Name commonalities between U.S. State of the Union and Egypt’s State of Street Protests

Why I haven’t been bloggin’.  Well, life keeps happening — while I was at a Battered Mother’s Conference, Tuscon happened.  While I was attempting to confront/expose the lack of the word “WOMEN” or “WOMAN” as any policy issue in (yet another) U.S. President’s address — Egypt erupted.

it seemed irreverent, selfish, almost, to address (again) the systematic elimination of the word “mother” and the amazing, disappearance of the word “women” in national addresses on issues of importance, while the one nation friendly to Israel is erupting in violence.  I struggled over this for a while, but I find Dr. Phyllis Chesler noticed, also — the TV scenes of street violence were mostly men.  Mostly ALL men, and a few women in headscarves.  In United States, it’d be different, and has been.

I doubt most people would pick up on this, unless they have been affected by similar matters.

So glad to hear that Phyllis Chesler, also noticed:

Am I the Only One Troubled by Cairo’s Street Scenes? (February 1st)

BY PHYLLIS CHESLER
POSTED ON FEBRUARY 1 2011 2:50 PM

Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies

at City University of New York. For extended biography visit The Phyllis Chesler Organization.

{{No, Ma’am, you are not, but you said this better:}}

In the last week, we have seen massive coverage of the street uprising in Cairo on every major television channel and in print and Internet media of all political persuasions. No one has commented upon what the photos are showing us. Some say that a picture speaks a thousand words—and so it does. Follow along with me.

First, view these photos of Cairo University graduates in 1959, 1978, 1995, and 2004. Clearly, there is a progression—aregression really, in terms of women’s rights. Former feminist gains have, increasingly, been washed away.

As you can see, the female graduates in 1959 and 1978 had bare arms, wore short sleeved blouses,  dresses, or pants, and were both bare-faced and bare-headed. By  1995, we see a smattering of headscarves—and by 2004 we see a plurality of female university graduates in serious hijab: Tight, and draping the shoulders.

Class of 1959

Class of 1978

Class of 1995

Class of 2004

Now, let’s look at the recent Cairo uprising photos through my eyes. No one has, as yet, commented upon the photos that they have chosen to run.

. . . .(pls. see article) . . .

First, most photos show us mobs of mainly men marching, men at prayer, men shooting, running, falling, wounded inhospitals, standing atop tanks.  These could be scenes from Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. I am not suggesting that women rush out to join a promised American Nation of Islam style “Million Man March”—as women, they are horribly endangered among groups of men, which is why Muslim men argue that “their” family women must be veiled, sequestered, kept in purdah, strictly supervised, accompanied wherever they go by a male protector.

Muslim men know how lustful and licentious they truly are, what their view of all women (who are not their mothers) truly is, and how sexual repression, forced marriage, polygamy (a shortage of available wives for poor men), affects men who have been fired up by a mosque sermon or by a holy war to seize state power. Women are also shorter, weigh less, and have rarely been trained in boxing, martial arts or weapons training compared to most men; most women cannot hold their own against one angry and determined man, certainly not against thousands of such men.

. .

My reading of these photos suggests that Egyptian women have already been Islamified. Whether they have done so to please their loving (or abusive) families or a favorite mullah, whether it was peer pressure from girlhood on that did it; or whether it was the teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood being preached in every mosque, on every media channel, and inschool that did it, the fact is: It is done. Women are veiled. Such women—and their fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons, will vote for the Muslim Brotherhood to run their country.

What does that mean?  Oh, check a 2010 June poll.

Such journalists also claim that the Egyptian people in the streets are not “political,” that they are impoverished, broken, barefoot warriors who have heroically risen up for jobs, food, and an end to corruption and tyranny. Indeed, the people may not be “political”—but their heroism may end up benefiting those who, unlike themselves, are already organized militarily, economically, and ideologically—like the Muslim Brotherhood.

On the other hand, unorganized though they may be, the people may still have views and beliefs. Caroline Glick, reminds us that according to a June, 2010 Pew opinion survey of Egyptians:

Fifty nine percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics….Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion…When this preference is translated into actual government policy, it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.

