In our previous post on EFA, we discussed a fifteen-plank platform that would define the goals of the majority of Americans. At the root of the argument is the acknowledgment that "some things were better left to the states." However, there is one national adjustment that merits dialog.
A sad, typically "brushed under the rug," American reality is how Dads are are often given the shaft in a custody decision. While the landscape may have slightly improved over the past thirty years, it's not where it needs to be.
As one Ohio man put it, "women want equal rights; until they go into a courtroom in a custody fight. Then they want to talk about the ages of the children and the nurturing attibutes of the mother."
This would be consistent with suggesting that "women can't be hired for management positions because they might become pregnant, requiring a leave of absence." There is no doubt that any company who published such a standard would be "knee deep" in ligitation.
A close friend who had endured the horrors of a divorce and custody fight saw a double standard that was deeply ingrained in the American psyche. As he phraised, "I have a brilliant little girl and I have a equally brilliant little boy. I want my daughter to have the same prospects as my son."
This translated to education, a profession, management preferences and income, "But," as he reminded, "if my son ever goes into a court room in a custody fight, it's only fair that he be playing on a level field."
In other words, what's good for the goose is good for the gander! Alas, equal rights are truly a double edged sword.
These frustrated fathers have watched silently as our two political parties have shunned all efforts to bring about any relief. For different reasons, of course!
Democrats unknowingly are following the formula outlined in the "The Naked Communist," a book that appeared in 1958, which sought to replace the father with government. For more information about this work, please visit www.agendadocumentary.com
Republicans remained mysteriously silent. Some were simply too traditional to imagine that a father might actually be the better parent. No doubt, the party leadership reminded everyone that the GOP was already in the hole with female voters. In Karl Rove's words, Dads' dilemma was a "toxic issue."
Yet, there are millions of men who would support a plank that proposed adding heterosexual men to the Civil Rights Act of 1968's protected list. Two things would happen if were to happen:
(a) The platform would be recognizing marriage as an act between a man and a woman only. This would effectively paint Democrats in a corner. If they attempted to duplicate the idea, they would alienate their large gay contingent. If they removed "heterosexual" from the wording, they would be clearly affirming their support of gay marriage. Opposing the act entirely could cost them dearly with voters they could not afford to lose.
(b) Without question, the act would lure young, minority voters away from the Democrat party. This would especially be the case with African American males under 50. It would likewise win Democrat leaning male millennials, already disgruntled with Obamacare and the job market.
Half the battle in any election is turnout. Would this issue mobilize heterosexual males? Count on it!
Fox New's Bill O'Reilly recently elaborated on a poll that showed a drop in marriage since 1980. As O'Reilly put it, "men are losing interest in marriage.They watch a wife tire of them, then divorce them, taking their estate and children in the process." In short, what's the point.
Those "rocking years," when children are small and father and mother are typically confined to the home, aren't easy! Couples either make it or don't. As women entered the work place, there became less incentive for them to stay married. In the fifties, women enjoyed fewer options.
Were things better in the fifties? Depends on your point of view. Women have made great strides in the work place. No doubt some of our finest leaders and contributors are female.
The change came because we determined that our society would be best served with duel income households. We could then maintain a standard of living that was slipping away due to the hidden tax of inflation. Dads' Dilemma amounted to collateral damage.
Sadly we have concluded that this true but "toxic" issue is best left undisturbed. However, the question has been suppressed. It has not gone away. Bringing it to the forefront could impact as many as five percent of the swing voters. Remembering how close elections have been in recent times, this is no small consideration.
Post a Comment