue, but between my background as a musician, and in diverse places adn fields within music, plus my 10 years with an abuser, I had some skillsets.
The further afield (wider and wider spheres of influence I investigated), the more shocking — and chronically common — is the situation.
Nothing, really, could prepare a person who has been a lifelong citizen of one country for such widespread and uniform betrayal by this country of people of my profile, that profile being (1) FEMALE, and (2) additionally — and let’s face it, many females share this other trait — MOTHER. People who have already been betrayed and oppressed or diminished on some other additional characteristic — such as skin color or ethnic background, accent (i.e., national oriogins or familys’ national origins) or religion, have been better prepared.
Nothing in my personal experience, which was not exactly that narrow, in the standard sense, prepared me for an assortment of the acts of (1) marriage and (2) giving birth to children — having, in others’ minds, suddenly, and permamently, infantilized this 40- year old woman with a diverse background, and some sigifnicant educational experience.
In other words, I took foir granted things other women had fought hard for in decades past, and (being busy working, and otherwise engaged in life), had not been privy to what the U.S. Congress, prompted by initiatives prompted by religious world views (in great part), also prompted by fear of loss of power and control of money, was itself engaged in. I am posting some of it on this site.
Civil rights, like legal rights, don’t just show up on the landscape and continue of their own accord, like a perpetual motion machine. They were fought for to start with — any independence is — and need continued “fights” for their maintenance, even as I, as a musician often in charge of choirs, “fight” to maintain a certain standard of excellence (and progress towards it, or, if one level is achieved, progress towards the NEXT (higher, not lower), standard — as a lifestyle.
FOR READERS WHO ARE SHORT ON TIME, YET STILL INTERESTED IN THE TOPIC, SCROLL DOWN TO THE RED-INK PORTIONS, AND BELOW THAT, THE fine-print green centered quotes..!
TYPICALLY, I GET TO THE MAIN POINT TOWARDS THE END OF THE POST, AND REFLECT ON & SUPPLEMENT IT IN THE TOP PART.
MY THINKING IS MORE OF A TAPESTRY, AND I ENJOY WEAVING THE THREADS, THAN AN OPAQUE STATEMENT. PROBABLY IN PART BECAUSE OF HOW HARD IT HAS BEEN TO RECONCILE SOME OF THESE ISSUES, AND IN PART BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A READER, AND NETWORKER. SOMETIMES I OVERESTIMATE OTHERS’ WILLINGNESS TO PROCESS ALL THE DATA. OR MAYBE IT WAS A FACTOR OF CHILDHOOD (LOTS OF TIME SPENT OUTDOORS) OR WHO KNOWS — I HAVE THE GENES OF, OR ADOPTED THE HABIT OF, ASKING “WHY?” OR “SAYS WHO??” EARLY ON — I REALLY DON’T KNOW WHY. I DO KNOW THIS IS HOW IT GOES.
Inherent in the processes of growth is conflict and overcoming of gravity, need for nutrients, and conditions required for life. Even physical human life requires assimilation, digestion, absorbtion, and excretion. It requires water, and it requires activity.
So does any good marriage or relationship.
When a law system, or government, comes in and says “conflict is bad, only total peace is good,” for one, it is lying. Governments PROSPER (and grow, oppressively so) the more conflict and chaos exist, because it is human tendency to delegate out authority & responsibility when stressed. In other words, to hire shepherds, policemen, farmers, lifeguards — and doctors, gravediggers, and ambulances — to assume the problems of life.
But, we need to be watchful, when government encourages us to hire out (1) thinking and (2) the education of our (respective, not “communal”) young. These skills and life activities, like others, will go stagnant — and the populace become passive, fleeceable sheep — when un-used. Few things that have kept me sharper in life (other than learning to survive abuse) than working for years with children who challenged authority, including existing educational theory (read “limitations”) on how children learn, or what they can do. Poverty also is a teacher, up to a certain point, to value one’s time and bottom line. In music these were not typically age-sorted, or easily intimidated. When I began, I was not much older than, and certainly not stronger or taller than, the teenagers I was working with (or faster than the little ones). Obviously, we had to work things out. And not in a manner that regimented & squelched the energy level, which making music requires.
No Conflict? There are many situations in life in which “peace” exists, at least temporarily. One of them is tyranny. One of them is death. Another is stagnation – there is little conflict or dialogue because nothing of substance is being done; routines are settled, status is “quo,” and flab of some sort is being accumulated. This may not be the best for intimacy, or the sex life, FYI. Like TiDES, ALL of life has some ebb and flow.
For an institution to come in and label the degree of conflict a marriage can have (while ignoring when blows have already been delivered) is an insult. The thing is, to strive “lawfully” to work it out. When the mediators and evaluators are themselves conflicted over the existing laws, their usefulness is dubious. Whatever the intent, the EFFECT is to further reframe and confuse a situation, not DE-fuse it.
As usual, this post covers several topics, but related to the post title. I have an integrative, symbolic mind, and enjoy viewing common topics in a less common light. Turning ideas – not just physical objects — upside down, or inside out in this manner, can show what makes them tick, or lets the reflect diffferent light — particularly puzzling topics like, why when a young mother reports that her husband threatened to dismember her, and flees to the otherside of the world, “POLICY” brings her back to be dragged out of a car and murdered by this same person.
The role of the police, in their capacity to protect, was to give her a “panic” alarm, not a self-defense class or even a knife, pepper spray, or Taser (stun-gun). WHY? Because a woman defending herself in this society is an anomaly — and would upset the status quo of who women ARE.
This thinking habit may relate to my music background (which is the language of expression, itself a symbol for emotion, carried in visual symbols translated into real human b ehavior). It may be due to the multiple perspective changes that a home not being a safe place, or a (religious) sanctuary, actual sanctuary, or having had family flip viewpoints on me for the smallest acts of independence after abuse. I don’t really know why, but it does make life more interesting.
That that woman died, needlessly, was a top-down, institutional factor of failure to respect her boundary or give her permission to FIGHT BACK AND, IF NECESSARY, WIN!
If women were taught to actually defend themselves from their partners, physically, society at large would probably descend into chaos. Well, it already IS there, but this would give it at leat a different flavor. Don’t worry — I do not think this is about to happen.
Think about it — how many industries are based on and sustained by the fact that women do not have equal rights, “unalienable” or otherwise? The existence of “Fatherhood” resolutions being passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress testifies to the fact that some are running scared. But consider: would it not improve sexual excitement overall, as rather than seeking more and more younger and younger partners, men would have an in-home challenge, knowing that this act was not a power play, but an communion thing. IS quantity really better than quality? I don’t think so. In other fields (food, music, art), discretion and quality should prevail AND then these non-co-dependent partners in relationship and lifell could then go about separated lives as well, exist as individuals, and not as functions in life, and a gender caricature in their communities, too. They would cover each other’s back, rather than one constantly putting the other one on (hers), and not just for sex. Vive la difference, avec dynamic balance – individual, and as to gender only. Fluidity and grace/strength. Not one blustering male and one overworked passive female — OR vice versa.
I don’t know where it would go from there, but I STILL think self-defense training (before marriage?) is a good idea that hasn’t been tried yet.
As verbal many times precedes physical, we’d have to also take a stand on demeaning, derogatory talk. I believe this would also elevate men, as well, from beyond their figurative role, to actually interacting with their partner as the full-scale human beings they are. One person who agrees with me has actually been honored by the “fatherhood community,” and that’s (Rabbi) Schmuley Boteach, whose book “Hating Women” (the title is misleading), I read, and approve of. He is the one that said, women with out men can and do live clean and orderly lives, with no dead bodies around at the end off the day, but there is excitement in the relationship.
The same would go for LGBT relationships — the domination paradigm would need to GO! As men and women no longer existed as caricatures of how “male” and “female” really show up in human beings, I suspect that the need to rebel against that also might. The entire pornography industry would likely take a hit, as there is absolutely that sex + violence (as a combo) does have an audience, avid consumers. And possibly, young men might stop showing up in schools with guns to get attention.
THAT stance would probably require dismantling not the educational system, but just the compulsory, mind-numbing, child-leaving-behind government sponsored and funded one as well as not a few religious institutions.
When an entire system is based on threat — of withdrawing funding, of police hunting down if a someone fails to attend (but it STILL fails in cases of foster children, and others, as we have already seen, and it CONSISTENTLY underperforms other, existing systems based on the free-market system, some of which can also be done by poorer families) — it is itself disrespectful, personally insulting, and a violation of boundaries, and those who prosper in that system are going to breathe in and exhale the same negative attitudes. I say this after decades of perspectives on this at all levels, and am not alone in this statement.
In fact, in viewing the womb-to-tomb institutions of my country, the teacher/student, expert/plebian, priest/proselyte, guard/prisoner, controller/controlled viewpoint is VERY common. This is not obscured by the fact that great and inspired people exist in many of the middle layers. The bottom layers are being squished and punished, usually arbitrarily, and have been squirting back in rebellious forms in direct proportion to their need to recover a sense of humanity, dignity, and to have their voices be HEARD.
And the less noble among the men, take this out on the women closest to them, punishing and killing as they too were punished and felt something important in themselves killed. Sometimes, and unfortunately, the women too, take this out on the children. How can that sense be transformed into something better, eh?
Why are the arts historically the LEAST valued aspects of our public school system, when in fact they are closest to the most important, along with sports, debate, and mastery of foreign languages? The medium of this large mess is the MESS-age. It’s too large, too bulky, and too inefficient, and too impersonal. Then people wonder why the prisons are crowded.
ANYHOW, I have often in hindsight thought back as to what would happen if we were taught to do fight back, and that at times it’s good to break some rules. Not in the girl-gang manner, but individually.
When I taught people to sing, together, in ensembles:
As a teacher, and whose job used to be helping groups of diverse ability sing complex and scintillating music, which ALWAYS included skill-building and endeavoring to communicate the vision of how it would sound, and the enjoyment of their personal voices and their personal voices in balance with each other (and what the music required, to come to life) — it was VERY helpful to simply teach the difference between right & wrong, or Good and Better, in specific situations. This is NOT so hard as it sounds, when participants are a little willing (which, FYI, is KEY). MOST kids like a challenge, within range, and in general many adults don’t have the free-flowing physical energy after work to do this — BUT THEY CAN, AND MANY TIMES DO. No matter the size of the group, I would seek to show and offer individuals for examples, and let those examples then also, themselves, practice feedback, leading, and commentary so that we all would understand what the principles were (this, moreso with children then with adults).
Once the difference between “Good” and “Better” has been taught and recognized, it is only necessary to consistently remind people, if they do not recognize, which way Better is in, and movc on to another skill. IT is the consistency which gives them and me feedback, and keeps us on track towards excellence, which is the goal. YES, it’s interactive and dynamic, but once the direction is positive, and understood, the hope of getting and the joy of the process, picks up momentum.
You cannot have a successful singing group if they are never told the difference between off-key and on, or better and best.
In every singing group, there are more and less highly motivated people. The thing is, the overall concensus, and whether the conductor can live with the level involved (i.e., his/her musical conscience), and to the singers, whether they can live with the concept that singing does entail expenditure of physical and mental energy, and will they engage in the process, and also continue to enjoy it. Any conductor knows that permanent plateau doesn’t exist — no growth = erosion. That’s how the human psyche works. Boredom = sloppiness increases.
Now think about abuse — does this person want to learn?
YES we adjust for times of tiredness, or illness, but the overall thing is continuing to keep the standards improving; MOST PEOPLE like to do well. If I find a choir is in a status quo mode, a social group only, and there is no potential or interest for much more, I do not stick around for long. Typically, this is rare, as choirs tend to be volunteer situations. I am amazed at how well a smaller unit of nonprofessionals can do, with time, and some love and positive direction.
When I filed a domestic violence restraining order
The question of INTENT to abuse had already been established, and the thing was to establish a boundary, now, limits.
Now that I had experienced a little life with a little more boundary, there was extensive cleanup and repair to be done in all categories. The immense energy from having the threat of immediate physical harm at unpredictable times REMOVED, allowed me to have a joy and concentration in my work that was sporadic and rare previously. Even before we were completely on the road, healed, restored, there was such an exhilaration in the sense that I could GET there. The person who had viciously and intentionally been sabotaging my work and endeavors, in front of our kids, was out of the house. I remember at one time regretting that he could not share the sense of peace — until I remembered why it wasn’t there when he was!
AFTER THAT:
It was possible to actually reap rewards from initiative/effort that were more commensurate with the effort. But I needed boundaries respected, and it took time to start to develop the vigilant patrolling of them, which no abuser likes.
The Family Law Venue — and in cases (as mine) where biological family ALSO failed to report and stop the violence — tends to then defines success in such cases in terms of ability to moderate and get along peacefully with someone who had formerly been beating the crap out of one parent, or threatening to do so. This breaks down her boundaries, making it harder for her to sustain work, and repair momentum.
A woman who has successfully experienced the difference between in-home violence (and all that goes with it), and NO in-home violence, who has been interrogated and derided, etc. for eyars — and NOT having to be pulled out of a sound sleep for this, or stopped leaving the home for work for this, and whose pets, and personal property is not being broken and hurt to make a point — will NOT readily go for more of it from another source.
She might come off as somewhat “thorny.” This is because there is work to do!
She may not waste as much time explaining to the next few people who wish to violate her boundaries, and interrupt her work, or taking care of her children, that this is inappropriate. I didn’t. When my family came after me (having failed to label the DV to start with) and began “advising,” I did not waste AS MUCH (though still TOO MUCH) time saying, “Get a life. I have one already.”
The struggle moved to the only times and means available this man had to then sabotage, interrupt, and harass me with – my relatives, exchanges with my children, any point in the custody/visitation order which lacked clarity (and ours was POORLY written, in violation of standards I later learned the mediator was responsible to know and address), and so forth. I was advised to GIVE him joint legal custody by the family violence law center, and on an irrational basis. I did so, and this was a huge chink in the door, larger even than the poorly written custody order.
An abuser has failed to learn some very basic lessons in life, and unless there is some strict accountability, the lesson will not be learned.
BOUNDARIES:
N THE CASE OF ABUSE, IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO BE CONSISTENT IN MINOR DETAILS.
ONE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF A CAPTOR DOMINATING A POW. ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE IS THE OBJECT, INCONSISTENCY IS THE TECHNIQUE, AND NO INSUBORDINATION GOES UNPUNISHED — BUT THE CAPTOR IS NOT GOING TO KNOW WHEN. THEY ARE CONSTANTLY SET OFF BALANCE UNTIL THEY (HOPEFULLY) COWER.
I have heard of similar, but not so violent, methods being used in training a dog.
In order to “TEACH” the abuser that boundary violations and attempts to revert to the former “ordering” her around behavior is unacceptable, SHE NEEDS to protect the boundaries, and have some means to say NO! available when they are violated.
There should be a consequence for domestic violence, and that is simple.
No contact, for a significant time, with minor children until the father (or mother) has figured out that this was an unacceptable role model, example, and way of interacting with other people, including little ones.
Jack Straton, Ph.D., (NOMAS) Said it Straight in 1992, 2 years before
- The 1994 passage of the Violence Against Women Acts (“VAWA”)
- The 1994 formation of the National Fatherhood Initiative (“NFI”)
First of all, who IS the guy? Well, I didn’t know this til recently, but among other things, hover cursor over the link for a short description — he has worked in two different fields, Photography & Physics.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_general_education/v048/48.2george.html
He co-authored with “Linda George” the following article, which makes a lot of sense to me:
Approaching Critical Thinking Through Science
In that it talks about Viewpoints (natural, in a photographer, one would think), Process, Values, Perspectives, including this segment:
((Please note: The PROCESS is explained in the article))
How Do Scientists Make Truth Claims?
Before beginning to work with issues in science, we find it useful to discuss what science is and is not. As a starting point, Steven Lower’s computer-aided activity “Science, Non-science and Pseudoscience” (1998) provides some good working definitions of the terms hypothesis, theory, and scientific fact. In addition, the interactive program guides students through issues that attempt to frame the domain of science: what kinds of questions science can and cannot address, what kinds of practices distinguish science from other types of knowledge, and so on.
OR. . . .
