I Hate Being Called a Good Dad

Oh, the double standards.

Imagine a male boss who praised a woman for writing a good report in a way that makes it clear that he didn’t expect her to do it so well. Since it was a routine part of her job that was always held by a man, he was caught off guard by the ability of the woman who now held the position doing the task.

This is an analogy that I have seen on a number of occasions while raising my son and daughter. As some have called it, it is the “soft bigotry of low expectations.”

The suggestion that I am a good dad, suggests that fathers like me are less than “good” by nature. People who feel this way, remind me of those who say that people in my group of friends are “intelligent and articulate.”

keep-calm-you-re-a-good-dad-4

By MATT VILLANO

NOVEMBER 9, 2012

An excerpt rom here: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/parenting/2012/11/09/i-hate-being-called-a-good-dad/?referer=

It started the way all of our twice-monthly trips to Target do — the 1-year-old in a backpack on my back, the 3-year-old leading the charge, yanking my hand like a sled dog with a view of the open trail.

We charged through the automatic doors, waving at ourselves on the video screen as always. We grabbed a shopping cart. We stopped at the complimentary sanitary wipes. Then I engaged in what my Big Girl calls “the wipedown”: A comprehensive (read: wildly neurotic) disinfecting of any part of the cart she possibly might touch.

About halfway through the ritual — let’s estimate nine wipes in — I noticed a middle-aged woman watching us, smiling.

“You’re a good dad,” she remarked, in a tone that implied she had just seen a Sasquatch.

I replied politely only for the benefit of my daughters; inside, her unsolicited commentary had me seething.

Put differently: I absolutely hate it when strangers call me a “good dad.”

I mean, what characterizes a “good dad,” anyway? A dude who takes the girls to buy diapers and Ziplocs while Mommy is at work? One who sanitizes a shopping cart so his kids don’t pick up E. coli or some other bacteria? An hombre who speaks gently but firmly to his kids without engaging in behavior that could be construed as child abuse? A dude who doesn’t spend his days in the local dive bar, staring into a pint of Guinness?

If this woman had seen me 10 minutes before that moment at the carts, when I gave my toddler a time-out for kicking her baby sister, would she still consider me a good guy? What if she was in our house the day I stopped a temper tantrum by spraying my child with the kitchen sink hose? (Yes, I really did. It stopped the tantrum. Case closed.)

With no context — and no real basis for interpretation — the act of labeling someone a “good dad” suggests that most dads are, by our very nature as fathers, somehow less than “good.” That we don’t care. That we’re mostly cruel.

What’s more, the phrase evinces a heinous double standard: It’s not like strangers compliment women as being “good moms” for doting, loving and doing normal mom stuff.

I know the poor woman at Target probably meant what she said as a compliment. When other people in other settings say the same thing (and believe me, they do), these poor souls probably mean no harm, either. Still, without exception, every time I hear the phrase it comes across as a condescending commentary on fatherhood, and a patronizing pot-shot at me — a work-at-home father who cares for his kids the way any self-respecting parent would.

My outrage on this issue has historical precedent. Remember the days of United States Senator Barack Obama, back before our fearless leader became a two-time POTUS, when people described him as an “eloquent” black man? Pundits hemmed. Columnists hawed. Ultimately the consensus was that the adjective is racist, since it implies that African-Americans who don’t speak as clearly are in some way fundamentally inferior, and therefore worth less.

In my opinion, calling someone a “good dad” is no different.

Read the rest HERE

For Students Accused Of Campus Rape, Legal Victories Win Back Rights 

I feel VERY strongly about this because I know what it is like to be accused of things that are untrue. While my experience was in no way as traumatic as Caleb Warner, John Doe, Paul Nungesser, Brian Banks or the rest of the people caught up in this silly college campus nonsense, I understand the pain they have dealt with.

I know exactly where this came from, how it escalated and I’m so glad more people have the testicular fortitude to stand up to the cult that started it all and fight back through the proper legal system.

