F & F’s Holstein on NPR’s Marketplace–Fathers, Child Support & the Recession
August 31, 2009
Fathers & Families Ned Holstein, MD recently discussed the problems faced by child support obligors in the recession on American Public Media's Marketplace. From Economy gives some dads a bad rap (8/21/09):
"When someone loses a job, the bills don't stop coming. Mortgage, car payments, health insurance and for some, child support. But Ned Holstein, president of Fathers and Families, a group that represents dads, says there's a big difference.
Everybody is struggling. But someone who has a child support order is the only person who's going to be put in jail, because they can't pay their debts.
That's why more parents who've lost their jobs are asking the courts to lower their child support payments...But just asking the court to lower your payments, because you lost your job, isn't always enough.
Divorce attorney B.J. Krintzman says the courts are slow moving:
They're not going to get very far if they go in that week and say, "I lost my job, so I can no longer pay." Usually there has to be some kind of period of time that's gone by, so the obligor has to show attempts to get a job.
Some judges are sympathetic and lower payments right away, because they know it's unlikely someone will get a new job quickly. But typically it takes six months for a judge to make a decision. Ned Holstein of Fathers and Families says:
[Y]you can be going broke in a hurry...Then when you get the hearing, typically, the family court judges will not give you relief at the first hearing. They say, "Well, how do we know this is going to be long standing? You might get a job next week. Also, you've got some assets, you can pay it out of your assets. And so, I'll see you again in three more months."
But it's putting fathers who mean well and love their kids in jail, because they can't pay. Krintzman says:
And this is not daddy jail; this is real jail...what ends up happening is dads borrow money from family and friends.
And when they do get out of jail, they'll owe even more, because child support obligations don't stop while someone is behind bars."
To listen to the audio of the piece or to read the full interview, go to Economy gives some dads a bad rap (Marketplace, 8/21/09).
|
Innocence Project: Texas Executed Innocent Father in 2004
August 31, 2009
"I ain't gonna plead to something I didn't do, especially killing my own kids."--Cameron Todd Willingham
Cameron Todd Willingham (pictured) was charged with the murder of his two daughters in a fire and was executed in 2004. Now Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project says this father--who always insisted he was innocent and refused plea bargains--was, in fact, innocent. Scheck writes:
Willingham was convicted of murdering his two young children by arson. He spent 12 years on death row in Texas before he was executed. Forensic science that supposedly proved the fire was intentionally set was central to Willingham's conviction was, in fact, completely invalid -- which the experts who testified should have known in 1992.
A state forensic science commission in Texas is officially looking into the case and selected a widely respected expert to analyze whether the forensic testimony was valid. Last week the expert filed a report confirming what five other leading arson experts have found -- what passed for arson analysis in the Willingham case had no scientific basis, and the scientific facts in Willingham's case were the same as the case of Ernest Willis.
In an entirely separate case, Willis was sent to death row in Texas for an arson murder of family members but, luckily, in his the state recognized the arson analysis was wrong. Willis was fully exonerated just months after Willingham was executed.
The state forensic commission in Texas is still finishing its work on Willingham's case, but David Grann's New Yorker article examines the entire case, including the jailhouse informant who plainly gave false testimony and the circumstantial evidence, flimsy in the first place, that was not what it appeared to be to the jury. After reading Grann's report, fair-minded people will know beyond a reasonable doubt that an innocent person was executed
A new New Yorker story on case explains:
The fire moved quickly through the house, a one-story wood-frame structure in a working-class neighborhood of Corsicana, in northeast Texas. Flames spread along the walls, bursting through doorways, blistering paint and tiles and furniture. Smoke pressed against the ceiling, then banked downward, seeping into each room and through crevices in the windows, staining the morning sky.
Buffie Barbee, who was eleven years old and lived two houses down, was playing in her back yard when she smelled the smoke. She ran inside and told her mother, Diane, and they hurried up the street; that's when they saw the smoldering house and Cameron Todd Willingham standing on the front porch, wearing only a pair of jeans, his chest blackened with soot, his hair and eyelids singed. He was screaming, "My babies are burning up!" His children--Karmon and Kameron, who were one-year-old twin girls, and two-year-old Amber--were trapped inside.
Read more at the Huffington Post here and the New Yorker's investigative piece here. Kudos to Barry Scheck, the Innocence Project, and the New Yorker.
