« McDad Day Demo coming Friday 17 Jun 2005 | Main | McDad’s demo cancelled »

Comments

andy williams

I am a normal hard working dad who has also had his children 'legally' abducted by this satanic government,run by the ANTICHRIST tony d monicblair. I applaud the great work done by your organisation and truly hope for the sake of our children that good will triumph over evil in the very near future.As it says in the bible,IN THE END TIMES,GOOD WILL BECOME EVIL AND EVIL WILL BECOME GOOD,ETC.So to use a quote from the blues brothers,'were on a mission from God here folks,to protect the family structure of this country and all thats decent,before satans groupies destroy it all.Keep up the good work guys.

fgdx

More on Fathers' Rights: The State Matriarchy

May 24, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Paul C. Robbins, Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the current system of family law, fathers typically lose their children in return for financing the destruction of their own families. When the system fails to work as promised, fathers are blamed and put in jail. But the system is at fault, not fathers. The system makes it far too easy for mom to expel dad, keep the children, and force him to pay for her decisions using the police power of the state.

The theory behind the system holds that the traditional family and marriage can be destroyed with acceptable consequences, as long as mom gets the kids and dad (or the taxpayers) can be forced to pay.

Feminist sociologist Stephanie Coontz presents a version of this theory in a recent Los Angeles Times editorial. According to Coontz, over the past decade "the number of families headed by single mothers rose five times faster than the number of married-couple families"and "the number of couples living together unmarried increased by more than 70 percent" but several negative trends decreased during this same time. She attributes this decrease in part to more dads paying their child support, then argues that "it doesn't help today's diverse families to be told their children are doomed unless they can shoehorn themselves into a traditional marriage."

Maybe not, but would Ms. Coontz make the same arguments if "diverse families" were routinely created by fathers expelling mothers from the family home and then forcing these mothers to pay child support under threat of jail? I doubt it.

And despite the rosy tone of her piece, she concludes that "there is much left to work on" and that "divorced and unwed parents" (read "single mothers") need advice on effective parenting, job training, more education, and high-quality daycare.

In other words, more government programs. This is the hallmark of the system that I call "state matriarchy": the creation of single-mother families followed by calls for more government programs to help those families. We are assured the problem is not single-mother families; the problem is a government that doesn't do enough to help these families.

So why shouldn't government spend massive amounts of money on welfare, daycare, and training programs for single-mother families? And why shouldn't the government expend even more money to round up fathers and put them in jail?

Because to do so requires the government to spend massive amounts on welfare, daycare, and training programs for single-mother families, then expend even more money to round up fathers and put them in jail.

Until recently, few political powers had either the means or the will to do so. Especially since there was a much simpler and less costly alternative: fathers. And especially since there was a very simple way to give children fathers: marriage.

Marriage was an agreement based on an exchange: roughly, his ability to provide for her ability to have children. Marriage was the central agreement in a system of agreements that made families possible. Without this system of agreements, reproduction took place at will, with children likely left in the care of the mother, creating a de facto matriarchy. No man knew who his children were and thus had no reason to undertake their care, making family formation impossible. Marriage was the solution to the problem of de facto matriarchy, the solution adopted independently by every major civilization.

The current system of family law is creating what might be called "state-mandated" or "state-imposed" matriarchy (or simply "state matriarchy" for short). Historically, matriarchies fail, but in a theory a matriarchy can be made to work with sufficient use of government force and money.

In a state matriarchy, the children belong to the mother but the state is responsible for supporting those children, either indirectly, by forcing absent fathers to support those children (child support), or directly, by using tax monies (welfare and other government programs). The ideological foundation for the state matriarchy is modern feminism, which opposes both traditional marriage and to fathers' rights but favors expanded welfare and child support enforcement programs.

In the state matriarchy, marriage is not an agreement based on a mutually beneficial exchange. It is merely a "no-fault" contract that serves as the legal pretext for a divorce in which mom usually gets the kids and dad gets a support order. Marriage and fatherhood thus become unilateral obligations for the man, who can expect little in return.

The state matriarchy presumes a custodial mother financially supports her children–she's innocent until proven guilty. The state matriarchy presumes the absent dad does not financially support his children–he's guilty until proven innocent.

And if for some reason the father cannot be forced to support the children, the state does so using tax revenues, aligning taxpayers against fathers–after all, if he doesn't support the children, the taxpayers must. A divorced or unmarried father thus becomes public enemy number one.

The state matriarchy gives women rights and powers that can be exercised arbitrarily and without accountability: the unilateral right to decide if children are born (abortion), the power to divorce their husbands at will (no-fault divorce), the right to retain the children when they divorce (sole mother custody), the power to force fathers and men to pay for reproductive decisions made unilaterally by women (child support), and the right to lie about the paternity of their children (paternity fraud)..

It also gives women a number of ancillary rights: the right to preferred treatment in academia (Title IX), the right to preferred treatment in employment (affirmative action and sexual harassment laws), the right to remove their husbands at will (restraining orders), the right to have their husbands arrested at will (domestic violence laws), and the right to refuse marital relations within a marriage (marital rape laws).

