Legal pendulums swing from one end of the spectrum to the other on a consistent basis, few more so than what occurs in the family court system.   

Throughout the 1960’s, women fought to get laws passed to protect women against domestic violence. After many years, the legal structure of our nation began to recognize women as victims of domestic violence. Laws were passed and enforced to protect “true victims.” Many women lived through domestic violence; many died. Some of the abusers went to jail for homicide; some were later pardoned. Regardless, women got society to recognize the truth with respect to violence against women. 

Now the pendulum has shifted.  Many women now use these laws to their advantage in family courts to bring men to their knees; and to erase fathers from the lives of their children.  To do so, women utilize tactics such as false allegations of child abuse, domestic violence, and stalking, which judges almost never question for fear of being politically incorrect. 

Women who feel justified in punishing men use these false charges indiscriminately. The unfortunate side effect here is that children are forgotten, and have become our newest victims with full cooperation from our Family Court system. Lest we forget, children need fathers too. A recent US Department of Education study, “Fathers Involved in Their Children’s Education,” will bear out these truths. 

Another facet of this issue is the education of women with respect to the legal system.  A new study purports women are filing 70% of divorces today. The important thing to consider here is that the individual filing is the party that usually wins.  The unfortunate person against whom false allegations are charged must prove their innocence while a plaintiff proves nothing. 

Consider this: an innocent father involved in a nasty contested divorce from a woman who vows vengeance is helpless in Family Court. Important child support laws enacted are now strictly, and sometimes unfairly, enforced. There are stories of fathers who lost their jobs from downsizing and/or circumstances beyond their control. When the mother of his children insists on back child support, he is thrown into jail. Child support is based on his “earning ability.” Debtor’s prison has become our most recent politically correct means to control men. Here again, our Family Courts condone whatever women allege, accuse, and dictate to control men. 

Should a husband make the mistake of remarrying, further angering his ex-wife, a second wife’s income is used as “a way to show ability to pay.” The mother of their children, on the other hand, can marry another man. The “other man’s” income is never used to lower child support. Court’s rationale - “they are not his children, not his responsibility.” Since when did a mother bear no responsibility for her children? Today’s women are earning more, and are becoming a majority in our workforce. The stay at home mom of the 50’s rarely exists today. 

False allegations of child abuse by a vengeful ex-wife devastates not only children, but fathers. The wife files first to take advantage of all laws passed to protect true victims of abuse and violence. The wife charges everything from domestic violence to stalking to child abuse. Courts almost always believe a woman over a man today. 

Despite what one may believe, Family Courts across the nation consistently believe, “the mother always makes the best parent.” 

A large number of children are ordered to see a child psychologist when divorce is filed. Counselors and psychologists are encouraged by our system to give bad reports against a father. Fathers are automatically presumed capable of abuse before any mother. 

Mothers are intentionally denying visitation to loving, child support paying fathers, who then spend money and time in court trying to get visitation enforced.  

Divorce is a reality. It is currently a billion dollar a year business. Contested divorce is guerilla warfare whether people want to acknowledge it or not. Everyone wants fuzzy warm answers to harsh reality. Unfortunately, there are none unless we all recognize the gender bias against males perpetuated in Family Court today, and the undeniable damage it does to our children. 

Years ago women had a disadvantage in our domestic courts. Now they can feel quite happy knowing most women win. They can manipulate child support into “backdoor alimony,” deprive their children of their fathers, and ruin their husband. Truth no longer exists in our legal system. 

Women  have come a long way. Women can be proud of the laws they fought hard for 30+ years ago. However, women must stop abusing these laws, or one day the legal pendulum will swing back and our true victims will not be believed again. 

Let’s remember that it is children, not women, who are the real victims of the gender bias in our family courts.

 What are your thoughts?  Does gender bias exist in our family courts?  If so, who does the law favor in your opinion?

Until we speak again, 

“The Inner Chick”

 

                                 

Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 was passed to ensure that women and men received equal athletic opportunities at the high school and collegiate levels.

Recently, the Obama administration rescinded a 2005 clarification on Title IX that allowed student interest surveys to be used as a form of demonstrating compliance with the law.

