Part-Time Pundit

The Problem with the Men’s Rights Movement

As a necessary counterweight to the excesses of the women’s rights movement, a men’s right movement has developed to fight for equity in the courts, in the family and in the workplace. For instance, in divorces there is significant and insurmountable (unless you have lots of money) obstacles to getting a fair custody decision regarding your children. Restraining orders are given away easily and have been used as weapons in divorce cases even when there is no evidence of abuse. There clearly is a need to stop the abuse men suffer from the excesses of the women’s rights movement.

The problem with the movement, which is the same problem with the women’s rights movement, is that adoption of the victim-enemy moniker that the press imposes on every issue. Anyone who does marketing for television will tell you this is the format to present any issue if you want news coverage: one, pick a victim and tell a sob story. This victim must be presented as angelic, an innocent victim of a cruel and obstinate system without regard for truth. Two, find a villain. This villain is the epitome of moral evil and must be destroyed. For many issues, referring to George W. Bush suffices (which is why political discourse in this country is so worthless).

Villains cannot be compromised with, they must be defeated. They are the bad guys and we need to stick up for the good guys at all costs. The problem is that compromise becomes unthinkable and even seeing the legitimate points of view of the other side is out of the question. To see this play out, see any political debate show talking about the election.

While there are significant injustices the men suffer as documented in Steven Baskerville’s fine book Taken Into Custody, there are injustices that women have and still do suffer also.

Retraining orders are far too easy to get without any evidence whatsoever (go ahead and sit in a courtroom and watch a hearing for one if you don’t believe me), but on the other hand there are men (and women) out there who are physically abusive and could care less about that piece of paper a court order is written on. People go to the system for help and they don’t get the help they need. We can all agree that no innocent woman or man should not be protected against an abuser. Surely there is some middle ground to address both sides.

Therein lies the difficulty. Activist groups, if they want even an ounce of press or public pressure, must adopt from the start that the other side is evil and wants to screw the innocent. Compromise is not only difficult, it’s impossible. All these groups then rank legislators on their absolute compliance with their agenda. Any leeway on their part makes them unacceptable.

So things have settled into a nice little détente where the men’s rights and women’s rights movements resort to outright name-calling instead of reasoned debate to improve the status of all people. With some issues, such rhetoric is not a big deal. In this case, we are dealing with families where peace should reign. Instead we have dueling groups that wage their war and leave the family asunder. Families are the building block of society, and as goes the family, so goes society.

It may be tempting for the men’s rights movement to say “let’s not compromise until they do”, but even from a political standpoint, if it is an all-or-nothing fight the women’s groups have more clout and that is that. Adopting a more holistic approach is also a political necessity if they don’t want to be side-lined.

It is long past time for policy makers and policy advocates to drop the all-or-none attitude and start to find a middle ground to find beneficial policies for what is best for the entire family. In an all-or-nothing fight, one side may win, but in the end we all lose.

January 31st, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Culture, Politics | one comment

MercatorNet article up: Unsuitable for Children

MercatorNet has another article up by me, Unsuitable for Children on violent video games, not for the perspective of risk to children, but harm to society at large even among adults.

Lawmakers are fond of saying that these games “will never be suitable for children”. I agree. But these weasel words evade the real issue: what makes these games suitable for adults? After all, the tastes of adults are linked to the tastes of teenagers. If parents or older brothers regard violent games with blood splashing all around as “no big deal”, why would they keep it out of the reach of children? And why is it that a little foreplay upsets people but not the butchery that the entire game is based on?

Read more.

January 27th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Culture | no comments

Satire: ACLU Files Suit to End Federal Recognition of Christmas

Today, in the United States District Court in San Francisco, California, the ACLU has filed suit against the United States over the holidays that are designated as federal holidays where the federal government is closed. They argue that Christmas is the only religious holiday on the list and that it does not recognize religious holidays of other religions and it leaves out atheists.

The suit, filed by the ACLU on behalf of several San Francisco plaintiffs, states that those individuals were unfairly discriminated against because they either would not get their religious holiday off or that as atheists, they were given second billing.

Federal holidays are set by 5 U.S.C. 6103 and for 2007 there were ten designated holidays. Many are rather neutral such as Independence Day, New Year's Day, and Thanksgiving. However, Christmas is the only religious holiday where the federal government is closed and its employees get a paid day off. The effect of the lawsuit would be to strike Christmas as a federal holiday and to force the government to stay open on that day.

The suit was originally the idea of Charles Rust-Tierney, the former head of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU and the filing of the suit was the culmination of years of work. Tierney was unavailable for comment because he is currently serving seven years for possession of child pornography. The plaintiffs, who include Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, released a statement saying, "Christianity is the source of most if not all of the suffering in the world. The federal government recognizing this holiday is akin to celebrating holidays lauding the Holocaust. Prefabricated man-made religions have no place in a civil society."