When given the opportunity, the crowds on the street are not shy about showing what motivates them. They attack Mubarak and his new Vice President Omar Suleiman as American puppets and Zionist agents. The US, protesters told CNN’s Nick Robertson, is controlled by Israel. They hate and want to destroy Israel. That is why they hate Mubarak and Suleiman.

Is this Pew Center survey really true? What other indicators might we rely upon?

(For comparison, on the “father’s day” month of June 2010, the House Ways & Means Committee was hearing testimony on Fatherhood appropriations (H.R. 2979, Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood funding).  A few alert women, I’d call us feminists — got a rebuttal in– but this machinery has been in operation for so long now, it would take more than a few slender voices of protest to stop it.  I’m talk, U.S.A. ….  Search this blog — I posted on it.

In case this has maybe changed — has it?  A recent press release from the same committee, House Ways & Means, crowing about Child Support Enforcement, available HERE, shows the word “mother” (singular) (even though child support obviously is going to involve children, who have mothers) — occurs ONLY twice, and ONLY in a fine-print footnote defining “noncustodial parent.”  By contrast, the word “Father” (singular) occurs EIGHT times and twice in that footnote, defining “noncustodial parent” — and the other SIX (6) times in the word “fatherhood,” as in “Fatherhood Programs.”  Again, the score:

• Father 8 ~ Mother 2.
• Fatherhood programs  6 of those 8 uses.

As the press release reads:

Hatch, Grassley, Davis Release GAO Report
on Child Support Enforcement Program
Collections Actually Increased, Contrary to Predictions
if “Double-Dip” of Federal Funds Eliminated

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), former Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Congressman Geoff Davis (R-KY), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, released a report prepared at their request from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).  The report, titled “Child Support Enforcement: Departures from Long-Term Trends in Sources of Collections and Caseload Reflect Recent Economic Conditions,” reviews how states responded to federal funding changes to the child support enforcement (CSE) program.

Specifically, the report tracked how states responded to a provision in the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 that eliminated states’ ability to claim federal matching payments for spending federal child support incentive funds.  Prior to passage of the DRA, states had been able to “double dip” into federal funds.  In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Obama Administration allowed states to go back to “double dipping” for fiscal years 2009 and 2010.

I emailed my friends:

“mothers” occurs twice only — both time simply in page 12, footnote 27, an OCSE definition of “noncustodial parent”:

27OCSE defines a CSE “case” as a noncustodial parent (mother, father, or putative/alleged father) who is now or eventually may be obligated under law for the support of a child or children receiving services under the CSE program. 45 C.F.R. § 305.1(a) (2009). If the noncustodial parent owes support for two children by different women, that would be considered two cases; if both children have the same mother, that would be considered one case.

The word “father” (not “fathers”) occurs SIX times — twice, above, and EVERY other occurrence refers to some fatherhood program as part of child support enforcement efforts.  (use the “Find” function in the document & CHECK IT OUT…For example:…)

Figure 6: States’ Uses of Restored Incentive Match Funds under the Recovery Act

31

•SEE THE PIE CHART HERE – ACKNOWLEDGES INCENTIVE MONEY USED FOR “INTERFACES WITH FATHERHOOD  OR EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES.”

3

Customer service (voice response systems, partnerships with fatherhood or employment programs)

16 • Technology (systems enhancements, interfaces with other agencies)

Basic program functions (staff, contracts, training, operations)

Source: GAO analysis of information from OCSE Child Support Report Newsletter.

Moreover, they are whining that the “other” uses of such funds might be curtailed without Big Fed help.  On page 21 of this report:

Several officials emphasized that even states that maintained overall expenditure levels when the incentive match was eliminated in fiscal year 2008 may not be able to do so again in fiscal year 2011, as many state budget situations have worsened since the economic recession. Some officials also noted that the delivery of services beyond the core mission of the CSE program—such as job skills training and fatherhood initiatives— is particularly uncertain.36

These officials {WHICH ones???} also told us that,although they believe that these services and partnerships are necessary to continue increasing their collections, particularly from noncustodial parents who are underemployed or have barriers to maintaining employment, these services would be reduced to preserve core services in the event of dramatic budget shortfalls

There you have it.  We have no state religion (sure) — but public funding is equating FATHERHOOD & EMPLOYMENT –and when the Fatherhood Subsidy is maybe reduced, slightly this is noted.  When certain aspects of this program both corrupt the legal process -and result in sometimes custody switches which result in dead babies, infants, toddlers, young kids, teens and or mothers — and sometimes a father too, after the others are offed–that does “not” make it into the count, somehow.

