Book: “The Garbage Generation” by Daniel Amneus.
I’m not really sure what exactly made me think of this book, maybe that a lot of my supporters used to cite it, but it has been on my mind lately to write a review.
Amneus’ underlying theory and explanations of why our society needs patriarchy are solid. I could not find much flaw in his reasoning there. He does insist that men should not have to provide for “non-families” as he calls them, basically meaning men should not have to support illegitimate children and he explains why. He also points out how the welfare state is undermining families and therefore subsidizing illegitimacy. He talks about how female promiscuity, spurned on by the sexual revolution which feminists endorsed, is at the heart of this problem.
Amneus goes into great detail about how feminism has actually wrecked society and how women have deeply been the victims of it as well. When women are promiscuous males are demotivated and don’t want to work. When men are forced to support illegitimate children they will evade those sanctions in any way possible. The more the federal government becomes rigorous in enforcing child support payments the more of a backlash is created-against women and children.
Amneus actually endorses men providing for families but insists that they must only do so through marriage. It makes no sense for fatherhood to be determined by biology and in fact defies and goes against human nature itself. There are multiple problems created by the subsidization of illegitimacy. And he also does mention how men wreck intact families as well when the legitimacy of children no longer matters anymore, as our laws now will allow a man who is the biological father of a child (even though he was never married to the mother or ever even known the child) to make a paternity claim and wreck an intact family.
“The existing law states that the woman’s husband must be presumed to be the child’s father, a legal rule-of-thumb intended to strengthen families and avoid custody battles. Hirschensohn’s lawyer, Joel Aaronson, says the legal rule is old fashioned and outdated and fails to take into account recent changes in the American family.
What Hirschensohn is demanding is the right to proclaim his daughter a bastard, the right to confuse her concerning her social and family identity, the right to advertise to Gerald D.’s relatives and neighbors and the public that Gerald D. is a cuckold and his wife an adulteress, the right, based upon his status as an adulterer, to perpetually intrude himself into Gerald D.’s household for purposes of visitation, to embarrass and humiliate and weaken the family bonds between Gerald D. and his wife and daughter, the right to deny to Gerald D. his right, which would be unquestioned with respect to non-adulterers, of protecting his home and family from the intrusion of people he doesn’t want to associate with.
Hirschensohn says he is only asking to be treated like a divorced father, which is to say he is only asking the courts to declare that marriage confers no rights on husbands. He says that the current law, holding Victoria to be legitimate, fails to take into account “recent changes in the American family.” The recent changes referred to are those which replace the Legitimacy Principle by the Promiscuity Principle, and its corollary, the denial to men of any right to procreate and possess legitimate children under the contract of marriage.
That the Supreme Court would even consent to hear such a claim is a dereliction on the part of the profession whose responsibility ought to be the safeguarding of the family but which has instead become the principal agent of the family’s destruction.”
Amneus also is right on target when he states how feminists betrayed women and, upon hearing the outcries of women everywhere who were left destitute and impoverished on behalf of their movement, they turned around and refused to acknowledge responsibility. Instead of hearing women’s cries and instead attempting to reverse the damage and strengthen the family unit, feminists instead undertook to weaken it even more. There is no sign that even today that they have any intention of ever turning back or ever admitting to women the faults of their movement.
This book does clearly explain that women are indeed hurting, but instead of weakening family bonds and forcing the subsidization of illegitimacy which increases the problem, patriarchy, a sexual double standard upon women, and legitimacy must instead be enforced.
Amneus is right on these matters. However, there are a few flaws about this book. First, I believe in a father’s right to control his family (a married father in regards to his wife and legitimate children anyways, not unwed fathers by any means) and I understand that Amneus is endorsing father custody as a rule as a means of strengthening the weakest bond in the family (the role of the father). However, Amneus seems to have the general belief that there is no such thing as an innocent women. His basic premise is this: woman bad, guilty; man good, innocent. There is no middle ground for him. Also, he criticizes single-mother families (which are obviously not good and showcase the need for patriarchy and the strengthening of family bonds) to intact families and he uses that as the reason why children are better off in the custody of fathers. Obviously single mother families compared to intact families are going to look pretty bad! If he wanted to say that children do better with single fathers then he should compare single fathers vs single mothers, but he doesn’t. This book was written at a time when mothers were still generally given custody of their children and states were only beginning to demolish their tender years doctrines. However, since that time things have changed. There have been some studies done on single father vs single mother families and single father families aren’t looking too good. In fact, compared to single mother families they score downright awful, which makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. But, Amneus makes the case that father custody would keep families together by keeping both parents in the marriage. On that his theory is solid.
Second, he never mentions women who are actually innocent. Once again, if women file for divorce then they must be guilty! He states also that men shouldn’t have to pay alimony to ex-wives so they (the men) can remarry and have more children and have a full paycheck as a bargaining power to do so! I mean, really? What about the innocent middle-aged ex-wife who’s husband has cheated on her and left her? Unlike a man, she is going to have a hard time remarrying and a high-powered career probably isn’t going to help her chances a whole lot. If she can’t depend on support from her ex-husband then she has no choice but to fulfill the feminist vision for her which means concentration on a full time career and man-hating. That hardly decreases feminism. Amneus also pulls out the same old men’s rights dogma that women are more violent then men. Yet he (like most MRAs) never actually backs up his assertions with any credible evidence. He states that men would be OK with entering unstable marriages if they were guaranteed a good deal out of it. Really? How does that solve his problem of family breakdown? All that says is he thinks women are always guilty and men are always innocent and our laws should act accordingly. In other words, give the men a good deal and throw women to the side unconcerned about their fate. Also the idea that “women have all the rights and men have all the responsibilities” is so deeply absurd I don’t even know where to possibly begin.
But, despite some flaws and obvious men’s rights biases this book is solid. It showcases the desperate need for patriarchy in our society. This book says it how it is for the most part. I think that if women will open their hearts and listen to it they will see that Amneus does make good points and he is showcasing the harms of feminism to women and that patriarchy can indeed help women. This book is old and a bit outdated on a few points statistically speaking (such as the bias to mother custody in our courts, which despite father’s rights propaganda, numerous studies and research have disproven that such a bias still exists) but feminism is far from dead and the problems are only mounting every day. Amneus’ book will always remain true in our need for patriarchy and the good that patriarchy with strong male-headed families can bring to women and children. And yes, ladies, patriarchy does bring good to women. I still recommend this book.