xmas3.gif (5351 bytes)



David Blankenhorn:  Liar Extraordinaire


David Blankenhorn toured the country in 1997 to promote his book "Fatherless America", during which time he was asked no less than 50 times, in response to his claim that fathers walk away from their children: "What percent of the time do you believe that fathers are THROWN OUT of, rather than walk away from, their own homes and families".

He LIED and said that he would answer the question later, and suggested that we read his book where we wouldl find the answer to that question. He never answered the question, and the answer is not in his crummy book as he claimed it is.  You have to read every page of that worthless drivel to realize that Blankenhorn is brain dead when it comes to statistics and reality.

After this meeting, we encountered him in a restaurant, where we took the opportunity to ask this question in a less public setting, to which he whined in a little girl's voice:  "you are harassing me".

Whew, this is not a fathers' rights activist--this is just barely a man who was planted on Earth by the feminist god herself to promote feminism and "gender equality".

Blankenhorn's only contribution to humanity is the following statement:


Fatherless America, Page 31:  “According to a 1990 study commissioned by the Progressive Policy Institute, the ‘relationship between crime and one-parent [read:single mother] families’ is ‘so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature.”



Incredible, Mr Stephen.

Don't Worry.

Well, may be it is just a proof that the position stated by Stephen in their Papers (like 'The criminalization of fatherhood'), really are 'touching' something in all the society, and 'the enemy', looks how to answer.

And, the best to answer it, it is personal attacks, coming from 'fathers'.

Really, I don't see a big problem here, they don't give reference, information (As the 900.000 children you right say, Richard), but theory.

It is, probably, just a probe that something very important is starting to being seriously broken in the enemy image-public level.

May be it is a good sign.

Best Regards.

Antonio Javier M. Martinez.

Madrid, Espa�a.

Fathers and Sons.         http://www.arrakis.es/~ajmm/
Canaletas. Alhambra:   http://www.geocities.com/apinpach/
Adios Papa:                  http://www.adiospapa.org

'Don�t know what is happening,
don�t know what is around you,
Just smile my child".

(Miguel Hernandez, Spanish Poet, 1936,
to a child, born in the middle of a war).

"Richard C. Weiss" wrote:


Does David Blankenhorn have his head stuck in the ground (or somewhere else
less lit)? Amazingly, I previously believed him to be semi-cognizant (and I
even read his book,s ome of which actually semed to make some sense).

His remark "but the underlying societal crisis is not, as Mr. Baskerville
implies, that we mistreat noncustodial fathers but that we have so many of
them in the first place" qualifies Blankenhorn for the "man most in denial"
award", or perhaps IQ slips with age, or perhaps he is keeping company with
our favorite opponents?

In an article I had published several months ago, I estimated from
established statistics on annual number of U.S. divorces, number of
divorces with children, mean number of children/divorced family, mean
proportion of custody awards to mothers, etc that roughly 900,000 to one
million American children are separated from their fit fathers
involuntarily every year by the family court.

Are a million children legally kidnapped from their fathers every year
really nothing to sneeze about? Funny how Blankenhorn (and feminists) can
so casually dismiss 6 logarithms of American children who lose their father
by order of the court to be basically "insignificant?" Rather, he chooses
to blame it all [fatherlessness] on unwed parents having children and/or
the high divorce rate. I suspect that Blankenhorn somehow implies that
fathers are to be blamed for all this fatherlessness, too.  As
irresponsibly, Blankenhorn gives token lip service to the fact that assured
custody with guaranteed custody awards to mothers MAY encourage more (how
many more?) mothers to file for divorce. His understatement of this fact is

With men like Blankenhorn representing fathers in America, who needs enemies?


From: "Stuart Miller" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Author of Fatherless America Blames Fathers
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:39:57 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400

Author of Fatherless America Blames Fathers
Washington Post - February 14, 2001

Stephen Baskerville argues that divorced and never-married fathers are
"forcibly driven away" from their children by mothers and the courts. This
stance reflects a victim psychology in which men avoid personal
responsibility by blaming other people, especially women, for their
problems. Mr. Baskerville's assertion that "very few fathers voluntarily
abandon their children" reflects a fantasy world in which all but a "very
few" noncustodial fathers are good, and all but a "very few" single mothers
are bad.

