Fathers For Justice
Other Fathers Groups Miss The Big Picture
Good analysis; kudos to http://www.angryharry.com/esFatherGroupsMissTheBigPicture.htm
for not focusing on individual father cases but public awareness
Thanks to the highly successful publicity-seeking campaigns conducted by the UK's Fathers For Justice team, the problems facing fathers have been hitting the headlines all over the world.
And so let me say again to all those members of various men and fathers groups whose 'leaders' have in the past decried the type of activities carried out by Fathers For Justice that they need to ditch those leaders as quickly as possible and substitute them for those who know how the real world works.
Or, perhaps, they should support another group!
As proof that Fathers For Justice is having a major impact on the issues of concern - as if any further proof was needed - here is one media research organisation stating that "Fathers 4 Justice, has mounted one of the most successful media campaigns of modern times".
A report by media consultant firm, Reputation Intelligence, confirms that the political campaigning organisation, Fathers 4 Justice, has mounted one of the most successful media campaigns of modern times. link now defunct
The report benchmarks the media visibility of other high profile political campaigning organisations, including F4J's sister organisation, Families Need Father, gay rights organisations Outrage and Stonewall, and international organisations such as Amnesty International. Analysing more than 10,000 articles from 330 UK newspapers published in the last four years, the report finds that:
1. F4J has been quoted in 1335 newspaper articles (compared to 188 for Families Need Fathers) since January 2002
2. Articles on fathers rights have increased by over 700% since F4J mounted its high profile media campaign
3. F4J has engaged the political establishment to speak on fathers rights, Tony Blair and Michael Howard have been cited in 277 and 54 press articles respectively.
And it is a real pity that so many 'leaders' of the various men's groups around the world do not appear to have any appreciation of the fact that ongoing maximum publicity is crucial to their aims.
Furthermore, most of these demonstrably lame 'leaders' are living in Cloud-Cuckoo Land. They naively believe that merely demonstrating the validity of their various cases and arguments is all that is required to bring about changes of policy by their governments. And they seem completely ignorant of the fact that government officials, government workers and politicians have their own agendas - which are very often antagonistic to the well-being of the people whom they are supposed to be serving.
Goodness me. You only have to look at the numerous and serious social pathologies that have mushroomed in western countries over the past four decades as a result of fatherlessness to realise that what is good for the people - and for the children - cuts no ice when it comes to government policy.
The Number One priority of governments and their workers is to look after themselves. It is most definitely not to look after the well-being of their own people; though they are very adept at pretending otherwise. And given that the horrible consequences of widespread fatherlessness provides millions of western government workers with so many career opportunities, western governments will quietly resist doing anything that will reduce the incidence of fatherlessness - see below - unless, that is, they are put under considerable public pressure.
Indeed, the only way that men and fathers are going to create a world in which they are not forever being demonised, disadvantaged and discriminated against is by waging some kind of public war against those who promote such things, not by pleading with them.
Talking politely to the powers-that-be achieves absolutely nothing.
These people only respond appropriately when their lofty positions are threatened in some way.
And Fathers For Justice will have done far more for fathers and their children over the past few months than have all the placid activities of scores of fathers groups that have been operating in many cases for well over a decade - in some cases for well over three decades.
Indeed, it was around 1993 that I read Warren Farrell's brilliant book The Myth Of Male Power which exposed just how poorly men and fathers were being treated, but, despite its brilliance and despite Warren Farrell's many other scholarly endeavours, and, indeed, despite the good work of many other serious and respectable researchers, absolutely nothing was ever achieved.
Feminism and man-hatred simply marched onwards completely unopposed - while greedy politicians ever desperate to increase their own powers continued allying themselves with these unholy forces in order to profit from the negative consequences arising from them.
Of course they did.
Governments love to stir up problems. Problems are the only way that they can fully justify their existence. Without problems, there is no need for large swathes of government.
And governments will surreptitiously stir up problems wherever they can in order to empower themselves; e.g. see AH's The Governing Elite.
And what could be more lucrative for them than to do this by arranging matters so that as many males as possible end up behaving in a dysfunctional manner and/or can be portrayed as doing such?
Fatherlessness and feminism have therefore been goldmines for them.
They love such things.
Governments have little interest in seeing their societies running smoothly.
What they do have is a great deal of interest in looking after themselves.
And this is why the various antics of the Fathers For Justice activists are having such a large effect on them while the placid activities of just about all other fathers' groups have had virtually no effect at all.
In other words, these Fathers For Justice activists are finally rocking some government boats.
And it is a pity that the 'leaders' of so many men's groups are angling for some kind of political positions for themselves, because they inevitably see the more aggressive antics of others associated with their cause as being detrimental to their own personal ambitions - though some of them, of course, are quite happy to see activists taking a more aggressive stand because this gives them some extra clout, even though in public they will wash their hands of them for fear that they might be associated with them.