Foonote 36:

 

36 OCSE provides some grants and waivers of federal rules to states to fund services and activities that provide benefits for CSE programs but do not meet the requirements for federal matching funds.

Dr. Chesler follows up on this, yesterday’s article:

llusions and Delusions About the Turmoil in EgyptWhat is Wrong with Rabbis Michael Lerner and Arthur Waskow?

by Phyllis CheslerNewsRealBlogFebruary 2, 2011

. . .

Brother: What are you smoking out there in Berkeley? How can you write this without also writing about Hamas’ stated intention to genocidally exterminate Jews and Israel or Hamas’ tyrannical uber-Pharaoh-like reign of tyranny over their own people? How can you blame Israel for Mubarak’s consistent “jailing and torturing of its opponents” (which I also certainly condemn) without blaming Hamas for exactly the same kinds of torture and murder of its opponents? How can you remain silent about the female genital mutilation which is practiced on 96 percent of Egyptian women or on the honor murders, forced veiling, arranged marriage, polygamy, etc. that characterizes Islamic gender apartheid in the disputed territories and in Egypt—as practiced by the very people you are busy idealizing, when in fact it was Mubarak who, unsuccessfully, banned and actually tried to eliminate some of these barbaric practices.

How can you demand a “generous, loving, caring” Global Marshall Plan, as introduced by Congressman Keith Ellison, for the Palestinians first among peoples? And for the mainly Muslim Middle East? When it comes to caring and sharing, how dare you forget South Sudan or Congo?

How can you still retain your illusions/delusions about who Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaida, and the Muslim Brotherhood really are, namely, totalitarian theocratic fundamentalists, practitioners of both religious and gender apartheid, and barbaric misogynists who wish to rule the world in a new Caliphate? Really, how can you overlook and not even mention the mistreatment of women in Egypt, Gaza, and on the West Bank, not to mention in Iran—which is the state entity calling many of the shots in the Arab world?

Well, President Obama managed to deliver a State of the Union message without focusing on women. I guess he is your role model.

Actually, “Whitehouse.gov” DOES have an “issues” hyperlink to “women:”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/women

Click on it, and see where the word “mothers” comes up ONCE:

The President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which included a number of provisions of particular concern to women:

• To help working mothers and fathers obtain quality child care, the Act includes an additional $2 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, $1 billion for Head Start, and $1.1 billion for Early Head Start.

In a section on “WOMEN” –half (or more than) the population, and mothers to the other half — the word “mother” comes up only in association with “fathers” and only under working and getting child care.  SO much for the verb, “mothering.”  PERHAPS — we may show up as a category (mothers) under the Issue “Family”??

 

(I did this already, this is simply a “demo”):  YEP  – under the issue “FAMILY” we come up ONCE (same breath as fathers, and no different from them) and a boilerplate of the other paragraph.  So much for our biological and psychological functions in raising children….as a policy issue…

• To help working mothers and fathers obtain quality child care, the Act includes an additional $2 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, $1 billion for Head Start, and $1.1 billion for Early Head Start.

 

The word “mother” — even under the subheading “family” occurs ONLY when next to a father, and ONLY when working (see above).  But surely, if we are right next to children, — at least infants, then we are “MOTHERS?”

NOPE — not according to Whitehouse.gov/issues/family:

To fight hunger, the Act includes a $20 billion increase for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps, as well as funding for food banks and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

 

Well, President Obama had a mother, right? . . . . Surely in that case, it’s “mother.”  He was Dreaming about his Father, but while with a mother — and surely if one becomes President, SOME parent did all right — and logically speaking, his MOTHER should get at least generic-noun credit:

NOPE:

• Strengthen Families
• President Obama was raised by a single parent and knows the difficulties that young people face when their fathers are absent. He is committed to responsible fatherhood, by supporting fathers who stand by their families and encouraging young men to work towards good jobs in promising career pathways.

