Getting to “No” – A blueprint for a Fathers Rights Resistance movement
[Formatted, paginated, print version (pdf)]
Excerpted from the forthcoming book: The War on Fatherhood
©Mark Charalambous
August 31, 2008
Contents
I Preliminaries
1. Cultural context of the Fathers Rights movement
2. Fathers Rights as a counter-revolution
II Fighting Back
1. This is a Fathers Rights movement
2. The War on Fatherhood
3. The fundamental cause of the problem
4. Attacking the enemy is a primary function of the Fathers Rights resistance movement
5. Precious energy and resources wasted trying to ‘educate’ enemies
III Fathers Rights as a resistance movement
1. Micro-level resistance—the individual court case
2. Macro-level resistance—everywhere else!
2.1 Bringing the War to the streets: Counter-demonstrations
2.2 Bringing the War to the courts
2.3 Study Wars: Bringing the War to the university halls
IV Summary
Appendix: The Real Wheel of Abuse
The working title of this paper was “A blueprint for a Fathers Rights resistance movement.†However, as the writing proceeded and the paper grew with each editing session, at some point I realized writing a comprehensive, detailed blueprint for building a Fathers Rights movement was a book-length task. What I have written is really an overview of the issues that should be considered toward constructing an actual blueprint for a successful Fathers Rights movement.
I Preliminaries—understanding the problem
The problem—the systematic discrimination, persecution, and now criminalization of fathers by virtue of their classification as “non-custodial parents†by the courts—has been in existence for the better part of 30 years.
The problem shows no sign of abating. Largely speaking, it is an invisible problem. The first question that needs to be asked and answered is: Why has there been no progress in all this time?
Finger-pointing is a staple of the Fathers Rights community. It has always existed because it is quite natural for a failed movement to explain away its failure by assigning blame.
1. Cultural context of the Fathers Rights movement
The problem is huge and multi-faceted, on this all agree. But what has to be comprehended first is the social and cultural environment within which this problem, and our movement, exists.
Parallels with other civil rights movements for “social justice†are often given to suggest how our movement should reframe itself to succeed. But there are no other civil rights movements analogous to what I refer to as the War on Fatherhood, and here’s why.
What have been the socio-political movements that have defined our recent history? Certainly the Civil Rights movement for African-Americans immediately springs to mind. Despite the fact that slavery ended a century earlier after the Civil War, racial injustice continued. The great Civil Rights movement of the sixties sought to end all the latent discrimination against black Americans that persisted.
A decade later, the women’s movement took full flight. “Women’s lib†and “feminism†became household words.
Presently, the latest class of people demanding attention from the identity politics crowd is homosexuals. Since it is debatable whether or not this aggrieved class is produced by “accidents of birth†as is true for racial and sexual distinctions—and also because the normalization of homosexuality is very much an evolving paradigm—I remove it from this discussion, but note that same-sex marriage and gay adoption are indeed issues that have significant bearing on Fathers Rights.
It cannot be denied that until these “social justice†movements of the sixties and seventies emerged, the white male dominated society. He may not have always ruled his family, hearth and home, but he overwhelmingly dominated positions of money, power and influence virtually everyplace else.
Both of these movements for “social justice†were unidirectional, that is, movement in one direction only: empowering people of color at the expense of ethnic European whites and women at the expense of men. In such a political environment it is virtually impossible for initiatives that intentionally favor whites at the expense of non-whites or men at the expense of women to see the light of day, let alone gain any political traction. This is realpolitik, and has nothing to do with the merits of any particular issue or cause.
But these two movements are not at the same stage. Black empowerment is mature, in the sense that the pendulum has gone as far as it is going to go, and we now begin to see a paradigm shift away from the excesses of “white guilt.†It is a given that within a few years racial preferences, aka affirmative action, will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and will hopefully disappear altogether.
The women’s empowerment movement, on the other hand, thrives. The light at the end of the tunnel is not yet visible. It is said that we now live in a “post-feminist†world. Implicit in the use of this language is an acknowledgement that this feminist revolution is irreversible. It is still anathema for a politician to even pay lip service to a legislative or public policy initiative that would result in disempowering women to the benefit of men. Exhibit A is the grilling Justice Samuel Alito endured by Sen. Dianne Feinstein during his confirmation hearings. Alito was called to task on his dissent on Planned Parenthood v. Casey[1], where he opposed the majority on the judicial panel who ruled that a woman in an intact marriage has no legal or moral obligation to even inform—let alone seek the permission of—her husband, if she wants to abort a pregnancy.
I submit there is no better example of the dire state of the emasculation of men at the hands of the feminist revolution, where it is considered repugnant to even suggest that a husband has a right to be informed if his wife is pregnant and intends to abort—i.e., to kill his own unborn child without his knowledge!
But wait, there’s more!
After granting women the exclusive right to take the life of their unborn children, it hasn’t taken long for women to gain the power to actually kill their husbands, get away with it, and keep the kids to boot.
Mary Winkler, convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to just three years in jail for the 2006 shooting death of her minister husband, Matthew Winkler, served a total of 12 days in jail and two months in a mental health facility. Earlier this month she was released and given her three kids back, though formal custody of them is still pending as the slain minister’s parents are not happy at having to turn the kids over to the woman who shot their son in the back with a shotgun. Yet the “jury found her guilty of voluntary manslaughter after she testified about suffering from years of physical and emotional abuse by her husband.â€[2]
These judicial atrocities are examples of “feminist jurisprudenceâ€: the manifestation and injection of feminism, the social theory, into the legal sphere.
If you accept that we live in a non-reversible post-feminist world, you might as well give up now and sue for terms.
The Fathers Rights movement implicitly seeks to regain power that men have lost; consequently, this means it needs to disempower women. It is pure denial and a strategic error to believe otherwise. For fathers to gain custody rights of their children and freedom from criminalization based on a woman’s allegation of “abuse,†etc., the power that women presently possess to do these things must be taken away.
Therefore, before any grand strategy for gaining “shared parenting†rights and such can take place, the reality of the cultural, social and political environment that presently does not comprehend anything contrary to the empowering of women must be acknowledged and addressed. Only then will rational strategizing and a coherent battle plan be possible. To paraphrase the classic line from Paul Newman’s film Cool Hand Luke, the Fathers Rights movement must first, “get its mind right.â€
2. Fathers Rights as a counter-revolution
The Fathers Rights movement is essentially a counter-revolutionary movement. It seeks to overturn the feminist cultural revolution that has ruled the roost for the better part of two generations and counting. Once you understand this, it becomes clear that the Fathers Rights movement does not and cannot exist in a vacuum. The feminist sociology professor who teaches college freshmen that the patriarchy and the biological nuclear family are relics of a more primitive, unenlightened world… the social worker who interviews women and children entering the hospital emergency room to see if they are victims of domestic violence… the English teacher who includes Alice Walker rather than William Shakespeare in her syllabus… the U.S. senator and presidential candidate who brags about writing VAWA… the lesbian sociology professor who has her “Marriage and the Family†students fill out cards for the Statehouse supporting gay marriage… the conservative news show host on Fox who occasionally trots out a Fathers Rights advocate to make sport of him… etc., etc., all are part of the problem—not just the judge who took your child and granted your wife an abuse protection order!
II Fighting back
Essentially we are talking about a propaganda war, a war of information—more correctly, of disinformation. Clearly, therefore, a huge part of the problem is public perception. To employ the much overused cliché: we are engaged in a very real sense in a war of hearts and minds.
It is my contention that a war for hearts and minds cannot be won by disingenuous and deceptive methods, and the efforts so far to disguise the problem into a more politically palatable form is the first of the many cardinal mistakes of the Fathers Rights movement.
Any analysis of propaganda begins and ends with language. Using the verbiage of your enemy is the metaphorical equivalent of allowing the opposing army to choose the battlefield. The language used is the battlefield of the propaganda war we are engaged in. The lexicon of our enemy includes using the socially-constructed “gender†in place of the biologically determined “sex,†“parent†instead of “mother†or “father,†“partner†rather than “husband†or “wife,†“choice†rather than “abortion,†and even “abuser†and “batterer†as synonyms for men who fight for custody of their children.
We need to create our own lexicon, and promulgate its use throughout the movement. “Fathers Rights†should be punctuated as a proper noun. It is a proper name, the name of our movement. Hence, it is capitalized, and no apostrophe.
1. This is a Fathers Rights movement
For as long as I have been involved in the movement, the predominant paradigm held that awareness of the problem can gain no traction because of an innate reverse-sexism in society. This is no doubt true, but the error comes in choosing how to react. The overwhelming “wisdom†of the intelligentsia in the movement believes that approaching the problem in a gender-neutral fashion and focusing on the children will circumvent the innate bias against recognizing men, as a class, as victims.
One would think that the abject failure of all various “parent’s†or “children’s†rights organizations and approaches over the past decades would have by now convinced everyone that this is very bad advice. But unfortunately this crippled logic persists and indeed flourishes throughout the movement.
Again: hearts and minds cannot and will not be won over by disingenuous, “clever†marketing/branding/messaging. Perhaps the best example of the failure of this approach is the Children’s Rights Council. This organization took scrupulous care in grooming its image and message as one about children—and not about fathers; that children’s well-being is best ensured by the care and companionship of both of their parents.
The CRC recruited prominent credentialed women as spokespeople and board members to promote their warm, fuzzy message. But this changed nothing. Politicians as well as the media remained unresponsive. This is because any effects of law and policy changes recommended by the CRC—even though framed exclusively from the perspective of the well-being of children—would enhance the rights of fathers at the expense of power wielded by women. And this is obvious to all—and even if not obvious to some particular politician, feminists would make damn sure they “got religion.â€
The problem of children being denied their parents is overwhelmingly one of children being denied their fathers. Everyone knows this. Women who happen to find themselves on the wrong end of a child support order—or, even more rarely, an abuse protection order—are collateral damage. They have been hit by “friendly fire.†Therefore, to correct the problem of children suffering without the care and companionship of both of their parents, the power of women to veto the involvement of the father, given to them by the state via the family court, has to be curtailed.
