The Fathers’ Rights Movement is winning. Fathers’ rights activists may disagree. Corrupt family laws have not yet been overturned. Too many corrupt politicians and judges are still in business; too few have been dragged off to jail where they belong. The greatest swindle of the 20th and now 21st centuries – the federal child support enforcement system – has not yet been dismantled. Nonetheless; the foundation for corruption is only an artificially produced mirage. Each day the population moves forward and more people see the mirage disappear.
What the internet debate savvy population understands, as well as many others, is what people do when they cannot win an argument based on fact and logic. They attack their opponents. With the disappearance of the illusion as reason for criminalizing fatherhood, all that is left are the personal attacks – the name calling. But even here there is growing awareness that the list of accusations in support of reform were false.
The attack against fathers, and fathers’ rights, began before the existence of the fathers’ rights movement as we know it today. This movement is a “backlash” against government corruption, the organized and intentional destruction of the institution of family, and 10s of billions of dollars being stolen from government coffers as well as from fathers and children; organized crime. Even those who still do not understand the connection between the battle for fathers’ rights and their own lives may eventually want to know where their money is and whether they can get it back. They will certainly not want to continue paying extra taxes merely to support criminal gangs.
There is a large constituency that is already aware of the destruction of family and they are sincerely concerned. Unfortunately, they have not yet organized themselves under effective leadership. We must wonder how long it will be before they understand that the two major parties are inseparable from the problem and will not provide a solution. Many still fall for the promise of a distant better future, where unpassable or ineffective or destructive constitutional amendments may save the day – or new federal judges may offer an as yet unimagined solution.
Worse yet is that these false hopes serve to produce yet another illusion. They are proposals quite separate from solutions that fathers’ rights activists are looking for. The implicit message is that there is a difference between the fathers’ rights struggle and the struggle to restore the family. But this illusion too can be addressed, since there is now a fathers’ rights movement to address it.
This new illusion seems also to have found a parking spot on Mitt Romney who has been favored in a religious right straw poll. Apparently he has done well due to his occasional reference to his religion. Merely mentioning that he is a member of a minority religion is still mentioning religion more than other candidates. This does help define the size of the current problem. A large group most concerned with family issues has little knowledge of family politics; else they would already be aware of Romney’s extreme anti-family record as Governor of Massachusetts.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
GreatMRNI said,
What anti-family record are you talking about, please explain?
October 30, 2007 at 7:58 am
Roger F. Gay said,
October 30, 2007 at 8:26 am
Elusive Wapiti said,
My experience as a frequenter of marriage and family blogs has shown me that those in the ‘marriage movement’ are largely deaf to concerns of fathers beyond enticing him to marry the mother of his children. They strongly decry the decline in marriage rates, and even bemoan no-fault divorce, but their talking points stops at the point mum and dad wed. Thus, they fail to see how the father-hostile infrastructure in this country encourages female-initiated divorce, and they fail further in recognizing that these conditions help create an environment in which many men and women eschew marriage.
Moreover, despite–or maybe as a result of–their ‘conservative’ nature, many family restoration activists in the religious right adhere very strongly to the mother-custody, father-pays model of post-divorce family organization. So it would be premature to assume that religious conservatives are automatic father’s rights supporters, because they are not. I am a religious conservative, and I see these folks each Sunday.
Thus the dichotomy that you cite is no illusion…it is very real. While those of us here on MND see father’s rights and family restoration as the same issue, rank-and-file marriage and family activists see father’s rights as largely a peripheral matter.
“they would already be aware of Romney’s extreme anti-family record as Governor of Massachusetts”
It’s possible that they aren’t aware, not because they don’t know much about Romney, but because his anti-father record is off their family-issues radar scope.
Also, I’d like to hear about specifics regarding Romney’s record in Mass as well. I’d like to link to this post from my blog, but need specifics to do so.
