Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 13:57:10 +0000 ()
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
"Father Headed Households"
21986 Cayuga, Lake Forest, Calif. 92630
Phone 714/951-5206
Internet Fathers@soho.ios.com
_____________________________________________________________________________
GOAL
Re-establish the Father as the Head of the Household and Eliminate
Government Intervention in Private Family Affairs.
"FATHER HEADED HOUSEHOLDS"
Welfare, AFDC, the "Man Out of The House Rule", "child support", affirmative
action, rules to track Fathers like game, and to deny them drivers and
professional licenses which enable them to earn a living in the first place
(for reasons unrelated to the original purpose of the license), undermine
the role of the Father and the Family. President Clinton says: " We will
find you. We will make you pay." A recent poll by USA Today reveals that
35% of Americans consider the federal government to be an immediate
personal threat and that 55% consider it to be a personal threat. The
role of the federal government in social destabilization has removed the
centuries-old presumption of Father custody even though it remains an
effective social policy in other economically competitive nations.
To end this destruction of the Two-Parent Family, the federal government
hereby reestablishes the legal authority of each male citizen as "Head of
the Household" which precludes removal his children, his home, his savings,
and his ability to earn a living through legal means by any government
entity. Father authority presumes the responsibility for Fathers to
provide directly for their children and to relieve government from this
function.
BENEFITS
I) Increase contact with both parents
II) Re-establish marriage as a "permanent" commitment
III) Reduce child and spousal abuse
IV) Reduce the incarceration rate
V) Reduce crime
VI) Reduce the illegitimacy rate
VII) Eliminate child custody court battles
VIII) Eliminate child support laws & payments
IX) Increase family savings
X) Increase family Incomes
XI) Reduce the divorce rate
XII) Reduce legal costs and lawyers
XIII) Eliminate AFDC
XIV) Eliminate public welfare
XV) Reduce drug and alcohol abuse
XVI) Increase the quality of education
MANDATE
"Father Headed Households" are established because Fathers play an
important role in family development which has been neglected in recent
decades:
A) Fathers provide 3/4ths to 4/5ths of Family income and men pay 80-90% of
the tax revenues which fund public welfare. Per the California "Senate
Task Force on Family Equity":
"the husband's earnings provided on average, about 80% of the household
income. In those married households in which wives had earnings, their
earnings contributed about one-fourth of the total income in the lower
income group, about one-fifth in the higher income group, and somewhere
between these two in the middle income group".
B) Fathers and Men have important math, planning, decision making,
strategizing, savings, and earning skills which enable families to grow
and prosper.
INSTRUCTIONS
To all law enforcement agencies and officers: Provide all legal means to
assist Fathers in gaining physical custody of their children and allow no
interference in this custody by any non-Father.
To all judicial personnel: No court shall interfere with the basic
Constitutional right of male citizens to Fatherhood.
I) INCREASE CONTACT WITH BOTH PARENTS
The primary objective is to increase physical contact with both parents by:
1) Increasing the number of children who benefit from two-parent families by 1.9 million more children/year.
2) Capitalizing on the natural desire of Fathers to involve their children in their mothers' lives.
Divorced and illegitimate mothers rely heavily upon child custody to
receive income and other concessions from Fathers and they use children
to gain this bargaining position. Because few Fathers need this income
and because most prefer continuous contact by their children with their
mothers "Father Headed Households" will increase two-parent contact with
those marriages which still fail.
Joint custody laws are misunderstood to be in the best interests of
children but the judicial system has failed in this responsibility and
awards custody of 90% of the children of divorce to mothers, and only 6%
to fathers (and only in very unusual cases) even though joint custody laws
have been on the books in California for 2 decades. This removal of
physical custody from Fathers coupled with the courts' inability to
enforce "visitation" rulings reduces Father contact and impairs Father
status. Trevor Western's response to a statement about joint custody
provides insight:
[From: Trevor Western (trevor_western@bannet.ptltd.com)
Subject: Re: Father Custody - No Exceptions From: fathers Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 13:57:10 +0000 ()
How the Web Was Won
Subject: Re: Father Custody - No Exceptions
From: fathers
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 13:57:10 +0000 ()
"Child support usually is not the cause for the lengthy litigation, in my
opinion. Custody on the other hand is. Presume joint physical and legal
custody, and that will solve the majority of the litigation problems."
Massachusetts has a "rebuttable presumption" of joint physical and legal
custody. The judges generally hate this since it places the father and
mother on an equal footing and creates nasty drawn out litigation (in
their opinion). Massachusetts judges have more success in avoiding trials
if they completely cripple one party and then hope that party doesn't have
the financial resources to have a lengthy battle against overwhelming odds.
(And who has 30K-50K my lawyer estimated would be needed to fight this).
