In preparing for the upcoming changes to my blog (more on that later) I found this article on Pajamas Media about how Obama/Biden is bad for dads. I found it an interesting read. I will say that his premise is an interesting one, for sure. Obama’s castigation of African-American fathers, blaming them alone for the problems among African-American families does seem a bit, well, harsh. I don’t know that I’d go as far as the author and say that is goes hand-in-hand with the feminist movement. It might, I’d just need to see more proof/information to make that kind of call. The author also goes on to say that Biden’s VAWA bill, although a worthy cause at the start, furthers the “war on fathers and families.” I see the authors point and, if everything he says about the bill is true, I agree with him. Again, I haven’t looked up the bill, but he does link to a website designed to point out the flaws in VAWA and similar domestic violence legislature. I encourage you to read the article.
Sphere: Related ContentFollow Me on Twitter
Help me reach my goal!
-
Blogroll
My Links
Subscribe
Misc
Meta
8 Responses to “An interesting take on Obama/Biden”
I agree that there is a larger problem in the black community as a whole. Society has made it all too easy for people to be “sperm donors,” if you will. I do, however see the correlation between Obama’s speech and the authors suggestion that Obama only goes as far as to say those father’s should pay child support, but doesn’t suggest they actually marry and become the family he talks about.
I think we should be careful about any news source, not just PJM. I never said I agreed or disagreed with the author. I just found it an interesting take. Obviously someone’s opinion. There is nothing wrong with someone interpreting Obama’s speech differently than someone else, as this author has clearly done.
Trisha,
Maybe we’re reading different speeches because I’m reading Obama’s words and goes beyond the child support issue (which is relegated to only one paragraph). And if you’re a father and not married already, it’s kind of a foregone conclusion. Besides, Obama is largely talking about the role of being a father mostly in the context of marriage but in general as well. Here’s a sampling which goes beyond the child support issue:
Paragraph 4. Family is the most important and fathers play a critical role.
P9. What makes a man is the courage to raise a child and not just being a “sperm donor” as you put it.
P10. Mothers need the support of a father. Children need both parents.
P14. Fathers need to be more engaged with their children’s lives, they need to be involved.
I can go on but clearly Obama goes beyond the child support issue and talks about a host of other things that fathers need to do.
No, I wasn’t accusing Obama of saying father’s are sperm donors. I’m saying that our society today has made it far too easy for men in the black community to be this way. I agree with Obama in that they need to step up and be involved. We would have far fewer problems in this world if more fathers did that, fathers of any color.
Again, I never said I agreed or disagreed with the author. I just offered it as food for thought, and you have made very good points.
In response to your post, I must say that the article you chose to cite as an interesting read/point is neither.
First, the author of your “pajama media” article writes with a skewed view of society, the legal system, and frankly reality, itself. Just the fact that you linked the author’s article in your above post lends credence to your own misguided opinions.
You unfortunately tip-toed the line of agreeing or disagreeing with your linked author in regards to Senator Obama’s stance on parental responsibility (thus, masking your true intentions), but I vehemently agree with Rich that Senator Obama was calling upon all fathers to take responsibility for the product of their “labors.”
On top of that point, your cited author makes the statement that child support is set at an economically crippling level to which no single father could ever afford to pay (blah blah blah feminist agenda blah blah). What your cited author neglected to mention was the great thing about the family court system in America is the right of either parent to appeal to the court and seek and amendment of the current child support order. The problem comes when the parent paying the child support decides to take it upon themselves to not pay without informing the courts of a change in their economic status. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Last time I checked the courts rarely close and there are lawyers on every street corner willing to explain what happens if a parent paying child support loses their job or can not work due to injury or ailment (even pro bono [free]).
Second, the VAWA is an act to prevent violence against women. What part of this law is a bad thing? Any law, system, or vending machine can be corrupted but trust me (I make my living doing this) when a woman marches into the court house and swears under penalty of purgery that her husband is a danger to her or her children, the court has every right (ex parte, or not) to protect that woman and child. For the simple reason that it would cost less to protect them now then to repeatedly send police cars out to the house for domestic disturbances until he finally blows her head off and then kills the children. Homicides are very expensive to the State.
