Tag Archives: child custody

Too Much Interference in the Family

There are way too many people making decisions regarding the family these days. This is always the inevitable result of family breakdown. All too many children are born illegitimate then everybody and their brother wants to jump in and get involved with the child and everybody seems to think they have some kind of rights. This is all too obvious these days in that increasingly the grandparents want to get involved on their son’s/daughter’s behalf (usually their son’s as maternity and the role of the mother is really never in question or in dispute but just a given fact) and it becomes a complete circus. In the past they might have gotten involved to force the issue of marriage but now they get involved just to help the parents fight and get their way. In addition so many children these days are being raised by grandparents and in all kinds of crazy situations. There is no clear authority in families anymore. Indeed there really isn’t any family anymore- just a bunch of broken pieces loosely strung together.

In reality a return to basics is in order. Strong families and the husband as head of household is a system that needs to be returned to. A wife should put her husband above all others and depend upon him. His authority is greater than all others’, including the wife’s own father’s (as he has given her away he no longer has the authority over her), but increasingly it seems that married couples have trouble bonding and forsaking all others and still allow their relatives to have authority and still turn to them for advice or their needs. As well, the advice and opinions of friends are often given too much priority. The husband should put his wife first. She comes before anyone else and he should never allow anyone to hurt his wife or attack her. She must come first no matter what anyone else thinks or says. He is responsible to protect and guard her from harm, even if it means protecting her from his own relatives.

There is way too much interference within families these days both from outsiders and the federal government. The husband should be responsible for his family and it is his right to run his house the way he sees fit. Excluding certain circumstances, it is not the business of anyone else to come into his home and tell him or his wife how they should be living their lives or how they should be raising their children. Since there is a lack of authority in families everybody seems to think they have a right to decide on what is in the best interest of the family or the children. That’s what happens when men stop being in charge and wives and mothers go off to work. If there is any internal or external problem within the marriage it should be the husband’s responsibility to deal with it, unless he cannot deal with it.

The bureaucratic agencies set up in every county supposedly for the welfare of children are in reality nothing more than institutions designed for the breakdown of the family unit and are constantly used as weapons by outsiders to try to interfere and insert what they perceive to be their “rights.” Can’t get your way? Have a vengeance against someone? Just call [insert name of bureaucratic agency designed for the destruction of the family unit here].

Although legal marriage doesn’t mean much these days, there are some benefits and protections that legal marriage offers that cohabitation doesn’t- at least in most jurisdictions. That is why the institution of marriage has been constantly under attack for over a century and is still being attacked today. Illegitimacy and family breakdown always open the door for everyone else to step in and think they are going to have their say or get their way. As Jesse Powell once told me “corrupt partially enforced responsibility is better than no responsibility.” Marriage offers some safeguards and at least represents a higher commitment. In some cases it serves as a buffer against outside interference, in particular where children are concerned. If society turned back to seeing marriage as essential for raising children and having respectable sex then the laws would surely change as well to strengthen marriage and the family unit.

Advertisements

Security Must Be a Prerequisite to Childbearing

“For, at present, the law protects the persons and the weakness of women to an extent far beyond anything they might legislate for themselves.

Public opinion, almost chivalric in its courtesy among Americans, goes even further, and gracefully yields privileges, which will be best understood when lost. Will suffrage preserve this? Deprive women of such protection, and place them on a sheer equality with men, to struggle for their rights at the ballot-box, and they cannot but suffer by a direct competition, which would create an antagonism…”(1)

Young men need direction and young women need protection. These are the facts of life that the egalitarian culture refuses to acknowledge. Most view those that believe in traditional gender roles as being extremely religious and view anyone pro-patriarchal as believing that women should bear as many children as possible and as being extreme right-wing and conservative. But that does not describe us all. Though I am conservative on a lot of issues I am also liberal in many ways and though I do love children I will never have anymore.

