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.

Who Is That Woman, And Why Is She
Saying All Those Terrible Things About Me?

For the past seven years, through the DA*DI pages and other venues, my colleagues and peers have worked diligently to make the case that Dads do not deserve the shabby treatment they were experiencing when coming into contact with Family Courts.

The myth of the Deadbeat Dad is probably one of the most thoroughly researched and thoroughly rebutted claims of the past twenty years. The imputed violence of men towards their female mates is on an equal par. And behind both of those twin pillars of radical feminist mythology is the active decimation of the American family. In the first two years of DA*DI's operation, we received thousands of letters through email and snail mail thanking us for the educational materials, research and commentary we provided. Most correspondents were men who thought they were singular targets, and like wanderers in a desert of media indifference, found in us an oasis. In subsequent years, the mail traffic has slowed considerably.

And little has changed for Divorced Dads, except for the worse.

The DA*DI effort on behalf of informing Dads and supporting the traditional family has broadened considerably in recent years. We have incorporated the informed and common-sense opinions of a growing chorus of additional sources outside of the academic. Just five years ago, it was virtually impossible to find a report or commentary in the national media that did not condemn Dads and men in general, or simply treat them with benign contempt. This barrage has been the media staple for many years.

To some degree, as our more than seven hundred pages reflect, the headline hate language of the radical feminist movement has subsided. Now, the occassional defense of family and Fatherhood is allowed into print and televised media. But our incessant review of the media landscape has found that these occasional eruptions of moderation and civility are usually followed by a renewed, if indirect feminist assault on that or another front.

Our review of the media landscape has had a secondary effect. Like the Dads who first wrote us to express their gratitude that our pages showed them they were not alone, we have found that Dads are not the lone targets of feminist contempt. Duh?, you might say. Well, in part we had been focused on the Dad and Kids issues to the exclusion of much else. In the past couple of years, however, we have been drawn to a number of issues that range well beyond our narrow focus. The institution of marriage is but one target of the feminist juggernaut. Religion, morality, sexuality, the Boy Scouts, education, the work environment have all been targeted with equal malice. The common denominator in all of these domains is masculinity - at least what has been traditionally regarded as masculine. Homosexuals, sensitive 90's guys, and some minorities get a pass. Narrowing the field further, one cannot escape the reality that it is white heterosexual males who are the targeted enemy.

The concatenation of several recent incidents have brought me to the epiphany that there is now a common and accepted parlance of contempt for everything male.

There is no doubt in my mind that the earliest, primary feminist attacks were brought against the twin institutions of marriage and family. The earliest feminist writings were, and remain saturated with their demands that the family unit be dismantled.

Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, in WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969:
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests. ... "
"Families make possible the super-exploitation of women by training them to look upon their work outside the home as peripheral to their 'true' role. ... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her speical responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all."

This foregoing statement from an early feminist radical pretty much sums it up - and inferentially includes the advocacy for same-sex unions, same-sex adoptions, single-motherhood, and sexual license. These concepts provided the early motivation for the DA*DI effort on behalf of Fatherhood and Family.

In a more contemporary reference I've found the feminist mindset has become institutionalized in a variety of venues. Just the other day, I went in for a medical examination. As I sat in this typical, aesthetically sterile examination room, my wandering gaze was captured by its sole wall-hanging. Just to the right of the room's only door was a poster, sponsored by a women's group. It admonished the treating physician to inquire of (his) female patient whether she was experiencing domestic abuse - and touted one of the most revered of feminist myths - that 1 in 4 female visitors to this facility was likely to be the victim of domestic abuse. There was no similar admonition to make the same inquiry of male patients. It seems that I receive daily email from men's groups that are attempting to establish parity for men in medical research such as prostate cancer, and yet all the media attends to is female breast cancer and AIDs funding. Even the very liberal Dr. Dean Edell has pointed out that research is more often serendipitous, finding breakthrough cures for disease processes from completely unrelated research. It follows that a shotgun approach to cancer research would be potentially more beneficial for all concerned. But not so according to feminist mantra.