Again, hearts and minds cannot be won by impure and disingenuous strategies. Virtually everyone knows a sales pitch when they see one. This fundamental dishonesty in describing the problem and then expecting sympathy and support is doomed to fail. A successful Fathers Rights resistance movement requires authenticity, not a slicker marketing campaign.
Let us embrace the problem for what it is. Let us mean what we say and say what we mean. We will discover that more hearts and minds—of men and women—will open to our message when we dispense with the tactical, “clever,†marketing-driven messaging and strategies.
Here is the real problem, restated. This is how it should be presented, because this is the truth:
Women have been empowered by the state to criminalize the fathers of their children. Financial incentives via usurious child support awards encourage women to use the power that the state gives them to severely restrict the father’s relationship with his child or to simply remove him from the picture entirely. This is only the beginning of a much larger problem. As a consequence, a third of all children in our nation now grow up without their fathers. The social science is virtually unanimous in acknowledging the unique developmental benefits to children raised by a father (not that it should be necessary to obtain the seal of approval from behavioral “experts†for something that is manifestly obvious to anyone with a lick of sense). The statistics of criminal behavior, social and behavioral pathologies that correlate unerringly to father absence scream out for an overthrowing of the present feminist paradigm in domestic relations law and policy and a return to common sense. Father absence is a social cancer that has virtually unlimited repercussions throughout every facet of modern life.
2. The War on Fatherhood
English is the richest of all languages. It has far more words to describe far more shades of meaning than any other language. Fortunately, it provides a word that encompasses all aspects of this tragedy: fatherhood. The relationship between a father and his child, and all that flows from it. There is no need to speak of harm done to fathers and children separately. What is under attack is the very institution of fatherhood. The messaging that directly and unambiguously addresses the real problem is “War on Fatherhood.â€
This messaging implicitly targets the notions of “blended families,†single motherhood as well as gay marriage and gay adoption.
Entry point to the Fathers Rights resistance movement: Do you acknowledge the problem and are you willing to fight your enemy?
The Fathers Rights resistance movement has a front door. Permission to enter is granted to those willing to acknowledge the true problem and sign on to the declaration below. This assures that the movement is truly “on message,†and prevents the foolishness that has pervaded for so long from diverting energy and resources from developing a coherent resistance movement.
I believe there is a War on Fatherhood.
I am enlisting in the war effort to fight against those that are waging this war on me, my children, and the institution of fatherhood.
Signed and dated: ______________________
3. The fundamental cause of the problem
Like the blind men handling different parts of the elephant and all disagreeing about its shape, our movement is notorious for misunderstanding the fundamental cause of the War on Fatherhood. The most common misdiagnosis is the belief that it is all about money and the state’s corruption and relentless quest for power. It is undeniably true that federal and state regimes that profit from creating NCP (noncustodial parent) fathers/child support obligors have “built the perfect beast†that perpetuates the problem—but this is not the source of the problem. The domestic violence, child abuse, supervised visitation regimes that generate so much revenue and employment were not created solely out of a desire for revenue.
I think of this “perfect beast†as a skyscraper. Title IV-d, VAWA, state child support and domestic abuse regimes are the superstructure of the skyscraper, not its foundation. They are the steel trusses and girders upon which are laid the floors and offices that populate the skyscraper—where the actual workaday work is done by the busy-bee bureaucrats that grease the wheels of this “beast.â€
Attempts to fix the problem that focus just on the office workers, or try to tear the building down by attacking its superstructure alone, will not work. As long as the foundation is intact, the skyscraper can and will be repaired or rebuilt. We need to find a cure for the disease itself, rather than administering palliatives for its symptoms.
The fundamental cause of the problem has been clearly identified for years, but men in the Fathers Rights movement have stubbornly resisted acknowledging it. It is no coincidence that most if not all of the people that have publicly identified the fundamental problem are women: Phyllis Schlafly, Kathleen Parker, Christina Hoff Sommers and Erin Pizzey come immediately to mind as some of the more articulate women who speak directly to the consequences of men’s collective failure to stand up to feminism.
As was explained in the previous section, the fundamental source of the problem is a sociological and cultural movement that began in earnest about 40 years ago: women’s empowerment, aka feminism. The feminist movement seeks the empowerment of women. It does not seek equality of the sexes. Its open-ended goal is the transformation of what was hitherto a patriarchal society into a matriarchy.
This is not secret information. It is taught to practically every college student who needs to satisfy a behavioral science or general education requirement. In sociology and women’s studies classes, patriarchy is taught alongside such other socio-political pathologies as racism, colonialism and Nazism. A tremendous amount of agenda-driven, pseudo-scientific, social science research constantly streams out of universities. This “research†is regurgitated within classrooms to impressionable students of both sexes, who then take this knowledge with them into the real world upon graduation and use it to inform their work as doctors, lawyers, police officers, judges, social workers, politicians, reporters, and … teachers… completing the vicious cycle.
Treating fathers who fight for custody of their children as batterers and a presumed danger to their children is only to be expected when considering the indoctrination all the actors in these court tragedies receive as part of their education and training. If this were not so, how would it be possible that such a wholesale abrogation of rights of one half of the adult population would go unnoticed by the media? In a world with a ravenous appetite for scandal, force-fed by a media industry that respects practically no restraints on “the people’s right to know,†how is it possible that injustices of the magnitude experienced by fathers under the color of law on a daily basis go unreported?
The reason is cultural. The reason is sociological. And to cure this disease, cultural and sociological paradigms must be challenged and overthrown. It can’t be avoided.
Conspiracy is defined as “An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.†The “Real Wheel of Abuse†(Appendix), illustrates the causal relationship between feminist propaganda in academia, the media, legislation, the rape of fatherhood in the courts, the social costs of father absence and domestic violence. What we face is, quite literally, a conspiracy.
Men have allowed feminists to define the terms of debate, to metaphorically choose the terrain of the battlefield. At legislative hearings on shared parenting and abuse protection reform bills, Fathers Rights advocates plead with legislators that the present laws are being used unfairly against fathers and that as a consequence children lose their fathers. Feminists testifying in opposition warn legislators about the dangers to women from their “abusive,†batterer husbands or boyfriends, quote statistics from pseudo-scientific, agenda-driven research about the epidemic of violence against women, and occasionally trot out “survivors†as witnesses to hammer the point home: Don’t you dare support these batterers and their anti-woman legislation!
Every veteran of the custody wars knows that in the courtroom, any charges made by one side that are not rebutted are held to be true. But on the macro level, men don’t seem able to translate this knowledge into the political arena.
To date, men have been fighting for Fathers Rights by taking a defensive approach—only! Feminists have been attacking men, masculinity and the patriarchy. They tell legislators in no uncertain terms that the few men who fight for custody of their children and lose do so because they are unfit and/or batterers. They promulgate the lie that women rarely lie about domestic violence. They have somewhat successfully defined Fathers Rights advocates as “the batterer lobby.â€
And in response, men merely quote various studies showing how children benefit from a relationship with the father, plead that child support in Massachusetts is unreasonably high, and some are bold enough to argue for tweaking the abuse protection laws because they are often used by women as a tactic to gain custody of children. On this last item, it should be mentioned that the conventional wisdom in our movement holds that gaining shared parenting legislation must be the first objective, and then, afterwards, we should turn our attention to fixing the domestic violence laws. This is another cardinal error of the movement, since shared parenting legislation is held up because of the (usually back room) objections by domestic violence feminazis. When they say “Jump!†our legislators ask “How high?†We cannot get shared parenting laws passed unless the domestic violence feminazis have first been de-fanged. Fixing so-called “abuse prevention†laws should have the highest legislative priority, not the lowest.
And this backward thinking on legislation is symptomatic of another cardinal error of the movement: failure to actually attack our enemies. In legislative hearings, for example, Fathers Rights advocates never see fit to attack the very people who demonize them! They are so afraid of being labeled “misogynist†that they never even think to do what they know they have to do when fighting their own cases in the courtroom.
A sports analogy is called for. The predominant strategy of Fathers Rights to date can be compared to insisting on keeping your entire soccer team within the penalty box to maximize defense and minimize the number of goals scored against you. It is unlikely that you will succeed in keeping the ball out of your net for over 90 minutes, but it is a certainty that you will never score a goal if your team never ventures out of the penalty box and—heaven forbid!—beyond the midfield line into enemy territory.
4. Attacking the enemy is a primary function of the Fathers Rights resistance movement
The successful Fathers Rights resistance movement must have an aggressive, offensive strategy. This will include investigating the public and private lives of our opponents, digging up the dirt and flinging the mud. How many purported “battered women advocates†who are exposed as violent themselves will it take before the seeds of skepticism bear fruit in the minds of the public, and eventually, legislators?
The Fathers Rights resistance movement must dedicate a sizeable fraction of all its resources and energy to offensive actions and activities that directly attack its enemies.
The enemy is all individuals and agencies that through their beliefs and actions work to promote the War on Fatherhood.
Here is a short list of some of our local enemies:
This list is as long as you want to make it. It should include all feminist academicians who are brainwashing students in our schools, colleges and universities. First discredit, then demonize. If at all possible, criminalize. Dig up dirt. Try to destroy their reputations and their careers. If you can, cause them financial and economic hardship. In such endeavors, the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Make alliances with people who have a different, perhaps completely unrelated beef with these enemies. Share information and work together to cause them harm.
5. Precious energy and resources wasted trying to ‘educate’ enemies
One of the most frustrating things is watching new activists, particularly well educated and professional men, “discover†that the reason why the movement never makes progress is because the Fathers Rights crowd have an image problem: they present themselves and are perceived as angry men who have become unbalanced by the bad experiences of their divorce. Politicians often take these newbies aside and give them the “inside word†in private meetings. The gullible new Fathers Rights activist, champing at the bit to gain respectability, then spends inordinate amounts of time, energy and resources trying to educate these politicians, making sure that they themselves present the proper image, eschewing anger and avoiding any negative talk about women or feminism, and above all, never showing anger.
I submit that one of the reasons for failure is that there haven’t been enough angry fathers together at the same time and place.