Knowledge and Uncertainty
Students tend to have polar views on the nature of scientific knowledge. On the one hand, there is a sense that knowledge that has been derived scientifically is “factual” and is closer to “Truth” than other ways of knowing; on the other hand, once students have been exposed to the notion that knowledge is mediated by one’s perspective (Tompkins, 1986), this is often misunderstood to mean that there is no “real” knowledge since “everything is biased.” [End Page 113] These epistemological issues are ones that scientists tend to ignore, but we bring them into the course because they connect directly to issues of diversity and multiculturalism. For example, students read essays about scientists who are not white or male and discover that, throughout the history of science, the fact that science is done by human beings who have socially constructed “perspectives” has a significant influence on what kinds of science get done and what kinds of conclusions are arrived at.
We unpack the subject of “knowability” by exploring wave-particle duality in the quantum world. We first demonstrate “conclusively” that light is made of waves and then provide “proof-positive” that light is made of particles. We next show photographic evidence that matter, too, has both particle- and wave-like properties, so that wavicle might be a better descriptor. Next, we discuss the social controversy over welfare and take students through a parallel series of steps that reveal a paradox like the wavicle: the rich are often in favor of cutting welfare, but if welfare is cut, starving people will turn to crime or revolution, neither of which is in the interests of the rich. The ultimate lesson is that if we get stuck on any particular perspective in science or society, we are likely to be missing much of what we can know.
OR. . . .
Science in Society
One unfortunate development in our educational system is that science usually is thought of and taught as a discipline different from every other. The result is that science does not usually appear in “nonscience” courses.
Someone who can talk sense in one category, can often talk sense in another. Common sense says there might be more than one perspective in life on a problem. Now, that 1999 Resolution of Congress (2 posts ago) is not drenched with common SENSE, just common ASSERTIONS. As such, I claim that MY assertion that IT constitutes a prophetic utterance, and attempt to establish a religion. I observe that its assortment of facts in support of a theory came from its own hired experts that already believe such theory, and many of them, on the basis of a commonly-held religion that has been wont (see "Genesis 3") to blame women when held to task for its own failures (a.k.a. disobediences).
Anyhow, here is what Jack wrote in 1992 as to:
What is Fair for Children of Abusive Men?
Journal of the Task Group on Child Custody Issues
of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism
Volume 5, Number 1, Spring1993 (Fourth Edition, 2001)
C/o University Studies, Portland State University, Portland, OR, 97207-0751
503-725-5844, 503-725-5977 (FAX), straton@pdx.edu
What About the Kids?
Custody and Visitation Decisions in Families with a History of Violence
National Training Project of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Project
Thursday, October 8, 1992, Duluth, Minnesota
This is 9 pages only, and has 59 detailed cites. I recommend reading it ALL. However, here is the conclusion:
Let me sum up what I have shared
with you. I have criticized the “Best
interests of the child” criterion as
being so vague that it requires us to
rely upon the opinions of adults as
to what “best interest” means. And
the norms behind these opinions
are seldom acknowledged, and thus
not refutable.
I then showed that
courts who apply this criterion have
disregarded the severe effects of
domestic violence on children, even
to the extent of saying that killing a
child’s mother is not a sufficiently
depraved act so as to deny a man
custody. If it is possible for a cus-
todial criterion to allow such twisted
result to result from a jurists value
system, that criterion itself is se-
verely flawed.
We then looked at the flaws inher-
ent in presuming joint custody to
be in children’s best interests. I
then described the primary care-
taker criterion and showed that for
violent families it will almost auto-
matically remove a child from
harm’s wayorder.
We found that children who wit-
ness wife beating have difficulty in
school and are much more prone to
juvenile delinquency and, ulti-
mately, violent crime than children
from non-abusive families.
FATHERS’ GROUPS, WHO DID NOT ORIGINATE
IN LOWER-INCOME OR POORLY EDUCATED CIRCLES
ALTHOUGH THEY SEEK MEMBERSHIP AMONG SUCH,
WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE
THIS IS DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF A MAN
OR FATHER FIGURE IN THE HOME.
TO ACHIEVE THIS, IT SEEMS NO HOLDS ARE
BARRED AND NO PROCESS ILLEGAL
IN HARASSING AND PURSUING
CHILDREN THROUGH OTHER MEANS
WHEN A WOMAN CHOOSES TO LEAVE,
WITH KIDS
They
have poor relationships with peers
and siblings, learn to despise their
mother for her abuse, and learn to
emulate their father in his expres-
sions of aggression.
We found that the longer the abuse
witnessed, the more severe the re-
sultant disorder.
A decade-long study between Kaiser and the CDC (Center for Disease Control)
on the topic of, initially, OBESITY, concurs.
It too, has largely been ignored in family law circles,
which prefer their own experts.
Yet no feminists, anti-violence people, or father’s rights groups
initiated this study. Two (male) doctors did, in the context of an obesity clinic.
{{“The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study: “Bridging the Gap between Childhood Trauma
and negative consequences later in life”
What is the ACE Study? (please hover cursor, for more detail)
The ACE Study is an ongoing collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and Kaiser Permanente. Led by Co-principal Investigators Robert F. Anda, MD,
MS, and Vincent J. Felitti, MD, the ACE Study is perhaps the largest scientific research study
of its kind, analyzing the relationship between multiple categories of childhood trauma
(ACEs), and health and behavioral outcomes later in life.}}
How much trauma, substance addiction (driving an escalating prison population in the US),
disease and eventual “leading causes of death” might have been avoided,
had someone listened more to “Dr. Jack” (below)
than “Dr. Phil” (TV personality) when it comes to Custody After Abuse?
Given that assaults
on women actually increase after
separation and divorce, we would
expect that children have more trau-
mas associated with this phase. I
was able to find only one rational
conclusion from this cascade of phe-
nomena; that a cessation of contact
with the abuser is the only way to
minimize demonstrable and fore-
seeable harm to these children.
How can we
face future generations of our kind (FYI — that’s HUMANITY)
and say that we knew about the
abuse and did nothing to help?
Join
with me; take your place at the front
of our march toward freedom; let it
never be said that our generation
was too afraid of male violence to
stand up for the lives and hearts of
children.
- Written by a Photographer (skillset — observing, choosing subject matter, different light, framing, focus, development (pre-digital), exposure, and all sorts of variables are required for a BFA in this field).
- Written by a Ph.D. Physicist who teaches. Skillsets — knowing and communicating concepts and process to a variety of students. (I also recommend reading the first link– it’s interesting!).
The scientifically-inclined mind will question why such reasoning is absent in Family Law arenas, and WHY.
Only taking out a personal mirror, and examining one’s own preconceptions about others’ viewpoints, will a rational explanation be found as to WHY? this paradigm will not rule.
I have a link on the blogroll showing what it takes to become a Certified Family Law Specialist in ONE of the 50 United States. Even a cursory reading of this shows that the focus is NOT on safety for one of a couple (Domestic Violence) or protecting children from abuse (Child Abuse), physical or sexual, but on other fields. No matter how frequently such specialists and their associated professionals convene and publish to “explicate” domestic violence in the context of divorce, the fact is that such violence, once it occurs IS the prevailing context of that divorce, and has to be handled.
As such, mediation (at least as practiced in court venues, and as this tool is used), is NOT advisable where violence has already occurred. Undeterred, these associations, of which “AFCC” is primary, push, publish, and promote mediation as THE standard, and the parent who (for safety, for boundaries) who refuses, as uncooperative.
That is, I believe, why this field of family law exists. I have believed this for a long time, and this is why I am not interested in attempts from bottom up to “reform” the field. It exists to “reform” (reduce, dilute, and eliminate) certain rights that laws that exist to protect women from being battered in a relationship, and their children from witnessing it by virtue of simply being around it.
Jack’s recommendation, and those laws, settle the question. Continuing to ask the same questions that were already answered (“Prop 8” In California comes to mind) reveals an intent to undermine those laws. Don’t be silent, and don’t assume the experts have it all under control. Stay home from something and read up. Don’t go just to newspaper to find out about the fiscal budget — go to governmental websites. MUCH of this information is already on-line. More of it is available (USA) under the FOIA (freedom of Information Act).
Thank you.
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
May 26, 2009 at 8:17 AM
Posted in Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Context of Custody Switch, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, History of Family Court, Lethality Indicators - in News, Vocabulary Lessons
Tagged with Australia, custody, domestic violence, Due process, England, family annihilation, fatherhood, Feminists, Intimate partner violence, mediation, social commentary
A Toxic Mixture – Survival Instinct diluted by Submission to Custody Orders (UK/Australia)
![]()
Cassandra Hasonovic…convinced she was going to die at the hands of her husband.
WHAT FATHERS’ RIGHTS PEOPLE DON’T TELL ABOUT WHY “MOTHER-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS” CAN BE SUCH A RISKY BUSINESS. . .
AND IT’S NOT THE MOTHERS….
I pause from mocking the “Fatherhood” resolutions of the US Congress to demonstrate that while they are laughable in premises, these resolutions are no laughing matter; to demonstrate again that men in positions of power worshipping abstract theories/myths/idols (or their images of themselves as a class) can put a woman face down dead and bloody on a slab of concrete, and just did. Again.
Another myth is that deadly consequences like this will cause deter the same men in power (I’m talking governmental representatives) from initiating, more, similar, and more costly mythology at a governmental level from continuing along the same path, gaining momentum and funding as they go:
NFI asked some** of our nation’s elected leaders about their views on the future of fatherhood in public policy.
(**more specificaly, The National Fatherhood Instititute (ca. 1994) chose to interview select policy makers who just happened also to be members of the “National Fatherhood Initiative’s Senate Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood” (origins at least pre-1998) what they thought of Fatherhood. Calling this “policymakers” is both true — they are PUSHing this policy through — and deceptive, as though it was representative of the entire Congress, prior to being pushed by these folks on this initiative. At least I HOPE there are some in Congress still that can see that this is costing women’s lives, and children’s in the long run….) Perhaps these fathers are upstanding in their own marriages and have a family life to be envied (although it could hardly be called a representative lifestyle, being a Congressperson).
What about the carte blanche, the clear endorsement such proclamations are giving men at the bottom of the economic spectrum, or of the behavioral spectrum, who may already have a chip on their shoulders and be looking for an excuse to dominate another woman?
We already have religions that do this. There are already honor killings, beheadings, in our country (USA). There are already family wipeouts in this country. There are horrific practices upon women in certain countries, still — stonings, genital circumcison, retaliation for attending school, rapes as a form of warfare, or when leaving a refugee camp to seek firewood. I am sorry to say this, but do we REALLY need a Congress of primarily (but not only) white men to say, with other (primarily) men of other color, and a woman or two, that it’s time to go back and reclaim your biological property, eradicate single motherhood that happened because a woman chose to leave abuse, or, you failed to use a condom or proper protection?
I would love to see a survey of every Congressperson, and see which marriage they are on, and how faithful they have been to their wives or, as it may be, husbands. If women, I would like to see how their grown children are behaving in THEIR marriages. When they divorce, do they pay child support? Do they engage in bankrupting and badmouthing a former partner?
To me, this is nothing less than Congress choosing to violate the First Amendment, in the U.S. It is the establishment of a state religion. How it relates to other continents and cultures? Similar doctrines, similar family law theories and practice.
Here is what some policymakers** are saying:

“The American family is the foundation of our society, and we must do all we can to help fathers do the right thing for their children. Today, too many men leave mothers to bear the brunt of being both mom and dad**, forcing them to face the challenges of raising a child and providing for the family on their own. I know President Obama shares my commitment to helping fathers become the best dads they can be; we worked together on these initiatives in the Senate. With the new administration on our side, we can make healthy families and responsible fatherhood a priority together.”
– Senator Evan Bayh*** (D-IN); co-chair of National Fatherhood Initiative’s Senate Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood
**Hypocrite!! The entire thrust of this movement (pun intended), as far as I can see in hindsight, was to prevent women from throwing abusive men (not ALL men) out on their asses for their abuse. The premise behind it, and the practices, and some of the groups, show the reality — allegations of domestic violence and child abuse are false, mostly, and highly exaggerated. Women do not have a right to leave with their children, and so must be re-programmed how to get along with fathers. The organizations funded, and subsidized (federally / state/ local) then go into prisons and other places where substantially suspect fathers may be found, and — in order to reduce the welfare tax load, and by reducing child support arrears in exchange for more contact with their kids, thereby burden the rest of society with the results. The NFI (this initiative) almost exactly coincides with the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) and was heavily funded from the start.
Did I know this before working closely a few years with the local child support agency and finding out how “opaque” they truly were? No. Not til I started actually reading the programs, and comparing the programs with the rhetoric.
***Of note: Senator Bayh’s personal acquaintance with fatherhood includes having a father who was a U.S. Senator
From the time he was about 8 through majority, his Dad was a Senator.
Evan Bayh graduated with honors in business, economics and public policy from the Indiana University Kelley School of Business in 1978, where he was a member of Phi Kappa Psi, and received his Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from the University of Virginia in 1981. After clerking for a federal court judge and entering private law practice in Indianapolis, he was elected Indiana’s Secretary of State in 1986.
Bayh was elected Governor of Indiana in 1988 and re-elected in 1992 with the highest percentage of the vote in a statewide election in modern Indiana history.
While this stellar college performance and work history is commendable, I do not think it provides an experiential understanding of the situations that lower-income brackets face in their families. I think that a little failure would have perhaps been helpful (Lincoln had some, right?) along the way, perhaps.
As Such, What THESE Policy Makers are Saying. . .
. . . is kind of like the Foxes quoting other Foxes (from the Fox Initiative) on how “difficult’ the Hens must find life without a resident Fox in the house. I am not referring to all men — I personally like men, and am heterosexual, and don’t think they all think like this. At least, I know at least one or two who do not, and hope to find more, as they are good company.
FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING A FAMILY IS ONE OF THE LEAST WORRIES TO SOME SINGLE MOTHERS…
Here’s the summary, and the story is below:
Despite History and Threats of Further Domestic Violence, British Wife Who Fled to Australia Seeking Safety is Ordered to Return Children to England for Custody Determination
(NOTE: This is why I like Jack Straton’s article on Custody Rights to Men Who Batter).
- Husband is convicted of sexually assaulting Wife.
- Wife is terrified that Husband will kill her.
- Husband allegedly threatens to dismember her.
- Wife flees to Australia with their two Children.
- But the Australian courts rule that England has child custody jurisdiction under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
- Wife returns to England with Children.
- Police are summoned to intervene in domestic clashes several times.
- Police give Wife a “panic alarm”. {{SHE’s ALREADY Panicked & Alarmed? How about Pepper Spray? A self-defense course? A “right to carry?” (I guess UK doesn’t do that). Or a KNIFE , and training in how to use it?– he killed her with a knife…}}{{So much for “panic alarms.” Oh, she was just exaggerating, the police will protect her. TELL ME — has practice changed since THIS murder?}}
- About a year after Wife’s return, Husband allegedly drags her from a car and stabs her to death … in front of her own mother and their Children.
- Just a few hours after she begged British police for protection.
- While she was in the midst of trying to flee from Husband again.
- Husband is convicted of murder.
- He will serve at least eighteen years in confinement.
- (I add: Her sons will serve a lifetime, with this memory, plus their grandmother, plus all acquaintances.)
WHATEVER PRINCIPLES AND PREMISES LED TO THESE COURT DECISIONS — FOR WHOSE GOOD?
THEY WERE Speculation. That’s a Risky Business, and I feel that the indicators that this is straight mythology, at some level. This type of decision is driven by “fatherhood” as an ideal, and premises that a man without his children is a man without an identity, as is a woman telling the truth — this is a dangerous situation. A man’s rights, even if he’s already been proven criminal, are more important than a woman’s rights — to self-defense by fleeing. A mother’s words are less valid than a father’s. Women as a class are to obey. Men as a class, if forced to subject themselves to the same laws, are prone to killing for the humiliation, and yet still, the NEXT set of women (with kids) are also told, they must obey or go to jail.
In the last post (U.S. Congress Resolution of 1999, a National Fathers Return Day) it was said that “mother-headed-households” fare worse, as a class. Whether or not the data was true, THIS is partly why, and was not reported. Because they are taking heat already for being single. Perhaps a second husband (Women, would YOU remarry quickly after her experience? Men, would YOU marry a woman with kids who was in the process of fleeing her first one? Unless this answer is YES, and some man is brave enough to step in the gap (and being armed, probably), that is going to be a mother-headed household. Put this in your pipe and smoke it when you read the NEXT proclamation I post, US House of Reps, saying the same thing, and voting unanimously as to its truth. Yeah, well, some truths are created, others are self-evident without that extra self-propagating “creation” of a risky, dangerous situation, that of being a single mother when the climate is globally cooling towards permission of this state of affairs. And in ONE country from which some of the laws in the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave.