This move is meant to strengthen Title IX, but what it really does is strengthen a faulty compliance enforcement policy that is hurting men’s minor/Olympic sports programs at the college level.

Proportionality is the name of the game when it comes to Title IX, and this method of compliance is hurting collegiate men’s minor sports teams.

This system of ratios and head counts is how the Office of Civil Rights (the Title IX enforcement group) and athletic departments are defining “equal opportunity.”

There is a need for reform; not with the law itself, but the way we implement it. Providing equal opportunity means looking at more than the just numbers to ensure the athletic abilities and interests of both sexes are adequately met.

Background of Title IX

Title IX says that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

Its original intent was to make sure that men and women received equal opportunities in schools and colleges. However, its focus was expanded to include athletics to ensure women had the same opportunity to participate in sports as men.

In that regard, Title IX has been a success. Before the Education Amendment Acts of 1972, only 1/27 girls played sports in high school. There were just 32,000 female intercollegiate athletes and virtually no athletic scholarships for women.

By 2001, one in every 2.5 female high school students played a sport, and there were 150,000 female collegiate athletes receiving $1 million in athletic scholarships.

Where the issues come up is how Title IX is enforced. A three-pronged compliance test was introduced in a 1979 clarification to determine if institutions met Title IX standards.

The three prongs are:
1. The institution’s ratio of male students to female students is similar to male athletes to female athletes (the proportionality test)
2. The institution shows a “history and continuing practice” of expanding women’s athletic opportunities
3. The institution shows that it has “fully and effectively” met the athletic abilities and interests of women

The problem is that proportionality is the only “safe-harbor” standard to avoid further investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, according to a clarification by then-assistant secretary for civil rights Gerald Reynolds.

The “current regulations governing Title IX have created a quota system that arbitrarily limits participation in sports, which harms men and does not benefit women,” according to the College Sports Council (CSC), a national coalition of coaches, athletes, parents and fans dedicated to promoting the student athlete experience.

Therefore, men’s programs are often capped or cut entirely to meet a ratio that demonstrates proportionality. 

Changing how Title IX is applied

A 2003 clarification from the Office of Civil Rights said that “nothing in Title IX requires the cutting or reduction of teams in order to demonstrate compliance with Title IX” and that such actions were a “disfavored practice.”

However, that same office stated that the proportionality prong was favored as the only “safe-harbor” standard for an institution to avoid further scrutiny. And proportionality often leads to capping or cutting of programs, because it’s easier and cheaper to give the cut a program than it is to fund and field new women’s programs.

What the Office of Civil Rights and athletic departments needs to do is find a different way of complying with Title IX’s intent, one that relies less on ratios and more on the interests and abilities of the student body.

More emphasis should be given to the other two prongs of compliance, especially “fully and effectively” meeting the interests and abilities of both sexes. And this is where those student interest surveys can be invaluable.

They cannot, as the 2005 clarification tried to use them, be the sole determinant of compliance. However, the Commission on Civil Rights said that the model survey “currently provides the best method available” for measuring student interest and that it “provided a flexible and rigorous assessment.”

Input from student populations is essential in determining their interests and abilities, and thus, demonstrating the third prong of compliance. To bolster an institution’s case when using this prong, administrators can turn to some of those numbers they used in proportionality testing.

But not the head counts and ratios; rather, they can show that the money spent by the school on women’s programs and men’s programs is proportionate.

That may mean that big football teams need to spend a little less or cut a few scholarships to ensure that minor sports programs aren’t lost. As long as it’s done across the board, the playing field stays fair. Moreover, it helps athletes in other sports realize their dreams and their potential.

Regardless of how it gets done, the bottom line is that proportionality needs to go, whether it’s completely removed as a method of compliance or it loses its status as the only “safe-harbor” of compliance.

There are other ways of demonstrating Title IX compliance; government officials and athletic administrators need to find and use one that promotes the most opportunities for the most athletes of both gender.

What do you think?  Does Title IX hinder or aid equality with respect to college athletics?  Have you, or someone you know, been subject to a sport(s) being cut due to the requirements of Title IX?

Until we speak again,
“The Inner Chick”