It’s called the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, and the Bush administration doles out up to $50 million annually to fund its programs to build job skills and help fathers connect better with their children. But the National Organization for Women says the effort is illegal because it’s only about men.
NOW and Legal Momentum, another advocacy group, filed complaints yesterday with the Department of Health and Human Services alleging sex discrimination in the initiative that is funding about 100 programs this year.
The complaints cite 34 programs, including one run by the District and two others in the Washington area, that, they say, do not offer the services to women. That, the groups say, violates Title IX, the law that prevents sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and is best known for forcing universities to offer comparable sports programs for men and women.
On finds it curious–but not unexpected–that feminists immediately deem services designed to aid males discriminatory. The very law NOW cites–Title IX– is routinely violated by hundreds of domestic violence shelters, rape center and various other public services, including services provided to low-income parents mothers. NOW rarely–if ever– files a complaint about those programs deliberately denying males, both men and boys, access to those services. So it is curious that once the government decides to take the needs of low-income fathers seriously and seeks to provide those father with assistance, here come feminists shouting discrimination, ironically not because they presented any evidence that females were denied services, but purely because the intent of the programs is to help fathers.
I recall some time ago debating a feminist about this issue. She stated that DV shelters were not inherently sexist and discriminatory just because they are typically called “women’s shelters” and their specific concern was for females. A similar argument has been made concerning VAWA or the Violence Against Women Act. Feminists often contend the law is not biased or sexist, despite its overt use of gender in both its legal framing and its name. One cannot miss the obvious double standard.
One should also note that the HHS required every program to provide services to women.
Administration officials and grant recipients say the challenge is misguided. The programs may target men, they say, but helping men become better fathers will benefit women and children, too. Moreover, HHS officials say they have told grant recipients they must open their fatherhood programs to women.
I am unaware of any women’s programs being required to open their services to males, at least not without several lawsuits and a long up-hill battle.
I think NOW’s response demonstrates the typical feminist reaction to our government’s increasing willingness to listen to men’s groups and to most importantly take those issues seriously. Rather than accepting that a handful of services, some of which aid only 30 men, are now available to fathers, feminists choose to undermine those efforts by claiming discrimination. NOW claims they want “a parenthood initiative,” yet they continuously oppose laws promoting equal parenthood.
It is doubtful that NOW’s actual goal is to open these programs up for women. The reality is that more men than women will likely approach these programs for assistance, particularly given that hundreds of similar programs are already available to women. The real intent is to shut these services down. As previously stated, NOW offered no direct evidence of discrimination in the article. One can be certain that if any such evidence existed Gandy would not have failed to mention it. This appears to be more a last resort than anything else. The administration has every legitimate reason to fund these programs, so the last claim available to feminists is that of sexual discrimination.
One hopes that the tactic will not work, but given the nature of the programs it might. This article shows why services for males are so few and far between and the battles that must be fought just to keep the few existing services funded.
It is clear, therefore, that NOW conceptualizes the family unit as: father optional, mother necessary.
NOW is clearly following a scorched earth policy. Perhaps it is a sign that they are aware of public discontent.
It is extremely disappointing that the American Government only produces lukewarm responses to the feminists instead of questioning the premise of their various arguments.
In Canada, I see signs that Stephen Harper is attacking the feminists from the standpoints of ’small government’ and ‘family first’. These are the only relatively ‘politically correct’ avenues from which to counter feminism. It looks like the Republicans in the US have abandoned even these routes of derailing feminism, leaving them toothless.
I was wondering if you have any ideas on how people could counter feminism legally. I would anticipate it would be easier in the US, where judicial activism is not as rampant as it is in Canada.
I honestly do not believe fathers play any role in whatever NOW has conceptualized. If it were possible to procreate without males I am certain NOW would chastise women who were intimate with men.
US feminists still have enough political sway to at least create a giant fuss if the government decided to outright ignore them. The only response that can be taken without potentially giving credence to feminist complaints is to approach from a seemingly lukewarm position, though the government probably does not care about the underlying issues the father’s programs seek to address anyway.
In a case like the one above, the simplest means would be to create services intended for males but open to females. In my experience few women approach those services, mostly because other services are readily available, offer greater support and are better funded than those of males. Feminists generally ignore the services unless they get a lot of money or a great deal of notoriety. However, by that time those services would have built up good standing with people in powerful positions, so it would be less likely that feminists would be effective in trying to destroy those groups. More so, by emphasizing the beneficial reasons for the programs, feminists are forced to explain why they oppose those services, therein exposing their bias.
