45 women’s colleges vs. 3 for men?

I feel this exchange says everything about modern feminism.

What happens when a political movement becomes the very thing it fought against? When the movement is part of the establishment, then what?

MARTIN: Speaking of Simmons – and if you’re just joining us, I’m speaking with the president of Simmons College, Helen Drinan. They are kicking off their annual leadership conference today. It’s the 34th annual conference that’s been held at Simmons. Why do you think it is that there are, what, 45 women’s colleges remaining in the United States and only three for men? Why do you think that is?

DRINAN: Because men have as many opportunities as they want and women do not yet. A day may come when educating women for power and their own empowerment, in particular, as well as for leadership, is something that happens in coed environments. Today, that is a very, very big challenge for coed environments.

MARTIN: And yet, though, a lot of the data shows that women are attaining – what is it – for the first time, women have the majority or are getting the majority of advanced degrees and that…

DRINAN: Yes, they are.

MARTIN: …they are the majority of undergraduates, as well, aren’t they?

DRINAN: Yes, they are. Yes, they are.

MARTIN: So what do you think that says?

DRINAN: A lot of us as women have learned how to be extremely successful in school. We know how to do our assignments. We know how to participate in class. We know how to produce high caliber research. When you go into the workforce, that is necessary, but far from sufficient, and if you haven’t developed the leadership skills, the personal confidence, the networking capability and, frankly, the ability to work as a member of a team – all those things that men tend to learn as a byproduct of their simple growing up – women are at a significant advantage when you put them in the competitive environment of a workplace.


listen to the audio HERE

True Dads

[vimeo 29491643 w=500 h=375]“True Dads” featuring Joe Jones & CFUF from Center For Urban Families on Vimeo.

Joseph T. Jones, Jr.

Mr. Joseph T. Jones, Jr. is president and founder of the Center For Urban Families. Prior to founding CFUF, Mr. Jones developed and directed the Men’s Services program for the federally funded Baltimore Healthy Start initiative and replicated the Baltimore affiliate of the nationally recognized STRIVE employment services program.

His ability to engage and provide hands-on services to fathers garnered him the reputation of trailblazer in the field. Mr. Jones is now a national leader in workforce development, fatherhood and family services programming, and through his professional and civic involvement influences policy direction nationwide.

As a lifelong resident of Baltimore City, Mr. Jones firmly believes that families can rise out of poverty if provided the appropriate foundation and information to maintain a cohesive family unit.

Learn more HERE: http://www.cfuf.org/index.php

Debtors Prisons Are Alive And Well

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOWDjI7tvcs]

Unable to pay child support, poor parents jailed – US news – Crime & courts | NBC News

It may not be a crime to be poor, but it can land you behind bars if you also are behind on your child-support payments.

Thousands of so-called “deadbeat” parents are jailed each year in the U.S. after failing to pay court-ordered child support — the vast majority of them for withholding or hiding money out of spite or a feeling that they’ve been unfairly gouged by the courts.

But in what might seem like an un-American plot twist from a Charles Dickens’ novel, advocates for the poor say, some parents are wrongly being locked away without any regard for their ability to pay — sometimes without the benefit of legal representation.

Randy Miller, a 39-year-old Iraqi war vet, found himself in that situation in November, when a judge in Floyd County, Ga., sent him to jail for violating a court order to pay child support.

He said he was stunned when the judge rebuffed his argument that he had made regular payments for more than a decade before losing his job in July 2009 and had recently resumed working.

“I felt that with my payment history and that I had just started working, maybe I would be able to convince the judge to give me another month and a half to start making the payments again,” he told msnbc.com. “… But that didn’t sit too well with him because he went ahead and decided to lock me up.”

Miller, who spent three months in jail before being released, is one of six plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit filed in March that seeks to force the state of Georgia to provide lawyers for poor non-custodial parents facing the loss of their freedom for failing to pay child support.

‘Debtors’ prisons’?
“Languishing in jail for weeks, months, and sometimes over a year, these parents share one trait … besides their poverty: They went to jail without ever talking to an attorney,” according to the lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Southern Center of Human Rights in Atlanta.

While jailing non-paying parents — the vast majority of them men — does lead to payment in many cases, critics say that it unfairly penalizes poor and unemployed parents who have no ability to pay, even though federal law stipulates that they must have “willfully” violated a court order before being incarcerated.

They compare the plight of such parents to the poor people consigned to infamous “debtors’ prisons” before such institutions were outlawed in the early 1800s.

“I try very carefully not to exaggerate, but I do think that’s an apt comparison,” said Sarah Geraghty, the attorney handling the Georgia case for the Southern Center for Human Rights.