It was 100% unconstitutional from the beginning and this Title IX witch hunt that the Obama administration elevated in 2011 must be stopped. Thankfully, we are seeing the beginning of the end of this ridiculous campaign by man haters.

I know that cult will find another thing to attack…and people work fall for their perpetual victimhood. I certainly won’t.

What I do know is that there are hundreds of thousands of people who feel just like I do and we are all going to continue to lobby out local political leaders for changes in the law. We will remind them of the CONSTITUTION and will continue to inform people who are willing to listen about the sickness that is the cult of haters of men and masculinity. They are a truly an evil, wicked bunch of people.

An excerpt from this: http://www.capradio.org/news/npr/story?storyid=446083439

College students can’t miss the warnings these days about the risk of campus sexual assault, but increasingly, some students are also taking note of what they perceive as a different danger.

“Once you are accused, you’re guilty,” says Parker Oaks, one of several Boston University students stopped by NPR between classes. “We’re living in a society where you’re guilty before innocent now.”

Xavier Adsera, another BU student, sounds a similar theme. “We used to not be fair to women on this issue,” he says. “Now we’re on the other extreme, not being fair to guys.”

As colleges crack down on sexual assault, some students complain the schools are going too far and trampling the rights of the accused in the process. In recent months, courts around the nation have offered some of those students significant victories, slamming schools for systems that are stacked against the accused.

“Schools are overcorrecting,” says a student from the University of California, San Diego. “People like me are always getting hurt.”

The student, who was suspended last spring after a fellow student accused him of sexual assault, asked to remain anonymous to protect his reputation. He says he was shocked by the accusation and denies any nonconsensual contact. He and his alleged victim had been hanging out, texting, partying and studying together on friendly terms for months after the alleged assault, he says. And he says he still has text messages to prove it, including her messages asking to come over to his place and share drinks, or “pre-game,” together before a party.

But he says he never had a chance to make his case because the school wouldn’t let him introduce his text messages as evidence, challenge the investigator or effectively cross-examine his accuser.

“I was so angry because that was really my sole opportunity to defend myself,” he says.

So he took his case to court, filing as John Doe, and won what’s being called a landmark ruling against UC-San Diego. The judge said the school’s process was unfairly skewed against Doe and ordered the school to reinstate him. “While the Court respects the university’s determination to address sexual abuse and violence on its campus,” wrote Superior Court Judge Joel M. Pressman, “the hearing against petitioner was unfair.”

“I was ecstatic at that point,” Doe says. “It kind of took some balls for a judge to come out and make the decision that they made because every single point that we raised about unfairness and lack of evidence the judge agreed with.”

“A case like this makes for a really easy lesson to say, ‘This is what not to do,’ ” says New England law school professor Erin Buzuvis, who blogs about sexual assault and also consults to universities on how to handle allegations. The San Diego ruling is one of a recent flurry of decisions slamming schools for systems stacked against accused students.

In the past few months, Middlebury College and the University of Southern California were both ordered to reinstate expelled students. So was the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga after a judge ruled the school was basically upending a fundamental principle of justice by making an accused perpetrator prove he wasn’t guilty.
“I’ve looked at what a university has done and thought ‘Oh gosh, what are you thinking?’ ” Buzuvis says.

Some 50 challenges lodged by accused students are now in the pipeline; that’s up from about a dozen just two years ago. Even one of the more brazen lawsuits, which claims a kind of reverse discrimination in federal court, recently logged a rare (albeit preliminary) legal victory. The case, against Washington and Lee University, argues that overzealous administrators, who are using Title IX to crack down on gender discrimination and sexual assault, are actually violating the federal law at the same time by systematically discriminating against men. Most such cases filed in federal court have failed to get out of the box, but a judge allowed the claim against Washington and Lee to at least survive a first hurdle.

