Amanda of Pandagon will be the featured guest on Men’s Rights Activist Glenn Sacks’ radio show tonight from 5PM PST / 8PM EST.
This is how Sacks frames this particular show:
The American Coalition for Fathers and Children and a myriad of Michigan fatherhood organizations are sponsoring the Families and Fathers Conference 2005: Healing Our Families–A Time for Change. Speakers include: ACFC President Stephen Baskerville; family law attorney Jeffrey Leving; Dr. Ned Holstein of Fathers and Families of Massachusetts; Dr. Steven Walker of Families in Transition; and others. Many conference attendees and supporters see the fatherhood movement as the civil rights movement of our era.
Feminist writer Amanda Marcotte disagrees. She believes that both the Conference and the fathers’ movement as a whole seek to “reverse feminist gains in divorce and custody laws,” and help men “use children as a tool” in order to “regain control of their ex-wives’ lives.” Marcotte labels Parental Alienation Syndrome a “fake syndrome” and says “the underlying issue for a lot of fathers’ rights activists is paying child support.”
Fair enough. But the “civil rights movement of our era?” I think there are more pressing civil rights movements in the world than reframing divorce laws. While you’re listening, be sure to check out the ads during the show. Your head might fall off of your neck.
Click here to listen live. This page also includes instructions on how to call the show. Amanda would appreciate live, active feminist support.
NOTE: Listen to the mp3 recording of the show. Pay attention to the ads.
Similar Posts:
- Crime, Pregnancy and Civil Rights by Jill October 26, 2006
- Send Lauren to BlogHer by zuzu June 12, 2006
- Dr. Susan Stryker Tonight on Blogtalk Radio by Cara August 2, 2009
- On BlogTalk Radio by Jill March 8, 2010
- Who Wants to Buy Me a Present? by Jill September 28, 2005
Thanks for the support! This whole thing is rather surreal, but I hope I at least have some kind of fun.
I just finished reading several of Glenn Sacks essays posted on his webpage. He’s a real peice of work, eh? He seems to really scrape the bottom of the barrel to find the most obscure anecdotes to that best fit his agenda. As a man, a lot of what he says is actually downright offensive to me. I wonder if he would see the irony in that. The essay illustrating his views on a male contraceptive is especially troublesome. I guess assholes need a support group too…..
I was going to rip apart a few of his “statistical” quotes about pregnant women and homicide. But its not worth it. It’s so glaringly wrong my kid looked at me and said “Is he crazy?”
As a listener of Glenn Sacks I suggest that you try to understand his reviews rather than to right them off as “crazy.” Glenn goes out of his way to bring together both sids of this important topic that involves our entire society. This debate is necessary if the problems that plague families are going to be resolved. As a non-custodial parent I know first hand the injustice involved with family courts today. Please listen to the views of the “enemy” and maybe we can create a compromise that can heal our broken families.
Unless and until you are willing to really listen to fathers and attempt to understand the father-child bond and how it is routinely, systematically and sometimes thoroughly ruined in family court, you will be acting on an ignorant pretense. If it is difficult for you to understand that a father’s love for his child(ren) can be absolutely true and incorrupt, then your judgments of all men are inherently flawed. If you simply don’t want to admit such, you have nothing to add to the discussion but your own bigotry.
James, every time I’ve listened to his show I’ve found him to be quite congenial to the representative of the opposing viewpoint. I respect this. My problem is with the framing of the debate.
***
More generally, custody issues are not necessarily feminist issues, but Sacks likes to frame them as such, probably in part because of the sensational radio format. Feminists have a vested interest in representing the interests of women, but we have an equal investment in protecting the work that all people do in the home because feminists have historically done a great deal to push our culture into valuing the unpaid work that is done on behalf of children and the elderly, overwhelmingly done by women.
It is my wish that as women maintain their places in the workforce that men feel comfortable in the home, performing what is traditionally, and wrong-headedly, considered women’s work. It’s not my opinion that men are unvaluable in parenting their children — that is a ridiculous position — but that all parties assume the greatest responsibility possible on behalf of their children.
The way the current court systems are set up, the party that had the most contact with the children maintains the most physical custody. I think this is a wise decision on behalf of the courts because it lessens the overall physical change in the children’s life during a time of great upheaval. Whether the primary caregiver was or is male or female is not of interest to me, as long as the children have some sort of consistency during times of divorce and separation. What children need is true consistency, not legal consistency, and in a time of divorce “consistency” does not amount to being shuttled between homes just because one parent or the other feels cheated by their ex. Someone has to give, and it should never be the children.
And just so you know, I co-parent in a joint custody agreement with very liberal visitation, so I do have experience with this. My son’s father and I get along quite well, I’m happy to say. It has taken some hard work, but we do our best to make sure our relationship is functional for our son’s sake.