But this seems to be the way that things generally work when it comes to political matters that are particularly contentious; i.e. there is a whole range of thought and activity; from the coolly mediated to the aggressively passionate.
However, in the case of the Men's Movement - where the many issues in its spotlight should be of considerable concern to half the population - the continuing coyness and reticence of many men's 'leaders' are completely unnecessary. And in many ways these 'leaders' are actually detrimental to the whole cause because they blinker the members of their own groups by confining their attention to limited forms of action and, indeed, thought.
For example, they often seem to be so concerned over one particular problem and so adamant in their belief that there is just one route in which to tackle it that they fail completely to see the bigger picture, and, as a consequence, they spend many years getting precisely nowhere.
They are like a heavily-blinkered Jewish man living in the Germany of the early 1930s wondering why on Earth the court decision went against him when he seemed to have such a very good case.
And, worse, these blinkered men's 'leaders' also keep telling the men and fathers who are members of their various groups that if they can just 'get their documents into better shape' then the courts will be bound to act upon them - which, of course, they won't.
They do not seem to have any awareness that the particular problems that concern them so are arising from forces that are vastly bigger than what they are perceiving.
Let me give you just a little insight into this.
A few years ago I was watching a woman's programme on TV in the afternoon and the chairman of a big Japanese car company (and I cannot remember which one) was being questioned over some of his company's car advertisements that made humour out of situations wherein women were being aggressive and callous toward men (e.g. kicking them out of the car door while the car was moving etc.).
He said that these car sales were being targeted at women who wanted to be independent of men, and who could show men that they could happily do without them.
The interviewer (a woman) then asked him whether or not his advertisements depicting female aggression toward men might actually encourage women to feel this way, and so were bad for gender relations.
The chairman laughed and nodded politely, shrugged his shoulders, and pointed out that such an effect would help his company to sell many more cars. After all, if women were more independent of men then they would more likely buy their own cars.
The female audience laughed.
But he was not joking.
He was being coy; but he was being honest.
His multinational company stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars more in profit every year if it could persuade more women to become more independent of men; and one way of doing this was to promote hostility in women towards men.
And, unfortunately, the same is true for hundreds of large companies.
As a result, our societies are constantly being bombarded with advertising material designed to inflame women's hostility towards men. Indeed, this technique started to be employed in the 1920s when cigarette advertisements indoctrinated potential women smokers with the view that taking up smoking was a very good way for women to liberate themselves from men.
The campaign was hugely successful. And this was the case even though it was not men but women themselves who had seen smoking as being an overtly masculine - and somewhat dirty and smelly - activity.
In other words, even though it was women who had largely persuaded women that smoking was an unwholesome activity for women to engage in, the advertisers managed to convey the notion to women that men were somehow depriving them of this wonderful addiction.
The point I am making is that billions of dollars since then have been poured by various businesses into advertising campaigns that are designed to sour the relationships between men and women in order to increase the sales of their products and to enlarge the market for them.
Indeed, the fashion industry has recently even targeted children with the David and Goliath T-shirts, which bear upon them such phrases as "Boys Are Smelly", "Boys Are Stupid", and they have sold millions of these.
And one of the most egregious examples in recent times of businesses conducting advertising campaigns to demonise men horribly has been the thoroughly hateful campaigning conducted by the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Children in the UK. This money-grabbing organisation, in my view, has caused inestimable damage to the relationships between men, women and children throughout the entire country by its relentless portrayal of men and fathers as demonic child molesters and abusers, and it has made millions of dollars by doing this; e.g. see AH's The NSPCC Needs To Be Stopped.
In summary, there has been well over half a century of strong campaigning by various businesses that has been designed to stir up antagonism towards men in order to generate profits.
But even these advertising activities pale in significance when compared to the deluge of man-hatred that has emanated from the feminist-dominated mainstream media for the past three decades; e.g. see Spin Sisters Sell Misery by Paige McKenzie and Some BBC Propaganda Tricks.
TV, radio, cinema, newspapers and magazines have daily flooded the entire western world with the most horrible portrayals of men imaginable.
The over-riding message is that men are persistent wife-beaters, child molesters, rapists, sexual-harassers, or some other kind of animal that is forever abusing women and children in some way.
This onslaught has been ceaseless - but, of course, the portrayal of men behaving in such a fashion is a turn-on for millions of consumers, which guarantees that the audiences and, hence, the money flows in. And, indeed, women, themselves, are clearly very much turned on by depictions of abuse - particularly sexual abuse; e.g. see Eastenders - The UK Woman's Favourite Soap
The problem for men is that people end up being very heavily affected by these things in real life; not just ordinary people, but judges, police officers, family case workers, social services, and so on.