I've long been absolutely against the Death Penalty, for many reasons:
1) Despite the claims of conservative death penalty advocates, it is possible to execute an innocent man, as this case demonstrates.
2) It's barbaric, even for the guilty.
3) It is applied with a racial bias.
4) It is applied with a gender bias. Say what you want, but there's no way in hell a woman in Willingham's situation would have been executed. And yes, anti-father bias was also a factor here.
5) I don't think the decision of life and death over a human being should ever be left to 12 people who weren't even smart enough to figure out how to get out of jury duty.
I would add one more thing--I've always been deeply suspicious of the use of jailhouse informants--time and again in false conviction cases you see them.
|
Architect of Overkill DV Policies Calls for Change
August 31, 2009
"[A] well-respected family law expert who helped draft Ontario's so-called 'duty to report' policy 30 years ago now says it needs a review and better use of discretion."
From the Toronto Star's Domestic abuse law blasted: Authorities 'overreact' as warring couples use zero-tolerance rule to gain upper hand, lawyer says (8/28/09):
Ontario's "zero tolerance" policy on domestic violence has come into question following an unusual court case involving an Orangeville-area woman who was charged with assault after joking in emails that she could solve her marital problems with a gun, if only she could get one.
Alison Shaw, 40, was forced out of her home and ordered to stay away from her three children after her estranged husband claimed to have been "frightened" by the online missive, which followed what a judge described as a "one-punch bar fight" over a month earlier in an area Legion hall.
The ruling is unusual on two fronts:
It's a twist on what men's rights groups claim divorcing fathers have been suffering for years at the hands of police and the criminal court system. And it's creating buzz in legal circles because a well-respected family law expert who helped draft Ontario's so-called "duty to report" policy 30 years ago now says it needs a review and better use of discretion.
"This is a gross overreaction by the Crown and by the police in response to what they thought is the zero-tolerance rule," says Philip Epstein, a veteran divorce lawyer who sat on the committee that crafted the 1979 directive.
"We know so much more about domestic abuse now than we did back then. It's time to re-examine the policy and create some limited discretion for the police and Crown attorneys to deal with this problem," he said...
The way such allegations are handled by police and Crown attorneys can have "the disruptive force of a hand grenade" for families, Pugsley said, setting in motion a chain of events that can wreak "havoc" on children.
Shaw's treatment was fairly typical: She had no criminal record, was charged and held in jail overnight until she could post $5,000 bail, and ordered to stay away from her home and kids "without any regard for children's best interests," the judge said. Her bail conditions also restricted her from using the Internet.
"This is not for one moment to diminish the impact of spousal abuse on family members and children in Canada," said Pugsley, a point Epstein also stresses. But "the events after the arrest of Ms. Shaw do not, in retrospect, show the police, the Crown, counsel or the criminal judicial system in a good light."
Shaw and her husband, Stephen, were estranged, but still living in the same house, when he hacked into her computer in late 2007 looking for evidence of an affair. Instead, he found what Pugsley described as "vile language" and "gossipy joking" in an email to a girlfriend that talked about "solving her matrimonial problems with a gun, if she could only get one."
The husband reported them to police, as well as an incident over a month earlier in a bar in which she is alleged to have punched him. He returned to ask police to lay a charge of assault after meeting with a lawyer.
"I can only hope that no licensed lawyer in this province would have advised the father that the fastest way to get custody and exclusive possession of the family home was to report the mother's transgressions to the police," Pugsley said in his ruling.
While Epstein says false or trumped-up allegations are rare, and domestic abuse remains a "very, very serious and real issue," they can unfairly cripple an accused legally and financially because Ontario's court system is so slow and overburdened.
He added the legal aid system is so cash-strapped, it can take eight months to a year for a criminal case to be decided.
During much of that time, the parent has no access to their children. (Pugsley moved quickly to give Shaw 50/50 access to her kids on alternating weeks.)
Epstein had one case where a wife alleged abuse and then started clearing valuables out of the house while her husband awaited a bail hearing. Some men have started fighting back, says one lawyer whose female client is being threatened with a $250,000 wrongful prosecution suit by her ex-husband.
