Balancing Acts

I have been fortunate enough to have been a stay at home dad for the past 12 years. I didn’t spend every single day with my kids due to a short period where I chose to live the 9-5 lifestyle to support my family. Corporate jobs were a detour that took me off of my path. I made that choice without thinking of the long-term ramifications. Fortunately it ended before I got too deep and was sucked into the vortex of work life imbalance.

I discovered during my divorce from my ex -wife that my kids were one of my top priorities. After our final court session, I dedicated my time to rearing children and watching as many minutes of their development as I could. It is a decision that I do not regret. Ever since that point in my life, I have been able to see the month to month transition of both of my kids. It is such a rewarding experience.

Being a professional musician allows me to spend the days with them yet work as much as I want to at night. I don’t get much sleep, especially if I don’t get to take a nap during the day. I wake up at around 6:30AM Monday through Friday to get my kids from my ex. This is done after getting to bed generally after midnight since I’m so wide awake and wired from my gigs, but let me tell you, it is worth it.

I’m not sure why so many of us Americans work so many hours for creature comforts but so often neglect the things that I feel are more important in the long run – family. I have read that there is a cultures of some European countries have siestas. I sometimes wonder why we can’t adopt some of their ideas here. I like how everything shuts down at a certain point in the day during siestas. It’s fascinating.

What do you think Americans would do if we HAD to go home during the day from 2-5 during the week? What if we were forced to take off 4-6 weeks during the summer and not work? Would people spend it with their families? Would they disconnect from their phones and connect with their spouses? Would people cook more at home?

I have found a way to maximize my income as well as maximize my time with my kids. So much has been written about work-life balance. Why not call it life-work balance instead?

Feminist Lies about Sexual Assault

The original is from HERE: http://m.nationalreview.com/article/389463/feminist-lies-about-sexual-assault-mona-charen

There’s really only one thing that progressives get wrong: human nature. This leads them into error on economics, where they imagine they can micromanage billions of individual decisions every day; foreign policy, in which they overestimate the appeal of “talks” and underestimate the ferocity and opportunism of aggressors; and sex, in which, well, where to begin?

California proposes to stop campus rape and sexual assault with a law redefining consent. Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation last week specifying that verbal consent must precede all sexual activity. Further, consent cannot be given if someone is incapacitated by drugs or alcohol.

Twenty years ago, Antioch College promulgated similar standards requiring verbal consent to each and every sexual act, starting with “May I kiss you” and moving on. Antioch, which closed its doors a few years later, was universally mocked, but it seems it was ahead of its time.
The Obama administration, which believes that there is no problem so intractable that it cannot be solved with a hashtag or a celebrity spot, has produced a glitzy, star-studded PSA called “It’s on Us” aimed, Newsweek explains, at “eradicating sexual assault on college campuses.” That should do it.

Senator Barbara Boxer has introduced the SOS Campus Act, which would require every institution of higher education that receives federal funding to designate an “independent advocate for campus sexual assault prevention and response,” and fund a panoply of therapies and investigations.

You don’t have to believe the one-in-four figure floated by activists to agree that women are experiencing a marked degree of sexual assault and battery in the liberated hook-up world liberalism has created. But this is progressivism chasing its tail.

For centuries, men have lied to women to lure them into bed. Parents warned their daughters about such men. In recent decades, it’s women who’ve been lying to other women. Feminists peddled the notion that women wanted exactly the same things from sex that men did. They rejected modesty and its cousin chivalry with contempt and welcomed the sexual free for all.

They were wrong about human nature — in this case immutable sex differences — but cannot admit it.

It goes without saying that rapists should be severely punished. Most men are not rapists, but more than a few are sexually aggressive and inclined to interpret almost anything as encouragement. Is there a better possible environment than the modern college campus for serving up vulnerable young women to predatory men?

The binge-drinking culture that facilitates these rapes and assaults is tamely accepted and even encouraged at many colleges. As Pepper Schwartz writes at CNN.com, the American Sociological Association reports that men have a mean of six drinks before a hook-up and women a mean of four. Why aren’t colleges reminding young women to keep their wits about them when dealing with hormone-charged young men?

Women who lie to other women conceal the facts. For example: The National Institute of Justice reports that among the risk factors for sexual assault on campus is “having numerous sexual partners,” getting “drunk or high” on a regular basis, and attending fraternity parties.

Pointing out these realities is rejected as “slut shaming” or “victim blaming” by feminists.

