Phases of the fathers’ rights movement
In order to better see where the fathers’ rights movement should go, it needs to think about where it has been and where it is now. For this reason, I present my own initial draft outline of the major phases of the fathers’ rights movement.
Phase 0: Prior to 1990, few men saw reason for an organized movement. We had heard for some time that “it’s a man’s world.” In the US, and other civilized western nations, private issues – when they needed any government involvement – would be handled in court. Some men did see reason for men’s advocacy, particularly in response to radical feminism, which included a very shrill anti-male constituency. A small and diverse men’s movement existed during this time.
Phase 1: Circa 1990 (varies slightly from country to country). Dramatic changes in divorce law, particularly child support law, suddenly imposed unbelievable circumstances on fathers – literally. Against a backdrop of anti-father propaganda, only those who actually faced the system as divorcing fathers knew what was happening, and even they often thought it was merely a great mistake. Explanations even to close friends and relatives were often not believed – the changes were literally unbelievable. In this early period, response to intensified anti-male rhetoric in the “mainstream media” also led to groups such as Promise Keepers and eventually a Million Man March in Washington.
Realizing that the elimination of human rights left normal court action of no use, fathers began forming groups for constitutional challenges in class action lawsuits and for collective political action, and those groups grew exponentially. This was the birth of the fathers’ rights movement.
Phase II: Courts in the US and elsewhere upheld the reforms in response to constitutional challenges in the 1990s. In the US, this required reclassification of family law from a private issue, in which constitutional rights are upheld against intrusion by the state, to “social” and “economic policy.” This new classification redefined marriage (and policies related to divorce) as merely a matter of arbitrary policy decisions by government. Parents therefore, had no personal rights related to these matters. By extension, people no longer had individual rights so long as a law was written to relate to any – directly or remotely – related issue.
Anti-father propaganda still ran rampant, and had become a theme running through everything from the nightly news and a constant barrage of “deadbeat dad” stories in newspapers and magazines to the stuff that TV situation comedies are made of. Fathers often showed frustration and impatience over continued propaganda – which had become so outrageous, it was bizarre that it was not rejected by the general public on the basis of common sense.
Ignored by the “mainstream media” a group of fathers’ rights web-sites emerged to fill the gap. Daily news and commentary site, MensNewsDaily.com took the top spot in popularity among these sites and grew to be very competitive in the broader category of politically oriented websites. The efforts of writers for these sites, along with others who successfully penetrated more traditional established venues, characterize a major part of Phase II – the rough road to entering the public discussion. Commentaries were often reactions, counter-points, and defenses against anti-father propaganda.
During the 1990s, after the greatest transformation in family policy the western world had seen, academic studies began to emerge challenging the “assumptions” that had been used by reformers to motivate the change, and that through continuous repetition in the mass media had become common place belief. Consistent results from real studies (as opposed to “studies” for hire or biased by other self-interests) showed the basis of reformed family policy to be myth – what Stephen Baskerville later said is more accurately characterized as a hoax. (He repeats that in his new book.)
A few “mainstream” journalists began clumsy steps into a real look at the issues amidst a continuing avalanche of anti-father propaganda. A few journalists and commentators (some in the US but more often in countries) began writing well and with knowledge about the subject.
Phase III: Courts in the US decide that state refusals to accept same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. Suddenly, social conservatives who had supported the “war against fathers,” realized something had happened. They didn’t know what it was at first and blamed “activist judges.” It took direct confrontation by more informed writers familiar with fathers’ rights issues to jerk them into reality – whereupon they dropped their support for laws they had previously thought were limited to dealing with parents who abandoned and abused their families. But it was by this “hoax” that the legal end of institution of marriage had been engineered.