I'm sure Epstein and the others involved in creating this mess largely meant well--they probably didn't anticipate that women (and sometimes, as this case demonstrates, men) would misuse the machinery they had set up to help battered women as custody maneuvers and tools of revenge.
|
Man and Woman Leave Children in Car; Guess Who’s Charged
August 30, 2009
Here's a story that's particularly interesting for one reason (Free Range Kids, 8/28/09).
A woman has written in to a blog that's about "free-range" kids, which seems to mean that their parents want to raise them with greater freedom than is the norm today. Less compulsive supervision from the parents, more freedom to be themselves apart from structured time for the kids seem to be the goals of the "free-range" movement.
So the woman describes what happened to her, her (male) partner and their kids. They drove to a mall to get a prescription filled. Their son, aged six, was sound asleep, and their nine-year-old daughter was reading a book she wanted to finish. So the woman and the man rolled down the car windows, cautioned the children about what to do if a stranger approached, and went into the mall to get the prescription.
They returned in half an hour to find the police at their car, at which point, guess what happened.
My partner was charged with endangering the welfare of a minor.
That's right, he was charged; she was not. One of the comments asks why that was the case and the woman basically says she doesn't know. The man is the father of the children; the woman is their mother.
Time Gets a Little Right and Much Wrong about Marriage in America
August 30, 2009
You'd think that an article that ends with this sentence,
What we teach about the true meaning of marriage will determine a great deal about our fate,
would do a better job than this one does of teaching its readers about marriage (Time, 7/2/09). Caitlin Flanagan gets a few of the high points right, but ignores others entirely. Maybe there's an unwritten rule that I don't know about that forbids mention of certain things.
What Flanagan gets right are things like the value of marriage and a stable home environment to children's wellbeing. She understands as well that much of our divorce culture stems from a attitude of hedonism that's been learned over the past few decades. Adults often seem incapable of seeing and acting on the most obvious truth - that divorce harms children and that they benefit from having two parents to raise them. Absent the direst circumstances, adults who have made the choice to have children, should stick together and stick with the children until they themselves become adults. After that, divorce is fine.
So Flanagan gets the basics, but her context goes a long way toward undermining her thesis. That context is male infidelity. The article starts off with photos of various high-profile male philanderers - Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, John Edwards and, yes, Jon Gosselin. In the text, she tosses in John Ensign, just to balance the ticket, I suppose.
So what Flanagan is suggesting, without coming out and saying it explicitly, is that the "me first" culture that's destroying marriage is all about the narcisism of men. Never does she mention a high-profile female adulterer. Nowhere does she cite statistics that show that, while married men stray more than do married women, the difference is a matter of a few percentage points. Depending on which study you prefer, something like 23-28% of married men have extramarital affairs while 15-22% of married women do. In Flanagan's piece no women do.
Nor does she mention that most marriages in which one or the other partner commits adultery remain intact. So sexual infidelity, as wrong as it is, as painful as it is, as self-centered as it is, has little to do with the failure of marriage in America.
Flanagan champions marriage for the many good reasons we all know, but, while bemoaning the fragility of that most important of institutions, she never asks why it's become fragile. Doubtless the answers to that question are many and complex, but why not give it a shot? Why not at least try?
Well, maybe it's because doing so would inevitably lead where Flanagan and Time fear to tread.  Maybe it would violate that unwritten rule I mentioned earlier. That marriage is in such ill repute, might conceivably force us to ask how it got that way. After all, 50 years ago, it wasn't. So what happened?
Well, one thing that happened was feminism.Â
I'm aware of course that many feminists are married. Gloria Steinem is; Katha Pollitt is; most of my female feminist friends are. But one of the most consistent themes of feminist discourse over the past 40 years has been that marriage is the seat of male subjugation of women. According to many feminist writers (see, e.g. Catharine MacKinnon) over the years, marriage is at best unnecessary and at worst dangerous to women. And if men are dangerous to women, they're no less so to children, so the story goes.Â
Never mind that essentially every word of those claims is directly contradicted by massive amounts of social science. Never mind that, whatever may be true about women, men, fish and bicycles, children need their fathers. And never mind that children have more to fear from their mothers than from their fathers.