For all their bold talk about empowerment, feminists seem always to demand that they not be forced to deal with reality. They preach to young women that they’re just like men sexually, and when they find, to their horror, that lots of women are getting raped, they respond that women shouldn’t be cautious about who they get drunk with, men should “be taught not to rape.”

Imagine you’re an administrator at a college near a really bad neighborhood. Do you warn the students about the nature of the neighborhood and urge them to travel in groups, stay away from certain streets after dark, and keep their cellphones with them in case of danger? Or do you tell them that the neighborhood is fine, just like the suburb in which they grew up? And when students get robbed, raped, or murdered in those neighborhoods, do you insist that the message was fine; we just have to teach people not to commit crimes?

Feminists have been lying to women for decades, thereby contributing to the “rape culture” they now decry.

— Mona Charen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. © 2014Creators Syndicate, Inc.

The Prove It To Me Society

manwithoutaface-998x561

Life is, in a very real way, an act of faith—but not an irrational faith driven by feelings.

An excerpt from this article: http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/30/the-prove-it-to-me-society/

In the 1993 movie “The Man Without a Face,” Justin McLeod, a disfigured ex-teacher who had been tutoring a troubled boy throughout the summer for a military entrance exam, has been accused of physically abusing a former student. Chuck Norstadt, the boy preparing to go to the military academy, confronts McLeod, wanting to know if the accusation is true.

McLeod doesn’t answer him. Instead he tells him to “Think, Norstadt, reason! Have I ever abused you? Did I ever lay a hand on you of anything but friendship? Could I? Could you imagine me ever doing so?”

Norstadt replies, “Just tell me you didn’t do it, I’ll believe you.”

McLeod refuses: “No, no sir! I didn’t spend all summer so you could cheat on this question.”

Reason, logic, looking at the deeper truths, putting all the information you’ve gathered and experienced together and forming a reasonable conclusion: that’s what McLeod had been teaching Norstadt. To think. The young boy assumed he was being tutored just to learn information he could regurgitate on a test, but that wasn’t McLeod’s goal. He knew Norstadt needed more, not just to pass the test, but to succeed in life. He needed to think with a reasoned and informed mind.

Data Can’t Think For You

Insightful and intuitive, McLeod knew life isn’t about living by so-called proofs or simply trusting authorities—the “experts.” Our journey in this world isn’t one solely of scientific inquiry with technocrats dictating the rules. “Just the facts, Ma’am,” isn’t sufficient. Life is, in a very real way, an act of faith—but not an irrational faith driven by feelings. It is, or should be, a reasoned faith based on a moral and rational foundation deeply rooted in human nature.

People want some expert with a ‘scientific’ study to tell them what to believe.

McLeod wasn’t going to let Norstadt cheat on the test of life, because it was only through using his own mind, factoring in all that he had personally observed, reading between the lines, if you will, that he would know the truth. Norstadt wanted to take the easy route. He didn’t want to think. McLeod wasn’t going to let him get away with that, even when his own reputation was on the line.

Our modern society is made up of too many Chuck Norstadts. People don’t want to think. They want some expert with a “scientific” study to tell them what to believe. If only they find the right person with the acceptable expertise, they will believe what they’re told; they’ll know the truth. They want the “facts,” and they have little patience with gathering all the information available to them—including their own common sense—and reasoning it through to form a sound conclusion. They just want to plug something into the search engine, sift through the results until they find something, anything, that backs up their presuppositions, and then they spit it back out as “proof.” They even proudly call this a healthy skepticism.

Read the rest HERE: http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/30/the-prove-it-to-me-society/

‘As it Was and Ever Shall Be,’ NOW Opposes Equal Rights for Fathers

IMG_6553.JPG
An excerpt from this: https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/20980-as-it-was-and-ever-shall-be-now-opposes-equal-rights-for-fathers

Sigh. The more things change, the more they remain the same. A reader sent me the below. It’s a resolution from the National Organization for Women’s national conference back in 1996. I may as well reprint it in its entirety.