And the consequence is that men and fathers can now be treated like dirt - and no-one gives a damn.
Indeed, so demonised have men been, and so hated are they nowadays, that even the savage mutilating of them has been accepted as part of mainstream comedy - e.g. Bobbit jokes. This, alone, is clear proof that men are nowadays a group that is very much hated right throughout society..
But the inflammation of hatred towards men has not solely emanated from the antics of big business and the feminist-dominated feminist-fearing mainstream media.
There have been other hugely powerful forces doing their best to demonise men in order to break down their relationships and their families.
To gain a little insight into these forces, here is a bit of history that the leaders of men's groups should know about.
Some 100 years ago the followers of a fellow by the name of Karl Marx were becoming frustrated because they could not mobilise the 'workers' into tearing down the 'filthy capitalists' who, they reckoned, were exploiting them. These 'communists' just could not figure out why these 'workers' remained so complacent in the face of all this capitalist oppression, and why they could not arouse them into creating some kind of revolution. And without these 'workers' joining them in some kind of mass uprising there seemed to be no way in which they could realise their dream and overthrow the capitalists.
Communists wanted communism - where everything was controlled by the government; rather than by businesses.
And they hit upon a great idea which was taken up and implemented gradually over the following decades.
"Break down the families," they said. "Make it difficult for people to have close relationships. This way it will be impossible for them to unite and to oppose the growth of government. Families are also the reason that the workers remain so contented and at peace with their capitalist world. Break down these families, cause as much societal discord as possible and this will make the people beg for more government intervention and control."
(And the Russians proceeded accordingly - and their societies decomposed and decayed as a result.)
The feminists of the time, of course, reckoned that it was women who were being abused and repressed rather than the workers. And they reckoned that it was the men who were abusing and oppressing them.
Indeed, the feminists believed that the institution of marriage itself was a major cause of this oppression. And so, just like the communists, they also became imbued with the notion that the breaking down of people's relationships and marriages was a good idea.
And so it was, for example, that the suffragettes of the 1900s - having read a bit about the new grand idea of the communists - suddenly changed their minds and supported entry into World War 1. By having millions of men engaged with matters to do with war - with many of them sent abroad to fight - families and relationships could be broken down much more easily. And, even better, women could then be enticed out of their homes and into the workplaces to fill the jobs that were previously being done by the men - who would now be at war.
And so it was that the communists and the feminists were united in the view that the breaking down of close relationships and families would serve both their purposes rather well.
And this is why, for example, the leading feminists of the 60s - Betty Friedan, Jane Fonda etc - were ardent supporters of communism.
Communism would free women from oppression, they said - but they did not say this too loudly at the time, because most of the western world was vehemently opposed to communism; having seen what kind of life those in communist countries were actually leading.
Bit by bit, however, western governments have grown hugely in size since then. And they are now extremely powerful.
And what has happened is that the politicians and the government workers themselves have now become a force - a huge force - that is far less concerned with serving the people, and far more concerned with serving itself.
And this is why the distinction between, say, the left and the right of politics has all but evaporated in recent times. As governments have grown ever larger over the past 100 years (about 70-100 times larger judging by the tax take) there has emerged a new force for big government - government itself.
And with millions of government workers across the western world now exerting a truly massive force in favour of themselves - i.e. in favour of 'government' - the people are being both suckered and forced into supporting their various self-serving agendas.
And, unfortunately for us, what the politicians and the government workers have gradually 'discovered' is that the communists were correct.
A great way to maintain big government is to break down people's close relationships and their families.
And this is why western governments nowadays do all that they can to interfere with people's relationships and why it is that feminists - and feminist thinking - are now so entrenched within government departments.
And this is why men now have to walk on eggshells in their dealings with women and children. They can be accused at the drop of a hat of sexual harassment in the workplace, of domestic violence and sex-assault in the home, of abusing their own children, and the government will immediately step in and attempt to persecute and prosecute them in some way; even when there is not a shred of objective evidence in support of any case.
Men can also be thrown out of their homes, denied access to their very own children and divorced with impunity.
The idea behind all these things is to make it very difficult for men to maintain close relationships.
Western governments are also ploughing millions of dollars annually into demonising men through their various bogus and highly-inflammatory campaigns associated with domestic violence and sex-assault, and they are constantly urging women to come forward to allege that they have been abused in some way.
And when it comes to the children, there is nowadays an enormous amount of governmental effort being expending on luring them away even from their mothers.