Here in Massachusetts, two examples come to mind. The first from several years ago when a well-meaning new activist sought to educate Margaret Marshall, the chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court. Countless letters were sent, and posted to our list-server.
Most recently, an incredible amount of time, energy and resources have been spent attempting to educate Governor Deval Patrick. After all, the governor created a blog area on his web site specifically for citizen input. Tremendous amounts of energy were spent to move a shared parenting thread to the very top of this list.
Despite warnings that Deval Patrick, whether sincere or not, had already been thoroughly indoctrinated by the other side—his wife was a domestic violence zealot, he was raised without a father, he was a lifelong, liberal Democrat, etc.—and that he was already “well educated†on these issues being a thoroughly feminized college-educated resident of Massachusetts, these Fathers Rights activists had to find out for themselves. So, two years later, when pressed at a public meeting in the Berkshires, Patrick finally admitted that Fathers Rights was not going to be his “particular focusâ€:
“The sort of the running debate between us is about trying to get me to champion this issue rather than the forty legislatures you have working on it, and I keep deferring because I got some other things on my list. It’s not that I don’t care. It’s not that I am not sympathetic to the issues that you’re having with your daughter and your ex-wife and so on-it’s just not my particular focus. And I know that every time we’re together you want to make it my particular focus.â€[3]
Now, two years later, they more or less acknowledge that it was a waste of time.
The frustration on my part comes from wondering what could have been accomplished if instead of wasting all that energy trying to educate a known enemy, that same amount of energy was spent attacking Deval Patrick (after, naturally, at least one obligatory overture to him had been made). Perhaps nothing, but at least he would have been made aware that he had been targeted by a voting block.
III Fathers Rights as a resistance movement
Because of the tremendous damage done to fatherhood via child support orders, encouraging child support defiance is another staple of the movement. These usurious child “extortion†orders serve to cut fathers off at the knees, preventing them from further litigating their own cases in pursuit of their children and justice.
If it were practical, the universal withholding of child support—a child support strike— would indeed be a catastrophic WMD lobbed upon the system. However, though there will always be heroic individuals willing to stare down the state, lose their homes and jobs and livelihood and ultimately serve jail sentences, it has to be acknowledged that it is simply not realistic to expect NCP wage earners en masse to quit their jobs, learn to earn their living under the table, and essentially go underground. Very noble perhaps, but not practical for the mass of men living “lives of quiet desperation.â€
I don’t discourage this tactic. I know that I did not find it practical. Each man can wrestle with his own conscience. I say nothing further about any effort to promote an organized child support resistance movement.
1. Micro-level resistance—the individual court case
The good news is that there are many other areas where resistance is not only possible but can also be extremely effective, and furthermore contains little risk of loss of liberty or criminalization. In fact, this personal, micro-level resistance must be the very heart of the future of the Fathers Rights movement.
If a substantial fraction of men refused to cooperate with the divorce/custody machine we could draw blood and force the system to take notice. By attacking its lifeblood: money, we would be returning fire.
First off, it requires that we convince men to educate themselves so they gain the confidence to “take charge of [their] case,†as Liberty Bell Union advertises[4]. Fathers must be encouraged to demand shared physical and legal custody of their children (unless demanding sole custody is appropriate), and not permit their attorneys, if they insist on using one, from coercing them into settling for NCP status with a survivable financial arrangement. Presently, far more men than we might want to admit actually agree to become noncustodial parents. Yes, we all understand the legal pressures that are brought to bear, but in the final analysis, too many men make this compromise.
When more fathers refuse to accept the business-as-usual NCP status, this alone will have a powerful effect. The courts will become even more overburdened. The laws of physics require that an object move along the path of least “action,†i.e., the path of least resistance. Non-cooperation applies an opposing force to the status quo that demands fathers be transformed into “noncustodial parents.â€
The next step would be to convince all these fathers who don’t cave on custody and are willing to head to trial, to refuse to cooperate with the standard operating procedure: appointing a GAL, getting various psychological evaluations, bringing in more “experts,†accepting supervised visitation, hiring more attorneys, etc. A judge cannot force you to cooperate with a GAL investigation, nor to get a psychological evaluation. Of course you will be warned, even by your attorney, that such actions can only harm you in the long run.
Men must not merely tell the judge at the hearing that he will, for example, not cooperate with a GAL investigation; he must put his objections in his pleadings, stating the reason why: “guardians ad litem are fundamentally biased against fatherhood.†Imagine if three out of every four divorce pleadings contained language where the father claimed that the system fundamentally discriminates against men, perhaps making use of boilerplate language of feminist bias in the courts that can be provided by our organizations. Imagine the impact on these GALs who rely on court appointments for their income. Typically, a GAL might bill for a total of ten or so hours of visits with the parents and their collaterals. Well, guess what? That income is suddenly halved. And furthermore, a father would not need to dredge up the law citation and write a pleading as to why he should not pay for half of the GAL fee. He cannot be asked to pay for any of it if he has refused to cooperate at the outset, in writing, when the GAL is assigned to the case!
The stance of the father in a custody case, with or without a 209A order should be simply this:
“I demand shared physical and legal custody of my children. If my soon-to-be ex-wife disagrees, then I demand sole physical and legal custody, and will permit as much visitation to her as she requires, within reason. Furthermore, if the court intends to deny me the minimally acceptable shared custody of my children, I demand it produce findings of fact as to why and how I am a danger or harmful to my child. If the court intends to take custody of my child away from me, I demand it give the reasons why I am unfit and constitute a danger to my child.â€
Then, fold arms, sit back, and watch the system spin its wheels.
This is not in any way a guarantee that a given father will do better in court if he follows this advice. It is a description of how the successful Fathers Rights resistance movement must operate on the micro level. This is something that practically every divorcing father can do with no risk of criminalization. In fact, I assert that it is incumbent on every father in a high conflict divorce to act this way. The Fatherhood Coalition sought to encourage this behavior as standard practice in Massachusetts to mixed results.
2. Macro-level resistance—everywhere else!
Resistance to the perfect beast extends beyond one’s own personal case. Far too many good men have “hung separately.†Most of the activities that various organizations and individuals do now can be characterized as resistance. Every freeway sign. Every letter to the editor. Every courthouse protest. Every verbal testimony at a public hearing. This is all resistance, and of course it must continue. The publicity-stunt tactics of Fathers-4-Justice exemplify the type of protesting known as “direct action.†Clearly, Matt O’Connor’s creation has been the most successful Fathers Rights enterprise in the entire history of the movement. Combining humor with the simplest, most indefensible issue of the War: NCP fathers denied visitation with their children, propelled Fathers-4-Justice through the media’s lace curtain in England.
2.1 Bringing the War to the streets: Counter-demonstrations
Until such time as we in the US can muster a “thousand people in the street†to support Fathers Rights, it only makes sense to confine public protests to counter-demonstrations. On this there is no shortage. Out opponents in and out of government provide a constant stream of public events that are protest-worthy: judicial education junkets, child support enforcement PR events, domestic violence propaganda events and similar male-bashing love fests, and here in Massachusetts, Governor’s Council judicial approval hearings, to name just a few. Such counter-demonstrations can be successful with even a small number of participants.
Important point: These counter-demonstrations should not be necessarily peaceful and respectful. We are protesting people and institutions that deserve not respect, but disdain. With respect to peaceful versus… not peaceful, I believe that the success of our movement will eventually require civil disobedience, in which “peaceful†becomes a relative term.
2.2 Bringing the War to the courts
Certainly, legal challenges to state actors, whether via constitutional grounds, class action suits, challenges to Title IV-d federal child support statutes, RICO pleadings, or any of the other legal mechanisms that countless Fathers Rights advocates have tried, must continue.
This is the area where the Fathers Rights men who have become legal experts can shine. The Fathers Rights resistance movement must apply a constant pressure to the legal and judicial power structures. There must be a constant barrage of lawsuits hammering the gates of judicial power.
2.3 Study Wars: Bringing the War to the university halls
Also, our movement should conduct its own agenda-driven (though fair and accurate) research. Steve Basile of the Fatherhood Coalition produced two groundbreaking studies on the issuance of abuse protection orders in one Massachusetts district court[5]. The studies have been referenced numerous times in subsequent social science research. As a result of Basile’s work, the state responded with an iron fist to prevent future “mischief.†They quickly passed legislation making abuse prevention court dockets off limits to the public. Consequently, court data is going to be increasingly more difficult to obtain for future unbiased research in Massachusetts. The history of Basile’s research and the response to it are well documented on the Fatherhood Coalition web site[6].
But there is no shortage of fruitful areas for research. A high priority should be placed on the mainstream media’s bias on coverage of domestic violence. It would not be too difficult a task to take one big media entity, such as The Boston Globe, and prove their bias by comparing the difference in language used in their coverage of domestic violence stories; specifically, how the appearance of the words “domestic violence†in their stories depends on the sex of the victim.
IV Summary
In the spirit of the old saw about what to do first when trapped in a hole, the first order of business for our movement is to “stop digging.†We must first stop the bleeding by correcting the cardinal errors of the past:
With respect to the pro-active side of a resistance movement, all the macro-level activities mentioned require further elaboration and detailed planning, i.e., a true blueprint. All the activities that people share on the various Fathers Rights blogs and email lists are all wonderful examples of this part of the movement. Of course, it goes without saying, the more organized and concerted the efforts the better.
What I believe is needed first, however, is acknowledgement and action on the other, ideological aspects of the movement that I have taken great pains to define in this document. To wit, the Fathers Rights movement must first “get its mind right.â€
There is no shortage of fronts in the War on Fatherhood. To each his poison. Let a thousand flowers bloom!
# # #
[1] Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert P. Casey, US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Oct. 21, 1991
[2]“ Convicted Killer Gets Custody of Kids,†AP, Aug. 4, 2008
[3] Governor Deval Patrick responding to questions from Renny Del Gallo and Will Smith, August 5, 2007, Great Barrington Town Hall meeting. www.berkshirefatherhood.com/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=699&cntnt01returnid=69
[4] Liberty Bell Union, the pro se training program designed by and for Fathers Rights advocates. www.libertybellunion.org
[5] Steve Basile, “A Measure of Court Response to Requests for Protection,†Journal of Family Violence, 20 (3) June 2005, and “Comparison of Abuse Alleged by Same- and Opposite-Gender Litigants as Cited in Request for Abuse Prevention Orders,†Journal of Family Violence, 19 (1) February 2004
[6] www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/Gardner_209A_study_index.htm
Appendix
The real ‘Wheel of Abuse’
| More from Mark Charalambous
Stumble It!