October 30, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Denis said,
the the gay lobbyists and activists are working on case law, step-by-step, case-by-case, in a similar mannaer as was done for Roe v. Wade to loosely string along legal precedents leading to same-sex marriage nationally. I am aware that Romney had missed opportunities to speak out more on same-sex marriage which would have scored political points but would have had no effects on an SJC and Massachusetts State Legislature corrupt as all Hell and determined to shove same-sex marriage down the citizenry’s throat. To read more about Family Courts in Massachusetts read: “Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts” by Kevin Thompson. This is where the heart of Massachusetts anti-father activism lies: Family Court (backed by a corrupt SJC and a corrupt State Legislature).
“It’s possible that they aren’t aware, not because they don’t know much about Romney, but because his anti-father record is off their family-issues radar scope.”
“Also, I’d like to hear about specifics regarding Romney’s record in Mass as well. I’d like to link to this post from my blog, but need specifics to do so.”
Perhaps you should wait “to hear the specifics” before holding the view “they don’t know much about Romney, but because his anti-father record”. Perhaps you should have Romney’s anti-father record proven to you before you hold that opinion.
If we really want to look where things started to go bad we should look back to 1969 when Governor of California Ronald Reagon signed no-fault divorce legislation into California law. At the time fault-based divorce was the law throughout the U.S. By 1974 45 states became no-fault. By 1985 all states became no-fault. Perhaps Ronald Reagon ought to be crowned as the Great Destroyer of Marriage and Fatherhood in America. It started with him.
What has Romney signed into law that is anti-marriage and anti-father?
I am not interested in hearing about lost opportunities that Romnet had in scoring political points that have no legal effect.
Prove to me that the record of Guliane and/or Thompson is better.
Granted, in the murky world of politics no one running impresses me entirely. In fact I consider the system rotten to the core. The following article by Stephen DeVoy pretty well sums up what I think of America’s system of politics today:
The Virtues of a Disorganized Resistance
Stephen DeVoy
American opposition movements have always focused on the notion of organization. It has always been their goal to organize the people. Their hope has been to wield the collective power of the disaffected, downtrodden, and exploited as a single unit against the concentrated power of the ruling class. While their hope has been noble, their methods have been foolish. Organized resistance has many drawbacks. These drawbacks have seldom been discussed by the opposition. We believe that the only effective resistance is a completely disorganized, decentralized, and leaderless opposition.
While, on the face of it, this claim may impress you as absurd. Of course it seems absurd! It is counterintuitive. Never the less, it is the ONLY method of resistance that will work within American society. We will explain why organized resistance has never worked in the United States. In addition, we will promulgate a new formula for effective resistance.
Why has organized resistance failed in the United States?
There are many reasons for the failure of organized resistance. The two primary causes of failure are intimately connected to the culture of the United States and the political system laid down by our nation’s founding fathers.
The Cultural Cause
Americans, culturally, are anarchists. Few Americans realize this. Most Americans have a false understanding of the term “anarchism.” However, upon examining the beliefs of your average American, you will find that most Americans: do not trust leaders, do not trust government, wish to be left alone, value their privacy, think of themselves as independent from society, do not believe that there is a systemic solution to their problems, believe that others should be free to do what they choose, provided they do so in private and do not harm others
While it is undeniable that political culture in the United States often speaks to the opposite of the above list, it is also undeniable that most Americans register as neither Democrat or Republican and most Americans do not vote. Thus, despite the political culture, most Americans choose not to participate in it. This is not only due to their belief that the American political system is hopeless, but also is due to the cultural clash between the wider culture and the political culture.
Any attempt to organize large numbers of Americans into a single political movement will fail. Any attempt to create an organization led by a strong group of leaders will fail. Americans reject submersion into the collective. In a sense, Americans are anti-collectivists.
