logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

 
 
 
 

 

Alternatives for a better society


The mission of the Fathers Rights movement

The Fathers Rights movement made little progress towards unification over the decades, although the problems that brought it into existence and it intends to address are now more prevalent than ever. 

One of the primary missions of the Fathers Rights movement appears to be the fight against radical feminism.  That active and effective opposition is necessary, but it is no more than a fight against problem symptoms. 

One of the most prominent problems in the Fathers Rights movement is subversion from within.  Some of that is motivated by the hatred that gender activists have, for a variety of reasons, for all maleness — even if they are themselves male. Out of that comes dissent that prevents the Fathers Rights movement from becoming a unified social force.  Some of the disagreements are over the purpose of the Fathers Rights movement or over irreconcilable ideological objectives.

What should the goals and objectives of the Fathers Rights movement be?  Whatever they are, what do they relate to?  Should they be motivated by the wish to address an ever-escalating deluge of anti-male judgments and instances of anti-male discrimination, or should they be directed at creating the conditions that make anti-male discrimination and the persecution of fatherhood impossible?

Just as when anyone who wants to build something will have to have a plan before he can even draw up blueprints for his construction project, the Fathers Rights movement needs to have a plan.  Such a plan needs to relate to the purpose of what is to be constructed. 

Plans for a building don't generally deal with fixing leaks in the roof.  They deal instead with what the building is intended to by used for.  Is it to be a football stadium, an outhouse, a bridge, a monument or a place to live in?  Even if the latter, is the building to be used as a hotel or as a place for a family to raise children the next generation of functioning, law-abiding and productive citizens?

The plans for the Fathers Rights movement must not be pre-occupied with the tactics of how to deal with radical feminism or judicial inequities and anti-male legislation, although those tactics are important and should under no circumstance be neglected.  More importantly, the plans for the Fathers Rights movement must deal with the reasons for its existence: the promotion and nurturance of the concept of fathers within, not without families. 

The Fathers Rights movement must deal with the role of fathers in the family (off-site) and in all sectors of society:

The promotion of viable alternatives for a better society

The following is a first draft of an outline of alternatives for a better society.  Both are being promoted, but only one is being promoted by the Fathers Rights movement, while the other one is being widely ignored.

If you want the continued destruction of the family and the abrogation of fathers rights, then in the name of equal rights and freedom of speech, choose what many in the Fathers Rights movement propose and what the vast majority of Fathers Rights activists condone with their silence, especially in Canada and other "progressive" nations.
 

The politically correct alternative

That is the promotion of:

  • No-fault divorce and equitable treatment of men in divorce and child custody proceedings;
  • Gay-marriage and -adoption rights;
  • Sex education in school to promote "valid" but deadly alternative life styles and sexual promiscuity, thereby causing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and child pregnancies;
  • Early sexualization of children and the promotion of pornography;
  • Death to the unborn, by promoting the right of fathers to demand abortions;
  • Euthanasia and assisted suicide;
  • Lowering of the age of consent for sexual intercourse and anal sex;
  • Abolition of the important and essential position of fathers as role models and heads of families, to "liberate" men, too, from being slaves to their families;
  • The merits of an end to male circumcision;
  • Punitive taxation for two-parent, single-income-earner families;
  • The inclusion of all women in the work force, whether they want to or not, to "liberate" women from their dominant position of bearers of life and empresses of their home domain, to substitute the "freedom" of having to work for wages;
  • Equal and equitable rights for fathers regardless of whether they are for or against families;
  • Consumerism and increased spending through the destruction or non-formation of families, and
  • Much more in that vein.

If you want respect for fathers, then draw a line between those objectives and what the objectives for a vibrant and healthy fathers' right movement must be.  The preceding alternative  results ostensibly in a better society but has demonstrably and spectacularly failed to deliver it, with disastrous consequences.

If you want to work to restore society's respect for families and fathers, then begin to act and talk like a father must, and educate people about the better alternative:
 

The 'unacceptable' alternative

To teach that:

