The electronic
conversation began this way. I asked
my colleagues, "Why is it, do
you think, that divorced dads have
not yet stormed the 'castle' to demand
that they be given back their parental
rights?
I've been watching,
listening and waiting for about ten
years for men to finally become outraged,
and act like it. I'm really beginning
to wonder if they really want equal
parenting, or even equitable child
support.
This condition has
me befuddled ten years later ... and
don't tell me its because the media
won't cover dad demonstrations — there
just haven't been any of consequence
since the PK (Promise Keepers) march."
Their replies suggested
a sociological perspective that is
alternately revealing, frustrating
and frightening. Their paragraphic
observations, and my interpretation
of them, might be thumbnailed thusly:
• The Feminihilists
have propagated and saturated the
American culture with the Big Lie
(Men are worse than un-necessary!..
They must be watched, kept under control,
and their families must be shielded
lest the men perpetrate their inbred
heritage of acting as patriarchal
bullies, rapists, and molesters.).
• The liberal
socialist media, in pursuit of the
ideal feminized commune, have sustained
and augmented the Big Lie and have
abridged the "good man."
• Divorced
dads have fought with all of their
might to retain a place in their children's
lives in individual court venues.
But they have been pummeled by two
intimidating, emasculating lessons:
1.) Men are criminally suspect in
the eyes of the law in a feminized
society. 2.) The power of the State
to crush a man's will and future is
unlimited and unconstrained once unleashed.
• Men have
adopted a feminized social persona
as a self-defense measure in the PC
milieu so as to not draw attention
to themselves. Meanwhile, men remain
individualized and competitive in
their efforts to earn a living and
meet their obligations.
• Male legislators
are even more than passive in their
acquiescence to the Big Lie. They
have learned that the Feminihilists
will tar and feather them as harassers
should they not toe the line. They've
also learned that just one Feminihilist
can crush them with the power of thousands,
given carte blanche media access.
• In combat,
men are conjoined in the mission's
objective. On the job, men in the
protection professions are conjoined
in the collective plebiscite. But
in today's society, men's collective
energies are fragmented. They have
no positively defined cultural role
in a PC society to collectively guide
and enjoin their efforts. Instead
of being the traditional familial
source of protection and moral guidance
and unity, men have been coerced into
the disgraceful posture of defending
against their perceived potential
"dark side." Acting collectively
can be as dangerous for the male group
as for the individual legislator.
When the Promise Keepers acted collectively
in their march on Washington D.C.,
the cacophonous vilification by the
Feminihilists and their media cohort
was ear rending.
• Men's individualism
appears to be a virtual genetic marker,
and they do not easily trust others
to fight their battles for them. Consequently,
"men's groups" and the "fatherhood
movement" are typically regarded
with reservation, if not outright
suspicion, and go unfunded as a result.
Consequently, the pro-male, pro-dad
information vital to organizing and
energizing those outside the www.world
goes unpublished.
• Ironically,
the most visible response of the demonized
male has not been one of angry defense,
nor strident reprisals. Instead, we
have witnessed the phenomenon of the
"good but silent" man. Today's
male has receded to the background,
acquiescing to constitutional aberrations
like sexual-harassment laws and the
Violence Against Women Act.
Following 9/11, several
columnists have trumpeted the
Return of the Guy!, or alternately,
Suddenly, it's cool again to be a
man.
Not true. What is
cool is to be a fireman, policeman,
or special ops soldier. Let's be clear,
it's the job, not the man that's cool.
The insufficient return of the "guy"
is only in the use of the terms fireman
(instead of firefighter) and policeman
(instead of police officer). And that
has most likely targeted these groups
for a future smear campaign by the
Feminihilists. Look for a proliferation
of harassment, battering, and deadbeat
stories involving these men.
The Big Lie has so
contaminated the social perception
of men, and so threatened the sexual
relationship between men and women,
that men have become emasculated.
