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.


'Womyn Only' Drinking Fountains:
The Subornation of Jane Roe

Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.
July 22, 2002

I confess to a whooping wry laugh when I learned of the 'Cox-Boxer' Bill to make "the delinquent parent (née non-custodial, 'deadbeat' dad) ... take the amount of unpaid child support into income."

In case you haven't heard, and in such case you most likely are not tuned in to the fatherhood message boards, this is a formal Federal legislative proposal to make non-custodial fathers (NCP) pay additional taxes on the child support they can't afford to pay, while the custodial mothers (CP) will be allowed a further tax deduction for support monies they didn't receive.

In other words, these elected officials want to tax the 'imputed' income of the NCP, and provide a deduction for the 'imputed' loss to the CP. Of course, the underlying assumption is that the NCP must be hiding under-the-table income. I mean, you can't take something away from nothing. Right?

For nearly a decade I have watched the ceaseless progression of male segregation through imputed criminalization. In retrospect, the aggregation of these offenses which was merely expanded with this most recent aggravation, presents a much more troubling picture.

Drawing parallels with the Jim Crow laws of the ante-bellum south is almost inescapable. For those aged 30 and younger, Jim Crow laws were named after a minstrel show actor who was white but painted his face black and caricatured negro singers and dancers. Following the 1883 U.S. Supreme Court decision to strike down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 these laws progressively implemented a formal racial caste system and provided a "rigid legal and institutional basis to retain control over the black population.". By 1914 every Southern state had passed laws that created two separate societies; one black, the other white."

It took just 3 decades for the judicial juggernaut to roll over the constitutional guarantees that the hard-fought, bloody Civil War had promised to Negroes. It took another four decades to overturn the Jim Crow laws. In its 1954 decision, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the Supreme Court initiated the slow march back to equality.

It has similarly taken just 3 decades since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v Wade decision to roll over the constitutional guarantees of equality for men. In that decision, according to dissenting Justice Byron White, the Supremes declared that an individual, "inconvenienced" woman possessed the power of continuing the life or administering the death of the "potential life that she carries." From that moment forward, paraphrasing Joan Kennedy Taylor "although men and women (were) not natural enemies, they were told they were."

There are both subtle and striking similarities between the origins of the old Jim Crow laws and the 30-year ante-abortion evolution of 'Jane Roe' laws. It is only appropriate that these anachronistic laws be named after the female minstrel performer who painted herself in the mask of victimhood that extravagantly, and illegitimately caricatured the behavior of the patriarchy. And in so doing, Roe set in motion the greatest societal upheaval since the Civil War.

It is instructive to understand that the arguments made today for a woman's "right-to-choose", and the subsequent demonization of the "patriarchy" and everything masculine, bear an uncanny resemblance to the convoluted logic used in support of slavery. These are but two examples:
"Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery." - Richmond Enquirer, 1856

"The principle of slavery is a leveling principle; it is friendly to equality. Break down slavery and you would with the same blow break down the great democratic principle of equality among men." - Henry Wise, Congressman (and future governor) from Virginia:
Keep these arguments for the preservation of slavery and the subjugation of the Negro in mind when considering some of the similarities between the Jane Roe and the Jim Crow laws:

Education:

Jim Crow law: Separate rooms [shall] be provided for the teaching of pupils of African descent, and [when] said rooms are so provided, such pupils may not be admitted to the school rooms occupied and used by pupils of Caucasian or other descent.


Jane Roe law: Feminist inspired Women's Studies that exclude the masculine perspective - in fact, criminalize it and drive a wedge of suspicion and distrust between the sexes.

Militia (Military):

Jim Crow law: The white and colored militia shall be separately enrolled, and shall never be compelled to serve in the same organization. No organization of colored troops shall be permitted where white troops are available, and while whites are permitted to be organized, colored troops shall be under the command of white officers.


Jane Roe law: The sexually integrated armed forces that have been de-facto ordered to represent the feminist perspective in command decisions and training.