The Political Cause
American political culture is not ideological. Politicians attempt to draw ideological distinctions between the two major parties, but these distinctions are a matter of splitting hairs. The only significant difference between the two political parties is the degree of compassion represented by the rhetoric of the two parties. Compassion is not a political concept. Compassion is an attitude. Thus, the two parties differ, primarily, in attitude and not ideology.
Despite this, there remain two political parties. One is prompted to ask “why?” If each party is basically the same, with respect to ideology, why do they not merge into one party? The answer to this question is best found in viewing each political party according to its true nature. American political parties are, for all intents and purposes, organized crime units. American political parties have more in common with the Mafia than they have with their counterparts in more democratic societies. Like Mafia, each political party competes for control of territory in order to maximize the benefit to their business constituency. Like Mafia, the political parties attempt to mold the system to maintain their positions and access to resources. Like Mafia, the political parties force the average citizen to pay “protection” under the threat of violence (taxes). Like Mafia each political party uses the “protection” money collected for its own advantage.
By defining our political system in terms of the “majority” and the “opposition,” our Constitution enshrines this two mafia system into law. Each Mafia passes laws to exclude new comers from the game while focusing the rest of its energy in destroying the other Mafia.
Thus, any resistance movement that chooses to become an organization is in competition with these Mafiosi. The deck is stacked and the power of the state, wielded by these organized crime units known as the Democratic and Republican parties, will waste the time and resources of any newcomer. A newcomer can only succeed by rejecting the political system, draining its resources, and undermining the rule of the state.
How is disorganized resistance superior?
Reason No. 1:
In some societies, dissidents become heroes. In American society dissidents are systematically slandered, libeled, harassed, and villainized. If they become successful, they are murdered (e.g. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X). In the American experience, movements that look to leaders are decapitated. Leaders are a liability, not an asset. Organizations can be (and are) infiltrated. Organizations can be taxed. Organizations have legal responsibility. Organizations have membership lists and lists are wonderful tools for the oppressor. Organizations take on a life of their own. They struggle to exist and their continued existence takes priority over their mission. Organizations attract opportunists, power mongers, and attention seekers. Organizations tend to exploit their rank and file for the benefit of their inner circle. Disorganizations share none of these defects.
Reason No. 2:
Bureaucracy cannot comprehend disorganization. Disorganization is invisible. The asymmetry of the relationship between organization and disorganization favors disorganization. Organization depends upon planning. Planning requires predictability. Disorganization cannot be predicted. This leaves organization at a disadvantage.
Reason No. 3:
Organization requires a supply chain. Supply chains can be disrupted. Disorganization depends only upon the resources of its members. Supply chains that do not exist cannot be eliminated.
Reason No. 4:
Disorganized movements rely upon swarming. Swarms are difficult to defend against. If you cut a swarm in half, you have two swarms. If you eliminate one of the resulting swarms, you still have a swarm. Disorganization breeds. Organization grows. The many and dispersed are a more difficult target than the large and concentrated.
Resaon No. 5:
Organizations takes their steps by design. If the design is flawed, the organization fails. Disorganization relies not upon design but upon evolution. The motivating notions of disorganization are memes. Memes evolve and memes compete. This process improves the motivating notions of disorganization. This process produces multiple courses of action. While some may fail, others are likely to succeed. Taken as a whole, disorganization is more likely to succeed.
Reason No. 6:
The important thing to remember is that it is easier to destroy than to create that which is designed. Thus, the cost to those who lose the manifestation of their design outweighs by leaps and bounds the cost it takes to destroy it. That which evolves is cheap and when an effort is created to destroy the evolved entity, it merely mutates and evolves again, adjusting to the new conditions. As a process that fosters evolution, a movement based on disorganization will continue to survive, evolve, and expand without cost. The resource constraints placed upon the designed (e.g. government and corporate) and those absent from the evolved (a decentralized and disorganized opposition movement), favor the later.
