Thanks.
To succeed, any movement must have slogans that “say it all” to communicate an irrefutable message that everyone instantly understands.
Today, Fathers 4 Justice staged another brilliant protest, scaling the home of British feminist minister “Ms.” Harriet Harmon, who has been brashly destroying marriage and fatherhood in Britain for years. If feminists such as Ms. Harmon want to be known for standing firm for equality (which the larger body of organized feminists loudly suggest), they need to finally turn their feet in the same direction as their mouths.
For the protest, F4J unveiled the best slogan I have seen in years: “A Father Is For Life, Not Just Conception“. If that does not say it all, I don’t know what does. This new slogan is at least as good as the one I introduced in 1988: “We must now grant to fathers the same right to be in the family as we have granted to women in the workplace“.
Some attempt to portray F4J and other legitimate father’s rights activists as “terrorists”. Those who suggest this are some combination of idiots, lying politicians, or feminists.
Legitimate father’s rights activists are men who for the most part did nothing wrong, and were banished from society on purely feminist ideological grounds. (Sure, we have a few nut-cases on the periphery of our movement too — just like every other movement has — but that does not in any way weaken the core movement or the truths on which it stands.)
There are millions of disenfranchised and disaffected good men in Britain and America. It takes guts to do the right thing in the father’s rights movement, spending years peacefully working for change to end feminist social and economic violence.
It is well known that real terrorists are actively trying to recruit the same group of disaffected men. As we have seen recently, too many disenfranchised men have given up and are taking the violent path.
Radicalism breeds reactionary radicalism. British ministers and American legislatures would be very wise to fall over backwards working with leading men’s rights activists to accomplish serious pro-marriage reforms of family law.
In fact, I will go so far to say that there is no better way to end terrorism than to aggressively reform family law and senseless marriage-destroying government programs in Britain and America. Read the truth: Men who have a high level of investment and a stake in society cannot be attracted to the terrorist agenda.
Sir Winston Churchill summed up the moral quandary now faced by millions of good men today when he said “Never give in! Never give in! Never, never, never. Never — in anything great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.”
The moral quandary faced by half of British and American men today, and stodgy inbred politicians hiding behind illegitimate feminist mantras, emanate directly from F4J’s new slogan “A Father Is For Life, Not Just Conception”. Only legislators can break the impasse on this moral quandary to finally put Britain and America back on solid paths to economic and social security.
The war on marriage and fatherhood is now at least forty years old — the longest-running war in American and perhaps British history. Responsible father’s and men’s rights activists have been fighting this war diligently and peacefully at least as far back as 1968.
Both countries can declare an end to this unjustified and immoral war, and preclude terrorism in the future, by openly giving legitimate men’s rights and pro-marriage activists a seat at the center of the table.
Those who think Fathers For Justice is radical climbing buildings and hanging banners from them must be reminded that the suffragette movement in Britain was not politically recognized until suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst attempted to burn down the homes of two ministers who opposed “votes for women”. Pankhurst was later convicted and imprisoned for burning down the home of British Exchequer David Lloyd George in 1913.
My grandmother Florence Wyman Richardson Usher, who founded the Equal Suffrage Association in St. Louis in 1908 (and a friend of Pankhurst’s), was horrified and greatly distressed about the unexpected emergence of suffragette violence in Britain. In her notes and diaries (which I maintain as curator) she expressed great worry that American suffragettes would end up resorting to violence too.
Abraham Lincoln was a lifelong peacemaker who finally resigned himself to a bloody war with the South after conducting test skirmishes in Missouri to see if those who believed in slavery would fight or give in. As it turns out, they fought like hell, and the American Civil War was the result.
Nearly a century later, I share the same concern. Fathers rights activists in Britain and America must be given tremendous credit for relying exclusively on peaceful means for the past fifty years, when suffragettes resorted to violence after only about a decade of activism.
It is a matter of historical record that the Marxist-feminist and Leninist intelligentsia, who relocated to America and the free European countries in large numbers after World Wars I and II, have been very successful transmogrifying free countries into what we fought so valiantly against.
Marriage-absence is the resulting keystone problem driving the greatest economic, budgetary, and social problems of the formerly-free western nations. It is high time we usher this feminist cabal out the door, never to destroy freedom again.
The worst thing Britain and America could do would be to ignorantly continue wreaking countless acts of feminist social violence on millions of good men and husbands, placing them in impossible situations where too many give up on their own country and find something else to do. The risks to national and international security, the tremendous costs of marriage-absence, and the frightful expense of attempting to secure every square inch of the planet far outweigh irrational fears of reforming family law in western countries.
————————————————-
David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition
Stumble It!Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Mark Charalambous said,
David even predates me in the movement.
For many men, it is really a learning curve. Others will simply never get it, for one reason or another.
Usher clearly COMPLETELY understands the POLITICAL/PROPAGANDA value of turning “feminism” into a perjorative.
Again, this is big picture, vision stuff, not compatible with selling toothpaste.
David uses the “f” word even more than me. He practically puts it in every paragraph.
Bravo, David.
June 8, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Do to Renuka what F4J did to Harriet Harman « Parental Abduction is Child Abuse said,
June 8, 2008 at 4:22 pm
amfortas said,
And the potted Usher history (thank you David) is revealing. The civilised urge to be peaceful and patient is commendable but as history so frequently shows us, it can also exacerbate the problem. The closest that F4J got to arousing public outrage was when Jolly sat atop a Judge’s roof dressed as father Christmas and the dull bugger Judge came out with a shotgun.
Provoking such targets as Harman to doing stupid things is the way to leverage the protest. F4J has some success there when they utilise their Court appearances and let the public ridicule the Bench.