That’s ridiculous. I am so at a loss for words, I would like to quote some scripture here, but I’m talking about Family Law, if you will bear with me:
(Bible: Eccles. 3, ERV)
This, from the same guy that said, “Vanity, vanity, all is vanity…, and the same one who, one time, when judging between two women who argued over one baby, after one had just been rolled over and smothered to death, was able to discern by a simple test – and his test, though with a sword, has some resemblances to the co-parenting, 50/50 talk of today. The woman who did NOT want her kid chopped in half (this time, physically) was the true one. Nowadays, this dude (who went down the tube, eventually, the record states) ain’t around, or anyone with close to the amount of discernment shown below:
1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2 a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; {{like a dangerous marriage…}}
3 a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down{{ibid}}, and a time to build up;
4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7. a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
{{This woman saw fit to “rend” her marriage. She was not permitted to. Why??}}
8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.
Human sacrifice has ALWAYS been the trademark of religion. Some faiths would say, a false religion. True adherents of any religion are typically willing to kill others, not just themselves, for its sake.
It is right to hate placing onesself and one’s offspring (and others) in the path of danger. That’s a “time to hate.” Not people, but the situation. Sacrificing others may come easily, but sacrificing one’s own offspring is NOT a natural act. Forcing someone to do this is to do violence against her integrity, and one of the primary functions of “MOTHERHOOD” in the name of “FATHERS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!” – — yes they do, but this one, in particular, should not have. You will say, but what about due process?
What about due haste when life is at risk?
Young Mother Fled to Sydney to Save Her Life. UK forces her back, where she is stabbed to death in front of her two boys, and mother, by the man she fled.
Paola Totaro Herald Correspondent in London
Source: The Sydney Morning Herald
May 2, 2009
CASSANDRA HASANOVIC was convinced she was going to die at the hands of her husband but her pleas for help – in Australia and Britain – fell on deaf ears.
“He said he was going to chop me up in little pieces and post me piece by piece to my family,” she told police more than a year before her death.
The nightmare tale of the mother, 24, who was dragged out of a car and stabbed to death by her husband in front of her mother and two young sons in July, neared its climax in a British court yesterday.
Mrs Hasanovic died hours after begging British police to drive her to a safe house: “I live in fear for my safety. I am so scared of him.”
{{THERE IS A MORAL TO THIS STORY, IN ASKING POLICE FOR PROTECTION….}}
Her story was recounted this week during the trial of Hajrudin Hasanovic, 33, who was last night found guilty of murder and sentenced to a minimum of 18 years in jail.
The jury learned how he was to have been deported to his native Serbia after losing custody of his children, following his conviction for sexually assaulting his wife.
They heard a damning story of a woman whose fears were ignored by authorities in two hemispheres for more than 12 months.
The five-year marriage ended in May 2007 after the sexual assault and Mrs Hasanovic fled to Australia, where she had relatives. She lived in the safety of Sydney’s western suburbs in the fervent hope of seeking custody of her sons.
But Lewes Crown Court, in West Sussex, heard that Australian authorities insisted she return to Britain, arguing the case had to be pursued there.
Philippa McAtasney, QC, who opened the case for the prosecution, told the court that she returned to Britain at the cost of her life.
In the months that followed her return, police were called to several violent confrontations between the couple, and officers equipped the young mother with a panic alarm.
{{Why didn’t they arrest and incarcerate the attacker?? ??? ???? She was already panicked and had already sounded the alarm, by fleeing the continent — but was not heard…..}}
Mrs Hasanovic’s mother, Sharon De Souza, broke down as she described the terror inside the car on July 29, when her son-in-law appeared from nowhere and lunged at the car as she prepared to drive her daughter and grandsons to a refuge.
{{WHEN WILL WE — WORLDWIDE – – STOP FOCUSING ON REFORMING BATTERERS (WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A TRACK RECORD OF SUCCESS — AND TEACH WOMEN TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, FOR A DETERRENT? IT TAKES A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF COWARDICE TO ATTACK AN UNARMED WOMEN, WITH KIDS NEARBY. PERHAPS THESE COWARDS HOW PICK ON THEIR WIVES, IN FRONT OF THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, CAN BE DETERRED WHEN THEY REALIZE, THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET AWAY WITH EVEN THE 2ND SUCH ASSAULT. THERE IS NOTHING UN-FEMININE, REALLY, ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE. WE HAVE TO TEACH WOMEN THIS. NOT GANG-STYLE, BUT INDIVIDUALLY, TEACHING US TO DEFEND OUR PERSONAL BOUNDARIES, PHYSICALLY IF NECESSARY.}}
In the panic, the car’s central locking was de-activated, allowing Hasanovic to reach into the back seat, where his wife was sitting between the boys.
“I just remember trying to start the car and the alarm went off and I could not get the car started … I could see a figure coming towards me in the shade …” Mrs De Souza said.
“I looked up again and he was staring towards me. … I just thought: ‘Oh, my God.”‘
She then saw Hasanovic drag her daughter from the car, leaving her face down on the pavement.
“She was lying on the ground. Her eyes were open and she was not moving at all.
“I didn’t realise she was dead. I said: ‘Come on, hold on, you’re going to be OK.’ I could see the blood [but] I could not take it in and I remember hearing the boys screaming.”
“Cassie was devastated when under the Hague convention she was ordered to return the boys to England,” Mrs De Souza said.
“This brutal, cruel and senseless act has torn our lives apart”.
AND — IT WAS NEEDLESS.
I hope, pray, blog, and ask people who are in “intact” marriages (not marked by violence, or even bitter divorce) to wake up and participate, not in indignation that women are indignant, or fleeing, but in studying WHAT your governments are doing (worldwide) and the NGOs that are running the place. Thank you. Take time off from barbecuing, or soccer teams for a month, or a season. I’m talking to what remains of “middle class” people, who perhaps are employed and housed, and panicked about losing work or housing. How does that compare with women like this one, above? Your governments, at least I can speak for mine, ARE wasting money and time in policies that kill.
IN HER PURSUIT OF LIFE (LET ALONE, LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS), THIS WOMAN FLED TO AUSTRALIA, LISTENING TO THE OBVIOUS, AND HER INSTINCTS. BEING A MOTHER, AND HAVING HAD CHILDREN (a.k.a. property), SHE WAS SPIT OUT FROM AUSTRALIA BACK TO UK, AND THERE MURDERED. IN FRONT OF HER SONS, AND HER MOTHER, WHILE FLEEING.
More Sardonic Commentary
Meanwhile, in family courts around the world, women (and some men) are told that expressing outrage at indignation and crime is itself a crime, and should be punished by paying for “parenting classes” until they (as adults) realize that the police, the judge, the psychologist, the evaluator, the Guardian at Litem, the Child Protective Services worker, the District Attorney, the Mediators, the educators, and the government know more ab out their own lives, and what’s best for them, than they themselves do.
This is called the Artificial Womb.
(GOOD GRIEF — I just Googled that term, and found this:
Why Not Artificial Wombs?
In 1924, the British scientist {{PROBABLY MALE!!}} J. B. S. Haldane coined the term “ectogenesis” to describe how human pregnancy would one day give way to artificial wombs. “It was in 1951 that Dupont and Schwarz produced the first ectogenic child,” Haldane wrote, imagining how an earnest college student of the future would describe the phenomenon. “Now that the technique is fully developed, we can take an ovary from a woman, and keep it growing in a suitable fluid for as long as twenty years, producing a fresh ovum each month, of which 90 percent can be fertilized, and the embryos grown successfully for nine months, and then brought out into the air.”
I mean this METAPHORICALLY, and I guess now have another post….THIS one is about how worshipping fatherhood has cost real mothers their lives. I had not realized (yet) how long ago it entered into men’s imagination to eliminate pregnancy and childbirth, which I suppose interrupts for nine months some of their other wished-for biological functions, that is in men not mature enough to understand what the whole wonder, relationship, and process is actually about. I predict, that if this becomes successful — that motherhood as a relationship reality is eradicated, AND as a biological one — that the entirety of the human race will become so theoretically smart, and practially stupid, that we (so to speak — count me out!) will destroy ALL of each other, sooner, rather than later. Which of course, some of the human race is currently engaged in, and at least two world religions I am aware of predict. That’s probably less “myth” than an accurate reading of human nature, which this “fatherhood” stuff is not. It’s an “ism” not a reality. The REALITY is that men and women vary in behaviors, beliefs, attitudes, and levels of responsibility to which they have risen.
BACK TO THIS POST:
Good “parenting” teaches one’s children’ how to recognize danger (and when to flee it), that it’s OK to express indignation and anger in order to protect personal boundaries (i.e., send a warning message to whoever is violating them), and if necessary after that, fight back.
Parenting classes, as I understand them, exist to prevent fathers and mothers from doing this, and to create a numbed down (or, bipolar) set of behaviors — one for the teachers, and one when the teachers are not watching. This is a recipe for destruction.
Men around the world are whining, publically and in on-line groups, and promoting studies, that women are just as violent and dangerous as they are. Well, if that WERE so, it appears to me that nonviolent self-preservation techniques (like FLIGHT) aren’t working, so what shall we then do?
Where are all the men killed by angry ex-wives? They aren’t there because our cultures (exception: TV media, popular films), and primary institutions coach women to be passive and submissive — or they will be punished. We are told to obey rules, and we do.
Perhaps it would be better if it was understood that it IS dangerous to confront a woman physically. Perhaps this might be a deterrent. If men are going to reject, as partners, women who stand up to them, then let them propagate with the passive ones, and perhaps — just perhaps, some of the non-passive surviving women may be a role model, should this get to the point of violence.
The last time I had personal contact with a woman who lost a child to a man she’d divorced who had already been convicted of molesting her other child, was only yesterday. This is distressing. As is typical, she has to pay for supervised visitation to see the pre-adolescent son that was removed from her custody for reporting child abuse.
It’s also an unfair choice to any woman –become a criminal and fugitive, or risk your life,
and your children’s lives and sense of sanity and safety in this world, til they mature.
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
May 25, 2009 at 7:32 AM
Posted in Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, History of Family Court, Lethality Indicators - in News
Tagged with Australia, Brave Young Adults, custody, domestic violence, Due process, England, family annihilation, family law, fatherhood, IPV, men's rights, social commentary, trauma
In the Best Interests of Suffering the Little Children – to survive Childhood (alive)…
(From “WAtoday.com.au”)
Suffer the little children
- Jen Jewel Brown
- May 2, 2009
IT WAS 3am on Anzac Day when Dionne Fehring woke in fear. She was in her mother and stepfather’s Tallebudgera house on the Gold Coast, the house she’d fled to after her marriage turned irrevocably violent. “I felt that there was something wrong. Just had that natural mother’s instinct,” she says now.
There’s a quiet dignity holding the tremor in Fehring’s voice these days.
“I just had a feeling from the moment that I woke up that something wasn’t right. Everyone around me was very excited about the kids coming,” she says.
“There was something inside me that would not let me get my hopes up. I had a feeling that he wouldn’t make it that easy. But I never thought that he’d actually kill them … I thought he might kill me, but never them.”
Fehring, whose surname was Dalton back in 2004, was right to be afraid. At 3am precisely, her two children, 17-month-old daughter Jessie and baby Patrick, 12 weeks, were being murdered by their father, Jayson Dalton.
“They know when it happened,” says Fehring, “because when the police broke in, they broke in to find the kids lying dead on the bed, and he’s actually put down the time that he had killed them and written it above their heads.
He had suffocated them with plastic bags. Then he killed himself the same way.
Moving to Seymour in country Victoria, Fehring has mercifully had two more young children she rejoices in. She now works as a patron with the Gold Coast Domestic Violence Prevention Centre.
She sees herself as a survivor rather than a victim. Yet a growing sense of frustration and bafflement has led her to speak out publicly for the first time since 2004.
“In five years, I have seen no changes in the way we deal with the deaths of women and children who come through the Family Court,” she says. “We continue to lose these beautiful little children. It rocks me to the core. I have waves of sadness, then anger, that the deaths of my children were in vain.”
The story of the Dalton family is just one of many domestic tragedies that have played out in Australia over recent years.
According to Australian Institute of Criminology research, an average of 25 children were killed by their parents each year between July 1989 and June 2002. Beyond this worst-case scenario is a hidden epidemic of child harm that the welfare system struggles to control.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports that there were 317,526 reports of suspected child abuse and neglect made to state and territory authorities in 2007-08, continuing a trend of increased notifications — up more than 250 per cent on a decade ago.
Children at risk of such harm are likely to end up being processed by a family law system that critics, including Fehring, believe is not well-designed to protect them.
In 2006, the Family Law Act was substantially amended to reflect a greater emphasis on shared parental responsibility. One of the changes required the court to look at two primary considerations when deciding what is in the child’s best interests. The first is the desire for children to have a meaningful relationship with both parents; the second the need to protect them.
But some experts believe that in cases of family violence, the principles conflict with one another.
Sarah Vessali, principal lawyer at the Women’s Legal Service Victoria for almost eight years and now in private practice, deals daily with family law matters. “There is a contradiction between the two fundamental principles — they cannot work together where there is family violence,” she says.
THE Dalton marriage had bloomed gently at first from an internet romance. “He had moments when he was loving and tender,” recalls Fehring. But a punch that cracked their car windscreen also produced the first cracks in the marriage.
Dalton became verbally abusive. He insisted his wife go back to work three days after giving birth to Jessie, their firstborn. Then the beatings began.
In the 2½ years of their marriage, Dalton threw a microwave at his heavily pregnant wife and toddler, shattered French doors and bashed Fehring repeatedly. Multiple assaults were on police record. In fact, police were so concerned for her safety, they applied for (and were granted) a domestic violence order on her behalf, as she was too frightened to take one out herself.
By March 10, 2004, the marriage was in a state of collapse. Dalton, so much bigger than his wife, told her: “Tonight’s the night. It’s on. It’s going to happen tonight.”
Fehring was left in a state of intense fear. As she drove to her mother’s with the kids, Dalton gave chase. He rang her mobile 76 times in that 90-minute drive.
When he hit her mother on arrival, he broke his latest domestic violence order for the second time. Arrested and jailed overnight, and released at midday the next day, Dalton was in a savage mental state.
Fehring began to panic. She had given birth to Patrick (who, although much loved, was conceived, she says, when Dalton raped her), only about six weeks earlier. She didn’t last the five-hour drive with her mother and the kids to a relative’s home. Exhausted and at breaking point, she was hospitalised in the acute mental health unit at Toowoomba Hospital for 10 days. That was Dalton’s chance.
On March 17, 2004, in a 14-minute hearing, the Brisbane Family Court gave interim custody of the infant Patrick and his sister Jessie to Jayson Dalton, former One Nation candidate and long-term batterer.
Fehring’s solicitor, Ros Byrne, had less than 24 hours warning of Dalton’s bid for custody. She told the judge: “There are domestic violence issues.” That was it.
Fehring, ill, could not be there. “I have no idea why they gave him custody,” she says. “And I don’t think I’ll ever understand it. They were in no danger, they’d been with mum, she was taking care of them with my sister.
“My solicitor knew I was petrified. She told the court there were domestic violence issues and yet the children were handed over to a violent man.”
In the weeks that followed, Dalton’s dad helped his son care for the children. By April 23, Fehring was well enough to go back to court and be awarded custody, with Jayson to have the children every second weekend. On Anzac Day, Dalton was supposed to hand the children back.
Asked to turn her mind back to that Anzac Day afternoon, and the mad dash she made from the Gold Coast when Dalton did not arrive at the Southport police station with the children as arranged, Fehring clears her throat. Although she didn’t know it then, her mother had already found Dalton’s emailed suicide note.
“My mobile had gone dead and so no one could call and tell us what had happened, and by the time we got up there, just to the rise of where the actual house was at the bottom of the hill, um, we could see all the flashing lights, fire brigade and the ambulance and newsmen and everything else, and I just raced across the road,” she says.
“The police stopped me from going up the stairs into the house and I just said to them, ‘Cover me, I don’t want anyone to see me’, and I just collapsed in a heap. My stepfather nearly had a breakdown. He tried to climb the stairs and they pulled him back.”
She continues after a deep sigh. “We didn’t get to say goodbye to my babies until early the next morning. I had to go to the morgue and identify them. Their little bodies covered with a sheet.