Once upon a time my greatest dream and fantasy was to have children. My head was filled with thoughts of nursing an infant from my breast and being married to a man who would take care of me for the rest of my life. I was a starry-eyed innocent teenage girl who still believed the good in the world. I was innocent and naive about anything outside of the box that I lived in. But I am no longer that little girl. The thing about innocence is that once it’s lost it can never be regained. It is simply gone forever.

I am married. I am a mother. I married young and only had one child before discovering the realities of life in the post-feminist world. I learned I was not safe. My marriage and child was in no way a mistake, but I knew it could never happen again. I need security. I need to know that I will be safe. But since I know I am neither secure nor safe my womb will forever remain scarred closed and barren. It’s not the way it was supposed to be, but then again the fantasies of a young girl are generally far removed from reality. That’s why they’re called fantasies. Security must be a prerequisite for childbearing. It isn’t just a selfish issue either. Not only do women need that security but the children do as well. My mind simply cannot reconcile the capabilities of the womb with the egalitarian culture. I will not bear female burdens if I will be treated like a man. I cannot bring children into this world unless I know that marriage is to last a lifetime and that I will have a home to live in and financial support to raise my children to adulthood. The average marriage today doesn’t even last half as long as the time it takes to raise a child to adulthood.

Even if I know I can trust my husband I cannot trust that I will be secure if anything ever happened to him. We live in a time where everyone thinks they have rights to a child (all in the *best interest* of children, of course) and even married couples have lost custody of their children to outsiders. Mothers have even lost custody of their children to roommates. Everyone from sperm donors, roommates, grandparents and customers victims of IVF mix-ups think they have rights to a child (and are commonly granted them) these days.

I need to know I’m secure if I am ever to bring another child into this world. I know I am not and so I cannot have them. A man can even walk out and divorce his pregnant wife (even if she’s pregnant with his child) these days. If I was ever widowed or abandoned what would become of me and my children? Men do not collectively protect and support women as a general moral principle these days so it is unlikely any man will step up to take responsibility for me and marry me if I ever was left alone for some reason.

“…The ballot will substitute for this tenderness equal rights; then must all else be equal and common…”(1)

I will be a faithful wife and mother but it doesn’t matter. I am guaranteed no financial support from an ex-husband even if I’ve done nothing wrong. At best I might get some temporary support for a year or two just for the sole purpose of “rehabilitating” myself and going back to the workforce (because apparently being a housewife is akin to having some problem and at divorce I will be expected to get treatment- like an education- to cure the problem and live a normal healthy life by having a career). Not only am I guaranteed no support but I’m expect to provide support. I am not even guaranteed that my infant children will not be ripped from my arms just because my husband wants to abandon me, or, if I’m widowed, that some other in-law or anyone with a connection to my children won’t make some claim to them. Society already sees housewives as deadbeats contributing nothing so my financial dependence will be seen as yet another a strike against me as a mother.

These are serious issues. Families are in a bad way right now. If I am ever to have children I need to be assured that they will grow up in a secure environment. It is true that under coverture a husband held sole rights to the children, yet he also was responsible. He could not obtain a divorce anytime “just because” and he had the legal obligation to provide support for an innocent ex-wife for her entire lifetime, or at least until she remarried to another man that would support her. He also had to be solely responsible to provide for his legitimate children whether he was still married to their mother or not. He had rights because he had responsibilities. Now it is an “anything goes” situation and there is no security for women and children. Even if we take out the gender issues this is still a bad time to have children (not that there’s ever been a perfect time to have them).

Only within security and love could I ever bear children and since it is unlikely that women will ever have security during my reproductive years I will not have them. And it’s true, a woman’s husband doesn’t have a choice in the matter. If she is not guaranteed security from him and support and protection then the flip-side is that he doesn’t get a right over her womb. He does not have to support her and neither does he have rights over her. It goes both ways.