This phase includes the earliest awakenings of a much broader public understanding and the beginning of new coalitions. The legal end of marriage, along with broader concern for quickly vanishing privacy rights (that began with deadbeat dad laws and vast government databases that went with them) laid the foundation for understanding – something had happened – something really big and important – and it was not a good thing. (Note that Cato Institute had recognized the connection between the erosion of privacy and the war against fathers, later written about in the pages of MensNewsDaily)
But also, and perhaps more importantly, more than a decade had passed since the new child support laws had gone into effect, and laws were continually being passed that made the situation worse. Tens of millions of real people had been affected by the laws. Regardless of overwhelming propaganda efforts, the problems these laws created could not be kept secret. When a reporter or commentator laced an article with anti-male propaganda, he or she, and the newspaper s-he rode in on could count on an avalanche of “you stupid lying jerk” mail in response.
Phase IV: Begins with the publication of Stephen Baskerville’s book; Taken into Custody. Baskerville points out something in the first chapter, which I believe is extremely important for fathers’ rights activists to contemplate. Contemplation of what he said led me to write this outline. His book did not need to go over statistics and provide basic arguments in defense of fathers. That work has already been done. Fathers are generally speaking, not just ok, they’re good. The basis of current policy (the anti-father propaganda) has been proven – proven soundly – to be myth (hoax). Fathers’ rights advocates need not consume great energy to fight battles that have already been won. This keen observation is incitement to stop peddling in place and move forward – which Baskerville does.
| More from Roger F. Gay
Stumble It!
October 14th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
The men’s movement has had no visibility until two sites arrived on the internet: MensNewsDaily.com and AngryHarry.com. The PromiseKeepers can hardly be called a men’s rights group. They may have advocated for families but their message relied solely on blaming father’s and men. Hardly the kind of allies many of us here want. MND and AngryHarry are ground zero for the right’s of men and fathers.
It should be noted that the really destructive assault on men and father’s occured under and by a Clinton Presidency. This is going to replay itself with even more zeal when Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes President. She is going to be sainted as America’s Queen Elizabeth.
It should also be noted that the men’s right’s movement still is hindered by inertia and entropy. Nothing will ever change simply by stating what is wrong. Venues such as MND and AngryHarry get important information out and it also serves to effect points of view and new ideas and new ways of seeing things. This is important in an environment where much of the MSM churns out the same old biases often to the detriment of men and fathers. But having grown our collective cyberunderstanding nothing at all will change unless we can move beyond the inertia and entropy keeping us where we are at.
The U.S. is at a crossroad at this time. Many still do not realize this. As has been repeated often here, 70% of Black families have no father. It is a dysfunctional culture headed for extinction without positive change taking root very soon. What are we gonna have to do in 20 years, warehouse all the Black males who cannot fit into this society? Look at the White culture. There are many single parent households. 52% of first marriages ending. 70% of second marriages ending. 25% of the families in the U.S. have a biological mother and biological father. 39% of childern born outside of marriage and living without a father. Women have won the first round in that they have unleashed a mortal body blow to the institution of fatherhood. Their son’s will return the body blow on the institution of respect for women that once existed in America. Whether a male is Black or White, many of these son’s identify with what is expressed in rap music: misogyny and the degradation of women. Only a man, a father, can teach a boy to respect women and to grow up to be a true man. Remember, 39% of children born outside of marriage. 25% of families have a biological mother and biological father. 52% of first marriages end. 70% of second marriages end.
The message here is that whether or not men eventually move beyond the inertia and entropy keeping them back, there are cultural forces at work that keep on going. They have been going in this direction for decades. Look into the future and ask yourselves what kind of country America will be like in 20 years. America is at a crossroads. When was the last time you heard a message like this in the MSM?
October 14th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Nice, brief summary, Roger. There is much interplay between all the Anglophile countries’ legislations that is not mentioned and the effects of the varied shades of socialism found in all the Anglo and European nations that combine into a sort of puce decor. The Institutions of State and society across the anglosphere are not simply deteriorating piecemeal but are being driven by a deliberate and corrupt view of humankind and its relations to the State. The destruction of Marriage and men is underway. The destruction of women will follow. Our children are taken and used as weapons.