“I just want something changed so that we can protect women and children so that these cases don’t continue to happen. No mother should ever be put through that experience.”
Child abuse expert emeritus professor Freda Briggs, of the education, arts and social sciences division of the University of South Australia, has firm views about changes needed to family law.
“The level of ignorance by judges and (Family Court) staff about child development, domestic violence and sexual abuse is inexcusable,” she says.
“Judges ignore DV (domestic violence) because (a) some psychologists tell them that men who bash their wives don’t necessarily bash their children and (b) they don’t seem to know that witnessing violence is as damaging to children as being a victim of it. Education is so badly needed.”
Sarah Vessali agrees that change is necessary. She suggests that Australia look to the New Zealand model, where the prima facie stance is that where allegations of abuse are raised, contact is disallowed until they are disproved.
In Australia, the legal system demands that the accusing parents prove such allegations, which can be difficult.
“If (the allegations) cannot satisfactorily be proven to the court … then (the accuser) runs the risk of having the court order costs against them,” Vessali says.
A petition calling for change has gathered close to 3000 signatures from affected families and professionals, women and men. One anonymous signatory summed up the concerns of many who work in the system: “As a community worker providing support to women and children escaping domestic violence, we have significant contact with the Family Court and access orders.
“It has been our organisational experience that the family orders often place the children at risk of emotional, if not physical, abuse.
“It is of upmost priority, for the children involved, to have a closer look at issues of domestic violence when deciding on residency issues.”
In Fehring’s view, the system is going backwards not forwards. “Why do women and children continue to lose their lives?” she asks. “What I want is a more in-depth look into the Family Court. We need to get to the root of a problem and not just make a snap decision based on two minutes worth of information.
“I want us as a society to be able to see this openly.” The media, she says, should not be prevented from reporting important cases. “If we are not made aware of these problems, then we blindly go about our day totally unaware of what is going on behind closed doors.
“The women who might be sitting at home contemplating leaving a domestic violence situation may get the strength to leave her relationship. We need to become proactive before any more of these problems occur and we lose more of our precious children.”
As part of a campaign by concerned Australians to improve the way the Family Court system deals with cases such as Fehring’s, national rallies, run by the Safer Family Law Campaign, are planned for this morning.
At the Mayday! rallies, affected parents wearing red scarves and masks to hide their identities (family law curtails free speech) will speak alongside child rights representatives, academics, lawyers and members of various groups.
Clotheslines strung with children’s red clothes will be raised at rallies in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth.
Jen Jewel Brown is a Melbourne writer and Victorian co-ordinator of the Mayday! Safer Family Law Campaign rally, which will be held in Carlton Gardens, Rathdowne Street, 11am-12.15pm
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
May 14, 2009 at 2:12 PM
“Greater Emphasis on Shared Parental Responsibility” (Australian Family 2006 Law Amendment) “in the best interest of kids” gets them killed, again.
In this post, I am reacting to a story which will be posted separately, although excerpts are in my post, and a link at the bottom.
I do not know “Jen Jewel Brown,” but the writing is compassionate and detailed, not a polemic, or a dry newspaper report.
This type of writing — about this international problem — engaging attention, mind, and emotions, prompted me to respond, at length. Because of the length, the post itself is separate.
Thank you, “Jen Jewel Brown” for the coverage of this matter, in tone that engages the emotions, which these should, but doesn’t I feel manipulate them. This is good writing. Thanks also to the Mom who brought this to my attention on-line. I do compare notes with women in other countries at time, in hopes that we can do something to stem the tide of child-sacrifices on the altar of “Family.”
My “target audience” is those “puzzled” by the failures of family law and disturbed, but perhaps not enough so, by why the experts trusted with fixing these things aren’t succeeding. I do not speak from the “puzzled” perspective, at all. My recommendations, and appeals are at the end of the post.
I don’t know whether 3 whole posts should be dedicated to one incident, but there is a “to the contrary” response, blaming the family law system for the casualties (i.e., deaths) because it’s “brutal” to men. This post has been a half day’s (volunteer, incidentally) work, and the other will have to wait, but I will post the link blaming these children’s deaths (and others) on family law’s “brutal” anti-father bias, and those damn domestic violence folk.
(This hails from “WATODAY.com” — Breaking News from Perth and West Australia (and was published the week before “Mothers’ Day” in the USA).
Jen Jewel Brown
- May 2, 2009
Suffer the Little Children:
_______________________
But first, a quiz: did you notice, too?
Does anything seem amiss in the following description?
Try and picture it before reading further….
Dalton was left in a state of intense fear. As he drove to his mother’s with the kids, Fehring gave chase. She rang his mobile 76 times in that 90-minute drive.
When she hit his mother on arrival, she broke her latest domestic violence order for the second time. Arrested and jailed overnight, and released at midday the next day, Fehring was in a savage mental state.
A. Does this scenario seem believable, and consistent with other accounts you may have read in the MSM (mainstream media), or statistics you may have studied, about women’s violence towards men (being comparable).
B. Have you ever heard a case reported where a woman chased down a man in anger, calling him nonstop for one and a half hours (as he was fleeing with his kids), breaking a court restraining order, and still being angry enough to punch his mother in the face? Or one that fits this pattern? (picture it….)
? ? ?
To “A.” The correct answer should be “yes.” This does not seem to fit the pattern. And in this case, it shouldn’t —
To “B.” My answer, which may vary with personal experience, for me, is NO. I haven’t. (Groups such as “Mens Rights Agency” etc. would say, it could go either way. But this is the description I read. Where is the description of a woman doing this? AND — — getting away with being released after arrest to go and do it again?)
Above, I just switched the names, genders, and parties on another (yet another) blunder of Family Law Amended in 2006 to reflect greater empahsis on shared parental responsibility.” This blunder wasn’t just one single blunder, but a whole series of them resulting in the eventual death of two innocent. Infants. In their best interests, of course. He chased her, she didn’t chase him. He punched HER mother’s nose, and not vice versa. HE, even after this terrorizing incident, was released from jail the next morning.
She then (it seems) endured a five-hour-long flight, with her mother, from this man, only six days after one infant was born, and couldn’t handle it. She had a breakdown and was hospitalized en rte. I can see why her mother might have fled, too.
This is how the family courts responded to that knowledge:
On March 17, 2004, in a 14-minute hearing, the Brisbane Family Court gave interim custody of the infant Patrick and his sister Jessie to Jayson Dalton, former One Nation candidate and long-term batterer.”
Fehring’s solicitor, Ros Byrne, had less than 24 hours warning of Dalton’s bid for custody. She told the judge: “There are domestic violence issues.” That was it.
Fehring, ill, could not be there. “I have no idea why they gave him custody,” she says. “And I don’t think I’ll ever understand it. They were in no danger, they’d been with mum, she was taking care of them with my sister.
“My solicitor knew I was petrified. She told the court there were domestic violence issues and yet the children were handed over to a violent man.”
I don’t know what to do, just me alone, about the nonstop, nonsensical, and unnecessary murder of little kids as a logical consequences of illogical thinking dominating the family courts — not just in my home country (which is not Australia, as below), but around the world. But I am doing some things (including reporting), and have some suggestions below of what doesn’t work, and possible different approach to take, when going about to “help,” other than picking a side to believe and joining it, or staying “neutral” or remaining “puzzled.”
I can only assert, and I have some experiential basis to compare these two on, religion, and family law, that the family courts worldwide have become a religion to themselves, and have all the characteristics of a VERY cruel one.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(DIGRESSION:)
In wondering who took leave of whose senses when, (i.e., in trying to analyze this), I think we need to also take a more honest look at whether we really want nation-wide educational systems that take kids away from families in order to protect them from the ignorance, supposedly in their families. Both of these systems are based on similar premises of helping in competent parents and rescuing children from ignorance and illiteracy. In the U.S., the outcome of this premise, apart from an ever-increasing budget demanded, factionalism within the ranks, and this region also, education, becoming both an industry and a political endorsement or virtual “death-warrant” depending on one’s constituency — it ALSO has resulted in a literacy rate (the very thing it proposed to fix) trailing the developed world, a populace of people that, on graduating from 8th grade school (around 13/14 years old), still can’t read, but CAN get pregnant, or get someone else pregnant. They can also get shot at, sexually abused by teachers, or locked down if a rumor of someone with a gun (or someone with a real gun) comes on or near the campus. They are the target of pharmaceutical corporations and text book corporations, and all kinds of political factions. Currently, in California, they are again arguing over whether a parent can “opt out” for their kids of “LGBT” training — in the same region where, in the family law, another paradigm reigns, that each child needs both parents, and supposedly mothers have an unfair advantage. (Was that same-sex parents, or not??). These school graduates, then class-sorted, and intelligence-tested, are coming out, and some of them making it to college (others not), and now we have family law systems teaching adults (both middle-aged adult AND young adults) “parenting.” Well, what where they doing for the first eight years of government help?
So I do tend to look, both as to cost and results, at both of these systems as related. I am wondering, how have we somehow gotten politicians who can’t think straight, or a general public who can’t discern what’s going on with the politicians? There are indeed many questions. I also note that the U.S. is already one of the highest per capital prison nations around (I heard this, anyhow, as to “developed” nations. If this is development, let’s under-develop for a while, eh?) The effect being that prison is not exactly a deterrent to batterers because the places are crowded already!
(END of THAT DIGRESSION, AT LEAST). . . .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I have spent close to two decades dealing with abuse, up front first (at home) and thereafter, trying to be female and leave it, with children. Once Internet became accessible, and I regained a bit more freedom to choose who I associated with, I have also been researching and connecting with other men and women both, while also seeing how my personal case progressed through attempting to retain a standing restraining order (i.e., renew it), and how someone coached the person I needed to restrain to dodge it into Family Court, which I can only describe as like “Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass.” (I read this book often during my childhood). It is as though all the people in there are on psychotropic medicines, but being a world unto themselves, are looking at you as the oddball.
One of the most serious mistakes a family law innocent can take is to take ANY of its denizens seriously. To take them at their words, which are many-syllabic and I say, infantile in rationale. (That includes innocent observers, too….)
Another serious mistake is failure to realize how seriously they take themselves (meaning, each other)(not your laws, or their rules of court, or their professional code of ethics, for the most part), and their inherent authority and what tools are at their disposal to make sure you do, or else! (See recent post, where I discuss “kneeling” in august reverence here).
The SOONER you seriously divest yourself of assuming that terms used bear any relationship to common usage (outside this venue), the better chances of success you will have. I am a literary sort of person, and invested a lot of time (after successive failures to win a point in this venue) in reading the laws and rules of court. My opponent didn’t piddle around with this — at all — but went straight for the emotional heartbeat of whatever authority (he) was in front of, and adjusted his story to accommodate. AND WAS RESPECTED FOR THIS! He didn’t bother with piddling matters like consistency, truth, or even evidence. He figured out what resonated and ad-libbed an court order violated himself into being rewarded with total custody of our daughters, no meaningful contact with their mother, and no child support obligations for him — in effect, none of the past due, and the current one promptly stopped. This dysfunctional system rewarded criminal behavior. Welcome to “la-la-land,” quite similar to what I had hoped to leave, many years ago, and peaceably rebuild separate lives. (Oh well!)
I don’t think or operate like this, in general as a teacher, a mother, or a professional. Every profession I’ve been involved in to date has some set of principles which, if repeatedly violated, results in failure of the endeavor. There ARE operational principles in family law too. The thing is, understanding what they are.
One clue is to understand as quickly as possible what Family Law Courts are NOT. ONE “what they are not” is clearly “in the best interests of the children” or the general public, as far as I can tell. Get comfortable with Upside Down World (as did Alice in WOnderland) or get out. As fast as possible. I believe the same thing applies for an abusive relationship — the LESS invested said abuser is in the relationship, the safer everyone SHOULD be. Family Law, is being amended, however, to tip that scale backwards.
Not just “seeing through a glass, darkly” but literally in reverse — ‘THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS’:
For those who don’t know the book, here’s three references (all to URLs), the first (only) with the classic illustrations of Alice unnaturally elongated, and then squished into a small box. The message is altered perspectives. I read this book through repeatedly as girl (we were not a TV family…), often in one sitting on a weekend. My legs would fall asleep, an odd sensation I thought interesting, and I knew that polishing off the book would do result in a numb leg. That’s how fascinating it was, with its characters, and Alice’s dialogues with herself, and them, getting her bearings, and finally getting out of this dream (or altered state).
The difference between “Alice’s” adventures and entering the world of “family law” (in practically any country, I’m coming to believe) is that it is unbelievably different from inside than outside. The other difference is, some people do not emerge outside triumphant as this heroine did. Some children never “age out of the system” because someone kills them first. Or one (or both) of their parents. (Are the killers of the other parent half men and half women? Look it up yourself, not from a mother’s group or a father’s group, but from a more authoritative source!)
Others become sexual objects, property, or weapons of revenge for others, or money for third parties, although eventually they do reach age 18, forever changed.
The characters, standards, and self-referential dogma of these circles exacerbates prior situations, or maybe incites a few more, while continuing to enunciate, evaluate, proclaim, and judge situations as if the characters judging were the standard, and the intruders, the alien oddballs that needed a sharp lesson in which way is up.
So, Get a Flavor of “Alice,” for Reference (Curiouser and Curiouser). This figure will help your understanding of the domain of family law and associated realms driven by social sciences (and the funding thereof) more, I feel, than a glossary of words, which taken out of context, might be misinterpreted to actually mean what they say:
From a New York Times blog on migraines (apparently the author of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland) had these:
“The man who gave us “Alice in Wonderland” suffered from migraine. He was also a mathematician, a clergyman, a photographer, and a wit. He was self conscious about a stammer and may have had sexual proclivities for young girls. It is impossible to know exactly what role migraine played in his creative work.” (itself a commentary that skill in various professions is not an indicator of innocence or guilt in other areas)
and, from Salon.com, someone’s commentary on it, recalled from her childhood:
the “children’s tale” was in brilliant ways coded to be read by adults and was in fact an English classic, a universally acclaimed intellectual tour de force and what might be described as a psychological/anthropological dissection of Victorian England. It seems not to have occurred to me that the child-Alice of drawing rooms, servants, tea and crumpets and chess, was of a distinctly different background than my own. I must have been the ideal reader: credulous, unjudging, eager, thrilled. I knew only that I believed in Alice, absolutely.
(AUSTRALIAN) Family Law Act amended in 2006.
Excerpt:
In 2006, the Family Law Act was substantially amended to reflect a greater emphasis on shared parental responsibility. One of the changes required the court to look at two primary considerations when deciding what is in the child’s best interests. The first is the desire for children to have a meaningful relationship with both parents; the second the need to protect them.
WHY? The story below dates back to 2004! (Again, two little kids were killed by a man who had violence and punishment of his wife on his mind already, had been acting it, had been demonstrating already his disregard of court orders — i.e., placing himself above the law – and had been arrested for doing so, which only made him still madder, and less in compliance. This upside down-a-rabbit-hole and Through the Looking Glass logic (itself detached from threats of being murdered, or having one’s kids murdered, or having to live with — and AROUND — that fear, somehow) is NOT “evidence-based” or “In the child’s best interests.”
This fear of also trespassing on an idenfitied batterer’s civil rights overrode the innocent party’s ones.
The court order making this possible happened because the mindset that prompted the 2006 amendment was already in play, obviously, that even if a man chases down his wife punches her mother, and does things that would put him in jail, and staying there longer, if done to a man, or where a previous relationship had not existed)
Excerpt:
Child abuse expert emeritus professor Freda Briggs, of the education, arts and social sciences division of the University of South Australia, has firm views about changes needed to family law.
“The level of ignorance by judges and (Family Court) staff about child development, domestic violence and sexual abuse is inexcusable,” she says.
“Judges ignore DV (domestic violence) because (a) some psychologists tell them that men who bash their wives don’t necessarily bash their children and (b) they don’t seem to know that witnessing violence is as damaging to children as being a victim of it. Education is so badly needed.”
I DISAGREE. I THINK THIS VIEW GIVES TOO MUCH BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO JUDGES.
IF JUDGES ARE IGNORANT OF THE OBVIOUS, THEN THIS SHOWS A LACK OF QUALIFICATION TO JUDGE.
THERE ARE REASONS THEY LISTEN TO PSYCHOLOGISTS, AND THIS _- AND NOT “EDUCATING” THEM ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS IN ORDER.