In this week too, A thoughtful and myth-piercing piece by Dr. Eugene Narrett was brought to my attention. Dr, Narrett, an English professor and widely published columnist makes the point that Madison Avenue, motivated by profit, has caught the feminist male-bashing virus. He points specifically to the brewery ads that feature male eunuchs and female amazons. Dr. Narrett is also broadly aware of the ubiquitous advertising portrayal of men as bumbling incompetents; and fathers portrayed as mindless boobs. To this list I would add the Phillip Morris (cigarette maker) ads that champion their support for clinics for battered women. Yessir, they are compassionate champions of the equally ubiquitous female victim - not just evil cigarette makers. Just last night, a TV ad ran showing a father sticking a fork in the electric toaster in an effort to retrieve a piece of toast - causing a shower of sparks, loss of power, and a crowd of busy-body neighbors and a fireman to join his wife in addressing his "problem". It was a power company public service ad.

My epiphany was not only enhanced by the Phillip Morris ads, but by a particularly biting article written by Michelle Malkin on the subject of Maxine Waters (congress-person): "ONE of the most self-serving, hate-filled, race-obsessed politicians in America. The Democratic Party doesn't just embrace her. It kneels at her feet." ... "This is a woman who rose to power by badmouthing the white 'Establishment,' and then shamelessly abused it to secure an ambassadorship to the Bahamas for her husband a former pro football player and car salesman whose main qualification was having traveled to the island for a vacation."

"White Establishment" - the words are an epithet when falling from the lips of someone such as the black Mrs Waters "...a snarling bomb-thrower who exploits every opportunity to play the race card and cash in on collective guilt and fear." - and unequivocally indict white, male heterosexuals.

Just prior to this week, I had been mulling over the seeming paradox of what Paul Craig Roberts calls WHAMs (White Heterosexual Able-bodied Male) legislators who appear to be as much "man-haters" as their minority female colleagues; e.g., in passing such unconstitutional measures as the Violence Against Women Act. Similarly, WHAM legislators are moving in the direction of suspending 2nd amendment rights, i.e., registering firearms as a pre-emptive step toward confiscation in appeasement of feminine whim. Meanwhile, feminists are protesting the "Fathers Count" legislation as a gender-biased violation of equal rights.

Ahah! The light bulb went on. Yes, its probably true that these same WHAM legislators are motivated by power-retention. But there is also a majority of WHAM police officers that are primarily arresting WHAMs in domestic violence calls. And there are any number of WHAM credit managers who are rejecting or penalizing WHAMs who are alleged deadbeats. And there are any number of WHAM judges who are castigating and judicially castrating WHAM fathers in custody suits.

In every case, a woman or a collection of women can conjure up the most vile accusation or mere implication of an allegation against a man or a collection of men, and the Maxine Walter effect takes place. She is the victim. Man and men alike are guilty as charged. In today's upside-down world, it is no longer true that "might makes right", unless it is the might of victimhood. We are increasingly bending knee at the pagan altar of Isis.

I remembered an experience related by one Dr. Sanford Braver who conducted and then reported on his groundbreaking research: Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths. This is one of his priceless anecdotes:

Dr. Braver tells of attending a 1988 conference at Arizona State on child support collections. Dr. Braver decided to comment on the problem of "trusting official records", "how official database statistics can be misleading" and then he provided his own results.

"At this point, the moderator stood up and said, 'You know, I've heard about your findings. Our panel was discussing this very issue, of differences between mother's and father's answers, over lunch. And what we concluded was if the mother tells you one thing and the father tells you something else, then the father is a goddamned liar.'

I was so flabbergasted, I could think of no response and sat down."

At this precise moment, Dr. Braver was "flabbergasted" by one of psychology's cliche's - a victim can turn a rescuer into a perpetrator in a New York minute. Dr. Braver and the panel moderator were both persons of position and respect in this confrontation. But Dr. Braver had made the unfortunate, albeit innocent, fopaw (sic) of affronting feminist orthodoxy. And in doing so, he became the much diminished persecutor - guilt by mere association. Imagine his flabbergast in comparison with that of a defendant father listening to the invective allegations of the woman who just months or weeks prior had been his intimate partner - before she launched the divorce/ custody suit. Imagine the flabbergast of Clarence Thomas in listening to the allegations of Anita Hill. Imagine the flabbergast of Major General Larry Smith when accused by Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy.