Dennis makes some acute observations. “….Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes President. She is going to be sainted as America’s Queen Elizabeth.”
That’s Elizabeth the First. Men will be as Catholics and Frenchmen and Spaniards. Fodder for viscious fury. Only the burning at the stake has been changed and the Family Courts are today’s Star Chamber.
“Their son’s will return the body blow on the institution of respect for women that once existed in America”.
Women, who have gone along with the offers of social bling, the unearned privileges, the shotgun of anti-family courts that promise an easy way to total freedom to do as their butterfly whims dictate, are so blinded by their own rhetoric that they do not see the disaster awaiting them. They have taken ‘respect’ to the pawnbroker. When the body blow comes – and it has already started – the women will be at the mercy of the State who will take their enslavement as the price of their salvation from their own offspring.
I point to the commonality of effect across most of the western world. But Amerika has wrested leadership of that world and it has a special duty of leadership out of the mess. Changing Laws by the usual tinkering means – including all the corrupt means increasingly used involving corrupt legislators – will not help. The Laws are only going to get more oppressive and irrational and hysterical. The means determine the ends.
We are on an increasingly downward spiral being swept into the maw. What is needed is a severe shock to the system and the sort of pulling on the reins of this runaway horse that can draw gasps from the crowds of durn furriners lining the arena.
Only a Tyrant can bring about the changes needed. Democracy cannot do it. That has already had a body-blow and has lost the respect of the few intelligent men left standing. Hillary isn’t the sort of tyrant we need though. She is the handmaid of the Princess of Lies.
No, only Amfortas can do the job.
(I am deadly serious fellas.)
Vote #1 Amfortas. The Tyrant Gnome who knows the way home. Bring your own Wellies.
October 14th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Denis…excellently stated!!
Roger, i think you’re remis in mentioning one of the most potent and effective mens rights scholars in history!!
Dr. Warren Farrell
I believe “The myth of male power” By Dr. Farrel should be standard issue to anyone new to mens activism!!
October 14th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Interesting comments Roger. I’m not sure I got your point. I agreed that facts supporting men’s/fathers issues are and have been available for years, but what do facts mean in a world devoid of reason and logic where emotion and political correctness are all that matters?
When the legal profession is devoid of ethics, justice is secondary to financial gain of the legal profession and custody has become simply a commodity for sale with court orders designed simply to promote litigation, anarchy is just around the corner.
Is it really an improvement when women are subject to the same treatment as men in family court? America has about one percent of it’s population incarcerated. What is stop doubling that?
October 15th, 2007 at 7:33 am
Wow, always interesting to tune into this ventue, so many thinkers, so little time.
The latter being the problem. Time. Not much thinking going on out there in mainstream Amerika, it seems to me. Hilarious Clinton possibly getting the Oval Office will be the death knell.
A serial rapist gets of of jail after 24 years of prison time (Connecticut) and moves into his sister’s house in toe-cheese, Amerika. The entire community of toe-cheese is up in arms, vigils held at the sisters house, newspaper articles daily about the angst in the local community caused by the release of said serial rapist.
“But, he served HIS time” cries the prison authorities. “”But HE’S a rapist” cries the locals”.
So, now what?
The left wing screams “thou shalt not kill”, “rights are inviolate”, “we shall overcome”. But now what? Put him that community? No way! But, which community then?
How can political correctness be achieved here? How can the mommy crowd be placated?
You bet. “Let’s kill him” cries the women. Doesn’t matter that the left wing opposition to capitol punishment has been the reason we now have legions of convicted murerers on death row. Now, the personal is political. A MAN who violated women must be punished more. “DEATH” “The 24 years in prison weren’t enough” is the general talk among the women here.
So, Roger, you’re right. When they came for the communists noone said anything. Now they’re coming for men. And men only.