The suit will likely spark outrage from Christian and other conservative groups who will see this as another chapter in the left's "War on Christmas". Previous years have seen organizations targeting schools for Christmas plays and targeting cities for having nativity displays. The suit to end federal recognition of Christmas marks an escalation in the culture wars. Bill O'Reilly is said to be planning to devote ten minutes of his nightly news show every day until New Year's to air his grievances on the culture wars.

O'Reilly wasn't the only one to get in on the criticism. Pat Buchanan, a staple of Christian Conservatism was quick to blame the "radical left" and Hollywood: "Who is in your face here? Who started this? Who is on the offensive? Who is pushing the envelope? The answer is obvious. A radical Left aided by a cultural elite that detests Christianity and finds Christian moral tenets reactionary and repressive is hell-bent on pushing its amoral values and imposing its ideology on our nation. The unwisdom of what the Hollywood and the Left are about should be transparent to all."

Critics were quick to point out that one of the plaintiffs, Paul Addis, was recently arrested trying to burn down a church. This only fanned the argument that this suit was truly about censoring religion and not about pluralism.

It is unclear exactly how the courts will rule in this case; however, both judges in San Francisco and the appellate judges in the Ninth Circuit would likely favor the view that recognizing Christmas as a federal holiday and closing the government is a tacit endorsement of Christianity which is prohibited by the "Separation of Church and State Doctrine".

Most legal scholars believe that the ACLU's argument has merit and if the same standard is used that has been used in previous church-state cases that Christmas will have to be removed from the list of federal holidays. Time will tell if the ACLU will become known as the law firm "that stole Christmas".

November 17th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Culture, Freedom of Speech, Humor, Law / Legal Issues, Politics | no comments

National Organization of Women Files Suit to Abolish Father’s Day

Vote for this post on Digg)

The National Organization for Women (NOW) and other women advocacy groups have filed suit against the Bush Administration seeking to abolish Fathers Day. During a press conference held after the filing of the lawsuit, Kim Gandy of NOW said, "the day clearly indicates that it is meant to recognize only fathers."

The American Civil Liberties Union, filing on behalf of the organizations said the day runs afoul of equal protection and Title IX provisions and should be abolished because it is discriminatory against women. "It is time to move beyond the pattern male discrimination against women so prevalent in the home and the workplace," according to a press release.

It wasn't solely the discriminatory aspects of Fathers Day that had the groups aroused, but the fact that Fathers are chiefly responsible for domestic violence, childhood sexual abuse, and are often negligent of their children. Many fail to make their child support payments in a timely fashion, if they make them at all. This has many women's groups wondering what is commendable about fathers that should give them a day to celebrate them. Prof. Hrdy in a recent TIME Magazine article showed that at best fathers only spend about 30 minutes a day with their children.

The Chicago Federation of Women is running a campaign, "What Will It Take", to recruit men to admit their fault in domestic abuse and accept a pattern of reparations. Gandy again cited the culture of support for domestic violence among men that has outlets across talk radio, such as Rush Limbaugh, who encourages violence against women.

Andrea Dworkin, in speaking on the lawsuit, said "Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice," and that there is nothing to celebrate simply because a rape resulted in childbirth. Dworkin said, if anything, people should be mourning the great harm done to women at the hands of men on Fathers Day.

Other women's groups focused less on the history of violence of men and their failure to parent their children but instead focused on women's rights. "It's her body and her choice, the right of women to choose motherhood is solely and exclusively hers. After donating his genetic material, the only contribution necessary from men is to mail their child support payments on time," according to Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards.

The lawsuit was met with outcries from men's rights groups and family organizations who attempted to file an amicus brief with the court which was rejected almost immediately. The opinion of the court was that such groups were not entitled to voice their views because they violated the separation of church and state "which is the source of the patriarchal attitudes which they seek to defend."

The Bush Administration was unavailable for comment.

=================================================
Just like bedding for livestock requires attention, so does bedding for humans. A bedding products guide would be able to tell completely the choices available today. We have special beds that can be set besides windows, then we have the traditional canopy bed. Then the category of slightly contemporary waterbeds exists with a futon as well.
=================================================

June 15th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Culture, Satire | 9 comments

New Jersey Department of “Put the Fork Down, Fatty!”

The state of New Jersey has recently announced that it will be creating a state agency to deal with the growing problem of obesity among that state's citizens. This follows on the heels of many other local and state governments taking action against trans fat and other health measures designed to slim down the collective waistlines of the state.