September 7th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Don’t forget to attack “journalists” / commentators who are part of the propaganda campaign – viciously spreading false information about men and fathers – individually or as a group.
Wanted to post btw: to create the 100th post in response to this article, and thank Mark for initiating the discussion. Obviously there is interest in the topic.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Yes, choose targets well. A chap in Canada sued a cop and his Chief and the Department and won $5 mil. A cop may be doing his job, but there are far too many who are just salary-men who care not a whit about investigating and gathering evidence; who accept accusation as sufficient; who mace and taser even clearly innocent men. They do it because they are told to. A man of honour would say no.
Yes, attack the legislators. They surround themselves with sychophants. Use disgust. Use black propaganda. They do. Again choose on merit.
Same with school principals. These are nasty people sometimes who kow-tow to policies which a decent person would throw out the window along with the slimy shits who write them. And there are some good people too.
The point is, to fight.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:34 am
We need to understand what we’re doing and aim at the right targets. The cop who’s just doing his job – because the laws demand arrests (even if rightfully classified as false arrests) is after all just doing his job. That wasn’t seen as a good excuse for Nazi soldiers, so I can understand your feelings if you’ve been hauled away; but it makes more sense to attack the legislators who wrote the laws and their reasons for writing them and the judges who do not declare them unconstitutional. Our system is designed such that the cops are not supposed to make their own laws and it’s the wrong cultural attack to act as if it’s generally ok for them just to do what they individually think is right rather than what they’re supposed to (other than to exercise reasonable judgment when the law allows).
September 7th, 2008 at 7:08 am
People will always draw the dotted lines, Mark, according to their perceptions of the issues, no matter how well others try to draw their own. And we all must accept that. If getting the numbers means including some of those that want to focus on shared parenting or PAS or any other particular of the very wide front we must fight upon, then by all means encourage them rather than deter or decry.
You make a very sound case, Mark. As does AH. As do several others, such as David Usher, Glenn Sacks. None can be ruled out. But as I have pointed out, we can have General Staff College discussions until the lights all go out. And the hand is on the light switch.
Any sound and major victory in any one of the various Target areas / battlefields will be a turning point. And we have a target-rich environment. Personally I would advocate going after the easiest major target on a localised basis (country, region, topic )go for broke and give any victory the maximum publicity. This would be a huge stimulus toward the development of a viable movement.
But so much energy is being dissipated on long-term battles on our enemy’s chosen ground, playing by their rules.
WE must MAKE the rules. We must choose the targets and the battles on a cost-benefit basis. Just look at the ROI of F4Js actions in the UK and Canada. Absolutely tremendous in terms of message and awareness. You could not buy the airtime and print column inch they have gained for less than three or four million dollars. Fathers Rights is on the radar in all Anglophile countries because F4J put them there.
Psychological warfare is needed – you are spot on and adopting a position long held by AH, by me, by a few others – rather than reasoned and polite debate and discussion with legislators who will string us along and refuse to deliver us a crumb. There are far too many polite, reasoned men around for our own good.
We skirmish among ourselves. We are navel-gazing. Inward looking.
We NEED to be facing outward, hitting feminists, legislators, lawyers, publishers, local, State and Federal goverment beaurocrats, police, academics, school principals etc. PEOPLE. Individuals. Soft targets that can be ruined.
We need to be focusing attention on grey and black propaganda. No squeamishness on our part. Ruin reputations, with innuendo if necessary. Ruin careers. Get dirt and mud and throw it, preferably with a friggin’ lump of rock in it. Having it stick is OK; cracking a skull is better.
Buy a hooker for a couple of hours and send her to a Judges Chambers. Or to a school principal. How about a professor. Have a reporter and a photograher handy. Send incriminating letters and some glossy snaps to the target’s wife. Let her give him hell. Let the Judge, the principal, the professor taste the divorce court and ruination.
We need to become specialists in sewing distrust and disgust. It is cheap in a number of meanings. I don’t mind cheap is it brings a pig down.
We need to be suing; initiating actions against individuals and Departments and companies and TV stations and newspapers; against lawyers; against court clerks; against ex-spouses and their new partners; against liars who commit purjury. We need to sue on behalf of children. We need to be suing cops who arrest and use force and ignore evidence and accept false accusation without investigation. We need to be suing companies that discriminate against men. Suing can build a war-chest. With a war chest we can buy a law firm to concentrate on our issues. And we can keep the profits.
We must be prepared to get hurt. Men are already dying. Look at John Murtari. He has been and is willing to go to jail. He went on hunger strike such that even his jailers were ashamed of themselves. Look at the guy in NZ this week who persistently ignored ‘Orders’ so he could see his children. Five months jail. He told the Judge to get fucked and shove his ‘orders’ up his arse. HE is the sort of man we need.
I hope he recruits some really nasty mates while he is in jail. If he choses to torch the Judges home one day in the future I am sure that the usual suspects in the MRM will condemn him, but I won’t.
We must recognise that war is hell.
It has been hell for fathers and men in general and families and children, for far too long. It needs to be hell for the scum who assail us. Men are dying – at their own hand – from despair. We cannot wait until Hell freezes over and Judges lose their immunity from personal liability for their culturally and legally corrupt scum actions. Let them lose their homes. They take fathers’ homes way from them every friggin’ day.
We need to fight. We need to fight hard and dirty.
This is NOT poetic.
At present we are going down without fighting. Just chattering.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:02 am
If you’re looking for a particularly clear tie-in between fathers’ rights issues and the greater cultural war, you should read more articles at MND – a very good example – David Usher’s current article 2008 Elections: Marriage-Absence, America’s Most Urgent Problem, Goes Ignored
September 7th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Mark,
I think your work provides an academic view and analysis. As such, I think – if you are taken seriously – you should expect a response from others who give this academic treatment and analysis; and you will find the usual disagreements that are part of the learning process. You present a view that – I think your writing indicates that even you see as not quite mainstream among people interested in fathers’ rights. I would caution you against digging your heals in and declaring everyone else too stupid to waste your time. I think that’s a one-way trip to not being taken seriously.
It does appear that you want to recruit an entire cultural movement as your private army in a way; and I don’t see that happening. To be of any use, organizations need to provide some kind of service in response to demand. Fathers’ rights issues are concrete. They have real and definite consequences, specific causes, and specific solutions. Fathers’ rights problems are part of a larger cultural war – specifically the part where corruption has lead to the elimination of civil rights – and billions in government spending annually to assure that things stay that way.
Feminist groups are at best one of the lesser marketing / promotional entities – you need to look deeper into fathers’ rights issues before putting all the blame on a small specialty group in the marketing department. Note also that pooh-poohing feminism these days gets broad public approval. Focusing all the effort of father’s advocates on feminist language tricks would be a huge and unnecessary distraction. If you have a point re: feminist language, just make it. People all over the place are beyond sick and tired of PC, and typically do not resist the message.
Fathers’ rights advocates are specifically focused, but because the war against fathers is part of the greater cultural war against western civilization, they are natural allies in that greater war.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Angry Harry;
Good point. There is often a difference bettween what should be and the way things are. I run into that problem quite often when describing how things are. For example, I agree with people who think we should have the civil rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution – including the fact that the constitution says it’s a corruption over-stepping of the boundaries for them to be denied to us by law. I’ve been through many a (stupid) argument trying to explain how things actually are.
I think there are parts of Mark’s thesis that would be useful for education; including his observations about how newbies approach things – naively. He’s off target attacking everyone else who’s ever confronted fathers’ rights issues and doesn’t go far enough if he denies that existing laws / pork-barreling / political corruption are a major part of the current problem.
September 7th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Ooops. Sorry to write again, but I left out one thread in my thought process.
With regards to where to “draw the dotted line” around THE ISSUE.
At the micro level, I disagree, violently, with those in the FR movement who believe that a much smaller items need be identified as THE ISSUE and ITS CAUSE. Specifically, those that want the entire thrust of the movement to be “Shared parenting”.
“First get SP passed, then we’ll deal with other issues.”
In the same manner, those that wish to identify thing like Parental Alienation Syndrome as some kind of silver bullet that will solve the problem.
These types of imaginings are far too (ideologically) local in scope, and specifically attempt to avoid identifying feminism as the problem, go so far as to pretened that it’s an issue of the rights of (gender-neutral) *parent’s* rights that must be focused on.
I believe I addressed this fairly comprehensively in the paper, though, and perhaps this comment is superfluous.
All I’m trying to better illustrate is the notion that we are all trying to do is identify specific things as the PROBLEM and ITS CAUSE, and that I believe my choice is the most politically savvy one to make.
September 7th, 2008 at 5:18 am
… and i thought [80] Amfortas’ poetical flourish would be the last word on this discussion …
There is yet one more line of reasoning I feel compelled to add to this discussion as a direct result of some of the comments. I’m tempted to say and think that this will be (at least) MY last word on the subject here, but …
A central part of what I’m trying to accomplish here is defining and determining THE ISSUE as well as THE CAUSE.
In a sense, I am attempting to draw a dotted line around the various words/memes that are bandied about in forums like MND.
I believe, that “War on Fatherhood” needs to be encircled with a dotted-line, as does its cause “feminism.”
It took me several thousand words to do it, but essentially that is my thesis in this paper.
Once again, and I apologize up front for the length of this “comment,” let me repeat WHY I wrote this and felt the need to state this thesis.
I entered the FR movement in 1992. I identified (correctly, in my view), the problem virtually immediately upon my first brush with the law when my marriage was breaking down. My opinion of THE ISSUE and ITS CAUSE were the same then and now. I had been debating this with others locally in the FR movement in Massachusetts since 1992.
Choose which horse-metaphor you prefer: Bringing one to water or beating one to death, I had to acknowledge defeat in the face of 15+ years of .. quuite frankly .. stupidity.