Amateur (collegiate) Baseball:

Jim Crow law: It shall be unlawful for any amateur white baseball team to play baseball on any vacant lot or baseball diamond within two blocks of a playground devoted to the Negro race, and it shall be unlawful for any amateur colored baseball team to play baseball in any vacant lot or baseball diamond within two blocks of any playground devoted to the white race.


Jane Roe law: Title IX has decimated male athletic teams at the college level by proscribing separate but statistically equal sex proportions in all collegiate athletics.

Toilet Facilities, Male:

Jim Crow Law: Every employer of white or Negro males shall provide for such white or Negro males reasonably accessible and separate toilet facilities.


Jane Roe law: A proposed law in Sweden wants wall urinals banned in men's restrooms because for a male to stand is a symbol of male dominance - an outgrowth of sexual harassment legislation in America. This proposal is illustrative of the irrational pettiness to which 'female victimization' can and does sink.

Promotion of Equality:

Jim Crow law: Any person...who shall be guilty of printing, publishing or circulating printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality between whites and Negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine or not exceeding five hundred (500.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both.


Jane Roe law: When it comes to equality, the thrust of legal revisionism has been to foment inequality. In prison sentencing for the same crime, males typically receive far longer sentences than females. And nowhere is this thrust for inequality more evident in punitive child support awards that grossly diminish the male income while promoting tax relief for the female - resulting in a further redistribution of wealth. This is precisely the category within which the Cox-Boxer bill falls.

Child Custody

Jim Crow law: It shall be unlawful for any parent, relative, or other white person in this State, having the control or custody of any white child, by right of guardianship, natural or acquired, or otherwise, to dispose of, give or surrender such white child permanently into the custody, control, maintenance, or support, of a Negro.


Jane Roe law: When it comes to social equality between parents, such as rebuttable joint physical custody between mothers and fathers, the courts and feminist groups have clearly and repeatedly punished those who would promote such heresy. And the courts have vigorously acquiesced in favor of almost exclusive single mother physical custody.

Just like the Jim Crow laws diminished and criminalized blacks, the countless Jane Roe laws have been progressively implemented under the color of female victimization vs male criminalization to permeate every strata of cultural institutions. In addition to the foregoing examples, there are the sexual harassment mandates, which after 11 years of progressive definition, were codified in 1991. Ironically, these laws were extrapolated from the new Civil Rights law of 1964 which was ostensibly aimed at righting the wrongs of Jim Crow laws. Similarly, there is the wholly unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act of 1998. And of course, one cannot overlook one of the most re-enacted laws on the Federal books, The Child Support Enforcement Program of 1975, which has been updated in 1988, 1991, 1992, and 1994 with even more draconian measures at each review.

And who can argue the basic premises? Of course one should support his child; should not beat his wife; should treat his female counterpart as an equal human being; and shouldn't rape his date. But just as the Jim Crow laws presumed the moral/human inferiority of the negro, the Jane Roe laws presume the moral/human inferiority of the male. That is the whole cloth of "deadbeat dad" politics.

However, all Jane Roe laws implicitly suppress the acknowledgment of one unequivocal, elephantine fact; the vast majority of the male population ain't none of those "deadbeat", "batterer", "oppressor", "rapist" things. Nonetheless, the politicians, judges, and mediacrats whose careers depend on popular numbers have taken those balls and run with them.

Alarmingly, the majority of those who are the first to decry masculinity, particularly in the judicial/political arena, are males. As Midge Decter says in her book An Old Wife's Tale "Males for the most part decided it would be just as well not to get in the front of that accelerating political vehicle."

So back to my wry laugh. Why laugh?, you may ask in a bristly fashion; what's so damn funny? Well, after ten years of observing these kinds of events like the appropriately named 'Cox Boxer' political punch to the male, er, sensibilities, I am despairingly bemused by the impotent rage of the so-called fatherhood movement. That becomes especially true when one considers the vast energies that many dedicated advocates have extended in this most uncivil battlefront.