At the same time, the public conversation around campus sexual assault is beginning to put more focus on due process for accused students, and many campuses have been adding new protections for accused students — like the right to an attorney.
Joe Cohn, who’s been advocating for the rights of the accused with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, says he’s heartened that two new bills on campus sexual assault include robust due process protections. (The bills are the Fair Campus Act and the Safe Campus Act.) He says he also sees it as a victory that he — as an advocate for the accused — was invited to testify at a recent congressional hearing. But once there, he says, he was struck by how much more the pendulum has yet to swing.

At the hearing, Democratic Rep. Jared Polis wondered aloud why campuses don’t decide cases using a lower standard of evidence. “I mean, if 10 people are accused and under reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people,” he said. Polis has since walked back his comments, saying he “went too far by implying that I support expelling innocent students from college.” But Cohn says he continues to be dismayed that the comment was made and that it drew applause.

“We are a ways away from reaching the kind of equilibrium that will provide fundamental fairness to everyone involved,” Cohn says.
In some ways, advocates say, accused students are following much the same path that victims did: first suffering silently, thinking they were the only ones, then slowly connecting with others, then with attorneys and eventually becoming a force to be reckoned with.

“The irony isn’t lost on us, says Sherry Warner-Seefeld, founder of a group called . “The parallels are uncanny frankly.”
Warner-Seefeld started the group a year ago after her son was suspended for sexual assault and then won on appeal. Now, Seefeld says, she can barely keep up with calls from guys in the same situation. Many accused students see themselves as victims, she says, and they feel as traumatized as victims of sexual assault.
“If we dare to suggest such a thing there are a number of people that go pretty hysterical about that,” she says. “But we know for a fact that there is huge amounts of depression [among students who have been accused and punished after a hearing they claim was unfair]. There have been suicides. It is really tragic.”

Read the rest HERE: http://www.capradio.org/news/npr/story?storyid=446083439

Student activist Annie Teriba to resign from political campaigning

 

AnnieTeriba3

An excerpt from HERE: http://oxfordstudent.com/2015/10/10/student-activist-annie-teriba-to-resign-from-political-campaigning/

Annie Teriba, prominent student activist, has released a public statement announcing that she will be “stepping back” from political campaigning and resigning from all prominent political positions after admitting to non-consensual sex.

Teriba released the following statement on her Facebook profile, which she has since deleted. The statement has been reposted by the OUSU Women’s Campaign.

The full statement (which included trigger warnings for sexual assault and sexual violence), reads as follows:

“This statement explains why I will be stepping back from political campaigning from now.

(I owe you a proper explanation, so will go into details here which you may find triggering.)

At this year’s NUS Black Students’ Conference, I had sex with someone. The other party later informed me that the sex was not consensual. I failed to properly establish consent before every act. I apologise sincerely and profoundly for my actions. I should have taken sufficient steps to ensure that everything I did was consensual. I should have been more attentive to the person’s body language. In failing to clarify that the person consented to our entire encounter, I have caused serious irreparable harm.

In a separate incident, in my first year of university, I was alerted to my inappropriate behaviour whilst drunk in a club, where I had touched somebody in a sexual manner without their consent. Therefore this is not an isolated incident. I apologise sincerely and profoundly for my actions.

With these incidents I have rightly lost the trust of those who I organise with and fully intend to work to ensure that I both put my politics into practice in my personal relations and to prove to them that I am committed to transformation. As such, it would be wrong of me to accept platforms and access spaces until I have done so.

In order to ensure the safety of others, I will be taking a number of steps:

i) I breached NUS’s safe spaces policy, so will not be attending future NUS events.

ii) I am resigning from all the political positions I hold – from NCAFC’s National Committee and from the NUS’s Black Students’ Committee, and as editor of the No Heterox** zine and as the People of Colour and Racial Equality Officer at Wadham SU, Oxford.

iii) I will be stepping back from prominent campaigning in other forums, including#RhodesMustFall and rs21.

iv) I commit to getting help with how I consume alcohol. It is clear that I lack self-awareness and become sexually entitled when I am drunk. This does not excuse my actions, I am wholly responsible for the damage that I have caused.

v) I commit to educating myself properly about consent by reading zines and other materials which have kindly been made available to me.

vi) I commit to seeking help from perpetrator organisations – for example, I have taken steps to establish contact with RESPECT and will be seeking out organisations who specifically deal with sexual violence.