In 2008 I was still hearing leaders say things like “We need to stop making it a man-women thing,” and “we should never critize ‘feminists’, but we should make great pains to ensure that we oppose ‘RADICAL’ feminists, because we need women allies, mny or most of which are feminists, and they are not the bad guys.. it’s the ‘RADICAL’ feminists.” etc, etc, blah blah woof woof.
I had wasted countless hours and keystrokes over the years trying to educate such people and trying to inoculate new fathers from this thinking.
So, the immediate impulse for writing this was to leave my thoughts on this issue for *these* people, organized and presentable, and hopefully readable, rather than to just leave in a huff with no final statement.
Now, having said that, let me turn to what I think are some of the more salient points that have come up in this discussion vis-a-vis my attempt to define THE ISSUE and ITS CAUSE.
With respect to THE ISSUE, Angry Harry and others argue that the dotted line should encircle “MEN” rather than “FATHERHOOD”.
I fully understand his/their reasoning, and I don’t really disagree with it. I believe that my response to this position I choose to make along political lines.
I believe that the institution of fatherhood is SO MUCH MORE important than any of the other aspects of men and masculinity that are under siege by feminism, that politically speaking, it is the correct strategy to separate it out from the various other, father-unrelated aspects of the feminist war on men.
As I and others have pointed out, there is more in the intersection of FR and MR than what remains exclusiveto each.
I don’t rebut AH’s line of reasoning, I rather make the choice of staying in the FR direction. The attack on the institution of fatherhood and all that entails, specifically, the consequences of dismantling the biological nuclear family as the atomic unit of civilization, is a theme that must resound with all thinking people once they have had the feminist blinders ripped off.
In short, I acknowledge AH’s contention, but I am not persuaded by it.
The next level of disagreement on defining THE ISSUE and ITS CAUSE I take greater exception to.
This line of reasoning argues that feminism is not really the big picture, but socialism/communism, a worldwide conspiracy to create one socialist world government that will be feminist by definition, requiring the dissolution of the biological nuclreaf family.
I read Brown’s testimony. I have been involved since 1992. I have heard these arguments, both from reasonable, highly intelligent people such as Brown as well as from the lunatic ‘Fringed-flag” crowd.
I’m sorry, but yes I recognize the movement toward one socialist world state, and that it is further advanced in Europe than anywhere else (I am English by birth and vacationed in England in 3 successive years just a few years ago).
I understand that feminism is socialist. But these are many people who are socialist, I should say men who are socialist, who are completely ignorant of the feminist war on the patriarchy. All feminists may be socialists, but not all socialist are feminists.
I cannot help but wonder if the partisans of this line of reasoning — that regarding “ITS CAUSE” we should draw our dotted line around “world government statists” and not “feminism,”– are guilty of the same failure of the FR advocates who believe that the faikure of FR is because we haven’t “taken gender out of the discussion.” I mean, are they also perhaps suffering from what I refer to as “misplaced chivalry”? The fear of being labeled “anti-women”?
Again from a purely political standpoint, the movement stands on much, much firmer ground when it argues about the attack on the institution of fatherhood by feminism rather than attempting to convince the rest of the people (who are as yest unaffected by the War on Fatherhood) that individual liberty is under attack by a global conspiracy of elites who are manipulating the unsuspecting feminists into doing their ultimate bidding.
Not only do I think this line ar argument weak from a political standpoint, I also quite frankly don’t share it.
No one has the inside track on reality. There is no “elite” that is actually orchestrating world-changing events such as 9-11 and VAWA, all acting in concert accordsing to some ultimate game plan of subjugation of the world’s populace so that they can/will …. ?
So, I categorically reject the argument that we should define THE ISSUE and ITS CAUSE according to things that are NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE FEMINIST WAR ON THE PATRIARCHY.
And lastly, I acknowledge the comments that trying to establish an absolute dictionary in the manner I have set forth in this paper is, really, a FR “PC.”
And, you know what? That’s a damn good point!
So, I end by saying that IMO the best word-smithing to use is “War on Fatherhood,” and in the words of John Cleese, “That’s my theory; it belongs to me…”
I continue to ponder all the good comments made here.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:21 am
Roger – “I would however note that since such a large percentage of men become fathers, it is natural that men should be interested in fathers’ rights.”
Maybe; but I suggest that you look at the **real** world – particularly of young men – to see just how little appears to be the **real** interest out there when it comes to fathers rights.
“Everyone – male and female – should be interested in family rights.”
However, in the real world, men mostly seem to be too interested in other things to worry about ‘rights’.
And we have to wake them up.
September 7th, 2008 at 1:42 am
Mark,
People who have focused on father and family issues have known all along that feminism has something to do with the problem. Feminism has been slapped around quite a bit by researchers, analysts, advocates and others who look into the problem. The broader cultural problem is not overlooked at all – and it is part of what makes fr advocates natural allies in the greater cultural war.
I have taken an analytical approach during my many years to working out what the fathers’ rights movement is. Although there are fathers’ rights groups that have organized and carried out activities, the “movement” consists of those groups plus everything else and all the other people who don’t join groups but have a complaint and may respond individually one way or another.
To figure out what the fathers’ rights movement is, you need to look at the actual movement – i.e. even to the point of thinking about that word (language again) “movement” – what caused people to react, how have they reacted, what are their complaints – and quite importantly what would be considered a victory that is specific to fathers’ rights?
This question needs to focus on cultural response – right down to the motives people have had for creating or joining fathers’ rights organizations and the thinking of fathers’ who complain about the current system. This is real cultural “movement” – not something manufactured for the sake of building organizations. If organizations are not responses to the real causes and needs, then they are not useful – they are merely distraction.
September 7th, 2008 at 1:21 am
FathersHaveNaturalRights: I like your pseudo-name. FR is after all about basic rights – efforts to inform on the loss of civil rights over the past couple decades is the more concrete version of that discussion.
I agree with you that men’s rights advocacy and fathers’ rights advocacy are not incompatible. It seems to me that men’s rights has always been more general then fathers’ rights – which the names of the two so obviously imply. I would however note that since such a large percentage of men become fathers, it is natural that men should be interesting in fathers’ rights. Everyone – male and female – should be interested in family rights.
September 7th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Exposing Feminism;
I don’t see anyone objecting to a discussion of ideas, which is after all what a discussion of language is all about – for example, the idea that “reverse discrimination” is discrimination (perhaps with a different origin?)
Regarding construction of a language for the movement. If you can actually identify the movement in more concrete terms? The movement is after all, not a formal organization of people (although there is some of that), and I think you would find it impossible, if not to gain agreement on a fathers’ rights dictionary – certainly in enforcing a particular use of language – an FR version of PC? Most people related to FR have complained about attempts at enforcing PC language – you’re talking about something that is opposite the basic character of many who are most actively involved.
RE: My blueprint: I’ve written more than 100 articles for MND, and presented a lot of material specific to child support, including Congressional testimony available online. This work is the result of a lot of detailed research and analysis. At my core, I am a researcher / analyst and have resisted the pull into a more political role. My job, so to speak, has not been in the area of political organization.
I have however presented some thoughts / analysis / historical perspective on the fathers’ rights movement that I believe are relevant to the discussion. They came up during last year’s round of discussions on what the FR movement should be doing. I’ve posted links to those commentaries above.
September 6th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
As no one has taken me up on the offer let me throw another General Staff Officer issue up.
We get the Marks and the Davids and the Stevens (and now the Bill Woods) setting strategic imperatives. They, and we, have to consider the quality and purposfulness of the Colonels.
There are two types of people we need to find as Colonels and Captains. The Hunters and the Travellers.
Both go into the jungle and both encounter wild animals. The traveller aims to get to the other side of the jungle, planning and acting accordingly, avoiding the animals, keeping his head down. His mind is on the destination much of the time and what he is going to do when he gets there. He deals with the animals as he encounters them, killing some who get in his way but mostly avoiding them and passing them by.
The hunter keeps his head down too, but seeks the animals. He is going nowhere but to find the prey. His future has no destination. He will keep going into the jungle. He tracks; he stalks; he kills. He enjoys eating.
A men’s activism leader needs both sorts of chap. Old shits make the best hunters, as do those who have homes no more. The younger men have homes to build on the other side.
We have many enough travellers. Perhaps too many for the times. Hunters are few in nature but the ’system’ is creating more trainable by the day.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:17 am
Dear Mr. Caralambous,
Excellent work and very wise. I have to agree with Angry Harry and Amfortus that it is “men” you must gear this to. I would even extend the net wider, but for the sake of time and the hope that as you turn that smart mind of yours to this issue you will see this more plainly. With Harry, Amfortus and myself you have a commonwealth of advise (UK, OZ, Canada) on display from men & fathers that are all old hands at this.
The reason the US movement has fallen behind others is the need to be too local. The grassroots bottom idea is an excellent one in democracies and causes (usually like our own).
Despite F4J’s many problems, it has another success that others haven’t given much credit to. That being it has succeeded internationally very well (to a point). It has found ground to take up the cause were ever it has found a mind open to cooperation, and not stubbornly said it must be grassroots up from their country or they are not interested. This is all supporters wanting something- anything that will work and flocking to it.
Local is too Narrow, even when You Sell it as being Universal
I think you are located in the center of blue state central and have wisely seen the end result of softening the message endlessly. Yet there is only one last issue that stops the overall unity of the movement moving forward in greater self-confidence. This is the local bottom up modal is “god†approach. America doesn’t have the divisions that you see in old Europe between cities and the like, but it still has its divisions at the local, state and blue state/red state rivals, which are always played down in a bid to be universally appealing. Yet the good will comes apart quickly directly or indirectly as issues that are biased from one locale don’t mix with other locals, let alone the regional or national or internationals levels when they arrive to put one local organization lead international appeal up against other locally based international groups. It is still local in leadership filled positions and targeted goals.
I have found camp outs for rediscovering one’s manhood as a good example of the soft state/ hard state divide, and show very plainly how local ideas & approaches will often not work in gaining unity enough for those in power to be worried much. These camp outs are meant to tighten the locals into a unified force under the fire chat leaders vision. So we have even at the local US level disunity on a grand scale (if these faire chats needs to be done to unify a local).