 

Am I the only person who notices this?  His MOTHER raised him — but while doing it she was a “parent” with an absent Father, a status that compromises “young people.”  Fathers, Young People, a Parent, and an understanding parent.  NOtice anything missing, verbally?  And if you can’t say the word, what are the chances that we have some say in policy?

And HOW many mothers across the U.S. voted for this man?

The OCSE programs to promote “responsible fatherhood” are not doing this.  They are encouraging legal corruption of due process, and creating a lot of “noncustodial mothers” who then pay to see their own kids — if they can.  If we read the policyspeak, talking to the public, talking to each others, — this comes out sooner or later.  I know I was shocked to find out that my life, my subcategory of personhood, did not count unless it had a male attached, responsible or (case in point) IRresponsible.

 

Seems negligible in light of the Egyptian Crisis, but most political crises have a large religious component — adn so does our new national religion of promoting responsible FATHERhood at EVERYONE’s expense (as federal funding is involved), and in cooperation with — get this — faith-based initiatives.

 

From time to time I write Dr. Phyllis to call attention the downward spiral TOWARDS sharia that our government is taking in these matters.  Here was a recent email (minus some personal anecdote):

 

Yes, I noticed the near-total absence of women in these photos, and the near lack of any commentary on their absence (cf.Kent State)…

And I noticed the lack of commentary on it.

Then again, I have noticed the lack of commentary on U.S. Presidents’ state of the union addresses, in general, and am told that Obama’s inaugural speech ddin’t even mention “women” as a topic, although we are more than half the population.

I also noticed that as a result, in part, over the exaltation of “fatherhood” and “families” (and the increasing elimination of the word, and funciton, “mother” in public policy –at least in any equal, or positive sense) + Bush’s Faith-based initiatives and Obama’s OFFICE of Faith-based Initiatives, etc.  — women & mothers don’t stand much of a chance in family courts across the country IF they stand up to abuse, or adultery by the father, or rape & molestation of their children.

In even more of an insult (to mothers), the cooperation with the “faith-based” groups is supposed to help prevent or alleviate domestic violence & abuse by helping “families” (and violating due process in the courts, and other state laws designed to protect INDIVIDUALS from certain crimes).  I found no help from these groups in stopping violence, reporting it, addressing it, confronting it –even after that escalated from abuse (I managed to get the father out of the home with legal help) to legal harassments going over a decade now, stalking, harassments to the point of losing not some, but ALL employment — employment became impossible in this scenario, and I was a single mother — elder abuse. . .{{personal anecdote deleted}}

.  What kind of country IS this?

Thereafter, the conservative, and faith/religion-basd groups are now cooperating, “Fatherhood & Domestic Violence” practitioners/advocates — with each other as if to somehow help the famlies of the U.S.  They also then help men in prison (sometimes in prison FOR the criminal violence against women, either the mother, or another woman) (and/OR a young man in jail — OR a wife — for stopping the assault & battery of a woman, his mother — with a bullet when there was no other apparent way out).

The fatherhood groups recruit/solicit men in prison to re-unite them with their families.

In some situations, this is noble.  But when a custody battle is under way, this activity (also unknown to many mothers) compromises her LEGAL rights to due process as a citizen, and her UNALIENABLE right to stay alive, with her kids.  If she flees / when she flees (and some mothers, unlike me, have) — she can be hunted down in all but a very few countries, and turned in, jailed by a FAMILY court judge (or others) for criminal kidnapping — but when her husband does this, it’s a rare prosecution (case in point).

What I’m saying, in NOTICING that your email is correct here, and not commented on in the news, we MUST start taking a stand against the abuse of women, including honor killings by Muslim families in this country and Non-muslim abuse, sometimes leading also to death and “familicide,”

based on a mollified version of the same theocracy behind Islam.

