Mostly because today there is no significant consequences for the daddy.
Which blundering simplisticism entirely ignores the staggering reality, that there are no consequences whatsoever, for a mother to become a single mother because she prefers it and because she had intended to all along. Using a man under false pretenses as a sperm donor, then turning around and using federal resources to denounce him with zero evidence against him as an alleged abuser or risk to her and the children, is more than commonplace, it is an assembly-line industry.
Program Performance and Accomplishments
The purpose of the award was to fund two full-time attorneys to provide legal
representation and other related services to victims of domestic violence in divorce and custody cases in the four most-populous counties in Maryland. Overall, the House of Ruth outlined three objectives for its proposed project: to provide legal representation for 500 high-risk, high-priority, low-income victims of domestic violence in divorce and custody cases; to conduct an individualized assessment of collateral legal needs for 300 victims of domestic violence and provide referrals for other legal services including pro bono legal services where needed; and to provide litigation supervision, case oversight, and litigation and domestic violence training to LAV-funded attorneys to ensure high quality, sensitive legal representation for victims of domestic violence.
Translation: find by whatever means are available, five hundred women willing to accuse their husbands of abuses, primarily by offering them a free lawyer in their divorce cases. If you don’t produce these five hundred cases, your two lawyers lose their contracts, and your NPO won’t get its next grant awarded.
And this is only one example.
The denouncing of men in courts of law, and specifically of fathers, can only be described as a full-scale industry. Note as you read along, how often and in how many ways cases are diverted out of criminal courts, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the accuser is not an actual party to the case at all, and the standard of evidentiary proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt” as handed-down unanimously by a jury of citizens.
The point of the VAWA juggernaut, is not to prove one case at a time beyond reasonable doubt that any one man is guilty of anything. It is to establish a societal, juridical and political narrative, that any man accused, can simply be assumed to be guilty, and that showering the women and organizations who denounce them with lavish rewards in public treasure is the way to deal with them.
So your quote above is archaic, misinformed, inaccurate and bigoted.
I wonder how it ever entered your imagination in the first place.
And I wonder too, why you found it politic to broadcast it.