Yet the local approach’s problem is both bigger and meaner, and to ignore it would be like anyone in the movement ignoring your excellent effort (pure stupidity). Local means, local fathers filling your organizations positions, local blue state fathers ideas filling the targeted goals, and local pet peeves filling out the mix. Your pet-peeve (from my guess) being the desire not to lock horns with issues of Men’s rights, as you already have your hands well full with FR. By the way, I’m not trying to sell the red state FR (for they won’t work the other way round either). The reason you want to narrow you issues is because you are local bottom up centered.
The point is the local grassroots approach will not work, for the total international input must be included in the approach from the beginning, and not be brought by the Americans to everyone else, or everyone else to the Americans for their mere acceptance or be kicked out (which will be very easy to do, as the distrust is great).
This can be seen the US F4J non-USA F4J conflict. It must have everyone’s input from the beginning, or organizations will take the name and slap on their own local version that will have us head in many different directions to no where.
One of the benefits of this international down, though the negatives are large too, are many should come to the table with more humbleness, as they can’t use their local prioritizing to demand they get their way in full. Much will be left behind as you gain the headaches of dealing with Indians (from India), Kiwis, and Japanese etc. At present all members in any organization seem to claim in their stubborn way that they know the local scene best (to the point of endless disunity). We have everyone hammering at it locally until they burn out or are left with the same problems of turf wars stated in the history books with other causes. At the international level one can’t claims to know everyone else’s picture clearly enough. They come to such a meeting humbled by their lack of knowledge of other nations, and this is what we need to bring the union that will deal with your beast.
Conservatives are locals in every country
I know blue state men don’t like to consider yourselves conservative, but you are in my book (as silly as that sounds). “The day after the revolution the revolutionaries become conservatives.†So the system in blue states has become the entrenched conservative position now for a very long time (please try to ignore the outside rhetoric for a moment with me here). The men in blue state try and hold onto the blue state ways that they now think are old and traditional. You are now fighting against these types in your local riding. I’m sure you have met some old timer who doesn’t want to get into all that and just wants to watch the ball game.
Each countries men feel the same about their local and national ways too as women are much more concerned with follow something foreign than men. This is what makes fathers & men very poor internationalists, and why the establishments have such a free hand in A) moving where we can’t B) and in always watching the local groups to hammer them when they get going.
The establishment simply must keep their eyes on their local areas, as every organization is a grassroots bottom up effort, or it may be international in name, but still be filled with local men from his locale in important potions so that it isn’t really international (as Matt has done to F4J).
So when we go grassroots up the clash of locals doesn’t even have to get to the top of the international field, for the fights begin at length with other locals (or started by those in power). We can’t go local up. It must be international down. There must be enough non-Americans to deal with American centered ideas and vise-versa. Then with an exchange of ideas, learned failures and a set of targets with everyone’s input, and future say in any changes, you will have a complete product to sell to all those who don’t care who wins but want action.
Many Monday-Morning Quarterbacks supporters are waiting for a success to get off the bench. They are not concerned with who started what where, and who has put how many years in, and written how many articles on the finer points of the problems we face. They want a winner “nowâ€, and the level of radicalization has been growing as the softs continue to fail.
We must cast open a wide net to get all the cooperating, constructive and serious men anywhere in the world you may find them. Not choose local men and build our stubborn strongholds and battle it out endlessly. Only fathers, only blue state thinking men or red state thinking men, or those who follow Murtai’s Gandhi, or those who think it is a NWO or those who don’t think it is a NWO only are in fact local issues of a different sort. In this case it is a clique of local ideas that fills the positions in the organization and the targeted goals, instead of local geographic divisions I have already shown in some detail.
So I invite you to be a representative of blue state ideas, and ask you to come and hammer out an international scope of the problem, with other men from other regions and alignments and organizations.
Hope to hear from you,
The Honor Network
http://www.honornetwork.com
September 5th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Amfortas – Correct!
Mark – The enormous forces coming from western governments to create one “New World Order” – a one-planet communist-type empire – with **one** governing elite – are probably much more noticeable in Europe than in the USA – at this point in time. But the USA is most definitely gradually following the plan.
And, in a nutshell, this ‘plan’ (or, this ‘tendency’, if you prefer) requires that men and women do not set up cosy relationships with each other.
For example,; imagine a traditional family – man, woman, two children – all *HAPPILY* living off the man’s labours.
What good is that? – to an elite in power who want a lot of control, and a lot of money with which to wield their power.
Solution: Break up the family so that …
1. it cannot really take care of the children properly – which causes huge problems to society – hence the ‘need’ for more police, prison officers, social workers, teachers, etc etc (who are under the control of the elite)
2. the woman goes out to work (which increases the tax take for the elite as well as the control that they now have over her.)
Mutiply that broken family by many millions, and the governing elite now has access to many more resources and much more control.
Then, go a step further.
Not only break up families – but also break up/poison ALL relationships as much as possible between men, women and children.
The more societal disharmony that there is, and the less is the cohesion between the individuals of that society, the better – as far as the elite are concerned.
The evidence that this is happening is absolutely overwhelming. Furthermore, the documented history of certain influential intellectuals (e.g. as per the Bill Woods piece above) demonstrates that MANY influential socialist/communists knew damn well how to give ‘government’ more power by doing what I have just described.
Let me just give you one more example of how this strategy works.
Imagine a school playground.
The boys and girls (or blacks and whites etc etc) are playing happily together. And they look at the teachers who are in charge (the ‘elite’) and they think, “Ya Boo to them! No way are we going to listen to them. We are happy!”
So the teachers think, “Hmm. How do we get more power?”
Solution: Continually stir up disharmony between the boys and the girls so that they are forever having problems with each other, and then we, the teachers, will get the children (particularly the girls) running to us for help and giving us resources with which to provide it.
So, the teachers have empowered themselves by causing ’societal disharmony’ in the playground.
It’s sooooo simple to do!
So, while I do agree with you that feminists – and the ideology – have had the most enormous impact on us, it seems to me that, behind the scenes, the governing elite – with their huge resources (i.e. the resources of GOVERNMENT) have been piling in with them in order to profit themselves. Indeed, feminists are now but a subset of those huge ‘governmental’ forces that we have to deal with.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
What are the chances we can ever organise an effective reponse to the cultural War being waged by and through Feminism?
A start has to be made in a way that gains victories and puts our enemies to flight. That part will take time but it will not even commence until we have a structured and well-lead/directed Force. An Intellectal, strongly psychological, resolutly determined, properly resourced and fiercly directed Force, that utilises every ally and opportunity for attack andis not in the slightest interested in taking prisoners.
I can count seven or eight competent General Staff Officers on this MND site alone. They could be competent in action given a chance.
We could enumerate maybe 20 people of Colonel standing through their own local achievement, tackling serious issues with marginal success in limited spheres, across the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia/New Zealand. There are a few less visible in Germany and other nations that are only so because of language. Each of these have a small group of 5 – 10 people that they can trust along with them.
I can count over two hundred men and maybe 25 women across five or six men’s activism discussion boards and three continental masses, who want to fight. They have the energy and passion. They are of all ages and station in life.
But do not have anyone to lead them.
They have no strategic objectives, no theatre plans, no tactics worked through, but plenty of ordnance and a host of targets just waiting.
We live in a Target-Rich environment.
We have had hinted to us over the past few years that there are several well-heeled individuals who have large sums of money available.
We could enumerate at least 50 first rate ‘friendly forces’ in each of half a dozen specialisations ranging from Journalism to Computer technology to marketing to business to even Government and Law (wash yo’ mouf out Amfortas), across six or seven countries who have not only shown a capacity to aid us, but have engaged the enemy while we dither.
There are several very powerful, probable allies commanding thousands of female troops – much better organised and placed than most men’s organisations – who would work alongside us if not as an integrated force.
And then there is the great unwashed out there. The fence sitters; the tucked up in bed for the moment, safe and sound, so they think; the general public that harbours a vast number of people who would fight if they knew there was a war going on.
Give me $2 mil* and bring only 40 of these major individuals together for a week in my godforsaken part of the world** and I will turn them into a cohesive and unstoppable Force that would take on the enemy, The Princess of Lies, all her guises, and drive her back into her hole.
*($10 mil would be even better).
** (I have the best beaches you have ever seen)
September 5th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
The response to the War on our Culture, our Civilisation and even our intelligence, calls for a fighting force, and what have we got?
A friggin’ 82-post Staff College.
We have all the discrete Pride and Determination and target specificity Squabbles that go with the a three hundred year old Regiment of Foot, or a combined Marine Corps, or with a speedy and flexible Fighter/bomber/interdictor Squadron, or the long range capability of a Naval Task Force, or the secretive operations of a SAS, but without ANY of these useful formations.
Endless discussions and no action. Defensive quibbling about the professional experience needed for Hitler’s moustache trimmer and dark plots against the hairdressing industry, but no plans to raise a Tank Regiment.
I am a peasant in the field holding a hoe and watching Knights parade past in their finery. Where’s that cheese sandwich? Anyone got a Superman outfit?
September 5th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Roger
You say:
>The actual driving force behind the major problems in fathers’ rights is federal pork.
Now, those that have been around for, say, less than 5 years, might believe that the DV regime/war on men started with VAWA.
You and I know better.
In Massachusetts, it go started in the 80’s — to the best of my knowledge. The full force of “abuse protection orders” — specifically in custody battles and divorce, were already in place. Yes, the law here in Mass. has been tweaked since then — ahem, “improved” — but I can testify that women using DV allegations to get dad thrown out of the house and immediate “temporary” custody of the children in an impending family breakup was already SOP before the VAWA monies flowed in.
With respect to the CS regimes. I don’t care about quibbling about the details w/r to state v. federal — I am sure you know considerably more than I about the details of the implementations nationwide.
However, I don’t need to know the details to know that the CS regime would not be possible without first transforming our culture to one where women, for all intents and purposes, “own their children.”
