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?
|
