Glenn Sacks: Fathers' Movement Fights New 'Deadbeat Dad' Ads

Before you watch the video be forewarned: Brown and the hosts keep interrupting Sacks while he is talking, but when he does the same to them a couple times he is castigated; the audience seems to be mainly women, and they are clearly biased in favor of Brown; the female host (Juliet Huddy) is very hostile toward Sacks.

-ax

What suprised me about it was it seemed like the male host was the only one who would at least let Sacks say what he came to say. It looked like he even tried to get the female host to stop interrupting, if only for a second.

I thought it was good, he got in a big one which was the jobs they have, but unfortunately I don't feel he responded well when the female host started bringing up 'obligations'. A good thing to say would be that these men all have life stories that go far beyond the short blurb on the pizza box. What were they're support requirements? How many of them fell behind after being laid off or fired? Did the courts reduce payments for them? I'm sure they could have found 1 of the guys on the box who was listed as a 'day laborer' probably making $200 a week with a $300/mo child support obligation and a $600/mo rent payment. He should have brought up that in a normal family when daddy loses his job, the family will cut back on nonessentials, but the courts never reign in the spending of the mother on the child even though there is in reality less money available.

I also feel it's a little alienating to a lot of people to bring in other issues like women initiating most divorces. I'm hardly saying it's not true as it obviously is, but I feel it sort of confuses the issue at hand.

Someone should try to get ahold of one of these pizza boxes and maybe someone in the legal profession could research one or more of these guys and get their story, the story that's more than a blurb on a pizza box. The one that might make people feel some shame for treating fathers this way.

He should have brought up that in a normal family when daddy loses his job, the family will cut back on nonessentials, but the courts never reign in the spending of the mother on the child even though there is in reality less money available.

We can't have women reigning in their expenses when the man loses his job, or working harder when child support is unavailable, or being accountable for how child support is spent. That would require that those women take on the responsibilities of an adult - an idea which is political suicide and which is a complete contradiction of the very foundation on which our society is built. Simply put, that foundation is the widely accepted principle that men are disposable, barely-tolerable slaves whose only purpose is to work and die to provide for the needs of women and children, never having any needs of his own - those needs are to be ridiculed, trivialized or simply ignored if they are ever expressed.

When many woman leave their childhood homes, they avoid adult responsibilities by marrying a man to replace daddy as the cash dispenser and protector. When she tires of having any responsibilities to any man or as part of a family (this is far too similar to adulthood for a great many women), she throws the replacement daddy out and remains in her child-like state with the readily available help of daddy government, funded primarily by taxes on the labor of men. For many women, a brief marriage/impregnation is the closest they ever come to adulthood - the return to a true father-child relationship with the government is what cements their regression into childhood.

Children are narcissists because they insist on having their every last need attended to immediately, regardless of the circumstances. In a child this is expected and acceptable. This is why most narcissists are still "children" in a clinical sense well into their senior years. Narcissistic women remain in their child-like state in perpetuity. Not only is this phenomenon both acceptable and encouraged in our culture, our culture is designed to facilitate their permanent child status. Our laws, our morals, our religions, our traditions, our politics - everything supports the idea that it is perfectly acceptable for women to remain in a perpetual, narcissistic, child-like state and encourages women to do so. In our culture, narcissism is acceptable in children AND women. In men, it's a DSM-IV-listed diagnosis.

It's a given in our culture that women should be allowed to have more rights than adult men and fewer responsibilities than infant children. That's what the perpetually aggrieved "victim" status proclaimed by feminists is really all about. That's why women need child support and alimony and debtors prisons for men who force women into adult responsibilities and special women-only laws and lesser criminal sentences and free legal assistance and armies of feminist-trained enforcers and women's shelters and exclusion from the draft and the unabridged right to make false accusations and preferred access to health care and better educations and taxpayer-funded lobbying groups. Adults don't need those things. Children do.

Altogether too many women are still children. Don't tell them though - that's "sexist" and it's quite literally a crime to even suggest that a women be expected to live up to adult responsibilities in our culture.

Hey, I think I have a new tagline:

Feminism - enabling princesses for nearly 50 years

I pretty much agree with you, except that regarding Sacks' mentioning that the men have low-brow jobs, I would say that that line of reasoning is not sufficient even in a general sense. After all, the average person, upon hearing Sacks say this, may wonder, "well, if the father was helping support the child while they were married, why can't he provide that support now?". Many people will oversimplify the issue this way, in their thinking.

I guess that is, in a sense, what you are saying anyway?

-ax

Not to start a mea culpa session, but I am proud to say that when my parents were divorced (while I was a child), my mom refused to accept child support, and when my dad sent her checks she would return them. Instead she compensated by working her ass off (the proverbial 2 jobs)..in other words she increased her level of responsibility. I am also proud to say that I never heard her say the words "feminist" or "feminism", and do not recall her going on any protest marches or etc. (and this was in the 60's and 70's!).

-ax

...there are plenty of decent adult women out there who, just like your mom, are more than willing AND perfectly able to take huge responsibilities on and never look back. It's been my experience that such fine women absolutely despise the feminists and entitlement princesses.