NOW ACTION ALERT ON “FATHERS’ RIGHTS”

WHEREAS organizations advocating “fathers’ rights,” whose members consist of non-custodial parents, their attorneys and their allies, are a growing force in our country; and

WHEREAS the objectives of these groups are to increase restrictions and limits on custodial parents’ rights and to decrease child support obligations of non-custodial parents by using the abuse of power in order to control in the same fashion as do batterers; and

WHEREAS these groups are fulfilling their objectives by forming political alliances with conservative Republican legislators and others and by working for the adoption of legislation such as presumption of joint custody, penalties for “false reporting” of domestic and child abuse and mediation instead of court hearings; and

WHEREAS the success of these groups will be harmful to all women but especially harmful to battered and abused women and children; and

WHEREAS the efforts of well-financed “fathers’ rights” groups are expanding from a few states into many more, sharing research and tactics state by state; and WHEREAS many judges and attorneys are still biased against women and fathers are awarded custody 70% of the time when they seek it per the Association of Child Enforcement Support (ACES);

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the National Organization for Women (NOW) begin a national alert to inform members about these “fathers’ rights” groups and their objectives through articles in the National Now Times (NNT); and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as a part of this alert, NOW establish a clearinghouse for related information by sharing with NOW state and local Chapters the available means to challenge such groups, including the current research on custody and support, sample legislation, expert witnesses, and work done by NOW and other groups in states where “fathers’ rights” groups have been active; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NOW encourage state and local Chapters to conduct and coordinate divorce/custody court watch projects to facilitate removal of biased judges; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that NOW report to the 1997 National Conference on the status and result of this national alert whereupon its continuation or expansion will be considered. The next time someone tells you that feminists are all about gender equality, remember this resolution. Its frank misandry, utter disregard for the truth and tone of hysteria would be funny if organizations like NOW didn’t wield such power in state legislatures. Put simply, to date no feminist organization anywhere in the world has ever supported a bill to establish a presumption of equal parenting. And in many cases they’ve gone to bat against those bills. Gender equality? Not for dads.

And, speaking of dads, NOW has not a single good word to say about them. If we searched the world over, could we find a decent, loving father? Not according to NOW. No, groups like the National Parents Organization are most closely akin to men who batter their wives/partners. I’ll have to let our Executive Director, Rita Fuerst Adams, know that.

And notice too that, according to paragraph two, efforts by the many organizations worldwide that seek equality in parental rights are “using an abuse of power” to do so. Care to guess what that means? I hope you can, because I have no clue. Power? Yes, we lobby state legislatures, sometimes successfully, in an attempt to right the countless wrongs done to fathers and children by existing laws. Doing so happens to be our Constitutional right, but to NOW, it’s just brutal men battering helpless women. I wonder what it is when NOW lobbies on behalf of bills it supports. Who are they battering?

Then of course there’s the conceit in paragraph three regarding false allegations of domestic abuse. The term ‘false allegations’ is put in quotation marks, the better to communicate the message that there are none. Strange, studies of those allegations find that up to 85% are found to be meritless by courts and family lawyers candidly admit that they’re routinely used to gain an advantage in custody matters.

But NOW’s having none of it. For them, facts only get in the way of a good narrative about the innocence of mothers and the corruption and brutality of fathers. Of course if fathers were able themselves to gain the upper hand by claiming abuse by their wives, wouldn’t NOW bemoan that? Surely it would, so its opposition to penalties for false reporting of abuse strongly indicates it supports abuse by women.

Read the rest HERE

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: WITHHOLDING SEX, DISCOUNTING FEELINGS ARE ‘SEXUAL VIOLENCE’

An excerpt from this article: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/19448/

Examples of abuse listed on the University of Michigan’s domestic violence awareness website say “sexual violence” includes “withholding sex and affection” and “discounting the partner’s feelings regarding sex” – definitions that have come under fire by some men’s rights activists.

The terms, found under the heading “definitions,” also suggest verbal or psychological abuse include: “insulting the partner; ignoring the partner’s feelings; withholding approval as a form of punishment; yelling at the partner; labeling the partner with terms like crazy [and] stupid.”

Janet Bloomfield, social media director for “A Voice For Men,” an activist group that counters feminist extremism and misandry, took aim at these University of Michigan examples, first on her Twitter account over the summer and more recently in an email to The College Fix.tweet

“These kinds of policies contribute to an increasing level of sexual misconduct hysteria and essentially create a chilling climate for young men,” Bloomfield said. “When things like ‘withholding sex’ and ‘ignoring a partner’s feelings’ are framed as a pattern of behavior that is abusive, they are not only pathologizing normal relationship behaviors, but they are opening the door for vindictive or spurned partners to make allegations that can have profound effects for the accused.”

Currently the higher education world is gripped by the so-called campus rape culture, in which the widely touted yet largely unsubstantiated stat that one in five women will be sexually assaulted or raped while in college is oft repeated during mandated sexual assault seminars at universities nationwide.