The generally accepted method of working around the "rebuttable
presumption" is to provide the de facto rebuttal at the time of
separation. The judges always award temporary to the mother and then
they "themselves" will often offer the rebuttal in court - claiming that
the existing custody arrangement (that they imposed at the time of the
separation) is a sufficient rebuttal against consideration of joint
custody. Cute, huh?
When I raised my objections to this obvious circumvention of the law by
the judge, the judge told me in the pre-trail hearing that "none of the
justices in this court will consider joint custody - it never works - it
never will" and that I'd better not "try to gain joint custody in her
court". (What amazed me was that this was being tape-recorded - by the
judge herself -apparently she didn't see anything wrong with her own
statements). The first step is to get the laws changed. The second step
is to remove the judges who don't follow the spirit and intent of the law.
-- Trevor]
The mistake is his belief that judges' behavior can be changed. Two to
three decades of legislating joint custody laws, a 90% mother custody rate,
and doubling the divorce rate is proof that it can't. Fathers are better
parents than bureaucrats and removing Judges from family matters is a key
benefit of "Father Headed Households". This does not eliminate mother
custody - it only places authority with Fathers to voluntarily provide
incentives to mothers to take physical custody at convenient times which:
1) Increases the percent of Fathers' incomes available to children.
2) Increases the number of Fathers who financially support children.
3) Reduces legal and court costs, reduces time spent in court, and increases
incomes and savings.
4) increases child discipline.
5) Where mothers do not want physical custody Fathers can hire "nannies" who
cost less per month than child support guidelines now call for.
II) RE-ESTABLISH MARRIAGE AS A PERMANENT COMMITMENT
When families are separated gone is the house, the income, the savings, the
children, the reputation, the credit worthiness, the motivation, the
business, US competitiveness, many corporations and private businesses,
and even entire industries. Fathers who made all of this possible in the
first place are called "deadbeat dads". Is this the proper legacy to
leave to children and grandchildren? Is this version of the "American
dream" acceptable? Countries which presume Father custody have low divorce
rates, low mother-headed household rates, low crime rates, increasing
incomes, low drug use, low alcohol abuse rates, low spousal abuse rates,
low incarceration rates, low public debts, and high savings rates.
Countries with high mother custody rates have the opposite with the US,
Russia, Sweden, and Finland being a few examples. The correlation between
low morality, weak economies, mother-headed households, and the absence of
a "permanent" marriage commitment is high. But in countries where each
intended spouse knows prior to marriage that divorce is not a profitable
or socially acceptable option marriage is a "permanent" commitment.
Achieving such a commitment is the second objective of "Father Headed
Households".
The media misrepresents countries like Japan which presume father custody.
Women in Japan do not consider themselves to be slaves but are happy about
a role in society they perform well. This is not true for US women.
Where the media image of Japan is economic chaos is a nation with $8
Trillion in personal savings. Where the worst year Japan has had
economically since WWII is a 2.2% after-inflation growth rate, we have not
had an after-inflation growth rate like this in the last 20 years. It
would be an improvement to have just one year with an after-inflation
growth rate equal to Japan's worst year. The role of Japan's Father-headed
households in turning the tables on world economic leadership is not
disputed, making Japan an excellent role model for how to solve our social
problems:
US Japan
Per capita personal savings $800 $66,500
Per capita public debt 15,700 0
Per capita income 22,000 34,000
Divorces as % of marriages 51% 5%
Incarceration rate highest 1/10th of ours
Crime rate highest 1/15th of ours
Satisfaction level of women low high
Respect for women by men lOW high
Respect for men by women lowest highest
III) REDUCE CHILD AND SPOUSAL ABUSE
The causal relationship between the decline in the number of Father-Headed
Households and the increase in social pathology is well documented:
A) WOMEN ARE RESPONSIBLE, TOO Judith Sherven, Ph.D. and James
Sniechowski, Ph.D.
"Forty-one percent spousal murders are committed by wives."
" The 1985 National Family Violence Survey, funded by the National
Institute of Mental Health and supported by many other surveys, revealed
that women and men were physically abusing one another in roughly equal
numbers. Wives reported they were more often the aggressors. Using
weapons to make up for physical disadvantage, they were not just fighting
back."
"While 1.8 women annually suffered one or more assaults from a husband
or boyfriend, 2 million men are assaulted by a wife or girlfriend,
according to the 1986 study. The study also found that 54% of all
violence termed "severe" was by women."
"The Journal for the National Association of Social Workers found in
1986 that among teen-agers who date, girls were violent more frequently
than boys."
"Mothers abuse their children at a rate approaching twice that of Fathers
according to state child protective service agencies surveyed by the
Children's Rights Coalition."