“And I think anyone who went down and watched one of these proceedings would agree with me. … You see a room full of indigent parents — most of them African-American — and you have a judge and attorney general, both of whom are white. The hearings often take only 15 seconds. The judge asks, ‘Do you have any money to pay?’ the person pleads and the judge says, ‘OK you’re going to jail,’” she added.

The threat of jailing delinquent parents is intended to coerce them to pay, but in rare cases it can have tragic results.

In June, a New Hampshire father and military veteran, Thomas Ball, died after dousing himself with gasoline and setting himself ablaze in front of the Cheshire County Court House.

In a long, rambling letter to the local Sentinel newspaper, the 58-year-old Ball stated that he did so to focus attention on what he considered unfair domestic violence laws and because he expected to be jailed at an upcoming hearing on his failure to pay up to $3,000 in delinquent child support, even though he had been out of work for two years.

The ability of judges to jail parents without a trial is possible because failure to pay child support is usually handled as a civil matter, meaning that the non-custodial parent — or the “contemnor” in legal terms — is found guilty of contempt of court and ordered to appear at a hearing.

He or she is not entitled to some constitutional protections that criminal defendants receive, including the presumption of innocence. And in five states — Florida, Georgia, Maine, South Carolina and Ohio — one of the omitted protections is the right to an attorney.

Randall Kessler, a family law attorney in Atlanta and chairman of the American Bar Association’s family law division, said states have a great deal of leeway in family law, which includes child support cases.

“The main reason states are patchwork is because family law is a local idea,” he said. “It’s very infrequent that the federal government gets into family law, except for international custody every now and then and violence against women. … Each community’s laws are different in the way they treat child support collection, and the right to a lawyer and the right to a jury trial varies.”

He noted, however, that the ABA last year approved a resolution urging “federal, state, and territorial governments to provide legal counsel as a matter of right at public expense to low-income persons in … adversarial proceedings where basic human needs are at stake, such as those involving shelter, sustenance, safety, health or child custody.”

Supreme Court: No right to a lawyer

The child support program currently serves approximately 17 million U.S. children, or nearly a quarter of the nation’s minors, according to a recent study by Elaine Sorensen, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.

Critics of incarceration without representation had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would end the practice in its ruling in Turner v. Rogers, a case involving a South Carolina man who was repeatedly jailed for up to a year after failing to pay child support.

But the court ruled 5-4 in June that poor parents are not entitled to a court-appointed lawyer when facing jail for non-payment of child support. Instead, the justices said, states should use “substantial procedural safeguards” to ensure that those who have no means to pay are not locked up.

That is likely to force the states that don’t guarantee the right to an attorney to tighten their policies, said Colleen Eubanks, executive director of the National Child Support Enforcement Association, which represents state agencies. “Obviously they’re going to have to look at changing the rules,” she said.

Ken Wolfe, a spokesman for the federal Administration for Children and Families, which imposes some rules on state child support enforcement agencies in exchange for funding, said the agency expects to issue guidance to the states next month regarding the Turner case. He declined to provide any details.
The original is here: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44376665/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/unable-pay-child-support-poor-parents-land-behind-bars/#.UWszDL-bLTR

The truth hurts

Why Liberals Are Wrong on Teen Pregnancy

by Keli Goff- posted on The Root March 12, 2013

There’s a scene in the wildly popular TV show Downton Abbey in which a single mother working as a prostitute to support her son is torn between giving him up for adoption by his wealthy grandparents or raising him herself. A well-heeled, well-meaning social activist encourages her to keep the child, saying that while he might not have the same opportunities with his biological mother that he would with the other family, he would have a decent life with her all the same.

Of course, then the child’s mother makes the kind of observation that makes most limousine liberals uncomfortable, whether on a television show set in England or in real-life American politics. The mother acknowledges that, yes, her son would have a life with her — but not the kind of life the nosy social activist’s son had growing up, filled with a quality education and plentiful professional opportunities. (Spoiler coming if you watch the show.) The mother decides that her son deserves the same quality of life that this rich woman’s son enjoyed, and she is selfless enough to give him to a family who can give that life to him.

I was reminded of this scene as I read the ridiculous criticism being lobbed by a bunch of well-meaning privileged people at New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his support of an ad campaign aimed at curbing teen pregnancy in that city. The campaign pulls no punches, featuring infant children surrounded by quotes about how their lives, and the lives of their families, are likely to turn out in households headed by teen parents……

…..Apparently some liberal critics publicly object to the campaign (including a few of my well-intentioned but misguided friends in media and politics, who won’t care for this piece and will probably tell me so). But they don’t object to the campaign on the basis of fact, because, of course, the campaign is factually accurate. A child is statistically more likely to have access to greater financial and academic opportunity if not raised by a teen mother. So just what is it about the campaign that has critics so riled up?