This was a cultural and sociological transformation (and yes, resulting largely from an economic one) WAY before the state got involved with child support guidelines and the like.
Do you seriously believe that if VAWA were declared unconstitutional, and all money STOPPED, that women would stop getting restraining orders against dad while he was at work to give him a nice surprise at the dinner table, in a pending family breakup?
I submit that things would continue as they are even without the public money, because protecting women is such a noble cause that corporations and good citizens acting independently and collectively would rally to the cause to continue funding — though probably at a lower level.
No, no and no. The state is NOT the driving force in the War on Fatherhood. It is the movement for social justice that goes under the banner “empowering women” that is ultimately the driving force, aka, feminism.
This debate, which I have been engaged in since I entered the movement some 15 years ago, begs further deeper analysis, in the sense of delving into why you (and I submit, the majority of the movement) think as you do.
To wit, why is it that so many men IN OUR MOVEMENT avoid acknowledging the concrete consequences of sociological development of women’s empowerment?
I believe I know the answer, but it is not for me to psychoanalyze the majority of men in the movement. It would be presumptive of me.
I do hope that people reading this who agree with statements like
– “The actual driving force behind the major problems in fathers’ rights is federal pork,” and
– “fathers’ rights problems, as they are, were created by government, and the motive was, and still is, money,”
–
will actually really think hard about why it is they are comfortable having “the state,” “government corruption,” “self-serving politicians, ” etc. as enemies, but not feminism and feminists.
Yes, there are clearly financial incentives at play, no one argues with this, but the fundamental problem is feminists who are in the process of transforming our society and our civilization right under our noses. The empowerment of women is the driving force.
One more minor comment. In your note 60, you write:
[BEGIN quoting me:]
“Women have been empowered by the state to criminalize the fathers of their children.â€
[END quoting me]
[Roger:]
Not really. The federal government / implementation by state government has criminalized fatherhood.
I don’t doubt the importance of feminism on culture, but criminalization is literally an act by the state. Women can’t do that. And in fact, the criminalization is in the laws – not merely in the more general cultural sense.
[END Roger]
Well, maybe I don’t understand you, I said the “state,” as in the government, federal, state, whatever.
In the courtroom, I have seen judges turn to the wives and ask them point-blank if they want them to send their ex-husband (standing by on a contempt for CS), to jail!
That is, women are asked by a judge — ie, the “state,” — whether or not to send the father to jail. This is, literally, the state giving women to power to criminalize their husbands. The state also gives women the power by writing unconstitutional laws that allow a women to declare herself “abused”, with no physical evidence required, subjecting a man to what is, practically speaking criminalization, that is, issuing a protective order.
So, essentially, I fail to see why you raised an objection to that statement in my piece.
Lastly, taken in the spirit it was given, I do take your comments as a “rigorous peer review,” and I do thank you (sincerely).
September 5th, 2008 at 10:05 am
The optimal approach is a coalition of allies, who communicate with each other to share and critique strategies.
Some in that coalition focus on Fathers Rights, while others focus on how men are portrayed in the media, or domestic violence issues, or other issues affecting Mens Rights. Good for all of them. There is no need for homogeneity.
Better that every one do what their talents and interests lead them towards, with the key thing being to keep lines of communication open, so no one has to reinvent the wheel, but with no one being coerced into following some sort of Central Command dictates on focus or approach either.
Let the market system rule: those who want to focus on Mens Rights in general can seek to draw whomever they can to their efforts and the same goes for those operating under the Fathers Rights banner.
Besides keeping lines of information open, two other things are key.
1. For all MR and FR advocates to avoid putting down the efforts of the other. Both are under siege quite enough already from feminists and their government lackeys.
2. To agree on one basic principle: that men in general and fathers in specific should be accorded no lesser rights and no lesser respect than women are in the same situations.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Perhaps we should all ‘go our own way’, but wouldn’t you agree that we can inflict far more collateral damage if ‘united we stand’?
September 5th, 2008 at 8:35 am
You make a persuasive case, FathersHaveNaturalRights, but look at the damage the various ’sects’ of feminism(lipstick/equality/radical/eco et c..) have done to its overall image – I know it’s something I regularly attack.
Divide and conquer?
September 5th, 2008 at 8:31 am
The debate over whether “The Movement” should be referred to as “Fathers Rights” or “Mens Rights” is patently ridiculous.
Let those who have a particular interest in Fathers Rights do what they can under that banner; let those who prefer to address Mens Rights in general do that.
There is no conflict.
And there is no value to cases being made for one to the exclusion of the other, because there is no need for one to prevail to the exclusion of the other.
Both can go forth concurrently.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:03 am
By the sheer volume of activity on this thread discusing the matter, I would say that it is very obvious that we DO need to codify correct language for ‘The Movement’ and explain the reasons for doing so openly.
To add my own two cents, I would prefer that The Movement is a MENS rather than FATHERS rights group for the simple reason that the name excludes those who have not sired children. We need all hands on deck for this one, wouldn’t you agree?
Roger – can we see a paper of your own devising on the ‘blueprint’ theme to compare views? I think it would be great for us all to hear them in full and see how they differ. I think that this would be a most progressive move for all of us.
September 5th, 2008 at 7:36 am
I suppose I should include book names, every FRA should read. Warshak’s book above is great re: custody research.
Braver: Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths
Baskerville: Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family
Levy: The Best Parent Is Both Parents: A Guide to Shared Parenting in the 21st Century
September 5th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Richard Warshak: The Custody Revolution – The Father Factor and the Motherhood Mystique
September 5th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Sanford Braver has successfully published, along with others.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:26 am
amfortas: I’d be happy if what I’ve done is seen as rigorous peer-review. I hope Mark considers my comments.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:18 am
And I’m defintely in favor of published studies that are honest and set the record straight – real opposition to feminist manipulation of “truth.” I stopped trying to get my child support stuff published years ago. Don’t know if it’s worth trying again now.
Have you read much of Stephen Baskerville’s stuff? He’s had some success in publication.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Mark;
I’m not sure how deep our disagreement actually is on the causes. I would disagree with the thesis that transforming the entire culture is a prerequisite to dealing with fathers’ rights issues. Maybe that’s partly because I do not believe that the overwhelming majority of the public is much in love with feminism, and partly because I think – for the remainder, it’s trying to convince the enemy.
The actual driving force behind the major problems in fathers’ rights is federal pork. I’ve done much research in this area, have been around involved in this stuff since before it started, saw the transformations first hand, and traced it to the source. So, I’m not just throwing an opinion out off the top of my head. I’m sure.
But you seem to acknowledge that it would be beneficial to remove the (huge – we’re talking 10s of billions) financial incentive, while I definitely acknowledge that feminist culture set the stage. I think it more accurate to say that the heavily financed institutionalization of feminist culture is closer to the part of the problem that can’t be laughed off.
I can also understand that you may have a different perspective that is specific to the university setting – and I do not believe that is of little importance. It takes a long time to re-educate people after they’ve been indoctrinated. However – I have heard from many students who recognize the bias and bs immediately. This is not to say that the problem is any less important, but there’s still hope for the young …
BTW: We often do actually laugh at feminist professors.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:03 am
amfortas
It is a constant disappointment to me (not that any one gives a damn about what I feel !) that whenever someone comes along with an intelligent analysis and proposes a course of action, what follows devolves into a clash of bull’s horns.
I know what you mean. I suggest that Mark’s attack on everyone else involved in fathers’ rights should be edited out. He provides some documentation of a problem and a perspective that should be used to educate.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:53 am
Generally, I think you lay too much at the feet of fathers’ rights activists. I welcome the general education for everyone, and you discuss some things that fra:s need to know. But this general cultural problem is in fact a general cultural problem. FRA:s should be instrumental in dealing with them when they can, and make alliances with others who also make efforts to address these problems – and do their best to promote voting the right way, if and whenever there is a choice, and pressuring politicians and parties to see that there is such a choice.
FRA:s need to understand that the “war” against fathers has been the spearhead in a larger war against western civilization as we knew it. They need to help others understand that – both in the effort for general public support – and in their efforts to build alliances with other groups concerned with these issues.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:44 am
RE: court challenges. I cannot emphasize enough that these will presently fail – and please don’t blame my attitude – unless you succeed at one thing. Marriage and family issues have been reclassified by federal courts as “social policy” issues. Given this classification, you will have no more chance of success suing on the basis of civil rights, than a welfare dependent mother would suing for increased benefits on the basis of civil rights. Under the “social policy” classification, there are no civil rights.
So, the one success that is required, and would matter enormously, would be to get marriage and family back into the rhelm of civil law where it belongs. The forces against you include everything driven by federal government pork (the reclassification was done to allow federal intrusion into family law and maximization of pork) – and the homosexual lobby, since this reclassification created the case for a constitutional mandate to allow same-sex marriage.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:36 am
Micro-level resistence:
I can’t just now remember the name of the group in Dallas that had (maybe still has) paralegals on staff and a wealth of knowledge about the things you suggest. They helped many men and women through the process, did it better, and at a fraction of the cost of a lawyer.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:34 am
The driving force behind our current cultural troubles may be a matter of importance when considering ‘the Peace’ after we have taken on and defeated a huge and complex emeny, but when you are facing down Judges and lawyers and GILs and counsellors in a family court, it matters little which element of the symbiotic beast – Feminism or Government – started the shebang.
The discussion will move to blaming the Italians for Gramsci next and where will that take us?
It is a constant disappointment to me (not that any one gives a damn about what I feel !) that whenever someone comes along with an intelligent analysis and proposes a course of action, what follows devolves into a clash of bull’s horns.
There are battle fields waiting. The Courts, the Legislatures, the Universities, the Big and small Business workplaces that are bleeding internally, the schools, the homes. Repeat that across all the Anglophile countries and half the European ones.
One General at a time, please. A comprehensive range of strategic objectives. A chain of command. Colonels who will plan the tactics, develop the techniques and attack to an overall plan. Captains who will devise and execute strikes using supplied ordnance. Troops who are prepared to destroy and drive out the enemy and risk all in doing so.
Repeat that per country.