"Because men have been taught to "take it like a man" and are ridiculed
when they reveal they have been battered by a woman, women are nine times
more likely to report their abusers to authorities."
"The women's movement claims it's goal to be equal rights for women. If
that is so, then women must share responsibility for their behavior and
their contribution to domestic violence. Otherwise we remain in a
distortion that overshadows the truth. Only the truth will show us the
way out of the epidemic of violence that is destroying our Families and
our nation."
"In defending their point of view they are often disingenuous. They will
rely on a domestic-violence researcher, like Murray Straus, who, in a
widely-used 1986 study, reported that "a man's assault on a woman is far
more likely to cause serious injury."
"However, they do not reveal that it was Straus who also found, in that
same study, that "women are about as violent within the Family as men,"
and furthermore that "violence by wives has not been an object of public
concern. It has not been defined as a problem."
"Rather than face the dilemma squarely, feminists classify references to
battered males as backlash, relegating the issue to the status of an
aggravating diversion and describe the men as "whiners." With that, the
real injury done to men becomes irrelevant."
B) The US Office of Technology Assessment commissioned Howard Dubowitz
through a health program to evaluate child abuse. Dated May 1987 and
entitled "Child Maltreatment in the US" it states:
Child abuse and neglect in the 8 years from 1976 to 1984 increased 158%.
[This paralleled the increase in mother-headed households and the
corresponding decrease in Father-headed households indicating problems
stemming from Father-absence.] The study concluded that 2.3% of sexual
abuse of girls was by biological Fathers versus 17% by step-Fathers.
[This suggests that girls in the custody of their divorced mothers who
remarried were 7.4 times more likely to be sexually abused as those who
remain in Father-headed households.] It reported that 37% of child
maltreatment occurred in mother-headed households versus 23% in all US
Families. It reported that 44,700 children were sexually abused in 1979
which was 0.07% of all children below the age of 18 years.
"Father Headed Households" reduces the divorce rate by 90% from 1.2 million
divorces per year to 120,000 per year resulting in 21.6 million fewer
children of divorce in the next decade. Since 90% of custody awards are
currently to mothers, 19.9 million children who would have been in
mother-headed households will instead remain in 2-parent Families.
The remaining 120,000 divorces per year over 10 years which persist
represent 2.16 million children who will be in Father-headed households
rather than in the custody of mothers and step-Fathers. A total of
23.76 million children will benefit from Father-headed households which
by itself reduces sexual abuse of girls by 1,222 girls (23,760,000 child
x 50% female x .07% abuse rate x(17% - 2.3%)= 1,222 girls). Placing
23.76 million children in the custody of Fathers who otherwise would have
been in mother-headed or step-Father headed households also reduces the
other 80.7% of sexual abuse of girls. Assuming that Father-presence
deters 50% of sexual abusers, then 6,711 fewer girls would be sexually
abused (23,760,000 child x 50% female x .07% abuse rate x 80.7% = 6,711
girls).
"Father Headed Households" reduces sexual abuse of girls by an estimated
47.7% or 7,933 girls, but many of the comments about "Father Headed
Households" intimate abuse would increase. Clearly the statistical
evidence supports that Fathers care for their children and decrease abuse,
but this is contrary to media images. 12 Fathers questioned about
"Father Custody - no exceptions" stated that they were concerned about
abusive Fathers even though they had no personal knowledge of an
"unqualified" Father. One stated he knew of a Father who might not be a
good parent because of a drug problem. However, this stemmed from the
difficulty of dealing with problems surrounding his divorce and the legal
and emotional battle for custody of his two children. "Father Headed
Households" further reduces drug and alcohol abuse by decreasing the
stress of child custody battles and extended litigation.
Media perceptions are very different from reality. For whatever reason,
the media is intent on denigrating Fathers in spite of the overwhelming
statistical and anecdotal evidence of the benefits of "Father Headed
Households". Educating Fathers themselves about their own valuable roles
is important to overcoming the media blitz against Fathers.
IV) REDUCE THE INCARCERATION RATE
The relationship of the rise in the number of mother-headed households to
the fourfold increase in the incarceration rate in the US in the last 3
decades is addressed in THE GARBAGE GENERATION by Dr. Daniel Amneus and
its 75 pages of footnotes. If this fourfold increase is due entirely to
the reduced number of "Father Headed Households", increasing Father
custody potentially decreases the incarceration rate 75%. With the legal
and criminal justice system costing $360 Billion per year this is a
savings of $270 Billion per year.
V) REDUCE CRIME
The relationship of rise in the number of mother-headed households to the
doubling of the crime rate in the US is addressed in THE GARBAGE
GENERATION by Dr. Daniel Amneus and its 75 pages of footnotes. Father
custody potentially decreases crime 50%.
