Posted on 10/15/2007 8:02:21 AM PDT by RogerFGay
In order to better see where the fathers’ rights movement should go, it needs to think about where it has been and where it is now. For this reason, I present my own initial draft outline of the major phases of the fathers’ rights movement.
Phase 0: Prior to 1990, few men saw reason for an organized movement. We had heard for some time that “it’s a man’s world.” In the US, and other civilized western nations, private issues – when they needed any government involvement – would be handled in court. Some men did see reason for men’s advocacy, particularly in response to radical feminism, which included a very shrill anti-male constituency. A small and diverse men’s movement existed during this time.
Phase 1: Circa 1990 (varies slightly from country to country). Dramatic changes in divorce law, particularly child support law, suddenly imposed unbelievable circumstances on fathers – literally. Against a backdrop of anti-father propaganda, only those who actually faced the system as divorcing fathers knew what was happening, and even they often thought it was merely a great mistake. Explanations even to close friends and relatives were often not believed –the changes were literally unbelievable. In this early period, response to intensified anti-male rhetoric in the “mainstream media” also led to groups such as Promise Keepers and eventually a Million Man March in Washington.
Realizing that the elimination of human rights left normal court action of no use, fathers began forming groups for constitutional challenges in class action lawsuits and for collective political action, and those groups grew exponentially. This was the birth of the fathers’ rights movement.
Phase II: Courts in the US and elsewhere upheld the reforms in response to constitutional challenges in the 1990s. In the US, this required reclassification of family law from a private issue, in which constitutional rights are upheld against intrusion by the state, to “social” and “economic policy.” This new classification redefined marriage (and policies related to divorce) as merely a matter of arbitrary policy decisions by government. Parents therefore, had no personal rights related to these matters. By extension, people no longer had individual rights so long as a law was written to relate to any – directly or remotely – related issue.
Anti-father propaganda still ran rampant, and had become a theme running through everything from the nightly news and a constant barrage of “deadbeat dad” stories in newspapers and magazines to the stuff that TV situation comedies are made of. Fathers often showed frustration and impatience over continued propaganda – which had become so outrageous, it was bizarre that it was not rejected by the general public on the basis of common sense.
Ignored by the “mainstream media” a group of fathers’ rights web-sites emerged to fill the gap. Daily news and commentary site, MensNewsDaily.com took the top spot in popularity among these sites and grew to be very competitive in the broader category of politically oriented websites. The efforts of writers for these sites, along with others who successfully penetrated more traditional established venues, characterize a major part of Phase II – the rough road to entering the public discussion. Commentaries were often reactions, counter-points, and defenses against anti-father propaganda.
During the 1990s, after the greatest transformation in family policy the western world had seen, academic studies began to emerge challenging the “assumptions” that had been used by reformers to motivate the change, and that through continuous repetition in the mass media had become common place belief. Consistent results from real studies (as opposed to “studies” for hire or biased by other self-interests) showed the basis of reformed family policy to be myth – what Stephen Baskerville later said is more accurately characterized as a hoax. (He repeats that in his new book.)
A few “mainstream” journalists began clumsy steps into a real look at the issues amidst a continuing avalanche of anti-father propaganda. A few journalists and commentators (some in the US but more often in countries) began writing well and with knowledge about the subject.
Phase III: Courts in the US decide that state refusals to accept same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. Suddenly, social conservatives who had supported the “war against fathers,” realized something had happened. They didn’t know what it was at first and blamed “activist judges.” It took direct confrontation by more informed writers familiar with fathers’ rights issues to jerk them into reality – whereupon they dropped their support for laws they had previously thought were limited to dealing with parents who abandoned and abused their families. But it was by this “hoax” that the legal end of institution of marriage had been engineered.
This phase includes the earliest awakenings of a much broader public understanding and the beginning of new coalitions. The legal end of marriage, along with broader concern for quickly vanishing privacy rights (that began with deadbeat dad laws and vast government databases that went with them) laid the foundation for understanding – something had happened – something really big and important – and it was not a good thing. (Note that Cato Institute had recognized the connection between the erosion of privacy and the war against fathers, later written about in the pages of MensNewsDaily)
But also, and perhaps more importantly, more than a decade had passed since the new child support laws had gone into effect, and laws were continually being passed that made the situation worse. Tens of millions of real people had been affected by the laws. Regardless of overwhelming propaganda efforts, the problems these laws created could not be kept secret. When a reporter or commentator laced an article with anti-male propaganda, he or she, and the newspaper s-he rode in on could count on an avalanche of “you stupid lying jerk” mail in response.
Phase IV: Begins with the publication of Stephen Baskerville’s book; Taken into Custody. Baskerville points out something in the first chapter, which I believe is extremely important for fathers’ rights activists to contemplate. Contemplation of what he said led me to write this outline. His book did not need to go over statistics and provide basic arguments in defense of fathers. That work has already been done. Fathers are generally speaking, not just ok, they’re good. The basis of current policy (the anti-father propaganda) has been proven – proven soundly – to be myth (hoax). Fathers’ rights advocates need not consume great energy to fight battles that have already been won. This keen observation is incitement to stop peddling in place and move forward – which Baskerville does.
bookmarked
Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Glad you found the reviews at Amazon.com - the article was published in a place where the audience knows about the book, so no extra care was taken to introduce them to it.
Got it.