IGNORANCE IS A CHOICE. I”M A SURVIVOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SEVERE. I DI NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE RESOURCES TO INFORM MYSELF ABOUT IT WHILE IN THE SITUATION. WHEN I GOT OUT, AND THEN WAS PUSHED INTO FAMILY COURT, THE FIRST THING I DID WAS START GETTING INFORMED. IF I COULD DO THIS, ON A DIMINISHING BUDGET AND AS A SINGLE MOTHER, AND PERSIST IN DOING SO (FOR YEARS) THAN EVEN A JUDGE WITH A VERY BUSY SCHEDULE COULD CHOOSE TO LISTEN TO MORE THAN ONE VIEWPOINT. SO COULD WHOEVER AMENDED THE FAMILY LAW OF 2006 TO PRODUCE HIGHER RISK OF STORIES LIKE THIS.
There are number of wise courses of action (hard choices, all of them) which will help those enacting and judging poorly in situations that result in family deaths (unnecessarily) to understand the FIRST priority is to preserve physical life of individuals (that’s what criminal laws, in part, are for), and SECOND, if then, to MAKE DAD HAPPIER BY MORE TIME WITH THE CHILDREN — BUT ONLY IF HE CAN BEHAVE LIKE IN AN ADULT FIRST.
Another option, which was proposed over a decade ago by a writer on NOMAS (National Organization of Men Against Sexism — which, FYI, this family law act as amended seems to be, as it was addressed primarily to giver fathers (not mothers) more contact with their kids after divorce). One might be a rigid and STRICT sorting system to discourage violence against women, which when kids are present, is a horrible role model: (A) Case Flow. You commit violence, you lose access to your kids — PERMANENTLY. This is called “deterrent.”
Then there would be nothing much to discuss in family law except distribution of any property. And I personally don’t care if anyone who assaults an intimate partner even TWICE, let alone in such awful manners, is financially penalized either. Why shouldn’t he be? The devil didn’t make him do it. His unemployment didn’t make him do it. SHE didn’t make him do it. Abuse, like ignorance, is a choice. It’s a two year old in a grown up body trying to make the world fit his (or her) own definition of how the world should be, and making sure he is the center of attention (via tantrum, throwing things, etc.), until the world IS changed to accommodate.
Maybe it’s time, and maybe there is a way (in our respective countries) we can get the conversation away from sick social science theories (which many participants, FYI, may not agree with) AND bribery (job -referrals, cronyism, or whatever it took to amend Australia’s Family Law in 2006 to better reflect what’s happening in America, which, FYI, we cannot here keep up with the incidents that are quite similar to the one below, where “Dalton” kills his own offspring because he’s mad. Or can’t get his own way, even AFTER he gets custody. “It’s about control, dude.”
The alternative is to penalize the rest of society, and especially the target. The alternative is NOT to, as we do in the US, “promote healthy marriage” and then leave doing so up to characters that think like this! (See “Mad Hatter Tea Party.”). The alternative is a nonstop, constant drain of time, and transfer of wealth — from the general public, and also from one parent to another, or from both parents to attorneys (and psychologists, etc.). The alternative is a total drain on public funds that are needed for more noble causes.
But speaking in public and anywhere else as though judges really are uninformed on the fact that domestic violence occurs, and that disturbed parents sometimes kill their wives, themselves, bystanders, relatives, and responding police officers in the context of a woman — that is called “enabling” talk. It makes excuses. Take my word, or ask someone else. Good grief, get real! Like Alice in Wonderland, who found herself there, and conversed with the various characters, and emerged with her self-respect intact back into the real world, it is necessary after frequenting such discussions, to get back to reality. This is NOT about justice!
(I know of only ONE single high-profile case reported in my area where the killer was a woman except ONE, in the many years I have been watching and noticing this, since I left my own situation. That case has some very unique circumstances to both the marriage, and the custody hearings, and I also know the judge involved). She tried to defend herself, and went to jail. It sold a lot of newspapers. I have also seen the countenance, attitudes, and behaviors of family court personnel in the context of some extremely high-profile, headline making murders, one of them a triple murder, in the context of a woman leaving a batterer. We had a man who killed his wife on a weekend exchange, with kids present, buried her body, and was eventually convicted without the body!, but plea-bargained himself down by promising to show the police the body. Not until he was actually convicted did he change his “I didn’t do it!” story for a minute.)
We had another one where a man shot the cousin (in the face) because he couldn’t find the wife, who he was after. In the process, he also tore up a business front and threatened his (brave) adult daughter, who tried to get the gun from him. We had a woman who had been cautious and attempting to keep a low profile, but she went to church on a weekday morning, apparently before work. Her ex ambushed her, gunned her down in front of witnesses. There IS no safe place, it seems, when a mad “ex” is intent on getting even, and obeying laws is the LAST thing at certain times on the brain. I referred to that last case in my court hearing (same city), loud, and clearly. My comment was deleted from (never made) the court transcript. In this hearing (if I have which one right), I had PTSD triggered in recounting the last time I had to interact with my ex, which itself had so frightened me, I swore internally that I would never, the rest of my life, put myself in a position where I had to see this man in person, I could not handle it. I only had to see him a few more times (THAT year), and stalking has been an issue, and caused me to reframe my livelihood and daily lifestyle ever since, negatively so. It has also put a severe damper on my plans to assert any future legal rights, as safety is now a definite issue.
How’d you like to make those choices? Leave your kids with a known batterer who won’t obey court orders (any of them, basically) and has not been held accountable by any authority. And do this after many years in court hearings, and after many years in domestic violence.
My case was nowhere near as awful as this woman Fehring, who in 2004 lost her kids after trying to save them (but family law orders curtailed her ability to do so), and I’m struggling. She is speaking out, and so are many others, in various countries. We are definitely struggling on many fronts, and we don’t want domestic violence to go down another generation!
We also (I deal with enough mothers to say I speak for at least many of them) cannot afford the luxury of believing these things persist because of lack of judicial EDUCATION. It’s more a lack of judicial BACKBONE and ETHICS. And it’s not only the judges (although they as the ones signing orders, command the most obivous authority). We hope that people who are not traumatized themselves, or still have some source of income to sustain themselves, and whose children are NOT at risk for speaking out, to FIRST divest themselves of a few myths:
The judicial and legal and custody evaluator (etc.) circles are indeed capable of being educated, and they ARE. If you want to know “by whom” (rather than continue to wonder, after the next incident, “why can’t we get it through?” to these circles), see other pages on my cite, or a few other links I’ve recommended. Study the organizations, grants, funding, and legal structure in YOUR system. Study also who is pre-empting (it happens, trust me) organizations that once existed to help battered women, or protect them, or advocate, and see who is funding them. For a dialogue on this, see “justicewomen.org.” It’s the best explanation I’ve run across. See also California NOW (CANOW.org) web page on the family court system — it has a history of organizations that is a clue. See National Alliance for Family Court Justice, which connects the dots better than most places I’ve seen (there is a lot of text to process, but DO SO!).
Dedicate a time to becoming an expert yourself. Then learn to distinguish between experts.
And follow the money trail. Money talks.
WHo was this Dalton man, that murdered kids? It appears he had a high profile. Maybe we should, as a public, restrict our adulation to people whose personal lives measure up. If people hold a public profile, then their personal lives count. Why shouldn’t they? These are means by which someone who has been voted into an office or appointed to one, can be judged.
You cannot have justice when the doors are closed. It is not going to happen.
You cannot have justice when you don’t know who’s funding and appointing the judges.
it is very difficult in our current lifestyles (I speak for my acquaintance with the US, and I know a good deal of it, particularly as an educator and arts professional) to find time to study and know what our government is doing. I found (personally) the educational system here to be the greatest timesoaker for my own children and myself, and I also witnessed this same system in poor and in rich neighborhoods. My perception of the justice in the richer community is that it was far harder on women. The general level of violent crime appears to be kept down more by the affluence, but this does not reflect, that I can tell, a drop in the domestic violence crime, or even femicides. This is a different type of crime than street crime.
Even the Bible has an entire Book called “Judges” and directly ties the welfare of the nation to the ethics (in the context, of Israel’s religion, which for them was a theocracy). When the judges screwedup, the whole nation suffered. It’s no different today..
I do not know of any other way than enough of the public — or well-positioned public — coming out of what I call the collective “trance” that “government” means “good guys” and that our job in life is to just go about our business and hope that they are going about theirs properly. My faith says we are to pray for these people, but with prayer comes a duty to watchfulness. This will help you become a more fully alert — and helpful to your neighbors, next time they go “through it” — citizen. It is, really, more important than how successful you are in your profession, I’d say. How successful is it necessary to be to have “made” it?
We also need to listen to older generations talk about the transitions they have been through, and resist institutions that separate old from child-raising from young, except in highly mediated situations.
Well, this has become a post, so the story I am blogging about will be in the next one. . . .
Please wake up, and help join men and women who are studying these topics. LISTEN to the stories of mothers who have lost their kids to violence, or to no-contact or supervised orders only with as much interest as you LISTEN to the stories and blogs of men complaining about the shoe being on their foot. LISTEN also (I posted yesterday) the parallel stories about the “state” removing children from competent parents. The social “science” paradigm is a dangerously presumptive one. It applies general principles, often arrived at without proper input from the people they affect, does so whimsically and unevenly.
The instrument itself is too blunt and too powerful. We need more stories like Alice In Wonderland, and more symbolic reference points to tell the truth about the family courts, and cut through the “therapeutic jurisprudence” to recognize where jurisprudence is itself iatrogenic.
We need to start looking back and talking back. It’s a commitment, for sure, but look at what’s at stake.
It will require losing some of one’s time, and probably personal peace, unless you are carrying it on the inside.
I hope some of this post sank in, as I wrote it in one sitting and entirely in response to a single, tragic, story (among many) that family law apparatus in Australia chose to ignore. Someone has to address the conflict of interest between criminal and civil and family law in your country.
If you want to know where a lot of this came from, it is, I believe, from an organization in the US, which has been proselytizing like Jehovah’s Witness, only knocking on different doors. They have money, they have (self-referential, but still it has an impact) prestige, they have technical superiority to MOST women’s websites, or DV websites I’ve seen. You cannot judge the truth or falsehood of a viewpoint by how glitzy its website is. The one I most respect, currently, has the least “glitz,” but I have spoken personally with the owner and checked out the facts. This blog is not glitzy, but show me where else on the web someone is posting the links to the funding, AND the organizations behind the funding, AND some of the key Presidential (US) letters driving this. And I’m not done yet.
Look at the “AFCC” Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, a group that was run initially out of the Los Angeles County Courthouse address, but illegally so, and not incorporated as an entity (according to my single reading of this) for many, many years, until they were caught, and finally did. This means that they cheated the American taxpayers by failing to pay taxes. Money laundering appears to have been involved. Initially custody evaluators got free tuition (to seminars) and attorneys did not. Judges taught some of them. This group has CONSISTENTLY ignored that “PAS” is junk science, and ignored the published criminal prosecutors reading of it, too. If they had been operating in the case of Fehring v. Dalton, they would have recommended ordered Ms. Fehring into a parenting plan to adjust her unreasonable fear of her exhusband, and if she didn’t fork over her kids for visitation, they woudl have jailed HER, not him. They are highly influential. Their PAS man was a known pedophile who eventually committed suicide. We are STILL in our courtrooms having male judges caught with their pants down or their hands up their secretary’s blouse, making her life hell, or judges taking kickbacks to send innocent juveniles away (I just recited only: NJ, TX, PA examples. The NJ judge had a porno collection that I couldn’t even stand to read about, when I heard. He flew to Russia to have sex with a boy, and as I recall, had it filmed). Women judges are/can be just as dishonest, cruel, and callous in their decisions. I have sat under some of them. It’s not JUST about gender, it’s about the system of family law, and the class, and information, and associations, gap between this system and the general public.
Then go read their history.
Then go look at their pamphlets and some of the personnel. (I did). This group is international in scope. It appears that different countries have similar type groups with other names.
Other issues include retaliation by groups and associations upon ethical and honest judges and professionals. This retaliation can be as severe as it is upon a parent leaving abuse, or a parent reporting child abuse.
MOST OF US do not want to think that people who THINK like this could be running not only our local, but also some of our national policies. However, the fact is, that any position of power is going to attract people with noble purpose, and corrupt people. It is also going to attract people who THINK their purpose is noble, but will commit crime, do secret deals, and ride roughshod over anyone who gets in their way. This is what I would call a “godless” perspective — if you can get away with something, so much the better. It also views certain classes of people as inferior BECAUSE of their class. (This attitude is also common religious circles too, obviously).
THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES, IF THIS IS NOT YOU, THEN WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSIBLITY? ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE UP A FEW ILLUSIONS (AND THEREBY HELP) or ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE JUDGING A BOOK BY ITS COVER, A PERSON BY HIS (OR HER) GENDER OR MARITAL STATUS, AND WHETHER OR NOT IT’S OK FOR A DOUBLE-STANDARD OF JUSTICE TO BE THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION.
ARE YOU WILLING TO TRY TO DEFANG THE “TOTALITARIAN” ELEMENT IN YOUR COUNTRY BEFORE IT TAKES YOUR CHILDREN (AND MEANS TO; EAT, SHELTER, AND DEFEND YOURSELF) UNDER THE PREMISE THAT “You People” cannot protect yourselves from yourselves?
Any group that claims it is going to eradicate violence, crime, murder, kidnappings, theft, and similar awful behaviors, from the face of the planet is narcissistic. This ain’t likely to happen. I would not follow anyone piping that tune. Newflash: Obama ain’t going to.
I would similar not follow any crew that promises it’s going to raise the national total educational level to competitive (on my dollar) until it’s already shown some significant successes. SHOWN them, not just proclaimed them to exist where they don’t, and out of context.
I have some perspective to say this: I was a top performer at a top suburban public high school, according to its standards, and KNOW that I was bored in school. I have worked in a variety of schools and attended school in another country. I have also (unfortunately) hung around a lot of educators in my time (not my first choice of associates, I’d rather hang out with someone passionate about WHAT they teach rather than HOW (everyone else) should be teaching). I then raised my own daughters in tough c ircumstances to a level of all-round excellence, and watched an educator who had never been a parent come after me, having mentally deleted both my own personal history (which was known to include violence and professional-level teaching ability, and performance) at the time. There was no way a rational person could have considered me under-educated or incompetent to raise my own kids. Only an Alice in Wondcrland character, who had his brain filled of theory and belief such that there was no room for input (from the eyes, ears, and neighborhood schools, etc.) would have come to this conclusion.
I was faced with an anomaly and had to make up my mind how to view this. In understanding a few more facts (which I didn’t have at the time) and continuing to listen to the changes of tone, language (and a fast “flip”) in behavior from this person, and put this into the larger contextt, I came to the conclusion that ONE thing that allowed such a person to come up with such an idea was the educational theories he’d (just recently) been exposed to, without sufficient humbling experience to challenge them — such as becoming a parent, or dealing with enough of them personally, to get some insight).
Which comes to another thing to be studied in family law: Australia’s system has a history. If you’re local, keep posting it! Talk it up. Send a clear message that it is being looked at and expected to hold to a standard. It is best, I think, to get this information OUT before there are gag orders on it.
There are organizations and associations that screen, teach and certify people to practice in MOST professions. These need to be looked at. I have. I have seen what it takes tobecome a “family law specialist” in my state, and this explains to me where the “gap” is, and why, and why when I go into court again, should this be required, I will not, I am sure tolerate any family law attorney to represent me. Why? They are not self-aware enough of personal biases. I am not sure whether I would even want such input in preparing information, because to date, the few attorneys I’ve been in front of (or hired) have all encouraged me to downplay and sign away, compromise, and bargain things that were non-negotiable in my case. This is how we get sold down the river at times — lack of information.
Even then, I’d say, “well, you can experiment on someone else’s children, thank you — and pay for it yourself, or they can pay.” These are simply Pied Pipers. Don’t dance to that tune. The fairy tale (if you know it) exists for a reason, and we’ve come to an age when I think those old fairy tales are a lot more reliable indicators of truth than, say:
“Evidence of Adapation of Parenting Programs to Father Engagement” (or whatever the forgettable phrase was on THAT grant opportunity)
This post has not been proofread (and probably will not), you just got a piece of my mind and heart. I appeal to people who say they are concerned and want to help, to do so in an intelligent, and experience-informed manner.
If a fire is burning that is destroying homes, building, and costing lives, talk to some firefighters! Find out what’s feeding it, and how to smother the principle needs of any fire.