Feminism and MRAism exist for no other purpose than to put antagonism between the sexes and make men and women distrustful of each other. And what a good job it does! In our world today every woman is a slut until proven chaste, so a good girl never has half a chance. Men don’t have to be responsible for women they impregnate. Men don’t support and love women anymore. Even many married men are distrustful of their wife’s chastity, and probably with good reason. Words cannot describe the damage, anguish and suffering this does to women who only want to be wives and mothers.

“The feminist campaign to do away with the double standard is an attempt to remove this class distinction and make all women “good.” Instead, it is making all women “bad,” creating the Garbage Generation in the process. The predicament lamented in “Thanks for My Child” has the consequence that women can no longer trust men and men can no longer trust women.”(2)

There is not a shred of security left for women and children. By the time I was born feminists had already insisted they spoke for what I really wanted and had already removed any security I might have had. By the time I was born there was nothing left. Things will change one day but who knows if it will be for the better or if women will have to live under some kind of third-world male tyranny the way MRAs want. I cannot take that chance. I cannot gamble that me and my children will be OK. Having children is serious business that nobody is taking very serious. Even if our laws and attitudes changed tomorrow, ours is a lost generation as we cannot turn back the hands of time to undo what has already been done.

Father Custody Under Coverture Revisited

So why would I say such a thing? Why would I support automatic father custody under coverture? I think my reasoning behind my support of father custody deserves a closer examination.

First, I don’t believe coverture or father custody as a principle under coverture violates a woman’s or a mother’s rights in any way. If feminism has supposedly made such great strides for women then why is it that, apart from death, that there has never been a time when so many children were separated from their mothers? Children today are without mothers increasingly because of divorce, mothers of young children entering the workforce at record levels and because of families that failed to form in the first place. Again, I’m not talking about death or other life issues that interfere with the family. I’m just concentrating on gender relations here. If we look at the statistics well it would seem obvious that women were ultimately served much better under coverture than under current family arrangements and gender-neutral laws.

You see both sexes need a bargaining power for marriage to occur in the first place (the man obtaining paternal rights to offspring and the woman a higher social status, financial support and a home to raise her children in being those traditional bargaining powers that drove men and women to marry). Both sexes also need a bargaining power to stay in the marriage and also invest in it. Men are more unwilling than ever to invest financially in a woman and family because they have no security that the family won’t be broken apart and their investment taken from them. Women are more unwilling to invest in the marriage via their traditional roles because they have no security that the family won’t break apart and that they won’t be left financially devastated.

The traditional laws of marriage under coverture served the purpose of giving both men and women peace of mind to go ahead and invest themselves in the relationship. The husband had the security that his family wouldn’t be taken from him after he had dedicated years to slaving away at the factory to provide for his children and the mother of his children. The wife had the peace of mind that she could safely drop her status as an independent woman upon marriage and rely solely upon her husband because she had the security of lifetime financial support.

Today men and women have no such security. Either spouse can take off at any time with the money, the house and the kids and leave the other spouse destitute. There isn’t even a cultural expectation that marriages should last anymore. On the contrary, mainstream culture has leaned the direction of even seeing divorce as a good thing. So, obviously both men and women are hesitant to trust each other or invest fully in the marriage and rely on each other. How many times have I heard men or women say that they have too much to lose by marriage? How many men are paranoid about losing their lives savings by marrying an unfaithful woman? How many times have housewives been told to hang up their aprons and get a career before they are left financially destitute? And who ultimately pays the price for all of this if not all of us and our children?

The reality of the matter is that we can’t have it both ways as a society. There must be one dominant family arrangement that becomes law. This egalitarian era is a catastrophe. Not all family arrangements can be legally and culturally sanctioned. So we are left at the point where we much choose what arrangement is to be upheld under the law and as the social norm. All others must be frowned upon and given a lesser status socially and legally.