The rights go to the party that has the lawyer and that’s usually the father. Every divorced dad I’ve heard whine about his ill-treatment at the hands of the court has been a narcissist and a paranoid. Alec Baldwin is a classic case. I don’t know a single divorced mom who wouldn’t welcome a break from her children if she thought they were generally safe, physically and emotionally, in their dad’s care. Significant numbers of fathers are too damaging emotionally to have unsupervised time with their children. I call these men Alcoholics Without the Chemicals. They need the children to constantly reassure them of their love, admiration, and exclusive attachment. Children of such fathers will carry the same psychological time bombs as children of chemical addicts. Since narcissists only respond to boundaries set by authority figures—like judges—the courts are the really the only means of enforcing the child’s right to competent parenting. I see no persecution of fathers in the law or the courts, merely a statutory bias in favor of the primary caregiver and the children. If that’s unfair then we need more bias of this kind.
You’re terribly misinformed and seem to have a chip on your shoulder. If you examine your feelings - that everyone is bad except you - perhaps you’ll see signs that you need to more carefully consider your own emotional health.
Hi Roger. I used to (still occasionally do) post on the newsgroup soc.men under the name “Jill.” Perhaps you remember me. I know you haven’t posted there in many years and probably for good reason. My husband (and me by default) should be done paying CS but we never will be...long story.
Recently my husband wrote to the IRS asking for info on his tax intercepts because 10 years worth have never shown up on his CS audits. Less than 2 weeks later the local CSA sent a threatening letter they titled “Tax Intercept Information.” There was no information in the letter about tax intercepts...just general threats about all the things the state could do to him. Clearly the IRS contacted the CSA and the form letter was sent as a warning to us not to contact other agencies. Before this we hadn’t heard anything from the CSA for more than 2 or 3 years.
This got me to really researching the whole CSA scam from its implementation in 1974 or 1975 to today. I went through the archives on Free Republic and found a wealth of info in articles you posted over the years. Thanks so much for doing that. Also thanks for your recent post relative to Tommy Thompson. I live in Wisconsin and I can tell you he is no friend of fathers nor was his welfare reform really a reform.
As for Havisham...he is not misinformed. He’s one of those fools who think this can never happen to him. It can and I hope it will. He deserves to learn the lesson first hand.
Since we know that women are perfect and have no issues either. Its nice to know that Munchausen only affects men. I know the courts will find that Brittany Spears will be the perfect mother.
I've never heard of a divorce situation where both parties didn't have a lawyer. (Except where it was very amicable and they were able to work things out just using an arbiter, in which case, neither party had an attorney.)
Hello Jill. If I understand your story correctly - I have to ask whether you’ve reported the apparent theft of tax intercepts to the FBI?
I don’t know that we could actually claim theft. No doubt the CSA would suddenly “find” the missing tax intercepts and apply them if we notified the FBI that they were stolen. I’m sure there’d be more retaliation to follow. We are talking about $40,100+ in false arrears here and if they wanted to get really ugly I’m sure the CSA could.
I don’t know that we could actually claim theft. No doubt the CSA would suddenly “find” the missing tax intercepts and apply them if we notified the FBI that they were stolen. I’m sure there’d be more retaliation to follow. We are talking about $40,100+ in false arrears here and if they wanted to get really ugly I’m sure the CSA could.
CSE is run and staffed by thugs, using principles developed by criminal gangs. What you need is Michigan Lawyer of the Year (2000) Mike Tindall. Not sure if the link below still works. The agency didn’t notify him of a change in the CS amount that he “owed” (they decided behind his back), and he ended up going to jail - something that damaged his reputation and created professional problems. He spent about a half million dollars (based largely on estimating the cost of his own time at lawyer rates) to win his own case against them. As far as I know, the agency never apologized. I’m not saying you should spend a half mil. to try to get your $40K back, but you’d have a lawyer who knows what he’s up against.
http://www.michiganlawyersweekly.com/loty2000/tindall.htm
I read your post several times. You must be a slimy divorce lawyer or a divorced woman. The only right a divorcing man has in most courts is to bend over and grab his ankles.
Thanks for the link, Roger even though it isn’t working. I know of Tindall. My husband and I have been in this since 1987. There is very little we don’t know about the criminality of the CSA and the family court system. We aren’t looking to get the $40,000 back or even decreased...it will never happen.
BTW, I said above that was $40,000 in arrears which is wrong. ALL of the false arrears were paid long ago. The CSA (as in Tindall) did not tell us there were arrears for over 10 years. During those 10 years we got numerous statements from the CSA clearly stating that there were no arrears and got the same answer when asking them directly. The 40,000 is INTEREST on the false arrears the CSA generated by doing a phony handwritten audit.
As for getting another lawyer...no thanks. We’ve paid probably more than $100,000 to lawyers over the last 20 years and have nothing to show for it. Lawyers don’t diligently represent men in family court for fear of offending the judges...the lawyers have to appear before these same judges in other cases and judges DO have long memories.
What we really want to know is where the hell those tax intercepts went. Since we don’t believe we will get the $40,000 erased or reduced we have nothing much to loose by going to court pro se and laying out all of the garbage we know about the CSA and the court on the record. We have plenty of time and don’t mind wasting the courts’ and CSA’s time.
Have you read Stephen Baskerville’s book yet. I reviewed when he was working on it. It’s showing a strong sales ranking at Amazon, where all reviewers have given it 5 stars. He does rage against the machine - and does it extremely well.
I haven’t read the book. What is the name of it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.