Fuel, Oxygen, Heat (as the type of fire may be or may not, or a “chemical” burn).
And figure out, if you have a faith in a supernatural being, your relationship with Him, Her, It, or Them.
Buckle down and get ready for the ride. You will need a seat belt for sure.
The subject matter that prompted this post is in the next one, although this is the link:
Suffer the Little Children– to reach Adulthood!
“On March 17, 2004, in a 14-minute hearing, the Brisbane Family Court gave interim custody of the infant Patrick and his sister Jessie to Jayson Dalton, former One Nation candidate and long-term batterer.”
My next post will post this.
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
May 14, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Obamaland: Domestic Violence Awareness pre- and post-election
SUBJECT MEMO:
Obama on Domestic Violence, in “Domestic Violence Awareness Month” (Oct. 08)
OCTOBER 2, 2008 2:18AM
“http://open.salon.com/blog/kellylark/2008/10/01/obama_on_domestic_violence
(1) About My (FamilyCourtMatters) Blog, Topic-Switching.
I see it as “Alternating Threads of Thought.” There IS a tapestry involved, imperfect and news-sensitive though it is.
Readers will find that I may skip from topic to topic among my posts. One day, it may be recent news of family annihilations (in the context of divorce and custody). Another, it may be my reaction to administrative non-reaction to this. A third day, it may be a bit of history on the courts, or the next day, I post an article from the 1990s. Yesterday, I tacked on a database (that has been lurking link-side for a long time here), about the US Federal Government, where your $$ went, and how to find out.
(On the $$, I am also working up a separate site . . . . sarcastically entitled “Administering Families, Serving Humanity.” (“http://hhs-acf-ocse-et-al.blogspot.com/“). So far, it’s not yet populated with a post.
Well, possibly that comes from having been a musician, and part of this time, a conductor. Expect different dynamics, melodies, and energy levels. It’s not just about a single tune (“Father’s Rights. Mother’s Rights. Best Interests of Children. Feminism is anti-God. God is anti-woman. Domestic Violence. Child Abuse, or “false allegations” thereof. Parental Alienation vs. Post-divorce pedophiliac behavior. Parental KIDNAPPING. Due Process Lost. Law and (dis)order. in the Courts. Forensic Psychology vs. fact-finding when it comes to child abuse (or for that matter, IPV). “Healthy Marriage” promotion vs. a single citizen’s right to protect herself/himself and her or his children. (Boy, i bet THAT order of genders caught your attention!) … Sob stories, Statistics, suicides, femicides, homicides, familycides, or – – – – is it REALLY all just about the money? Or is it social engineering from on high…))
Clamoring melodies trying to drown each other out, true. But on this blog (although I’m sure you detect to what tune my theme is generally pitched) the idea is to examine many threads, and pick up on the energy level, dynamics, and the cumulative expression. IF the cumulative expression is diminishment of CIVIL rights and due process, we have a problem, folks! If you come to this conclusion, then I have plenty of links for you to do some homework, or search terms to think about to validate / invalidate your conclusions ideas.
IF justice is being bought and sold at the federal mandate (or initiative) level, and the bottom end of the food chain, those with the most to lose in the matter of injustice, then we have a moral / spiritual / serious constitutional issue (which I think we do).
OR, is it just about the heirarchy of studiers (and funding for the studies) vs. studied (the population to be tested, randomly sampled, and have the techniques re-adjusted to achieve a desired result — a GOVERNMENT desired result that was not subject to popular vote or poll) then we have a problem. And that “we” is all of us but those who do not need a country to protect their assets, their families, or their livelihoods.
So Subject Switching here is to be expected. Pick your melody and follow it — or, just float along, feel the tilt and roll of the boat. If you have leisure for the “float along” blog-read, I presume you are not IN the system, because IN the system many of us (without personal connections, or personal resources, or a professional guide — or a professional guide TO the professional guides, who prey on novices) are water-skiers with one ski and a frayed rope, we need to pay close attention to the wake (of the motorboat) and find ways to maintain our stamina on the fly. As such, we will be skiing faster and farther afield, and more dangerously so, than those in the motorboat. If this is you, you might enjoy the thrill of it, or, having had enough, try to let go, slowly sink, and hope shore is within swimming distance. Or, that the boat circling back to see where you were, lets you on board, and doesn’t force more of the same.
After all, a trip through the family law (and child support, psycho-jargon) system, or through the wide-cast trawling nets that reel squiggling, flapping, or stunned catch from the bottom of the ocean (or food chain, as it were), is going to change one’s major relationships: With children, spouse, employment, possibly former social acquaintances, concepts of “liberty and justice for all” and a few more items.
Therefore, it’s my blog, and it’s broad in scope. If you are overwhelmed, welcome to it. It succeeded in communicating — because that’s how families are. If you as a bystander don’t LIKE supporting families (societies) trashed by this, then please come back later and chew off some more data and digest it, or chew it (but don’t inhale — former President Clinton says he didn’t, neither should you. Take time out, but DO come back.) And don’t spit anything dark and nasty at me, either, please! Spittoons ARE available in comments, which I moderate.
Or visit some of the illustrious buttons I’ll be adding later today, and get another take on these items.
Speaking of visitors, this blog is getting viewers from many countries, including a few whose names I don’t even recognize. Please make yourselves known in a comment or two — I get a little nervous when India, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia show up shortly after I’ve posted something with the word “honor killing” in it, or something about a brave 12 year old that said, give me the law, not your version of it — to her parents, when it came to marrying too early. Then again, maybe it’s someone else taking heart, which would be wonderful. I do wonder what West Finland, Sweden, and Scotland are doing here, and Washington, D.C., I’m citing your data and commenting on it, so “deal with it,” OK? Los Angeles, if you’re the Courthouse, ditto!
(2) Today’s topic, and how I got to it:
Intro:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or, how many “awareness” days can you pile into one little month, APRIL, when at least in the U-S-A, many are most sensitively aware to the I-R-S? I believe April was: Sexual Assault Awareness month, Child Abuse Awareness Month, and in a few states, governors were persuaded to tack on “Parental Alienation Awareness DAY.” After all, one needs to even the score every now and then, which PA is intended to do, and in some arenas, has more than. The thing to become aware of as to “PAS,” however, is its author, its origins, its prophets & priests, and the varying (and they do vary — radically) responses of various areas of professional expertise (and grants/salaries) Pro or Con.
Well, I can now scope out the “He Said / She Said // WE (the experts) say” sites, fairly quickly, They tend to have more limited vocabularies, and the themes are fairly simple to follow. This gets boring, and sometimes I like to check one of the regular news an commentary, and just search on a hot term: “domestic violence” or (any of the above). Say, “truthout,” or CS Monitor, or Washington Post, or, today, Salon.com caught my eye.
In between other interests which kind of make up for, I suppose the years when the general tenor of the marital conversation was half a Bible version on gender roles (if you’ve been there, you know which one I mean), or reproof for not living up to my 9 /10ths of the imaginary marriage vows (as opposed to the one I said out loud, before witnesses), or reminding the holder of the 1/10th that if he was the boss and I was the hired hand, where was my pay?, and if working conditions didn’t improve, someone just might be short a hired (oops, “conscripted” hand) for the assigned tasks. Or, recovering from the somewhat predictable response to such protests (see, eventual DV restraining order actually was granted, based on declaration, and in the company of a support organization which had been helping me survive emotionally, learning a few legal rights on the way, until this event) — part of my compensation is an extra prolific range of reading, on-line and off. And, I talk to lots of people about their situation. I am a personal data net. It helps me navigate…and is entertaining at times, too.
So, I searched “Open Salon” on “Domestic Violence” (Parental alienation didn’t yield a single relevant result, which also tells me that this is a specialized vocabulary to this (Alice in Wonder)land, and, that (as in mirrors) normal words read forwards, but only make sense if you understand they are interpreted backwards..
And here it is:
(3) PRE-ELECTION PRIORITY:
“Obama on Domestic Violence” (link):
OCTOBER 2, 2008 2:18AM
October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
The one time when all people are supposed to remember this problem, and perhaps think about it. In my group, it is the month to get preachers to preach about the unacceptability of domestic violence. A lot won’t though, because it “encourages” divorce.
I know it is a difficult topic. It is a difficult thing to live through and then admit that you lived through it. It is extremely difficult to deal with on a regular basis in trying to help. It’s a soul-sucking, terrible, situation to deal with these women and their children trying to escape this violence. But it is so much worse to BE them, of course.
But it is always, always, a lesson in the great courage of women. The women who escape these situations with nothing but the clothes on their back are awe-inspiring – but they don’t know that. They are simply terrified women doing whatever they need to do to protect themselves, and more often, their children.
Ms. Kelly Lark says:
October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, so, I give you Obama’s statement today,
so we all know he has not forgotten us, and to hail Joe Biden for the VAWA act once more.
{{“Hail”is too reminiscent of “Heil, H_ _ _ _ _” and I tend to reserve mine for now.. How about, “thank” or “express appreciation”? We are in a republic (ostensibly) not an imperial regime. At least on the books. Let’s wait a little on the “Hail, the Conquering Hero Comes,” or Palm Sunday, as it were.}}
“Today, I join all Americans in observing Domestic Violence Awareness Month. At a time when one in four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime, it’s more important than ever that we dedicate ourselves to working on behalf of the thousands of women who suffer in silence. {{We WHO? Some have been all along…}}{{I resent the characterization of “suffering in silence.” Rather, the silence is deafening to those of us who actually do reach out, and report. That silence after reporting is ALSO heard by our abusers, and may result in silence the NEXT time. So it’s often a matter of tuning the community’s ears – – not just to reporting, but to tthe laws, the edifices in place to help (and their shortcomings and conflicts of interest), and to the broader definition of DV than broken bones and blood. And to its effect on children. Leave it to a man to say we suffer in silence as a whole, although it’s clear many do…}}
Too often, victims of domestic violence don’t know where to turn, or have no one to turn to. And too often, a victim could be someone you love. That’s why, as a State Senator, I led the fight in Illinois to pass one of the strongest employment protection laws in the nation, ensuring that victims of domestic violence could seek shelter or treatment without losing their jobs. {{Shelter/Treatment? how about Justice/Law enforcement prosecution Help? I don’t want to underestimate this, but I personally wasn’t showing up with broken bones, but still lost work through trauma, harassments, and direct orders. Shelter is a first step only and these shelters have their own issues, too.}} That’s why I introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to provide $25 million a year to domestic violence prevention and victim support efforts. That’s why I co-sponsored and helped reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. And today, I am so proud to have Senator Joe Biden, the man who wrote that groundbreaking legislation that gave so many women a second chance at life, as my running mate in this campaign. {{Well, I am thankful for that legislation too. Now, are you aware of the groundswell of retaliation against it, or not? }}
{{$25 million sounds like a huge amount. Spread throughout the country, and compared to funding already in place to WEAKEN the effects of VAWA (let alone a system that tends to do this, probably not accidentally) it has a different ring. More, below Thank God for it. BUT, I have a question. When I went looking — HARD — for pro bono help to support my 2nd application for a restraining order, or my FIRST contempt of the multiple thousands of $$ child support arrears, I found nothing effective. Where was that part of the $25million. HOW’S COME every time I faced my ex in Family Court (and someone coached him to get the case there, too), I see indications that he was getting financial support for legal help, and expert coaching on how to railroad my civil rights? HOW’S COME when the ABA Commission on DV (or toolkit, you can look it up) advises clearly, along with Family Violence Prevention Fund (or “endabuse.org”)’s “toolkit to end domestic violence –which very fine toolkit, one now has to hunt for on their site) — when that highlights the IMPORTANCE of enforcing child support orders after DV, instead I found an agency intent on NOT enforcing it til custody was switched from me to the batterer, for the first time since we separated? HOW’S COME when I went to a mediator, he did abide by the rules, and categorically ignored domestic violence, which was an issue all 3 times? HOW’S COME there is practically no accountability (a “complaint form,” after one’s life was just upended) for quality control in this mediation — yet I see the whole system is adamant about mediation as THE formula, whereas organizations that do research say, it is NOT workable in cases where domestic violence exists? So, the system makes a token nod — and in a way that eradicates due process (right to answer the charges one is accused of in open forum) by “separate — but unequal — meetings with a court-appointed mediator. HOW’S COME that mediator “recommends,” but this should not happen in true mediation? And many, many more “How’s Come’s?” come to my brain. Especially as I began to review Federal budgets, emanating from the White House, some of which you will see below, shortly.
HOW’s COME? with all the effort ~ specifically coming up on a decade’s worth ~ ~ I put into getting free from abuse, with my eyes on alert, my mouth open, and my rudder set straight, it so far has failed, 10 years post-restraining order Are we only doing triage and then throwing the flapping women up on the shore? Or, are organizations focused on their own}}
- “As President, I’ll make these efforts a national priority. {{OUT OF HOW MANY HIGHER RANKING NATIONAL PRIORIOTIES< SOME OF THE CONTRADICTORY TO THIS ONE??}} This month, and every month, we must fight to bring domestic violence out of the darkness of isolation ** and into the light of justice, especially for minority and immigrant women, and women in every community where it goes unreported far too often. We’ll stop treating this as just a woman’s issue, {{WE WHO? CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, KAREN ANDERSON AND OTHERS HAVE ALREADY BROUGHT IT TO THE INTERNATIONAL / UN LEVEL, FAILING TO FIND HELP IN THE U.S. ON IT? WE ARE ALREADY CALLING IT A CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE.}} and start recognizing that when a woman is attacked, that abuse scars not only the victim, but [“also” is grammatically correct] her loved ones, sending currents of violence that ripple across our society.
- {{On this one, the word “scars,” though effective is weakened. It is already in the headlines, unchecked, it can and often does not just scar, but also KILL the victim and/or her loved ones.
- Re: “loved ones” — Future First Lady Obama, Michelle, help us here. You should understand. “loved ones” includes KIDS. Why no mention here of the overlap between domestic violence, and traumatized kids. OR, of DV and child abuse? It’s not exactly rocket science on this, at this point, 2008! I find “loved ones” too vague. I love my KIDS. I separated from their father, who was abusive. He saw them, but he lost his privilege to LIVE with us. In this, I, their mother, sought to make a point of what is and is not acceptable treatment of young ladies. Or older ones.}}
- We need all hands on deck to address this – [1] neighbors willing to report suspected crimes,{2] families willing to help loved ones seek treatment, {{{Batterers’ Programs being proved efffective somewhere that I’m unaware of yet?}} and {3} community leaders {{DOES OR DOES NOT THIS INCLUDE “COMMUNITIES OF FAITH?? INCLUDING SOME OF THOSE ON YOUR ADVISORY BOARD??}} willing to candidly discuss this issue in public and break the stigma that stops so many women from coming forward.
- {{Sir, with respect, all hands LOCALLY are already taking the brunt of this — nonprofits are overstressed, police officers responsding to DV calls sometimes lose their lives, too. A woman (this is VAWA, hence the gender) traumatized, in shock, or in the hospital leaves a blank — an expensive one — in someone’s life; either her kids, or her businesses’ (suppose she’s a teacher? Or in a place in front of many people? Or a pastor? Or a lawyer? Or a DV advocated herself? Or a woman caring for an elderly parent? Many of us get attacked for being too “uppity” in our professions, and if we have managed to somehow overcome that, this is a professional disaster, which becomes a financial disaster all too soon” So, WHICH “WE” DO YOU MEAN HERE? HOW ABOUT POLICYMAKERS?}}
FINALLY, IN 2008, PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA SAID, PER THIS OPEN SALON BLOG:
“Together, we’ll make it clear that no woman ever struggles alone.” (I hope so, I’m reserving applause, though). I just reviewed the “We’s” versus the “I’s” (Pres. elect Obama). I heard ONLY one “I,” only one promise. And that was in the opening statement. “AS PRESIDENT, I”LL MAKE THESE EFFORTS A NATIONAL PRIORITY.”
{{HOW?? Tell us NOW what you — not all of us — plan to do. After all, you want the vote, right? What’s your commitment, in DETAIL.}}. . . As it played out, I have looked already — this same remarkable “lack of detail” is in the White House Agenda. I have already posted on it, and one of my top links to the above right is a 4-page summary of just how much of a “priority” DV is in the big pictture. It is LAST on the agenda, and mentioned in appropriate token vagueness:
“Department of Health and Human Services” (this is a link)
The subtitle (page header) reads “NEW ERA OF RESPONSIBILITY”
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal Government’s principal
agency for protecting the health of all Americans
and for providing essential human services {{LIKE<, STAYING ALIVE??}}
This (FY2010) Budget provides $768 billion in support of HHS’
mission that will bring down costs and expand coverage
The reserve is funded half by new revenue and half by savings proposals that promote efficiency
and accountability, align incentives toward quality, and encourage shared responsibility (etc. etc.)