October 15th, 2007 at 7:55 am
What are we gonna have to do in 20 years, warehouse all the Black males who cannot fit into this society?
Denis – I’m not sure whether you knew or not, but that was proposed. Do you remember all the debate about closing US military bases at the end of the Cold War? So put 2 and 2 together. Intense deadbeat dad propaganda and politicians who for economic reasons did not want to see military bases close in their states. Senator Christopher Dodd proposed modifications to a bill to arrest and send all fathers who got behind in the child support payments to live in the old barraks and undergo intense military style psychological retraining. (You might remember the short-lived “tough love” movement at about the same time.)
October 15th, 2007 at 8:01 am
amfortas – I think Stephen gets it right with his focus on the relationship between the individual and the state. I’ve been commenting on the Fathers’ rights movement entry in Wikipedia (which needs to be transformed away from being a debate article on the issues) – and have been trying to make that point. On joint custody for example – married parents walk into divorce court with joint custody of their children. No policy consideration is needed – they have joint custody. If the system acted in any other way than providing a “kangaroo court” (Baskerville explains) – i.e. actually deciding issues by cause and circumstance, no joint custody legislation would be needed. It just is, unless there is good reason for it not to be. The fact that it is general policy to remove the custody rights of one parent – without good cause – already demonstrates a problem between the individual and the state.
October 15th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Roger, i think you’re remis in mentioning one of the most potent and effective mens rights scholars in history!!
College Activist: I was very confident that my characterization of the article as an initial first draft was accurate. Even being quite superficial in making that decision – the story is much longer than I could imagine writing in one article like this. Whoever’s going to write the book about the history of the fathers’ rights movement – count me in as a co-author.
October 15th, 2007 at 8:08 am
but what do facts mean in a world devoid of reason and logic where emotion and political correctness are all that matters?
Lloyd: Point well taken, perhaps extremely so. Turned to the point of my article – there’s no reason to continue beating the drums of well-established facts in the presence of deaf people. As you write in the future, know the truth and count on the truth in what you write. If you’re going to demand something, just demand it knowing that you are right to do so. Yelling the same things over and over again to people who cannot hear doesn’t help.
October 15th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Ed – The personal has become political – literally. Federal appellate courts have soundly established the principle. Death to the individual. Death to the Bill of Rights. They’re beyond coming after men / fathers already. I think that’s something everyone needs to understand. The war against fathers was merely a spearhead. So – since we’re not all literally dead yet, we shouldn’t sluff this off with the old wisdom about coming after one group at a time until no one is left. The age of broadening alliances has begun. We must win and we will.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:16 am
I propose that the men’s/fathers’ rights movement commenced long before Roger suggests, long before my involvement of 40 + years. The history is far too lengthy to post here, but an abbreviated history appears on the Mens Defense Association website: http://www.mensdefense.org. The site links to my book “Save the Males,” the latest, and extensive, revision of which is in progress and should be available in about a month.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Hello Richard. I hope you know that I had no intention of slighting you, and welcome your comments. My view of things began in fact at what seems to me like the start of the fathers’ rights movement, and I’m much less familiar with the men’s movement that existed before that time.
October 15th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I became a self-proclaimed men’s rights in 1998 because I was amazed that American men had become so weak, so compliant and so lacking in self-worth as to accept what the feminists were dishing out.
There were no books defending men then that I could find except one entitled
“The Myth of the Male Monster and Other Feminist Fairy Tales” by a man I believe named Gordon.
But what really amazed me was the degree to which American men had internalized the feminist garbage. I remember talking with a guy at the Y, complaining about feminism then receiving the reply, “We weren’t very nice when we had the power.”
The real surprises were still ahead. A psychologist recommended a Universalist United Unitarian men’s group when I asked him for one. I think he was deliberately leading me into an ideological trap because this group was astounding.
