I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Monday, June 22, 2009

In praise of patriarchs

Obama never had benefit of a proper Father figure and is somewhat of a eunuch because of it, or at the very least he is clearly a feminized man. He is kowtowing to victim feminist demands as was recently demonstrated by genderizing his massive stimulus bill giving females 40% of the resultant package while 80% of the unemployed as a result of the recession are men. There is a need for real men in children's lives. Mr. Warren says it succinctly and clearly. Where would we be in terms of progress whether it be inventions, exploring of the earth, the oceans and space, or freeing the world of tyrants by fighting for the liberation of all people including feminists who wouldn't know or care about such matters conducted by burly men. You will never find a victim feminist in any life threatening, labour intensive, sweaty or armed forces role. It is "hard" work and they can't pontificate as well as they can from their perches in academia or law societies. You will find real women who are real people in those roles as they have to adapt to the masculinity of what they do or they will not survive. Can you imagine one of these whiners in the Fire Department or Police service. They wouldn't last a week let alone the training program. Masculinity is needed thank goodness. For some further information from the mouth of Obama and his Vice-President see the following video. He wants to promote strong fathers but like most law makers he doesn't know how. Is it such a strong disconnect that shared and equal parenting would help considerably by keeping bothy parents in children's lives equally. MJM

This is my first “father’s day” without a father; my own father died last November. It is no big issue, really: he was one of many billion fathers, as the world goes on; and besides, no one ever took father’s day very seriously. It is one of those throwaway “secular” holidays, invented for the sake of symmetry with “mother’s day,” and assigned arbitrarily to the third Sunday in June in a few dozen countries. It isn’t a real holiday: nobody gets off work because of it.

The celebration of it is equally throwaway. We “give dad a tie,” or some workshop bauble, as we might (with ideological hesitation these days) give mom something for the kitchen. Perhaps, natter at him a little less than on other days, or let him off his “share” of housework. The deeper, or at least more contemplative, sort of souls will devote some passing thought to what fathers are and do. People like me will be stabbed by the thought of what we have lost.

Through the last few years, I, and many others who are themselves fathers, have dreaded the approach of the day and feared it will be noticed in our broken families. I am fortunate still to enjoy the love of my children, or think I do. But I am vividly aware of so many fathers who do not — whether through their own fault, or from the fact that their children were turned against them by a calculating mother, working the family law system. So many fathers have been exchanged for cash, and now live alone and in squalor, their income impounded to top up the account of their worst enemy in the world.

Needless to say, I also know women who have been viciously abused by evil men. Some of these men have even used that skewed and dysfunctional family law system to settle scores, and wreak vengeance. But the system was designed by feminists, and so these cases are comparatively rare.

I mention these things because hardly anyone else will. Three years ago, on father’s day, I called attention to the remarkable studies of Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young on the progress of “misandry” (the depreciation of males) in North America. The full titles of the two volumes already published — courageously, by McGill/ Queen’s University Press — are worth recalling:

1. Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture.

2. Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men.

A third volume is still in the works, perhaps the most interesting because it will document the twisting of received religious notions into the radical feminist fantasia in which “the fall of man” becomes “the fall of men.” That title is provisionally: Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man.

The books already published are a massive and devastating exposure of what we all experience from day to day as the key component of “political correctness.” They are a huge compendium of carefully documented, and often shocking facts. But such is the power of taboo, in contemporary intellectual life, that the books have gone nearly unreviewed in the media, and academic attention has been confined to ostracizing their authors.

This is a great pity, for women as well as men, for a society in which one of the sexes is casually and consistently depreciated — men in the West, often women in the East — becomes a sick and unbalanced society. What has been quietly observed about radical Islam — the psychopathic cave culture that has emerged in environments where women are not merely reduced to chattels, but made emblematic of sin and corruption — now has its counterpart here.

We have a society in North America that is, thanks to the triumph of feminism, progressively shedding the masculine qualities that any society needs to survive. Women themselves are progressively “freed” from masculine protection at many levels; men, raised to be wimps, progressively abandon all sense of duty.

Indeed, I would argue that men suffer most under Islamist regimes, that women suffer most under feminized ones. Outwardly, the “superior sex” obtains a tyrannical power, but inwardly, their souls are stripped of the moderation, and imaginative empathy, that can come only from respectful interaction between the sexes.

As William Wilberforce noticed, the institution of slave-holding has even worse moral consequences for the master than for the slave; and it was in the masters’ ultimate interest that the Royal Navy went to work, putting an end to the obscene trade. But bonded slavery is a mere aside, in a society, compared to the scale of psychic carnage when one of the sexes is methodically depreciated.

I would further argue that dealing with the fallout from the feminist revolution is the most important domestic “issue” in North American society today — for its effects spread thickly across every other domestic issue. And this necessarily requires an attack on the very premise of feminism: its demonization of “patriarchy.”

If fathers cannot be paternal, we have no men.

David Warren’s column appears

Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday.

3 comments:

Alphadominance said...

Yes the ironic thing is that if men hadn't cleared the way and created a civil society with institutions such as law enforcement, governance and education, women would never be in a position to take the protections provided by men for granted. Now they say the don't need us. Here's a thought: Lets set up a nation in Africa next to Liberia named Femtopia where only feminist women who don't need a man can set up their own nation. Then lets see how many days it is before African militias take them over. I bet they wouldn't last a New York minute. It would shed some light on the issue of why they need men after all. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Silly girls.

Michael J. Murphy said...

Given Obama's African roots and his feminized nature he might have some influence. You are right though an etablished african tribal group would have them captive in no time.

Perhaps even an unpopulated county in North America. It would be a living experiment which would get world wide attention and peer reviewed studies. They could use IVF for children. Guess what though. The victim feminists have already set a 5'11" height minimum for sperm to produce those big strong boys, who grow into men. Oh the joy of observing how they deal with them when they reach age 12 and beyond.

It makes my heart pound and adrenaline flow to see what would happen!

Alphadominance said...

I've seen it happen. Single motherhood leads to mother abuse by truculent sons. Ones too young to put away for life for slapping her around. Just the brakes when you don't keep Pops around to put the fear of god in junior.