The limits of disorganization
We do not propose a complete absence of organization. Instead we propose a disorganization of units. Units can be as small as a single individual, or as complex as cell of individuals working together. Cells may be internally organized, but they should not be statically organized cell to cell. The movement should have no commander. It should have no central committee or governing body. No global plans should be made. The modus operandi of each unit should be to think globally and act locally. Ideas, strategies, and tactics should float freely and compete as memes within the medium of the collective conscious.
Conclusions
We need to construct a disorganized movement. You need not apply to join. In fact, it might be better if you did not contact anyone except those with whom you wish to form a unit. Your ideas, strategies, tactics, and lessons learned should be spread anonymously or by word of mouth. When you act, should you decide to act in resistance, attribute your actions to “the Resistance.” The growing din of disorganized disruption will be felt as an earthquake. There will be trembles. There will be pre-shocks. The tension will mount and, in time, there will be an earthquake. When that earthquake strikes, the organized edifice of the oppressor will fall like a house of cards.
Finally, I am the first to state (as I’ve stated on many occasions here at MND) that the religious right is no friend of men and fathers. They have often been in bed with the radical feminists. And that includes passing legislation. I’ve never made any references to Romney’s religion. When it comes to casting my vote
for President I will hold my nose and hope for the best. The process offers me no better hope than that.
I too eagerly await to hear of verifiable and documented proof of “Romney’s extreme anti-family record as Governor of Massachusetts”.
Up until that time the only one making extreme statements would be you.
October 30, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Elusive Wapiti said,
You’re right. I should have said ‘alleged’ when addressing Romney’s record. I stand by my comment about the family activists, however. They have shown me repeatedly that father’s issues don’t rank too terribly high on their list of priorities.
“…the religious right is no friend of men and fathers”
Some are. But a good chunk are not, and you are correct to skewer the so-called ‘religious right’ as I do for their sexist attitude toward men and dads. And sometimes the best friends of men and dads are those that hail from the irreligious left, who see the trampling of men’s civil rights clearly for what it is, whereas those that hail from the right sometimes have difficulty doing so.
“When it comes to casting my vote
for President I will hold my nose and hope for the best. The process offers me no better hope than that.”
Personally, I plan to vote for the candidate that will get Leviathan out of our lives. With the exception of Paul, all of the mainstream candidates on the right and on the left intend to use the coercive power of government to advance their own moral and political agenda. And as you know, men and dads have been a frequent target of government force. Thus I cannot vote for someone who would continue the slide into slavery and oppression.
October 30, 2007 at 3:59 pm
merck said,
October 30, 2007 at 7:39 pm
anti armchair generals said,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison
October 30, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Lloyd Selberg said,
Maybe someone should let Montel’s production staff know: “The Fathers’ Rights Movement is winning” If only it were the national news with no one watching, but is was the Montel Show with millions of women watching. He must be trying to be the male Oprah.
October 30, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
I didn’t say that their records are any better. Thompson seems to be taking the traditional Republican approach - the approach that caused the problems that his potential base wants solved. In traditional style, he’s claiming more of the same will cure the problem. I’m starting to think our politicians drink too much and bring too much of that culture into politics - “hair of the dog.”
October 31, 2007 at 1:36 am
Roger F. Gay said,
October 31, 2007 at 1:44 am
Roger F. Gay said,
We’ve certainly been down that road on child support. I served as an expert witness in P.O.P.S. v Gardner, a federal class action suit challenging the constitutionality of arbitrarily high child support guidelines. The court responded by reclassifying family law as “social policy” - eliminating individual rights from consideration. The only constitutional right derived from the “social policy” classification is equal treatment. This is the doctrine that new court mandates on same-sex marriage are based on.
