Dads Against the Divorce Industry

DA*DI is devoted to reinstating the societal valuation of Marriage and the traditional, nuclear American Family, with particular emphasis on the essential role of FATHERS.

DA*DI offers contemporary reports and commentary on culture; its aberrations and its heroes.

Court bastardizes boy over child support:
DA*DI's Rant Page



Link to the DMR article
(use your browser's "back" button to return to DA*DI)


What's in a name?

Allow me to offer some thoughts on this discussion with a few notions from the vantage point of the cultural historian.

Winston Churchill, about fifty years ago, said:

"The women's suffrage movement is only the small edge of the wedge, if we allow women to vote it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Women are well represented by their fathers, brothers, and husbands. . .".

Sir Winston was indeed prophetic.

Twenty five years later: In 1965, Senator Patrick Moynihan was condemned for his observation of the consequences of family breakdown:

"From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and gets chaos."

Nevertheless, the liberal socialists, led by the Kennedy-Johnson administration and extending the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, launched the Great Society programs that produced the Welfare State. Case in point: Prior to the arrival of the Welfare State - which was often promoted as an antidote to, and reparation for racism - the black family in America was stronger than the white family. As a comparative percentage (>70%), more black children were raised in father-headed, married families than were white children. Just 25 years later, after institutionalizing the Welfare State, the figures were reversed, with more mother-headed, single parent black "families" - sans black fathers.

The most devastating aspect of this Welfare Culture was the "no man in the house" rule, mandated by DHS. This included fathers. To qualify for more welfare benefits, all that was needed was more children - without naming the father, or fathers. Fathers became nothing more than sperm donors, - enhancing the State's compensation, and implicitly endorsed by DHS mandate. Their names were irrelevant, as was their influence on the children's upbringing. Black men became gypsy sperm donors - temporary guests in the recipient's bedroom. They were now tolerated by their women as a means to an end - a pay raise from the State. The black family may never recover.

Now, the same mindset permeates family courts and DHS and is being extended to all, including the majority white families. A father's name, and existence, is relevant only in so far as it accompanies a social security number that may be used by the State to track him down should he fail to heed, to the letter, a child support or fallacious restraining order. White men are now regarded with the same disdain as were black men - for becoming mere sperm donors. But consciously or unconsciously, they are in many ways simply following the extension of the "no man in the house" rule, that originated with DHS, and that has been relentlessly promulgated by the feminist movement: "A woman needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle."

In his book, Slouching Towards Gamorrah, Robert Bork says:

"Radical Feminism is the most destructive and fanatical movement to come down to us from the Sixties. This is a revolutionary, not a reformist, movement, and it is meeting with considerable success. Totalitarian in spirit, it is deeply antagonistic to traditional Western culture and proposes the complete restructuring of society, morality, and human nature."

"Radical feminists' insistence upon seeing slights, harassment, and male victimization of women everywhere has made campuses, workplaces, and society less comfortable places. The eagerness of radical feminists to see insult in every male action, coupled (if one dare use that word) with the spinelessness of the supposedly oppressive patriarchy, has led to so much discomfort and loss of freedom. "

"Radical feminism has a truly impressive capacity for moral intimidation. It is very difficult for men to counter its progress or point out its untruths and its manifold harms. To do so is to be exposed to heated accusations of being hostile to women and their rights, wanting to take away the gains women have made, and wishing to reduce them to subordinate positions. Most men, afraid of such allegations, choose circumspection. That is why Kate O'Beirne, Washington editor of National Review, said, "In the end, our girls are going to have to fight their girls." True, but after that, some males in the academic world, in the military, and in Congress are going to have to summon up the courage to begin to repair the damage feminism has done. "

Some argue: "If we simply fall into the trap of gender warfare, we'll be stuck here forever."

I trust this is not a discussion of the meaning of the word "if".

But we are there, in the trap. Racial "warfare" brought the welfare palliative, and now the feminist war against "sexism, patriarchy, etc." has brought us to the current State-run "family court" palliative, that as a mandate on behalf of the Feminist mantra, seeks out and attempts to criminalize, and now de-legitimize any male who impregnates a woman, without regard for her role. The "man out of the house" rule is rapidly becoming a societal norm - and white men now share with black men the genesis of their gypsy heritage.