I am deeply sorry for the hurt I caused.

Yours, Annie Teriba”

I don’t even know where to begin. I really have a hard time people actually think like this. Is this really feminism in 2015?

FYI – my children will NOT be on any college campus that has to deal with “trigger warnings,” “safe spaces,” “rape culture,” or any campus where you need to make sure your partner requires verbal consent for every step of the mating process. I’m sorry, but the real world does not work this way.

This woman is admitting that she raped someone! Well, was it a woman or a man? Why is she admitting to rape…or is it sexual assault? Why is the OUSU’s Women’s Campaign still framing this as a crime against women when a woman perpetrated the crime and what if it were against a man?

Tell me, does radical feminism and their bizarre rhetoric make ANY sense? Why are we still allowing this kind of rubbish to even be up for debate. These people have truly gone off the deep end.

 

I’ll leave the commenting up to one person who spelled everything out for me:

Ad Nausica
12th October 2015, 02:12
With all due respect, men are being held up on school charges, kicked out, and unable to get in other schools or jobs with it on their transcript. If this woman thinks she had non-consensual sex she should have herself charged by the school (and maybe police) and have suffer the same consequences.
Is this the precedence for a self-proclaimed rapist? Simply confess your sins and resign your post and that’s it? Is this option going to be offered to others accused of the same thing? I suspect many would take the offer.
Double standards are sexist. Either take the same punishment that everyone gets, or perhaps realize that this sort of behaviour does not actually warrant that level of response, that it is a minor infraction at worst. You can’t have your rape and beat it too.

 

 

Read the rest HERE

The Child Support Industry: Socialism With A Sexist Twist

Everything you need to know about “child support” is in this essay.

The Child Support Industry: Socialism With A Sexist Twist

September 30, 2002 | Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.

Child Support, an overvalued idea, has its roots in Roosevelt’s New Deal (1933). It was his political answer to the worst financial collapse in American History (Stock Market Crash and the ensuing Great Depression). It was an ideology through which he exploited class divisions between wealth and poverty in order to generate massive expansion of Federal agencies and centralized government power. Within this agency expansion was the Works Progress Administration, which was the master agency for, among others, “welfare grants for local distribution (including aid for dependent children).” This was the beginning of the welfare state.
Three decades later, it was President Lyndon B. Johnson, who, in the sixties massively expanded the child support industry under the auspices of the Great Society programs. The delusory idea that it was within the State’s authority, using your tax money, to support both legitimate and illegitimate children (AFDC) and their mothers (not fathers) was born. In part it was driven by the political fear of the rising civil rights movement.
Tragically, it dealt a deathblow to the nuclear black family in America. Prior to the expansion of this program in the sixties, the nuclear black family was well established, with 67% of black children living with both parents. In a steady downward progression over the next 35 years following the expansion of the welfare State, the status of the two-parent black family was decimated to a mere 33%.
And it was accomplished ideologically with a deliberate lie. The Great Society leviathan, displacing all of its liberal guilt, transferred the blame for the poverty of the black minority on the male head of the house (shiftless, lazy) and declared war on the black family with the “no-man-in-the-house” rule.
Welfare workers conducted midnight intimidation raids on black welfare homes to assure that welfare recipient women and their children were not sharing their homes with fathers or boyfriends. Never mind that the real reason for their poverty was racism and a preference for hiring black women over the bête noireblack male.
This was the State program that gave birth to that strawman, the “deadbeat dad.”

Read the entire piece HERE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/759884/posts

 

Clayton Craddock founded The SoCraddock Method in 2012 as a way to consult with divorcing parents and help them understand their options by being proactive and using a long-term, bigger picture view of co-parenting. He also provides content for a variety of online publications, exploring issues related to fatherhood, relationships, parenting and current events. He can be reached at cl*****@so**************.com or on twitter: @claytoncraddock to schedule a free consultation.