Tag Archives: unwed fathers

Welfare Mothers are not Solely Responsible for the Explosion of Out-of-Wedlock Births

My father came to visit a few weeks ago. I really have had nothing to do with my father or most any of my family for many years now. If my father ever comes around it is only because my husband needs help with some construction project he is working on. Usually if he ever does come around I cry for many days afterwards or am left with a bitterness and sickness for the things he has done to me and my mother and the things he says.

My dad could be considered your typical MRA (whether he actually identifies as such or not). He’s never really been a victim or anything in his life yet somehow he still has a victim mentality and complains over and over about how “victimized” men are today. The last time he was over he ran his mouth so much my husband had to ask him to leave. He kept talking of “if I had a son” how he would tell him to watch out for! and be careful! of all these women having multiple pregnancies just for the child support and welfare money and on and on. I finally had enough and challenged him head on and told him flat out that men have gained all these rights in the last 40 years to illegitimate children yet they just don’t like the price they are now paying for it. They like getting the goods of feminism but they don’t like it when they have to actually pay the price for it. They implement policies requiring the mother to identify the father (for welfare) then turn around and complain when she does it! They want to be able to have their pleasure at the woman’s expense and then be allowed to walk completely free of the consequences of the sex act.

The truth of the matter is that it takes two to tango. It takes both a mother and a father to make a baby and it is entirely nonsensical to lay the entire blame of illegitimacy and single motherhood solely upon welfare mothers. Single motherhood is bad. Single mothers depending on welfare without a father in the home is bad. This is not even something worth arguing about because all around it is a bad thing and most everyone sees it as a bad thing to a certain extent. It is conservatives and men’s groups that implemented polices forcing unwed mothers to have to identify the father and make him pay child support in order to be eligible for welfare. Yet at the same time they turn around and complain about unwed mothers collecting child support and welfare! I’ve read plenty of conservative and anti-feminist books that talk about the explosion of illegitimacy happening at the same time unwed mothers were first allowed to collect welfare. Yet none of them ever seem to mention that unwed fathers gained unconditional rights equal to the mother’s and married father’s at the exact same time. Is it really to be believed that the entire blame for illegitimacy rests on the shoulders of the welfare mother and unwed fathers having legal custodial rights has nothing at all to do with it?

“As the laws now stand, a man who has any casual sexual encounters with a woman (even a one-night stand) that results in a pregnancy, he might not even know her last name or care, yet he is now given the exact same legal rights to a child as the mother from the moment of birth. Even though he has basically contributed, invested, risked NOTHING during the entire process, other then a recreational sperm deposit. Meanwhile a woman who has carried, nurtured, and invested herself for 9 months in producing another human being, not to mention a bloody and painful delivery at the end of the period, has her status downgraded to mirror that of a recreational sperm donor. Both have suddenly become equal in the eyes of the law.”(1)

I most certainly have known quite a few women having babies with multiple fathers. It ends bad for these mothers and for the fathers as well because legitimacy is subsidized and not marriage. A “committed relationship” is not good enough. Marriage (monogamous, heterosexual marriage) must be the only acceptable way for respectable sex or raising children. I have a distant cousin who has had three different babies out of wedlock and collects welfare and child support (two of them actually have the same father, but she didn’t even know that until the time to find him for child support). She lives in the projects and a couple of her kids even have developmental problems. Nobody has probably ever even told her that she needs to make her children legitimate and find a husband to provide for her. All she knows is that she’s entitled to welfare and child support money from the father (if she can find him). (She’s tried to get sterilized but the doctors won’t perform sterilization on her despite the fact that she’s a welfare mother with three illegitimate children. I guess we can’t complain about what we enable can we?)

I don’t really think women are out having babies just for the child support money like MRAs seem to think. I’ve never seen a woman out living high on the hog on child support money. First, she has no guarantee of even collecting even half of what she’s due and second it wouldn’t be enough money to cover the basic expenses anyways so there would be no benefit. And if the father is rich enough for it to be worth it then he would be able to wield enough influence to get out of it or get whatever he wanted in court, including taking the child away from her. Mostly I think women are taught that it’s OK to have sex with or live with a boyfriend then they end up pregnant and are stuck in bad situations. Nobody forces the issue of marriage. Also I think some women are just promiscuous and pregnancy happens as an accident so they collect welfare and support as they are “entitled” to- as they have been taught to. Whatever the case, changes need to happen.

