A Vision for Fathers Day, 2025
For once, let us take father’s day more seriously than thinking about ties, wrenches, domestic violence, and child support. These are merely commercial and feminist perspectives that escalate devaluation of fatherhood.
Let is dedicate ourselves to restoring the institution of fatherhood in America. Fatherhood is the missing link driving the vast majority of our most serious social, criminal, and federal budgetary problems. As we all know, Marriage and fatherhood are inseparable institutions: the former makes the latter possible.
Father-absence is still the greatest social problem we face. We must do something to end this problem every day. All serious treatises on father-absence prove that it was not caused by men running out on marriage or family. It is the result of intentional re-definition of family driven by radical feminist gender-identity politics.Â
Surveys that recently began asking men questions found that men are still at least as interested in marriage and raising children as are women. Men have not given up on marriage, but they do end up being replaced by big government most of the time.
Heterosexual marriage and fatherhood are inseparable. In Western cultures, fatherhood simply does not exist outside of it. Motherhood is guaranteed by birth alone. Fatherhood is guaranteed only in marriage. Our tremendous problem of father-absence rose with the replacement of marriage with divorce and child support orders, and compounded further because marriage has become a dis-entitled activity.Â
Nothing has destroyed marriage and fatherhood at the street-level more than federal funding. For the record, we must all remember that the National Organization for Women demanded this (not men). Mountains of “patriarchal guilt†and unscientific feminist studies dumped on legislators precipitated “no-fault†divorce and turned it into an entitled feminist activity. Wailing about subsequent single-mother poverty created a ravenous entitlement system that has left half the children in America fatherless and half the men in America without a place in family or society.Â
The hard bigotry of federal domestic violence (VAWA) funding throws men out of their families and strips them of many rights. Due process of law intentionally denied on nothing more than fear of what husbands might do to their wives or children. The truth is this: the vast majority of serious domestic violence and child abuse occurs in the non-intact family.Â
The Duke Lacrosse scandal never would have occurred without federal funding driving arbitrary witch-hunts of men. This case demonstrates how funding is abused for political gain and to maximize income to local services such as police, prisons, psychologists, and hospital clinics.
Some say poverty is a moral issue calling for a larger welfare state. Water runs uphill during earthquakes, too. Poverty invokes only one moral answer: a calling to restore marriage and fatherhood.  Marriage and work motivated by marriage always fights poverty, provides health care coverage, retirement, and other positive benefits naturally and most effectively.
Our sweeping redefinition of family since 1960 has resulted in false pseudo-freedom, leaving multitudes of men, women, and children at the mercy of big government and feminists. Having deconstructed heterosexual marriage, radical feminists strongly advocate same-sex marriage so women can “marry†each other, thus ending the structural problem of single-mother poverty. The National Organization for Women hopes to create a feminist dictatorship consisting of women who own marriage and men who toil ceaselessly as third-class “deadbeat†citizens.Â
Same-sex marriage is absolutely unconstitutional. Heterosexual marriage is the only legal and biblical institution that fully erases all physical, economic, social, legal, and culturally-imposed disparities that exist between men and women. Heterosexual marriage ensures equal rights and responsibilities for all while preventing poverty and ensuring the proper raising of children in most instances.Â
We must do more than pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. We must reverse the damage radical feminism has done since 1960. Let us begin by committing ourselves to this task by voting-out any federal legislator who refuses to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Conventional wisdom is finally turning against feminism. This month, World Net Daily’s Whistleblower Magazine features a powerful broadside about the demise of fatherhood, titled “The War On Fathers: How the ‘feminization of America’ destroys boys, men – and womenâ€.Â
It would be easier for everyone to turn away from feminism if we simply spoke the truth about it. Entitled feminism is the political and ideological grand-daughter of the Women’s Ku Klux Klan. Instead of fearing black men and spreading irrational hate of them, WKKK activists simply dropped the word “black†and refocused their treachery at all men, and reappeared in full force as 1960’s feminists.
We walked away from racism in the 1960’s. Now is the time to run from institutionalized feminism. We can restore a vibrant marriage culture by 2025 if we stick to proven moral and legal principles to ensure that heterosexual marriage will once again become the norm.
We must reform or replace every federal law associated with feminist policy. State laws defining marriage must define the rights of both men and women within the institution of marriage (most states define marriage only in terms of the rights of women).Â
No-fault divorce must be replaced with “responsible divorce†laws that ensure that family is never turned over to a spouse who wants a divorce for irresponsible reasons.
Mae West once said, “When women go wrong, men go right after themâ€.  This is precisely how radical feminism destroyed fatherhood. John Steinbeck provides something worth fighting for: “It is the nature of man to rise to greatness if greatness is expected of himâ€.  There is no greatness to be found in the anti-family radical feminist cabal.