Never mind all that because, for decades, popular culture absorbed and repeated most of those feminist claims producing TV programs, movies, books (fiction and non-fiction), short stories, etc. which hewed to the feminist narrative that men are dangerous to women and children and, in any case, incompetent to - and uninterested in -Â caring for children.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?Â
No, that's not my argument. My argument is simply this: I find it highly coincidental that, after decades of denigrating men, fathers and the institution of marriage, that the institution of marriage is now so shaky. Maybe the one had nothing to do with the other. Maybe if second wave feminism had never happened, marriage would still be on the rocks. About that we'll never know. But what we do know is what did happen. Anyone who chooses to believe that the denigration of marriage by feminists and taken up by popular culture had nothing to do with its current status is welcome to that opinion.
Flanagan, not content to ignore feminism's contibution to the decline of marriage, moves right on to ignore the law's. I've detailed elsewhere the many, many ways in which family law separates children from fathers and thus tends to obviate the reason for marriage. So I won't go into that again. But what I will say is this:  we know the one thing that will do more than anything else to discourage it - shared parenting.
Women file for about 70% of divorces in the United States. They do so because they know to a virtual certainty that they will retain physical custody of their children. That was the finding of a massive study done in 2000 by Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen of over 40,000 divorce cases in four states. They learned that far more than any other factor encouraging divorce was the fact that the woman knew she would not lose contact with her children. What's also true is that divorce rates drop in jurisdictions that adopt some version of shared parenting. Establish shared parenting as the law, and, in addition to all its other benefits, watch the divorce rate drop.
But Caitlin Flanagan reports none of that.Â
Think of what might happen if we devoted even half the resources to telling the truth about fathers and children that we devoted to disinformation about them over the past 40 years. Combine that with making real efforts - like establishing the presumption of shared parenting in all 50 states - to ensure maximal continued contact between fathers and children post-divorce. Do those two things and let's see what the state of marriage is in this country.
Thanks to Jed for the heads-up.
|
Aussie Paper Gives Tepid Support to Shared Parenting
August 30, 2009
This editorial is good, but it could be so much better, so much more (The Australian, 8/29/09). With all the nonsensical opposition to equally shared parenting in Australia, it's time for pro-shared parenting publications to come forward with some important facts to confront the anti-dad crowd.
The piece starts promisingly enough with
IT is hard to believe that in the 21st century we would entertain reducing fathers' rights to help rear their children.
Yes, it is. But the rest of the piece misses its golden opportunity to point out a few inconvenient truths about the arguments against shared parenting. Most obviously, shared parenting opponents rely on mythology about domestic violence. Their short argument against each and every benefit of shared parenting is "Male violence places children in danger."
But of course mothers are far more likely to injure or kill children than men are, so why not say so? In the U.S. a child is twice as likely to be injured or killed by its mother as by its father according to the Administration for Families and Children. I doubt that Australia is much different. The editorial fails to state the obvious - that greater father involvement actuall lessens the danger to children.
However inclined to violence mothers and fathers are, all equally shared parenting laws, including Australia's, include exceptions for violence. In other words, if it is proven to a judge's satisfaction that one parent or the other is a danger to the children, the court can reduce that parent's access to the children accordingly. So the "violence" issue has already been dealt with in the statutory language. But again, the article fails to state the obvious.
If violence is the issue (and it's not), given that mothers are more violent toward children than are fathers, isn't the answer in child custody cases to give fathers greater access? That too seems obvious, but it escaped the editorial board's notice.
And as I've stated before, the anti-father crowd doesn't explain why the old system of fewer fathers' rights and less father-child contact is preferable. They want children to have less contact with fathers, but don't explain how that's a benefit. Again, was the old system such an ideal one?
We know the truth. Father involvement in children's lives confers a benefit on everyone. The current of history flows that way.  Whatever happens to shared parenting laws in Australia, those who stand athwart the river are in danger of being washed away.Â
|
Li Cunxin Named Australia’s Father of the Year
August 29, 2009
Former ballet dancer and current financial wizard, Li Cunxin has been named Father of the Year in Australia. Li grew up in Mao's China in the most dire poverty. Despite his origins, he became one of the world's very finest male dancers after training at the Beijing Academy of Dance. He defected to the United States and pursued a stellar 16-year career with the Houston Ballet.
(I was privileged to view several of Li's performances when he was a principal dancer with the Houston Ballet. For what my opinion is worth on such matters, he was astonishingly good. Think power and grace in a small man and you're thinking of Li on stage.)
Since then, he's moved to Australia with his wife and former Houston Ballet principal dancer Mary McKendry.  Li's written a memoir of his years in The People's Republic of China, entitled Mao's Last Dancer, which received the award as Australia's book of the year. A children's version of the book has also won awards. He and Mary have three children.