Let’s compare $25 Million (whether this be 2009 or 2010, the above promise is an indicator): If your high school math is in place, $25,000,000 / $768,000,000 = $25 / $768,000 = or 0.00325% (alternately, 0.0000325). National priority. Now, I know that the USDOJ administers VAWA, but I am unsure whether its funding actually comes from HHS. (I will find out, though!)ANOTHER “QUICK LOOK” WAY IS TO SEE WHERE DOES THIS VAWA COME UNDER THE DEPT. HHS FY 2010 DESCRIPTION. FOR EXAMPLE: DOES IT MAKE “FUNDAMENTAL HIGHLIGHTS?” Look and see (the answer is No).
Does it as such rate its own heading (no). It shows up LAST, not bolded, in 4 pages of elaborate agenda with details of amount of funding: The heading on alternate pages reads “NEW ERA OF RESPONSIBILITY” and addressing violence against women, or intimate partner violence (which overlaps with child abuse, can lead to homelessness and death, and does, etc., and has been tagged as potential cause of substance abuse and other troubles under http://www.acestudy.org (Adverse Childhood Experiences — see my link to right) — this does not make the “CHANGE.gov”‘s administrations honor roll, even.
Domestic Violence comes under “Other Presidential Initiatives” like this:
Provides Support for Other Presidential
initiatives.
The Budget includes funding to reduce domestic violence and enhance emergency
care systems It also expands the treatment ca-
pacity of drug courts including services to protect
methamphetamine’s youngest victims Substance
addiction is a preventable and treatable chronic
condition and this initiative helps address the
most urgent needs The Budget also provides re-
sources to reduce health disparities, which the
President has identified as an important goal of
his Administration
The sum total level of description, herein, are the words “reduce domestic violence.” There is plenty more detail in almost any of the other 17 plans. Each merits its own paragraph. REDUCING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COMES IN #18.5 of 18.
Hardly a “priority,” eh? ???
Let’s check back at whitehouse.gov — maybe they did better for 2009: (I have also already posted on this):
FAMILY:
Ten days after taking office, the President established a White House Task Force on Middle Class Working Families, led by Vice President Biden. The Task Force is focused on raising the living standards of middle-class, working families across America.
The President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided needed support to families enduring difficult times.
ALREADY I see I’m not on the map. We were a middle class (lower) working family plagued by (my husband’s) domestic violence, which has resulted in him, basically dropping off the map economically since separation (FYI, part of the economic abuse, ongoing) and me being forced out of it back onto welfare. So out of the gitgo, many families, being in this situation, are not on the map economically as to being rescued. HOWEVER, let’s look. Under the “FAMILY” is this statement above, that this AMERICAN RECOVERY & REINVESTMENT ACT is to help “families enduring difficult times.”
Domestic violence is long-term difficult times, until it is stopped, or the perpetrator is separated from his victim, and held accountable. However, a problem arises (among them, jails are full). ANother problem is the alternate white house agenda of putting fathers (ALL fathers, apparently) back in their kids lives. I am wondering whether a female-designed program might just have accounted for the concept that under the all-inclusive category of “WOMEN” (in VAWA) are many MOTHERS. We are approximately half the population, or 51% I heard? Most of the other half came from some of us. If the 1 in 4 abuse figure (25% of the 51%) is appropriate, then I think this is a significant enough percentage to merit a mention under “family” in our white house agenda.
Under “Families” are 7 bullets, none of which refers to violence within the families.
Under helping Working Families, it’s not mentioned either.
Under STRENGTHEN FAMILIES, do battered Moms (or women) (or children) make a mention?
Strengthen Families
President Obama was raised by a single parent and knows the difficulties that young people face when their fathers are absent. {{ DESPITE MY RAILING ON THESE SITES< I FEEL HE TURNED OUT ALL RIGHT. DON”T YOU? HE BECAME PRESIDENT. I VOTED FOR HIM IN PART HOPING HE MIGHT ALSO UNDERSTAND THE SINGLE MOM TAKE ON LIFE.}}
He is committed to responsible fatherhood, (1) by supporting fathers who stand by their families and encouraging young men to work towards good jobs in promising career pathways. The President has also proposed an historic investment in providing home visits to low-income, first-time parents by trained professionals. (2) The President and First Lady are also committed to ensuring that children have nutritious meals to eat at home and at school, so that they grow up healthy and strong.
[The bold below was a technical error and will be corrected later]…
A commitment to stopping domestic violence, which is primarily targeted at women when it comes to fatalities, would most certainly help ensure that the children at least get to grow up, period!!
(1) “responsible fatherhood” is a code word for the uninformed, and boy is IT well funded. By “encouraging young MEN to work towards good jobs in promising career pathways” I would like to note, WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN?? It’s already abundantly clear it is desirable that the Moms put their kids in earlier and earlier Head Start. The purpose of this is that we go to work. So why do young MEN get our President’s and his wife’s special encouragement, while the young women, some of who are giving birth, don’t even get a mention when it comes to “promising career pathways.” What is expected? Does he want us at home with our kids (but not homeschooling, which is anti-patriotic, I heard), or in the workforce? Does he want to perpetuate the WAGE gap while attempting to narrow the health care gap? What’ gives?
And, I would also like to ask, where is the respect here for some of the older women, who have raised children somehow with or without the benefit of VAWA, and are working also? If we happen to be divorced and NOT playing 2nd string Mom to some children that were Healthily replaced into Marriages that the Federal Government approves of, what are we expected to to do? Take up the slack in the VAWA funding as encouraged to do in the Oct. 08 speech above?
Now, while I see under “Women” this is mentioned, I just wish to point out that when discussing “families” it takes a woman to make one.
“Prevent Violence Against Women
Violence against women and girls remains a global epidemic. The Violence Against Women Act, originally authored by Vice President Biden, plays a key role in helping communities and law enforcement combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. At home and abroad, President Obama will work to promote policies that seek to eradicate violence against women.”
On subsequent posts, I will describe some of the funding for policies that tend to do the exact opposite. When it comes to $$ versus words, a $$ is worth a thousand words, and paints a clearer picture.
Other links on VAWA, not necessarily up to date:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law. It was passed as Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 HR 3355 and signed as Public Law 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. It provided $1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of the violent crime perpetrated against women, increased pre-trial detention of the accused, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted.
VAWA was drafted by Senator Joe Biden’s office with support from a number of advocacy organizations including Legal Momentum and The National Organization for Women, which described the bill as “the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades.”
VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in December 2005. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 5, 2006.
Criticisms of VAWA legislation
Various persons and groups, including Marc H. Rudov, Glenn Sacks, Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR), and African-Americans for VAWA Reform (AAVR), have voiced concerns that VAWA violates due process, equal protection, and other civil rights. {{ALL OF WHICH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ITSELF DOES….}} None of these groups oppose laws protecting victims of domestic violence. They oppose laws that discriminate exclusively against specific social groups and deny these groups equal protections.
NOTE: Click on “Rudov” (a name I’m less familiar with) for a sampling of the thinking behind opposition to VAWA
PICTURE ME IN THE AUDIENCE, EAGERLY RAISING MY HAND, AS IN A CLASSROOM, JUMPING UP & DOWN FOR ATTENTION.. .. “Sir, Sir? SIR?? I have a question”
Given that many “women” are “mothers,” and the Bush and Clinton administrations are avidly promoting “Healthy Marriages” (meaning, 2-parent households preferred, all others, go to the back of the line, when it comes to custody) “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood,” how are you going to reconcile the domestic violence restraining orders, obtained through the VAWA fundings, with the inevitable trip through the family law system, where another paradigm reigns?
How are you going to reconcile “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood” {{=child support waivers (lowered obligations) in exchange for increased access (to children that may have witnessed Dad beating Mom to the point the law had to intervene)}} with the above claim. As I am sure you know, those movements “rule” in the family law system, and are vastly outfunded compared to this $25million, though we do appreciate it?
Would it not be simpler to de-fang the the policies that are specificall directed AGAINST VAWA and AGAINST the right of a woman to NOT remarry after leaving an abuser, without losing the children that she removed from that volatile environment?
Or, I have another idea. If the “communities of faith” continue (as they have) to operate as a law unto themselves (as they do) in the matter of domestic violence, being as clergy at least, many of them mandated reporters of DV & child abuse, how’s about you remove the tax-exempt status unless they PUBLICALLY post the laws stating that domestic violence, spiritual or moral problem that it is too, IS in this country a felony or misdemeanor crime??
Prevent Violence Against Women
Violence against women and girls remains a global epidemic. The Violence Against Women Act, originally authored by Vice President Biden, plays a key role in helping communities and law enforcement combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. At home and abroad, President Obama will work to promote policies that seek to eradicate violence against women.
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
May 3, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Posted in Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, Lethality Indicators - in News, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids
Tagged with domestic violence, family annihilation, Feminists, Intimate partner violence, mediation, obfuscation, social commentary, trauma, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.., women's rights



Demonstrating Healthy Marriages – Think Big, Invest Much, Expect a Lot, Require –???
leave a comment »
U.S. Health and Human Services — Administration of Children and Families
Office of Family Assistance
Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grants
Last post, after I got over the sticker shock of how much California Healthy Marriages took (as I perceived it) starting in 2006 from funds that otherwise might have met desperate need, unmet to date, for enforcement of existing court orders granting me ACCESS and VISITATION to my to stolen on an overnight visitation daughters, just as I’d found despite searching — HARD — no such help before then to get help <>prevent this event, <>enforce existing child support or collect any of the mounting arrears, or <>consistently enforce even the weak, poorly-written visitation court orders, <>obtain an extension or renewal of the original restraining order so I could work in peace and a degree of safety in supporting my household WITHOUT consistent child support, or <>stopping the subsequent (once RO was off) stalking, etc.
Another year, including a flurry of arrangements and orders, none of them adhered to, yet when i pressed for this, certain things were done OUTSIDE the courtroom to warn me not to disrupt the status by taking my court-ordered rights (or his responsibilities to them) at face value. Eventually I again saw (a few rounds in family law system will probably make this clear) that the court itself wasn’t taking them seriously either, and I was evidently some rabble rouser for doing so myself. Concern for their intents with our daughters continued to rise. During this time, of course there was no child support either.
In subsequent months, after the dust had settled into the dreary zero contact, I worked instead on seeking help merely to maintain a cell phone so as to replace the work lost in all this process, not to mention unemployment. The bottom, marginalized line of society were told to get in line (and I did), and that a phone was simply not a necessity for life. At least life on welfare, which I am beginning to realize was possibly in the original plan. It’s hard to control people who are in a satisfied manner working and living out their life’s purpose, particularly when there’s a match between that and livelihood. They are less likely to have the financial difficulties.
Phone help — and unemployment — was, however, promised from certain agenices, as if a person going through the family law system needed another layer of bureaucracy to decipher.
So, after THAT, I sort of figured out a way to maintain things, and tried to keep my chin up.
All this time, really prior to that child-stealing event had worked its way through family law and child support court to the point of, basically ZERO (contact, or enforcement of arrears), I had had existing work, pending work, and referrals, plus sources of them. It was increasingly frustrating to have no single obstacle to acting on this other than the toxic relationship of having dared to leave a divorce, and then after that dared to say “No” to invasive orders-giving about how to rebuild a life and livelihood. And to have attempted to set clear and reasonable boundaries — and mean it. To continue to be dealing on a personal level with this level of hostility and/or dysfunctional thinking, the same kind that endorses wife-assault if she’s uppity, or he doens’t want to answer that last question. Or just because . . . . I’m talking about dealing with family who refused to acknowledge existing court orders, and systematically placed themselves in my life and above the law against my will, and brought destruction with it. I call that a criminal mind set.
Most of my life work had been spent in voluntary situations/organizations (nonprofits often) where people came there because they wanted to, or wanted their kids to, which made for a much better climate (and better pay, too).
Now that my schedule had so cleared, and significant time to study WHY this happened, the answers are not that complicated to understand — just hard to accept. What it’s hard to accept for our society is that some women — and sometimes for VERY valid reasons — “just want to be alone” when it comes to live-in sexual partners, or live-out ones either. In addition to this, the fact of not having a live-in sexual partner (married or unmarried) would not be AS hazardous to adults’ or children’s health if society would simply just “deal with it,” rather than attempt to wholesale “eradicate” it. The word “CHOICE” is the relevant word here.
I DID learn a valuable lesson, to bastardize a quote from an assassinated U.S. President, “Ask NOT what your country can do for you — even when it has proclaimed it will ….”
I had been naively looking in the wrong Department of the U.S. Government. Naively, I thought the key to why justice wasn’t happening lay in the justice department, and its workings. I looked at law, rules of court, mediation (as to domestic violence issues), I consulted databases (and emailed staff at) national judicial databases, or the respected National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges (“NCJFCJ” if I have the word order correct), I read, researched, networked, talked, called, and wrote, gaining information, seeking to see the WHY . . . . .
Now, here I see these movements and this particular California Coaliation:
This coalition, as of 2006 (the year of this loss) had received over $2 Million — per year — for 5 years — in my state to help marriages that WEREN’T on the rocks, or split up, or broke already due to domestic violence, and related extended-family-wide safety issues. So, I think I could be forgiven for a strong, public exclamation at this indignation. For one, ACF, the same OPDIV umbrella under which HHS’s hated and feared OCSE had granted this CHMC, Inc. group $2.4mil/year on the basis of its HOPING and EXPECTING that this demonstration grant would demonstrate some serious results and accomplish many lofty goals, such as reducing crime, poverty, domestic violence, and of course the social plague of “fatherlessness” which is now responsible for those first 3 social plagues.
For the unwary:
(Administration of Children and Families)
(Operating Division)
(Health and Human Services)
(Office of Child Support Enforcement)
(California Healthy Marriages Coalition, Inc.)
I realized that this coalition’s “Target Population” was, basically the entire state (married or unmarried, rich or poor, and any cultural or racial background too) that had successfully survived life to the age of 15, which I suppose represents fertility, or something similar. They are thinking BIG — and as such deserve big bucks.
These funds are not just dollars, they practically have a life of their own:
They are going to:
BIRTH
NURTURE, and
SUPPORT the development of a . . .
. . . . well, you can read below. . . .
older, of all racial, cultural and economic backgrounds
Allowable Activities: Public advertising campaign (#1); Education in high schools on the value of marriage (#2); Marriage education, marriage skills and relationship skills programs for non-married pregnant women and non-married expectant fathers (#3); Pre-marital education and marriage skills training for engaged couples and for couples interested in marriage (#4); marriage enhancement and marriage skills training programs for married couples (#5); divorce reduction programs that teach relationship skills (#6); and marriage mentoring programs which use married couples as role models and mentors in at-risk communities (#7).
Organization Description: California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to saturate the entire state of California with marriage education. CHMC will pioneer a “coalition of coalitions” model across the state.
Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: The program grant funds will be used to birth, nurture, and support the development of a statewide interlinking network of community healthy marriage coalitions. The grantee will use the following curricula:
— Youth: “Connections” and “Love U2”
— Non-married pregnant women and expectant fathers: “Love’s Cradle” and “Bringing Baby Home”
— Pre-marital education: “FOCCUS,” “PREPARE/ENRICH,” and “The RE Marriage Prep Program,” and “How to Avoid Marrying a Jerk.”
— Marriage enrichment: “Relationship Enhancement (RE),” “Mastering the Magic of Love,” “PAIRS,” “10 Great Dates,” “Active Relationships,” and “World Class Marriage.”
— Divorce reduction programs: “Retrouvaille,” and “The Third Option”
>>>>>>>
See, I thought FAR too small. I did birth, nurture and support only as many as I spent 9 months apiece on. MY vision was to separate them from domestic violence, give them the best possible education, and set an example that it’s OK to leave dangerous situations — that women are not to be assaulted by their spouses, and don’t have to stick around for more of that. This has to do with things like self-respect, exercising legal rights and other such folderol.