I believe the entire system needs to be redone. The real problem with unwed mothers being allowed child support is that it creates family instability and makes men more irresponsible. It also makes it near impossible for a man to be able to financially provide for a family within the context of marriage if he has to pay for a child he had with a woman who he is not married to. This makes it harder for good women who just want to be wives and mother to find men to be providers for families. These men might have wanted to be married and provide for a wife and children at one point but it becomes a near impossibility if they have to keep shelling out money to a woman who is constantly whoring around and with whom he doesn’t even have a relationship with.

Policies need to be implemented that subsidize marriage and mothers in the home and that help unwed mothers to find husbands to provide for them and get married. Also we need strong policies that reach out to men and help them become providers and give them more opportunities to move up in their careers. Simply identifying the father of a child is not good. Giving child support to unwed mothers who are living in poverty might seem like a good and compassionate thing that is helping them but in reality it actually harms them and makes it to where even more children are born illegitimate and into poverty and makes the problem worse. It brings the father into the child’s life outside of the context of marriage and sets mother and child upon a path to be hurt and abused in many cases. It sets mother and child up for endless hassle and endless misery and heartache. Men should not have to support illegitimate children nor should they be allowed to lay any claim on them (at least not the same as the mother or married father can). Conservatives will come and say single mothers need to work for welfare, which also contributes to more children in daycare and more broken families and eliminates male responsibility-true male responsibility- from the picture. Child support is not male responsibility, it is a flight from it.

The main problem with single motherhood is that men don’t have to marry anymore to have respectable sex or paternal rights. Sex is really the only bargaining power women have. Men have bargaining power in terms of their money-making power and social status. In intimate relationships and in more primitive societies they also have the bargaining power of physical strength and most men can render a woman helpless very quickly and easily if they really wanted to. Men could control women by pure force if it came down to it or they really wanted to (and many have throughout time and still do today). But sexual bargaining power is what women have, and feminism and the sexual revolution has stripped all that bargaining power away from women. In order to counteract the problem of out of wedlock births women need to be allowed to use their sexual bargaining power to get men into marriage. Women should also refuse to put the father on the birth certificate until he marries her. Society needs to grant to single mothers the means to get married and stay home to nurture their children and care for their families. So long as women are sexually free and illegitimacy is subsidized women cannot use their sexual bargaining power. The girl who holds out for sex until she finds a man who will marry and provide for her could be waiting a long time as feminism has made masculine men willing to be providers for families nearly go extinct.

“Men’s fixation on casual sex with many women, which was enabled by feminism, places many women today at an extreme disadvantage. As women appear to be still using the age-old strategy of sex as a way to build a relationship, with a pregnancy expected to close the deal via a marriage proposal. Unfortunately it’s not working that way anymore and the result is millions of women being left high and dry with a pregnancy that does not result in a marriage. Thus either an abortion or single motherhood follows.”(2)

Men may complain about affirmative action, welfare and socialism but in the end everyone benefits from it in some way or another. We no longer care for our own and men no longer wish to support families (not without the mother “pulling her own weight” anyways) so the only other option is for women and children to be supported by the welfare system in which all citizens are collectively responsible. Men don’t want women to have any advantage via affirmative action to support themselves but they don’t want to support women so what other choice is there?

I think there are several things that can be done to rectify the current situation, none of which most feminists and MRAs will be too happy about because it entails both male authority (which feminists hate) and male responsibility (which MRAs hate).

First, unwed mothers and divorced women should not be allowed welfare. I would say there should be some exceptions in the case of women who are victims of rape or abuse though. Policies should be implemented to help and encourage unwed mothers to find a husband (instead of simply identifying/finding the father). No adult males should be allowed support or assistance to raise children. Men should be the ones providing support, not receiving it (this is how it always was before the 1960s and 1970s until feminists gender neutralized welfare and child support).

