Phases of the fathers’ rights movement

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | October 14, 2007 | Roger F. Gay

[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.

[An American In Dairyland]

Thanks, Roger. The book looks like it will be very useful.