I would like to, pretty soon, take a closer look at the marriage education being offered. I think a BETTER way to preserve marriages in California, especially existing ones, would be to SATURATE the faith communities with copies of:
Among, of course, other things, such as the wisdom of having both partners retain access to finances, transportation, and be informed of the state of their own economic affairs, and other things such as might be a deterrent to different forms of abuse common in these places.
I think SATURATING California with such things might save some marriages (or prevent some unwise ones).
It might have mine… The joint counseling thing almost made a statistic out of our nuclear unit.
Moreover, saturation or non-saturation, there ARE people who just shouldn’t get married, no matter how much they like to have sex. I’d like to see (since it’s taxpayer funds) how California Healthy Marriages plans to handle this, and has to date.
I would like to see that NONE of the materials are saturated with the misogynistic, near-vigilante, woman-blaming, feminist-hating talk. For example, when people are killed by an irate ex (last time this happened — well, I know there was a hostage/femicide-suicide combo this past week, in San Jose. They WERE happily married, but the husband was not the little girls’ father, who didn’t take kindly to losing custody. Now she’s an orphan. Both biological parents are gone. Tragedies are tragedies. However, at times, as with any movement, it attracts all sorts. We had (see blogroll to right) one commenter blaming a domestic violence homicide on the woman, for fililng a protective order. It was awful; a little background search (Google) revealed that the person had done jail time previously, related to some skinhead type affiliations (and weapons accumulations).
This coalition needs to be sensitive to the fact that such hate-talk exists, and not take advantage of a tragedy to promote a policy, or that it will produce MORE overentitled males and transformational cell groups whose real agenda is not publically stated. These indeed do exist, and some may be viewed, apparently (fairly new site to me) at http://www.rickross.com.
I owe my readers a short post. This is one. . . .
Here’s the link to review the stringent requirements and “detailed” descriptions of other “Priority Area Demonstration Grants for Healthy Marriages.” I look forward to a radical shift in the headlines — fewer family wipeouts, and less government intrusion in our lives through child support enforcement, or lack thereof.
I’m also still searching (among these) for a description in any abstract of what constitutes a Healthy Marriage. I mean, among these grant recipients, is it sufficient (for now — this IS California after all, and the challenge isn’t going away) that a man and a woman be involved? Does there need to be some parity in contributions, rights, or discussions of long-term plans? Do they have to have the same religion? Do they have to decide whether childre are to be involved, or what to do if this is a second marriage for one partner? (In that case, read more on my blog and the blogroll to the right, FAST!). Does healthy involve “mild” or any forms of domestic violence, and if so, is this going to be “explicated” by a differently funded HHS grant from, say, Office of Violence Against Women?
Can a healthy marriage happen where the woman earns more or is more highly educated?
What about age differences (I am simply noticing that many — not all — of the incidents with fatalities involve a middle-aged male with a far younger woman, which makes me wonder whether he married for the babies or not. Or vice versa.).
In fact, now that I think of it, how in the world could a coalition define what is really a relationship? I mean, who’s to say what they do in the bedroom or with their finances? And if it’s a religious group behind this, WHO is going to advocate for the poor girl to keep her credit and bank accounts open, if they exist, and NOT put a house in only one person’s name?
Is it going to say: Boys and Girls belong together to procreate. If you’re going to procreate you should marry and stay married.
Is it going to address the high incarceration rate in the U.S. and say, “when Dad gets out, we want you two kids {meaning the parents of a child or children) back together, now, OK? MARRIAGE is HEALTHY, and FATHERLESSNESS is a social scourge, after all.
(FYI, this is already what the US is doing….).
HAPPY BROWSING:
HERE is the link to the descriptions of the use of these funds. As you can see, some have smaller target populations, although one with the word “Dibble” does say “throughout United States.” Another one I looked at yesterday (and need to view a bit more) made news article for having been taken over for certain bookkeeping inconsistencies by the Dept. of Education. I’m puzzled why the funds are still going through. We are, after all, in tough economic times (and I’m still owed money, also).
We appear to be carved up into REGIONS (not states).
Regions 1- 9 (except “6,” which appears to be “MIA”
Hover for a summary (titles and target populations), or Click to Look.
Many of these are 5-year obligations of around $500,000/year.
Apart from the CHMC above — I hope there’s a no-competition clause in there somewhere, because it’s not the only one in California — my other favorite for scope of vision (if not clarity) is:
Office of Family Assistance
Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant
Federal Project Officer:
Heather Sonabend (202) 260-0873
Allowable Activities: Public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage and the skills needed to increase marital stability and health (#1) and education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills and budgeting (#2).
Organization Description: The Dibble Fund for Marriage Education was founded in 1996 with a mission to focus on helping teens learn the skills needed for current healthy relationships and future strong and sustainable marriages.
Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: The Dibble Fund plans to create a public advertising campaign on the value of marriage and the skills needed to increase marital stability and health, and to provide education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting. They will train 500 Family and Consumer Sciences high school teachers each year to implement peer education projects to reach 113,500 students with over 1.66 million hours of instruction over 5 years. They will increase the number of high school age youth that have access to “best practices” healthy relationship and marriage programs (including **Love U2, Connections, and The Art of Loving Well curriculums{{Curricula??}}) through schools, youth agencies, faith communities, and peer-to-peer education efforts in states with limited Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI) teen programming. They will influence the knowledge and attitudes of teens about healthy relationships, the “success sequence,” and marriage through an innovative media campaign that reaches teens “where they are,” by leveraging the power and reach of the entertainment media (TV shows and magazines that teens already flock to), the internet, and other new media (mobile phones, i-pods, and other new technology that delivers content in non-traditional ways).
You have to admire the chutzpah, though — “teens across America” and in states deprived by “limited Healthy Marriage Initiative” teen programming. That’s ALMOST higher than the U.S. Dept. of Education goal that No Child Be Left Behind — ALL be able to read, write, and count (at a minimum) before they turn 18.
BERKELEY, CA must be Healthy-Marriage Initiatve deprived (too many same-sex marriage advocates?) because they got a grant, I saw in yesterday’s chart.
But then again, the HHS budget is far larger than the Education budget, so they can aim higher.
**Some curricula designers are going to be profiting from this 4SURE, too.
REGION 8 — apparently Colorado, Colorado, and Colorado** plus Utah and Wyoming.
Organization Description: The High Country Consulting, LLC dba Faith Initiatives of Wyoming (FIWY) is a statewide intermediary organization for faith and community-based (F/CB) organizations founded in 2002. It currently serves more than 2400 F/CB organizations through training and technical assistance, fund development, identification of best practices and advancement and use of technology, all aimed at building service capacity at the local level. FIWY also assists with direct management services, data handling, event planning and coordination of partnership activities for F/CB projects.
Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: High Country Consulting will implement and evaluate a marriage enrichment program that will target stepfamilies and couples in second marriages. They will provide marriage preparation, enrichment and divorce reduction services through both community-based and faith-based organizations, using a pilot program as a cultural model to reach out to over 1,250 participants…
REGION 1 – (Simply substitute the number in the “URL” to switch regions) — one grant only,
REGION 2 — 3 grants, slightly more interesting:
In the Bronx
Organization Description: University Behavioral Associates was founded in 1995 by the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Montefiore Medical Center and is the main provider of behavioral health care in Bronx, New York. Additionally, the organization has long-standing relationships with local welfare-to-work programs and has the capability to manage information for hundreds of married couples.
Organization Description: The Research Foundation of SUNY, Stony Brook University is a non-profit organization located within the Stony Brook University campus. They proposed to use a highly innovative, empirically-supported, empowering program for income, unwed parents soon after the birth of a child.
Region 3
Organization Description: Family Guidance, Inc. will be the lead agency for a coalition of regional non-profit agencies, calling itself “TWOgether Pittsburgh,” to strengthen marriages. Coalition members include: The Center for Urban Biblical Ministry, The National Fatherhood Initiative, evaluator Dr. Stanley Denton, The Women’s Center and Shelter of Pittsburgh, and Smith Brothers Advertising.
High school students, married and unmarried couples and individuals who are residents of Pittsburgh, PA and the surrounding 5 counties.
Region 4 – one of the larger (or more active regions — SE United States (Georgia, FL, Alabama, N. Carolina, etc.)
This one particularly bears some looking at, and I hope to. Several universities make the list, a “Trinity Church” and a good deal of abstinence-based education, which is being fought elsewhere in government circles, at least within the school systems. I also note a certain curriculum popping up a lot, and am curious as to how many of the institutes receiving grants (judging by originating date) may be offshoots of the Fatherhood movement which — it should be clearly noted here — is a reaction to the feminist movement which, at least according to itself, is a response to simply oppression on the basis of gender, and things such as — you got it — violence within the home, or an attempt to deprive a person of some basic civil rights. Feminism is not the antithesis to patriotism (nor is patriotism as promoted by some of these groups synonymous for respect for the Constitution and the laws of the land).
I became a feminist precisely because of my trip through marriage and afterwards, the family law system. Til then, I took too much for granted. I am a mother, and I retain my faith — just practice it in safer places. We find help and strength where it is found. The hardest thing in my life to date was not having children, raising them with a violent, narcissistic, father (and working and struggling economically also), nor was it afterwards supporting them. That was a piece of cake, until the advisors began flocking into my life on the basis that I didn’t have a man in there (long before I was ready for such a relationship, after all this). On the basis of my profile, not the actual behavior, facts, results, or character. In fact, the experience of being “advised” after marriage when I wasn’t seeking or needing it, of being forced to do things I personally knew (and announced) were destructive to both work, relationships, and daughters’ educational options — was very much like living with abuse, only with more participants and less actual physical attack. Psychological escalated, along with the lies (once audiences were found).
The hardest thing I have ever done in my life, that I can recall, is surviving the total removal of my children from my household, and all significant contact with them at THE very point where our household was poised to succeed dramatically, in several categories (work, housing, schooling, neighobrhood, and surroundings). It was about AS healthy a (single-parent) family (with contact with the other parent available in the circumstances.
THAT, friends, was the problem to an abuser — success and independence HAS to be stopped. This doesn’t happen by telling the truth and complying with commonsense laws: Don’t steal, don’t perjure onesself in court, don’t suborn perjury, don’t kidnap, don’t harass, don’t stalk, and don’t refuse to work in order to punish the other parent — adn the kids alongside. Put your need to dominate SECOND for once in your middle-aged, male life. Develop work, not just alliances in the slander, and take-down campaign in order to somehow justify that NO single mother can handle life alone.
Well, not with this kind of attitude running the environment.
There are many uncomfortable similarities with the personal history here (which parallels many I’ve heard of) to the overall scope of this movement. HEY, I’m in favor of marriage, too obviously — I married, right?
I’m just not in favor of a national religion, at others’ expense and my own. I am pretty sure, by now, that the difficulties these children went through, and others still are (and mine are), and their confusion (or unified, but unjustified, belief of lies about their mothers, which is undermining to a healthy values system for growing adolescents) — are in good part traceable to some of the grants and initiatives I have been detailing on this blog. They are contributors to the social problems, while purporting to solve them.
Until this connection is made by enough people, the burden will just get larger and larger, while the public proclamation would be, funds are shrinking and shrinking. WShen the proclamations are coming from THE largest arm of the Exec Dept (and elsewhere), at some point in time, we have to say, WHAT are you doing with that MONEY? At an individual level (like I am starting to) and then call your Congressperson in charge whatever grant affects your area.
The catch: Mostly the people who can do this are on the outskirts
In essence, it’s socialism. There have to be safe options for not marrying, and these are to be as valid as the others. When it comes to my case, it was only being forced to live a serious “half-life” half-in and half-out (or, 95% in)multiple GOVERNMENT_RUN- institutions — that economically and artificially suppressed prosperity for us. I was forced to fight, instead of work, after having done my best to reconcile the irreconciliable differences with an abuser. This has done nothing but escalate, since I met the guy, basically — with only a few brief pauses.
I talk with a LOT of people on a daily basis, and it’s rarely a day I don’t hear of another similar situation.
Preaching marriage around the place doesn’t help matters, as far as I am concerned — the entitlement in such cases is through the roof. I did practically everything I am reading about in these abstracts — didn’t have children out of wedlock, stayed committed, worked alongside, supported, you name it. Hung in there as long as possible. My commitment to this ideal of marriage, for one, didn’t match the father of my children’s. He was committed to its privileges, but not its emotional sacrifices in that, he was to engage with a separate human being AS a separate human being, not a household (or biological) function.
ABOUT MARRIAGE
When it works well, it works well. When it doesn’t, then I wish that the national atmosphere (federally-pronounced) would cool it on the propaganda — the air is highly charged around here, and domestic violence ignites quickly when marriage (or other fatherhood, proprietary success-mandated) entitlements become the national ideal.
I dare anyone to get up there and OPENLY substitute one skin color, one ethnic group for the word “father” and another for the word “mother” in the same languages, and then got about to make this happen.
Or, religion.
it would be seen for what it truly is — ridiculous, and bigoted. Somehow, and for somereason, the concept of “fatherhood” unites a LOT wider spectrum of people, more closely, and incites more trouble. For example, I’d say a good proportion of the domestic violence I lived through and my kids witnessed, traumatizing and sometimes terrorizing all of us, and then engendering response compensatory behaviors (including super-performance mentality in the girls, when small), plus it wreaks havoc on the biochemistry (I came out obese, which was handled, but remains a struggle when dealing closely with the situation long-term). The obesity was a clear self-defense measure, and has been studied nationally (www.acestudy.org). When I lost weight, significantly, and felt TERRIFIC (post-marriage) we were still seeing each other regularly (on exchange of the children for visitation) and somehow this brought out more aggression, stalking, and competitive behaviors from a person who’d already filed for divorce! I was sitting at my work, and considering not only my own safety, but that of a person apparently perceived (not even real) “rival.”
I’ve had to struggle morally with whether it was FAIR for me to enter into relationships — almost any kind — with the knowledge of how volatile the situation is.
Put that together with work, and figure it out.
These groups are talking about the high cost of “fatherlessness” to a growing society. I’m not sure this equates with motherlessness. But here’s a question you don’t hear too often — what about Rachel lamenting her children (that’s a Bible reference).
What about the effect on society of taking competent, mature, sometimes skilled and dedicated FEMALE workers and contributors to society — and keeping them traumatized a decade at a time, and in use of multiple social services they wouldn’t otherwise need. What about their risk of old age poverty and homelessness from simply a few decades out of the work force, in order to handle:
1. Abuse, first, (including verty often as part of the control system, economic abuse), then.
2. Recovery, brief respite indeed — AFTER which, a long drawn-out custody trial for all too many, resulting in MORE lost work and opportunities.
What does THAT do for society? First, stealing from its contributions, and then, burdening the safety net.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it
HANDLE the domestic violence issues, and you will handle a multitude of other issues. STOP forcing women who left abuse through classes (I wasn’t, but I know it’s a cash stream in the family law) when they weren’t violent. STOP trying to put back together what already broke up unless you are willing to sign up front: I take PERSONAL responsibility, up to and including incarceration along with those classes, if those attending my class addressing battering behavior go out and kill their ex, or anyone else, afterwards.
WELL, if taking the class allows a slick performer to pass with flying colors, and fly out the door, get sentence, or get OUT, and then go get EVEN, it’s setting the climate for homicide. And I’m not the first person to point this out, either.
I bet there’d be fewer takers on these grants, and a slightly different economy.
The government is not a good teacher, it’s an abusive rulers, and it would do better to follow the examples of good teachers that are already OUT there, find out what principles they use, and follow them.
This is of course practically impossible with such a federally huge educational system — which is one reason many people, who can, opt out of it. Now the government wants another crack at educating people who didn’t make the grade the first time through.
No, I do not have a firm technical business plan answer. But I know one that’s NOT it when I see it, and “healthy marriage education” falls under that category. Either we have a national religion or we don’t. The country needs to make up its mind. The educational system claims that we don’t (I’m not sure I agree), HHS department is demonstrating we do, structurally speaking.
In my life, and as a fully-functioning intelligent working adult, I have experienced the worst of both worlds when it comes to treatment of females — blind to abuse, and upset at personal (peaceful) choice. From atheists “educated” and from religious “undereducated” both.
This post was drafted a few days ago, I have more research coming. The BOLD LINKS above give more detailed descriptions.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
July 19, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Posted in "Til Death Do Us Part" (literally), Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, History of Family Court
Tagged with custody, Education, family annihilation, Intimate partner violence, mediation, parental kidnapping, social commentary, Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints, Studying Humans, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.., women's rights