October 31, 2007 at 1:49 am
Roger F. Gay said,
The purpose that organizations actually fill reasonably well is in direct correspondence non-profit status for education etc. It is unfortunate when information and discussion doesn’t reach much beyond the membership - i.e. preaching to the choir. MND has helped over the years and I wish something more would come from the roundtable discussion approach. That was an excellent way to open the door to discussion with people and groups that have related interests. And I do have great faith - once they get what the battle is actually about …
October 31, 2007 at 2:12 am
Roger F. Gay said,
I am also certain that there are people who read MND who are from Mass., who have seen many of their problems develop in that state, and know a lot about Mitt Romney’s part in it. I recall being told about his campaigns - so I don’t see Romney as merely someone who missed opportunities the way you apparently do. As I recall, he was very pro-active in his anti-family policy campaign. He campaigned for the office on anti-family policy reform - he was very strongly for it. So far as I know, he never missed an opportunity to push, sign, and take credit for anti-famiyl policy.
Of course - I understand that the Republican’s “pro-family agenda” is merely a smoke-screen. Romney worked the actual anti-family agenda to get the money from the federal anti-family programs. And I’m sure that he used the same lies as everyone else to make the tax and spend radical left’s anti-family agenda appear fiscally, socially, and politically conservative. We have Ronald Reagan to thank for that lie.
October 31, 2007 at 2:22 am
Lloyd Selberg said,
Any Mormon truly believing in anti-family government policy and expressing such would likely be excommunicated. Recall Orrin Hatch’s run for President in which his message to Mormon’s was just don’t mention the fact that I’m Mormon.
Mormon’s don’t have a problem omitting much of their beliefs to gain positions of power as wealth and power are high on the Mormon agenda. Once with money and power the Church expects both be used subject to Church Doctrine.
The schizophrenic belief that God may direct ANY BEHAVIOR to achieve his end is common in the Mormon faith. It’s OK to commit obvious sin if so directed by personal revelation. Fundamental to the Mormon faith is that they are lead by a living prophet that receives daily updates on doctrine from GOD.
Anticipation what Romney might do is anyone’s guess, but my guess is that he would promote a pro-family government agenda in spite of Roger’s observations.
October 31, 2007 at 9:47 am
anti armchair generals said,
Thank you for your answer and activism. I was not aware of the lawsuit you mentioned
October 31, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
October 31, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Roger Knight said,
Orrin Hatch is the treasonous anti-Constitutional co-sponsor of the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act, 18 U.S.C. §228.
Read it and weep! Hatchling has been at the forefront of new federal legislation imposing permanent license suspension requirements upon the states to qualify for their bags of federal money, for denying passports, for stripping those with protection orders of the right to keep and bear arms, and many other measures to impose what the French call “civil death” upon divorce parents who cannot comply with the unreasonable child support orders required by the support schedule requirements also imposed by Hatchling’s legislation.
I have yet to hear about the Mormon Church ex-communicating Senator Hatchling. Utah seems to have the same pig headed family court judges and no-fault divorce laws and Child Support Crusade every other state has. The Mormon Church is as politically compromised as every other church.
The big mistake that every one of these so-called Christians and all those who decide the Constitution and the Antipeonage Act shall not regulate the practice of family law is to expect, to demand, that fathers pay an unreasonable amount each month, call it child support when there is no practical mechanism to require and accounting for how the money is used to provide for the child, to not allow deduction from taxable income the child support paid, to place the distribution of personal exemptions for the children allegedly supported in the sole discretion of the custodial parent,
regardless of how said father is TREATED.
So Darren Mack knifed his wife and shot the corrupt treasonous anti-constitutional judge.
I am surprized it does not happen more often. The reason peonage and extortion are crimes is that those being extorted sometimes react badly.
Mitt Romney may promote a pro-family agenda, but it would be a first time, and it would require a Road to Damascus experience.
October 31, 2007 at 6:19 pm
cjo said,
For every year of his four years in office, Romney stood behind his aspiring dyed-blond bimbo lieutenant governor, Kerry Healy, as she read out the 10 Mass. Most wanted deadbeat (dads) poster to the Boston Globe and television station reporters. Again, there was Ned and I believe Glenn Sacks who pointed out that most of the men were probably not able to pay as they had low paying occupations. Did Romney or Healy ever respond to the rebuttal? Not that I recall.