As a traditional woman I believe that financial support is something that a woman should be able to rely on in marriage. I believe in a woman becoming a covered woman under the law by her husband assuming responsibility for her. As such the husband must be in charge of things. I do not believe that fault between spouses should be used to determine a child’s fate (you cheated on me! I’m taking the kids b****!). As such authority must be delegated to someone to oversee the family and control the family. Will it be the mother? If it is the mother then we have matriarchy. If the women control the families then what incentive do men have to work hard everyday to provide for a family that they cannot lead and cannot control? Is it to be a handful of greedy lawyers or a judge that is to decide the fate of a child? It can also not make sense that a man is the head of the family during marriage and have that authority all of a sudden severed at divorce to allow someone else (a judge, the mother, etc.) control of the family just because the family is falling apart. If anything, a family that is falling apart needs the husband in control of it and responsible for it more than ever.

Enter the husband’s authority extending even to divorce. A man that has invested himself into his wife and children throughout marriage is the obvious best choice for deciding what is best for the family. Since he has the same liability no matter where his children live and no matter what his relationship with their mother he will obviously be less likely to separate them from their mother because then he would have to both fulfill his traditional obligations and the mother’s as well. On top of it all he would have to keep paying alimony to an ex-wife he no longer lives with. As for the woman, she would be less likely to initiate divorce because of the prospect of being without her kids and without her husband’s paycheck. Until recently divorce was a hush-hush thing that nobody talked about. Divorce was considered a disgrace to one’s entire family even.

As some have pointed out today’s men are not mature enough and are generally in no way capable of leading a family. But that is only because they weren’t raised in families under coverture but instead in a egalitarian society that shuns true manhood. In the past boys expected to grow up to be men who would provide for and lead their families. As such they followed their father’s examples and would even learn the role of being the head of a family by taking charge in their father’s absence. Girls, of course, were taught to be wives and mothers and fulfill their traditional roles by their mothers (and other female family members). Both sexes were taught how to invest in the marital relationship and were well learned in their traditional roles. If men cannot be trusted as heads of their families it is because there is no obligation upon them to be mature and take charge. It is because society no longer imposes such responsibility upon them.

There can never be a guarantee that men or women won’t get hurt. The laws of coverture could easily deal the husband an injustice just as easily as they could deal the wife an injustice. That is how life works. For every law there will be someone done wrong. But, laws are necessary for social order and the well-being of everyone. With strict laws protecting the sanctity of the family there will still be men and women who get hurt, but there numbers will be far fewer than they are today.

Coverture protects a mother’s rights more than any arrangement that has been conceived since coverture was repealed. Yes, it is possible that a husband could do his wife wrong and alienate her from her children, but given the social customs and laws stacked against him under coverture if he does his family wrong, it is unlikely that he would. Women would have security under coverture and be able to raise their own children and be financially supported. Both male and female investment in children and in the family would rise.

The traditional family and authority over the family belonging to the husband could stop the fighting, stop the gender wars and stop all of the harm done. If families could never be put back together and no distinctions ever made again between unwed father’s rights and married father’s rights and men do not ever assume once again their traditional responsibilities for women and children then I would support a law (such as the tender years doctrine) to give mothers child custody protections. But to me it isn’t the end goal. It’s not the best that could be offered up to women nor to children.

“Our Judeo-Christian civilization has developed the law and custom that, since women bear the physical consequences of the sex act, men must be required to pay in other ways. These laws and customs decree that a man must carry his share by physical protection and financial support of his children and of the woman that bears his children, and also by a code of behavior that benefits and protects both the woman and the children.

This is accomplished by the institution of the family. Our respect for the family as the basic unit of society, which is ingrained in the laws and customs of our Judeo-Christian civilization, is the greatest single achievement in the history of women’s rights. It assures a woman the most precious and important right of all- the right to keep her own baby and to be supported and protected in the enjoyment of watching her baby grow and develop.”- Phyllis Schlafly, 1972

Related Articles:

Responding to the Rationale of Father Custody under Coverture

Responding to the Rationale of Father Custody under Coverture

A while back, when former TWRA supporter ‘Edita Munoz’ decided to leave our group, she criticized every angle of our ideology and along with that being the endorsement of mother custody in the younger years as stripping away the father’s authority. It seems here we TWRAs have come full circle in having disagreements regarding the proper placement of custodial rights.