Well, according to Planned Parenthood, “The latest NYC ad campaign creates stigma, hostility and negative public opinions about teen pregnancy and parenthood rather than offering alternative aspirations for young people.” I’m not sure where to start with this lunacy. First off, I thought that as one of the nation’s leading sexual-health organizations, Planned Parenthood would focus on decreasing the number of unplanned pregnancies, not celebrating and encouraging them. Did I miss something?

Second, I’m much less concerned about the stigma teen parents may face than about the lifetime stigma their children face as they miss out on one opportunity after another because their parents weren’t ready to realize their full potential as parents while raising them. (As I’ve mentioned in previous pieces, one of my parents was once a teen parent — and attests to the challenges it brings and therefore applauds the campaign.)….

…….Studies show that becoming famous is a greater priority to the millennial generation than to preceding generations. So when you have teenagers becoming famous on reality shows just for becoming pregnant, and the most famous reality-TV family in history shows the glamour of having multiple “baby daddies” in the family (here’s looking at you, Kim and Kourtney Kardashian), where exactly is the average teen supposed to get the memo that his kid is unlikely to enjoy the upbringing that Kanye West’s kid will? And that they are unlikely to enjoy 15 minutes of fame like the Teen Mom stars?…
….I just wonder if the women of privilege running Planned Parenthood, which has struggled with diversity in the past, realize that children born in poor communities deserve the same opportunities their kids do — which means not just randomly distributing birth control but actually giving poor women the same information, incentives and life goals that women who grow up in privilege often take for granted. That includes providing accurate information about why when you choose to become a parent matters.

Read more HERE: http://www.theroot.com/blogs/why-liberals-are-wrong-teen-pregnancy

20130412-143725.jpg

Equality? Not with sentencing to prisons

 

s-GENDER-GAP-SENTENCES-large

If you’re a convicted criminal, the best thing you can have going for you might be your gender.

A new study by Sonja Starr, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan, found that men are given much higher sentences than women convicted of the same crimes in federal court.

The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.

Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.

 

read more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html

Save your marriage by cheating?

r-ASHLEY-MADISON-large570

More than 18 million people in 26 countries frequent AshleyMadison.com, a dating site for married people looking to have affairs.

But while unsatisfied marrieds browse the site looking to hookup, the man behind the site — creator Noel Biderman — has been happily married for nearly 10 years. HuffPost Divorce spoke to Noel and his wife, Amanda — who’s featured on the company’s new billboard campaign — in separate phone conversations to discuss the secret to their relationship success, how Amanda reacted when Noel initially told her about his idea for the site, and why Noel believes cheating actually saves marriages.

Noel, you’ve said that your website saves marriage and that an affair can serve as a “marriage preservation device.” Can you talk a little more about that?

Noel: I definitely believe that. For me, I’m a married man now — 10 years later, two children later, a really good economic success later, and with an extended family I love, I would be a fool if I said sex was the most important thing in my marriage –- it’s not. [But] it’s important to me, I’m not a priest and I didn’t sign up for a life of celibacy. If I woke up today in some kind of sexless marriage like so many Americans do, I would be genuinely upset by that. I would try to change it with my partner, but if I couldn’t change it, I don’t know if I would just walk out the door. I believe the social science, I’ve seen it firsthand, how children raised in single-parent households have more trouble with drugs and alcohol, have fewer educational opportunities, and get in trouble with the law. I don’t want to do that to my family and I certainly don’t want to do that because everything else I have going for me is great. I like my lifestyle, so why would I give it all up because the number five or six thing on my list -– my sex life -– is not where it should be?

So yes, if my brother came to me and said I can’t take it anymore, I’m either leaving or I’m having an affair, I would encourage him to have an affair first.

Amanda, would you stay in a marriage where you knew your husband was being unfaithful for the sake of keeping your family together?

Amanda: I wouldn’t just walk into divorce. But, I mean, I also wouldn’t deal with a relationship where I knew there were interpersonal relations going on without me. We definitely differ on that point. I get that some people are doing this to fulfill a need and to make themselves more fulfilled and happier. I’m not here to judge those people. Personally, that’s not how I live my life. That’s not how I live my life and how I define my relationship and what I would accept moving forward.

Read more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/ashley-madison-creator_n_2993008.html