I agree that some fathers get a raw deal, and current custody laws, which
favor mothers, may contribute to more women filing for divorce. But the
underlying societal crisis is not, as Mr. Baskerville implies, that we
mistreat noncustodial fathers but that we have so many of them in the first

As long as the United States has a 33 percent rate of unwed childbearing
and the highest divorce rate in the world, we will have a profound crisis
of fatherhood, no matter what ex-wives, ex-girlfriends and the courts do
and or do not do.

Institute for American Values
New York

Sunday, March 14, 1999

Give Stay At-Home Parents Equity
Score one for the dignity of parenthood. Expand the tax credit to all families with preschool children.
Since 1976, a federal tax credit has helped working parents to defray some of the costs of paid child care. In his State of the Union address, President Clinton proposed not only significantly increasing the size of this credit but also extending it on a limited basis to parents who choose to stay home to care for a new baby. Unlike last year's credit-enlarging proposal from the White House, which ignored at-home parents, this new version is an endorsement of the principle that full-time parents should no longer be treated by public policy as irrelevant. Much to his credit, President Clinton has helped to shift the terms of the child care debate. From now on, all parents count.
     The bad news is that this more generous definition is threatened from three directions: from the indifference of the Republicans, from the skepticism of many child care advocates and from the inconsistencies within the president's own proposal.
     Ironically, after having argued for years against policies that favored paid care over parent-provided care, many Republicans now seem ready to forget this issue altogether, preferring instead to focus on across-the-board tax relief. But a general tax cut would freeze into place a number of policies, including the current child care tax credit, that ignore marriage and discourage parental care of children.
     Moreover, under the main, current Republican tax-cut proposal, two-thirds of the relief would go to households without children under age 18. The greatest relief would go to the wealthiest one-fifth of households, in which children are underrepresented. In its response to the president's State of the Union message, the GOP did not even mention child care.
     At the same time, many Democrats are less than enthusiastic about expanding the definition of child care to include at-home parents. As Faith Wohl of the Child Care Action Campaign put it last year: "We will not have a serious debate about how to allocate scarce resources to remedy what is really wrong with day care as long as the issue is parental equity rather than the child care infrastructure." So much for parental equity.
     Finally, the details of the president's new proposal fail by a long shot to achieve the ideal of fair treatment that the president has now embraced.
     To see why, imagine two similar families, the Smiths and the Smithereens. Last year, both couples had family incomes totaling $50,000. This year, both couples become first-time parents. The Smiths put the baby in day care so that both of them can return to work. This costs them $2,500 annually in child-care expenses. The Smithereens decide that one of them will quit work. This eliminates day care costs, but reduces the Smithereens' income by $20,000. In economic terms, the Smithereens' child care decision is about seven times as costly as the Smiths' child care decision.
     Now imagine that Clinton's entire 1999 child care package has become law. The expanded child care tax credit available to the two-earner Smiths, who use paid child care, would jump in value from about $600 per year to about $1,000, and could be used until the child is 13. The one-earner Smithereens can use the child care tax credit for a benefit of about $180, and they can only use it for the baby's first year.
     Over the next five years, these new policies would effectively lower the total cost of the Smiths' day care decision by about $5,000, while lowering the cost of the Smithereens' parent-at-home decision by about $180. This is equity? This is recognition for the work that parents do?
     Of course, it isn't. The best solution--the only way for public policy to reflect the principle that child care means caring for children--is to both expand and universalize fully the current child care tax credit, making it available on a nondiscriminatory basis to all families.
     It would be fair. It would expand the choices available to all young parents, even employed parents, who could pursue options such as flexible hours or job-sharing without losing the benefit. And by offering new help to parents who want to spend more time with their children, it would strike a small blow for the dignity of parenthood, especially motherhood. Politically, it could be the basis of a bipartisan consensus on child care that would help millions of families. - - -
David Blankenhorn, President of the New York-based Institute for American Values, and Allan Carlson, President of the Howard Center in Rockford, Ill., Are Among the Signatories to "A Call for Family-supportive Tax Reform," Recently Released by the Institute

Copyright 1999 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved

Search the archives of the Los Angeles Times for similar stories. You will not be charged to look for stories, only to retrieve one.