Marriage and fatherhood is “the answerâ€. Father’s Day, 2025 will be a great celebration of marriage, fatherhood, motherhood, and prosperity if we are willing to dedicate ourselves to living life in this answer and doing something every day to ensure that we achieve this goal.
David R. Usher is President of the
American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition
————————————————————–
Â
Possibly related posts...
| More from David R. Usher
Stumble It!
“Heterosexual marriage and fatherhood are inseparable. In Western cultures, fatherhood simply does not exist outside of it.”
As a never-married father of two teenagers I’ll have to refute that assertion. I’m no less a father or parent than any of those who walk into the future with eyes focused on the past. Times change. Marriage is not a prerequisite for fatherhood – but a personal dedication to being a father is.
It’s statememnts like the one quoted that make me realize that ACFC (or at least it’s Missouri affiliate) isn’t fighting for the fathers like me.
My doctor gave me medication for concentration.
My wife cited meds as a cause for her divorce from me.
This is not a reason for divorce, biblical or otherwise.
Thanks Willow Creek Community Church for giving my wife your blessing to divorce her husband, and creating another proud and independent feminist Christian.
http://www.willowcreek.org/dr.asp
Excellent article from David as usual.
Feminism is the ‘irresistible force’. Where’s the ‘immovable object’?
(For anybody who’s not familiar with this old philosophical poser, The question is,”what happens when an irrestible force meets an immovable object?” The answer is,”an inconceivable release of energy!”
ruff…my church is patterned after Willow Creek and Bill Hybels has been around our place a few times speaking. I go to Fellowship of the Woodlands, in the Willow Creek Conference or whatever the org. is called. So far, my church has been unresponsive to my comments on divorce (Im not divorced, just passionate on this issue)
You lost me w/ the meds comment in your post.
My ex-wife said that our church, Willow Creek Community Church, forgives her for her divorces, however, the bible is clear divorce.
Let no man separate. Moses allowed divorce because we are hardhearted. Divorce for sexual immorality.
After two years, my wife divorced me because I went out twice with her friend’s husband and another time with her brother. She added that my doctor gave me the medication.
I learned that feminists asked publishers for their own translation. It’s called gender neutral, but it’s really re-writing the bible. A text that is in some parts almost 4,000 years old and the youngest at 1,900 years old.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html
Read “Why Men Hate To Go To Church” by David Murrow. (below is a review)…but realize the church is a bad actor in the divorce business By offering a support group, called Divorce Care (DivorceCare.org) across the country churches are actually helping women get no fault divorces unintentionally. Imagine “Adultery Care” where the mission statement is, “we will walk through this adultery with you, in the end you will still be in adultery with all its collateral damage, but you will have peace about it”. Replace adultery with divorce and thats whats happening in church.
I have corresponded with many pastors and few see this clearly. They are insidiously feminized and have no realization. They even mumble all kinds of qualifiers and excuses when divorce is called sin…why don’t they do this w/ other sins? Fear of women.
Who Wears Pants in Church?
May 12th, 2006
by Chris Lenegar
I’ve just been reading the book “Why Men Hate Going To Church†by David Murrow. A review I read somewhere outlined the author’s well considered points, explaining what exactly about church is not palatable to men. The author raises issues from music lyrics to volunteer opportunities and he covers a wide range of psychological characteristics that, in the general, can contribute to men finding better things to do with their Sunday midday. And while he clearly makes the assertion that the things of church are more feminine than masculine, he seems to avoid the notion that the church has become “feminizedâ€. There is a difference.
Murrow is correct about most things he mentions. Men are uncomfortable when placed for any length of time in a predominantly feminine environment. He offers as an example the man sitting in the department store while his wife tries on clothing. Surrounded by women’s cloths and undergarments a lone man feels like a lone pimple on a teen’s nose (my comparison). Murrow’s main contention is that man’s masculine nature and the feminine nature of the church are an unnatural fit. The church therefore intentionally or unintentionally has put forth a major effort to change what is “unfit†about men.
The author chronicles the history of church
attendance gender disparity with some valid observations about (among other things) how the evolution of the workweek during the industrial revolution created tangible scheduling conflicts for some men. But outside influences alone cannot account for the church being perceived as patriarchal while functionally it is very feminine. He overlooks the feminist movement and how it not only accelerated this phenomenon but also solidified these tendencies in the church. Murrow all but excuses the pastors role and avoids entirely the feminization of the pastorate along with the rest of the country including the women in church. He shares a quote from a pastor in the 1950’s who, when faced with an important ministry decision, was approached by a woman in his church who said, “men sit on boards but women run the churchâ€. On first glance it seems impossible to get any more one sided, but it has since then.
