Never heard of Glenn Sacks but I went to his website and read his comments about Obama’s Father Day speech and the speech one of his readers from Charlotte, NC heard in church on Father’s Day and as a feminist, I agree. Father’s Day speech should honor fathers as they do mothers on Mother’s Day. Jerry, I am high-jacking your old Jewish joke.

I was on the fence about Obama’s because I read Dreams From My Father and even though it was Obama’s personal story and experience, the speech was political vehicle to speak to the wider non-black audience than it was “preaching to the choir” (the African-American community). It was also directed at all women to hear their complaints and be a voice for them. Personally, I think it was designed more for all women, especially Hillary supporters.

Obama’s speech, as the son of an absentee father, was a story that should be told but not on Father’s Day. Father’s Day was not designed to bash fathers who neglect their children. Bashing fathers on Father’s Day is giving that day back to mothers for their childrearing efforts, making it a de facto second Mother’s Day in June. Maybe this is happening because most of the parishioners are women. Fathers Speak Up and Take Your Day Back!

After reading Jerry’s comments and comments on Glenn Sacks’ website I feel all fathers were done an injustice on Father’s Day from the churches. Father’s Day is designed to honor the great fathers that take care of their children and especially dads who make every effort to stay connected to their children despite separations.

Yes Quaker in a Basement, this Father’s Day message was directed at White voters. Obama in a church, every eye will be on him. Obama’s message was to make an appeal to White Republicans and Independents with the theme of “personal responsibility.” When inequities and disparities between White and non-White communities become an issue White voters love that theme, “personal responsibility minus government intervention (translation no money for you)”.

I encourage you to read and discuss or debate this issue with Glenn Sacks. I find that both of you (and Obama and Cosby) are accurate and insightful on this issue. But you disagree.

As a divorced father that got terribly screwed with respect to custody (all the court psychs said I should be given 50/50, the judge allowed the mother to move away effectively giving her 100%), I find that Glenn Sacks is a true, honest, and insightful representative for divorced fathers, and actually for all fathers.

Contrary to enormous distortions of his statements and positions by Melissa McEwan and Amanda Marcotte, if you read Sacks for a month or so, you’ll find he is almost certainly a progressive liberal on almost all issues. He does however find that “us liberals” don’t listen to his messages and won’t debate them, so he normally finds airtime on conservative radio.

I find it distressing that what I see as clear bias against fathers in our courts, and a bias that hurts men and hurts their children, and a bias that works against fathers and especially low income fathers is considered by “us liberals” to be just “angry white men” upset with feminism. The truth is that most fathers were born after Title IX, were born into a two income household, and if they have two kids, 3/4ths of all fathers have at least one daughter. I suspect a lot of the real work of feminism in tearing down barriers at work is done by fathers.

Anyway, you two had different takes on this issue. I encourage you to read and debate with Sacks.

There’s an old Jewish joke that fits this situation. I’d like to play it for you. It goes a little something like this.

“In a small town in Russia, people brought their complaints to the Rabbi to settle their differences. This day, two men were before the Rabbi.
He listened to one man and said, “You are right.”
He listened to the second man and said, “You are right.”
When they left, his wife, who was listening in the next room, said to him, “You’re supposed to be some kind of judge? How can they be both right?”
He listened to her and said, “You know? You’re right, too.””

…you’re a wonder of medical science!

Which, IMO, is central to Obama’s point, and Cosby’s before him.

I think Obama was talking specifically to those who have the means and ability to be a part of their child’s life, but then choose not to be.

Roughly half of black children live in single-parent households. Are you suggesting this is a failing of personal responsibility?
More than it should be, yes. I’m not saying that the sole cause of this issue is internal, but enough of it is that its a problem. A lot of men – and in this case, black men – have no social pressure to fulfill their fatherly duties. It has nothing to do with whether they have the means to do so. They simply choose not to, and within black society there still isn’t enough of a stigma (in my mind) associated with it. As you can probably tell, I’m a strong believer in the power of social shame. I don’t think we have to go back to the era where unwed mothers were taken out of society, but I believe the pendulum has swung too far to the point where an absentee black father is the norm and there’s no ostracism of said characters.