  • It is not so much equal rights for alternative life styles that count, but that duties and responsibilities are just as important, and so are their relative contributions to the welfare and evolution of society into a better whole that is greater than the sum of its parts;
  • It is not so much individual rights that count, but that the individual's obligations to God, family and nation are just as important;
  • Team work means that each member does his best according to his ability and doesn't take unfair advantage of the other members of the team;
  • Without respect for our families we will not have a strong and healthy nation;
  • Without respect and love for fathers and mothers, we will not have strong and healthy families;
  • Without equal respect for men and women we will not have fathers and mothers who will have mutual respect for one another;
  • Without mutual and equal respect there will be no love between fathers and mothers, only lust, and their children will not learn from them the important things in life that make the continuation of our nation possible;
  • The pursuit of better and bigger orgasms ever earlier in life is deadly for individuals, for the children of teenaged and pre-teen parents, and for all of society;
  • Chastity, abstinence and marital fidelity are valid alternative life styles and healthy for individuals, families and nations, as are prudence and thrift;
  • If we abrogate the right to life of the unborn, we will lose the respect for our own lives;
  • If we lose respect for our own lives, that will lead to the abrogation of our right to live;
  • There is plenty of evidence that, without exception, the destruction of their families brought the demise of the societies pursuing that goal, and
  • Much more along those lines.

The two sets of objectives are not compatible.  They are also not comparable, because they have different and incompatible under-pinnings.  One is against the institution of the family, the other for it.

The first puts the gratification of the individual above all; at any and great costs and no benefit to society.  It causes unrest, dissatisfaction, disrespect, hatred, poverty and steadily increasing taxation.  By enhancing their differences, it causes rifts to develop between the sexes and between groups of people.

The second puts duty, responsibility and obligation to God, family and country on an equal footing with individual rights.  It costs very little, while it provides great gains to society: stability, respect, wealth and lower taxes.  It will encourage people to live in harmony and with mutual respect.

Welfare begins at home.  It should end there and not start there by causing a steadily increasing burden to be placed on all of society.  When we had respect and love for God and for strong families, we had virtually no national debt.

Many in the Fathers Rights movement ask why governments and private organizations provide no or little support for Fathers Rights organizations. If you were an objective, influential politician, journalist or leader in the community, which of the two agendas would you support?

If you have trouble choosing the better set of alternatives, try to determine which one of them is being promoted to the detriment of the other, and which is more tolerant of the other.

If you can't make up your mind, ask God for guidance.  Thousands of years of civilization can't be all wrong.  Not a single successful civilization was Godless, and all had thriving families that passed on their wisdom and traditions from one generation to the next, turning children with the potential to become savages into the next generation of respectful, responsible and respected citizens instead. 

The first teachers of morality and family life are to be found in the immediate and extended family.  If our children don't know where they came from, how can we expect them to know where we want them to go?  If we as parents don't know that, how can we expect our children to find that knowledge in a moral vacuum?

If mothers have no respect for the fathers of their children, then no-one should expect children to respect either of their parents.  If children have no respect for their parents, they will have little respect for anyone else in society.  If there is no respect, there can be no love.

Stable homes and families produce much better adjusted and more stable children.  No sane society will permit its children to grow from little, weak and ignorant potential savages into adults of whom a large number are full of "self-esteem" [*] but without compassion, who are uneducated, selfish, brutish, greedy and disrespectful.  Most of all, no sane society will permit children to educate themselves without any moral guidance by their role models and fathers. [* Update 2008 05 11: It is strongly recommended to take a look at "SHOULD SCHOOLS TRY TO BOOST SELF-ESTEEM? Beware the dark side", by Roy F. Baumeister]

Ask yourself what right a movement has to call itself a Fathers Rights movement, when it permits ostensible, non-elected leaders to prohibit, censor or disrupt any discussions of the second alternative for a better society.


If you can think of suggestions for improving this statement, please contact .

Update 2006 11 30: After more than five years since the comments on 'The mission of the Fathers Rights movement' were posted, and after more than 3.5 million visitors came to the website of Fathers for Life, not a single voluntary response to the statement has ever been offered by any Fathers Rights activist, even though the statement is prominently identified and linked-to from the home page and from a number of other web pages at Fathers for Life.
    Yet, public sentiments are slowly swinging into the direction of being more in favor of traditional families, of strengthening the role of fathers, and of being more in opposition to the social destruction caused by radical feminism. 
    Do Fathers Rights activists perhaps oppose social trends?  Are they out of tune with the general public?  That cannot be true for all of them.
  Yet, a good number of pro-father women did write.  Does the statement appeal to women and not to men, or do men consider it to be a waste of time to discuss the obvious?
    Does this mysterious silence signify rejection, acceptance or indifference?


See also:

Stephen Baskerville suggests that fathers can accomplish much if they become politically active, in fact, that it is especially divorced fathers' duty to do that.

White RoseThe White Rose
Thoughts are Free

__________________
Posted 2001 05 01
Updates:
2001 05 03 (added link to Fathers' Rights Are Fathers' Duties)
2006 03 04 (added link to Feminism for Male College Students)