Men have no legal say over abortion, can file for no-fault divorce but will likely lose their children and property, are less likely to graduate from college, find it difficult to get restraining orders against wives, will likely be arrested themselves if they file a domestic violence complaint, and can be jailed for failing to support another man's children under default judgments and "presumption of paternity" statutes.

The state matriarchy makes marriage and motherhood an easy game for women to win, but makes marriage and fatherhood a game very difficult for men to win. And when men do lose that game, to offer them no way out. Tragically, some men do find a way out: suicide. Sometimes suicide preceded by homicide.

The feminists provided much of the anti-male and anti-marriage ideological impetus for the state matriarchy, but they could not have created it without the help of judges and elected officials. How did they get judges and elected officials to help? By portraying women as poor helpless victims abused and brutalized by ruthless men, like the hapless heroines of old-time melodramas. The politicians and judges fell over themselves running to their rescue.

The dominant cultural narratives of the state matriarchy are two: the noble, virtuous single mom and the "deadbeat dad." In these cultural narratives, single moms are bravely struggling to raise their children, saintly victims of circumstance and scumbag dads who abandoned them. (In fact, most single mothers today are single by choice.) Her counterpart is the "deadbeat dad" who walked out on his family and now refuses to support them. (In fact, most divorced dads are legally expelled from their families against their wills.)

If these narrative don't work, a third one is hauled out: domestic violence. According to this narrative, husbands routinely batter their wives as a way to impose patriarchal dominance.

These narratives are told over and over again by politicians and social commentators and even pro-marriage groups. Any facts that don't fit within these two narratives are denied or ignored. These two polarizing narratives define the social context in which social policy is defined. Fathers can expect few rights within the social policies defined by these two narratives.

Any human rights fathers might have--such as the right to their own children, to their own property, or to their own liberty–get in the way of the state matriarchy's authority to determine the "best interests" of the children and force fathers to pay for its determinations. And certainly, the state matriarchy does not grant men the same reproductive rights as women, for that would really muck up the system.

So what's wrong with state-mandated matriarchy?

The system is unfair to children, depriving them of their rights to a father. Fatherless children suffer numerous disadvantages compared to children with fathers. Even Stephanie Coontz recognizes that being fatherless is a risk factor for teens.

It is inimical to human rights, depriving men of their rights to their children, their own property, and often their liberty. It discourages men from marrying and becoming fathers.

Its power is virtually unchecked. Women are rewarded for using its power. Men can avoid marriage, fatherhood, and sexual relations with women, but few will do so. The state matriarchy counts on women being able to find men to have sex with it. Women usually do.

It cannot deliver on what it promises. In theory, it promises women the social and sexual freedom of being single while retaining both their children and the economic benefits of marriage. After all, if mom has the children, she can demand support from dad in the name of the children.

But that is a promise made by the state to women on behalf of men. The state does not ask men what they promised women; it simply jails men if they fail to deliver on the promises it made to women on their behalf.

Some would reply that single moms don't have it all that great. Look at all the child support that isn't paid, how many divorced moms struggle. Why, being a single mom is practically synonymous with being a victim. But that is simply another argument against the system–it makes victims of single moms because it cannot deliver on what it has promised.

Victim moms, jailed dads, fatherless kids. That is what the state matriarchy delivers.

So what can we do?

While I support a number of changes, including presumptive joint custody, if I were to make one change, it would be the following: return to the practice of treating marriage as an agreement between two parties. That means that the two parties should have the right to define the agreement in advance. It is my view that neither party would enter an agreement that assures they will be treated unfairly in the event of a divorce.

A pre-defined marriage contract would be broad in many aspects, but definite about what happens if one or both parties wants to dissolve the contract. The role of the government would be limited to enforcing the contract as written if either party seeks to end the contract. Either party could request a trial by jury, limiting the power of judges to decide the matter based on unwritten social policies or the judge's opinion of the "best interests" of the children.

Under current no-fault divorce laws, a divorce court does not enforce the original marriage contract. It enforces the only right provided by the contract: the right of one or both parties to break the marriage contract. Divorce judges do not care who kept or did not keep the terms of the marriage contract because the contract had no terms; the only term it defined was the right to divorce. Judges simply decide who gets the spoils of the marriage using their own criteria, in effect defining the terms of the contract ex post facto, after the fact. Both parties should be able to know and define the terms of the marriage contract in advance.

Yes, private marriage contracts take the romance out of falling in love and getting married, but they're better than placing one's life, children, and livelihood in the hands of a biased family court judge. And they would begin to dismantle the state matriarchy, wherein the rule of law is replaced by the rule of a woman's will, backed by the police power of the state.

I have no problem with society expecting fathers to meet their responsibilities to their children. But society in turn must protect fathers' rights to the care and custody of their children. That is a fair an equitable arrangement, not unaccountable judicial power backed up by unaccountable state power in the service of divisive social theories.

A society that fails to protect a father's rights loses the moral authority to demand he comply with his responsibilities.

Antony Walton

I object, disagree and refuse to acknowledge the term "Single Parent" unless this is only aplied to a parent who's partner is either dead or by choice no longer in contact or support of their children.

I am neither yet my former wife is refered to as one.

Ive stopped being married but as a father i continue, i am not dead and my former wife is not a "single parent"

The comments to this entry are closed.

March 2006

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31