IN EFFECT, I’ve found / we’ve found (several individual women and some of their groups) is that the government sponsored entities are out-founded, out-organized, and get grants tfor “technical assistance,” and work through profits, nonprofits, professional associations, and government agencies — and ALL of those categories typically are going to pay lower taxes than any wage-owning mother whose wages are being garnished and who was improperly put on “supervised visitation” (paying to see her kids) as if SHE were the criminal for reporting crime . .. and all of this is contributing to the lessening of any “social services” because it involves high-level kickbacks and fraud (federal program fraud) of the American taxpayers and public.

I have written for some time to you on this, and hoped that a chapter somehow, or reference might be put into any revised version of “Mothers on Trial” — on the other hand, I can (without your longstanding reputation as a feminist, and a thoughtful one, not a mob-following one) attempt to get this out myself.

I beg of you (and associates) to stand up HERE as well, even as the Middle East Crisis is tumultuous and world-threatening, mis-construed, and under-reported from the Islamification point of view, from the women’s ALREADY subjugated status — to UNDERSTAND AND I HOPE SPEAK — to how our own government in cooperation with FAITH GROUPS has left no safe place for any woman & MOTHER of faith to find legitimate support — I had to go to . . . the civil court to save my life, and my daughters and possibly my husband’s, whose family has mental illness, suicide, incest (to the point of jail) and basic serious problems in it — but who found ample cover for these problems (no help to address them) in religious circles.

{Because, and when

}… I had DARED as a single mother to stick up for my right to work — where I chose and to benefit daughters in my household — to a childless BROTHER IN LAW on my side of the family — I was punished by total cutoff from my own daughters.

I say these things because of Dr. Phyllis’ known association/ connection with conservatives, including some conservative Christians.  In the U.S., I testify, they are no friend to women, although so far, (and not unilaterally) a step up from Islam in worldwide practice.

My Christianity was not even traditional conservative, but was still held up as a problem in the courts, apparently because it was ‘different.”

 

We DO know (financially) what type of corruption is going on in these circles, and the root of it is financial, but its covering is words like “parent” when mother is the truth, or programs to support “fatherhood” when the Congress is already primarily male, as are many of the primary institutions by design, in this country.  They are heirarchy and status-based. …. Keeping things “organized” and ordering people around to the detriment of common sense, individuality (within legal framework) or their rights.

 

Here’s another accounting of how this works in the courts, it’s about 2001 …  the woman who wrote it detailed the organizational conflicts of interest in the system (nationally), locally in her case, and has burnt out, like me, trying to wake up others to the fact it’s not about philosophy or religion — but about finances and kickbacks, etc.  As such, it’s EVERYONE’s issue.

And, our President can’t even acknowledge his own mother with the word “mother” on WHITEHOUSE.gov.  How disrespectful! Not that previous presidents, including those who started these programs, much better.  But is it really necessary to go whole hog on “FATHERHOOD.gov?”  — I mean, come on!

 

This is a response (letter to the editor) on a recall effort of a Northern California District Attorney.  I found the link on the National Alliance for Family Court JUSTICE:  http://nafcj.net.  Notice how well written:  This points out the D.A. collaboration in refusing to prosecute.  If a District Attorney won’t prosecute, but bounces cases instead to “family law” — the laws to prevent crimes against human beings become unenforceable when the human being in question is not the head of the nationally-recognized, pro forma word “family.” which just happens to coincide with conservative theological definition of a religion that came off one where the Priests were called Father and whose headquarters is in a country all its own in Italy.  Let alone the two preceding ones, in reverse chrono order, Judaism and Islam.

http://www.newsmakingnews.com/ross4,7,01.htm

Editor,

I am the California director of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice (NAFCJ), a support and advocacy group seeking accountability and  reform of courts, judges, attorneys and social services. NAFCJ has  identified a Family Court corruption scheme involving the misuse of federal parenting  and custody grant programs. The legal strategy used to accomplish the fund  diversion in individual cases is the “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS)  custody switching program devised by incest advocate Dr. Richard Gardner.
PAS calls for the Court to suppress evidence of family violence and child  sexual abuse when the father is the perpetrator. Blame is shifted to the  mother by dismissing her reports of abuse as attempts to “alienate”
children  from their father. The mothers’ (and children’s) silence is ensured by  court-ordered PAS “threats” which include supervised visitation, loss of  custody, jail and institutionalization.