Now, if it turns out that the woman was lying (under oath) it will come out during the subsequent hearing soon after the ex parte restraining order was signed. Guess what? If she is found to have lied, she goes to jail. If she can not show enough evidence of abuse or assault, he gets to move back in. Thus taking the feminazi conspiracy, break up the family, all men must be castrated wind out of your cited author’s blustery sails.
Finally, the moral of this comment. Most people who are afraid of the system just do not know enough about it to effectively use it. That is why I have a job.
I hope, in your future writings, you do not lend any news-worthy credibility to the rants and ravings of the irrational line of “authors” you find on “pajama media.”
First, I do not completely agree with the author. I do think he took one line or paragraph and based his article on it. I am not the author, however, so I can’t really speculate on how he may have perceived Obama’s speech. However, while Obama did call on fathers to take responsibility, I would rather hear (and see, quite frankly) what steps he will take to ensure that will happen. How about we educate our young people, specifically our young black people, on the consequences of going out and having a baby. How about we start to tell them that having a baby is not going to solve their problems or make their lives better. I would agree that having involved parents who both love their children will help to fill the void that I think many of these girls (and boys, for that matter) try to fill with a baby.
As far as VAWA, the problem with it is that no actual proof of harm or “fear” has to be shown in order to get a restraining order. Therefore, a mother who may be mad at her child’s father can simply say she is afraid in order to keep him from seeing his child while she still collects the child support. Certainly the system is flawed and I’m not suggesting that one waits until actual harm is done before getting a restraining order. I’m suggesting that there must be a better way.
Furthermore, I find it funny that authors are only considered “news-worthy” and “credible” when they fit on with ones line of thinking. Otherwise they are considered “irrational.”
I see a problem here in the thinking of Rich and Jimmy, and perhaps of the Pajamas media author too.
I don’t think the congressmen who voted for the Violence Against Women Act were thinking to themselves, “Gee, this is a great way to ensure that fathers who try to be more than sperm donors get to suffer when their ex’s get mad at them.” We should be able to grant that their intentions are good. I think the article cited in Pajamas Media errs in assuming improper motives on the part of the supporters of the VAWA.
However, laws have unintended consequences, and it is completely possible to mean well, but do badly. So for example, raising taxes on the rich by taxing yachts could have the unintended effect of putting working-class shipyard workers out of jobs, while the rich just find another form of entertainment.
Jimmy’s point about women having to make statements under penalty of perjury is meaningless. [It would be a bit more convincing if he managed to spell perjury right.] If the woman can say that she is “afraid” of her ex, without any further evidence, and this statement is useful in court to further her aims, then there is practically no way to prove perjury against her. How the heck do you prove she was lying under oath when she was talking about her emotions?
Ultimately the problem is that when government tries to deal with the impact of broken relationships, it has all the precision of a sledgehammer.
There is absolutely no way to set a fair child support payment when mom and dad are separated and estranged.
When mom and dad are together, the children benefit from ALL of their money and time. When they are living separately, the children receive only a part of each parent’s attention and resources.
We can argue fiercely over whether a parent should pay 5% or 20% of his income in child support, or whether he gets the kids 10% 0r 20% of the time, but in either case both the parent and the child are getting shortchanged.
Something to say?
The attack on Obama and his father’s day speech is unfounded and a gross distortion. If you read the speech he gave it was much more inspirational than a castigation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/15/obamas-fathers-day-speech_n_107220.html
and the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj1hCDjwG6M
Here’s an excerpt where he discusses how he will react to his own father not being present in his life: “So I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle – that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my girls; that if I could give them anything, I would give them that rock – that foundation – on which to build their lives. And that would be the greatest gift I could offer.”
Obama isn’t attacking fathers, he’s asking that they step up and fill the roles they are called to.
Obama speaks from personal experience. He also speaks about a problem that is larger problem in the black community than it is in any other demographic.
We need to stop and think before we let careless statements like those from Pajamas Media persuade us so easily.
Left by Rich on August 27th, 2008