Home Recommended Products Contact Us
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
Signup for Newsletter
Search Site
Feminism’s Aimlessly Spinning Moral Compass

By Mark Charalambous

April 6, 2006
While mulling over the absurdity of a mostly white, half female, and certainly liberal, Academy Awards audience celebrating the winning song, “It’s hard out here for a pimp,” I was led to reflect on two other recent manifestations of post-feminist moral confusion.

The reaction to the dismissal of charges against the beautiful middle school teacher who shared her sexual appetite with a 14-year-old student came immediately to mind. Apparently, many media talking heads and various legal experts are outraged that there might be a double standard at work. Perhaps the most amusing reaction comes from men’s and father’s rights advocates who, livid from the conspiracy of silence that smothers the perversions of justice that occur daily in family courts across the nation, were screaming for LeFave’s head over the blogosphere.

Various and sundry experts claim that the boy has been so traumatized by the “sexual assaults” that he refused to testify.  Hello?  Debra LaFave is what we used to refer to as a “bombshell.” Knowing none of the students involved, I can guarantee that most, if not all of the boys over twelve in that school spent hours sexually fantasizing about her. Until the therapists and grief counselors got a hold of him, far from being a victim, that boy lived a fantasy schoolboys (and men) can only dream of.

Yes, LaFave committed a crime and abused her position of trust and authority, and yes, she should suffer consequences. But I find it nothing short of amazing that people can watch with a straight face as these psychological experts discuss Debra LaFave’s mental state to explain what is to them, apparently, inexplicable behavior. Do they also require a mental illness to explain the boy’s behavior? 

Psychologists and psychiatrists, the new brahmins of our age, toil tirelessly to discover new mental disorders on their way to turning us into a nation of emotional and psychological cripples. Having normalized homosexuality, they tried a few years ago to do the same for pedophilia. Talk about moral confusion!

Whether or not LaFave suffers from “bipolar disorder”­—the psychological malady du jour for women behaving badly—she does indeed suffer from a feminist culture which bombards women with the message that they bear no responsibility for any consequences of their sexual behavior. Commenting on television about the Kobe Bryant rape trial, self-styled women’s victim attorney Wendy Murphy said that she didn’t care if the ‘rape victim’ was naked doing cartwheels when she came to his hotel door.   Later, during the Michael Jackson trial, she contributed this gem in defense of the mother of the boy allegedly assaulted by Jackson, “I don’t care if she laid him (her son) out naked for him on his bed…” 

With this kind of encouragement, why are we now surprised by the sudden proliferation of women committing sex crimes?

Perhaps this outcry of indignation over LaFave escaping punishment is really some kind of bizarre attempt by our collective unconscious to deal with the guilt of ignoring the widespread destructive double standards employed in child custody and domestic “abuse”/violence law, otherwise known as “feminist jurisprudence.”

The reaction to the Roe v. Wade for Men case provides an even more pointed example. A young Michigan father is suing to stop a child support order for a child he not only didn’t want, but was assured by the mother would not be conceived. Matt Dubay’s suit claims that a woman’s reproductive rights of “choice” are fundamentally unfair to men, who are left shouldering all the responsibilities for a woman’s choices.

Of course, he’s absolutely right in that regard. The only surprise here is that it’s taken over 30 years for it to come to someone’s attention that men have a stake in the abortion debate. Two people have consensual sex. If a pregnancy results, the woman has the choice to abort. She apparently also has the choice to lie to the man and intentionally get pregnant and then have the state compel him to pay a third of his present and future income to her (for up to 23 years in Massachusetts!). A typical child support order over time can easily amount to the largest financial outlay in a man’s entire life. In fact, if LaFave became pregnant by her 14-year-old student, regardless of the outcome of a statutory rape charge, a typical family court judge would slap a child support order on the boy. (Believe it. This and even worse horror stories abound.)

The degree to which men have been defined out of their parental role is one of feminism’s greatest triumphs, evidenced by an iconic moment during the Senate confirmation hearing of Supreme Court judge Samuel Alito. Senator Dianne Feinstein waxed indignant and incredulous as she grilled Alito on his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. How could any sane person, she implied—let alone someone being considered for a seat on the nation’s highest court—actually believe that a wife has an obligation to tell her husband that she’s pregnant? But rather than defending the moral, ethical, commonsense, and fundamentally correct position that he took on Casey, Alito’s body language betrayed the only allowable answer in post-feminist America: an apology—albeit masked in complicated legalese.

Feminists have got one thing right: Men just don’t get it.

# # #

Mark Charalambous, a Leominster, MA resident, is the Spokesman for CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition, and an adjunct faculty in the state college system.