On this blog, as well as official government sites, it’s known that in California at least, Federal Incentive funds go to the California Judicial Council, Administrative office of the Courts, “Center for Families & Children in the Courts” and the series of grants are called Access/Visitation.  The purpose is stated as increasing “noncustodial parent” time in order to better child support payments.  This is not the actual purpose, as we know, for diverting TANF funds to Child Support Enforcement, and diverting Child Support Enforcement Funds to (designer family/fatherhood, etc.) and a good deal of them to kickbacks as well.  This is  NOT new news — just under-reported news.  For a quick example/summary, see:

Michael Hayes Wants to Build “Family-Centered” Child Support

I must continue to emphasize that the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OSCE) is no longer about collecting child support. It is about meddling in your family business and exercising government control over families (which begins with the “birth certificate” and “marriage licenses”), with emphasis on removing control from women as childbearers and autonomous beings. This money is NOT going to raise the children–it is going into million-dollar research at the hand of psychology pseudoscience and court litigation.

. . . (quoting Michael Hayes of Texas Attorney General’s office — an office that’s SUPPOSED to be about enforcing laws, right?  Wrong ….

also want to acknowledge the value that OCSE Section 1115 and SIP grants have had for the evolution of child support, both in Texas and around the country. Through Section 1115 grants, our Family Initiatives Section in Texas has been able to pursue the projects I’ve talked about, since these grants may be used to fund certain activities not normally allowed under FFP rules. The creativity and innovation that those grant programs have fostered play a big part in child support’s continued growth and vision. We take pride in how we’ve been able to keep the work going after the grant funding expires by using careful collaboration and coordination. For example, we found we could provide additional services to parents by linking Access and Visitation partners to our child support offices. Once the parents meet with us about the support order, they are escorted to the AV staff so they can develop a parenting plan. We could not have moved as thoughtfully or as quickly without that support.

Thank you, Michael Hayes, for making this so easy for us! I don’t even have to explain it anymore.

 

BACK TO NEWSMAKING NEWS, reporting same idea in 2001, only in some more detail:

 

The Court steers the case in the guise of children’s  “best interests,” while the actual agenda is for the Court and
court-appointees to receive and divert funds intended for “Access to Visitation,” “Responsible Fatherhood” and “Child Support Enforcement”  programs.

The Recorder article “Kamena Recall Effort Has Weird Mix of  Bedfellows” (4-3-01 Click to read. http://www.callaw.com/stories/edt0403b.shtm) states that the DA’s office has “little, if any, contact with the
family court,” and “no authority over family court issues.”

These statements  are misleading. While it is true that the DA has no jurisdiction over family  law cases, the PAS strategy specifically depends on collaboration between the DA’s office and the Family Court in turning domestic violence and child  molestation crimes into “custody disputes.”

When the Family Court “identifies” PAS, it depends on the DA’s refusal  to prosecute perpetrator fathers and collaboration with the Family Court in criminalizing mothers. This is done by giving the Family Court
jurisdiction  and enacting the “Conciliation Court Law” (CA Codes 1800-1852), so that the abuse becomes a “custody” dispute rather than a crime. The more a mother complains or seeks assistance, the more her attempts to rescue her children  are used against her in both the Family and Criminal Courts. The courts
work  together to label her an alienator* and a “vexatious litigant” to justify threatening and punishing her through the legal system and in jail. * (PAS  is  not a legitimate psychological disorder and other fabricated syndromes may be  used instead of or in addition to PAS. These include: “Munchausen Syndrome
by  Proxy”, “Malicious Mother”, “Domestic Predator” and “Access Interference.”  Sometimes legitimate disorders are inappropriately applied, e.g.,  “Borderline  Personality Disorder” and sometimes the mother is simply labeled  “delusional” or “crazy.”)