Fatherhood should not be legally recognized outside of marriage (or adoption). The marriage license should be the woman’s consent to have sex with the man she is to marry and the man’s consent to support her and be a father to her children. The marriage is a public declaration that this man, her husband, will be the one to father her children. A woman’s husband should always be the legal father of her children (except in adultery cases where the father should be given a strict time period after the child is born to divorce her for adultery, with penalties laid upon him for false accusations of adultery against his wife, or forever hold his peace on the matter). If a man has sex with a woman and/or impregnates her then he should be required to marry her. Even if there is a possibility that the child might not biologically be his it shouldn’t matter. His marriage to her should be his consent to be the father to the child, with all the rights and responsibilities it entails. The biological father should not be allowed to interfere in any way. If a woman does have an affair and commit adultery yet her husband decides to stay with her and legitimate the child anyways he should not be allowed to back out years later and abandon the child.

It is absolutely insane how bad things have gotten and I believe women and children have been hurt the worst of all. Women are not solely to blame for the prevalence of illegitimacy in our society. Men’s denial of responsibility for women, marriage, and the provider role, I believe, is at the very heart of the problem. The only answer is marriage and the de-legitimizing of illegitimacy.

Related Articles:

It’s Everybody’s Fault

The Legitimacy Principle and the Good of Patriarchy

The Wrongs of the Men’s Movement

The Case Against Illegitimacy

Why We Need Modesty

I’m really ready to see some more modesty make it’s way back into society. I’m tired of turning on the television and being blasted with feminine product ads and and advertisements with women displaying nude and swollen pregnant bellies. Every year it seems like bikinis get smaller and smaller. I’m tired of the “who’s my baby daddy,” divorce and teenage mom shows. I’m sick of loud mouthed and vulgar women who act like men. I’m tired of female body parts and half-nude women being plastered everywhere one looks. I’m sick of pregnancy and childbirth being openly talked about even among men.

There was a time not too long ago when it was considered obscene for Lucille Ball to be shown on TV late in her pregnancy or for the word “pregnant” to even be said on television and men being present at childbirth was almost unheard of. Not too long ago couples would have said “expecting” instead of pregnant, divorce was something that just didn’t happen, and if it did happen it was considered shameful and something that wasn’t talked about. The word “divorce” itself was considered a dirty four-letter word that just wasn’t said in polite society. Having children out of wedlock was unacceptable for both the father and mother. It was something you just didn’t do, and if pregnancy happened you got married right away and men were expected to provide. Not too long ago women’s fashions were more feminine and more modest and women took pride in their appearance and wanted to look the best for their husbands.

Now women are vulgar, divorce is considered a common good when two people just can’t make things work out. It’s rare for only women to be present at childbirth these days and even conservative women drag their boyfriends and husbands into “childbirth classes” (since when did women need classes for a natural bodily function anyways?) and force them to be present at birth or else the men are looked down upon for not loving their wives or being good fathers. Used to the husband (as well as anyone else who might be in the general area) would be kicked out to wait in the barn or be sent on some errand. But today everyone in general can’t even respect a woman’s body nor privacy and everyone wants to crowd around her with absolutely no respect (is it any wonder labor today lasts an average of hours longer than it did in the 1950s?). There is no mystery anymore nor modesty regarding women’s bodies. Today instead of men respecting women they instead are turned off most of the time because there is no mystery left. Instead of being in awe over what only a woman can do they instead often just say “so glad I’m not a girl, man.” A lot of men don’t even want sex with their wives anymore after watching them give birth and most couples these days divorce after a new baby is born. Take away modesty and male-female relationships are turned upside-down.

