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.
Bigger Than A Phone BoothGerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.
July 21, 2003
Much is being made of the fact that when, not if, the sodomites begin to wed, the institution of marriage will suffer irreparable damage. As Maggie Gallagher eloquently put it, "Losing this battle means losing the idea that children need mothers and fathers. It means losing the marriage debate. It means losing limited government. It means losing American civilization. It means losing, period."
If there is one 'ethnic' group for which this woeful loss is an ironic non-sequitur, it's divorced fathers. They, collectively and individually, share a racial consciousness that the court system has been hell-bent on destroying the marriage Sacrament / contract for at least four decades. Where was the outrage over 'family courts,' comparable to that denouncing this latest, possibly final salvo. Who among the mainstream pundits was saying that removing fathers from families "means losing American civilization?" For all intents, no one except a handful of the irrelevant and disenfranchised dads.
One might ask how did we come to evict dad and welcome the sodomite to the conjugal bed? Any divorced dad can answer that question in a heartbeat. We evicted dad because the feminist collective was so effective in demonizing him as a batterer, molester, rapist, and patriarch. So powerful was this campaign of defamation combined with the cult of victimhood that we have evolved to the point of seeing the sodomite as a lesser evil.
In fact, 'queer' has now become 'cute' (as long as you don't dwell too much on the anal thing and the premature death thing, morality etc.). Witness, if you can stomach it, the new TV assault on masculinity Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, which debuted on NBC's Bravo Network. As Brent Bozell put it, "It almost makes you want to start a Straight Male Anti-Defamation Alliance." Bozell was wrong about the 'almost' part; have you seen a 'gay pride' parade?
Anybody who remembers the Father Knows Best era also knows that without having evicted Father from the family over the past forty years, we would not now be facing this dilemma. With Dad out of the way, though, the collective family became vulnerable to all manner of perversions. In fact, I asked the question in 1999: Will the homosexual agenda provoke the "reconstruction" of the essential father? Perhaps now, the vast heterosexual consciousness is prepared to answer affirmatively, but I won't hold my breath. We might be beyond damage control at this point.
The movie Phone Booth was just released on VHS/DVD. You should see it, as it relates to this dadless-culture phenomenon. At first it is a gripping tale of a man trapped in a phone booth by a vengeful sniper. Despite some flaws in the logical fabric of the story, it was compellingly produced, sufficiently so to mask those flaws. With a pair of dramatic endings that are bound to catch you off guard, it is an effective suspense drama.
At second glance though, the story line is woven from the classic contemporary feminist myth. The principal males are a pimp, a divorcee, a potential adulterer, and a madman avenger; not a single red and blue caped-crusader in sight. The males publicly employ language that is beyond locker room gritty. The primary female counterparts (apart from a group of stereotyped hookers) are a pair of wide-eyed innocents, ostensibly victimized by the manipulative charlatan.
In these respects, Phone Booth is merely a microcosm of the theme that most often preoccupies today's family-hour TV series from Hill Street Blues to Law and Order to CSI: Special Victims Unit. The prototype plot involves a female crime victim who has been beaten, raped and/or murdered. It is up to the male, & his savvier female detective/forensic/kick-boxer partner to root out the male perpetrator, in an hour. Given the repetitive frequency of this stock theme TV producers have become, in virtual reality America, the most prolific and violent breed of serial female stalkers. Someone should administer a psych assessment to determine their sadism scale levels.
In the broader arena of popular f(r)iction, the news media devoted substantial column inches and TV news hours critiquing the Bush Administration's proposal of committing a paltry $350 million dollars to promote safe and stable marriages. This promotion was to be implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families (DHHS/ACF). Dr. Wade Horn, former president of the National Fatherhood Initiative and now Bush's head of the ACF lauded the (as he is wont to do) 'for the children' angle.
The hew and cry from the usual anti-family suspects was murderous. The agnostic/atheist crowd feared Bush's religious bias would infest the project. The feminist crowd screamed that women would be forced into long-term abusive relationships. The socialists, uh liberals/progressives, whatever, disingenuously fretted about spending tax money for social engineering. Again, who among the mainstream pundits was saying that restoring fathers to families was vital to saving American civilization?
And did Bush prevail? Uh huh, when pigs fly.
DHHS has just released the FY 2003 Application Package to Request Financial Assistance to parties interested in the ACF project. It quickly becomes evident that 'Promoting Safe and Stable Families' is the lowest priority item - No.4.) in the funding scheme after; 1.) Adoption Opportunities Demonstration Activities, 2.) Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities, and 3.) Child Welfare Training Project Activities.