The PAS strategy also depends on the DA Family Support Division’s participation in abating rather than enforcing fathers’ child support obligations. This is done through programs which recruit fathers with
“child  support payment issues” and provide them with free benefits, including legal services from contracted attorneys and mediators. While the stated goal of  these programs is to “enhance the well-being” of children, in fact these  programs do exactly the opposite. “Responsible Fatherhood” program evaluation documents from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) show that  TANF/Welfare funds are used to reduce or eliminate fathers’ child support  payments and to “resolve” “access to visitation” issues using PAS  methodology. NAFCJ has received information regarding DHHS-ACF-OCSE  (Administration for Children and Families-Office of Child Support  Enforcement) “Incentive/Hold Harmless” funding, which shows that  approximately one half billion dollars is granted out to states based on a performance schedule.  Preliminary review of program documents suggests  that  Incentive Fund payment is based on factors such as child support  pass-throughs — with GREATER bonus money for LESS child support collected  and passed through.

In Marin County, the Superior Court/Family Law Facilitator, and the  DA/Family Support Division collaborate through a project called the “Focus  on Fatherhood Program” and the Court is the recipient of an annual Title IV-D  Child Support Enforcement Grant. All of the attorneys and evaluators  contracted by the courts are those that use and teach PAS methodology,  especially through their affiliations with the Association of Family and  Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and/or the Children’s Rights Council (CRC). CRC is the primary FR group working directly with Richard Gardner, DHHS, OCSE and other government officials and agencies, and is heavily cross affiliated with AFCC.

Court contracted and appointed AFCC affiliates do PAS custody switches and fund diversion through the “conciliation court” by calling themselves “mediators” who practice “Collaborative Law” and “Alternate Dispute Resolution.”  After receiving appointments as attorneys for children, custody evaluators, special masters and therapists, they rig the cases so that  fathers avoid child support obligations and the funds are redirected back to themselves and the Court. Often this means that the father will get custody in arrangements that are both illegal and detrimental to the children and mothers. However, because the DA participates in the scheme, any requests for investigation are dismissed as “family law matters” over which the DA claims lack of jurisdiction.

 

This plan would not work IF the DA’s office prosecuted properly.  Meanwhile, at least in Alameda County, a major grant was obtained to start a “Family Justice Center” (see my blog:  one-stop, fast-food, family justice centers).  The granst money is spread around and around — almost everyone gets a piece of it except for whoever the grants are ostensibly to help.

 

And The TV spoke about bribes in Egypt as a cause of that revolution. . . . .  Hypocrites! !!!  Like we don’t have that well-organized here….

 

It’s easy to oppress a category of human being that has no public policy name in association with that which they brought forth, with after gestation and labor — and this is called pregnancy and birth.  That category is Mothers under the human category “women.”  And when addressing the NATION, the word “women” doesn’t come up?

 

That’s why I was shocked to hear a U.S. Representative from Wisconsin even SAY the word “women” make the connection between pregnancy, healthcare, and domestic violence — in front of her peers.  (See recent post).  It was shockingly abnormal.  Has U.S. policy already completed subjugating us that so few protest?  And if so, why are all these federally -funded collaborations with faith-based and community-based organizations NEEDED to teach “fatherhood” to adult males, many of who spent their childhoods somewhere between federally-funded Head Start or Child Care, School Systems, Juvenile Hall and/or Prison?  Who raised them?  Given the heavy hand of these institutions in raising those people, and blaming the failures on “female-headed households” — what can one expect when they grow up?

 

And what incentive to mothers and women have to excel, when doing so will — in a marriage situation — like as not get them punished, possibly beaten (if they married inappropriately), dumped for a younger model if they married politically or high (i.e., “well” according to society) — and their very success threatens the status quo, which was to be inferior, forever, although somehow we managed to get the vote in the 1900s…

 

I’m a mother.  I’d just like to know what I should tell my own daughters, for their benefit, when I see them next — at which time it appears both will now be adults raised with an absent parent for the second half (their mother) and a violent father for the first half of childhood.

Should I tell them the truth — that they were lied to, a lot?  Or is the truth “emotional abuse” and speaking it a punishable offence, depending on one’s gender?