Now when it comes to clothing I haven’t always been the most modest. Even today I can be seen sporting a tiny Victoria’s Secret bikini on the beach at times (then usually cover myself more if others come closer). I’ve been known to wear mini skirts, Daisy Dukes and five inch heels before. I’m certainly not “holier than thou” when it comes to modesty. But I do like to cover up. I like my body to be all for my husband, something other men can’t have and can’t see. I believe women would have more respect if they covered their bodies more. Part of eroticism is mystery. When there is no mystery left most of the time men are not only turned off, but they are disgusted. Interestingly enough, I’ve talked to strippers before and have been told by many of these women that they don’t make any more money (in fact sometimes they make less) when they are completely nude than when they are only half nude. Sex is everywhere yet research keeps showing (if anyone can really have dependable statistics on such a thing anyways) that we are having less sex than in previous generations when women were more modest and sex was only acceptable in marriage. Part of this is because of working wives (keep your wives at home men, you’ll get more that way!), but I believe part of it is also because there is no mystery and women are less modest. Sex being readily available and female body parts being plastered everywhere devalues what a woman’s body is worth. The more something costs and the harder it is to get, the more valuable it will be. The cheaper and more readily available something is, the less desirable it will be. I know we’ve all heard this before, but I don’t believe the full effect of what this actually means is sinking in. Many pay lip service to modesty (just the same as they do the value of the housewife’s role) but that’s about as far as it goes.

The media mocks female sexuality and childbirth. It has turned from being something precious and private that was shrouded in modesty to being something openly talked of and shown everywhere one looks. Even small children are exposed to indecent language and sexuality on shows and movies that are supposed to be family oriented and it seems even their parents do not care to shield them from it half the time. It’s no big deal, really! It’s nothing they haven’t heard or seen before! Increases in science and technology have definitely done a lot of harm to traditional morality and left the human race with lingering questions about the human soul and what is ethical and moral. With the internet especially anyone can have access to pornography and other graphic and sexual content with simply the click of a button. How degrading all of this is to women.

Who’s my baby daddy shows and shows depicting pregnancy and birth and divorce are indecent and shameful. Whether they are scripted or not, they show a society that is falling apart all around us, yet we are not shamed and horrified at it, we are entertained by it. Instead of there being outrage at such things there is only rounds of laughter and more indecent talk. Instead of female sexuality being uplifted and honored and young women being taught modesty and the saving of their bodies and wombs for their husbands and how wonderful the ability to give life is the female body is instead degraded and young women are shown that their natural bodily functions are something to abhor and ultimately fear. They should instead medicate their wombs and have careers because pregnancy and birth are only acts that humiliate and degrade them and all marriages end in divorce. These shows not only have a very harmful effect on vulnerable young women who often never had anyone to love them nor teach them right from wrong but also I have to wonder what the long-term effect is on children. It is bad enough that nearly half of children growing up these days will know that they are bastards, but even worse to know momma was a slut and daddy denied his paternity openly and was just as promiscuous. No matter how much we try to de-stigmatize illegitimacy and promiscuity the effects it ultimately has on women and children cannot be washed away. We need modesty.

We need modesty because it makes women beautiful. Modesty means that women are respected by men and respected by society. When it comes to modesty, society must always be concerned primarily with women. When speaking of sex, we generally have to focus on women. Erection and ejaculation are the only male sex acts, but everything of a woman’s body is sexual and designed for a sexual purpose. It is more beautiful to have mystery, but it is degrading for society to openly speak of woman’s sexuality. The more of a woman’s body men are used to seeing in everyday life, the more skin showing it will ultimately take for a man to be turned on by a woman. Modesty protects women. It protects men’s investment in women. It protects women from being abused and exploited and it maintains sexual law and order.

Today young women are taught just to be “ready” before having sex. It’s a new day and age after all and we must forget the old ways. I find it shameful that the older generation of women is not teaching the young women of today how to act and how to be truly modest and the importance of marriage for sex and raising children. Many scoff at the younger generations and at how “out of control” they are but did they ever teach them any different? The younger generation is only a product of how they were raised. Most men and women are never taught one word by their parents or grandparents on their responsibilities in marriage. They are taught nothing about how they should treat the opposite sex or how to get along with the opposite sex and not a word is mentioned about the preciousness of a woman’s body and sexuality and how much more vulnerable she is than a man and how much more important her sexuality actually is.

Traditional femininity is more beautiful. A woman is more beautiful when her sexuality is a secret, when everything about her exudes femininity. I feel more beautiful in a modest feminine dress with a flower in my hair, bare feet touching the grass, being at once part child and part woman than with the heels and the mini-skirt expressing my sexuality and being “empowered.” Without modesty there can be no true respect, love or protection for the female sex.

Double Standards are a Good Thing

A double standard is when one group of people can get away with something that another group can’t. In modern society we like to think that double standards are so unfair and should be done away with. But what if double standards are actually a good thing? What if they serve some greater purpose to society that actually benefits everyone?