But, the forty years (recall the Hundred year’s War) demonising and fighting men shows no sign of abating. Patience might be seen as wearing thin and cautious words flow, but maybe patience was misplaced in the first instance. Few movements have lasted such a length of time without having severe and permanent affect on a society.
Our society is in danger of failing altogether. We are non-breeding our way into oblivion, due to Feminism. It is a completely destructive ideology.
Most of the MRM or Men’s Equality Movement do not advocate violence. I can understand and appreciate its use though. I was employed by the Queen for 20+ years to visit violence upon her enemies. I am well aware that violence has a way of breaking out in unexpected places simply because people’s tolerance limits differ. I understand that too.
Push Government Minister’s limits enough and it is THEY who are likely to turn violent. Stupidly. These F4J guys get surrounded by cops under Ministerial direction and ‘protection’. At the Lincoln Memorial Jolly Stansby was assaulted by cops. Armed cops. The American public are innoculated against reaction to Police violence, having turned into nightly entertainment. They accept it like innoculated sheep accept tics.
The British Feminist Government acts hysterically to ‘terrorism’ and like Feminists everywhere who slide the definition of ‘Rape’ downward to include activity no matter how un-rapelike into the frame, so the BritFemGov will likely do with sitting on a roof.
The British Police murdered an innocent Brazilian guy running for a train a year or to back. They have already pushed right up against the average man’s limits. One day an F4J hero will become a martyr.
That will be the moment when previously silent men will stand up and say, “I am Spartacus”. They will take to their roofs in solidarity. Some will be armed. And for some others, brooding as they have been, the dogs of violence will slip the leash. It will stimulate an over-reaction from BritFemGov. There WILL be a civil conflagration.
British men are among the most tolerant that have ever walked the earth, but like Churchill, can be bull-dogs when roused.
Will American men be allies again, in this cause of even more pressing and essential Justice? Will American men sit on the roof, with their rifles?
Will American MRM leading voices support them or condemn their rightous revolt?
June 8, 2008 at 10:06 pm
amfortas said,
And the potted Usher history (thank you David) is revealing. The civilised urge to be peaceful and patient is commendable but as history so frequently shows us, it can also exacerbate the problem. The closest that F4J got to arousing public outrage was when Jolly sat atop a Judge’s roof dressed as father Christmas and the dull bugger Judge came out with a shotgun.
Provoking such targets as Harman to doing stupid things is the way to leverage the protest. F4J has some success there when they utilise their Court appearances and let the public ridicule the Bench.
But, the forty years (recall the Hundred year’s War) demonising and fighting men shows no sign of abating. Patience might be seen as wearing thin and cautious words flow, but maybe patience was misplaced in the first instance. Few movements have lasted such a length of time without having severe and permanent affect on a society.
Our society is in danger of failing altogether. We are non-breeding our way into oblivion, due to Feminism. It is a completely destructive ideology.
Most of the MRM or Men’s Equality Movement do not advocate violence. I can understand and appreciate its use though. I was employed by the Queen for 20+ years to visit violence upon her enemies. I am well aware that violence has a way of breaking out in unexpected places simply because people’s tolerance limits differ. I understand that too.
Push Government Minister’s limits enough and it is THEY who are likely to turn violent. Stupidly. These F4J guys get surrounded by cops under Ministerial direction and ‘protection’. At the Lincoln Memorial Jolly Stansby was assaulted by cops. Armed cops. The American public are innoculated against reaction to Police violence, having turned into nightly entertainment. They accept it like innoculated sheep accept tics.
The British Feminist Government acts hysterically to ‘terrorism’ and like Feminists everywhere who slide the definition of ‘Rape’ downward to include activity no matter how un-rapelike into the frame, so the BritFemGov will likely do with sitting on a roof.
The British Police murdered an innocent Brazilian guy running for a train a year or to back. They have already pushed right up against the average man’s limits. One day an F4J hero will become a martyr.
That will be the moment when previously silent men will stand up and say, “I am Spartacus”. They will take to their roofs in solidarity. Some will be armed. And for some others, brooding as they have been, the dogs of violence will slip the leash. It will stimulate an over-reaction from BritFemGov. There WILL be a civil conflagration.
British men are among the most tolerant that have ever walked the earth, but like Churchill, can be bull-dogs when roused.
Will American men be allies again, in this cause of even more pressing and essential Justice? Will American men sit on the roof, with their rifles?
June 8, 2008 at 10:07 pm
bharati said,
http://deccan.com/home/homedetails.asp#Chetana’s%20ex-hubby%20bats%20for%20dads
June 8, 2008 at 10:53 pm
FathersHaveNaturalRights said,
There is no good feminism. There never was. It began in the U.S. back in 1792 as a rebellion against the Constitution, and really started making a negative sociocultural impact with the sexist misandry of the 1848 Seneca Falls convention.
All femi-nism is about giving women unearned privileges, opportunities, and “rights” to hurt men and their children while portraying those same men as being to blame for every societal and family problem.
June 9, 2008 at 11:51 am
mruffolo said,
When I ask American men in the late twenties and early 30’s about their rights as fathers, I get a blank look. If we continue on the subject of fatherhood, then quickly the topic changes to either lust for woman, sports or material stuff, like cars or how much money you make.
Maybe one in ten unmarried 20-something has their ears open to what is happening in family/marriage/divorce. These are the wise men of America – they learn from other people’s experience. They will reap the benefits of listening to the truth of our message.
Lastly, few people know that America has the highest divorce rates in the world. I guess if the television does not tell men what they need to know, men are disinterested.
June 10, 2008 at 2:28 pm