On the University of Michigan website, it lists various definitions of abuse as created by a campus coalition called “The University of Abuse Hurts Initiative,” a 2009 undertaking that aimed to stop abuse among students and the campus community.

Its goal is “promoting prevention of and effective response to domestic or intimate partner and sexual violence,” with the tagline: “Abuse Hurts: Recognize. Respond. Refer.”

But interspersed within the typical definitions of abuse – “pushing, shoving, pulling, shaking, slapping, biting, hitting, punching, kicking, strangling, throwing objects at partner, restraining, throwing the partner, use of weapons” – the other examples, such as “discounting the partner’s feelings regarding sex … criticizing the partner sexually … withholding sex and affection,” are found.

Also included in the definition of sexual violence is the example of having “sex with other people.”

Read the rest HERE: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/19448/

The Harry Potter Generation

An excerpt from this article: http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/15/the-harry-potter-generation/

7931850276_322379edb7_b-998x647

Denying that kids do best when both biological parents raise them is not just naïve, it’s cruel and abusive.

It doesn’t matter who raises children as long as they have money and basic parenting skills. That’s the gist of Emily Badger’s article at the Washington Post, “Children with married parents are better off—but marriage isn’t the reason why.”

Badger admits that children raised by “two parents tend to be more successful—at school, in the future labor market, in their own marriages—than children raised by a single mom or dad.” But it’s not because their own parents are raising them, it’s because of economics and parenting skills among the type of people who marry.

Let’s cut to the chase. This is just another attempt to attack the traditional family and undermine the importance of marriage. If all that matters for children “to thrive” (which Badger defines in basically materialistic and economic terms) is decent parenting skills—such as reading to and eating meals with the kids—and a healthy bank account, then most anyone could successfully raise a child. A single dad. Or not a dad. A single mom. Or not. Two men. Two women. How about a nanny? Would that work? Sounds like it.

A glaring omission from Badger’s analysis is the biological, psychological, and spiritual dimension of a child. The researchers she cites—who coldly call marriage a “commitment device”—seem oblivious to what it means to be a complete human being. We don’t come into the world isolated and alone. We are born into a social framework, a family. We are born to two parents—a father and a mother—and this is deeply significant to the well-being of the whole child.

Dads Bring More than Bacon

As the Heritage Foundation has noted, fathers in the home make all the difference as both parents raise their child together. Yes, economics is a part of it: “Being raised in a married family reduces a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 82 percent.” But money is not all that matters:

Some of this difference in poverty is due to the fact that single parents tend to have less education than married couples, but even when married couples are compared to single parents with the same level of education, the married poverty rate will still be more than 75 percent lower. Marriage is a powerful weapon in fighting poverty. In fact, being married has the same effect in reducing poverty that adding five to six years to a parent’s level of education has.

Having a father in the home—not just a cohabiting male—has a positive effect on children that goes far beyond reducing poverty. While many behavioral problems can be associated with the higher poverty rates of single mothers, not all can:

In many cases the improvements in child well-being that are associated with marriage persist even after adjusting for differences in family income. This indicates that the father brings more to his home than just a paycheck.

The effect of married fathers on child outcomes can be quite pronounced. For example, examination of families with the same race and same parental education shows that, when compared to intact married families, children from single-parent homes are

So, contrary to the researchers cited in Badger’s article, who say parenting skills and economics “explain most of the better outcomes for the children of married couples” than marriage, many other researchers come to a different conclusion: that marriage is fundamental to a child’s well-being.

—————-

Those who think marriage is basically irrelevant don’t know human nature, and they deny the deep needs of the human heart. They reject biology for a political scheme, and instead of doing what is best for children—advocating for both parents to raise children in a committed relationship called marriage—they attempt to advance their own twisted views of humanity. They reduce children to material, isolated units instead of seeing them as soulful creatures fashioned from two people and connected to a genetic history that informs them of who they are in this big, diverse world.

To intentionally deny children the opportunity to know both parents—and to be raised by them—is not only naive and foolish, it is cruel. It is a form of neglect—and those who advocate it are advancing the neglect, the abuse, of children. Such people aren’t to be legitimized and they’re certainly not to be admired. They’re to be exposed for what they are: self-centered people who care only about an agenda, not about children. If they were truly compassionate as they claim, they wouldn’t rob children of what they need most in this world—the love and intimate knowledge of their mom and their dad. They would support marriage between a man and woman, which is essential to children knowing themselves and being truly happy.

Read the entire piece HERE: http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/15/the-harry-potter-generation/