VI) REDUCE THE ILLEGITIMACY RATE
In "The Scourge of Illegitimacy" Charles Murray said: "Now, a generation
later, a woman's power of choice is near absolute. Not only may women
leave men out of the decision to abort, they may also leave men out of the
decision to become parents. Last year, 1.2 million single women had
children; only a third of them named the Fathers on birth certificates".
"Father Headed Households" encourages both potential mothers and potential
Fathers of illegitimate children to be more careful. Potential mothers do
not want a 9 month pregnancy if custody is to the potential Father,
particularly without financial support. And potential Fathers would be
more careful if sole financial AND physical responsibility rested with
him. A 90% drop is an estimate but 100% of women questioned about changing
their sexual behavior were uniform in the belief that their sexual behavior
would change. Consider an intelligent woman who stated there is no
relationship between legalized abortion and the illegitimacy rate even
though the statistics show that both events increased in parallel. She
maintained that legalized abortions reduced the number of illegitimate
births.
How many teenage girls risked pregnancy because of the abortion " safety
valve" ? And how many changed their minds when offered compassion and an
income higher than if they entered the workforce? This is not a factor?
Pregnant at age 16 and an abortion she "was not responsible for this
pregnancy because she had sex with her boyfriend while she was asleep and
did not know about it" until she woke up. It was "all his fault", a
"fetus" which was "smaller than the size of her little finger" was
aborted, and she "did not have any guilt about it today". Would you have
slept with your boyfriend and risked pregnancy if the code at the time
would have prevented abortions, and if custody automatically went to the
Father" :
"Absolutely not! I would never risk that".
Voila! If she was honest in both statements her reasoning is flawed. She
vigorously asserts this would have altered her behavior while asserting
that it would not have altered that of her peers. Admitting that she
"would never risk that" without the abortion and/or custody option, while
denying that her peers would have had the same reaction does not make
"Father Headed Households" a harsh policy. For responsible teenagers a
pregnancy would have been prevented. For irresponsible teenagers at least
one abortion out of 1.2 million annually would have been prevented. For
those who view abortion as murder would have been one less murder. For
those with tremendous guilt from abortions would be clear consciences. Of
the 1.2 million abortions that occur each year because of this lack of
control would be a reduction of perhaps 90%? Of the fewer children now
born out of wedlock would be custody by the parent who has the income to
support them. Shifting child custody to men would reduce their high-risk
sex. The need for welfare is reduced because men do not need welfare as
often as women. Welfare is easier to cut because of less sympathy for a
single Father with a child than for a single mother with a child. Mothers
denied abortion rights whose children go to Fathers and who receive no
financial gain then have more respect for marriage, increasing marriage and
two-parent Families. The mothers who do not get married could then
continue their educations and become more productive employees. And one
less man is blamed for the irresponsible acts of a woman.
VII) ELIMINATE CHILD CUSTODY COURT BATTLES
Why must the courts review a Father FIRST to determine if he is an
acceptable parent to his own child? By what standard should a Father be
assumed to be guilty of being a bad parent to his own children? Why can
a judge can make a better decision for somebody else's child than a Father
can for his own? Just because a Father is divorced does not make him an
unfit Father. Even the worst Father has the odds in his favor that he is
a better parent than the courts. Should the courts also examine the
parental qualifications of each intact Family? If so, should bathrooms
be checked for cleanliness, or kitchens for nutritional standards?
Consider what existing court-ordered families have achieved:
Since the 1960s:
1) the divorce rate more than doubled
2) the murder rate doubled while the solution rate for murders declined
from 90% to 60%
3) the value of the dollar declined almost to a quarter of its previous
value by the Consumer Price Index and by 10 times by the gold standard
(from $38/oz to $380/oz)
4) more has been spent on welfare than the entire asset value of every
Fortune 500 corporation and every acre of farm land combined
5) the percent of the world's autos supplied by the US declined from
60% to 20%
6) the prison population increased four fold to a rate 4 times that of
China who we accuse of human rights abuses
7) the average weight of an American has increased 25 pounds.