Lest they be called "Deadbeats",
men pay usurious rates of child support
that have been aptly termed de facto
alimony. Lest they be called "batterers",
men are cloaking themselves in the
soft-spoken, milquetoast persona of
the sensitive man. Lest they be called
"homophobic", men are conceding
their children to the sexual aberrations
of the sodomy lobby. And lest they
be called "patriarchal"
men are collectively permitting "family"
courts to rescind their constitutionally
guaranteed parental rights, substituted
with a court order redistributing
their income to the person whose goal
is to kidnap their children.
"Parental rights
protect the interests of parents
and children in a relationship that
is natural and independent of the
existence of a state; ...Critically
for doctrinal purposes, this is
the interpretation the Supreme Court
appears to accept in holding that
'[i]t is cardinal with us that the
custody, care and nurture of the
child reside first in the parents,
whose primary function and freedom
include preparation for obligations
the state can neither supply nor
hinder.' ... These rights are typically
and systematically suspended or
denied in divorce proceedings."
–
Parental Rights and Due Process
There are two social
prohibitions with which I am ordinarily
in agreement. The first is the admonition
that black people are the gatekeepers
for the use of the word "nigger"
in social intercourse. The second
is that you don't yell "fire"
in a crowded theater. But there are
exceptions.
In Huckleberry Finn,
Mark Twain uses the slang derivation
of Negro to signify the racist dehumanization
of black Americans by Southern whites.
So it is when I use that term to signify
the sexist criminalization of American
males — mostly the white ones. The
facts are these. Feminihilism has
portrayed "man-as-nigger"
in the same vituperative manner that
racists portrayed (primarily male)
blacks. When a feminist says "man",
society hears "manigger."
Contemporary Feminihilist
bigotry has appended to white men
the kind of vicious, mindless bigotry
that was once appended to pre/post-civil
rights black men:
• The classic
antebellum racist myth, at times overt,
and at other times as a whispering
campaign, characterized black men
as shiftless, sexually preoccupied
rapists, lying in wait to attack white
women.
In one of its most
perverse anti-male jeremiads — just
when the anti-racism civil rights
campaign was building to a crescendo
— the feminihilist propaganda arm
was fabricating the sexist Big Lie.
Remember the "date-rape"
and "Super Bowl Sunday domestic
violence" myths? Portraying fathers
as shiftless deadbeats, and men in
general as potential rapists and batterers
led to the successful institutionalization
of two constitutional aberrations
— the VAWA and Child Support Enforcement
rackets.
• Prior to
July 1868, and the ratification of
the 14th Amendment to the United States
Constitution, the southern states
had restricted voting rights to blacks
and relegated black men to the status
of a 3/5ths person in determining
congressional representation. Prior
to that, the 13th Amendment abolished
slavery or involuntary servitude,
guaranteed due process, and prevented
the denial of equal protection under
the law. It was the cause of the civil
rights movement of the sixties and
beyond that blacks should realize
the full rights and benefits of those
amendments.
Simultaneously, the
feminihilists succeeded in eliminating
those same constitutional guarantees
when dads are sued for
no-fault divorce. Divorce courts
have become "administrative"
procedures, foregoing the due process
clause. And when dads are stripped
of their parenthood, they are clearly
less than a 3/5ths person ... they
are a 1/7th person, or less in standard
visitation terms — something on the
order of a distant cousin, or programmable
toaster. In yet another flagrant constitutional
abeyance, or "child support enforcement",
these maniggers are reduced to involuntary
servitude and threatened with debtor's
prison should they fail to tote dat
bale. Divorced dads have been made
sharecropper parents.