If they have to wear a scarlet letter, so be it. The children are what is important here.

No, Oliver is.

these people aren’t weak and powerless. That’s an excuse too many black fathers in absentia make. “The man” isn’t preventing you from doing your duty as a father, your own lazy ass is.

Mind you, we’re talking about millions upon millions of men here. If there’s a failure of personal responsibility driving this trend, where’s the cause? Does it ever affect men of other races too? Under what circumstances?

Here’s my guess. If you take a sample of 1,000 low-income black families and 1,000 low-income white families, you’ll see only a minor difference in the presence of fathers, and it will correlate closely with factors beyond the control of the individual. But I’ll admit here, I’m guessing.

Are you suggesting this is an either/or proposition? Couldn’t there just as easily be both, but Obama is speaking largely to those who fall in the first category? (Many of whom might be there because they’re convinced they can’t fight the second category?)

You’re right, of course. They should all stop dallying and go get high-paying jobs.

Roughly half of black children live in single-parent households. Are you suggesting this is a failing of personal responsibility? Or do you think there might be some institutional factors at work?

He was also attending a new church after leaving Trinity. He was asked to speak on Father’s Day, so he did so, and as it was Father’s Day, he spoke on fathers.

What would have been really bizarre would have been for him to speak in front of the church about his presidential campaign. I would find your cynicism warranted, in such a case.

But you won’t count me amongst those who will say it’s “courageous.”

Fair enough. I think it’s at least a little courageous to say something that might be perceived as an insult by a portion of your probable electoral base. It’d be like Sen. McCain going out and saying “you know, all these pro-war Iran-hawk Republicans need to stop with all this ‘defeatocrat’ and ‘appeasement’ bull. Treat your ideological opponent with the respect he deserves, or shut your piehole.”

Really? In the middle of running for President, he just took time out for some off-the-cuff remarks about fatherhood and the shortcomings of black fathers in particular?

Perhaps my cynicism is running rampant, but I suspect he measured the effect of his words on the campaign before he made the speech. Given that, one may well judge his message.

I was always annoyed by people who referred to the performances in Brokeback Mountain as “brave” solely because Ledger and Gyllenhaal simulated sex with each other. (How “brave” can it be, really? Better question; how much “braver” is it than a man and a woman doing the same scene?)

Such things are only “brave” to somebody who doesn’t have the spine to do it themselves.

I think it’s a great message, and I think it needs to be said repeatedly until it gets through everybody’s skull. But you won’t count me amongst those who will say it’s “courageous.”

Why does there have to be? Didn’t Cosby already blaze that trail? Again, Barack has a more authentic perspective on this issue, so why would it have to appear to be courageous?

I see it more as the equivalent of him saying, “You know, I wish my father had been around more so I could better identify with this Father’s Day business. If you’re a father, you should be around more.”

When you put it that way, sure, but I was taking Quaker’s comment to be that the speech was designed specifically for its political benefits–that is, it was a pander. I think Obama believes what he says in this speech.

Whether it was political at all (in a season where neither he nor Sen. McCain will use the john without having the political implications analyzed) or vetted by aides (I wouldn’t be surprised if aides vet which john he uses) is for me irrespective of the fact that it was a solid message that will hopefully hit home for a few layabouts and n’er-do-wells (of any ethnicity) and get them back into their kids’ lives.

In other words, it’s all politics at this point, isn’t it? And if it is, does that render the message somehow less worthy? I say no, not at all.

Given his recent church woes, don’t know if it was well-advised.

Maybe, but who wants a candidate that consistently lets his opponents set the tone? Better to have a politican that exercises a little courage, not only critising part of his likely voting base but also not being so timid as to fear opening up his flank for a little misquoting.