Over time I have become more knowledgeable and learned many things since I first started putting my thoughts, opinions and research out for the entire world about a year and a half ago. In the earliest drafts of the TWRA position I state that the Tender Years Doctrine, or presumption of child custody in the favor of mothers when the children are very young, should be brought back. My main reasoning behind this was to try to put a stop to what our laws are allowing the unwed father to do and to allowing the divorced father to escape his responsibilities of financial support or, even worse, allowing him to place his rightful burdens on the mother at divorce and using the children as a weapon to do so.

As part of my collaboration with Jesse Powell* on the cultural core beliefs of what a TWRA is, some minor changes have occurred in our ideology. First, in the issue of fatherhood, TWRAs do not recognize the unmarried man’s paternity as legitimate. In our ideology we state:

“Have fatherhood be only legally recognized when it arises from legal marriage to the natural mother or from adoption proceedings, unless said father should legally marry the mother and be responsible for all bills and necessities from pregnancy/birth and be liable to support the mother and child as a husband is entitled from that point on.”

This is because, in a patriarchal society, distinctions are always made between illegitimate and legitimate births. Not only is this good for women but it is good for children as well. The unmarried father does not have a valid contract of marriage with the mother and thus does not have patriarchal authority over, nor responsibility for, the mother and the children she bears. For instance, I remember reading a news report a few months ago about a mother, apparently suffering some sort of mental derangement after giving birth, who had allegedly claimed she found a newborn on a Hawaiian beach but, come to find out, it was her own child. The reports said they would “look” for the father of the child to see if he wanted rights and to be responsible for the child.

The entire time I was thinking they are going to “look” for the father? Obviously if they have to search for him he wasn’t around when all this was going on and wan’t married to the mother. If he was married to the mother then he would already be the legal father and they would know exactly who he was. On the rationale that the unwed father is not the head of any household and does not hold authority and responsibility for the actions and well-being of the mother and child, we exclude the unwed father from our discussions of fatherhood.

In the coverture that TWRAs endorse the husband is the head of the family. He has the authority, as we state,to decide where the family will live. That means his wife’s legal address and that of his children’s is wherever he lives. We also state that marriage is to be a permanent and legal binding of a man and a woman, “only to be legally severed in cases of severe abuse, infidelity or abandonment.”

Jesse Powell states:

“It should be kept in mind, when father custody prevailed that did not mean children always lived with their fathers away from their mothers, what it meant is that the father would decide where the children lived… The likely rationale for father custody after divorce was probably that marriage and family was considered to be the man’s project and the man’s responsibility and that therefore the man should decide how best to execute his family mission and family purpose, the care and upbringing of children being part of his family mission. So basically when a man married a woman the idea was that the man was choosing the woman to be the bearer and caretaker of his children. The man then was to become responsible for the welfare of his wife and his children both. This meant if at some point in the future the man and wife split up the man was still responsible for the children of the marriage as the man was always responsible for the well being of the children from the beginning. So the father would have custody of the children after a divorce because it was always the man’s responsibility to provide for the children and it continued to be the man’s responsibility to provide for the children whether he was still married to the children’s mother or not.”

Under coverture, the above story regarding the beach would not have happened. The woman would have been pressured to marry when she discovered she was pregnant (if not the biological father, then another man who would accept her and the child as his own) or her child would have been outcasted as a “bastard” and she would be shunned from civilized society. In childbearing strange things can happen to women. The coverture would have been a way to protect her and the child because the husband would have been responsible for her actions and well being and he would oversee everything that was going on. The pressure would be on him to control his wife’s behavior and provide her with the things she needed. If she was suffering psychologically after birth she and the child would still have been safe and taken care of because of his responsibilities to look out for them. In this way, coverture is guardianship of women and the guardianship of children necessarily.