Since the 1970s:
1) GDP per worker declined 70% by the gold standard
2) the savings rate is less than 2% versus 25% in Japan
3) the public debt is up 8 fold AND the US is the largest debtor nation
in world history
4) abortions more than doubled
5) cocaine use rose 45% in spite of the world's strictest "drug war" and a
10 fold increase in criminal justice system expenditures which now exceed
the budget for national defense
6) the trade deficit increased from being in the black to $123 Billion per
year in the red
7) government spending as a percent of the average American's income
exceeds 40% and is rising, compared to 27% in Japan and 32% in the US
3 decades ago
8) drunk driving arrests are up 5 fold while the motor vehicle fatality
rate increased from 30% lower than Germany's to 45% higher in the same
period
9) health services costs are up 8 fold and the paperwork required to
meet government regulations costs 3% of GDP
10) SAT scores declined 75 points
11) the percent of children living with married parents declined from
39% to 26%
12) the amount of time PER DAY that children watch TV increased from
5 hours to 7 hours
13) the number of the world's Top 40 Banks which were US declined from
22 to only one (with assets of $120 Billion while 24 were Japanese with
assets of $5,000 Billion)
14) we have 50 times more lawyers than Japan while Japan has 4 times as
many engineers
15) the ratio of manufacturing employees to government employees declined
from 2.5:1 to less than 1:1
16) total US "Personal Savings" are $212 Billion while Japan has
$8,000 Billion just in their "Postal Savings Account"
Removing government from private Family affairs is the primary goal.
Considerable research and inputs from experts, Fathers, court employees,
and mothers indicates this will improve children's lives. The failed
practice of power-sharing between mothers and Fathers must be rethought
and this is the only possible alternative. What other way is there to get
the courts out of private family affairs and enable American families to
enjoy the Constitutional rights they are guaranteed?
If "Father Headed Households" is a radical concept then it is time for a
radical solution. Divorce is an epidemic and a failure by government
which "Father Headed Households" ends. Placing this authority in the
courts is bad social policy. Placing it in "Father Headed Households"
is good social policy.
VIII) ELIMINATE CHILD SUPPORT LAWS & PAYMENTS
"Father Headed Households" eliminates the need for child support payments
altogether. Few mothers are required to pay child support, the amount
they pay are token payments, and mothers are twice as likely not to pay
than Fathers, so it is more futile to collect child support from them than
from Fathers. And most Fathers do not need child support from mothers.
For each dollar of child support collected by a DA's (District Attorney's)
office the federal government provides a subsidy of 50 cents. The amount
of penalties and interest imposed by the DA's office on child support due
can be as high as 70% of the amount due, and averages about 50% of the
amount due . Each DA handles about 1,000 cases and collects on about 50%
of those cases. The DA's salaries and office expenses average about
$300,000 each per year and are paid out of county funds. Collections
average about $4,000 per year per case handled:
$4,000 per case x 500 cases = $2,000,000
less 50% fees and interest to DA's office = 1,000,000
total amount paid to children (or ex-wives) 1,000,000
50% federal contribution = 1,000,000
cost to county for DA, staff, and office 300,000
fees and interest to DA's office 1,000,000
total collection costs per DA $2,300,000
For each $1.00 in child support "paid to children" taxpayers pay $2.30,
exclusive of divorce lawyers' fees. Why collect the dollar? If the
federal government sent $1,000,000 directly to the 500 mothers represented
by each DA, and quit collecting any "child support", fathers would have
$2 million more left over for their children, the county would save
$300,000 in DA costs, and a government with no bounds could put its
resources into productive programs. Such efforts have already proven that
taxpayers pay 2 1/2 times as much than they provide children, they alienate
fathers from their "families", they destroy the ability of fathers to earn
a living, and they are guaranteed to get worse if they are expanded. How
much better off are children whose fathers' incomes are hit with:
1) immense legal fees
2) higher taxes to fund the increased collection costs of their own child
support payments
3) punitive child support amounts
4) punitive interest and fees on back child support
5) the reduced ability to earn due to lost credit, lost business licenses,
and lost drivers licenses
Electing the leaders who espouse these programs is not a requirement to
pretend that this is in anyone's best interests. Bureaucrats whose empires
grow at the expense of hard-working taxpayers know this, and they do know
it must end. So do we.
IX) INCREASE FAMILY SAVINGS
The US has the lowest savings rate of any industrialized nation. USA Today,
May 8, 1995 states that it has declined from 11% 3 decades ago to less
than 4% today, and the "Council for Economic Competitiveness" estimates it
to be less than 2%. Part of the reason is that 65% of the wealth of the
nation is in the hands of women who did not earn it. The doubling of the
divorce rate, the high cost of divorce, the separation of assets from
those who earned them, and the placement of those assets in the hands of
divorced mothers reduced the incentives for families to save. "Father
Headed Households" capitalizes on men's math, savings, earning, investing,
and strategizing skills to ensure family savings and incomes are saved and
invested wisely. And $90 Billion to $200 Billion per year which now pays
legal and court costs remains in Family savings.
X) INCREASE FAMILY INCOMES
Men rely on statistics to shape their opinions, but women rely on anecdotes,
and they constitute the majority of the voters, so laws are based on media
hype rather than facts. This results in excessive litigation as women file
lawsuits whose resolution depends on court decisions. Courts have limited
objectivity in analyzing social and economic problems, limited incentives
for right decisions, and almost no penalties for making wrong decisions,
and this reduces productivity. Court decisions which prolong litigation
benefit the legal establishment as legal fees increase, but this is at
the taxpayers expense.