The creation of such an agency is a dangerous political trend. We'll call the political thought behind such actions part of the "Coalition to Protect People from Themselves." People get obese purely through actions (or inaction) of their own. As a society, we eat more and move less than any other nation in the world (though obesity is a growing problem world-wide).

The smoking ban movement, largely successful, has brought into the public consciousness a perception that health decisions are supposed to be part of public policy. In that realm, they could at least pretend to hide behind the effects of second-hand smoke, though anyone who watched close enough knew it was really about sticking to smokers, not about second-hand smoke.

Moves against trans fat, such as what has happened in New York City, and attempts to ban foie gras in Chicago have no such communal health risks. If one person plumps up on trans fat, it means jack to everyone around them. The only one arguably at risk would be the person who ended up underneath these trans fat consumers. These laws are directed purely at citizens who the government believes are not making the best choices and need to be instructed on proper living habits with the force of law.

This near-daily encroachment by the elites in telling us plebes how to live is as meddlesome as it is dangerous. The idea that somehow bureaucratic busy-bodies are better equipped to judge and prescribe our dietary intake is absurd. The key to healthy living is to get the people involved motivated to do it. You can't control peoples' food intake unless you toss them into prison; personal responsibility is key.

More information, sure. Some ads on TV, fine. Trying to do it for people by creating yet more useless state agencies on an already strained budget isn't going to motivate people. Bureaucracies breed dependency, not responsibility. That being said, here's some food for thought.

For now, obesity, smoking, and other "bad health" behaviors are no one's business but the individual involved. There is no societal harm. With the universal health care being pushed by those of the same ideology as the "Coalition to Protect People from Themselves," that dynamic changes greatly. Any personal activity that may theoretically increase the cost of health care no longer is a private matter under a universal health care system. If you get fat and need 12 bypass surgeries, it is society that foots the bill.

One only needs to look to Europe to see how they are handling the problem, since it is their health care system (the one they are moving away from) that the Coalition seeks to emulate. The Health Secretary in the UK has said that the overweight and smokers should be denied health care until they quit smoking or lose weight. That's right, the government says you can't have that "single payer" health care (which should be more appropriately called taxpayer-funded health care) they promised unless you dance to their tune. It's called the Golden Rule. You take the King's gold, you play by the King's rules.

In a universal health care system, the government and society at large have a vested interest in how you live your life - what you eat, how much you workout, your drinking and smoking habits, and so on. You're spending their money, after all.

Government, on one hand, can't be trusted to wiretrap terrorist conversations, but on the other, not only can they be trusted with all of your medical records, but also with authority to make medical decisions regarding your care - indicating how little people have thought through "single payer" health care.

The New Jersey Agency for Fat People is yet another encroachment on the freedom to live out lives undisturbed by silly intrusions by governmental busy-bodies. A free country is no longer free when it has to get Uncle Sam's approval for the family dinner.

June 1st, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Around the US, Columns, Culture, Law / Legal Issues, Politics | one comment

Why Abstinence Education Does Not Work (and It’s Not What You Think)

Every few months the abstinence education advocates and the comprehensive sex ed advocates trade studies back and forth. “Comprehensive sex ed works!” “Abstinence education works!” The back-and-forth clubbing of studies may make for good headlines but largely misses the point.

While it can be argued that comprehensive sex ed may increase sexual activity (much like the anti-drug program DARE has increased teen drug use in many cases), the success or failure of abstinence education relies on factors largely outside the classroom. Simplistic one-factor statistical analysis is not useful in dealing with a problem that involves more than one variable.

The fact is, teenage (and childhood) sexual activity is a new historical phenomena. Abstinence education was all that there was for centuries and it works. The spread of sexually transmitted disease, teenage motherhood, single motherhood, and broken homes being the norm has never been seen on this magnitude in the history of mankind. It is naïve to think that a 45 minute lecture will be all that is needed to reverse that tide in any meaningful way.

The problem found its biggest catalyst in the sixties under the guise of the “sexual revolution”. It is important to realize that it is the generation of youth in the sixties who are making the policy decision today. That generation steeped themselves in anti-authority rhetoric; it should come as no surprise that they now rail against parental involvement.

For some time, it has only been that generation who has been preaching the sexual liberation message from the rooftops. Those who held to chastity simply remained effectively silent out of a false sense of modesty. It was a “false sense” because modesty strives to put sexuality in its proper place, this reaction however was not modest, it was prudish which seeks to avoid all discussion to begin with. It is this prudishness cloaked in modesty that has led to one of the biggest criticisms of the chastity ideology… that it really is about “sex being a dirty thing.” I know of no one who believes in chastity that thinks sex is some dirty chore married people are bound to do from time to time.