Another would be to send responses like the one from NOW to legislators when trying to emphasize the importance of allowing males into previously female-only services. For instance, NOW’s response could in turn be used against them when they later seek to prevent joint-custody laws. You then have them on record stating they want equal, ungendered services, not services intended for only one group.
Father’s rights groups have a great advantage in that the overwhelming majority of the programs are designed to keep fathers in their children’s lives. Along with the countless studies demonstrating the importance of fathers, there is little–outside of greater familarity–on feminists’ side.
The main thing that one should not do is attack feminists without solid evidence. They have the luxury of the benefit of doubt. We do not.
It does seem to me that there exists a general meme of “female only = good : male only = bad.” I see this in all segments of society, even among men’s advocates.
It is, at least to me, a deeply worrying factor in our social development. It suggests a deeply rooted sexism which infests our culture. Such infestations produce bad policy and much anger.
TS,
I was speaking in the sense that NOW wants fathers to pay for the upkeep of the kids but doesn’t want them to be an integral part of the kids’ lives. It would be interesting to see if NOW funds any parthenogenesis experiments and also to know what percentage of NOW is lesbian (I think it was 40% in 1992).
I’m wary of investing trust in bureaucrats. Governments usually think in bottom line terms, rather than moralistic ones. Hence, I think men have to frame any objectives around financial carrot-stick approaches. Men will have to unite around one of the following two options IMO: Knocking down the feminist establishment or creating a countervailing masculinist establishment.
One approach IMO could be coalescing blue-collar unions to demand higher wages. I think there is a high probability that the men here will have had bad experiences with some aspect of the anti-male establishment. It would be very useful if someone could find a way to leverage their utility against, say the EEOC in the US.
What makes this so curious is that only a handful of years ago “male-only” was not seen as bad at all. It was accepted as part of the normal human condition. It was only when feminists demonized masculinity that male-only came to mean anti-woman. That sentiment stuck, largely because feminists kept shouting it, and now it is possible to use public dollar for female-exclusive programs, services and even schools.
I do think the tide is shifting, though it likely stems from the failure of feminism to correct the problems it claims to address rather than any overt or covert efforts of the men’s movement.
Well, I am not sure NOW honestly wants fathers to fulfill this role. NOW spends a great deal of time pushing for more money to be thrown at single mothers. I think child support is just another method of reducing the human status of men. The government, so long as it forks over the cash, can easily replace a father.
I prefer the third option: doing what feminists claim they do. It would of course be necessary to set up organizations and services to help the unserved male population. However, once those are up and running I see no reason why those groups could not extend their hand out for females. By this I mean providing women with the same services provided to men. Even if this were done in a limited fashion, say 70% of the focus is on males, this would still be far more than women’s groups do.
I suppose my option could be considered cheating in way since it ignores the rules feminists have set up.
I do agree that at some point elements of feminism will have to be addressed and dismantled. While my preferred approach is to cause as little damage as possible through intimidation, that cannot be done without first giving a person a reason to feel intimidated. This could be done by getting joint custody laws passed or rewriting VAWA. Granted, that is not an easy task, but succeeding in one or both those areas would act as a warning that sexism in the guise of “equality” will not be tolerated and will be dealt with in due time.
TS,
I agree with much of what you have said. However, the problem with the approach you have suggested is ‘time’. Change will not happen quickly enough unless the offending party perceives a very real and unavoidable threat from the party desiring change.
The threat does not necessarily have to have violent connotations but could be along the lines of a ‘tax strike’ by concerned citizens or a ‘divorced dads work strike’.
Also, I came across something interesting, thanks to JFA on Hans Side. He writes wrt Denmark:
I anticipate the relative numbers should be similar in other western countries. Hence, men could use such information to demand that the government compensate them so as to offset this discrimination.
Whoops,
Sorry the final paragraph shouldn’t be ‘block-quoted’.
True, however the current situation did not happen overnight either. Rushing it without understanding the current political “terrain” puts any potential change in great danger. This is not to say one should wait forever. Like everyone else, I wish to see immediate results. The problem is that quick results generally do not last. Lasting results come from building strong foundations, either through social support or political support or political pressure. The better bet is the former, social support.
This will take time, but look at how much has changed in terms of female sex offenders in the last ten years. Even though the sentences remain short and mostly probation, ten years ago no charges would have been filed. Enough people got pissed off about it to pressure judges, prosecutors and law enforcement to take female violence more seriously.
So while it will take time, I think it will be time well spent.