When I defended something that John Leo had written, I saw real hate in some of those men’s eyes. “I’m a mama’s boy and I’m proud of it!” a Yalie said with real conviction.
They were ecstatic over Willam Pollack’s nut-piece about what real boys want.
I didn’t stay around there long.
After my informal research ( I am still ashamed that the best book on what the feminists have done was written by a woman, Dr Christina Hoff Sommer’s “The War Against Boys”. She brought the beast out into the open accurately and eloquently. The question of why a man hasn’t written a book of the same quality still bothers me.) I have come to some conclusions:
1. Most American men are afraid of women. That is one reason why women are allowed to be much more socially aggrssive than men. We have no role models for men setting expectations and limits on women. If a little old lady starts complaining to a man he turns to putty in her hands. If I start complaining, being larger and of the same sex as the guy, they call the cops.
American boys are raised in a feminine social atmosphere with a weak father culture. This is one thing that has to be changed and seems to be doing so, thanks to 9/11. Gen Petraeus isn’t a girl.
The ridiculous spin that feminist writers like Bonnie Erbe tried to put on the
Jessica Lynch episode, making her out to be John Wayne when she joined the Army so she could become a kindergarten teacher was the epitome of silliness.
And I have talked to fathers who realize that they have a responsibility here that they haven’t met before.
Young men are also being more cautious about disregarding the feminist cant about “men being afraid of responsibility” and similar foolishness.
2. When the tensions between heterosexual men and women really surface, it is going to be messy. And there is no way around that. It will include everything from spats to divorces. Being women, feminists, and women in general, do not understand reason. They only understand power. Mind you, I am not saying “force” which implies coercion but “power” which is the ability to do something and the willingness to do it.
It is not true that men are powerless. Check out any day-time serial or the magazines at the check-out counters in super-markets. They are a little racier than they were in the 50’s but the are still basically concerned about male-female relationships. The problem is that we are afraid of using our power because we have been led to believe that men need women more than women need men.
How many books entitle”How To Find a Wife” are there as opposed to books on finding a husband?
3. I saw no mention of the effect of the emergence of the homosexual movement in any of the above comments.
That is a huge mistake in my opinion. Lesbians and heterosexual men are sexual competitors. I don’t know how many of you guys have experienced lesbian hate but I have.
And the leaders of the feminist movement had a very large lesbian component. Why was Rosie O’Donnell such a draw on “The View” before she self-destructed?
Men will regain thir rightful pride and regard for being a man when they adopt the Rhett Butler philosophy so eloquently expressed when he says to Scarlett
O’Hara, who was going to conquer the world in the first page with her 16 inch waist and blue tafata dress, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn!”
October 15th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Something else likely under-represented in my outline are events in California. Although they’ve stuggled with the laws as much as anyone, there was at least more of a two-sided debate in local newspapers, views expressed by a few public officials, and even some serious success in holding back the tide in places. I recall responding to an article in Reason Magazine which was actually pretty good. The author was from California and discussed the case of a personal friend who was required to pay child support for a child that wasn’t his. I’d read articles of that sort from California sources – they actually talked about some of the problems openly.
October 15th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Gus; You remind me of the first realization I had that the drum-beating members of the men’s movement actually had a point. (I’m not sure whether I need to say so or not, but I’m not joking.) I read a piece by one of the more famous members of that movement (sorry I can’t remember the name) where he tells of his meeting with a group of college students. He asked an opening question, and one young man responded that he was ashamed to be a male. Stephen points out in his book that it’s been normal for men and boys to think they’re an exception. All those other guys really must be as bad as they say, and therefore we’re members of the bad gender even though we’re not so bad. It’s led to an effective form of brain-washing.
October 15th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
And in an exercise of pure logic – if the overwhelming evidence is that the whole gender is as bad as feminists say – then that defines the true nature of men. No government on earth has the moral authority to take away our nature. So, screw ‘em anyway.