It is important to also take into account all the messages children get about sex from sources outside the classroom. One only needs to watch a few sitcoms, listen to a few of the Billboard Top 40 songs, or look at a few magazines, and we see only one ideology of sex presented (i.e. loose and cheap sex). When no other message is conveyed, we should not be surprised that “kids will just have sex.” That is also why it is so invidious that organizations would use the hammer of the United States Constitution to drive out any competing ideas (or at least those that treat chastity seriously) out of the public square.

On a personal note, before I was married I had considered the priesthood. I found it quite telling that the most frequent response people had to that (including Catholics) was “but you can’t have sex!” It was as if they thought I didn’t already know that and the Church was hiding it from me. Hey, thanks for the hot tip guys!

However, the most important implication about those exclamations was that it was about sex. Not that I couldn’t have a wife, or a family, or that I could get lonely (and in fact, I never heard those objections). Celibacy, or more crudely not having sex, is viewed not as an acceptable sexual option but an outright heresy. Life without sex is a life not worth living, apparently.

The common social idea, even among adults, is that not having sex is a crime against humanity. Take a look at the number of people who insist that the Catholic Church should allow married priests even though they explicitly reject the Catholic Church and its doctrine outright. People who have no interest in the Church, her ministers or her teaching are passionately and loudly interested in the sexual freedom of her clerics.

Further, the reduction of sex to a “medical issue” has dehumanized it and drained it of its value. The comprehensive sex ed crowd describes their material as “medically accurate”. Abstinence education, the last time I checked, doesn’t try to rewrite our biological knowledge. When the only consequences considered are disease prevention and pregnancy, is it any wonder that men and women can’t relate to each other as well anymore?

This creates a situation where people are less free to choose to be chaste. Or more accurately, they are pressured to not be chaste. It’s an unacceptable lifestyle. It’s a socially intolerable lifestyle. People who don’t have sex are pariahs. Is it any wonder “kids just have sex?” Society insists nothing less. That’s why people will argue with a straight face that because X% of people have premarital sex that makes it okay and moral to do so.

Abstinence education will always be handicapped in a society that insists from every quarter that free sex is the only way to live. Until our movies, music, television, and magazines reflect a level of sexual maturity beyond that of a seventh grade boy, this trend will likely continue. Parents will have to display and engender the sexual morality they wish their children to have. In the meantime, those who can speak intelligently, passionately, and openly about chastity must be allowed their say in the public square. A free country requires nothing less.

May 4th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Culture, Pro-Life, Religion, Sex, The MSM | 3 comments

Censorship in the Name of Inclusion: The Case of the Wren Cross

The prevailing mantra in higher education is being sensitive to other cultures and religions. Schools fall over themselves trying to prove that they are inclusive to a diverse background. Instead of “Merry Christmas” it is “Happy Holidays” so as not to leave out those who celebrate other holidays such as Hanukkah.

The battle of the Wren Cross at William and Mary is just another episode in the diversity wars. In the name of welcoming a diverse student body, President Nicol of William and Mary decided the Wren Cross must go from a Christian chapel overtly labeled as such.

The irony is that by promoting inclusion in this way, they are insisting on exclusion of Christianity from a Christian chapel. It’s quite paradoxical that in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance” certain ideas and populations are being run out of the public square. In fact, it is usually the same ideas and people that are excluded in the name of promoting diversity.

It is hard to view such behavior as anything other than revisiting the same slights on the group usually thought to have historically carried them out. In response to centuries of alleged Christian persecution, the modern response is to return the favor. The only thing a “tolerant” and “diverse” society cannot tolerate is mainstream Christian belief and practice.

From President Nicol’s State of the College address, he states, “The College of William & Mary strives to be a place where people of all backgrounds feel at home, where diversity is actively embraced, and where each individual takes responsibility for upholding the dignity of all members of the community.”

Diversity is the inclusion of all persons, not the exclusion of some disfavored group. How the cause of diversity is furthered by institutional censorship is beyond rational cohesion. In no small part it has resulted in much of the racial tension that exists on many campuses today. Instead of bringing people together as a unified community, it artificially creates camps of competing interests at war to protect their own. Far from promoting inclusion, it solidifies segregationist attitudes.

The removal of the Wren Cross sent a clear message to those who take Christianity serious… “You are not welcome at William and Mary. Your heritage is unimportant.” Rewriting the history of an institution to whitewash it in the name of inclusion is not diversity, its deception.

The days of censorship in the name of diversity need to come to a close. No real community can be accomplished when members are singled out and told to keep their ideas, beliefs, and heritage to themselves. Either support real tolerance or be honest about what the real goal is. Academic honesty still matters, doesn’t it?

February 7th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Culture, Education, Politics, Religion | 2 comments