Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: Back to Feminocracy

Expand Messages
  • Tom Smith
    ... Back to Feminocracy ... Orlando Sentinel Sunday October 31, 1999 Imagine a world without men For NOW, it s easy By Kathleen Parker You no longer have to
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 25, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In patriarchy@egroups.com, "DjL" <dhs6022@s...> wrote:

      Back to Feminocracy
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      ----------
      Orlando Sentinel
      Sunday October 31, 1999

      Imagine a world without men
      For NOW, it's easy
      By Kathleen Parker

      You no longer have to read between the lines to divine
      the National Organization for Women's agenda.
      In a way it seems refreshingly simple: No Men.

      That's the only conclusion one can draw upon reviewing
      NOW's objections to proposed federal legislation,
      popularly known as the "Fathers Count" bill (HR 3073).

      The bill isn't exactly a mainstream father's dream.
      Mostly, the bill creates programs to help unemployed
      fathers find jobs so they can produce child
      support for their welfare progeny. In fact,
      men's-rights activists aren't wild about the bill,
      saying that it addresses only the financial
      responsibilities of fathers while ignoring pressing
      (child access) concerns of fathers disenfranchised by
      courts that favor mothers.

      Still on Planet Deadbeat, it's better than nothing.

      But NOW "really" doesn't like the bill because, well,
      it seems helpful to men. The fact that helping men
      might result ultimately in helping women and children
      is irrelevant. Anything that purports to help men
      is suspect. In the case of the Fathers Count bill,
      NOW claims that it's unconstitutional.

      Martha F. Davis, legal director for NOW's Legal Defense
      and Education Fund, recently wrote the rollowing to
      Rep. Nancy L. Johnson, chair of the subcommittee on
      Human Resources:

      "Because they (the bill's authors) tie the federal
      benefits available under the Act to gender (ie
      "fathershood) these provisions violate the equal
      protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment...."

      At NOW's insistence, language has been added to the
      "Fathers Count" bill so that mothers, expectant mothers
      and married mothers are eligible for benefits and
      services on the same basis as fathers, expectant fathers
      and married fathers. Even so, NOW is callenging the
      bill on its gender-constitutionality.

      One could cast NOW's protest in a favorable light. They
      just want to advance equality, right? But one would be
      wrong. When it comes to legislation aimed only at
      helping women, NOW forgets everything it knows about
      the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment
      to the Constitution.

      For example, NOW issued no such protest to the grant
      application kit for victim services under the Violence
      Against Women Act Fund which specifically states:

      "A VAWA-funded project may not use VAWA funds or
      matching funds for projects that focus on children or
      men." Selective constitutionality at its shameless
      best.

      Then, in an astonishing show of its true colors, NOW
      began protesting Vice President Gore's support the
      "Fathers Count" bill pointing out that the bill
      will funnel $150 million to "local and national
      organizations, many of them likely to be fathers'
      rights groups and right-wing (as opposed to left-wing)
      religious organizations."

      In an e-mail alert, NOW urged its members to lobby Gore
      to oppse the bill because, get this, the act would give
      money to organizations that: "promote marriage; enhance
      relationship skills; reach how to control aggressive
      behavior;p promote successsful parejnting; train
      parents in money management; encourage regular
      visitaiton between fathers and children; help
      fathers and their families avoid or leave welfare;
      improve fathers'[ economic status" by providing work
      services and education.

      Well, hell's bells. Who'd want such a thing as that?
      Successful marriage, responsible parenting, financial
      independence? What we clearly need in this country are
      more bad marriages, more bad parenting, more welfare
      families.

      You have to wonder why anyone would find fault with a
      government program that promotes the concept of people
      looking after their own families, tryhing to get along.
      You have to wonder, and then you remember: Follow the
      money.

      NOW's livelihood depends on the perception of women as
      victims.

      Strengthening families and reinstating fatherhood
      threatens that status and organizations that thrive on
      it.

      Tribune Media Services
      Kathleen Parker, an Orlando Sentinel columnist,
      welcomes comments via e-mail at kparker@k...
      --- End forwarded message ---
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.