Female politicians, female bureaucrats, and female middle managers throughout the culture rely daily on the implication that they are but virtual victims of the white heterosexual patriarchy. It is their weapon, and it is used with both veiled stealth and open affront with more destructive potential than an arsenal of firearms. The philosopher Descartes said, "I think, therefore I Am." Today's woman says, "If I think I am a victim, then I AM." And every WHAM within hearing range rushes to validate and rescue her.

Psychology has proposed the construct "cognitive dissonance" to explain why an individual would appear to act in a manner inconsistent with their own best-interests. They do so in order to reduce the "dissonance" or conflict between two incompatible cognitions. Herein lies the dilemma of the American white heterosexual able-bodied male. An example is the married male whose wife is in most cases balanced in her gender perspectives. But she has developed an allegiance to a particularly feminist peer. She tells her spouse the tattled tale of this woman's abusive spouse. He knows the man and does not see him as capable of being the batterer he is alleged to be. His impulse is to defend the friend, but he is ultimately conscious of his wife's conflicted loyalty in this case. His response: "Ain't that just awful!" End of cognitive dissonance. And, he's going to get a big kiss because he has appeared to defend his wife's victim/friend.

In less and more prominent/powerful positions, most men are now well aware of the power of the victim to destroy them. Although this is dissonant to their personal masculine construct and character, they are also faced with dissonant situations that involve their masculine self-interest. There remains also the vestigial cultural heritage of defender-of-women-and-children that is deeply buried in every male psyche.

Thus, in the face of even the most dissonant conditions, WHAMs have one particularly consonant resolution - rush to the rescue of the female or child or the weak. Ample reinforcements will be provided by the feminist cohort for those they perceive to be their champions - even if it does come with the conditional aspect that the man must walk on eggs (or water) to avoid becoming an unwitting perpetrator.

Evidence in support of the lingering artifact of the Knight in Shining Armor was particularly strong this summer at the movie theaters. 100's of millions of movie-goer dollars were collected for Gladiator, U-571, MI2, and The Patriot. All involve portrayals of the traditional heroic male. Three months and two months after their respective release, Gladiator and The Patriot remained in the top twenty box-office ratings.

Despite the current zeitgeist of political correctness, cultural feminization, and resultant cognitive dissonance, men everywhere - WHAM or not - cannot continue on the path of quiet acquiescence to ridicule and criminalization. Three decades of allowing pervasive feminist hostility to control and diminish all things masculine has brought devastation to every traditional American institution. Men are going to jail and being criminalized, largely because they are male. We don't need yet another enactment of the Violence Against Women Act; we need a lot less Feminist Rage against men.

Radical Feminism is a hostile, character and sexual disorder that is essentially nihilistic, exploitive and anti-social.

The famed phrase, "a rising tide lifts all boats", is as true for men's politics as it is for economic politics. In this case the rising tide that will lift all boats is a ground swell of rejection of the pervasive power of the victim. Whether it's Divorced Dads, or military officers, or business managers, or bureaucrats, it's time for men to voice an emphatic and unified No!

    No. We will no longer allow feminist myths to be tolerated. We will confront and refute them when they are repeated.
    No. We will not provide carte-blanche acceptance of false allegations. Allegations will be thoroughly and fairly investigated. False allegations will be prosecuted.
    No. We will not accept gender patronization from peers and supervisors. We will assert our right to civility and individual respect.
    No. We will not allow patently false and vile generalizations to be mounted against the male gender just because a woman speaks them. They will be confronted as the incivility and hostility they are.
    No. We will no longer submit to the tyranny of innuendo and intimidation - we will demand concrete and rational presentation of fact.
    No. We will not resolve our cognitive dissonance through the knighted pursuit of Pyhrric victories on behalf of phony victims and virtual dragons.

And yes, we will resolve cognitive dissonance in the pursuit of legitimate masculine self-interests for parity and deserved respect. A man is not a woman, and masculinity is not a curse, an epithet, or an infirmity. The masculine is a biological outcome with characteristic and valuable features that compliment the feminine - and vice versa.

Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.

Back to DA*DI's Home

Dads Against the Divorce Industry Dads Against the Divorce Industry