Besides a lack of men in church on Sunday, why should anyone care about this issue? There are many reasons, but most of them lead back to the subject of divorce. An earlier post of mine called “Christians and Prenuptial Agreements: Defeat from the Jaws of Victory†talks about the tragic rate of divorce in the church and some of the reasons behind it. Without going into gender differences, it speaks of the church as a place that inadvertently provides “support†to those who unilaterally tear apart a family for their own self centered reasons. You know the spouse who grows restless and bored and sees greener grass just past the fence where perhaps a younger mate lurks waiting. At the very least a more engaging and interesting mate is there, no? And what about love? It has to be better than what is offered up at this person’s house. Is it men trading in for younger models, restless male philanderers, or is it abusive men? Who is behind all these divorces and why?
Most people reflexively grab one of the aforementioned scenarios and blame men for the high rate of divorce. Most people are wrong. Women file between two thirds and three fourths of all divorces. I can hear the collective “Ah Ha†from women who believe that, while it is their gender doing the filing, it is the other gender doing the causing. Isn’t it true that when women file for divorce there has been abuse, addiction, or infidelity? Not always, and in fact, not even a lot. Divorce statistics, when examined for cause, show that within the 70% (or so) of female initiated divorces, about 10% were for abuse, infidelity, or addiction. The rest were strictly no-fault or (I love the term) irreconcilable differences.
Check the numbers for yourself. I’ll allow for small differences geographically but nothing even approaching a change in conclusions.
Church used to be a place where divorce carried a stigma. That alone was deterrence. It still does if the facts about the divorce are known. For example, a philandering man would be stigmatized, as would a philandering woman. What of no-fault divorces? It goes hand in hand with Murrow’s observations that, if church is a feminine place, it is a comfortable place for women. It is straightforward that a woman initiating a divorce will be blanketed with support and the assumption made that she has been wronged. A man initiating same will be met with quiet gossip saying, “can you believe he is abandoning his wife and kids?â€
Inside the cover of the book is a quote from Sheila Wray Gregoire, an author. She says, “I’ve often noticed that sermons on Mother’s Day tend to gush over moms, while on Father’s Day they tell dads to shape upâ€. Far from isolated, the contrast of Mother’s Day and Father’s Day is a widespread phenomenon. I downloaded dozens of sermons from large churches across the country on those holidays and listened with an ear for said contrast. Rarely is it balanced. Moreover, most churches have a sermon series about Biblical marriage roles. They are comprised of equal time spent talking to the men and the women. The contrast is even starker in these because they are dealing exactly with the marital relationship and not parenting. They can be summarized, “wife would be perfect if husband would just shape upâ€. I asked a pastor I knew why that happens. It was simple, his wife was in the audience.
Finally add the general male bashing that takes on the form of side comments and jokes from the pulpit, and the church provides no respite from the all day barrage of anti male advertising and programming we encounter. A shocking anecdotal example occurred at my church. In closing the pastor mentioned having read Murrow’s book. I was pleased and impressed. But as he closed and was making his indications on how to buy a copy of the sermon tape that day, he said, “ladies, if your husbands aren’t here you especially buy it because they are the ones who really need itâ€. He probably didn’t even realize. Men and women chuckled politely and left.
When you think about it, Feminism and church are mutually ideologically repellant. But, feminism and church are functionally mutually attracted. Interpretations of Biblical gender roles have given cover while a sly form of feminism has taken root. Church may be the last place one looks for overt feminism, but, though lacking the direct verbalization of misandry, there are more subtle “you go girl†messages conveyed. Women are bombarded all week with society’s feminist messages. Their best intentions cannot prevent that from impacting the few hours per week spent in church or church activities, especially when the pastor joins the sister act. With a female majority in the church, it’s very easy for a woman to be feminist around other women.
If men have an unchangeable masculine nature (the horror), where then are they to go for expression? Home is often not an option. Instead, we have workaholics, sports obsession, and all sorts of other masculine conquests, and little else to accommodate men. These forms of expression in excess are not good for relationships at all, and can even ruin them. Church used to be a safe and enjoyable place to be a man; it is not so anymore.
To fix this will take more than Murrow’s prescription. He does a good job of explaining functional changes that will make church more man friendly. But the undertone must be quieted. That shift will at once seem anti-female. Membership compositions will change and perhaps even drop overall. What is left is worth preserving; Not a male dominated church where women sit quietly in submission, but a church built of mutual respect for the fullness of manhood and womanhood, with activities for everyone, and the courage to stand against the further deterioration of our families through divorce and the dysfunctions it causes.
Chris Lenegar
Posted in Religion & Spirituality, Chris Lenegar |
Well said David the sooner the stupid world wakes up the better. Fatherlessness is a huge sad indictment on modern societies at great expense to children who yearn to learn physical, mental, emotional and spiritual boundaries from dad & mum. Parenting is not an academic science the anti -male jihad would have us all believe – the facts speak for themselves -the attack on the family is fatal for our culture . Time for change folks- in solidarity -dad4justice