• Again, at
the beginning of the civil rights
movement, and in what some portrayed
as a pseudo-reparations measure, the
Great Society magnanimously extended
AFDC (aid for dependent children)
to impoverished black families. "Families",
that is, until the USDHHS mandated
that such aid was contingent upon
the "no man in the house"
rule. In the ensuing years illegitimate
birth rates in the black community
exploded, and the percentage of black
children living in a two-parent family
went from 67% to 33.3%. Paralleling
the loss of fathers in the home, the
population of imprisoned black men
went from half that of white men in
1960, to 120% that of white men in
the year 2000. While the number of
white men imprisoned in 2000 jumped
330% from 1960, the number of black
men leapt 720%.
USDHHS has magnanimously
extending its assistance to white
families in a de facto extension of
the no man in the house rule for divorcing
white women. CPS (Child Protective
Services) has become the Gestapo arm
of the women's movement. With its
anti-male and anti-family agenda,
CPS has become an out of control socialist
agency dedicated to removing America's
children to the foster-care commune
where they may languish for years
before being unleashed on society.
If properly asked, and sometimes with
the unwarranted insistence of the
courts, DHHS and CPS will provide
the divorcing mother an attorney,
and if deemed necessary, a legion
of social workers and psychologists
to assist the mother in evicting dad
... and keeping him out. In 1960,
the number of children involved in
divorce was about 463 thousand. When
the "women's movement" reached
full acceleration by 1975 that number
nearly tripled to 1.1 million. A recent
news release announced that like the
inner city ghettos, the city suburbs
are now populated largely by singles
and single-parent "families."
We are witnessing
history rhyming with itself, except
that just like 9/11, it is right here
on our shores. Manigger passivity
in response to these intimidation
tactics may lend itself well to an
individualistic attempt at self-preservation,
but it is tantamount to societal suicide
to remain AWOL in the uncivil culture
wars.
The "Nihilist"
revolution in 1860s Russia featured
terrorism and assassination. The Feminihilist
revolution in post-1960s America features
sexual terrorism and male character
assassination.
The "Nazi"
reign in Hitler's Germany featured
the Hitler Youth. As reported on the
History channel:
"With girls as with
boys, Hitler exploited their generally
unformed minds and their need for
attention, companionship and adventure.
'The seducer,' notes the narrator,
'ignored their minds and played
on their feelings.' – 10/00 – Hitler's
Special Children"
The Socialist, Feminihilist
reign in the U.S. features the U.S.
Department of Education and the NEA
(teacher's union). Boys are being
placed in pharmacological straightjackets;
there is zero tolerance for "sexual
harassment" — in elementary schools
for Pete's sake; "violent"
playground games (dodgeball) are being
eliminated; cops and robbers games
are verboten; but the real outrage
is that simultaneously our children
are being inundated with sexual provocation
and systematically propagandized into
believing that homosexuality is as
normal as mom and apple pie.
Yoh! Manigga. That
"yas massa" passivity may
temporarily avert a whippin', but
in the long run it is just a big sign
on your back that says, doormat —
wipe your feet here. Is that the role
model you wish to be for your kids
— daddy doormat? Is that better than
daddy deadbeat?
It's time to understand
and recognize that the appropriate
response to Socialist and Feminihilist
intimidation and terror tactics is
not passivity. It's time to recognize
and understand that outrage and publicly
visible demands and demonstrations,
which demand reinstatement of the
constitution, are patriotism, not
patriarchy. Demanding that our children
be protected from aberrant sexual
deathstyles and sexual hedonism is
neither homophobic nor Victorian;
it is an appropriate exercise of parental
responsibility and moral authority.
It's time to attack
the forces that are trying to destroy
the American culture. It's time for
men to aggressively retake manhood
and fatherhood from the usurpers.
It's time to take your children back
from the socialists, the sexual hedonists
and the sodomy lobby. It's time to
tell the Feminihilists to just shut
up, and stop calling men vicious names.
It's time to raise some legal hell
that makes your voice heard.
It's time to yell
fire in this overcrowded theater.
To comment on this
article or express your opinion directly
to the author, you are invited to
e-mail Dr. Rowles at glrowles@earthlink.net
. |