Of children and family life Li says,
"My children and family are integral in my life so I can’t emphasise enough how important this award is to me," said Mr Cunxin.
"The role and commitment of fathers in family life often goes unrecognised. I feel so privileged to have received an award that aims to endorse the hard work of fathers and parents in the community and highlights the importance of the family unit."
Read the article here about a man and a father who should inspire awe in us all (Sydney Central, 8/28/09).
Congratulations Li Cunxin!
Children Escape Foster Care to be with Dad, But…
August 29, 2009
I've written before about the frank unwillingness of child protective agencies to contact fathers before placing children in foster care.Â
In 2006, the Urban Institute along with the National Opinion Research Center did a study here of CPS agencies for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It found that in 88% of cases in which a child is removed from the home of a single mother, the identity of the father is known to CPS personnel. But fathers are actually contacted in only about half of those cases, and half of the fathers contacted express a desire to care for their children.
Despite those facts, the preference on the part of CPS workers for foster care over father care is evident. The reason is money. State agencies receive per diem payments for each child placed in foster care. They receive nothing for children placed with fathers.
So this article should come as no surprise (The Pittsburgh Channel, 8/27/09). Recently, motorists in western Pennsylvania were startled to see four boys, aged 9, 7, 5 and 3 hitchhiking toward Pittsburgh, about 40 miles away. Police were called and the boys told them that they had climbed the fence surrounding their foster home to escape the abuse and neglect there. Their intention was to hitch rides to Pittsburgh to be with their father.
When the police picked them up, the boys were dehydrated and hungry. The three-year-old bore marks on his back that appeared to be caused by the use of an object. Police attempted to contact the CPS agency and the boys' foster parents, two sisters named Sharon and Shirley Baker. It took six hours for anyone to respond.
Eventually, the subcontracting agency that had originally placed the children with the Bakers showed up. The boys and their one-year-old sister were removed from the Bakers' home.Â
Guess what happened then. As the article says,
The boys -- as well as their 1-year-old sister, whom they had to leave behind when they decided to hitchhike -- have all been removed from the Bakers' custody and placed in new foster homes.
That's right, the children have a father. They, at least, think well enough of him to head straight for him once they'd gotten away from the Baker sisters. So what's the response of CPS? Foster care. Did they even attempt to contact the father? If they did, the article doesn't mention it.
|
Feminists Attack Katie Roiphe for the Sin of Baby Love
August 29, 2009
Feminists are devouring their own. Again.
This time, and not for the first time, it's Katie Roiphe whom certain feminists are attempting to render hors de combat. And why? Well, it seems Roiphe had a baby recently and wrote a quite touching essay on the joys of motherhood and her deep connection to her child. Worse, she even intimated that, if forced to choose between motherhood and paid work, she'd opt for the former.Â
Her sole mention of feminism came in this paragraph:
One of the minor dishonesties of the feminist movement has been to underestimate the passion of this time, to try for a rational, politically expedient assessment. Historically, feminists have emphasized the difficulty, the drudgery of new motherhood. They have tried to analogize childcare to the work of men; and so for a long time, women have called motherhood a "vocation." The act of caring for a baby is demanding, and arduous, of course, but it is wilder and more narcotic than any kind of work I have ever done.
Feminists have gone ballistic and, to do so, they've had to make up things about what Roiphe wrote. Given that the piece is itself inoffensive, they felt compelled to misrepresent it in order to attack it. For example, as described by Conor Friedersdorf here (The Atlantic Online, 8/24/09), it was Mother Jones Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery
who called the piece "stupid as hell" on Twitter, and followed up by noting, "Nobody upset that KR claims magical bond, chemical or otherwise w/ her baby. Just bullshit claim that feminists can't feel same -- or that childless feminists resent/object to other womens' bonds with their progeny."
But of course the most cursory glance at Roiphe's piece shows that she said no such thing. "Feminists can't feel...magical bond...w/her baby." Huh? I guess I missed where Roiphe said that or indicated it in any way.
Another feminist who blogs anonymously inquired,
Who are all these feminists who hate infants and want to take away Roiphe’s ability to experience “The high of a love that obliterates everything. A need so consuming that it is threatening to everything you are and care about�
Gee, good question, since again, Roiphe made no mention of "feminists who hate infants," or anything that could possibly suggest that.