Men constitute 56% of the workforce, and they earn an average of 42% more
than women, so men as a group earn 64% of income. Why then do men have
only 35% of the wealth if they earn 64% of it? Men's shorter life
expectancy, even if women inherited 100% of the wealth left behind by
deceased Fathers and spouses, and even if this total wealth were divided
up evenly across a man's average 73 year life span, increases wealth in
the hands of women by only 14.5%, meaning that other factors transfer
wealth from those who earn it to those who spend it. This is discriminatory
to men and is a factor in declining family incomes. " Father Headed
Households" will derive the best performance from the best performers
as fiscal discrimination against men decreases and as assets are placed in
the hands of those who earned them.
Though media portrays women as targets of discrimination statistics indicate
men are the targets. Where is the hard statistical evidence of
discrimination against women? Is discrimination against women based only
on anecdotes and media hype?
1) Women hold 65% of the country's wealth.
2) Women receive custody of 90% of the children of divorce and illegitimacy.
3) Men are convicted of crimes for which women are not equally charged, and
receive longer prison sentences for equal crimes.
4) Men earn 42% more than women even though they are 50% to 4x more
productive.
5) Men's suicide rate is five (5) times higher than women's.
6) Men's life expectancy is seven (7) years shorter than women's.
7) Men are discriminated against by Affirmative action by design.
8) Men pay 80-90% of taxes but receive less than 5-10% of welfare benefits.
Affirmative action was created specifically for the purpose of
discriminating against white males. Planned for elimination, and
Governor Wilson states he will eliminate it by executive order if the
California initiative to end it fails, the nation may be on the road to
recovery from this unfair distribution of assets which discriminates
against men, depresses motivation, and reduces family incomes. " Father
Headed Households" re-establishes important incentives to earn and save by
giving Fathers control over their incomes, their homes, their children,
their savings, and their future earning potential.
XI) REDUCE THE DIVORCE RATE
"Redefining Fatherhood", Ted C. Fishman, March 1995, Playboy Magazine said:
"Whereas 90 percent of the children of divorce automatically end up in the
custody of the mother, of the remaining 10 percent, six out of 10 (6 percent
of the total) wind up in the custody of their Fathers.... I speak for a
lot of men when I tell the story of how, when I sat down with my divorce
attorney for the first meeting, he told me, "Unless you have $200,000 in
disposable income, don't even think about going after custody of your kids.
And even then, chances are you won't get it." Experts estimate that
"Father Headed Households" reduces the divorce rate 90%. The presumption
of father custody in existence at the turn of the century maintained the
divorce rate at one-tenth of today's. Japan now presumes father custody
and its divorce rate is one-tenth of ours. Sweden, Finland, and Russia
with laws similar to ours have high divorce rates, though possibly not as
high. Decreasing from 1.2 million to 120,000 divorces/year provides
two-parent Families to as many as 1.9 million more children/year, and
their right to this security and protection must be honored.
XII) REDUCE LEGAL COSTS AND LAWYERS
Removing authority for children from courts which have proven to be unfit
for the task and placing it with their Fathers eliminates the need for
family courts and for divorce and custody lawyers. The social pathology
of the last 3 decades suggests this will make conditions for children much
better. It could not get worse.
XIII) ELIMINATE AFDC & XIV) ELIMINATE PUBLIC WELFARE
Welfare programs cost US taxpayers $240 Billion per year per Bill
Harrington, Commissioner, US Commission on Child and Family Welfare. More
has been spent on welfare than the entire asset value of every Fortune 500
corporation and every acre of farm land combined. The "Man Out of The
House Rule" (MOTHR) of 1953 is a little known, rarely discussed, and never
debated "rule" from the US Health and Human Services. Though the goal to
cut welfare payments to Families with 2-parents was noble, the effect was
to seed the increase in single-parent [read: mother-headed] Families. It
also enhanced the welfare state which contributed greatly [if not solely]
to the $4.7 Trillion public debt. HR4 proposes Fathers be tracked by the
federal government through computers and other elaborate technology to
extract each last dollar from them under the guise of "child support",
which has little to do with children's welfare and everything to do with
government spending. Are the " best interests of children" served by
denying the driver's and professional licenses which enable Fathers to
earn a living in the first place, while allowing fishing and hunting
licenses. The subtle motivation for men to quit their jobs and take fishing
vacations is a twist of the political knife.