Also, I was through the pointless railroad track-guided family court system in 2004. Shared parenting bills were offered to the legislature every year, but never got out of judicial committee. Did Romney ever lobby for the bills, even though the majority of the Massachusetts public wanted it? No, he did not.
I feel strongly that Romney is critical of men that fall into divorce. He arrogantly believes his religion is sufficient to hold a family together and if there is divorce, the man let it happen and is ultimately responsible.
This is what I recall of Romney’s term in office.
October 31, 2007 at 9:14 pm
college activist said,
October 31, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
November 1, 2007 at 2:36 am
Roger Knight said,
November 1, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Roger Knight said,
http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/allies.htm
November 1, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/2004/gay082004.htm
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/03/gay112103.htm
http://mensnewsdaily.com/secondaries/roundtable/gay100603.htm
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/03/gay121103.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5910/published/ps_oct_2004.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5910/principles.html
November 2, 2007 at 2:34 am
Roger F. Gay said,
November 2, 2007 at 8:45 am
daveinga said,
not an expert on these matters and i wasn’t there but it is my belief the Mormons quit the practice of polygamy primarily to gain the benefits of statehood. they knew - many wives, no admission to the union. the way i understood it was that God gave Mormons back the practice when they moved west (1830’s?) and lost many men fighting Indians and such. the women needed husbands, so to build up the Kingdom God gave them the right to many wives to make many children, much as he as he did the Jews of old. makes sense to me. no doubt living around lots of women w/o husbands or other eligible men = hell on earth. by-the-by that’s the fly in the ointment in Utah w/ all the offshoot branches still practicing polygamy. to the best of my knowledge this right was never taken away, by God.
irony - the LDS Church had already changed the marriage rules a hundred years prior to please the government. this makes twice.
i believe it was Steve Young who commented on this and it is so true - being an older (late 20’s) single male in the Mormon Church is a lonely position. all the adult men of any age bracket are married. i was constantly eyed as somewhere between a leper and a plague victim. always looking for me a new Mormon wife they were.
IMHo Mormons, like other conservative religions, seem to have not embraced the concept that marriage has been altered by the government. Marriage is a Holy institution to them not to be challenged. they don’t see that poisoned water is no longer water fit for consumption. heads in the sand sort of thing.
just my 2 cents worth. not here to slam the Mormons. just what info i know and have witnessed.
Mormons have become in less than 2 centuries the 2nd wealthiest church in the world. they don’t pay the Priests or Missionaries salaries and have an awsome welfare system that doesn’t appear to have been abused as have the western country’s systems. while living in Utah i oft heard it said the power that comes w/ wealth has helped corrupt parts of the Church. don’t know for sure, just heard.
it is my prayer that we (MRA’s) can lead the fight to fix marriage, place real men back as head of the family, and thereby give the Church back it’s rudder. blowing in the wind it is. women in the pulpit in some churches and membership in free-fall. male membership in remission as men are demonized.
remember the part in the Bible about the head of the woman being the man? a help mate for him and not his master?
don’t believe that? yeah, thought so. feminists can’t see it. no eyes to see. wrong team. doesn’t take much Bible readin’ to find it though. page 1, chapter 1. seems so important that it was put up front, like the instruction manual before assembly. so when all else fails ….
November 2, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
I’m not surprised that that Mormons suffered the same fate as the rest of us. It took confrontation with (other) Christians to get them to face the fact that many in the flock had been ambushed and knocked off a cliff by the force of government rather than having been unworthy of basic human respect.
They are still being weak when it comes to admitting that we are right about the politics, with leaders either still pushing impossible solutions or solutions that would cause further damage, or just wandering in the dark complaining and then compromising to no solution at all.
November 3, 2007 at 3:18 am