October 15th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Roger…Youre a talented, articulate writer!!
Richard Doyle….menscollegeactivist recomends youre book…”save the males” second only to Dr. Farrell.
Menscollegeactivist.org may be offering a Collegeactivist mens studies 2007 award!! Working out some of the details!!
It will be an online vote, so stay informed!!
October 15th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Thanks college activist. Perhaps I misunderstand your comment, but just want to make sure that no one else is misinformed. I’m not the author of Save the Males. That’s Richard Doyle’s book.
http://www.lulu.com/content/279780
October 15th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
And still no mention of the effect of the homosexual movement ,especially lesbians, on men. Frankly, I find that peculiar.
October 15th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
It wasthe lesbian-led feminist movement on campuses that presented women wit the false dichotomy that unless you hated men, you weren’t a real woman.
Very few women wanted to buck the trend.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I don’t know the fathers/mens movement stacks up against other “civil rights movements” in history. While most decent people recognize when other groups of people’s rights and dignity are being violated, but they seem to miss this when it comes to fathers/men? While it is considered wrong to steal the property , money and children of other people, it seems to be O K when it is done to fathers/men. How long is it going to take people to realize fathers/men are human beings that deserve the same rights and protection as other more ” politically correct” groups do!
I give one very stern warning those that have violated the rights and dignity of fathers/men, it is GOING TO STOP! Either by recognizing that it is wrong and the appropriate and long over due civil rights legislation is passed. Or…….. society will collaspe and the afore mentioned father/men will come after them will guns! But one way or another it is GOING TO STOP!
I hope it is the former, but I am beginning to doubt, given the snails pace, that the fathers/mens rights movement has progressed. Well … I wonder if our society has the time? Our society has some very serious problems and most of them stem from this ” Little failed social engineering experiment” the feminist and the family courts are trying on the country. If we don’t get a handle on the problems and soon . We may well have the collapse of society I was talking about. Then it will be far too late for those responsible to mend their ways. They will meet a painful and undignified end! And damn it … they will deserve it!
The fathers’men rights movement is still getting started, but is growing and growing exponentially. It is not if they are going to suceed , but when that will happen.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Robert: Other civil rights movements did not have such an easy time. If it had been easy to get their problems recognized by a mass audience and solved, there would have been no reason for an historically significant movement. I note however, that such movements have not been successful but for the impatience of its members. These problems are not naturally solved next year, or the year after that, without action. I’m very interested in seeing what happens in response to Stephen’s book. How much attention will it get? Can it and to what extent will it take the issue into the national debate during the election season? etc.?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:11 am
Gus:
Regarding your question about lesbians. I was thinking of doing an op-ed on some data that I ran into suggesting that the female mind is wired with little or no sex preference, and women in general are sexually motivated by men and women almost equally. Men in general, on the other hand are wired to strongly to be sexually motivated by females with and small percentage strongly attracted to other men.
The bottom line is that sexual preference of men is a real brain function and that straight and gay men are fact, but no such clear distinction exist in women. For all practical purposes, one might say all women are bisexual and have a lesbian component. It again relates to the greater variance of men do to the single X chromosome as described in my More Tolling of the Bell Curve.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:37 am
Lloyd – look very carefully at the source of the data.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:47 am
Times have Changed
Here’s a rather informal observation that I think is interesting. I’ve looked back at some of my articles recently, in the process of helping others dig up reference material (aside from the articles themselves, my “commentary” was often laced with citations). I remember, in the context of the moment – with so much anti-father propaganda around – how carefully I wrote. But at the same time, each article felt like pushing for a radical change – and I felt on the edge – an outlier who needed to convince people to think differently – against a whole lot of people who were pushing the other way. Looking back, my articles now seem rather tame. There’s nothing there that threatens to make me look like an outlier in the eyes of history. Competent, accurate, and in the end – right; the stuff just doesn’t read like radical political material.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Roger
Welcome back
I always enjoyed reading your articles even before MensNewsDaily (see “The Child Support Guideline Problem”, 1998, “http://adrr.com/law1/csp11.htm”) . I could always count on you to provide an impeccable montage of historical events that led up to any issue that was currently up for debate.