These rules have been established with no fanfare or public debate, and in
many cases without Congressional hearings or oversight by responsible
authorities. The most casual analysis of their anti-Family nature would
have raised cries of protest. Paying benefits only to mother-headed
households, and for the most part not to Father-headed households, and
never to two-parent households, when it is well-documented that
mother-headed Families created are the roots of our social pathology,
should be viewed as a criminal offense if not a moral outrage. The
effects of welfare, AFDC, MOTHR, affirmative action, and "child support"
on increased crime, delinquency, drug use, alcohol abuse, and
incarceration rates links government directly to the destruction of Family
structure and Fathers.
As much as 90% of the taxes which support this social pathology are paid
by men while women receive up to 90% of the benefits. This is a direct
subsidy of mother-headed households by many of the same men who were
thrown out of their homes in the first place. The same agencies sponsoring
this anti-family campaign require many of these same men to reimburse the
agency for payments made to mother-headed households using the tax money
they originally paid. As many as 15% of the men interviewed have had such
experiences:
1) Without the knowledge of the Father the mother applied for welfare
and AFDC.
2) To receive these benefits the mother committed fraud.
3) With these benefits the mother had the financial resources to throw the
Father out of his own home, and the government supported her in this effort.
4) The Father learned about the fraud when the welfare agency contacted him.
5) The reason the welfare agency contacted him was to get him to reimburse
these expenses.
6) The Father advised the welfare agency that these payments were made
under fraudulent claims.
7) The welfare agency refused to investigate the charges or to file a
complaint as required by law and became a party to the fraud.
8) The welfare agency stepped up its collection efforts from the Father.
Such an agency cannot be resolved and "Father Headed Households" allows it
to die a quick and worthy death.
XV) REDUCE DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE
Ditto IV) & V) for drug and alcohol abuse. As much as 70% of the prison
and jail population is estimated to be drug users and not drug dealers or
violent criminals. Increased Father-presence reverses this trend and
possibly even brings it back to the level of 1960.
XVI) INCREASE EDUCATION QUALITY
There are no objective assessments of "parenting skills" but SAT scores, ACT
scores, and chess rankings are objective measurements of the ability to
reason, strategize, learn, perform math, complete financial plans, teach,
and earn, and these clearly are vital parental skills. " Father Headed
Households" apply these skills to increase the quality of both parenting and
education. It is such skills which help Fathers earn 80% of the income in
families where the mother works, and they improve purchasing, saving, and
investment decisions regarding that income.
It is not popular to say that men's average SAT scores are 17.5% higher
than women's, or that their average ACT scores are 16.5% higher than
women's, or that their average chess rankings by the USCF are 40% higher
than women's, but they are FACTS! Social conditioning or lack of interest
by women is not the reason. These feminist claims got a sympathetic ear
from skeptics in the 1960s, but 3 decades of failing to "socialize" women
"effectively" has produced a 13.3% decrease in ACT scores and a widening
of the "Gender Gap" in math from 12.2% to 13.7%, making it 12.3% wider
today than it was 3 decades ago. This is exactly the opposite of
increasing their math ability. Both males' and females' ACT scores
dropping during a period when math skills should have increased, as they
did in other parts of the world without such " equality" experiments, is
powerful evidence of the destructiveness of the theory. There is no
reason to believe that continued experimentation with this "equality"
theory will produce different results or staying the course will improve
anyone's status. Men and women are different and it is important to
accept and promote this difference.
Unfortunately it is considered "sexist" and not "honest" to make such
observations. But entering a state of denial about how these statistics
measure both the "Gender Gap" and declining educational quality will not
solve the problem though. This 13.8% decrease in ACT math scores and the
75 point drop in overall SAT scores suggests that intellectual skills may
have declined so much that females as well as many males may not even
recognize an experiment which has failed.
Personal beliefs shaped by TV, media, and personal experiences are too
subjective and not as reliable as personal beliefs based on objective
studies, even when those results are contrary to public opinion. The
media fails to note these indicators of social decline because they
indicate that the decline of the father-headed household had disastrous
social and educational effects, which contradicts the feminist " equality"
theory. " Father Headed Households" are more effective than mother-headed
households. They involve Fathers in children's educations and bring the
proper focus to the importance of math and other intellectual skills to
the Family where mother headed households don't. They increase the quality
of teachers which can raise SAT scores to the 1960s level. Increasing the
quality of education makes the US more economically competitive. Men
understand intuitively how important this is but a large percentage of
women have clearly stated that they do not. How can this be explained?
Do the above statistics completely explain the differences in intellectual
skills between the genders? And is this difference in intellectual skills
the reason for the difference in priorities? And results?