Child labor was indeed common in the earliest days of American history and I do applaud the early feminists for their efforts to protect women and children from exploitation in factories. The rationale that the father had a right to the children’s labor I believe was a part of why father’s were given custody of their children but there is a much larger issue here to consider. Another reason, as Jesse Powell notes, was the large investment the husband made in the children.

Under coverture, the husband was responsible for everything. If the children or his wife had needs, he was responsible to provide them. A woman had a right to buy necessities for herself and the children on the husband’s credit. All she needed to do was prove that the goods or services were necessaries and prove that she was currently legally married to the man who’s credit the goods were being charged to. Part of his responsibility was for the wife’s actions. If she had committed some kind of criminal act or misdeed he was responsible for it and he was responsible for dealing with her behavior. His wife and his children’s behavior directly reflected upon him. This made men to make a large investment in the family. It entailed high sacrifice on his behalf, but also the high reward of having a wife and family to carry on his name and his own legacy. The intention of patriarchal societies is to get fathers to make a high investment in women and children and build civilization through their hard work of providing for families.

I do not not believe that there is actually a current “bias” against fathers in our courts today as MRAs claim, but whether there is a “bias” or not does not matter in regards to what TWRAs believe in and advocate for. Complaining about a “bias” says that one wishes or campaigns for things to be “equal.” TWRAs do not seek “equality” under the law. We believe that the father should be fully responsible for the support of his wife and children. We do not believe that support or alimony should be a two-way street. It goes one way. The father is to support the children and to support his wife. Now, if she’s done wrong and been unfaithful he should not have to pay her alimony. She should simply be on her own. However, he is still to support himself and provide all the essentials for his children and no obligation should be imposed upon the ex-wife for the support of her husband. He is a man and he is to be liable to support himself despite his wife’s actions.

Divorce was rare in coverture days so, in most cases, child custody was never an issue. Most men realized that young children needed to be nurtured by mothers. In the TWRA beliefs we do not say anything of the Tender Years Doctrine as we once did. We simply say that young children need to stay with their mothers. However, the husband has the authority and sole responsibility and should decide where the children live. He should never be allowed to impose the responsibility of support on the mother but he should be allowed to decide where they will live. Whether the children live with him or not he should still be solely responsible for the support and still have authority to make decisions regarding their lives and well-being.

This is what’s it’s about. I do believe in father custody (as in his authority to make decisions regarding the children’s lives and well-being and where they live) as long as his responsibilities remain. This ultimately does protect women as well as children. Women should have the right to expect support and guardianship from their husbands but should never be allowed to overturn the decisions he makes unless it is an extreme situation. Women having authority over men and men being allowed to evade responsibility causes society to degenerate into the mess we have now.

It is the right of the traditional woman to have guardianship and have security. Feminists told women there was no such thing as security and they should just go out and imitate male promiscuity and refuse to marry. Yet, somehow, study after study has shown that in the last 50 years women have become increasingly unhappy. Women supposedly “have it all” yet somehow are more miserable and suffer from more physical and mental illnesses than ever before. Apparently, “freedom” wasn’t quite so free after all.

TWRAs want our privileges back and we want our security. We just want men to be men again. If men would lead, women would start to follow.

* TWRAs are not longer collaborated with Jesse Powell. However, this article still remains relevant to the cause.

Sorry, I’m Not Buying the BS

My take? Men as a group have had everything handed to them because of feminism- BUT- there is always a price to pay for everything. Most men don’t have custody because they’ve never pursued it. Feminists hatred of men is definitely there but they have done more for men than any other movement ever has. Men no longer have to support a wife for life, there is no draft (and if there was they’d take young women too thanks to feminists), they’ve been given more rights to child custody now that women have abandoned their role as the caretakers to young children. Two incomes are common, they don’t have to shoulder the burden of support alone. They get free and easy sex and paternal rights to children without having to marry. And, if they live in New York, they don’t even have to pay a stripper anymore. What a paradise!