One of the biggest double standards that we all grew up with concerns sexuality. Men, in general, have always been able to sleep around without being socially shamed or called names. Women, on the other hand are generally labeled as “sluts” or “whores” if they do the same thing and are generally not considered marriage material by respectable men looking for long term relationships. A classic double standard against males is that men have only traditionally been required to go to war and register for the draft. If a man refused not only would he be labeled a “pussy,” “wimp,” and “coward” by society but more than likely he would serve some jail time as well. Women are called “whores” while men get away with sleeping around. Women are allowed to hide and be sheltered in times of war but men are jailed. Unfair, right? “Sexist,” right? Dreaded double standards that have no place in an “enlightened” society, right? But just what if these double standards might actually be good things?

In the case of war, it has always been a man’s duty. This is so for several reasons. First, women are the only ones who can bring the future generations into this world. If society is to survive females must be protected and kept safe so that there will be future generations (that’s why we fight wars in the first place, right?). Beyond keeping women safe so that they may care for and bear children, men are much bigger and stronger and must be taught to never use their strength against women unless absolutely necessary to restrain her. Sending women to war defeats the purpose of protecting women, ensuring the well-being of future generations and teaching men not to direct acts of violence against women or be OK with acts of violence against women.

In the case of sexuality, why can men sleep around and not women? Once again, this serves a fundamental purpose to all of society. This double standard does not exist against women in all societies. In many societies women slept around freely. In some societies women even took on multiple husbands and divorced them at will. Who actually fathered her children was of no concern to anyone either. In patriarchal societies men control female sexuality. They have to. There is no other way that they can support families or be fathers in the first place. All children by default are in the custody and care of their mothers. Maternity is certain, it is a fact of life. It is a bond society can depend upon. The mother-child bond is there from conception and is unquestionable. The mother’s role is biological and the same in every society that has ever existed. A man, however, can only be a father to a child if the mother declares him as such, if he is socialized into the child’s life via a third party through marriage or other cultural ties. Paternity can never be truly certain and men can never participate meaningfully in reproduction short of a long term monogamous relationship with the mother. Thus the need for men to control female sexuality and “own the womb.” Thus in every patriarchal society there is an obsession of females being chaste and shunning any female who is not or who bears children out of wedlock.

So this means the double standard only benefits men, right? It’s all about men so they can have things their way? Alas, that is not the whole story. The patriarchal family ultimately benefits women just as much as it does men. Marriage is a permanent commitment. Marriage links a man to specific children via a long-term monogamous relationship with the mother of those children. She agrees to be chaste for him and share her body only with him. In return society and the law imposes upon the man the obligation to carry the burden of financially supporting the children and the mother of those children. She shares her reproductive life and the children she bears with him and in return he protects her and provides for her. Sounds pretty beneficial to both sexes to me.

There are numerous other double standards and in most cases they serve a grand purpose for society. Men and women are not on equal grounds. The same rules do not apply to men and women because women and men are made different by way of nature, no matter what our laws say. It is easy to see what happens when laws are gender-neutralized and double standards are forgotten. How will we survive when our women are maimed and come home in body-bags from war? How are the campaigns attempting to stop violence against women going to be successful when we teach men to treat women, the weaker sex, as just “one of the boys?” We either have to lower standards and change the rules so that women can participate in a man’s world or we have to train men to just run over women and treat them without any special consideration. Both of these options are bad. And what about children? Does anybody care about this apparently forgotten group of humans who are helpless to care for themselves for many years? Wouldn’t it just make more sense to have double standards of what a man’s duties and a woman’s duties are? How else will we keep society running if we fail to discriminate and just send both men and women equally to war? And who will keep things running at home if we ship both young men and women off to war?

How will the family keep running if we fail to discriminate and lay double standards against men and women? If both men and women are held equally to support the family then what happens? Marriage becomes a competition and there is nobody to care for the home. Women don’t need husbands to support them and can walk away from marriage. Men aren’t interested in providing because they don’t have to. Grandma ends up raising the kids and picking them up from school. Divorce happens five years later and mommy and daddy play tug-a-war with the kids so they can get the upper hand against the other and equal financial responsibility between parents ups the ante. Antagonism is created between men and women; husband and wife and meaningful relationships are never formed.