Yourself, Stephen Baskerville, and Glenn Sacks allowed MensNewsDaily to become the recognized voice of Family Law reform as soon as it was brought online. The ‘old school’ activists were forced to use Yahoo groups, forums, and email lists to spread their opinions to the victims of Family Law.
The ‘old school’ audience has essentially dried up. Not because there are no more problems, but because all the problems have been identified, beaten to death, and they were never able to be solved. Everyone has heard it all before and have realized “THE FIX IS IN”.
Historically speaking we need people like yourself and Baskerville who have the ability to maintain your composure when describing a shit-storm (it’s like wiping your ass with silk}. Leave the criminalizing and the name calling to me or Angry Harry, because we are fully invested in the outcome of this cause.
There will be no ‘outliers’ in this movement, when all these silent victims achieve critical mass after reading Baskerville’s new book. Every American parent must be allowed to understand that the political machinery set up to force families into Socialism is evolving into Fascism and Communism.
“There ain’t no squaring it – not this time – this ain’t no bar-room brawl – or some creep with a gas can trying to torch someone – this is BIG. There is no settling down – this is blood for blood and by the gallons – this is the old days – the bad days – the all or nothin days. They’re back – and there ain’t no choices left – and I’m ready for war.” (the movie ‘Sin City’)
James D Untershine
Control Systems Designer
Long Beach, CA 90804
gzs@gndzerosrv.com
http://www.gndzerosrv.com
October 17th, 2007 at 2:21 am
Thanks James. I recognize your perseverance as well and appreciate your many years of effort. What old-school and new-school should recognize is that Stephen’s thesis is much broader than the fathers’ rights movement (as we have known it so far). It should go beyond waking up parents (divorced or married). The same political mechanisms are eroding everyone’s rights and the country is going through profound changes. The attack on the institution of family is strategic; to eliminate the most powerful natural enemy of government oppression. Those who seek to destroy and control this country needed to make fathers’ public enemy #1. It was a divide and conquer approach. We are the natural allies with the vast majority of real people; with concerns and interests and reasons to protect and defend that are fundamental to life as we know it. It was a great trick to separate the interests of fathers and families in the public mind – but that trick has gotten old and is dissolving and the corruption has become apparent. A large number of people have already awoken from the spell.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:24 am
BTW: I think that last comment should be good news (so to speak) for radio talk show hosts. For those who have focused on men’s / fathers’ rights, it means relating to broader issues which may translate to a larger market share. To those who have had a broader focus on politics and change, it means that this is another important topic area to discuss.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:05 am
How many followers does the so-called fathers’ rights movement have? How may people participate in these discussions? My guess is there are a few thousand internet followers who comprise the entire self-proclaimed fathers’ rights movement.
Millions of good men and women refuse to pay the court ordered extortion and the number increases daily. These people are not “deadbeats”; they are good Americans who have simply had enough. These people are the fathers’ rights movement, not the few thousand internet groupies who claim to be the movement.
In Baskerville’s words:
“For all we can be certain, all 16 million parents now being pursued as quasi-criminals by armed enforcement agents of the federal government have been involuntarily separated from their children through no legal fault of their own”.
I might add that millions of these fathers are simply paternity fraud victims or men denied the equal protection of our laws when it comes to decisions about parenting. Family Courts are using single females as a type of “cottage industry” to bring in billions in “much needed revenue for the state” via matching federal dollars for the collection of the much prized, so-called, “child support”.
These men from all walks of life are the fathers’ rights movement.
How many of you groupies have contributed to the ACFC drive to raise money for the promotion of Baskerville’s book?
Kevin Merck