In summary, there are huge forces emanating from big business, the media, the government and the feminists that strive to break down people's close relationships and their families. Indeed, even those in the judiciary and the legal profession are involved in this. After all, they also benefit enormously from all the problems that relationship breakdowns bring about.
In other words, the forces that bear down upon men and their relationships are nowadays positively enormous.
They are unimaginable. Literally.
And this is why various men's groups hither and thither are going to achieve absolutely nothing by politely sitting down and discussing the matters that concern them with those who have the power to help them.
As George Orwell said - more or less - having studied the situation for some 30 years; "It is no use appealing to their sense of honour or justice. The only thing that they respond to is the threat of losing some of their own power."
Of course, I am not suggesting that every politician and every government worker is involved in some kind of heinous plot to break up people's relationships. I see these things in terms of 'organisms' - enterprises - which serve themselves. And the people who make up these organisms often do not know what their organisms are doing.
For example, the Japanese car manufacturer alluded to above employs tens of thousands of workers, very few of who will actually realise that their company is spending millions of advertising dollars designed to make women more likely to reject close relationships with men.
Nevertheless, those tens of thousands of workers do, unwittingly, buttress and sustain a truly mighty force. And this force is being guided by a few of them in a direction that is very detrimental to the well-being of men.
And the same is now largely true of those who work for western governments. They also buttress and sustain a mighty force - much of which is being guided in a direction that is very detrimental to the well-being of men.
Unfortunately, however, for some time now, western governments have also actually been indoctrinating their own workers with anti-male sentiments, and they have also been selecting their employees on the basis of their political beliefs.
And so, unlike the Japanese car manufacturer, where most of the workers have no idea what is going on when it comes to undermining men, western governments are now packed full of workers who know full well what is going on.
As such, many government workers that those in men's groups tend to come across when making their various complaints - e.g. over child access - are extremely hostile to their points of view at the outset. And there is just no way that they will accommodate to them.
At best, they will duck and dive, slip and slide, and do everything that they can to thwart any attempts to do much in the way for men.
And so, for example, even if some future laws were enacted to give fathers greater powers of access to their children, such laws would simply be accompanied by various extra legal impositions upon them.
For instance, they would probably include caveats that no-one could possibly disagree with publicly in these politically-corrected times.
For example ...
"But if there is even a hint of domestic violence then the father has no rights."
... And, bit by bit, the government workers will simply define domestic violence in such a way that no normal man going through a divorce could avoid being guilty of it.
"He shouted at me. I was living in fear."
The result will be that more fathers will end up with child access problems.
And if, for example, some law was created which mandated that a 50/50 form of shared parenting should be the starting base when couples divorced, then men (not women) would somehow be targeted if they failed to come up with their allotted percentage.
And, of course, they would also be far more likely to be falsely accused of something - and, hence, persecuted by government in some way - by women who were unhappy about handing their children over to them for the agreed percentage of time.
The upshot would be that more fathers would have child access problems than there are currently.
All in all, therefore, men and fathers are going to achieve precious little in their various battles against their ongoing demonisation and discrimination because the forces that militate against them are nowadays just too great ...
... unless, that is, they take heed of George Orwell's sentiments.
"It is no use appealing to their sense of honour or justice. The only thing that they respond to is the threat of losing some of their own power."
I have watched the various antics of the feminists, the women's groups and their associated comrades in government, academia and the media very closely for some ten years now. And I can assure you that these groups have lied, and lied, and lied, and lied on just about every issue which they address. Their belief is that the end justifies the means. Lying, deceiving, distorting, exaggerating - always with the aim of demonising men and breaking up their relationships - and so empowering themselves - are activities that they engage in without limit, without conscience and without concern.
In the UK, for example, senior police officers and their colleagues at the Home Office have been caught lying time and time again over issues connected with sex-assault and domestic violence; and even the most senior judge in the Family Court Division has recently resorted to lying in an attempt to undermine fathers groups; e.g. see AH's piece entitled Judges.
And so it is that the leaders of men and fathers groups also need to understand that they are not likely to be dealing with honest or honourable people when they seek for men to be treated fairly in matters to do with their families or their relationships.
On the contrary, they are most likely to be dealing with what can best be described as devious parasites who thrive on the breaking down of men and the stirring up of hatred towards them.
Finally, does anyone reading this think that the chairman of the Japanese car company would alter his advertising strategy - and thus lose himself and his shareholders millions of dollars - following a few polite complaints from a few disgruntled men?
Of course he wouldn't.
Indeed, if he even dared to contemplate such a thing, he would very quickly be booted out of his job.
Well. The same goes for those who work in government.
They might smile a great deal, and they might say that they will 'look into the matter', but they will not lift a finger to help men.
"It is no use appealing to their sense of honour or justice. The only thing that they respond to is the threat of losing some of their own power."