A) BRAIN SEX by David Jessel, Delta Publisher, 1992, page 89 describes a
Johns Hopkins study of the math gap between the genders of girls and boys
in the ages 11-13. This gap increases with age, and the ratio in the
number of boys to girls at different skill levels in a test with a high
score of 800 points was:
Points Ratio
Boys:girls
420+ 1.5:1
500 2:1
600 4:1
700 13:1
B) 46,920 math students in Eastern universities were evaluated in Howard
Wainer's Fall 1992 Harvard Educational Review article, which reveals the
distribution of this 17.5% "Gender Gap". A select group of women who took
math was compared to a less select group of men who took math. The study
demonstrated SAT scores predict college grades and suggests it closely
measures each gender's math competence. It shows the 17.5% " Gender Gap"
is bigger than the 12.9% gap between men who got As in calculus and those
who flunked, and the 12.1% gap between men who got As in Advanced Math and
those who flunked.
While feminists claim that women can compete equally with men simply
because they score higher than 500 in SAT Math, the study shows the mean
score of each letter grade separated by gender to be:
Number of Number of Percent Percent
SAT range Men Women (Men) (Women)
A (592 & up) 5,693 0 22.0% 0%
B (575-591) 7,357 0 28.4% 0%
C (549-574) 6,931 5,144 26.8% 24.5%
D (532-548) 2,881 6,383 11.1% 30.4%
F (524-531) 3,030 0 11.7% 0%
(493-523) 0 5,394 0% 25.7%
(476-492) 0 2,235 0% 10.6%
(475 & Below) 0 1,872 0% 8.9%
1) A detailed breakdown of each course shows that 68% of the male's groups
scored higher than the highest women's group.
2) 64.5% of the women's groups scored lower than "D" men's group.
3) 45.2% of the women's groups scored lower than all of the men's groups.
4) 0% of the women's groups scored in the men's "A" group's.
5) 0% of the women's groups scored in the men's "B" group's.
6) 24.5% of the women's groups scored in the men's "C" group's.
7) 30.4% of the women's groups scored in the men's "D" group's.
8) 45.2% of the women scored lower than the men's "F" group's.
C) The 75 point drop in overall SAT scores in the last 3 decades results
partly from:
1) the increase in the number of mother-headed households
2) the increase in the number of female school teachers by 300,000
3) the decrease in the number of male school teachers by 90,000
4) focusing on "minority" rights at the expense of rewarding excellence
5) the reverse psychological effects of affirmative action
The national median SAT math scores in 1993 were 502 for men and 457 for
women. Since the "base score" is 200, the difference between men and women
is (502 minus 457) divided by (457 minus 200) or 17.5% which is the
"Gender Gap".
D) ACT math scores
1967 1989 Change
Male 21.1 18.3 -13.3%
Female 18.8 16.1 -14.4%
% Difference 12.2% 13.7% -1.5%
Recent changes in the ACT test make it impossible to compare the math skills
of today's students with those prior to 1989. Changing this test does not
address the basic problem, it hides it, and it reveals the depths of our
self-denial regarding the failure of feminism.
E) US Chess Federation Chess Ratings
RATING NUMBER NUMBER PERCENT PERCENT
MEN WOMEN MEN WOMEN
2900-2999 0 0 0 0
2800-2899 0 0 0 0
2700-2799 0 0 0 0
2600-2699 37 0 0.1% 0
2500-2599 63 0 0.2% 0
2400-2499 129 0 0.3% 0
2300-2399 262 2 0.8% 0.07%
2200-2299 603 1 1.8% 0.04%
2100-2199 1,132 0 3.4% 0
2000-2099 1,573 0 4.7% 0
1900-1999 2,085 0 6.2% 0
1800-1899 2,406 0 7.1% 0
1700-1799 2,728 0 8.1% 0
1600-1699 2,990 0 8.9% 0
1500-1599 3,152 0 9.4% 0
1400-1499 3,407 0 10.1% 0
1300-1399 3,379 44 10.0% 1.6%
1200-1299 3,252 88 9.7% 3.2%
1100-1199 2,485 438 7.4% 16.0%
1000-1099 1,926 711 5.7% 26.0%
900-999 1,136 509 3.4% 18.6%
800-899 658 440 2.0% 16.1%
700-799 256 265 0.8% 9.7%
600-699 185 44 0.5% 1.6%
400-599 0 1 0% 0%
If this data is correct the median chess rating for men is 40% higher than
for women. Why is the "Gender Gap" in chess so much larger than math as
measured by SAT and ACT scores?
SAT Math Scores 17.5%
ACT Math Scores 13.7%
USCF Chess Rating 40%
Have SAT and ACT tests been so politicized that they don' t reflect the
true "Gender Gap" in math? Is it really 40% instead of 13.7%?
From fathers@soho.ios.com Wed Jun 21 17:50:51 1995
Received: from soho.ios.com (soho.ios.com [198.4.75.47]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA16279 ; for ; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 17:50:48 -0400
Received: (from fathers@localhost) by soho.ios.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id RAA02531; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 17:42:59 -0400