Copyright 1994 by R.F. Doyle
It's Halloween today. Little kids will come to the door tonight with their begging bowls. I wonder, what of world they, especially the boys, will grow up in? Who will set the course?
Pundits on the left are decrying the general villainy of white males, accusing us of causing all evil from AIDS to bad weather. Entire species of lawyers are making a living destroying families. More than 20 years ago, Hillary Rodham wrote that parents should not be permitted by law to "unilaterally" decide how to raise their children. Instead, those she called "children's allies" should be given legal authority to tinker with the internal decisions of the family. That is what the so-called Children's Defense Fund is all about. Our former Surgeon General's son has been convicted of drug dealing (hardly a model mother). Representative Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo) proudly declared a few years ago that only 7 percent of all families are "traditional."
Despite all this, the family and traditional masculinity must survive. It is the duty of the men's/fathers' movement to assure that.
To this end over the last 25 years, The Liberator has advocated many courses of action, applauded good ones suggested by others, and urged caution regarding ill- advised ones. Charlie Metz taught us lawyers must be motivated by incentives of substantial business from male litigants to aggressively pursue men's and fathers' rights. Judges should be sued for malpractice and child endangerment. The "Baby Richard" case in Illinois demonstrates that at least one of them entertains the shocking proposition that fathers have rights.
Another of our major suggestions is the fault-option theory regarding grounds for divorce. Like democracy, fault-based divorce has serious problems; but, like democracy, is far superior to the opposite -- no fault divorce. The simple expedient of attaching severe penalties to false allegations would greatly improve fault based divorce (sex-crime punishment obviously needs the same safeguards). Even better, though, would be a fault-option system utilizing the best, and eliminating the worst of both other systems.
Men facing divorce-related criminal charges must demand a jury of their peers, that is, including divorced men. Are you listening Avi Kostner?
Conservatives say that, rather than freely dispensing dope-injection needles, condoms, and abortions, it would be better to avoid behavioral problems by implementing patriarchy, on the theory that fathers are better equipped than government to raise children properly.
Can the beleaguered scattering of reformers known as the men's/fathers' movement correct matters? Or, will change occur through the efforts of others?
It is no secret our "movement" has problems. A gathering of ankle-biters would have more attendees than recent annual conventions. This newsmagazine has humorously likened organization heads, including ourselves, to roosters -- each king of his own dunghill.
Beginning around 26 years ago, we urged activists to get together, create one large dunghill, and elect a head rooster to coordinate the many available talents in our people. So far, that has not been possible, and consequently skills are hopelessly, inefficiently squandered.
Sean Kelly says, "You can't change the world, you can just change the recipe of the stew." Our mission in recent years has been simply to create a coalition of good will, and to establish a desperately needed network of communications between dunghills.
Our frank editorial discussion of ego problems in the movement has caused some to squirm. In a letter not for publication, a well-known activist accused The Liberator of being sexist, racist, and homophobic.
Well, if wanting equality for men is sexist, we are that. We also publish articles on patriarchy to balance the sex melding theories espoused by the complaining writer and many of his colleagues.
If deploring special privilege for minorities and homosexuals is racist and homophobic, we are that. But consider our logic. We deplore these favoritisms because to justify the theory behind them is to justify that behind favoritism of women over men. Further, as a men's issues newsletter, we think the question of the definition of men (and whether homosexuals meet it) is a legitimate one. If neo liberals will not tolerate full and frank, if politically incorrect, examination of these issues, so be it.
Reprinted with permission from -- MDA -- The Liberator.
Send Editorial Comments to The Backlash!
Please report all problems to The Web Master