But you knew that.

In the current zeitgeist, every time a man is called a knuckledragger, or deadbeat, or sperm donor, or abuser, or "something else" ... it is merely an extension of the feminist mantra of intimidation and stigmatization of the male, whether intended or not:

Bork states:

"Feminist theory provides a doctrine of original sin: The world's evils originate in male supremacy." ..."The gender perspective of radical feminism is easy to ridicule but it must be taken seriously. It attacks not only men but the institution of the family, it is hostile to traditional religion, it demands quotas in every field for women, and it engages in serious misrepresentations of facts. " ... "Feminists' ideology is a fantasy of persecution."

The "war" is, in fact engaged. And words matter.

I would venture that most men have become somewhat inured to the Feminist mantra, and the propagandized buzz words that preserve the perception of the male victimizer. They no longer take seriously being called by these derogatory names. They "know" that these aspersions are simply the cultural artifacts of a feminized society.

What will men respond to?

When called to demonstrate their "honor" and "integrity", men will respond as they always have within a valid context. They will rise to defend the country that has denigrated them, just as slaves did in the war between the states. But not if they are challenged to do so in feminist corrupted contexts such as family courts - and the corrupt orders that emanate from them. They "know" that only dishonor and retribution reside there, for all but the feminized men.

"Men's and Father's groups" are generally dismissed in the same way that "Christian coalition" and "abortion foes" are. But all share the commonality of endorsing a set of beliefs central to their organizational names. These are the oases of the culture warriors. And all are indirectly joined in battling the one enemy, and are entrenched in the same war - the war against Gender Feminism - the war to preserve America.

And all are defeated by the same defense. One cannot attack Feminism without, by implication, attacking females. And one cannot endorse men, without offending Feminism.

As Maggie Gallagher put it: "America today is a nation full of ironies...(including a) female elite more fiercely committed to the good name of feminism than to the welfare of women."

Feminism, although not yet fully recognized as such, is to the 90's what Communism was to the 40's and 50's. But unlike Communism, in just 30 years Feminism has already decimated the American family, corrupted the legal system, homosexualized heterosexuality, cannabilized conception, and emasculated academia, national and state legislatures, and the military. Feminism has done more to destroy the strength of the United States than the combined arsenals of Germany, Japan, and Russia. We have defeated Socialism abroad, and embraced it at home (literally, in our homes).

What America may truly need is a new and improved, close-shaven version of Joe McCarthy.

It most certainly does not need even one more scintilla of "female victimization".

"See what an evil it is to commit ourselves rashly to our enemies, and to conspirators against us. On this account Christ used to say, "Give not holy things to the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before the swine, lest they turn and rend you." "

- Three homilies concerning the power of demons
BY ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

But what is in a name? Can one be "unbegotten"?

"But because the Father is not called the Father except in that He has a Son, and the Son is not called Son except in that He has a Father, these things are not said according to substance; because each of them is not so called in relation to Himself, but the terms are used reciprocally and in relation each to the other; nor yet according to accident, because both the being called the Father, and the being called the Son, is eternal and unchangeable to them. Wherefore, although to be the Father and to be the Son is different, yet their substance is not different; because they are so called, not according to substance, but according to relation, which relation, however, is not accident, because it is not changeable. ...

But we deny relatively when we say he is not son, therefore we deny relatively when we say he is not begotten. Further, what is unbegotten, unless not begotten? We do not escape, therefore, from the relative predicament, when he is called unbegotten. For as begotten is not said in relation to self, but in that he is of a begetter; so when one is called unbegotten, he is not so called in relation to himself, but it is declared that he is not of a begetter. Both meanings, however, turn upon the same predicament, which is called that of relation. But that which is asserted relatively does not denote substance, and accordingly, although begotten and unbegotten are diverse, they do not denote a different substance; because, as son is referred to father, and not son to not father, so it follows inevitably that begotten must be referred to begetter, and not-begotten to not-begetter. "

- St. Augustine of Hippo
On the Trinity
BOOK V., Chapters 5. & 7.

What a perfect feminist-inspired end to the traditional father - virgin birth - merely as a matter of State decree. Stroke of the pen, law of the land - pretty cool, indeed.

From my oasis to yours.

Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.
DA*DI

Back to DA*DI's Home