But I've seen this pseudo-rage a hundred times in the past ten years, and yet what inevitably follows as sure as the sun rises is the implementation of yet another legislative decimation of male constitutional rights.

And why will it continue to evolve and grow? Because a too large segment of the male population would rather get laid than fight. Because another too large segment would rather preserve their political or judicial office than risk committing leadership. But most importantly because the largest segment finds little or no support at the grass roots level.

Last week for example, a middle-aged woman told me the sad tale of her son-in-law and his quest to stay in the life of his son by a prior relationship. And in that same week she told me of her dismay about a Dateline program whose subject was a man that is the victim of false paternity. Her dismay was occasioned because she took the side of this husband who found out that three of his four children do not share his DNA, and yet the Nightline host portrayed the promiscuous wife as the victim. And she said over and over of these two cases, "I just can't believe these things are happening ... I didn't know it was this bad."

And that's the core resource, good people out there who know individually of some acquaintance or coworker or family member who has been impaled by the Divorce Industry, or any one of the new Victim Industries, but don't realize just how malignant male criminalization has become. And they will not join the chorus until they realize that their experiences are not unique.

Like the drunk who hasn't bottomed out yet, the fatherhood movement is searching for the key to its success under the street lamp of the Internet and chat rooms, rather than risk groping around in the less illuminated areas where the keys to the vehicle were actually lost.

Ten years ago, DA*DI (Dads Are *Definitely Indispensable) was among the first of a very few sites on the Internet that were sounding the alarm and spreading the word that men and dads were being systematically disenfranchised. Thousands of men responded with emails celebrating the arrival of such news supporting their personal experiences. The belief then was that if males just knew that they were not alone, they would soon band together to halt the injustice. All that did happen was a resounding flurry of new web sites regurgitating the same old news, preaching to the same chorus. And the crisis of masculinity just escalated.

It's going to get much worse. It's going to continue on this pernicious course until it has reached into, and seriously damaged the majority of men's lives - to such an extent that it becomes so visible as not to be denied. And that day may yet be years in coming. And even then it may be forty years before the courts pronounce the equivalent of Brown v The Board of Education for men.

Well, it's time to move on. Why continue to implement the same solutions that produce no change? So, what to do?

There was an indirect suggestion at the Massachusetts News site that featured comments from Greg Hession (an attorney featured for months at the DA*DI site) on an appeals court ruling that allowed a dad to dispute a restraining order. Hession said something that is evidentiary of one of the key failures of the fatherhood movement: "This (ruling) is supported by the statute, but had just never been applied, due to judges using a political, rather than a legal standard."

Judges and legislators continue to ignore the constitutional rights / due process of men because the "popular standard" - synonymous with the "Politically Correct" - is perceived to be that advanced by the feminist victimization propaganda machine. For this reason, informed men need to get beyond the Internet and the courts and into the public arena with the message that dads are important to children, and that men are not all the potential rapists, batterers, and pedophiles that they are made out to be in radical feminist screeds. This means billboards and radio/TV PSAs (Public Service Announcements) that hammer the message home ... lots of them.

Informed men, and public speakers like Dr. Stephen Baskerville, Stuart Miller, Roger F. Gay, Professor David Popenoe, and others need to be brought before state legislative bodies so that they may impart their wisdom.

And to be sure, class-action suits are an integral part of this mix, but until the judicial and legislative branches of government see that the tide of public opinion supports dads and masculinity, they will persevere on their current self-serving path.

Until this is done, you can soon expect more equivalents of "Womyn Only" drinking fountains, more public lynching of all things masculine, and more draconian abridgments of male constitutional equality.

Just as the Supreme Court legitimized Jim Crow with Plessy v. Ferguson, Jane Roe, as it turns out, was not just about legitimizing abortion and de-legitimizing fatherhood. Instead, Roe was the first preposterous step in the comprehensive subornation of unconstitutionality.


Back to DA*DI's Home

Dads Against the Divorce Industry Dads Against the Divorce Industry