And what happens when there are no double standards against the sexes when it comes to unwed mothers/fathers? An unwed mother automatically has rights for the child, but the unwed father doesn’t. How very sexist of us. We should give the poor guy rights to interfere in the child’s life or make a paternity claim to reck an intact family. And, of course, we should let women slap a paternity suit on a married man and have the full sanction of the law behind her to be a home-wrecker. We are “enlightened” after all and wouldn’t want to be unfair to anyone. Or maybe it would in the best interests of everyone to have a little sex discrimination and double standards. Just a thought.

Above all, double standards are good. They are necessary and no society is going to get very far without them. Men and women should be treated different and held to different standards in every area of life. It’s not all bad and patriarchy actually has a very romantic aspect to it. What could be more romantic that a man providing for and sheltering a woman from harm? It ultimately uplifts the family and protects it and contributes to meaningful and secure male-female relationships that benefit individual families and all of society.

Suggested Reading:

Great Quotes by George Gilder

Why Patriarchy

Women Deserve Better than Feminism

Do Women Really want to Smash the Patriarchy?

Looking Back on the Feminine Mystique

On the Need for Patriarchy: Another Case Against Unwed Fathers

Here we go again. Oh, yes, that’s right MRAs, “women have all the rights and men have all the responsibilities”- or not. Another case that caught my attention earlier. Here we are again, this shows our desperate need for patriarchy and stable family units. Men being allowed to claim paternal rights to children whose mothers they were never legally married to is a terrible thing and has caused the destruction of many intact families as well as forcing women to be single mothers or go into hiding to protect themselves and their children. I say patriarchy because patriarchy is male responsibility and men caring for and protecting women and children. It is power into the hands of a married father to prevent the destruction of his family and prevent another man from interfering no matter the genetic relationship. This is why marriage is important and why the traditional family matters. No woman should have to share her reproductive life with a man who refuses to accept responsibility for her and create a real and true family with her. Yet that is exactly what is happening to women today. Through our view of “equal rights” the sexes must be treated the same no matter how illogical. And since the 1970s unwed fathers have been allowed to walk into children’s lives without having to offer marriage and financial support to the mother in return when she becomes pregnant. Now not only do men get the rights that once belonged exclusively to married men without having to take the same responsibilities, denying responsibility now comes with a whole host of legal and economic benefits for them. Until we realize that feminism doesn’t work and the traditional family is the only sure protection for women and children (and men too), these problems will continue to occur. The media, however, doesn’t want to report on this because it would mean backtracking and “setting the women’s movement back.” Setting the women’s movement back, however, is exactly what is needed.

Pregnant Women Baby-Factories First, Humans Never

“Sara McKenna briefly dated Olympic skier Bode Miller in California in 2012 and became pregnant. Miller rejected McKenna’s requests for his involvement as a father. When McKenna asked Miller to go to an ultrasound with her, he refused and told her via text, “U made this choice against my wish.” It’s hard to interpret this statement as anything other than Miller wanting McKenna to get an abortion.

Seven months pregnant, McKenna decided to go to college and moved to New York. This didn’t sit well with Miller, who began legal action to declare his paternity and gain custody of the child. After he’d refused to support McKenna through the pregnancy and be an active father, he turned around and demanded custody.

When McKenna had her child, a boy she named Samuel Bode Miller-McKenna, she filed for custody in New York. But in May, the family court rejected her claim, accused her of “unjustifiable conduct,” and bounced the custody case back to California. This is highly unusual given that the baby was born and lived in New York.

In September, Miller and his wife came to McKenna’s home and took Sam away. Thankfully, the New York appeals panel has overturned the family court ruling, and the custody battle will be decided in New York.

The family court ruled that McKenna “did not ‘abduct’ the child,” which really shouldn’t have to be stated at all. Of course she didn’t abduct Sam—he’s her own son, and at the time, he was living in her uterus and not exactly easily removed. But the court insisted, “her appropriation of the child while in utero was irresponsible, reprehensible.”’

My Review of the Garbage Generation

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.