Now of course the Atlantic Online piece didn't need to go this far to locate examples of feminist intellectual dishonesty. But the question can't be ignored, "Why the vitriol?" Why savage a feminist writer who's done nothing more offensive than hymn her own experiences with her new baby, and criticize in the mildest possible terms feminism's failure to sufficiently account for the magnetic attraction of motherhood for women?
My guess is that there are a number of good answers to that question. But I think they all join at the deep truth of Roiphe's statement quoted above. For when she talks about "The high of a love that obliterates everything. A need so consuming that it is threatening to everything you are and care about," she's talking about a parent's love for a child. She's also talking about that love, that deepest of human connections being more important than anything else in life. And that includes the things feminism has always held dear - work, power, independence and autonomy from men.
Feminists have always characterized the family as the primary source of female subjugation. They've always championed the workplace as the road to independence. So when they hear an intelligent, thoughtful feminist describe baby love as having the power to "obliterate everything" and threaten "everything you are and care about," they think, perhaps rightly, that she means them.Â
|
Canadian Feminists Oppose Shared Parenting
August 28, 2009
While we're on the topic of the presumption of equally shared parenting, it's worth reading the point of view of those opposed. Here's a position paper by the Canadian National Association of Women and the Law, which draws a clear enough picture of what fathers' rights proponents are up against. It's a 15-page paper, but it can be boiled down to two words - litigation and violence. That is, their opposition is based on the concepts that equally-shared parenting (a) increases litigation, and (b) exposes children to family violence.
As to (a), it may well be that equally-shared parenting presumption would mean that parents return to court to hash out the details of the court's decree. The simple fact is that, when laws change, it takes a while for judges, lawyers and litigants to figure out what they mean in individual instances and best ways to implement the new laws. That's to be expected. What also happens is that, over time, appellate courts establish precedents and trial court judges and the attorneys who practice before them iron out the wrinkles. Until sufficient time has passed for that to happen, the objection to a new law that it increases litigation is unripe.
Perhaps predictably, the NAWL paper cites Australia as an example of increased litigation. That country's presumption of shared parenting law is barely three years old.
As with all feminist opposition to equally shared parenting, the NAWL paper raises the specter of violent men endangering children. And, as with all such opposition, it scrupulously avoids mention of the fact that children are more often injured by mothers than by fathers. Â
To read the paper is to risk motion sickness as the author swerves erratically from one concept to another without warning. Violence against women morphs into violence against children. Abuse morphs into violence. Figures are cited to make murder by an intimate partner seem commonplace when in fact it's astonishingly rare. (In the U.S., for example, one woman or girl out of about 140,000 will be killed by an intimate partner each year, and not all of those partners are men.) And voluminous information that unquestionably shows that men and women commit DV equally are passed off with the claim that it
does not reflect the substantive research done in this area and is misleading.
That is how the NAWL writer pretends to deal with some 250 separate studies conducted by many different researchers over 34 years - a single, unsupported assertion. Anti-intellectualism at its finest. Amazing.
If the reader isn't queasy enough, the paper goes into considerable detail about how "equality is the law in Canada." Moreover, the equality she's referring to is specifically gender equality. So a rational person might conclude that, to comply with Canadian law, fathers' and mothers' rights should be equalized. But no; to the writer of the NAWL piece gender equality, in some way my mind seems incapable of grasping, means only "equality" for women. (I know that doesn't even make sense, but that's what she means.)
Into the bargain, she represents custody matters in Canadian courts as unequal, which they undeniably are, but that mothers are the ones getting the short end of the stick. How she figures that, she doesn't explain and I don't understand. She acknowledges that women spend more time in childcare than do men, and that that impairs their earnings. But the whole point of the paper is to oppose a legislative initiative that would encourage and allow fathers to take up more of the childcare burden, thus freeing mothers to work and earn more.Â
Rationally, if feminists really wanted equality and to better women's lives, they'd support the presumption of equally shared parenting. Equalizing childcare will tend to equalize earnings, savings, employment, promotions, etc. Astonishingly, feminists don't want that.
Their arguments are threadbare. Ultimately that will be their demise.
|
-
Free E-Course
Look Familiar?
Let us show you, for free, Ways to Reduce the Pain of IBS.