You see, though, they are no longer the leaders of their families. They chose to flee from responsibility so now they have no patriarchal authority to keep their families together and they are paying the price (or, at least, sharing it with women). All of the men I’ve ever known who didn’t have custody of children when their wives left them were ones who never fought for it. I know more women than men who’ve lost custody. We lose 3-4 women from pregnancy and childbirth deaths every day in the United States (not to discount our troops and the wonderful job they do, but this is more women each year dying from what only a woman can die from than we’ve lost soldiers the entire decade we’ve been overseas) yet women are shouldering the burdens of support of a family. Even more women are having to raise and support children alone because the father is nowhere in sight and society blames them for being single mothers by saying they’re just out for the welfare money.The interesting thing is we all think that mothers always get custody (when we’re young and naive) but there have been several studies done looking for “sex discrimination” in the family courts that showed the father usually gets custody if he wants it, especially if he is abusive (I’m not linking an article because there are many legitimate resources out there, disbelievers can do their own research).

You see feminists never cared about mother’s custody rights. Nobody does. I dare someone to name the last time they saw a “mother’s rights organization” outside of feminists advocating for “mother’s rights” to breastfeed in public (which I actually agree with) or domestic violence issues (which is just a smokescreen for what’s really going on).

Yes, there are good men who have been done wrong. The appropriate response to injustices? Men need to accept their RESPONSIBILITY and assert their AUTHORITY. These issues wouldn’t be issues if men were being men in the first place. Suzanne Venker made the remark that “women just aren’t women anymore” in an article a few months back. Well, men aren’t “men anymore” either. She’s says there’s a “war on men” then says feminism serves men well in the same posting. Pretty typical of those who hold MRA views to have selective vision.

I may sound like a feminist sometimes or tout “feminist” viewpoints and there are definitely many times where I know that feminists point out real issues for women. However, I don’t agree with the feminist solution to all of this. To the feminist,women’s problems are just a bunch of evil men coming to “steal their equality once they’ve fiinallly achieved it after thouuusands of years”- seriously who would even believe a tale like that???) But those who are informed know what’s going on.

And for those who say feminists are for “separating children from fathers” all I can say is use your damned head already. Feminists have long encouraged women to dump children off on fathers so they can go pursue a career.

Men’s rights groups use feminism and feminist ideals that are now ingrained in mainstream culture to get out of responsibility. (Notice how none of them are touting women in combat, but, hey, if feminists are promoting it then they’ll seize the opportunity and force women to be drafted. Once again, feminists are on their side and feminism has benefited them.) Then they turn around and call themselves “anti-feminists” leading to more women thinking feminism actually has been about giving women a status as “human beings” and any anti-feminist is automatically grouped in with men’s groups and is perceived as anti-woman.

I do not consider a man a victim until he has accepted his rightful responsibilities. Sorry, you can’t sit there and support women being in the home and expect that it is their place to care for the children then all of a sudden wonder “hey, where’s my support at?” when it benefits you. Either take your responsibilities or be victims. I’m not going to feel sorry for men’s groups. The way I see it is this: equal pay laws have been on the books for 50 years now and most states abolished their tender years doctrines many years ago. It’s absurd to think that somehow women are still discriminated against in the workforce just the same as it is insane to think that somehow fathers are discriminated against in family courts. The evidence generally shows that the workforce favors women and the family courts actually favor fathers. Are there men who are victims? Yes. Are men, as a group, victims? No.

But, men and women can’t live without each other. We need to form healthy relationships. If men accepted their responsibilities and asserted rightful authority and were chivalrous to women we wouldn’t be in this mess and our children wouldn’t be so bad off today and coming from broken homes. So, are you going to whine and cry or are you going to be men? And women, are you going to force men to man up or are you going to keep letting them get away with exploiting you sexually and financially?

Don’t complain if you aren’t willing to stand up and do something. MRAs have no real solutions to offer men and feminists have no real solutions for women. They all just keep talking about things being “more fair” and “equal.” They tell lies and deceive the public and take advantage of men and women in vulnerable states. Don’t let them fool you.