Here's the funding outline presented by DHHS:
|Adoptive Placements for Children in Foster Care||$14.0 million|
|Projects to Improve Recruitment of Adoptive
in Rural Communities
|Developing a National Network of Adoption
|$ 1.25 million|
|Administration of the Interstate Compact on
and Medical Assistance (ICAMA)
|$ 1.00 million|
|Fellowships for University-Based Doctoral
and Faculty for Investigator-Initiated Research in Child
Abuse and Neglect
|$ 1.82 million|
|Improving Child Welfare Outcomes through
|Child Welfare Training Project Activities||$ 9.11 million|
|Training for Effective Child Welfare Practice in Rural Communities||$ 7.00 million|
|Developing Models of Effective Child Welfare Staff Recruitment and Retention Training||$13.00 million|
|National Evaluation of Child Welfare Training Grants||$ 1.05 million|
|Promoting Safe and Stable Families Activities||As Follows|
|Replication of Demonstrated Effective Programs in the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect||$12.60 million|
|Evaluation of Existing Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Programs||$ 2.40 million|
|Evaluations of Existing Family Support, Family Preservation, Reunification, or Adoption Promotion and Support Programs||$ 1.80 million|
|Training for Healthy Marriage and Family Formation||$ 8.00 million|
|Projects to Develop Programs to Strengthen Marriages||$ 6.00 million|
The kicker is that all of these projects must bear the imprimatur of 'State child welfare agencies, local (county or community) child welfare or child protective service agencies ... The child welfare agency must be the primary applicant responsible for administering the grant(s).' What ostensibly was heralded as a program to promote marriage and family between one man and one woman has devolved into more of the same destructive social engineering, sans hetero-dads and families. Certainly the Supreme Court is not alone in the anti-family scheme. Indeed, DHHS preceeded them.
The lower courts and child welfare agencies continue unabated in their 40 year campaign of destruction and disruption of marriage and family. Just this week the following news accounts recorded the motley carnage: A New Jersey court has allowed a divorced woman to keep her address secret from the father of her children because he frightened her with too many calls to her pager. The court said, "the sole benchmark is the best interest of the child," which in this and most cases precludes fathers.
In California, parents are seeking an amendment to the State constitution guaranteeing them the right to opt their children out of pro-homosexual activities in the public schools. Imagine, parents having to assert their rights over the homosexual agenda in the school system.
A single woman from Canada sought to adopt a girl in Mexico, but was told that she would have to take the girl's brother as well. She "grudgingly assent(ed), but soon after she return(ed) to Canada, she dump(ed) the boy on the Canadian foster system." So the boy grew up 'troubled' and is now under threat of deportation to the country that has become a stranger to him, with no family or resources for him there. "But the whole trend of our family law over the past three decades has been to empower adults like her. And the trend is accelerating."
In North Carolina, a 2 year-old girl traipsed outside with no clothes on for a few minutes, but was quickly retrieved by her older sibling. A drive-by busybody made a complaint to Child Protective Services, and now three years later, the parents have finally won their appeal against 'aggressive social workers.' Aggressive Social Workers?
This is the new America, where social workers epitomize aggression, Boy Scouts epitomize homophobia, homosexuals epitomize sensitive manhood, and the Ten Commandments epitomize religious oppression.
The Supreme Court ruling 'legitimizing sodomy' (an epic oxymoron) has added the latest redundant stain on the American culture's navy blue psyche. To bring the word legitimate within the penumbral stench of this travesty is to compound its odium. Webster's primary definition of the word exposes the hypocrisy; "Legitimate: lawfully begotten; specifically, born in wedlock." Sodomy hasn't the most remote connection with "begotten" unless, as one well-traveled pun put it, you're talking about lawyers.
Four decades ago feminists, abetted by the civil rights / Great Society programs, began the assault on marriage and family by vilifying heterosexual men and fathers. That feminist slur has now stained men and the American culture more deeply than Original Sin corrupted Adam and Eve. Tainted fathers now routinely face the 'I want a divorce, etc.' declaration. The 'etc.' clause imparts the optional deployment of claims of domestic violence or child abuse to control him should he resist eviction.
Four decades later, the fatuous man-stain has permeated the whole cloth of culture, creating a hospitable Petri dish for the Franken-gendered. The recent Supreme Court decision validates and expands that fatuous stain. It is now far bigger than a phone booth, or the man occupying it. In fact, it's bigger than the Constitution; bigger, it seems, than God.
Back to DA*DI's Home