Part-Time Pundit

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

The Environmentalists’ War on the Poor

Denver has recently announced a policy that plans to remove 500,000 cars from the road in an aggressive attempt to curb the effects of global warming. This follows on the heels of other plans nationwide to reduce emissions as well as commentary from elites who encourage the further increase in gas prices so fewer people will be able to drive, or at least, will moderate their driving habits.

There is on thing that immediately comes to mind about the Denver plan. To identify which 500,000 cars will be taken off the road, line up every resident with a car and have them organized from poorest to richest. Then count off the first 500,000 starting from the poor end.  Those are the people who won't have cars anymore. It's just that simple.

These attempts to curb global warming by "modifying behavior" are all designed to simply increase the cost of normal human activity. The result is that the people who are priced out of the game are the poor. An example is in order.

Take Al "the Goracle" Gore. With his mantourage and jetsetter lifestyle he uses carbon emissions comparable to many thousands of people. He has mcmansions here and there and despite being a prophet of global doom, he hasn't personally curbed his lifestyle one iota. The sacrifice to save the planet is never meant to restrict the elite's lifestyle; it’s the poor and middle class that need to sacrifice for the "greater good".

With the supposed concern from the Left about the gap between the rich and the poor, it is ironic at best that they support policies that have no other effect than to push the middle class into the poor and to push the poor down further. In its most radical forms, environmentalists believe the Earth is over populated and that the population should be reduced to about 2 billion. You can bet real money that it won't be them that numbers in the 4 billion or so that are unworthy of life. China's forced-abortion policy solicits nary a peep from "human rights activists". The Serra Club supports abortion for a reason.

Carbon offset programs have been exposed as a fraud and it has just been discovered that hybrid vehicles cause much more environmental damage to produce than a hummer. In the rush to "do something", or at least appear to be doing something, no one every actually examined to see if they were doing something that would have an effect. This mindlessness pervades the entire gamut of environmental thought.

These elites, despite not usually having any real contact with the middle class or the poor, deign to know what is best for us and are more than willing to use government to enforce their values on us from on high. These Henryites demonstrate this arrogant paternalism in their support for bans on smoking (not just in public, but even in private homes), trans-fat bans and their incessant parade of lifestyle legislation designed solely to indicate that the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applies only to those who have won life's lottery. Call it the secular humanism version of the Prosperity Gospel.

With all the Hollywood and political elites that support environmentalism, you'd think they'd restrict their lifestyle that uses many more resources then dozens if not hundreds of middle-class or poor families. When they close down their large estates and live solely in one 3,000 square foot home (generous for almost any family I know), then they might have some basis with which to tell the rest of us what we need to cut out of our lives.

Until the time comes that they will share in the sacrifices which they demand everyone else to make, no serious consideration can be given to their interpretation of what the common good is.

June 15th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Around the US, Columns, Economics, Law / Legal Issues, Politics | one comment