Instead of discussing the names and lunch preferences of the drivers, discuss what we are to do about the friggin’ tanks.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:31 am
I don’t think a child support strike would be of much use. It would not have the expected impact. The primary source of state income for enforcement is the federal government, from taxpayers, not ncps.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:27 am
The Governor and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court are merely cultural adversaries? They hold positions of power backed by government force. They have sworn oaths to play by the rules. Intentional abuse of their power is corruption.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:16 am
Just another thought on cultural perspective. The feminist movement brought us uncivilized chaos. This abundance of false accusations and how freely they are thrown about in every setting – is uncivilized. As is often true in this sort of debate the language promoted in the service of a conspiracy is typically opposite the intended effect of the conspiracy. There are many examples, but right now I’m thinking about the term Progressive political ideology – which actually has a regressive impact on culture.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:03 am
RE: Conspiracy. I’ve mentioned in at least two articles I think – that it is very easy to create a vast conspiracy if you have $20 billion annually in federal funding to do it with. You just buy whatever you want.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:55 am
I’m at a point where I’ve already commented here, but perhaps I can do a better job this time. Certainly, the feminist movement and its effect on culture (moreso I think the effect of the msm playing the feminist movement as leftist political soap opera for ratings) set the stage – and people are taking advantage of that cultural bias for profit. (I note Glenn Sacks’ article on the ABA as a good current example.)
It is nonetheless the laws driven by federal pork that have created the greatest problems fathers face, and this is why they are so difficult to overcome.
Yes – one can be said to have led to – or set the stage for – the other. Feminist culture exacerbates the problems. But it is not accurate, not real, to deny that federal intrusion / corruption is not directly and immediately at fault.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:43 am
“Women have been empowered by the state to criminalize the fathers of their children.”
Not really. The federal government / implementation by state government has criminalized fatherhood.
I don’t doubt the importance of feminism on culture, but criminalization is literally an act by the state. Women can’t do that. And in fact, the criminalization is in the laws – not merely in the more general cultural sense.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:33 am
OH, I’m reading through your full paper just now Mark. Perhaps I should finish before responding to your posts. I’d actually considered finding your email address and starting a private discussion with you – or did I find you on Facebook?
September 5th, 2008 at 4:31 am
I know I’m focusing on things that I think wrong with Mark’s paper, but I think at least some of what’s wrong tends to be very wrong.
Here’s maybe an editing comment: CRC actually cares about children. The description given in the paper, that CRC groomed its image to give that appearance, seems to question their honesty.
Putting that together with Mark’s openers about the failed excuse making idiots in the FR movement … I’m starting to wonder whether there’s an underlying emotional theme in Mark’s work that should be edited out before publication.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:58 am
Roger said:
[This is him quoting my paper:]
The Fathers Rights movement is essentially a counter-revolutionary movement. It seeks to overturn the feminist cultural revolution that has ruled the roost for the better part of two generations and counting.
[END Roger quoting my paper]
[Roger:]
- Sort of; although we cannot lose site of the fact that without the use of government force in the service of corruption – we could all just relax and go out to dinner – laughing off much of the feminist cultural revolution. After all, they have a right to live and think as they wish.
{END Roger]
Well, indeed, Roger, we disagree markedly here. And, as should be clear, this disagreement I have with this thinking is one of the most significant things in my paper. I think this is a very BIG disagreement.
So, without the “use of government…” you believe “we could all just relax and go out to dinner – laughing off much of the feminist cultural revolution. ”
I believe you could not be more wrong.
Several paragraphs in my paper address this. What kinds to mind is the bit about the skyscraper.
We have a BIG chicken-egg difference of opinion here, and I would have liked to go further in my paper where I address this, one of the several, IMO, “cardianl errors” of the movement.
The government corruption did not create the War on Fatherhood. Feminism did.
Feminists employed the state to advance their battle plans, to phenomenal success.
I fully understand how the money that comes from the CS and DV regimes fuels the War on Fatherhood.
But here’s what you don’t want to understand. The indoctrination that has been going on in our schools and universities over the past 30 or 40 years does NOT rely on state funding, in the sense that all public education relies on givernment to some extent.
By that I mean the feminist professors in the Women’s Studies depratment, the Humanities, the social sciences, etc, DO NOT RECEIVE SPECIAL STIPENDS that math, history and physics professor’s receive.
This indoctrination is not funded by CS/VAWA monies.
I reemphasize, the problem has its foundation in the culture.
Removing state CS and DV regimes etc will of course make a HUGE difference in the War, but it i administrating “palliatives,” not “treating the disease itself.”
This argument — I’m glad yuou raised it — is one of , if not the most, significant point I am trying to make in this paper as it is addressed to the Fathers Rights community.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:41 am
I’ve got one for you. Put some money together for a lawyer to file charges against Al Gore and gang for child abuse – for the horrible scare propaganda they’ve aimed at young school children. Fathers should protect children.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:50 am
I certainly agree that language is important and recognize how words have been stolen and language manipulated for propaganda purposes. That fact was always heavy on my mind in earlier days of my writing here at MND – as every article – just to state facts and make logical points – typically involved a battle over the use of language in some way or another. So intense had the feminist, and specifically anti-father propaganda been. So the language was loaded and writing often seemed like moving through a mine field. I had to build structures to get over it, write longer articles to dig up and dispose, and sometimes I just went ahead and dropped a rock to let everyone see an explosion. I still think about how I say something – everybody does – but it doesn’t seem as difficult now as it was a few years ago.
It was a valiant effort. (
Take that feminists! I didn’t even capitalize “valiant.”)
For some, I gained a reputation for writing provocatively (or does everyone think I’m just the cantankerous old man?) I was always quite pleased if I could help people start thinking their way out of the mass brain-washing.
So here’s one suggestion. If you see a lot of problems in the language still, start writing articles that use the language the way you think it should be. Dig up and dispose, build structures, and explode some more of the mines in the propaganda field.
Maybe it’s because I’m a ruddy American – but Just do it!
September 5th, 2008 at 12:21 am
So, back to Mark’s thesis. One of feminisms best successes is the theft of language. Actually abduction and murder. It is the field where feminists and politicians first found commong ground. We do have to get it back.
Does anyone recognise ‘Peace’ anymore? I cannot recall it being used at all in the past 30 years, in its original meaning. It was usurped and disfigured back in the nuclear disarmamant days.
Words in Passing
We were not ready.
We were distracted.
Exhausted.
Battle had taken its toll
But the Family survived.
The children played.
Malevolent Smile.
She was Ready.
Definite. Ordered.
The Blue Pencil, poised.
Poisoned.
Flooding in, the swamp re-defined the land,
The familiar, the family, the Form.
The first was ‘Fair’, our childhood’s most cherished friend:
Resolver of squabbles, distributor, sharer,
Fair cared for all:
a string of rubies around her doomed, pale and lovely neck.
It was so sad.
They said it was consumption.
All used up, in tatters, shrouded,
she just faded away.
Next to go was that sturdy, quarrelsome ‘Equality’, which surprised us all
as he was so in demand, they said,
by all,
especially some;
aye, and relied upon.
For so many years a staunch friend and fighter.
His burial dressage, a white cheesecloth, yoked neck.
Naked beneath,
his scarred skin a testament.
Parchment.
Burned Beyond Recognition.
‘Truth’ tried hard.
Was Tried. Hard.
Derided, Derrida-ed,
denied existence;
perjured,
Falsely accused,
she struggled
as she was garrotted.
Died hard.
Soon after that, ‘Justice’
suicided off a nearby cliff.
Lover’s Leap, a place then
from which many a couple had gazed out,
seeking the broader vista.
Now has Disabled Access.
Was it in despair?
Perhaps sympathy with the others.
No-one saw her silent fall.
Was she pushed?
Who could gain?
Her handmaids will argue for a time and time,
billing Innocence by the hour,
Kept in chains, for gain.
The old, wise man, ‘Honour’, lost his marbles, they said.
He languished as the village idiot for a while,
The butt of jokes and calumnies.
Taunted.
His body was found in a ditch one day.
Starvation.
They left it there.
The loss of these good companions all
has been followed now
by ‘Liberty’ and ‘Freedom’,
two noble and leathery old soldiers.
They put on their dress uniforms, immaculate,
faced each other squarely and
blew each other’s brains out.
Such fine shots, both.
They left a note. Signed as written together.
They could no longer support the malignancy of the vile regime,
the note said.
They felt duty-bound to remove themselves
from further abuse,
the note said.
They took ‘Duty’ with them.
An Altar was discovered in the woods
On which the charred bones of hermaphrodite ‘Trust’
Were found,
Sacrificed to Narcissus, elevated to the Pantheon.
Tears flowed down Olympus’ stony sides.
Even God cries.
After, there was Laughter, Music, Whine.
High pitched.
So much fun.
The departed were only words
After all.
Oppressive words.
Now dead.
Like Fathers.
Dead, white males.
What, three were maids?
So? Whatever, said the wenches.
No one noticed ‘Love’ fall to her knees.
Her calls for help were drowned by song.
Trampled to death under dancing feet.
The last to succumb.
Four.
The surging mob, with popular will,
Tied ‘Democracy’s’ hands, and,
fattened and degraded on suet foie gras
trotted it to the abattoir.
The Impostor was on the scene quickly.
Ready, Definite.
Re-defined.
By Order. She said.
Scripted.
The Princess of Lies rides
over barren lands.
Long hair her spider-silk, chain-mail
down her back.
Across her breast,
Over her steed’s flank.
Hooves on skulls.
The children gabble and cry.
No words
describe
their pain.
They were
forbidden.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
This is completely off topic, and I don’t want to change the discussion here, but I want to thank Roger F Gay and Specter for interpreting my views on a different thread in a more reasonable way than the author who seems to have deleted their comments as well as those I made myself in defense of my views. Cheers.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:02 am
addresses
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/14/phases-of-the-fathers%e2%80%99-rights-movement/
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/30/the-challenge-ahead-for-family-rights-activism/
September 4th, 2008 at 8:01 am
I have some commentary on that and I’m trying to post links to it – but it hasn’t appeared. There are articles entitled:
Phases of the fathers’ rights movement
The Challenge Ahead for Family Rights Activism